869 replies to this topic

[Kyrie]

Back in 2012 I obsessed about CW's potential. Now in 2016 I had a tiny hope PGI would rethink its vision on the concept, but what apparently happened in that meeting is sad.

There needs to be a clear vision on how to improve the game... and that is sorely lacking. Dealing with buckets is only a bandaid on a gaping wound.

[TheLuc]

No one remembers that a few months back queue were merged ? did it work ? Absolutely not.

Now they will do the same in an other format and we know the result.

the dream is dead since 2014.

Edited by TheLuc, 29 July 2016 - 06:07 AM.

[Kyrie]

What surprises me is that this "grey council" of players did not pursue a dialogue on the core design, the obvious fact that the gamemode does not appeal to the larger community.

If everything was on the table for discussion, an opportunity was missed to get at the heart of the matter:
Recognize flaws, fix, and profit. Granted, my vision of "fixing" is not popular with those who actually play FP, but that should be no bar to finding a better solution.

Edited by Kyrie, 29 July 2016 - 06:31 AM.

[TheLuc]

Sorry Kyrie, Russ only listen to Russ.

what ever we ask for we wont get it.

Do you want to buy a Mech Pack ?

PS don't forget to buy keys to open those supply caches.

[Surn]

#mwokicksthebucket was about managing the decline in pLayers not fixing cw. Honestly, i think russ wants to reduce the number of servers to save money.

[TheLuc]

Surn, yeah you might be right.

[Snuglninja]

I will throw some ideas out, things I been kicking around so this is just brain storming sorry for the long rambling post.

1. All play should be CW. Quick play should represent border skirmishes. Nothing changes except factions are grouped up together with lone wolves and mercs filling in the gaps. Award LP at a reduced rate.
2. Get over the idea of fighting for planets and focus on small regions. Assign regions resource points depending on how important it is.
3. Make battles an event lasting days, a weekend, a week or until a set number of territory "points" are captured by one faction. No one has enough points at the time limit it is a stalemate.
4. Players opt into a battle, attack or defense, and bring a set number of mechs with them depending on FP levels. Once these mechs are dedicated to the fight they are locked in the event for the duration.
5. Reinstate a rearm/repair mechanic for those mechs locked in a battle event using a combination of captured resources points a faction has, FP, or C-bills.
After the battle all mechs return repaired.
6. Use every map and game mode in CW and let them be picked before each battle like in quick play but after a map and mode are chosen players choose a mech to bring.
7. Make each match count. Scout matches gain a faction scouting assets to use. Conquest should give factions resources to spend on rearm/repair. Attack gives you a combo of resources and territory points. Skirmish yields territory points and when a set number of these points are acquired invasion opens up to acquire even more territory points.
8. Pgi could post on behalf of INN combat reports to help set a mood.
Offer decals or paint jobs for the important battles. Simple things like that to make you feel involved.

So it would go like this......
Faction players vote for hostilities.
Innersphere News Network reports that Federated Suns have declared hostilities against the Draconis Combine and sent troops into blah blah region.
Now I click on CW tab and join this fight. My LP level dictates how many and tonnage of mechs I bring on the JumpShip. So I lock in my Jenner, Battle Master, and Enforcer.
The screen now shows me the region how much resources my faction has,scouting assets and how much territory we have gained. Which is all low at this point.
I hit play and I am put in a group, a que pops up like quick play where we vote map/mode. So frozen city conquest is chosen. I then pick which of my mechs to use. We play and win. LP and C-Bills awarded, our faction receives resource points, which is used by me and others to repair and rearm for free. If my faction doesn't have the necessary resource points I now must spend C-bills and or LP for rearm/repair or use another mech I brought or a trial mech.
Next a skirmish match in caustic valley. We win gaining us territory. When enough territory is gained invasion mode is unlocked. Which if you win grants more territory. This goes on until a faction gains a set amount of territory or time is up.
Several of these "events" can go on at once so each round a faction will usually have a front attacking and a second front defending.

[Jables McBarty]

Pat Kell, on 28 July 2016 - 10:52 PM, said:

What really scared me about this was the idea that we had to reduce the buckets to a point that factions don't really matter that much. It scared me because I felt like it was looking to fix the situation as it is now and I think if they don't look at ways to improve the game mode as a part of the total solution, we will continue to slide. I think that if we consolidated the two planets (which are currently 2 different attack ques) into 1 attack/defense que and keep the current ability for IS factions to still fight in support of other IS factions when the clans attack and vice/versa, it would greatly reduce the que as well as reduce the belief that units try to avoid each as they would always be at risk of fighting another 12 man.

