35 replies to this topic

[XX Sulla XX]

MischiefSC, on 28 July 2016 - 03:04 AM, said:

There's literally a couple thousand who enjoyed FW in concept but left due to lack of depth, purpose or engagement. FW was never going to draw the whole QP population - that was never the point nor should it be. The goal is to get back the people who played it, enjoyed the idea of it, but left because in the end it was just a QP environment with new maps, modes, and longer waits. Wasn't worth the time invested.

I'm all for adding FW maps/modes to QP. That way people who just want a quick throw-away game maybe with a respawn or two and whatever can have it. Go nuts, I'd vote for it. If being a part of a faction and trying to help your faction accomplish large objectives over an extended period against other factions isn't what interests you though then it's probably not going to be what you're looking for. I'd rather count bumps on sandpaper than play QP. Couldn't be more pointless to me. I go there to test mech builds and level up mechs. It's not 'fun' and if FW didn't exist I'd have removed MW:O long ago. That's okay; people enjoy different things in games. However making something 'fun' doesn't always mean making it 'like something else'.

Really I do not think FW has to be like quick play unless we are doing limited changes. I think the real solution is for PGI to have two experiences. Below is a rough idea of what I mean.

Looking at feedback from posts on the main forums and reading past threads there seem to be different player types looking for a very different game experience. (With some overlap as a secondary experience.) So why not work around this in designing FW, Quickplay etc.

Have one experience designed around "solaris" death match, quick play game modes related to these, stats and leader boards etc.

Then have a second experience designed around role warfare, simulation, lore, casual game play, single player, cooperative, "non meta" etc etc.

I think at the moment PGI is doing a bit of making every game mode everything to every one.

[SnagaDance]

MischiefSC, on 28 July 2016 - 02:37 AM, said:

Eliminate choke points and you make attacking even easier. Good map design for an asymetric game mode is hard to quantify. If it was just a TDM then sure - open map, it'll play out like group queue on Tourmaline.

So you remove gates and choke points and defenders either have to run fast mediums/lights or hug their base; which means the attacker can win via objective rushes. If the map doesn't force engagements in key areas then it hands success to the attackers.

I get the issue, I do. However the point is not to make FW play like QP so people who like QP like FW too, because they play out the same. As others have said it's designed as 'end game content'. So instead of making it play more like QP the goal is to make it less like QP but have purpose, engagement and depth to make people looking for end game content in MWO stay and play it longer.

For end game content I'd like more variety. Chokepoints and gates for a base defense mission? Sure, I can enjoy that. Team death match on those same maps (counter-attack)? Ehhhh, getting worse, but ok.

But........... that's it. That's basically it. FW has two game modes, while QP has 3 and hardly any wait times.

Shake it up, make it different. Battle on rolling plains where the scouting doesn't give Long Tom but strafing aircraft.

Hesperus II inside mech factory map where one team needs to disable the reactor that powers the complex. Huge rat warren that's a recipe for mayhem where you could have environmental hazards like huge passing ore buckets that prevent a whole team stomping past a certain section at once, pop-up turrets that work for the side for whoever controls certain checkpoints etc.

Basically I'd like FW to challenge teams with variety, not with being able to do 2 things really well.

I don't know if FW will ever offer that (probably not, though I hope they can make what they have more engaging)

So, holding my hope for a truly innovative Solaris then? (and yes I'm talking about moving columns Steiner arena and Kali Yama mountain etc.)

[627]

Well, I have to disagree. FW *is* fun. Or at least it can be. There are some good ideas and there are bad implementations, I think we can all agree on that.

I played pug only for the last faction challenge and haven't played that mode in a year or so. I like the new maps and I really like the respawn - you can fight without a break for half an hour, you don't have to spectate for 10 minutes when you die. So as long as you have a mech left, you have the constant thrill from the battle and I really really like that.

If you get into a good fight this is really intense and can last for a while, not like quick play where everything is decided after 5 minutes.

So there can be fun in this mode. It just lacks so much things left and right from that, like everything in this game...

[LowSubmarino]

FW isnt even that unfun.

The wait times are killing it off though.

With brutal axe to the neck the fun is chopped of mercilessly.

The wait times would have to be reduced 98 % to be even remotley close enough that I would bother to play FW again.

[Dino Might]

http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__5314291

[Mudhutwarrior]

Fixing FW will not solve the problem. The problem is a shrinking base and most play solo. Most don't want to be bothered with all there is to know and what things one has to do to play FW effectively. People do not play games to be cannon fodder which is exactly how faction players see them.

