869 replies to this topic

[axerion]

MovinTarget, on 01 August 2016 - 04:45 AM, said:

I won't deny that the merc path is by far the most attractive path. Just don't assume we are all about seal clubbing and easy money, that pretty much insults most of the guys i know who are mercs.

No.

Instead consider what makes being a merc attractive:
Ability to move to where the action is.

Ability to use our full arsenal of mechs in the FP format.

(Pre phase 3) could get rewards working different factions.

Its not seal clubbing. There is no glory in that.

So instead of pointing your finger at us consider asking PGI to do something for loyalists so that they can have attractive options too.

Maybe each account should have 3 different pilot/characters a merc and a loyalist for each side. Each one has its own "path". You can't join into fp under one path or another if an imbalance would be made too extreme and there would be incentives to drop as the pilot type most needed.

I would even go so far as to say you'd have to level applicable mechs under each pilot since that would be slightly more realistic.

Again, i am just trying to find answers b/c merc bashing is not a solution. You will lose a considerable chunk of players if you simply remove the merc path.

We both shared a lot of good fights during your RRB-time, and i dont blame you personaly to go "where the money... ahh. fight is", but all I see is MS and 228 constantly joining the same Faction so they dont have to fight each other and en plus they join the faction that have the most "elite-player-units" and guess where they are right now? KCom switched to steiner - MS went steiner, 228 tried to defend on Kurita (I guess thats where the action was?!?) and lost their fights to EVIL and 420, so you hoped on the MERC-Train again.

I know there´s a lot of salt in here, but for me FP would be much better without traveling soldiers being the important part of FP - as you know our fellow davions switched to Steiner to stop JF over there, but they keep on getting ignored on their attack lane, while JF switched its attack corridor to another Faction (Kurita) where they have no opposing bigger unit - in my eyes thats running for the easy money and simple wins, but since we have a Border of our own now, lets see if things might change, once our main force has returned from their operation galahad.

Thats why i disliked the round table with almost only Merc-unit-Players at the table - i know it´s a start, but if we dont get this right some time soon, FP will never become a battletech-game like it was supposed to be.

one "easy" solution would be to eliminate the merc path and limit the population per faction, so we cant be overrun just by numbers...

Make short seasons (~3months?) so every unit decide for every season, on which side they want to play, and like this we would have - even without a lot of programming - an interesting battle for supremacy (maybe even with different scenarios each season? - Succesion wars - Clan invasion - .... Battletech would have a lot of background to give, but as for now - this arcade style game only uses the names but not the real content...

[MovinTarget]

axerion, on 01 August 2016 - 07:54 AM, said:

We both shared a lot of good fights during your RRB-time, and i dont blame you personaly to go "where the money... ahh. fight is", but all I see is MS and 228 constantly joining the same Faction so they dont have to fight each other and en plus they join the faction that have the most "elite-player-units" and guess where they are right now? KCom switched to steiner - MS went steiner, 228 tried to defend on Kurita (I guess thats where the action was?!?) and lost their fights to EVIL and 420, so you hoped on the MERC-Train again.

I know there´s a lot of salt in here, but for me FP would be much better without traveling soldiers being the important part of FP - as you know our fellow davions switched to Steiner to stop JF over there, but they keep on getting ignored on their attack lane, while JF switched its attack corridor to another Faction (Kurita) where they have no opposing bigger unit - in my eyes thats running for the easy money and simple wins, but since we have a Border of our own now, lets see if things might change, once our main force has returned from their operation galahad.

Thats why i disliked the round table with almost only Merc-unit-Players at the table - i know it´s a start, but if we dont get this right some time soon, FP will never become a battletech-game like it was supposed to be.

one "easy" solution would be to eliminate the merc path and limit the population per faction, so we cant be overrun just by numbers...

