So at that point I'm not doing anything for my faction that a leaderboard on the website would have and just have it tabulate my wins in pug/group queue. At that point the faction tag you have is as relevant in FW as it is in group queue. You're just taking the group queue mechanic and adding an extra bonus payout "XP bar" based on which icon you have next to your name.
As I said - if that's the case and anything that would actually fix FW isn't coming then just axe it. Add the maps/modes to group/pug queue, add in a 'faction leaderboard' like we had in events long past and accept the failure. At least the content itself (maps/modes) would see more use. Admittedly almost everyone I know and play with would quit but that's not a ton of people at this point. At least pick a direction. Either put the work into making FW work or scrap it and use the content. The current approach of 'leave it broken and just hope people play it anyway' isn't a fix. Largely ignoring it for years hasn't been a winning approach either.
What? That makes no sense whatsoever. You are still fighting for your faction of choice, gaining LP for that faction and conquering planets for your unit/faction. Nothing about factions would change except you have to compete with other factions to conquer the same planets as they would all have access to the same attack/defense queue's.
Combining the population in a more realistic manner that gets people quicker games is a huge boost to Faction Play. Obviously it's not ideal but it's the easiest and most realistic way to solve the population/wait time problems that have always plagued this gamemode.
So if I'm just going into a big queue with other IS players vs other Clan players instead of attacking a specific border then it's ceased to be FW. At that point 'fighting for your faction of choice' just means 'pick a tag next to your name'.
There is a world of difference between 'I am faction FRR and I'm fighting against Clan Wolf on the border over world X because my faction decided to fight Wolf over this world' and 'I picked the FRR faction tag, when I drop in matches with every other IS player against every other Clan player and people who picked FRR won more matches than any other IS faction we "won the world" for that turn!'
If FW ceases to be 'I and members of my faction choose to fight this other specific faction over that objective' and becomes 'IS vs Clans all in one big queue like Tukayyid' then, again, you're just playing QP matches just with mixed group/pug players and no matchmaker using FW maps/modes. Just put in a leaderboard (which at that point is all the map becomes) and move forward with FW as maps/modes in QP. Then you can leverage the matchmaker to make it appealing to a bigger part of the existing QP audience even and have a clear pug/group queue split.
Yes. In that context if 'fixes the population issue' by making it like QP.
However QP is not growing the games population by any stretch. We already know it's a losing proposition. Way back when people were expecting FW to be like what PGI originally promised (remember the slide shows and such?) it had no real population issues. That level of game would actually add something to MW:O and draw people in. Turing FW into a slightly glorified set of maps/modes for a QP environment is just reducing FW down to a mode that we can already confirm is failing to grow the game.
That's okay if that's the future expectation of MW:O - just watching the decline. Let's just be honest with it. Originally however the bulk of the population was loyalist, not mercs and it was more than enough to keep the queues hopping. That decline was not because FW wasn't enough like QP - it was because none of the depth of gameplay originally offered was put in.
So if I'm just going into a big queue with other IS players vs other Clan players instead of attacking a specific border then it's ceased to be FW. At that point 'fighting for your faction of choice' just means 'pick a tag next to your name'.
There is a world of difference between 'I am faction FRR and I'm fighting against Clan Wolf on the border over world X because my faction decided to fight Wolf over this world' and 'I picked the FRR faction tag, when I drop in matches with every other IS player against every other Clan player and people who picked FRR won more matches than any other IS faction we "won the world" for that turn!'
If FW ceases to be 'I and members of my faction choose to fight this other specific faction over that objective' and becomes 'IS vs Clans all in one big queue like Tukayyid' then, again, you're just playing QP matches just with mixed group/pug players and no matchmaker using FW maps/modes. Just put in a leaderboard (which at that point is all the map becomes) and move forward with FW as maps/modes in QP. Then you can leverage the matchmaker to make it appealing to a bigger part of the existing QP audience even and have a clear pug/group queue split.
Yes. In that context if 'fixes the population issue' by making it like QP.
However QP is not growing the games population by any stretch. We already know it's a losing proposition. Way back when people were expecting FW to be like what PGI originally promised (remember the slide shows and such?) it had no real population issues. That level of game would actually add something to MW:O and draw people in. Turing FW into a slightly glorified set of maps/modes for a QP environment is just reducing FW down to a mode that we can already confirm is failing to grow the game.
That's okay if that's the future expectation of MW:O - just watching the decline. Let's just be honest with it. Originally however the bulk of the population was loyalist, not mercs and it was more than enough to keep the queues hopping. That decline was not because FW wasn't enough like QP - it was because none of the depth of gameplay originally offered was put in.
Great post in full M_SC.
If MWO to going to cave, like so many other games, to the special solo snowflakes and make CW QP with respawn then PGI needs to come out and tell us. Tell us fast. That way those of us that are here for CW being 'end-game' can refund whatever we can and jump ship and let it sink with all the rats that infested it.
So if I'm just going into a big queue with other IS players vs other Clan players instead of attacking a specific border then it's ceased to be FW. At that point 'fighting for your faction of choice' just means 'pick a tag next to your name'.
There is a world of difference between 'I am faction FRR and I'm fighting against Clan Wolf on the border over world X because my faction decided to fight Wolf over this world' and 'I picked the FRR faction tag, when I drop in matches with every other IS player against every other Clan player and people who picked FRR won more matches than any other IS faction we "won the world" for that turn!'
If FW ceases to be 'I and members of my faction choose to fight this other specific faction over that objective' and becomes 'IS vs Clans all in one big queue like Tukayyid' then, again, you're just playing QP matches just with mixed group/pug players and no matchmaker using FW maps/modes. Just put in a leaderboard (which at that point is all the map becomes) and move forward with FW as maps/modes in QP. Then you can leverage the matchmaker to make it appealing to a bigger part of the existing QP audience even and have a clear pug/group queue split.
