869 replies to this topic

[xX PUG Xx]

JaxRiot, on 25 July 2016 - 10:48 AM, said:

The biggest draw of being a Merc is the ability to switch sides from Clans to IS or IS to Clans practically at will. Which by the way, is completely against Lore

There are two main reasons I play as a Merc -:

1. I have 290+ 'Mechs on this account, all of them upto the Phoenix Hawk minus a few individual variants here and there (Sorry Cat' C4 our time together was short but you're sister C1 and cousin K2 are hotter )

If we rewound the clock to 2012 and PGI announced that an account would be limited to using one version of Tech (Clan or IS), I would gladly have setup two accounts and split purchases between them and switched accounts when I felt like using one or the other. However as it stands, if I want make use of my purchases I have to switch from one side of the lines to the other; the same as MANY other players in the game.

2. Due to the situation we find ourselves in with low population and activity, I move to where the fighting is or where I believe I may be able to rustle up fights for my unit by coordinating with another unit ir units. This coordination is done both in fighting with AND against other units; we're here to play the game, not ghost cap bragging rights.

So if there was a way to give players the ability to use both Tech types without having to Faction hop or fundamentally altering the design of the game (although I did suggest just this about two years ago), then I'm all for it. But please do not suggest punishing those of us that have been around, supported continuously and still play the game without offering some sort of olive branch.

I do agree that the current situation not only breaks with Lore but also with reality, perhaps a system that essentially has the Loyalist hire mercenaries would work or if the resources were available, an automated system that creates short and longterm contracts.

Once Loyalists vote for an attack lane, this creates contracts through the "MRBC bulletin board". Merc units can review and select contracts from the board and must commit the necessary forces to accomplish the objectives or not receive payment. More difficult contracts have higher payouts and perhaps secondary bonuses for attached parameters that Loyalist units can pay for from their coffers.

[PraetorGix]

ccrider, on 25 July 2016 - 10:31 AM, said:

[color=#959595]1. Loyalist LP resets at level 20 each time you reach max level. That way loyalists can stay in same faction they identify with and still collect rewards.[/color]

[color=#959595]2. Merc RP resets at level 10. Same thing.[/color]

[color=#959595]3. Scouting tonnage reduced to 40 tons, intel counts towards match points. 55 tonners arent really scouts. 50 and 45 give too much advantage to IS, 40 and below is currently fairly even. Not perfect, but decent.[/color]

Those are excellent suggestions! +10

[SCHLIMMER BESTIMMER XXX]

hi bombadil
imo faction play really need its faction chat integrated into the main game window
(where you be in mechlab and doing things and so on)
There the majority of the player base woud take notice of it and coud coordinate
attacks or defence more effective.
I think this coud help immense that players build drop groups because one coud
talk to a wide audience outside of faction play, pulling them in!

[cazidin]

Bombadil. You haven't answered my questions. How did PGI determine who would attend this meeting and who all will likely be there?

[Cato Zilks]

metallio, on 25 July 2016 - 08:34 AM, said:

All of them. If you want their business. Period. This isn't 'deserves' at this stage, this is 'making the model work at all'. So all of them.



No. They're not the ones who aren't showing up. They can pretend they're more important because they're 'in charge' or 'communicating with the masses' etc but they're not the ones who aren't showing up, and those are the people we need feedback from. Even doing this as a forum post cuts out significant numbers of people. Putting a button on the front of the UI screaming in big bold letters "please tell us why you don't play FW!! We promise it will be easy!" might actually get some of the people whose feedback is needed to respond. Short bullet survey with a text box if they feel like commenting further.

They won't have great perspective, but you can take their feedback and read into it what you need to do. Otherwise it's just the same people showing up saying the same things. Any way to avoid that and gather information is useful.

1st) Listening to the puggie masses is what led PGI to invest a lot of effort into the split que that NOBODY used. I don't want to waste PGI's time. (The FW community thought split ques were dumb and . . . the FW community was absolutely correct.)

2nd) Players that don't spend time in FW, are not in a position to see whats wrong with FW. They will certainly have reasons why they are not here, but that does not mean they have good reasons. I want people talking to russ who. . . know MWO very well, know and have talked many players of MWO, have had discussions with people about Faction Warfare, actually play FW, and lastly have had some success and fun in community warfare.