Make short seasons (~3months?) so every unit decide for every season, on which side they want to play, and like this we would have - even without a lot of programming - an interesting battle for supremacy (maybe even with different scenarios each season? - Succesion wars - Clan invasion - .... Battletech would have a lot of background to give, but as for now - this arcade style game only uses the names but not the real content...

I totally hear you, but i will say that 228s agenda is its own. We are not picking sides just to avoid fights. You may only have my word on this, and we may only be one unit, so take it for what its worth.

Tbh, personally, i would be fine with 3 month contracts if there is an "out" clause to move to a underpopulated faction w/ an active front. Maybe mercs can only do this X times per season where loyalists can loan themselves out to their allies as much as they want/is necessary.

[MovinTarget]

Initial 3 month contract can contingent on population distribution of course, with some parameters... don't force us to go to the armpit of the galaxy where nothing happens, with no prospects for games.


Ooooo make the payscale escalate so the longer you are with the faction, the higher your rate of pay goes. This would encourage stability without making mercs feel trapped if the faction's fronts are duds.

[sparkomech66]

Going to keep this short and simple.
1. PGI needs to triage the queue/buckets that simple either combine or allow fewer participant's for a match to kick off.
2. Try creating a couple of new modes using existing maps for testing feedback.
3. Incorporate some PvE mission components.
4. If the above is implemented properly and received well add back complexity and create more depth.

There are no quick fixes to this and units enhance the game experience.

[JaxRiot]

A bit off topic here, but I wonder when they are going to announce what the actual changes are going to be.

Judging by the way the Round Table went, it was pretty clear that Russ had already made up his mind about reducing the buckets before it even started. Probably well before the Round Table was even announced

And Im pretty sure hes had his mind made up about a lot more than that for a while now.

Honestly I was kind of expecting something to be announced today (monday the 1st), because Im willing to bet that they already know/knew what they are/were going to do

Edited by JaxRiot, 01 August 2016 - 12:20 PM.

[Kael Posavatz]

JaxRiot, on 01 August 2016 - 12:16 PM, said:

A bit off topic here, but I wonder when they are going to announce what the actual changes are going to be.

Judging by the way the Round Table went, it was pretty clear that Russ had already made up his mind about reducing the buckets before it even started. Probably well before the Round Table was even announced

About the time-scale, round table was Thursday, he probably needs to nail down what's going into this month's patch, then sit-down and hash things out with his design team. There were a number of potential methods of queue reduction brought up, so they're going to need to take a look and see what makes the most sense. They have access to numbers that we don't, as well as knowing what their code looks like. Part of the point of the round-table was to come up with changes relatively easy for them to implement. They may need to go back and forth a couple of times before making any announcements.

One of the issues, though a tangential one, is perception. They may have sat down Friday and looked at what was workable, made a decision Monday morning, but if they announced it Monday afternoon would people perceive it to be 'PGI is listening to us' or 'PGI knew what it was going to do and the Round Table was a smokescreen'.

As for the queue reduction. Yes, Russ had mentioned previously, which is probably one of the reasons why it was chosen as the topic for the first round-table. Also...call them inter-connectivity issues. A lot of the stuff brought up in the pre-round table influenced, or was influenced by, other things. How PGI parses that out into future Round-Tables will be interesting in and of itself.

[50 50]

@Omaha
That's an interesting point about the focus on units and less so the factions.
It all boils down to the incentives and why taking a planet is meaningful.
At a personal level we have the loyalty rewards and mercenary reputations.
At a unit level there is the tagging.
At the faction level.... the changing border?

I would suggest that the tagging of planets for units contributes to this perception and is not as good a system as it could be.
Perhaps at a unit level we should remove the planet tagging and instead have another reputation system that lets the unit spend the points they earn to place facilities on planets which provide a bonus to the unit of some sort?

