137 replies to this topic

[Tom Sawyer]

@Anti90d Our goal was not to exclude anyone but by inviting the unit leaders we had more of a chance to get some ideas on the table rather than just have 200 people yelling at each other on TS. My own ISP took a crap right before we moved onto the 2nd 1/2 so I missed that part. Overall goal and intent:

1) Find a way other than wanna buy a mech pack to get players to come back. Both single players and those that prefer units
2) Make CW something other than just a fancy labeled quick play assault game.

Alot of great ideas being banted. Some PGI could do, some are not going to happen except long term. But we met to at least TRY. If this fails and PGI continues to shed players then so be it. At least they are willing to meet and listen.

[AnTi90d]

I do appreciate that people in the community made an effort to brainstorm ideas.

However, by not inviting so much as a single solo loyalist or freelancer.. you, in effect, did exactly what people often curse PGI for doing: making decisions for the community without inviting input from anyone outside of your private circle. The 120+ people in chat (of whom maybe fifteen attempted to participate) were totally ignored.

A large number of the ideas battered about only benefit units and factions with high populations.

Hell, for what seemed like a half of an hour, ideas were floated around to "encourage unit participation.." which, in effect, screws everyone else over. It's the equivalent of congress going into session and voting for pay raises for themselves while the economy is tanking. Structuring your debate in this manner is how we got to the state of the game wherein only large units get to earn MC in FP and mercs get their brand new skill tree while loyalists get diddly squat.

[Unendingmenace]

There's a lot of great ideas and discussion in this thread already. Long term I would love to see more added to the actual in-game Invasion gamemode. More objectives, more maps and more importantly different maps. Maps where the defending team has a well established base and the attacking team has some sort of forward operating base with deployed turrets and more.

Short term the real issue is population. Fixing the population would address most of the concerns that people seem to be currently having with Faction Warfare. Like Mischief said Alliances would go a long way to solving this. Alliances would help lower population factions by allowing them to fight on different borders and also bolster their defenses with allied forces when needed. In turn this would also help higher population factions fight different opponents.

Furthermore as Mischief has also said, Logistics and Planet Selection would be a fantastic addition to Community Warfare. It will add more Tactical considerations that factions will have to factor in when debating about when voting which planet and faction to attack next.

As far as incentives go: Loyalists absolutely need to have MORE rewards and Mercs need to have less. Mercs already have a huge advantage in the fact that they can change their faction allegiance weekly if they wanted to. Give Loyalists the power to bid for Merc assistance in the form of bonuses so that Mercs can be enticed into helping a faction that needs it.

Kin3tcX: I also like your idea of Tonnage handicaps. This is definitely another thing that could help with certain "balance" issues and the difficulty curve for newer players.

[AnTi90d]

Bidding for mercs would take Cbills out of loyalist hands and transfer the funds directly to mercs.

..and, really, what good is it to get mercs to come to your faction?.. They usually only drop in 12 man units. They don't help out loyalists who are just trying to get into a match.. rather, they come and talk crap about the loyalists in our faction chat and then take drops that we're trying to queue up for.

[50 50]

Hey guys.
Really appreciate that there are people in the community that really want see Faction Play get shaped into something that everyone can enjoy.

So much to comment on as well.
Right at the moment, we could put aside the whole galactic map, the movement and high level strategic items to just have a more engaging game mode run as the missions/events. But to discuss a few points:

Logistics
The question of logistics is a really interesting one and feeding off some of the ideas that were being bounced around I believe it could be handled really simply via the drop deck.
We have two parts to the drop deck: Tonnage and number of mechs.
So a simple way to enable a logistical element is to put a cost on how many mechs you want to take into battle and what you want your total tonnage to be. Start with a simple formula:
Total tonnage of drop deck * Number of mechs in the drop deck * 1000 c-bills.
So a player who wants to take the heaviest assault deck they can into battle would be 400 tons * 4 mechs * 1000 c-bills for a logistic cost of 1,600,000 c-bills.
On the other side, you might have a player who prefers lights and just wants to bring 4 locusts at a cost of 320,000 c-bills. (80 * 4 * 1000)
We should also allow for a solo or group to bring less than 4 mechs.... which requires changes to the game mode.