I also liked the idea of giving a type of signal when 2, 12 man teams are ques up and forcing them to fight each other. Granted, it would allow 12 mans to jump the line so to speak but I think a lot of people would appreciate the fact that they could drop as a solo player and not be in total fear of facing another 12 man. While it still would happen, I think it would be a lot less. It would happen even less if there was some sort of severe penalty for ignore a 12 man call to arms so those units that don't like to fight other teams wouldn't get much if anything at all for stomping pugs...or just not give them that chance at all. The moment an enemy team shows up, you are forced to fight them. As with all things, there would be ways to game that type of system so maybe you make a threshold of anytime you are in a group of 8 or more, you are added into this bucket and have to fight another 8-12 man group if they are present....or maybe even as small as a 6 man group, I don't know.

I only stayed for 90 minutes, but it sounded like a lot of these problems--particularly the Red Light solution--could just be solved by better in-game comms between different factions. So hardcore core teams can find each other and pugs can find each other. IDK.

I just hope whatever the solution, it absorbs minimal development resources so we can move onto bigger things.

Kyrie, on 29 July 2016 - 06:30 AM, said:

What surprises me is that this "grey council" of players did not pursue a dialogue on the core design, the obvious fact that the gamemode does not appeal to the larger community.

If everything was on the table for discussion, an opportunity was missed to get at the heart of the matter:
Recognize flaws, fix, and profit. Granted, my vision of "fixing" is not popular with those who actually play FP, but that should be no bar to finding a better solution.

I'm trying* to be optimistic about it.

First, set up the bread lines.

Second, legislate the New Deal.


*really, really trying

[Kyrie]

Jables McBarty, on 29 July 2016 - 07:33 AM, said:

I only stayed for 90 minutes, but it sounded like a lot of these problems--particularly the Red Light solution--could just be solved by better in-game comms between different factions. So hardcore core teams can find each other and pugs can find each other. IDK.

I just hope whatever the solution, it absorbs minimal development resources so we can move onto bigger things.




I'm trying* to be optimistic about it.

First, set up the bread lines.

Second, legislate the New Deal.


*really, really trying

I like that analogy. I recognize that the buckets do in fact represent the low-hanging fruit that could be addressed overnight, but what really troubles me is that we are at the point where PGI should have started out with the fact that:

1) Yes, we realize there are structural/core problems in the design, but please bear with us while:
2) We make the mode playable in the very short-term so that
3) We figure out with input from the community where to go from here

When FP3 was introduced, it was heralded by PGI as the "final solution" implying it was the last big CW thing. If I take that as gospel, the fact that PGI only reached for the low hanging fruit begins to make sense... they are not in fact interested in redoing CW. And we are talking about redoing it -- the core issues can only be fixed my a complete overhaul.

[Jables McBarty]

Kyrie, on 29 July 2016 - 07:38 AM, said:

I like that analogy. I recognize that the buckets do in fact represent the low-hanging fruit that could be addressed overnight, but what really troubles me is that we are at the point where PGI should have started out with the fact that:

1) Yes, we realize there are structural/core problems in the design, but please bear with us while:
2) We make the mode playable in the very short-term so that
3) We figure out with input from the community where to go from here

When FP3 was introduced, it was heralded by PGI as the "final solution" implying it was the last big CW thing. If I take that as gospel, the fact that PGI only reached for the low hanging fruit begins to make sense... they are not in fact interested in redoing CW. And we are talking about redoing it -- the core issues can only be fixed my a complete overhaul.

What gives me some hope is that Bombadil did on several occasions acknowledge that they want to investigate the deeper (root) issues with FP, and that this is a preliminary step. He did also say that he was following the Twitch chat where the (unwashed small-unit and non-unit) masses were posting. And since he appears to have been engaging with this thread at least through about Page 25, that gives me hope.

On the other hand, the "Summary of Priorities" that Soaq posted from the Wednesday night pre-roundtable left a lot to be desired, namely that "Fundamental Gameplay" was Item #7 of about 15, and only took up three lines.

PGI needs to balance a variety of populations, namely:
1. Existing diehard FPers who love the gameplay
2. Existing diehard FPers who are attached to their factions
3. Existing diehard FPers who are attached to their reward structure
4. Previous FPers who lost interest for one or another reason
5. Founders completely disillusioned with FP from the start, also for one reason or another
6. Filthy casuals who have enduring interest in a more complex tactical game mode (me)
7. Filthy casuals who have enduring interest in a lore-based game mode.
8. Filthy casuals who have enduring interest in a grand strategy game mode
9. The Solaris/QP-only crowd

From what I've read from PGI and on the forums and seen in game, the last three four make up 50-70% of the playerbase. Another 20-40% are in categories 4 and 5, and about 10% are 1-3.