At a faction level, what does expanding or losing territory mean to the faction and how does that effect the units and ultimately the players fighting under that banner? Right at the moment there are probably two factors that could instantly be dynamic, drop deck tonnage and default payout, but we need to ensure that if a faction is doing poorly and is losing a lot of territory that there is an incentive for players to stay with that faction.
I pondered over a few concepts about a year ago which I wrote up here:
http://mwomercs.com/...s-units-and-us/
I think to revisit that idea now with all the changes that have been added since then sheds some more light on different aspects within Faction Play.
Note that these ideas really only work for loyalists. The Mercenary system needs a different approach.

To sum up:

• If each faction had an optimum population level which determined base pay, then fluctuations in the population can adjust the base pay up and down.
  
• Likewise, each faction could have a base resource level which determines drop deck tonnage.
  
• Expanding/Losing territory could influence the optimum population level.
  
• Expanding/Losing territory could also influence available resources.

I would think that for each faction we could then add a bit of flavour to make them feel a little different, ie. Marik at a base level might have a lower optimum population and may have lower resources, but they pay better. Should they expand their territory, they get access to more resources, but should more people flock to their banner and increase their population the base pay decreases.

By having a system in place at the faction level that can dynamically change based on our own actions we should not only be able to balance the population, but also provide the necessary incentives and give more meaning to the success of a faction.

A quick note about Mercenaries.
At the moment there is not much of a dynamic there and it is managed at the faction level.
I believe we need a system in place that allows mercenary units to 'relocate' to different factions so they can take advantage of what may be going on in a particular faction, but it then needs to be units that actually hire mercenaries directly a lance at a time for individual battles.

[JaxRiot]

Omaha, on 01 August 2016 - 10:17 PM, said:

. By all means let's just stop the whole "pug" stereotype and call them solo players.

Wuut?

Nevah!

Pug Life!

[Kin3ticX]

the important thing is to focus on CW fix ideas that are either a tweak of a value or can be done with light development

Examples:

Tweaks:
-Orbital gun and gen health increased 10%
-Destroying a Turret Cbill and XP increased 4x
-Nerf Dropship firepower
-Nerf Longtom damage

Not a Tweak (more work then changing a value):
-Destruction of Mobile Field base is worth a single kill (total kills possible increased to 49 for defender during counter attack defense)
-Make it so 12mans will jump ahead in line to fight another 12 man
-remove longtom and replace it with no consumables
-reduce buckets with hard alliances of factions (f.e Steiner and Davion become Fedcom)

Too long of a wait:
-redo how planets are flipped with a new tug of war system
-ask for map making tools (was a topic at the pre-meeting pushed by several people)
-ask for maps to be redone
-ask for the mode to be redone from scratch
-ask for longtom to be manually controlled by commander
-ask for new logistics system
-reduce buckets with complex alliance voting system

Edited by Kin3ticX, 02 August 2016 - 12:22 AM.

[JaxRiot]

Kin3ticX, on 02 August 2016 - 12:15 AM, said:

the important thing is to focus on CW fix ideas that are either a tweak of a value or can be done with light development

No offense sir, but people have been suggesting Tweaks to the game mode for a long time. But the FP crowd always opposed them in favor of wanting a Grander (is that even a word?) FP,/CW

Even the idea of reducing ques had been brought up in the past, and was met with harsh criticism from the FP crowd.

What makes this time different?

Edit- I ask because I like to lurk the Faction Play Forums. And even now all of the ideas that I see being thrown around over there are far from Tweaks or that could be done with Light Development.

Im not so sure there would be many ideas that actually fit that bill that they would approve of. No different than any other time

Edited by JaxRiot, 02 August 2016 - 12:57 AM.

[50 50]

It seems there is a willingness to sculpt faction play more and evolve it beyond the current system which is nice.
Certainly there are plenty of good ideas being suggested, some quick fixes (tweaks), others mid term suggestions and others as a longer term goal.

It is difficult to make these suggestions appealing when some of the ideas take away features that we have already. If that can be offset by adding new content in the mid to long term, then it's worth considering.

So with the meeting topic focused on:

• Reduce the buckets so that...
  
• The population is more concentrated which should mean....
  