The problem is your kind and always has been. Until you understand and accept that you need progression and a strong and involved base you will always lose.

You need multiple levels of play with FW at the top. Not everyone And I dare say most are hardcore like faction players. you have to lead them to it. Is there just pro ball teams? No, there are several stages where some can stay at that level comfortable for the love of the game and a few will move up. If you want those few you must have the rest satisfied and playing.

Forest for the trees with you guys, always been like that. Blinded to the reality by you own bull****.

[Orbit Rain]

The wait times...not pug friendly...

Make an 8v8 solo no respawn mode, you' have scads of players PGI. Use the normal maps.

[Jables McBarty]

I feel obliged to leave this here:

http://mwomercs.com/...le-discussions/

Though for the record I agree with OP's point #1, first, second, and last.

[XX Sulla XX]

Just about time for the round table. Looking forward to hearing what ideas they will be talking about and how much of this stuff makes it in.

[XX Sulla XX]

So listening to the round table tonight PGI seems to be looking at FW like this.

What is most important.

1. Buckets - Lets buckets is most important.

2. Depth and rewards etc.

3. Game play is mainly polish after other things are fixed.

(Maybe I am wrong I am often am.)

Seems to be they should look at it like this.

1. Work on buckets and game play at the same time as they are related. More fun means a lot more players. More players mean more options on how to fix buckets.

2. Next rewards as it is easy to change. And can be done while working on the above.

3. Adding depth and complexity is a long term goal that will take a lot of time to get in.

What did you guys think?

[MischiefSC]

XX Sulla XX, on 28 July 2016 - 07:53 PM, said:

So listening to the round table tonight PGI seems to be looking at FW like this.

What is most important.

1. Buckets - Lets buckets is most important.

2. Depth and rewards etc.

3. Game play is mainly polish after other things are fixed.

(Maybe I am wrong I am often am.)

Seems to be they should look at it like this.

1. Work on buckets and game play at the same time as they are related. More fun means a lot more players. More players mean more options on how to fix buckets.

2. Next rewards as it is easy to change. And can be done while working on the above.

3. Adding depth and complexity is a long term goal that will take a lot of time to get in.

What did you guys think?

Good observation.

Buckets don't need fixed. Buckets are a problem because the population is spread out and unable to compress when population is low and there's little depth and complexity to FW to draw/maintain people.

Improve gameplay and provide tools for the population to compress where the action is and spread out when the population grows, to change organically and dynamically, and then you've got a system that will scale with the population growth that would come with better gameplay.

Give people more reasons to play, give them tools to play where the action is no matter where it is. Combining factions to reduce buckets gives no reason to play and eliminates faction identity (which is a reason to play) while not fixing 'play where the action is' so much as 'queue up QP style for FP maps/modes'.

It makes failure more likely instead of creating a solution.

[Deathlike]

MischiefSC, on 28 July 2016 - 09:21 PM, said:

Good observation.

Buckets don't need fixed. Buckets are a problem because the population is spread out and unable to compress when population is low and there's little depth and complexity to FW to draw/maintain people.

Improve gameplay and provide tools for the population to compress where the action is and spread out when the population grows, to change organically and dynamically, and then you've got a system that will scale with the population growth that would come with better gameplay.

Give people more reasons to play, give them tools to play where the action is no matter where it is. Combining factions to reduce buckets gives no reason to play and eliminates faction identity (which is a reason to play) while not fixing 'play where the action is' so much as 'queue up QP style for FP maps/modes'.

It makes failure more likely instead of creating a solution.

Refer to this thread for part of my opinion:
http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__5316253

I had tons of fun initially when being a part of SJ while in a different unit at the time. Same thing happened upon joining NS for Kurita.

There was tons of fun to be had... roleplaying as it would... mocking "Clan Davion" and "purple fried chicken" (Marik) during the mini-wars that went on. It was something to behold.

Then... there was Phase 2. That's when it really started to go all wrong, and let's be honest - it lasted too long and didn't really fix that many issues (outside of the core spawn killing issue - because that was shameful map design from the start). I don't even need to recite what happened in Phase 3 do I?

Ultimately when you don't have the pulse of the players (relying on NGNG or some other source - possibly being totally ignorant of the situation), then it stands to reason that the problem is far more fundamental. There's no way that what we have is acceptable and it's totally obvious to the population. To say otherwise is being totally deaf/blind to the situation.