Obviously the payout from the battles need to be able to compensate you for these costs in logistics but it then becomes very easy to add in other factors that can modify the cost.

• Personal dropships
  
• Unit dropships
  
• Faction sponsorship for loyalists.

And then specifically regarding the attack lanes and being able to cut off an attacking forces front...... distance from a certain point on the map such as space port or factory so if you lose that connection the cost to keep pushing the front is multiplied.
(Check out the IS map with all the jump lanes btw: here )

Which brings me to the next subject....

Planet Ownership
I'm not really sold on the idea that units should be tagging planets and the MC reward should definitely be replaced with something else. In the end the planet belongs to the faction and I think the mechanics of it need to be different. It should probably relate back to the loyalty ranks and mercenary reputations. Make it a currency that only applies to Faction Play.
You fought in the battle of planet X and were victorious. Here's some loyalty/reputation points. You can spend those points to put something on one of the planets in that faction's territory which provides you/your unit with a bonus.

And to make that interesting? That something can be a strategic item at the ground level should the planet and the zone you placed it in ever be contested.

Which then brings me to the point about....

The game mode itself
When the discussion about the number of sectors being fought over, duration of the attack phases and how to get people involved was in full swing there was a couple of really interesting points raised.
Are there too many sectors? Probably. It's also very hard for smaller teams to contribute to the success. You can fight all day, win all your battles and still lose.
There was the suggestion of using continents or territories.... I've been referring to them as Zones as I feel they should relate to the servers and the respective time zones.
(There was also mention that it is not worth participating in the Oceanic attack phase... I'm hoping someone could elaborate on that for me).
There is also the part about enabling solos and new players to participate and how the unit structure can be seen as beneficial.

But it's still thinking on the large scale of needing 12 players. If we want to enable smaller groups and solos in the mode and have them contribute to the process, the system needs to be open and allow even just a single player to drop into the battle.
This is probably the biggest change to the game that I see as being the best step forward and it requires three things.

• A map with multiple objectives and dynamics which is big enough to allow freedom of movement and greater variety of tactics and game play.
  
• If the vote is taken to attack on a certain front and planet X is chosen... those battle zones are open for the attack phases for players to drop in and out of by committing their drop deck as per the logistics idea.
  
• A more structured staging area when viewing the planets so we can view the attack waves, have better communication and planning options.

The best thing to do here is to utilize the elements from the quick play modes, plus invasion, plus scouting and bring it together in a single map. This creates some instant familiarity for players while introducing them to a larger scale.
With a bit of random placement of the objectives and a fog of war.... woohoo!
Without adding new options at this stage, but allowing for new features to be added consider some of the aspects we have at the moment which can be used on the maps.
We have three objectives which are fortified strategic objectives.
Domination > Big Radar
Assault > Base
Invasion > The Cannon
Lets have several spots on the map where these objects can be placed, a bit randomly.
We have the Conquest objectives which could serve as ways to control territory and provide alternate locations to deploy into the battle from or provide other benefits.
We have a point system a capture mechanic and also the intel from scouting.
We change these to work differently and allow different options for players in the battle or waiting in the staging area.
Two things:
Salvage Points and Intel Points.
Make them another form of currency for use in the battle. Have Intel effects you can buy to use in the battle. Have Salvage effects that you can use on your drop deck (Tada! Repair a destroyed mech so you can use it again in that battle).

But to take it back to the planet ownership point and making it valuable to players/units? The fortified strategic objectives on the maps are what we buy and put there. Consider then where that could expand to.

Ok... that's a bit of a bigger goal but the main point is make a mode that a single player can instantly jump into just as easily as a larger group.

Man... I got excited there. Sorry for the wall of text.

[SilentScreamer]

I've prepared a Faction Play population survey and would very much appreciate any players reading this thread to participate in it.

http://mwomercs.com/...ulation-survey/

Edited by SilentScreamer, 28 July 2016 - 05:49 AM.

[Cy Mitchell]

SilentScreamer, on 28 July 2016 - 05:48 AM, said:

I've prepared a Faction Play population survey and would very much appreciate any players reading this thread to participate in it.

http://mwomercs.com/...ulation-survey/

I would suggest you drop a link in the General Discussion forum to get the results from players who have tried CW/FW/FP but no longer come here.

[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!

In other words this roundtable isn't about fixing CW, it's about discussing potential bandages to slow the bleeding.

Per above, if this roundtable is successful, it may lead to future meetings where we can discuss additional topics.


The additional topics are the only items that can salvage CW long term.

We all understand that condensing que's and buckets, better rewards, unit sizes, planetary attack lanes, buffing/nerfing Omega and dropships, loyalty point changes, etc.... do nothing but make it a bit easier for those that still find the mode interesting to get matches, and maybe make a few more space bucks while they're at it.

We all understand these are temporary bandaids that are just to control the bleeding right?


Hopefully this goes well so we can discuss the topics that could actually salvage CW like maps, modes, objectives, some lore, .... in other words meaningful content.

Unfortunately, I don't think it's likely PGI has the resources or ability to really make the changes that would be needed... but at least I can say some of us put it out there.

[FallingAce]

Jack Booted Thug, on 28 July 2016 - 07:33 AM, said:

In other words this roundtable isn't about fixing CW, it's about discussing potential bandages to slow the bleeding.

Per above, if this roundtable is successful, it may lead to future meetings where we can discuss additional topics.


The additional topics are the only items that can salvage CW long term.

We all understand that condensing que's and buckets, better rewards, unit sizes, planetary attack lanes, buffing/nerfing Omega and dropships, loyalty point changes, etc.... do nothing but make it a bit easier for those that still find the mode interesting to get matches, and maybe make a few more space bucks while they're at it.

We all understand these are temporary bandaids that are just to control the bleeding right?


Hopefully this goes well so we can discuss the topics that could actually salvage CW like maps, modes, objectives, some lore, .... in other words meaningful content.

Unfortunately, I don't think it's likely PGI has the resources or ability to really make the changes that would be needed... but at least I can say some of us put it out there.

Totally agree.

There are too many things wrong with the current faction warfare for a quick or simple fix.

Band-aids are not going to bring new players in nor make old players return.

You can put a new coat of paint on a house, but if the structure is bad, it's still a bad house.

Sometimes you have to level the house and start over.

Edited by FallingAce, 28 July 2016 - 07:52 AM.

[Danjo San]

AnTi90d, on 28 July 2016 - 05:06 AM, said:

I do appreciate that people in the community made an effort to brainstorm ideas.

However, by not inviting so much as a single solo loyalist or freelancer.. you, in effect, did exactly what people often curse PGI for doing: making decisions for the community without inviting input from anyone outside of your private circle. The 120+ people in chat (of whom maybe fifteen attempted to participate) were totally ignored.

A large number of the ideas battered about only benefit units and factions with high populations.

Hell, for what seemed like a half of an hour, ideas were floated around to "encourage unit participation.." which, in effect, screws everyone else over. It's the equivalent of congress going into session and voting for pay raises for themselves while the economy is tanking. Structuring your debate in this manner is how we got to the state of the game wherein only large units get to earn MC in FP and mercs get their brand new skill tree while loyalists get diddly squat.

tried to speak up for small units, solo players and casuals several times. Unfortunatly we are not big enough to get a representational voice. We do not have a players union... All efforts trying to discuss solutions, first and foremost limiting unit size to create incentive for smaller units and casuals, usually was dismissed as "my agenda is only to hurt large units, because my team suqqs" or other condescending stuff...
So yeah I get the effort, they are trying to achieve with this round table.
But I seriously hope they take solos, casuals and small units into consideration tonight. I highly doubt it though.

A lot of points I can agree with. You have to keep the unrepresented and unorganized poplation in mind though.
The Players that feel unrepresented, that are not a part of the "large" or "important" Units/groups, will do what they have been doing for the past three phases if they feel no incentive of playing.
The form of protest they choose is to boycott the system! They feel they have no voice, they have no say so they just stay away.
The solution to filling the queues therefore is not only to answer the question "What is holding back some of the players from units that lack interest inCW?" The Question should be:
"How do we create a system that caters to the needs of competitive players, solo players, casual players and small units alike?"