• It's easier to get enough players to quickly fill the 12 spots needed for a team so the....
  
• Wait times are reduced.

Short term goal. Ok.
Some of the other ideas to make the mode more enjoyable such as removing the long tom etc. Sure. Quick. Short term. Ok.
I'd like to make the point to PGI that this doesn't mean scrap it entirely, we might find a use for the current long tom effect in a mid to long term goal. Lets just put it aside for the moment and we'll come back to it later.

Here's a suggestion that might freak a few more people out but will immediately reduce buckets.
Remove the clans from the Inner Sphere.
Bang!
4 factions gone.
Instantly reduce the buckets.
Anyone screaming blue murder yet?
It's only half the suggestion so keep your hair on, there are a few bonuses on offer.

Straight off the bat: Succession wars
With the clans out, we can run faction play as the succession wars and really get to enjoy and explore an aspect tied to lore that we never had a chance to.
It gives some breathing room to put in some other features to add a bit more value to the map and belonging to the factions. Lets think of some mid term items that could be implemented which would bring more substance to the mode. I can think of a few that seem like they would be fairly quick to do. There are also a few features that could be implemented to give something to the clans.

Follow this link for more details:http://mwomercs.com/...succession-war/

[Omaha]

*Quick Fixes*

Relabel it Unit warfare

Remove factions all together, its all about units anyways.

Change Faction colors to Unit Tag Watermark

*Done*

You guys got your game, wish I had mine.

The thing that really urks me is this part. It was the factions that got me into (Jade Falcon) mechwarrior, and the battles they have. But the whole focus on units, and making it meaningful and rewarding for units. When it's the factions that are and SHOULD be the meaning of it all. To me it's insulting, I'll even go so far as to say it's insulting to the Franchise. It should be meaningful and rewarding for Factions!

The reason why we are in this mess is because of quick decisions, and quick development. At least it feels like it was a rushed out product because of the community was demanding it so much. I really really wish and hope they Literally Take It Back To the Drawing Board. Lipstick on a pig, is still just a pig. It needs to be cooked and made into BACON Everyone likes bacon, solo players, and units.

I'm not gonna let this crap upset me anymore.

Edited by Omaha, 02 August 2016 - 04:11 AM.

[JonDoeIowa]

The last time they did these round tables in January of 2015, how long did they last, what did the achieve?

Asking seriously, I was away from game at that time.

Edited by Jondoeiowa, 02 August 2016 - 04:08 AM.

[YaKillinMeSmalls]

Can we get the opening post updated with a link to a recording of the roundtable please?

[TWIAFU]

Omaha, on 02 August 2016 - 02:57 AM, said:

*Quick Fixes*



Remove factions all together, its all about units anyways.

It always has been since day one. Remember, CW is made PRIMARILY for Unit/Group play.

But now that so many suffer from SSS (Special Snowflake Syndrome) they feel that a whole game mode must change to support them and ignore who the mode was actually made for.

Now, I just point and laugh at complaints from solo players with or without Trial Dropdecks in CW. Jump in the deep end of the pool and ignore the warnings and you deserve to drown. You learn to swim and not complain that the deep end is deep and want it changed to the shallow end.

[MovinTarget]

TWIAFU, on 02 August 2016 - 04:58 AM, said:

It always has been since day one. Remember, CW is made PRIMARILY for Unit/Group play.

But now that so many suffer from SSS (Special Snowflake Syndrome) they feel that a whole game mode must change to support them and ignore who the mode was actually made for.

Now, I just point and laugh at complaints from solo players with or without Trial Dropdecks in CW. Jump in the deep end of the pool and ignore the warnings and you deserve to drown. You learn to swim and not complain that the deep end is deep and want it changed to the shallow end.

I totally agree with you except that the population is so low now we kinda have to give the solo players something to do...

It goes against what the original concept was, endgame-hardmode-teamworkOP but.... this is what we have now...