Yes. In that context if 'fixes the population issue' by making it like QP.
However QP is not growing the games population by any stretch. We already know it's a losing proposition. Way back when people were expecting FW to be like what PGI originally promised (remember the slide shows and such?) it had no real population issues. That level of game would actually add something to MW:O and draw people in. Turing FW into a slightly glorified set of maps/modes for a QP environment is just reducing FW down to a mode that we can already confirm is failing to grow the game.
That's okay if that's the future expectation of MW:O - just watching the decline. Let's just be honest with it. Originally however the bulk of the population was loyalist, not mercs and it was more than enough to keep the queues hopping. That decline was not because FW wasn't enough like QP - it was because none of the depth of gameplay originally offered was put in.
Your argument does not make any sense. There is literally no difference between now and what I am suggesting other than joined attack/defense lanes. You comparing it to quick play has no validation because it's the exact same thing faction play is doing now. There is not that much difference between your faction picking to attack some clan faction compared to other IS factions also competing for that planet.
You are still trying to conquer planets for your Unit/Faction and nothing has changed about that only you get more competition for it and a much better population to queue up for those attacks/defenses. Tell me again why that's a bad thing? Also how is that different than how it is currently or any different from what you are suggesting? All Faction Play is, is solo/grouped players with no matchmaker using FP maps. Atleast now they would do so without having to wait 15 minutes for a game.
Combining attack/defense lanes does not make Faction Play like Quick Play. If you have a actual reasonable argument for why that's a bad idea than I am all for it but your only argument against it so far is just trying to compare it to quick play which it's not.
Your argument does not make any sense. There is literally no difference between now and what I am suggesting other than joined attack/defense lanes. You comparing it to quick play has no validation because it's the exact same thing faction play is doing now. There is not that much difference between your faction picking to attack some clan faction compared to other IS factions also competing for that planet.
You are still trying to conquer planets for your Unit/Faction and nothing has changed about that only you get more competition for it and a much better population to queue up for those attacks/defenses. Tell me again why that's a bad thing? Also how is that different than how it is currently or any different from what you are suggesting? All Faction Play is, is solo/grouped players with no matchmaker using FP maps. Atleast now they would do so without having to wait 15 minutes for a game.
Combining attack/defense lanes does not make Faction Play like Quick Play. If you have a actual reasonable argument for why that's a bad idea than I am all for it but your only argument against it so far is just trying to compare it to quick play which it's not.
I guess the one question I would have is what is the objective if we combine the faction que's into Clan vs IS, which I'm not opposed to if it will lead to faster and better drops.
I guess the one question I would have is what is the objective if we combine the faction que's into Clan vs IS, which I'm not opposed to if it will lead to faster and better drops.
The same as it is now which there clearly isn't much of a objective. Take planets for what that's worth. I would love there to be things to accomplish but I don't think Faction Play is going to get much of a upgrade at this point and everything else is just wishful thinking.
Under the assumption that PGI is not going to progress much further with Faction Play all combining the population into IS vs Clan does is take what Faction Play currently is under a more realistic population spread.
Your argument does not make any sense. There is literally no difference between now and what I am suggesting other than joined attack/defense lanes. You comparing it to quick play has no validation because it's the exact same thing faction play is doing now. There is not that much difference between your faction picking to attack some clan faction compared to other IS factions also competing for that planet.
You are still trying to conquer planets for your Unit/Faction and nothing has changed about that only you get more competition for it and a much better population to queue up for those attacks/defenses. Tell me again why that's a bad thing? Also how is that different than how it is currently or any different from what you are suggesting? All Faction Play is, is solo/grouped players with no matchmaker using FP maps. Atleast now they would do so without having to wait 15 minutes for a game.
Combining attack/defense lanes does not make Faction Play like Quick Play. If you have a actual reasonable argument for why that's a bad idea than I am all for it but your only argument against it so far is just trying to compare it to quick play which it's not.
I think you were missing the point.
What distinguishes Kurita from say, Liao? I mean yes, they'll be fighting together, but it's just going to be a weaker variation with 6 Houses vs 4 Clans. There's no faction specific benefit as the only borders that would matter be all on the northern fronts. There no IS or IS or Clan vs Clan to be had, and for some people, Invasion is kinda like QP with respawns.
I get the entire bucket needing to improve, but the goal for individual factions are lost... and it's closer to QP in terms of purpose than anything else.
What distinguishes Kurita from say, Liao? I mean yes, they'll be fighting together, but it's just going to be a weaker variation with 6 Houses vs 4 Clans. There's no faction specific benefit as the only borders that would matter be all on the northern fronts. There no IS or IS or Clan vs Clan to be had, and for some people, Invasion is kinda like QP with respawns.
I get the entire bucket needing to improve, but the goal for individual factions are lost... and it's closer to QP in terms of purpose than anything else.
What point. That faction's alignment of planets is more important than faster games and better population management? Last I checked nothing is really distinguishing a lot of Factions right now including Kurita because a lot of the time they don't have the population anymore to find games on a regular basis. What's the point of Faction borders if you don't have the people to attack planets or even defend them properly.
Borders aren't the only thing that can define a faction and although I too would prefer to keep them, I'd much rather be getting games on a regular basis and not have to wait 15 minutes for them either. Also if you read my original post I also suggested that PGI add in regular events where Clan's fight Clan and IS fights IS.
Also what goal do Factions honestly have? Clan's have that whole Terra thing and they can still accomplish that otherwise all that happens in the gamemode is Units fighting other Units and pug players for control over planets, usually by Merc units that don't have any faction loyalty anyways.