[TWIAFU]

AnTi90d, on 28 July 2016 - 05:06 AM, said:

I do appreciate that people in the community made an effort to brainstorm ideas.

However, by not inviting so much as a single solo loyalist or freelancer.. you, in effect, did exactly what people often curse PGI for doing: making decisions for the community without inviting input from anyone outside of your private circle. The 120+ people in chat (of whom maybe fifteen attempted to participate) were totally ignored.

A large number of the ideas battered about only benefit units and factions with high populations.

Hell, for what seemed like a half of an hour, ideas were floated around to "encourage unit participation.." which, in effect, screws everyone else over. It's the equivalent of congress going into session and voting for pay raises for themselves while the economy is tanking. Structuring your debate in this manner is how we got to the state of the game wherein only large units get to earn MC in FP and mercs get their brand new skill tree while loyalists get diddly squat.

Some solo/freelancer should be there. However, everyone knows that CW is made PRIMARILY for the Group/Unit so they should be the primary make up.

[TWIAFU]

Danjo San, on 28 July 2016 - 07:52 AM, said:

"How do we create a system that caters to the needs of competitive players, solo players, casual players and small units alike?"

By separating them and giving them playgounds where that playstyle is best supported and avoid mixing them together.

Put them all together and half will complain about the other half.

[Deathlike]

TWIAFU, on 28 July 2016 - 08:06 AM, said:

By separating them and giving them playgounds where that playstyle is best supported and avoid mixing them together.

Put them all together and half will complain about the other half.

How would you realistically achieve that?

This is a far more reaching and complicated question to actually answer... because it's easily subjected open to abuse or at least an issue by reducing effective population due to filtering (aka using some form of MM).

[Kyrie]

I suppose it goes without saying that in order to be able to separate the puggles from the elite units, a vast redesign needs to take place to drive thousands into that game-mode to allow for meaningful matchmaking to take place.

I wonder what PGI could do to fix it... oh wait, I think I posted on this a few times already. ;-) But aside from creating the grand-strategy house based meta with military stuff like logistics, opportunity costs, resources, meaningful choices (and no, the attack vote doesn't count), a total redesign of the gamemode in the action client is also needed.

Perhaps simplifying it so that FP mode uses the same QP maps would be an enormously helpful start. Then work on creating meaningful off-action client immersion...

[JaxRiot]

Kyrie, on 28 July 2016 - 08:16 AM, said:

I suppose it goes without saying that in order to be able to separate the puggles from the elite units, a vast redesign needs to take place to drive thousands into that game-mode to allow for meaningful matchmaking to take place.

I wonder what PGI could do to fix it... oh wait, I think I posted on this a few times already. ;-) But aside from creating the grand-strategy house based meta with military stuff like logistics, opportunity costs, resources, meaningful choices (and no, the attack vote doesn't count), a total redesign of the gamemode in the action client is also needed.

Perhaps simplifying it so that FP mode uses the same QP maps would be an enormously helpful start. Then work on creating meaningful off-action client immersion...

Not really.

If they Consolidate the ques and put IS into 2 Alliances and Clans into 2 Alliances, the total buckets will drop from current 40 to 16.

At that point they could try another Solo que. An actual Solo que this time.

It would bring the total buckets back up to 32, but it would still be less Buckets than we have now and a far cray less than the 80 Buckets that they had the first time they tried it.

The last time they tried the so called Solo que, the Unit/Group players were spread out among 40 buckets and the Unaffiliated players were also spread out among 40 buckets. It was far too spread out.

Everything gets condensed and every body gets something and its not overly complicated, costly, or time consuming.

Edited by JaxRiot, 28 July 2016 - 09:26 AM.

[MadcatX]

Some things, such as queue consolidation, would help with the wait time issues.

But I really think they should push hard on the thing that VVonka brought up in the video: How to make small/mid sized units even care about CW beyond being another game mode or even get more people in existing units playing CW. I agree 100% that there is a lack of a sense of ownership/value on the larger scale and that it's that larger scale that is the whole point of CW?

When I look at CW right now, I just see a big map that I don't care about.