I am not looking to waste Russ' time with low-tier QP LRMer's crying about how FW is not fun for them. I want people with well founded opinions.

3rd) Maybe you don't have good unit leaders. If not come join Marik and talk to Stingr4y. I can promise you that he has talked with most every major Marik unit leaders about FW participation. He actively tries to grow our FP, QP, and general community base. If there is anybody that should speak for us on a TS connection with Russ, it is Stingr4y. I can promise you he, and good unit commanders like him, will give PGI better info about why puggie players aren't showing up. Having 10+ minute conversations with players is always better than a survey, and he can normally suss out the deeper causes for disgruntlement that surveys inevitably miss.

4th) The round table will have a select few on a TS channel with Russ. Players that can talk directly with him. They are not going to put all the pugs on that TS. So given that there will be representatives, we need to make sure they actually represent the community well.

[NocturnalBeast]

Cato Zilks, on 25 July 2016 - 04:16 PM, said:

1st) Listening to the puggie masses is what led PGI to invest a lot of effort into the split que that NOBODY used. I don't want to waste PGI's time. (The FW community thought split ques were dumb and . . . the FW community was absolutely correct.)

2nd) Players that don't spend time in FW, are not in a position to see whats wrong with FW. They will certainly have reasons why they are not here, but that does not mean they have good reasons. I want people talking to russ who. . . know MWO very well, know and have talked many players of MWO, have had discussions with people about Faction Warfare, actually play FW, and lastly have had some success and fun in community warfare.

I am not looking to waste Russ' time with low-tier QP LRMer's crying about how FW is not fun for them. I want people with well founded opinions.

3rd) Maybe you don't have good unit leaders. If not come join Marik and talk to Stingr4y. I can promise you that he has talked with most every major Marik unit leaders about FW participation. He actively tries to grow our FP, QP, and general community base. If there is anybody that should speak for us on a TS connection with Russ, it is Stingr4y. I can promise you he, and good unit commanders like him, will give PGI better info about why puggie players aren't showing up. Having 10+ minute conversations with players is always better than a survey, and he can normally suss out the deeper causes for disgruntlement that surveys inevitably miss.

4th) The round table will have a select few on a TS channel with Russ. Players that can talk directly with him. They are not going to put all the pugs on that TS. So given that there will be representatives, we need to make sure they actually represent the community well.

Even though I am no longer with the Free Worlds League (for reasons that have nothing to do with their gaming knowledge or abilities), I do agree that Stingr4y and a few of the other FWL drop commanders could contribute much to this "roundtable".

[Cato Zilks]

cazidin, on 25 July 2016 - 04:09 PM, said:

Bombadil. You haven't answered my questions. How did PGI determine who would attend this meeting and who all will likely be there?

I think this is probably the most important question floating in this forum. If you want to 6-12, we need to know who our reps are so we can talk with them. We need mercs, Clanners, IS northern, and IS southern houses represented in some fashion. I still think 15 (1 each faction + 5 top Merc units) is maximally representative, but whatever we do we need to know ASAP.

[Jack Booted Thug]

Bombadil, on 25 July 2016 - 11:56 AM, said:

But again, this first Roundtable will be primarily focused on large-scale issues, like player population, buckets and queue times, solo and group play, factions, and the overall format of Faction Play (ie. 24/7 vs. scheduled times or other options). If successful, this Roundtable will lead to more meetings, which can then focus on additional topics, such as game modes, rewards and incentives, lobbies and chat, maps, the role of mercenaries, barriers to entry (ie. new players), PvE, lore, and on and on. But again, this isn't about me. If the players involved in this discussion want to make something a higher priority than I have suggested here, excellent!

If this is correct, it will fail.

PGI needs to understand the REASONS behind low population which cause long que times, etc... IE... shallow game mode, boring maps, lack of variety and interesting game play, etc...

If the mode itself is not interesting and fun boiling it down to fewer factions and offering bribes and such won't get many more people to play, at lest not long term.

Do you understand the game mode itself has to be fun, engaging, interesting, meaningful, and offer variety?