What point. That faction's alignment of planets is more important than faster games and better population management? Last I checked nothing is really distinguishing a lot of Factions right now including Kurita because a lot of the time they don't have the population anymore to find games on a regular basis. What's the point of Faction borders if you don't have the people to attack planets or even defend them properly.
Borders aren't the only thing that can define a faction and although I too would prefer to keep them, I'd much rather be getting games on a regular basis and not have to wait 15 minutes for them either. Also if you read my original post I also suggested that PGI add in regular events where Clan's fight Clan and IS fights IS.
Also what goal do Factions honestly have? Clan's have that whole Terra thing and they can still accomplish that otherwise all that happens in the gamemode is Units fighting other Units and pug players for control over planets, usually by Merc units that don't have any faction loyalty anyways.
You're hitting the crux of it and that you don't get the difference sort of is the point as to why almost everyone left in FW is a merc and really, only the total suckers are loyalists.
There *should* be a huge point to faction membership. It *should* be the whole point of FW. When FW was pitched and we were first playing FW that *was* the point. That's a huge part of why participation in FW was higher, the promise of what it was supposed to be.
Right now though it's not. We all sorta realized how shallow and pointless it was, how irrelevant faction membership was and how vastly better the rewards and opportunities for playing as a merc was and how steep and pointless the penalties for being a loyalist were. So everyone who wasn't there to just play FW pretty much like QP left. Either quit FW or just left MWO. Thousands of players, no hyperbole there. There's still some diehards, pretty much every remaining loyalist unit player, who still wants FW to work and puts in a lot of effort into still carving something like what was promised out of the pile of **** that we have.
Axing even the potential of that to make FW work like QP, which to be clear is absolutely exactly what you're talking about, ends even the potential for that. It's saying 'this isn't going to ever be better so let's just make it like QP'.
If there is no autonomy for a faction then it isn't a faction. If the loyalists for House Davion are not in control of Davions borders and what the people in Davion do then Davion isn't a faction, it's just a tag you use when playing in a QP environment.
That you don't understand this argument is, in a way, the crux of it.
What I, and a lot of people, want out of FW is more faction identity and control and depth. Not less. There is almost none left save for voting for fronts and that win or lose my faction controls my little segment of the map. If you remove that as well then faction membership is less relevant than picking red/blue/yellow team in Pokemon GO.
What you're proposing is a mercy killing, not fixing FW. It's the acceptance that it's never going to be anything like what it was supposed to be, just new maps/modes for a QP environment with a sort of leaderboard 'faction membership' side.
What point. That faction's alignment of planets is more important than faster games and better population management? Last I checked nothing is really distinguishing a lot of Factions right now including Kurita because a lot of the time they don't have the population anymore to find games on a regular basis. What's the point of Faction borders if you don't have the people to attack planets or even defend them properly.
Borders aren't the only thing that can define a faction and although I too would prefer to keep them, I'd much rather be getting games on a regular basis and not have to wait 15 minutes for them either. Also if you read my original post I also suggested that PGI add in regular events where Clan's fight Clan and IS fights IS.
Also what goal do Factions honestly have? Clan's have that whole Terra thing and they can still accomplish that otherwise all that happens in the gamemode is Units fighting other Units and pug players for control over planets, usually by Merc units that don't have any faction loyalty anyways.
Before I get to the crux of the problem... it is literally not inconceivable to just "create" Clan vs IS in the pub queues. Enforce restrictions (other MM rules be damned) and then it's done. It's not that complicated.
The core issue with FW/CW is really purpose. Getting a planet means what again? MC that doesn't matter and a leaderboard that has no real meaning outside of the games where some are getting matches with skittles?
For being in a faction, there should be something to do.. like even a base concept like faction specific rewards like a special variant (mostly a C-bills+loyalty bonus) or discounts to a faction favored chassis. Right now, it's mostly generic rewards (mechbay, a medallion @ rank 15).
If you look at the rewards system as a whole for FW, PGI is assuming (wrongly) that people will just jump to the next faction while just getting towards the next rank 20. That's just not Faction Loyalty is supposed to work.
There's not even a momentum system that dynamically changes the conditions of the battlefield... whether it be differences in tonnage limits (it's just a global variable) or even different modes.
Really, the core issue is that there's no variation. It used to be mindblowingly boring when it was just Invasion... Counter Attack wasn't much of an improvement... it just changed the condition into straight QP with 3 respawns. I know people got into Scouting a little bit... but at least it was different and understandably so (of course not everyone enjoys it, but whatever).
In a game where if you are doing the same poop, different day mentality... then you can see why the queues are what they are. Heck, I even describe a system that mitigates the skittles problems (with noone giving a damn about it). The reality is that when a mode is unenjoyable for whatever reason... you're supposed to aim to fix it. You're not supposed to put on more bandaids on the wound. You need to operate on it. Buckets will not fix interest. It just changes your expectations to less and less until it's irrelevant.
I want more people playing FW like the next guy, but you cannot be so shortsighted and see how fundamentally the root design decisions are killing FW at its core. Making the mode fun requires actual effort and do you honestly think people will come back when the buckets are changed?
You have to be honest with yourself. There was TONS of FW activity in Phase 1. PGI simply didn't capitalize it in Phase 2 and most certainly Phase 3... to the point where it's not even a viable option. It's certainly not a population issue if the mode isn't designed well.
Alright this will be my last post on this subject. Putting the factions together to make it IS vs Clan in no possible way makes it anything remotely like Quick Play. It is exactly the SAME gamemode as it is currently only with shared attack/defense lanes which is sorely needed to get quicker games and make sure games are actually available for everybody.