[MischiefSC]

Deathlike, on 28 July 2016 - 09:59 PM, said:

Refer to this thread for part of my opinion:
http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__5316253

I had tons of fun initially when being a part of SJ while in a different unit at the time. Same thing happened upon joining NS for Kurita.

There was tons of fun to be had... roleplaying as it would... mocking "Clan Davion" and "purple fried chicken" (Marik) during the mini-wars that went on. It was something to behold.

Then... there was Phase 2. That's when it really started to go all wrong, and let's be honest - it lasted too long and didn't really fix that many issues (outside of the core spawn killing issue - because that was shameful map design from the start). I don't even need to recite what happened in Phase 3 do I?

Ultimately when you don't have the pulse of the players (relying on NGNG or some other source - possibly being totally ignorant of the situation), then it stands to reason that the problem is far more fundamental. There's no way that what we have is acceptable and it's totally obvious to the population. To say otherwise is being totally deaf/blind to the situation.

I don't agree with any of that. My point though is that fixing maps and gameplay is both more of a time investment and not the same people. Queues and LT can be fixed now-ish and it'll help. Aylward had a good term for it when we were talking about it -

'Pain Relief Package'. Simple, fast stuff that can happen right now to compress populations, remove LT as it is and add something simple like alliances. From what Russ said that would be as easy as we hoped.

Hell yes we all want maps, gameplay and the like fixed. We want that done as soon as possible - but if that's another 2-3 months away and nothing else happens before then, yeah. Eff this noise. Population is already lean. The fact that the meetings are happening gives a bit of hope but we need traction on this ASAP for, well, SOMETHING. Or it's going to be opportunity lost.

[Deathlike]

MischiefSC, on 29 July 2016 - 12:42 AM, said:

I don't agree with any of that. My point though is that fixing maps and gameplay is both more of a time investment and not the same people. Queues and LT can be fixed now-ish and it'll help. Aylward had a good term for it when we were talking about it -

'Pain Relief Package'. Simple, fast stuff that can happen right now to compress populations, remove LT as it is and add something simple like alliances. From what Russ said that would be as easy as we hoped.

Hell yes we all want maps, gameplay and the like fixed. We want that done as soon as possible - but if that's another 2-3 months away and nothing else happens before then, yeah. Eff this noise. Population is already lean. The fact that the meetings are happening gives a bit of hope but we need traction on this ASAP for, well, SOMETHING. Or it's going to be opportunity lost.

It has to be the part of the long term plans... addressing maps+modes. Otherwise, it's placating BS as far as I'm concerned.

[Novakaine]

A disorganized or even a loosely organized group will seldom beat a organized 12 man unit.
And why do people expect them too.
I play with my unit, and I've played in pickup pugs with friends.
The pug groups have almost always been on the losing end.
Why?
Because the same noobery you see in Puglandia they bring right to FP.
Even when I notice players on the skittles teams who I know are skilled players pugs still lose.
Disjointed attacks, roger rambo's running single file out of base to attack a prepared firing line.
Like I said the usual noobery.
I mostly play FP now because I find it more of a challenge than quick play.
Unfortunately people want instant gratification and have little patience for learning FP.
Then they complain, just like they do in Puglandia.

Edited by Novakaine, 29 July 2016 - 07:25 AM.

[MischiefSC]

Novakaine, on 29 July 2016 - 07:24 AM, said:

A disorganized or even a loosely organized group will seldom beat a organized 12 man unit.
And why do people expect them too.
I play with my unit, and I've played in pickup pugs with friends.
The pug groups have almost always been on the losing end.
Why?
Because the same noobery you see in Puglandia they bring right to FP.
Even when I notice players on the skittles teams who I know are skilled players pugs still lose.
Disjointed attacks, roger rambo's running single file out of base to attack a prepared firing line.
Like I said the usual noobery.
I mostly play FP now because I find it more of a challenge than quick play.
Unfortunately people want instant gratification and have little patience for learning FP.
Then they complain, just like they do in Puglandia.

What's funny is this whole thing highlights pug v unit attitudes. Unit members put in the effort to organize people, coordinate a big meeting, prepare what they're going to say and establish steps of development. The dedicated pugs want someone to come find them, hand them a mic and listen to their screed.

While we want to balance things out to a reasonable level if the other guys put in more effort than you they're going to win. That's not unfair.