When a game offers those things it doesn't suffer from low population or long que times, because people wan't to play.

Condensing the ques and increasing payouts will be a failure if the underlying issues causing low pop aren't addressed.

[Bombadil]

cazidin, on 25 July 2016 - 04:09 PM, said:

Bombadil. You haven't answered my questions. How did PGI determine who would attend this meeting and who all will likely be there?

For several weeks, and especially starting late last week when the final schedule was determined, and then on through the entire weekend, I have been corresponding with various leaders and factions throughout the FP community, getting input from different sources as to who would be good candidates for this initial meeting, including loyalists, mercs and solo players. We received plenty of suggestions for loyalists and mercs, but are somewhat limited on good solo player candidates. As a result, we are probably going to have an "open mic" section after the main panel discussion, allowing people who may feel that their viewpoints or perspectives weren't represented by the panel, to be heard. For various reasons, we may or may not post a list of participants prior to the meeting.

And this isn't directed towards you, but everyone in general...please don't send me direct requests to be on the panel. As you can imagine, many people want to be involved, and everyone thinks they're perfect candidates. For hopefully obvious reasons logistical and otherwise, we cannot have everyone there, but we are working diligently to make sure that the panel is as well-rounded as possible, and capable of making this a successful first endeavor, allowing us to make positive changes to Faction Play, and to continue with this kind of direct player interaction.

[Cy Mitchell]

TWIAFU, on 25 July 2016 - 03:24 PM, said:

Been reading a lot of good idea Target, keep them flowing...

Don't want to see a mix of Clan/IS drop decks for IS, not ever. You have a real good idea with it but I think a better route to accomplish that and yet stay true to lore as much as possible.

Advance the timeline. This allows for more mechs to be introduced and PGI to sell them (don't stop reading!) and more importantly the advances in IS technology.

I understand but you know that an advance timeline does result in mixed tech, right? What Mech did Victor Steiner-Davian pilot leading up to him arriving at Huntress? After Tukayyid there was mixed tech on both sides. I do, however, understand the resistance to going there.

[Cato Zilks]

Bombadil, on 25 July 2016 - 04:47 PM, said:

For various reasons, we may or may not post a list of participants prior to the meeting.

We have to know who our representatives are if they are to represent us. Kinds part of the relationship. . .

[NocturnalBeast]

Rampage, on 25 July 2016 - 04:51 PM, said:

I understand but you know that an advance timeline does result in mixed tech, right? What Mech did Victor Steiner-Davian pilot leading up to him arriving at Huntress? After Tukayyid there was mixed tech on both sides. I do, however, understand the resistance to going there.

The joint Clan / IS attack on Huntress was many years after Tukayyid. It took many years for the IS to be able to integrate Clan Tech and much of this was advanced by the Word of Blake / Free Worlds League "alliance". In the years immediately after Tukayyid (which is the era we are in now), the IS had only one or two functioning captured Clan Mechs that only the most important characters had access to (Wolf's Dragoons do not count as IS).

Edited by Ed Steele, 25 July 2016 - 05:29 PM.

[Kael Posavatz]

Bombadil, on 25 July 2016 - 11:56 AM, said:

I But again, this first Roundtable will be primarily focused on large-scale issues, like player population, buckets and queue times, solo and group play, factions, and the overall format of Faction Play (ie. 24/7 vs. scheduled times or other options). If successful, this Roundtable will lead to more meetings, which can then focus on additional topics, such as game modes, rewards and incentives, lobbies and chat, maps, the role of mercenaries, barriers to entry (ie. new players), PvE, lore, and on and on. But again, this isn't about me. If the players involved in this discussion want to make something a higher priority than I have suggested here, excellent!

It is possibly a little late to be talking populations.

I mean, Vitric Forge went in and then nothing happened in FW for nearly a year.

Okay, maybe that isn't fair. Stuff happened, the rescale was huge and that started early. The rebalance wit info-warfare was supposed to be huge but seems like it never really went anywhere. And Steam brought people but...

There was more effort spent on bringing people in and nearly none on making people want to stay.

Phase III hit and loyalists, many of whom had been in from day 1 and had long-since gained all of the loyalist reward tiers, were given no reason to continue playing while those who had faction hopped were given a new reward tier.