I don't care what "Should" be in the gamemode because that is not what I am discussing. There are lots of things that should be in the gamemode to make it more playable but I am not discussing that. I am discussing taking a struggling gamemode with a very limited population and condensing that population into IS vs Clan instead of separated between 10 different factions.
You DON'T need to have borders to make factions worth something and those borders are not worth keeping a limited population spread between 10 different factions where some factions can barely get any games. Factions are already pointless and they are becoming even more pointless when factions can't even get any games at all. Can't expand their borders, can't defend their borders because nobody is attacking it. As much as the borders define a factions progress they aren't worth 15 minute queue times where most people struggle to even get a game and they aren't the defining characteristic of a faction.
I am being realistic about this gamemode, not playing to what I want it to be because I know it's not going to be anything more than what it currently is and as such if it stays as it currently is than it's doomed. At the very least people should be-able to get quicker games or even games at all rather than cling to something as trivial as faction borders.
Eh, I don't think they assume people will be faction hopping - they're expecting people to stay with factions, which is why the rewards are so much greater than the Mercenary track, which is designed to hop factions.
The difficulty I see with Faction Play is that PGI has been busy putting out fires and trying to balance game modes so much that the fuller-fledged
I remember in Beta 1, it was awesome to have your unit be the only reason a faction was still standing and holding its territory (you're welcome, House Marik; you're welcome.) And I poured every bit of time I could spare into First Tukayyid. But while the balance has gotten better, and there's been progress in other areas, the final phase of faction warfare hasn't been implemented. This is a reasonable thing that a company might do, because providing significant rewards for a game mode that turns out to favor one faction over the others will breed tons of discontent - particularly here (how much horse crap has been shoveled out onto these forums about how PGI favors this or that faction, or that Clan 'mechs are "supposed" to be better than the Inner Sphere?) For whatever reason (and I won't accept "incompetence" unless you can provide this forum with your own CV including successfully developed games of this type and complexity,) they haven't been setting up that long-range goal.
That's important, because "yay, we saved Marik!" only gets you so far when you know Marik is just a blotch on a map whose capital world can never fall. "Yay, lets conquer the Inner Sphere - to Holy Terra!" only holds so much meaning when reaching Terra doesn't actually do anything. It was fun for a while, which is why you had so much activity early on, but the luster wore off after a bit, and low population - combined with the problematic implementation of planned features like faction loyalists controlling where attacks took place - made matches harder to come by, which made faction play less attractive, making matches harder to come by... and so it goes.
The idea that PGI has "ignored" faction play "for three years" is false to the point of absurdity. The same people who shout this insane claim also screeched to high heaven about the way loyalist voting was implemented - just for example. It is true that development of end-game Faction Play has been slow; it's nearly as easy for any fair-minded person to come up with reasonable explanations of why that might be (while acknowledging that the situation isn't good,) as it is for a perpetually angry person top generate conspiracy theories and hurl insults. But the truth is that we aren't privy to the internal decision-making processes of the company, nor should we be.
Consolidating the buckets is a reasonable first step - though it is not a solution. It is reasonable for a company who wants to avoid missteps to start the process of fixing Faction Play by eliminating confounding variables and reducing those frustrations that are being caused solely by low populations. It is also true that this step is only useful as a precursor to making significant changes to the game mode. PGI knows this; they explained why they were focusing on this in that Town Hall. They're not done with making changes, and they're not done soliciting advice from the player base. Yet in the interim, they're not going to fracture an already small playing population, or likely make any drastic changes to the game - nor will consolidating the sub-factions fix the issue.
Eh, I don't think they assume people will be faction hopping - they're expecting people to stay with factions, which is why the rewards are so much greater than the Mercenary track, which is designed to hop factions.
The problem is that once you reach Rank 20... what else matters? The current answer is "nothing".
Quote
The difficulty I see with Faction Play is that PGI has been busy putting out fires and trying to balance game modes so much that the fuller-fledged
You're missing text here.
Quote
I remember in Beta 1, it was awesome to have your unit be the only reason a faction was still standing and holding its territory (you're welcome, House Marik; you're welcome.) And I poured every bit of time I could spare into First Tukayyid. But while the balance has gotten better, and there's been progress in other areas, the final phase of faction warfare hasn't been implemented. This is a reasonable thing that a company might do, because providing significant rewards for a game mode that turns out to favor one faction over the others will breed tons of discontent - particularly here (how much horse crap has been shoveled out onto these forums about how PGI favors this or that faction, or that Clan 'mechs are "supposed" to be better than the Inner Sphere?) For whatever reason (and I won't accept "incompetence" unless you can provide this forum with your own CV including successfully developed games of this type and complexity,) they haven't been setting up that long-range goal.
I would actually disagree here. The fact that PGI removed the Beta tag (let alone referencing Phases) means they felt for the most part it was "complete".
Surprisingly, the answer is incompetence. I already cite night and day issues with balance, but that's not the discussion here.
Consider Phase 2. What did PGI honestly add on debut? Take your time. You're not going to have an answer.
Quote
That's important, because "yay, we saved Marik!" only gets you so far when you know Marik is just a blotch on a map whose capital world can never fall. "Yay, lets conquer the Inner Sphere - to Holy Terra!" only holds so much meaning when reaching Terra doesn't actually do anything. It was fun for a while, which is why you had so much activity early on, but the luster wore off after a bit, and low population - combined with the problematic implementation of planned features like faction loyalists controlling where attacks took place - made matches harder to come by, which made faction play less attractive, making matches harder to come by... and so it goes.
Well, it's PGI's job to set the goals... not the players. The players in their own mind will set goals (just like 3rd party leagues) but for something PGI is designing... they literally have to define some sort of goal... otherwise there is no purpose.