So they have to try to engage 4-8 without losing 1-3. At least, that's how PGI reads it, and 1-3 are the people who thus far have been engaged in discussions. We'll see if they follow through on their allusions (I won't say "promises") to engage the rest of the population.

EDIT: Made a correction. (bad at math)

Edited by Jables McBarty, 29 July 2016 - 07:56 AM.

[metallio]

I think PGI is on the ropes...maybe they literally just don't have the cash to do anything other than bandaid and limp along while they spend their time finding something that will make money. There's near-zero work being considered. I've wondered about them saving money on servers and data for a while, certain that they were but thought it was just them being cheap, not being broke.

Honestly after the way they treated this...I think they're a few steps shy of being bankrupt and playing with this IP to maintain some cash flow while preparing for the end.

[Kyrie]

In one of the Town Halls (long while back) that I was actually able to listen in on live, Russ at one point went into the tortured history of "Why CW was delayed", explaining the problems with IGP never buying into the concept of CW as a revenue maker.

What I get the sense of is that PGI has never bought into the concept of CW that I as a Founder thought we were getting back in 2011/2012. I honestly thought they would make an effort to implement CW the way Kesmai visualized it: full-on RPG military sim with logistics, units, lances, mechs, supplies, player run command units, actual Houses implemented in the game. When FP1 was actually revealed I knew my dream was dead. Everything about the entire concept was wrong to my mind: the action-client maps were terribly limiting, scripting engagements instead of letting players run battles flexibly. The reward system made no sense to me, and there was no concept of what Houses actually were about.

That aside, I would suggest set of priorities:
1) MM/Bucket reduction in a variety of ways (already agreed on)
2) Introduce QP maps into CW, reserve the current FP maps for special battles
3) Redo the CW maps.

I realize I am never getting my MPBT-style experience, but surely we can get something worth playing... and those CW maps are horrible IMHO.

[KHAN ATTAKHAN]

While I didn't sit through all 3 hours of it I did some quick scanning and listened to some of the jabber going on, interesting stuff, not to stomp on toes and I am probably on a knife edge here but did I miss seeing any clan unit leaders there by skipping parts or was this the usual I.S. party that seems to be the flavour of the game.
How's this for an idea for FP, split it into 3 different games but all one part, here's the format.
FP game play 1: I.S. house VS I.S. house, let the great inner sphere houses battle it out for supremacy in the galaxy, they can spend hours and hours battling for the planets within the inner sphere part of the galaxy.
FP game play 2: Clan wars, clan VS clan, let the clans fight for dominance, genetic material, factory planets and the right to march to Terra Nova, let them fight in 3 5 man stars, the clan trinary star, let them fight as they are meant to.
FP game play 3: clan VS I.S., the traditional battle between them much as It is now but with our tri stars VS the 3 lances.
Using this method in FP 1 the I.S. won't cry about clan tech, in FP 2 the clans will stop crying about I.S. tech and when they meet to fight in FP 3 it will all be down to pilot skill and not a programmers keystrokes with nerfs and quirks, make it a game of skill not a game of DEATHBALL, (sounds like a cheap knock off tarantino movie title.)
Give us a chance to fight as we are meant to fight.
If it's too difficult to code then do as the rest of the world, outsource for talent.

[habu86]

KHAN ATTAKHAN, on 29 July 2016 - 08:15 AM, said:

While I didn't sit through all 3 hours of it I did some quick scanning and listened to some of the jabber going on, interesting stuff, not to stomp on toes and I am probably on a knife edge here but did I miss seeing any clan unit leaders there by skipping parts or was this the usual I.S. party that seems to be the flavour of the game.

Blueduck from SWOL and JagerXIII from SJR were there. Reps from KCom, 228, and MS were also there, all of whom spend significant amounts of time playing Clan, and being very successful at it. One of the "bucket reduction" possibilities under discussion did revolve around narrowing the fronts down to just IS v IS and Clan v IS. Admittedly this was recognized as a pretty extreme option and likely to rub a lot of the loyalists the wrong way.

[JaxRiot]

TheLuc, on 29 July 2016 - 06:06 AM, said:

No one remembers that a few months back queue were merged ? did it work ? Absolutely not.

Now they will do the same in an other format and we know the result.

the dream is dead since 2014.

It didnt work because 1- It wasnt an actual Solo Que, and 2- It was set up to fail.

In order to que for that Solo que, you either had to be a Loyalist or a Freelancer.