[Sader325]

MadcatX, on 28 July 2016 - 10:04 AM, said:

Some things, such as queue consolidation, would help with the wait time issues.

But I really think they should push hard on the thing that VVonka brought up in the video: How to make small/mid sized units even care about CW beyond being another game mode or even get more people in existing units playing CW. I agree 100% that there is a lack of a sense of ownership/value on the larger scale and that it's that larger scale that is the whole point of CW?

When I look at CW right now, I just see a big map that I don't care about.

I mentioned this to VVonka many times during the discussion and I'll repeat it here.

He's asking for a reason for his unit to care and come back, and he wants them in the short term. There is literally nothing that can be added in the short term that will give a meaningful feeling of ownership that PGI could add in 3 months.

The systems for that are LONG TERM solutions, meaning they need to be built from the ground up and it could be months before those systems are in place.

So basicly our back and forths were like this:

VVonka: I want meaningful ownership and systems to make my unit come back.

Sader: *Insert long explanation of using Districts, manufacturing and management of space to give feeling of ownership*

VVonka: That's great Sader I want all that but thats long term. I want something in 3 months.

What VVonka, and by extension many of you are asking for is effectively impossible. PGI needs to develop these systems from the ground up with an endgame in mind, and that means that you wont see what you want for about half a year or more.

What you want, you wont get in the short term.

[JaxRiot]

Sader325, on 28 July 2016 - 10:24 AM, said:

What VVonka, and by extension many of you are asking for is effectively impossible. PGI needs to develop these systems from the ground up with an endgame in mind, and that means that you wont see what you want for about half a year or more.

What you want, you wont get in the short term.

See, this is what I keep trying to ask.

I thought this Round Table thing was for short term easy tweaks that could improve the existing FP.

But I didnt hear anything like that. Everything sounded like really intricate game designs that would take the better part of a year to develop or even longer. And thats even if they accepted those proposals.

So was my assumption of what the Round Table supposed to be wrong?

[Sader325]

JaxRiot, on 28 July 2016 - 10:45 AM, said:

See, this is what I keep trying to ask.

I thought this Round Table thing was for short term easy tweaks that could improve the existing FP.

But I didnt hear anything like that. Everything sounded like really intricate game designs that would take the better part of a year to develop or even longer. And thats even if they accepted those proposals.

So was my assumption of what the Round Table supposed to be wrong?

The round table is about everything. Literally everything was on the table.

We tackled many short term fixes to improve it, and we tackled long term elements to make it worth playing.

There is no such thing as a small fix that will bring you back if you quit, not until the groundwork has been layed for long term development.

The current faction warfare is a collection of short term ideas with absoloutly no vision for the future. Thats how we got here, that was the mistake PGI made. They do not have a vision for where they want to go.

I provided that vision with clear concise goals for how to get there.

1) Planets must be split into districts allowing multi ownership. Allow the Factions to sell/rent/lease Planets to Loyalist units

2) Planets will generate income or resources.

3) That Income or Resources will be split between owners.

4) Multiple Owners of a planet must have a way to interact with each other: (Buy and Sell land, Attack and Take land, Develop the land, create facilities on the land. Create strongholds, Headquarters,)

5) Create an economy based on step 4, allow players to build, buy trade mechs, weapons, modules. Everything becomes player driven.


THIS is how you get that feeling of ownership and stake in the map and it will take MONTHS if not a years to develop fully.

The GROUNDWORK must be put in place to develop for the future and the playerbase needs to be patient enough to see it through.

Edited by Sader325, 28 July 2016 - 11:05 AM.

[justcallme A S H]

Sader325, on 28 July 2016 - 10:24 AM, said:

He's asking for a reason for his unit to care and come back, and he wants them in the short term. There is literally nothing that can be added in the short term that will give a meaningful feeling of ownership that PGI could add in 3 months.

Bring MC rewards for participation is easy. That will make the smaller/inactive units, get something.

3MC for a win, 1MC for a loss - as examples.

That is an almost instant fix that will make some return. Granted not all, but some is better than nothing.


Unit sizes are not a problem. As I've said many times look at the top 20, hell, top 30 - it's is not lop-sided to large units. Small units might not be in the top 5, but, why should they? Organisation is success, afterall.