At this time many have stopped playing FW, if not stopped playing MWO entirely.

-buckets and queue times...well, queue times are fine whenever people are playing (often they are not). Buckets, I would like a second concurrent scouting mission so that both sides can gain scouting benefits (or deny the same to other team). I don't know about the IS side, but Clans seem so underpopulated in people playing that I'm not sure IS v Clan super-factions is going to be any more successful.

Edited by Kael Posavatz, 25 July 2016 - 05:55 PM.

[p4r4g0n]

Bombadil, on 25 July 2016 - 04:47 PM, said:

For several weeks, and especially starting late last week when the final schedule was determined, and then on through the entire weekend, I have been corresponding with various leaders and factions throughout the FP community, getting input from different sources as to who would be good candidates for this initial meeting, including loyalists, mercs and solo players. We received plenty of suggestions for loyalists and mercs, but are somewhat limited on good solo player candidates. As a result, we are probably going to have an "open mic" section after the main panel discussion, allowing people who may feel that their viewpoints or perspectives weren't represented by the panel, to be heard. For various reasons, we may or may not post a list of participants prior to the meeting.
-snip-

Oceanic, mostly solo FP player here ... my previous posts in this thread about a lack of reason to care what happens on the IS map is fundamentally why I do not play it often.

The other reason is that most times, it is usually impossible to find a sustained set of drops occurring during play times and it seems an incredible waste of limited free time to queue up 15 to 20 minutes for each drop, assuming it is not a ghost drop.

Solve the first and make it compelling enough to put up with wait times and maybe people would play FP on a sustained basis. Fixing the second without dealing with the former is likely to initially lead to more participation which later dwindles off.

Doubt I will be able to make the round table and would appreciate if you could get this raised if you find some consensus that this is something worth discussing.

[cazidin]

Bombadil, on 25 July 2016 - 04:47 PM, said:

For several weeks, and especially starting late last week when the final schedule was determined, and then on through the entire weekend, I have been corresponding with various leaders and factions throughout the FP community, getting input from different sources as to who would be good candidates for this initial meeting, including loyalists, mercs and solo players. We received plenty of suggestions for loyalists and mercs, but are somewhat limited on good solo player candidates. As a result, we are probably going to have an "open mic" section after the main panel discussion, allowing people who may feel that their viewpoints or perspectives weren't represented by the panel, to be heard. For various reasons, we may or may not post a list of participants prior to the meeting.

And this isn't directed towards you, but everyone in general...please don't send me direct requests to be on the panel. As you can imagine, many people want to be involved, and everyone thinks they're perfect candidates. For hopefully obvious reasons logistical and otherwise, we cannot have everyone there, but we are working diligently to make sure that the panel is as well-rounded as possible, and capable of making this a successful first endeavor, allowing us to make positive changes to Faction Play, and to continue with this kind of direct player interaction.

Don't worry. I know I'm not the perfect candidate. It's my one imperfection.

Alright, thank you for your response. My biggest problem with this is I thought the community would have some way of voting for who would represent them at the town hall, not that it would be an internal discussion to determine who will attend the Gray Council.

[Anchovy]

Disclaimers:
i. A lot of good points have already been mentioned and if I repeat them, it will usually be to add/modify to it.
ii. I am not a hard core lore-fan, will try to keep to lore where possible. Sustainable fun is the more important objective.

Two main points, drawing/keeping new/old players in FP, and longer-term ideas (meaning lots more dev time) on making FP sustainably fun.

1. New players in FP
As some have pointed out, it's a hard life for new players getting into FP. Mechs, mechbays, modules, consumables really represent an uphill grind for cbills. Not everyone likes buying four-of-a-kind 60-65 ton mechs, not everyone can or wants to splurge money right off the bat when they are not even sure what they want to buy.

Some new players may spend money on mech packs rightaway in a F2P game, and even then, some of them may just not like FP at all. Those who do not spend the cash will have to grind it up. And right now, if a new player drops in with other 11 similar players, high odds are they would lose and hardly make one cbill if they choose to use consumables. And that's for 10-15 minutes of waiting, 20 plus minutes of playing. The logical choice is to go Quick Play, but then after a long period of Quick Play grinds, they find themselves with unsuitable mechs for FP, low-priority modules for FP (Capture accelerator......), possible frustrations from the experienced players and each other etc.