Anyway, I think his point is somewhat valid. Glory tends to go to the units and not to the factions. I think that is a valid point and one of the reasons there is so much shifting...

Edited by MovinTarget, 02 August 2016 - 05:36 AM.

[Lizardman from Hollywood]

What gets me is the audacity of some ppl in this game. Special snowflakes indeed. Solos make up the Lions share of the pop and the income in this game. Yet the unit feel the game should be moulded to their vision just because of they are the "elites". I can remember back when the term "cannon fodder" caused a huge rift in the game and the consequences caused by it. Now I hear the same term thinly veiled from the unit players and it's accepted. I don't have a quick fix to the problems, I don't think anyone does. At the round table I heard a bunch of unit leaders push forth their personal agendas not as fixes for the game but as fixes for themselves. All that I do know is that without us casuals, pugs, snowflakes, cannon fodder whatever you unit players call us behind our backs you won't have a game to play. When you wake up and realise that and begin to treat the MAIN player base as equals then maybe we can work together to make this game the game that it could and should be.

[MovinTarget]

Sephrus Shanadar, on 02 August 2016 - 05:46 AM, said:

What gets me is the audacity of some ppl in this game. Special snowflakes indeed. Solos make up the Lions share of the pop and the income in this game. Yet the unit feel the game should be moulded to their vision just because of they are the "elites". I can remember back when the term "cannon fodder" caused a huge rift in the game and the consequences caused by it. Now I hear the same term thinly veiled from the unit players and it's accepted. I don't have a quick fix to the problems, I don't think anyone does. At the round table I heard a bunch of unit leaders push forth their personal agendas not as fixes for the game but as fixes for themselves. All that I do know is that without us casuals, pugs, snowflakes, cannon fodder whatever you unit players call us behind our backs you won't have a game to play. When you wake up and realise that and begin to treat the MAIN player base as equals then maybe we can work together to make this game the game that it could and should be.

I hope my own comments have not come across as such because I really don't intend to offend anyone except for the occasional troll...

The thing is that, CW was sold to us, the playerbase as many, many, many things and we all had stars in our eyes and expectations formed from our own hopes and interpretations.

The reality is that they tried to please a lot of people with one game mode and its not going well because of this.

You have people that want a team-driven hard mode where they can face off against other groups of comparable talent.

You have casual groups/solos that want something different than QP.

You have lost new players that wandered in and have no idea what the hell is going on...

All these groups and more are being mashed together and no one is thrilled about it.

Now, about the solos being the main player base and the ones pumping the most money into the game... This may or may not be true, any statistics you have to prove this I'd love to see, I won't counter because I have no proof to the contrary. Having said that, units have invested heavily in this game (at least many have) not just money, but time and effort in the formation, organization, and maintenance of these units. (Some) Units train together, schedule drops together, they even do leagues.

So on top of units possibly being just as financially responsible (again I can't prove it), they bring a lot of flavor to the game...

...having said that, they shouldn't look down on others just because they choose not to take the game as seriously or commit to a unit. I'm sure many great solo pilots have their reasons...

Edited by MovinTarget, 02 August 2016 - 06:22 AM.

[Omaha]

Personally I don't really see how what groups spends the larger share of money really has any relevance. People spend money on it plain and simple. Who really cares who does it as long as some do.

I'm more upset because I feel I don't have a place in my faction. Nor feel as if I contribute to the cause (if there even is a cause to everything happening in FW), nor get rewarded for it. When I do play it. All because I don't do the unit thing. Sure there is some LP here and there. But what is that? It's only valuable if you keep switching around and earn all of the loyalty rewards, for all the factions.

I feel like the galaxy there is a mockery of the btech universe, someone had to say it. All for the sake of some kind of extra group queue. Who care why the clan invaded, or why the IS is defending their values, and homes. It's all about units owning planets. Doesnt matter what faction either. It's all about the tag, and rewards for it.

Edited by Omaha, 02 August 2016 - 07:06 AM.

[Sonny Black]

Thoughts?