While voting is there to minimize the # of lanes you have to deal with (some factions have greater lane problems than others), it doesn't help if you allow voting in a faction when you're not actually participating in FW. If the Kurita Loyalists pick Smoke Jaguar despite the fact that they haven't played or even seeing how inactive they were... well, why are they even getting to vote? I'm not saying Mercs should have full say, but the point of picking the lane is to get the action you want. That's not even accomplished correctly as currently constituted!
Quote
The idea that PGI has "ignored" faction play "for three years" is false to the point of absurdity. The same people who shout this insane claim also screeched to high heaven about the way loyalist voting was implemented - just for example. It is true that development of end-game Faction Play has been slow; it's nearly as easy for any fair-minded person to come up with reasonable explanations of why that might be (while acknowledging that the situation isn't good,) as it is for a perpetually angry person top generate conspiracy theories and hurl insults. But the truth is that we aren't privy to the internal decision-making processes of the company, nor should we be.
It's not false at all. The primary mode as currently constituted is still more or less what we've done since Day 1. Apparently, it's acceptable according to PGI. The rest of us expecting something built ontop of what Phase 1 didn't get anything of that sort (outside of a Long Tom, which is already gamebreaking). There's no core understanding of how players do decision making... whether it is getting set up by a firing line or getting funneled into really bad corridors of fail.
There's still little to no depth on how units would spend money. I mean, yea, the victors can spend some millions of C-bills to add in more "slices" to the attack pie... but that's it. Wow... immersion complete!
Quote
Consolidating the buckets is a reasonable first step - though it is not a solution. It is reasonable for a company who wants to avoid missteps to start the process of fixing Faction Play by eliminating confounding variables and reducing those frustrations that are being caused solely by low populations. It is also true that this step is only useful as a precursor to making significant changes to the game mode. PGI knows this; they explained why they were focusing on this in that Town Hall. They're not done with making changes, and they're not done soliciting advice from the player base. Yet in the interim, they're not going to fracture an already small playing population, or likely make any drastic changes to the game - nor will consolidating the sub-factions fix the issue.
You have to actually have a core plan in fixing FW... and to date we have not seen any of that. Yet prior to Phase 2 and Phase 3, many have been hoping some major improvements and additions to fundamentally mediocre design in Phase 1 and to see them squander that amount of time to do what again... fix the buckets?
So many of the changes could have been done at a much faster pace, but that's not even the issue... it's the care or lack thereof that even the first horror mistakes/errors of Phase 3 was effing dropdeck saving (and was hotfixed into something worse and still unfixed at that time). I don't have any issues giving time for people to "get it right", but to say that was time well spent... I would emphatically disagree.
Alright this will be my last post on this subject. Putting the factions together to make it IS vs Clan in no possible way makes it anything remotely like Quick Play. It is exactly the SAME gamemode as it is currently only with shared attack/defense lanes which is sorely needed to get quicker games and make sure games are actually available for everybody.
I don't care what "Should" be in the gamemode because that is not what I am discussing. There are lots of things that should be in the gamemode to make it more playable but I am not discussing that. I am discussing taking a struggling gamemode with a very limited population and condensing that population into IS vs Clan instead of separated between 10 different factions.
You DON'T need to have borders to make factions worth something and those borders are not worth keeping a limited population spread between 10 different factions where some factions can barely get any games. Factions are already pointless and they are becoming even more pointless when factions can't even get any games at all. Can't expand their borders, can't defend their borders because nobody is attacking it. As much as the borders define a factions progress they aren't worth 15 minute queue times where most people struggle to even get a game and they aren't the defining characteristic of a faction.
I am being realistic about this gamemode, not playing to what I want it to be because I know it's not going to be anything more than what it currently is and as such if it stays as it currently is than it's doomed. At the very least people should be-able to get quicker games or even games at all rather than cling to something as trivial as faction borders.
Which is more or less what I'm getting at -
What we have is ****. With a declining population. Eliminating even the shadow of something more (faction identity as something other than the tag you picked) isn't going to make people flock to FW. The most it will do is make the few people who play still get matches a bit quicker at the cost of most of the people who are loyalists still or holding out hope of FW being something more than what it is quitting.
So shrinking an already tiny population a bit more while concentrating it to a single queue that's just IS v Clan while doing nothing to give anyone a reason to play it and certainly not drawing anyone back.
Add a MM, make it a leaderboard and just have it be a mode in pug/premade queues and you'll get more drops if that's the goal. You'll get the QP population integrated into it and drop more quickly. If the goal is to make FW something more people want to play and that adds people to the game (or brings them back at least) then it's going to involve adding content to the game not eliminating what slivers of content it already has.
The same as it is now which there clearly isn't much of a objective. Take planets for what that's worth. I would love there to be things to accomplish but I don't think Faction Play is going to get much of a upgrade at this point and everything else is just wishful thinking.
Under the assumption that PGI is not going to progress much further with Faction Play all combining the population into IS vs Clan does is take what Faction Play currently is under a more realistic population spread.
Well we were all told Phase 3 was "the big thing, and that's it".
When really it was Phase 2.5 and a step in a backward direction at that. It really didn't deliver anything other than a new game mode, which no-one plays outside of an event because the population was killed off in Phase 3 due to how poor it was, how little it actually delivered and how **** long tom is etc etc.
Edited by justcallme A S H, 28 August 2016 - 03:17 PM.
You have to actually have a core plan in fixing FW... and to date we have not seen any of that. Yet prior to Phase 2 and Phase 3, many have been hoping some major improvements and additions to fundamentally mediocre design in Phase 1 and to see them squander that amount of time to do what again... fix the buckets?