Two suggestions:
1) Increase the cbill rewards for players new to FP. Eg. Match Bonus 150,000 cbills for the 1st 50 Faction Play matches, whether win/loss. Grinding in FP means they actually learn what is relevant to FP.
2) GARRISON mode. 3-4 ticks on the Invasion planet are marked as less-critical sectors. Consumables, and all modules are disabled (but please do not bug it to unequipping them! God...). New player 150k bonus applies only in GARRISON play. Veteran players can drop too to guide, recruit etc.... Players can choose to play/avoid GARRISON sectors.
2a) If need be, all Mech skills are inactive, eg. No Cool-Run, No Speed Tweak.
2b) If required, only stock mech loadouts (including stock upgrades).
2c) If required, eg. 40% less cbills for veteran FP players in GARRISON mode.

Give the new players FUN with a fighting chance! Beating them to a pulp is not fun for them. When new blood trickles, it's not fun for everyone.

2. Getting veterans to return

Possible quick and dirty solution. (Tougher proposals later...)
1) Advance the tech timeline to 3060~3069. (since the Kodiak variants 2,3 already time-jumped )
Face it, 3050-52, the Clans were supposed to be vastly superior. Trying to balance the gameplay with positive/negative quirks has been a pleasing-no-one journey. By the 3060s, the tech gap is theoretically far smaller.
1a) IS Light engines
1b) IS Omnimechs, new IS variants and more Clan mechs (<<<<PGI, MONEY!!! )
1c) Rotary ACs, Heavy Lasers, X-Pulse, IS Streaks, Light Gauss....endless.

I will suggest that with enough 3060s tech, the quirks can be removed. Except for the Rotary ACs, the rest don't need much new artwork/modelling/graphichs-load. Hell, I will be happy even if they look graphically identical to the current stuff as long as the ragdoll data reads correctly and the stats/database work. Sure, the new weapons will require balancing work too, but removing endless work on quirks should help.

The new tech should lure back some of the veterans. Just the sheer saving of man-hours of forum bickering over IS-vs-Clan balance should free up all the players' time for more FP. Then again....

2. Allow mixed IS-Clan mechs in FP drops.
This is in tandem with the 3060 time jump. Max of 8 Clan mechs in an IS drop of 48 mechs. Max of 8 IS mechs in a Clan drop. Lore wise, commanders and their 2ICs get to pick new shiny toys from salvaged yada yada... Again, hopefully a quick and dirty change that should bring some fresh tactical possibilities in FP.

Fine-tune the ratio as required. Suggest Group Lead gets final say on distribution of use (eg. group of 8 IS players gets 5 Clan mechs choices. group of 2 gets 1, solo drop gets zero). Sure, there will be meta-choices, but the tech margin is narrowed, people get to play rusting mechs, players are encouraged to GROUP up to make full use of the ratio.



********************************* end of quick n dirty **********************************
For longer-term suggestions, from a layman's perspective, I am suggesting changes which I hope avoid major overhauls and make use of existing in-game elements.

3. Scrap the reward system for Loyalty Points (LP).
I know, avoid major overhauls... but this reward system is a major contributor to unnecessary population hopping. Players should not be stopped from experiencing different Factions but why entice them to hop for the sake of rewards you can give by sheer FP grinding anyway? Merge all the rewards into a new single linear progression that is based simply on a player's total positive LP score (do not count the negative scores). Tune/change rewards as necessary.

4. LP and FP cbills payouts.
Awarding of positive LP unchanged. Negative LP counted by planet faction. ie. a Kurita player incurrs significant Davion negative LP when attacking a Davion planet, even if it was defended by 12 Liao players. Negative LP slowly decays.

4a) Loyalist unit. LP does not affect FP cbills payout. Loyalist unit incurrs negative LP double of original LP award if loyalist unit attacks an allied faction. LP directly affects:
i. Maximum no. of Faction Jumpships (JS) deployable (see 5. below). Eg. A loyalist unit is allowed use of 1 Faction JS (ie. free) for every 5,000 average Faction LP per unit player.
ii. Average Faction LP per unit player affects the discount to mech purchases from Faction and unit-factories (see 6. below).
4b) Freelancer. LP does not affect FP cbills payout. Freelancer may take up available JS player slots from Faction or Unit JS. FP cbills receive Call to Arms bonus.
4c) Merc unit. LP affects FP cbills payout. Merc unit incurrs negative LP equal to original LP award if merc unit attacks an allied faction of its current employer. LP directly affects:
i. Maximum no. of Unit JS deployable. Eg. A merc unit is allowed use of 1 additional Unit JS for every 5,000 average Faction LP per player. Minimum use of 2 Unit JS. Merc unit players may take up available JS player slots from Faction JS.
ii. Priority in Faction Mercenary Contract Funding. A Faction may have only 15 mil cbills left out of 350 mil cbills for current phase of mercenary funding (based on FP global population). Merc Unit C and Merc Unit D both apply to Faction at the same time. Merc Unit C has positive average Faction LP while Merc Unit D is negative. Merc Unit C gets the 15 mil cbill contract. If Merc Unit D continues into Faction (eg. to increase LP), Mercenary funding bonus in FP during that phase will be zero for Unit D.

5. Jumpships (JS).
Purchased by unit MCs or a lot of unit cbills, each Jumpship can only have a maximum of 6 players and their 24 mechs. A 12-man-group drop requires 2 JS (mix unit groupings rely on Group Lead to assign use of unit JS). If Unit JSs are used, they are locked at the target planet until the end of match. After the match, the Unit JS is freed for use but only for the same planet for the rest of the at attack phase (see 7. below). Unit JSs are never lost in planetary losses.

Merc Unit JS are their prime nodes of mobility and therefore, are able to use unit MCs or cbills to install Unit Mechbays onboard their Unit JS (eg. 2 per JS). Unit members can donate mechs to Unit Mechbays but loadouts are locked after donation (ie. no need for additional mechlab dev work).

6. Loyalist Unit HQ and Factories.

Loyalist Unit JSs do not have Unit Mechbays (inactive if installed previously when Merc Unit). Loyalist unit get option to purchase up to 8 Planetary Unit Mechbays on their choice of Unit HQ planet. Donated unit mechs have same locked loadouts. The donated mechs can only be deployed by unit members for defence of the planet and adjacent planets.

The Loyalist Unit gets to buy one Unit Mech Factory on the HQ Planet, giving a 10% cbill discount to one mech (eg. Hunchback) for the unit members. Obviously if the Loyalist Unit switches faction, or the planet is lost to another Faction, the Planetary Mechbays, mechs and Unit Mech Factory are lost. Obviously players can jump between Loyalist units to get multiple discounts, the idea is the option of "friendship prices" will encourage players to defend the production planets and their buffer planets. Or they can choose to stack the HQs and factories into a "Winner-takes-all" mentality.

Each Faction gets one Faction Mech Factory located on one non-Capital planet (for gameplay purposes, sorry Luthien Armor Works....). These could initially be hardlocked to fixed planets but further expanded to allow player vote choices as well as reeeaaally slow relocation in future. Each Faction Mech Factory gets a 20% cbill discount to one Mech (eg. Kurita gets Dragon). Restricted to Loyalist Units and/or Merc Units/Freelancers with high enough Faction LP.

The lesser real-value discount for Inner-Sphere mechs (given the discount does not cover Endo and FF upgrades), is offset by the much smaller buffer zone which a Clan Mech Factory will have from enemy attacks. Being on non-Capital planets, they can be captured by other Factions (winner takes the purchase discount) as well as being a prime planet target for raids (see 7. below).

The proposed LP changes, Jumpships, HQs and Factories, aim to flesh out the dropdeck tonnage mechanisms while providing an additional layer of immersion, sense of ownership, and increase cbills and even MC turnover. A lot of the these changes do not even need too much special treatment into integrating into the game client. Could just have the MWO website handle the user inputs on Jumpships, Unit Mechbays and mechs, Faction and Unit factories, then have the data injected into the game like event rewards. No need for fancy graphics, just text and numbers in game like how number of planets tagged is currently shown.

**************game play, really long dev time if even possible********************************
Again, apologies if any ideas are repeated. Trying to fit pieces together.

7. FP modes.
This may sound drastic but I am proposing QP to be subsumed into FP modes, while trying to maintain the "freer" play styles for the QP fans and balancing the possibilities of facing pre-mades. This is a niche game and we really need all the players we can get on the same page, the Inner Sphere page. Literally half the game is being ignored if a player keeps himself only in Mechlab and QuickPlay. Obviously the incentives should be there and the fun/flavour of QuickPlay should be retained as much as possible.

Raids/Raid Defense.
12-man "Raiders" for resources. Maps will be all current QuickPlay maps in Assault mode, with only the defenders having a base for capture.
i. Loyalist/Merc Unit Raids. Requiring 1 JS for 12 players of 12 mechs, Group Lead can choose to "raid" any planet barring their own faction, even allied planets (with the attending LP consequences). As raiders, FP cbill rewards are bare minimum, objective being to obtain and bring back equipment such as engines, weapons. Capacity for loot is equivalent to the unused tonnage at group lobby and/or a 50 ton cargo space in the JS. Loot divying amongst mixed units can be decided by unit ranking members end-game, either manual or RNG (drama? Hell yeah!)
Defenders range from 12-randoms-who-clicked on Raider Defense (akin to present QuickPlay, yes, John Doe Kerensky just happened to be flying by Tharkad to search for his long lost twice removed cousin), GARRISON mode (in which case modules are disabled for everyone), 12-man-premades. For defenders, call-to-arms and Faction Factory defense cbill bonus applies. For the raiders, high risk, high gain.
ii. Pirate Raids. For solo droppers who click on Raider Attack (akin to present QuickPlay, yes, I "accidentally" indulged in some highway shenanigans while on leave from my unit....), "someone" just has a free JS standing by. Target planet is random and no LP will be affected as everyone will be donning stockings on their heads while in the cockpit. Loot capacity is whatever unused tonnage the Holy MatchMaker ended with and/or 50 tons. Loot divying will be total item sale value divided among the 12 players based on match score. Defenders as per i. above.

The idea being not to force QP fans into 96-mech fights, but to have the planet-capturing elements happening right next to them. They will see that planet nearby with a juicy Unit Mech Factory that might give 3x Clan Gauss Rifles instead 36x Medium lasers. While there may be potential splitting of players into more buckets, keeping the modes in 12-mans will hopefully provide players the flexibility to just get games when it's more quiet. Drawing more QP players to a persistent view of the Inner-Sphere FP map should also help to attract people to participate. Like others have mentioned, 4-v-4 Scout mode should really only be at the initial stages of each attack phase....

Would have loved to touch on suggestions to the current modes of FP, ie. ammo reloads, 3-map campaigns etc. but others have covered it well too and I am already so long in this post that I am puking...

[Tarogato]

I know this is a very long thread and not every post will get read, but I figure I might as well throw my voice into the mess for the heck of it.

I've given up on CW entirely. I had fun playing it from the time it was launched until about the time Vitric Forge was introduced. The maps got old fast - gameplay is always the same. For 14 months now we've had the same six (6!) maps and they're all designed like this:

- create an open area, spawn a team on the far side of it
- create another open area, spawn a team on the far side of that and add a base to it
- connect both areas via chokepoints (and optionally: use long narrow corridors)

The six CW maps we have all look like this:




Hopefully you can see that after rotating them so that they are all facing the same direction, they all pretty much look the same ---- attacker area on the left, defender area on the right, and gates in between, sometimes with corridors, and all the objectives squished together. Perhaps PGI could experiment with completely different designs. Put them on the test servers for a couple hours of rigourous testing if necessary to check and refine balance. But do something new, something different. Try putting a stronghold in the middle of a map for once, or having the gates so far out that all of the fight occurs within a much more expansive defender base. Try having secondary objectives in vastly different locations. Maybe try having a map where the defender base is tiny but they can leave the base and engage before the attackers get to the gates (but they have to scout since the attacker area is so large). All of these ideas and more.





But it's not just the map design. It's the humdrum boring repetitiveness of the game mode. Even Skirmish and Conquest are more diverse than Invasion. Much more diverse map layouts will do most of the work, but we also need some new and refreshing objectives. And unfortunately, we also need some AI so we can have tanks and aerotech. We need to see escort objectives at some point. I'd also like to see something like Terrain Control from Living Legends, where teams can take control of and spawn at firebases, disable and restore defense turrets, and I wouldn't even mind the rank/C-Bill system where you start with lighter mechs and earn your way up to more tonnage. This game mode would require some massive maps, about the size of Alpine and Polar, but that's what I want to see in this game - that's the type of gameplay that might drag me back into faction warfare.

I know this sounds like a lot, but christ it's been almost two years since CW released and we've been playing the same dribble the whole time. Nothing much has changed at all.

Edited by Tarogato, 25 July 2016 - 07:04 PM.

[DropshipPilot]

• We need to be able to hold individual sectors instead of the entire planet. That way the 15 MC can be split among several groups that participate in planetary takeovers. Leave sectors that were controlled by the enemy as MC for the TAG winning team.
  
  
• Add IIC mechs to both Inner Sphere and Clan to balance the constant shift toward over powered clan mechs. Allow IS to build IIC mechs with salvage Clan parts and allow Clan to build them with IS Salvage. Have a few key planets that in Lore had mech factories influence which IIC Mech is displayed as a trial for either Clan or IS.
  
  
• Allow players to place mechs on planets to be used as trial configs.
  
  • Only Consumables are excluded, otherwise, completely mastered mechs with Modules, weapons and paint schemes can be placed on planets and used in defense.
    
    
  • While that mech is being used, it is unavailable in the owners mechbay for both quick play and faction play.
    
    
  • Once that mech is used in defense of a planet, it is no longer available for defense and becomes available to the owner.
    
    
  • Display in owners homescreen which mechs are on which planets, so that they can be reassigned or removed. This can be done by displaying the planet name in the top center of the Mechbay icon.

Edited by DropshipPilot, 25 July 2016 - 07:04 PM.

[N0MAD]

With the FP population being the minority (didnt Russ mention at some state that it was 10% of the player base, correct me if im wrong) why are the people participating people who already play FP with vested interests, i mean Mercs/loyalist have their own agendas/interests at heart. Why is this not directed at that 80-90% of the population that doesnt play FP? i mean you are trying to find out fix population issues in FP right?, cant see how youre going to get valuable input if youre not talking to the people that have a problem with the game mode and dont play it.
Again stats tell us that only roughly 10% of a player base visits forums, so here you are only getting ideas from a small minority, is there a big Announcement on the Splash//loging page announcing this? i noticed that while this thread here has been running since 22nd mention of this was only posted a few hours ago on Steam and not even by you, you who is meant to be getting the info, have you been to the MWO reddit sites asking for imput? what other avenues have been used to get this out the the general population.
IMO a round table with people already vested in the game mode is going to be near useless when trying to find out why the majority isnt playing, only thing i can see achieved is people people buying the next 6 mechpacks while they wait for the changes to come soon, sorry to sound jaded but im only expressing my opinion..

Why not ask say 8 people with say 5-10k games who do not play FP to come to the Round table and chat with them about why they dont play? wouldnt this give you a better insight as to why there is a population problem?.

Edited by N0MAD, 25 July 2016 - 07:17 PM.

[Johnny Z]

Ok I have already added some comments, but I really should add this. Its not positive or negative, just trying to be honest.

As top rank in faction play I find very little incentive to play faction play any more. I have played quite a bit since hitting top rank after updates and during events. Both of those would get me playing a bit in the short term again, if the event involved MC.

Real strategy involving the fate of my faction(If New Avalon were about to fall I wouldn't be here on these forums at the moment.), atmosphere involving the galactic war("the thrill of victory and the agony of defeat"), added goals other than ranks(since I'm done those) are some of the things that would interest me again.

In short really amazing updates would interest me again long term in the hard mode, not easy to play mode with no rewards at all, that is faction play to me at this time.

Adding some serious C-bill content would help motivate me to play more as well. Like into the hundreds of millions.

Edited by Johnny Z, 25 July 2016 - 07:14 PM.