Freelancers got crap for rewards and Loyalists had the game qualifying matches that had limited rewards for the first 10 games.

And by the way, the 10 game qualifying mechanic bugged out the first few days and games were not counting.

Meanwhile Mercs got an entirely new Rewards system that required no kind of Qualifying at all but required the player to be in a Unit. Even a single One Person Unit.

So what happened was an explosion of single one person Mercenary Units being made to take advantage of the brand new Rewards system that they had, and most Freelancers didnt even bother which crippled the Solo que and enhanced the Group/Unit que

All of those new Solo Mercs were dropping in the Group/Unit que.

Had the so called 'Solo' que actually had been a Solo que, then all of those Solo Mercs would have been dropping in the Solo que and the que would have looked much much different.

And to make it worse, PGI made the decision to scrap the Solo que in less than a week. They never even gave it a chance. They didnt even let the first round of Merc Contracts expire to see if any of those newly formed Single Person Merc Units might have opted out and go Loyalist.

It was all a sham and set up to fail.

Edited by JaxRiot, 29 July 2016 - 08:55 AM.

[Omaha]

I kinda have a radical Idea concerning the reducing of buckets. Though I am not too sure how seriously it would be taken from the community. Considering my Idea to reduce the buckets would be to scrap the whole CW side entirely. Heck you could also integrate CW into private matches, for the role playing crowd.

Keep the star map, the map could be more like a progress (or scoreboard) of each factions instead of an actual player choice to attck or defend such planets. Integrate planet attacks, and defends in quick play. I'll admit it's cool to look about the map and see which planets are in battles, but how realistic was it to have so many planets so many choices, and so many ways to seperate the playerbase, when they themselves admitted thsi was a niche game with a small community.

Simply take into account every players faction win/loss in quickplay, and use the star map to map progress of the whole factions players wins or loses. Same with group queue. Units could fight units of factions. Now the more tricky part. add the 12v12 cw game modes into quickplay voting. But every game will have some count into CW as a whole no matter what gamemode or map was chosen. I'll admit it's very cool being able to pick a planet and then siege it. But at least you would always always have a steady stream of games counting towards CW. Even units could always fight other units. It;s also not very lore like either as you could have warring factions fighting on the side of other warring factions. For scouting, I guess you could just have a 4v4 checkbox if you wanted to fight 4v4 instead of 12v12. Rewards shouldnt be that hard to integrate into QP. You could still use voting for the attack lanes, and alliances etc.

(I'm not very good at communicating my ideas out on paper.)

Though I think one slight mistake was to make CW seem like another game based off of the standard MWO. Considering they all arent that much different. Besides just the modes, and maps. Treating it as a different section, really limited the amount of players, because players have to make a choice, hmm CW or QUICKPLAY. Then even after making that choice CW, there were more choices of seperation. There is also some fairness here, as games in QP are matched up by matchmaker.

Basically my point is, treat it all as just one game, and not the game within the game. Either integrate CW into quickplay, or quickplay into CW. We all are playing this ONE single game.

I do get frusterated at things, and choices, they make. But They have done a great product no matter how I feel about it, and I do enjoy it. I just get upset over things like focus on units, when doing faction play. Or the focus of just solo's when doing quickplay. We ALL are just simply players of factions. I've been saying all this segregation is a bad thing for a long time now. It's long overdue, put everyone under the same roof.

Edited by Omaha, 29 July 2016 - 09:51 AM.

[Zolaz]

<internet high 5 to Russ>

I hear that your Round Table was awesome. I dont know why anyone would be concerned about the future of FW with you at the helm. I was wondering when FW will be considered done and the beta sticker removed?

[Omaha]

Zolaz, on 29 July 2016 - 09:19 AM, said:

<internet high 5 to Russ>

I hear that your Round Table was awesome. I dont know why anyone would be concerned about the future of FW with you at the helm. I was wondering when FW will be considered done and the beta sticker removed?

So what was your idea to make it better?

[Kyrie]

Omaha, on 29 July 2016 - 09:21 AM, said:

So what was your idea to make it better?

There has been no lack of ideas for making it better, beginning back in 2011 and 2012.

[Omaha]

I'm as frustrated as any player. But when the actual people that make the game reach out and ask us the players on ways to make it better. I wouldn't just personally moch the lead developer, openly. But this is the internet, I guess it's to be expected. I even have my moments. It's still not right. I'll usually go about correctign myself or deleting my posts with it in them. Anyways where was I oh yeah LIGHTS FIGHT!

Edited by Omaha, 29 July 2016 - 10:06 AM.