So many of the changes could have been done at a much faster pace, but that's not even the issue... it's the care or lack thereof that even the first horror mistakes/errors of Phase 3 was effing dropdeck saving (and was hotfixed into something worse and still unfixed at that time). I don't have any issues giving time for people to "get it right", but to say that was time well spent... I would emphatically disagree.
Fixed the missing text - thanks for pointing that out. I often edit my posts for composition and clarity, and occasionally... something gets left out.
My issue isn't with the idea that Faction Play is in a bad place right now; it certainly is! That's a reasonable conclusion from evidence. Some of that evidence is weak, as data goes, but it's still enough to support that conclusion pretty strongly. It's okay to be frustrated - but frustration is a fact about me, not about the game. When I start to use my frustration as a basis for evaluating facts, I'm in the wrong, even if my conclusions are correct - bad reasoning can come to the right conclusion, but only accidentally. This isn't aimed at you, or any specific person. It's aimed at a mood; at a certain forum crowd - but if you see yourself in these posts, you might want to sit down and ask yourself some hard questions.
So, PGI hasn't been "ignoring" Faction Play - they've made repeated adjustments based on faction play results (remember all those sweet, sweet Clanner tears after First (and Second) Tukayyid? They've also made several important changes to how the maps are designed to play, such as the generator changes. Development has been slow; I mean, the game mode hasn't been scrapped and revamped, and the long-term reasons to play haven't even arrived yet - but if that's your yardstick for "ignoring" something...
But really, it comes down to whether or not we're willing to accept contrary reasoning and be strict about facts, or whether we just want to feel self-righteous about it all. If we insist on interpreting every single thing about the game's development as a disaster in the making, we're really not interested in facts, and no amount of them - or arguments based on them - will persuade us. We have to be careful with facts, or our logic just ends up taking us where we wanted to go anyway.
Carping and harping and endlessly complaining that we weren't allowed to dictate the conversation in a forum that we neither own nor control is a case in point. Everyone was told why they were addressing buckets first. It's a reasonable way to do it; it doesn't have to be the only way. But every single thread about anything FP related contains the same affronted digs about buckets. "Hurr, hurr, Russ thinks fixing buckets will fix faction play! I'm so much smarter than Russ!" We already know they plan to have more town halls on actual gameplay, and that buckets was just the preliminary. It's easy to see why streamlining buckets so they know how well their mechanical fixes are being received is a reasonable starting point - unless you're just interested in being mad.
In the end, only you can choose how you approach this issue - as an offended adolescent, or an adult. Again, this isn't aimed at you, but at the company you may be starting to keep. It's fine to have mature disagreements about the game, but when dissatisfaction with PGI becomes the basis for evaluating new information, rather than a conclusion based on those facts, you've left the path of reason - and adulthood.
Fixed the missing text - thanks for pointing that out. I often edit my posts for composition and clarity, and occasionally... something gets left out.
My issue isn't with the idea that Faction Play is in a bad place right now; it certainly is! That's a reasonable conclusion from evidence. Some of that evidence is weak, as data goes, but it's still enough to support that conclusion pretty strongly. It's okay to be frustrated - but frustration is a fact about me, not about the game. When I start to use my frustration as a basis for evaluating facts, I'm in the wrong, even if my conclusions are correct - bad reasoning can come to the right conclusion, but only accidentally. This isn't aimed at you, or any specific person. It's aimed at a mood; at a certain forum crowd - but if you see yourself in these posts, you might want to sit down and ask yourself some hard questions.
So, PGI hasn't been "ignoring" Faction Play - they've made repeated adjustments based on faction play results (remember all those sweet, sweet Clanner tears after First (and Second) Tukayyid? They've also made several important changes to how the maps are designed to play, such as the generator changes. Development has been slow; I mean, the game mode hasn't been scrapped and revamped, and the long-term reasons to play haven't even arrived yet - but if that's your yardstick for "ignoring" something...
But really, it comes down to whether or not we're willing to accept contrary reasoning and be strict about facts, or whether we just want to feel self-righteous about it all. If we insist on interpreting every single thing about the game's development as a disaster in the making, we're really not interested in facts, and no amount of them - or arguments based on them - will persuade us. We have to be careful with facts, or our logic just ends up taking us where we wanted to go anyway.
Carping and harping and endlessly complaining that we weren't allowed to dictate the conversation in a forum that we neither own nor control is a case in point. Everyone was told why they were addressing buckets first. It's a reasonable way to do it; it doesn't have to be the only way. But every single thread about anything FP related contains the same affronted digs about buckets. "Hurr, hurr, Russ thinks fixing buckets will fix faction play! I'm so much smarter than Russ!" We already know they plan to have more town halls on actual gameplay, and that buckets was just the preliminary. It's easy to see why streamlining buckets so they know how well their mechanical fixes are being received is a reasonable starting point - unless you're just interested in being mad.
In the end, only you can choose how you approach this issue - as an offended adolescent, or an adult. Again, this isn't aimed at you, but at the company you may be starting to keep. It's fine to have mature disagreements about the game, but when dissatisfaction with PGI becomes the basis for evaluating new information, rather than a conclusion based on those facts, you've left the path of reason - and adulthood.
So you've done exactly what you're talking about in your approach to peoples criticism of FW and the failures associated with it. I was going to paste in a link to the original pitch on Community Warfare as one of the Pillars of game development and then the slideshow released at the event PGI held about what CW was going to be but I think we're all familiar with those.
Do you remember '90 days after open beta'?
To say that development of CW (now FW) has been 'slow' is incredibly, absurdly disingenuous. If you even go beyond the fact that '90 days after open beta' was literally a lie as it was later stated they didn't even start it until years after that it's now been out for *years*. The complaints and concerns about CW/FW and the voiding of player population hasn't been confusing or inconsistent or unclear. We got promised something that wasn't delivered. That we've now got PGI willing to talk to us about 'buckets', which absolutely is not and never was the real issue (if there was game worth playing in FW people would be playing it and population problems would solve themselves) isn't a sign of their attention or focus. That they didn't even understand the problem (and population exodus) associated with Long Tom is, to be blunt, the sort of incompetence I've never seen at any point in anyone in my professional life.
Many of us used to be big proponents of MW:O and PGI. Go back years and you'll see me White Knighting all over the forums on a number of topics. However reality is reality and the reality is that PGI has failed dramatically at delivering CW/FW and has, in every player facing conversation on the topic, shown the sort of obliviousness to consumer response to their product that if I saw someone in an SNL skit playing at being a business person that oblivious to someones problems with their product I'd barely give it a chuckle because it would be too over-the-top incompetent.
I say this as someone who was willing to take a shot at the IW on the prior PTS and argued in favor of 'ghost range' if only to really give the mechanics a shot. I'm happy with and willing to work with ED. Faction Warfare however is absolutely NOT what was promised and is an expression of failure and incompetence. There's little save the artwork and mechs themselves that anyone looks at in MW:O and says 'PGI got that right'. Instead we've got a consistent response of 'that's terrible'. Long Tom is so terrible it's made the Scouting Queue, which should help offset problems with low population by giving players a 4v4 environment to play in, a ghost town because if anyone does Scout it empties invasion queue.
To say that calling PGI incompetent or being critical of the consistent failures PGI has had in providing the product *they promised* is childish would be to imply it wasn't true. It's absolutely true, CW/FW has been handled in a way that is polite to only call incompetent and the history of development PGI has had on MW:O provides absolutely no justification for believing anything except the aesthetics of the next mech pack are likely to be poorly done and a minimum viable product.
I have a number of alpha/beta games I play on steam that are more 'feature complete' than MWO is at a fraction the development time.
Competent leadership involves competent time management and competent turnover on identifying and resolving critical issues. There is no history or basis for claiming competent leadership in how FW/CW has been, at any point, competently managed. There is absolutely no historical basis for believing that PGI is going to productively use any player feedback they get on FW as they have been actively oblivious to player feedback for every single change made over years of FW as the population as dwindled to the point where large stretches of time have literally no matches dropping. It's a failure as a byproduct of failed development and leadership by PGI.
Recognizing that isn't childish. It's honest. It's childish to pretend that PGIs development of FW will at some undisclosed point in the future and for some undisclosed reason be contrary to the failures that have brought us to this point.
I'm afraid reducing buckets isn't the first step, it's the last. Russ was uncharacteristically clear; they will reduce the queues (which he views as a "big" fix) and then "iterate" over what's already there. This is the retirement home for FW to await its slow demise.
What will follow is nothing major.
Reasonable is to expect that what was billed as a "Round Table" would in fact be a Round Table and not the chaired meeting that announced the solution before the discussion. Reasonable for a game mode with multiple problems would be to identify those problems, prioritize them and then come up a plan. But the one problem and one "solution" were given before hand in a over five minute browbeating in which the blindsided participants were warned not to deviate from buckets. Listen to it; let sink in what is happening.
FW is being retired. One big "push" then iterate. PGI clearly has no intention of any sweeping revitalization of FW.
I notice some here have a nostalgic view on Phase 1. They've forgotten that CW was an abject failure on release. Player participation nose dived from the start. The forums lit up. By the time of Tukayyid it was not much more popular than in May 2016 prior to Phase 3. Even DURING the Tukayyid (1) Event wait times could be over 30 minutes! Got the screenshot. The only thing that got it off the deathbed was a few events.
Some say they don't want a QP-like mode in FW. But it was the mode itself (not lack of immersion or any one of the other problems) that drove players away. There's 90% who just don't like the respawning, 96 mech, chokepoint slaughterhouse that is "Invasion" and later "Counter-Attack." Tweaks like dropship lasers and elevated spawn points didn't fix spawn camping for the misguided effort that PGI put into those. In fact, not ONE of the major problems with Invasion/CA has been fixed. And until recently no new modes were brought in to appeal to the lost population.
Bringing in the Scout mode was probably the first thing in a year and half they actually got right. New modes, variety. Sure, maybe not the greatest mode. There's 90% who don't like Scout, but it's not the same 90%. I'd play Scout all the time if there were matches to be had. At least they had the right idea. Variety in modes, maps and play. One would hope that would be followed by more modes and more elements of immersion.
Not gonna happen.
I dunno. Sure sounds like PGI is giving up on the one thing that could save MWO from an endless stream of mech packs. Then again, based on past performance, I doubt they have the resources or talent to create a viable FW.
Fixed the missing text - thanks for pointing that out. I often edit my posts for composition and clarity, and occasionally... something gets left out.
My issue isn't with the idea that Faction Play is in a bad place right now; it certainly is! That's a reasonable conclusion from evidence. Some of that evidence is weak, as data goes, but it's still enough to support that conclusion pretty strongly. It's okay to be frustrated - but frustration is a fact about me, not about the game. When I start to use my frustration as a basis for evaluating facts, I'm in the wrong, even if my conclusions are correct - bad reasoning can come to the right conclusion, but only accidentally. This isn't aimed at you, or any specific person. It's aimed at a mood; at a certain forum crowd - but if you see yourself in these posts, you might want to sit down and ask yourself some hard questions.
I'm not mixing in my disappointment with objective reasoning. Every single time I have to debate facts, I put it into the proper context, because it doesn't take much to screw up. Mind you a lot of the emotional comments are real especially in a debate... but facts are facts. You simply just can't ignore the implications and results of them as I have to experience it every single time I do play this awful mode.
Quote
So, PGI hasn't been "ignoring" Faction Play - they've made repeated adjustments based on faction play results (remember all those sweet, sweet Clanner tears after First (and Second) Tukayyid? They've also made several important changes to how the maps are designed to play, such as the generator changes. Development has been slow; I mean, the game mode hasn't been scrapped and revamped, and the long-term reasons to play haven't even arrived yet - but if that's your yardstick for "ignoring" something...
But really, it comes down to whether or not we're willing to accept contrary reasoning and be strict about facts, or whether we just want to feel self-righteous about it all. If we insist on interpreting every single thing about the game's development as a disaster in the making, we're really not interested in facts, and no amount of them - or arguments based on them - will persuade us. We have to be careful with facts, or our logic just ends up taking us where we wanted to go anyway.
I would be amusing if it were about being self-righteous. It's not. It's being echoed around practically many units and players... the decision making of things (like the MWOWC tourney), let alone the overreaction of things (usually in the form of good/bad quirking on either end).
In the case of the generators being moved, I do NOT remember any PGI statement on WHY they had to be moved. The localization of the Omega gens near Omega was one of the worst thing I've seen. The bigger problem though is that there isn't any randomization of placement - a reason to scout the gen locations (they are not supposed to be in fixed locations on the map). I don't care too much about the added protection (it was necessary defensively to have a mech be able to physically block them) but then again, there's that one gen in Emerald Taiga that can be sniped from a distance. Why that is allowed is beyond me (and still unfixed AFAIK).
Quote
Carping and harping and endlessly complaining that we weren't allowed to dictate the conversation in a forum that we neither own nor control is a case in point. Everyone was told why they were addressing buckets first. It's a reasonable way to do it; it doesn't have to be the only way. But every single thread about anything FP related contains the same affronted digs about buckets. "Hurr, hurr, Russ thinks fixing buckets will fix faction play! I'm so much smarter than Russ!" We already know they plan to have more town halls on actual gameplay, and that buckets was just the preliminary. It's easy to see why streamlining buckets so they know how well their mechanical fixes are being received is a reasonable starting point - unless you're just interested in being mad.
Isn't there supposed to be some sort of monthly round tables for that? We may be missing one this very month at the going rate.
The problem is that PGI is unable to assess the community's issues about FW... .whether it be impromptu drops/discussions with other units and players directly or just using the community manager to gather said info (which to date, I don't remember a specific FW discussion thread started by her).
There's literally NO plan set forth by PGI since the original FW documents for Phase 1... all of the changes since then are mostly reactionary, and they'll let you know at the last moment. These are conducive to more fundamental problems. Usually people let you know the details of what they are planning AHEAD of time and unless you have a good track record for good surprises (and PGI is not one of them), then it appears at least to the rest of us that "the plan that was defined at some point" was never changed, altered, or tweaked to be improved by player input and thus leaving us to such wonderful patches like the minimap debacle. It's better to be proactive than to be reactive, and the thing is even when PGI was being proactive, they really did not take much feedback if at all to heart. That may have changed "a little" since the recent PTS (still not liking any of it because of fundamental flaws in understanding the game - I've even posted there specifically about it) but that's still far and few in between for PGI. If PGI was doing things consistently well, there's very little reason to question them. However, since they are not... everyone and their friends will question PGI... whether you agree with that assessment or not.
Quote
In the end, only you can choose how you approach this issue - as an offended adolescent, or an adult. Again, this isn't aimed at you, but at the company you may be starting to keep. It's fine to have mature disagreements about the game, but when dissatisfaction with PGI becomes the basis for evaluating new information, rather than a conclusion based on those facts, you've left the path of reason - and adulthood.
If you think it's about being an adult, that's silly.
One of things about forums and feedback is really about how you react. If legitimate criticism makes another person feel "butthurt", then is there any nicer way of saying it? Sometimes the truth hurts. That's sad, but true. The one thing is if the constructive criticism is true and you keep repeating those core criticisms... then maybe there is something unresolved. I know I've gotten plenty of it through my time here and on the Internets. It's just reality. The thing is... is whether you accept it and/or address it. It only gets worse when you deny it. People hound on this as a natural thing... despite whether or not it is good or bad. PGI to date has not been capable of this... Russ doesn't retweet anything that's legitimately critical, which is fine... it's his Twitter. However, people will remember what he has said, and will be referencing his twitter when things promised has not come to pass.
Just ask yourself this... if we had a Tukayyid 3 with the current state of FW... how well do you think it would be received... especially if the Long Tom was online?
I'm not here to say "PGI is dumb and will be be dumb forever", but I'm saying... "here's a problem, are you willing to properly address it or what?" I consistently hear a "no" (in the form of no plan) and whether PGI cares or not is not something that matters these days. The community that plays FW.. or specifically those that don't play it are the telltale sign. There is no other better verification of success or failure by the population that shows up (that doesn't involve an event). It shouldn't even have to be said.
The crux of the problem is whether or not PGI is "man enough" to accept that their designs and implementations are flawed, and they are kidding themselves if they thing merging the buckets is the only solution. The only way to fix it is to start from the fundamental core problems and reworking them. After that, they have to continue to build on said foundation to give it a long term purpose and goal... that isn't simply getting to Rank 20 and planets that don't really have a real purpose.
Only until then, is when FW has a chance of succeeding. There's simply no quick fix for it. The plan (if that will ever come out publicly for discussion) is what determines whether FW will ever succeed.
2
MischiefSC, on 27 August 2016 - 09:34 PM, said:
