17 replies to this topic

[Dredger]

TL;DR starts here. If you want further explanation of each point, scroll down.

• Make Quick Play completely different from Faction Warfare
  
• Remove 'Seasons' and stop resetting the map. Whatever will be, will be.
  
• Add consequences. If a weapon is destroyed, it's gone and has to be repurchased.
  
• Destroyed mechs are kept, but are naked.
  
• Add more player interaction and (micro)management for groups.
  
• Add more compelling rewards.
  
• Allow players to affect the game world.
  
• Add more variety to mission types so each 'invasion' doesn't feel the same as the last. This post is excellent: http://mwomercs.com/...well-ever-need/
  
• Give players a reason to care.

Quick Play:

Right now Quick Play is the exact same 12-man squad shooter as Faction Warfare. However, it has the benefit of being easier to get a match, and the match types are more varied (sadly). That has to change. I'm not saying to make Quick Play miserable, but that it cannot continue to be a clone of FW. Currently you have the two massive "buckets" of Quick Play and Faction Warfare competing for the exact same players looking for the exact same experience. I suggested once that QP should become an arena mode (AKA Solaris VII), though I am sure there are other possible ways to make it fun AND different.

No More Seasons:

It's awful hard to become invested in a game if you don't feel like you are getting anywhere. This is especially true when all of your progress is reset after x-number of months. That has to stop. If Faction Warfare is to succeed, the universe has to feel permanent and vulnerable. Players have to feel like their decisions will actually have an impact and last beyond a simple reset date. Let the map play itself out and don't nanny the factions.

Consequences:

There is very little sense of reward when there is little-to-no risk. Right now Faction Warfare is too safe. As soon as a match is done, players receive their mech back in pristine condition regardless of how badly it was mauled. That makes the universe feel fake and safe. If a weapon is destroyed in FW, let the player repurchase the weapon. If a mech is cored, give the player the mech back, but without the engine, weapons, etc. If a mech is badly damaged but not destroyed, let the player pay a repair cost in C-bills. Have pilots fork out the cash to reload their mech's ammo. It doesn't grow on trees after-all. Damage and death should matter, which brings me to my next point.

Rewards:

If you are going to increase the consequences, you have to increase the rewards to match/offset the risk. Currently players get far too little C-bills for their work. If you implement the Consequences listed above, you have a natural credit-sink which will keep the game from being flooded with C-bills. At the same time, players who manage to gain victory with minimal damage will have that much more reward to enjoy. Heck, for victorious teams, maybe randomly give a player a stripped out mech chassis as 'salvage' from the battle. Or maybe a random weapon. Make it feel like an actual victory. I'll outline this more below, but consider rewarding player clans with money proportionate to the number of worlds their faction holds. Good old wartime taxation.

Interaction and Resource Management:

I understand this is not Sim-City. But players need a certain level of involvement and choice-making ability to feel invested. You have a structure that can be used to this end. For each world a given Faction holds, they should receive a mass sum of C-bills (we're talking in the low millions). And by Faction, I mean Parent Faction (Steiner, Davion, Jade Falcon, Ghost Bear, etc.).

The leaders and officers of each Unit or Guild or whatever we're calling them receive the ability to manage the distribution of these C-bills to their members and the upkeep of their Unit.
If a particular Mercenary group really saves a House or Clan Unit's backside, let them give that group a bonus out of their own coffers.

Some examples for credit sinks and management: Setting pilot pay per cycle (increase wages for good pilots, penalize pilots who are causing trouble), Per cycle cost of Mercenary Units, Cost of relocating Unit to new battleground, Cost of reinforcement cards, Upkeep of equipment and hangars, Ammo, Black market intel. This rolls rather nicely into...

The World:

For Faction Warfare to succeed, the world you are creating cannot be flat. It has to have depth and interactivity.

The current map is a good starting point, but it could be so much more if it were given attack lanes similar to a Risk board. Or you can think of it like Star Wars Battlefront. Possession of certain planets opens up attack lanes to other planets. Heck, you could even give some planets mild bonuses (such as a lowered cost for buying Ammo if the Parent Faction controls a planet with a munitions factory).

Also an idea stolen from Battlefront, why not allow Units to use resources to create "Reinforcement Cards"? At the start of each battle, Unit Leaders would have the option to use a Card to give a bonus to their Unit. These bonuses could be as mild as all the Unit mechs receiving a specific quirk (such as decreased energy weapon heat) for that one battle, or a carpet bombing run (Massive one-time-use Airstrike). You could even re-introduce the dreaded LONG TOM as a consumable "Reinforcement Card" that only bombards the area for 2 minutes. Of course, you can't just make the best cards MC-only. All cards would have to be crafted.

Another VERY important part of making the world feel alive and not dead is giving players variety. Nobody wants to play the exact same battle with the exact same objective ad nauseum. Scouting and Invasion modes are a good start, but it could be so much more. This guy has an excellent idea for how to do this. I'm sure he was inspired by the Assault mode of Battlefield 3.
http://mwomercs.com/...well-ever-need/

Conclusion:

Faction Warfare has a ton of potential and is not a complete loss. However, it is dying because there is an identical game-mode that is much easier and more varied already available and thriving (Quick Play). Your players want to care. They want to feel invested, they want to act on this universe and feel the repercussions of their actions. This cannot happen if the universe continues to be carbon-copy battles in a universe that is reset back to ground-zero at the end of every year.

This is the social battleground of this game. Don't be afraid to let your players act upon this universe and shape it. Let them have more choice, more consequences, and more rewards.

Get your players invested. If you succeed in creating a believable, immersive battleground where players can easily band together, you will start to see an increase in both players and profit.

Please feel free to comment or suggest additional ideas.

Edited by Dredger, 16 August 2016 - 02:18 PM.

[Leone]

Dredger, on 16 August 2016 - 02:12 PM, said:

Consequences:

Repair and Rearm did not do us any favours on the new player retention. Do not concur.

Dredger, on 16 August 2016 - 02:12 PM, said:

Rewards:.

I'm in a planet conquering unit, and I must need disagree. Heck I already disagree with the current MC reward system. I honestly don't play for the c-bills, but were I to do so, I'd like a base pay bonus, even on a loss, to help with new player retention. As it is, I feel the victors get monies enough, but its the new player who gets the shaft, and that's the best thing to fix now.

~Leone

Edited by Leone, 16 August 2016 - 04:02 PM.

[Mr Beefy]

Dredger, on 16 August 2016 - 02:12 PM, said:

TL;DR starts here. If you want further explanation of each point, scroll down.

• Make Quick Play completely different from Faction Warfare
  
• Remove 'Seasons' and stop resetting the map. Whatever will be, will be.
  
• Add consequences. If a weapon is destroyed, it's gone and has to be repurchased.
  
• Destroyed mechs are kept, but are naked.
  
• Add more player interaction and (micro)management for groups.
  
• Add more compelling rewards.
  
• Allow players to affect the game world.
  
• Add more variety to mission types so each 'invasion' doesn't feel the same as the last. This post is excellent: http://mwomercs.com/...well-ever-need/
  
• Give players a reason to care.

Quick Play:


Right now Quick Play is the exact same 12-man squad shooter as Faction Warfare. However, it has the benefit of being easier to get a match, and the match types are more varied (sadly). That has to change. I'm not saying to make Quick Play miserable, but that it cannot continue to be a clone of FW. Currently you have the two massive "buckets" of Quick Play and Faction Warfare competing for the exact same players looking for the exact same experience. I suggested once that QP should become an arena mode (AKA Solaris VII), though I am sure there are other possible ways to make it fun AND different.

No More Seasons:

It's awful hard to become invested in a game if you don't feel like you are getting anywhere. This is especially true when all of your progress is reset after x-number of months. That has to stop. If Faction Warfare is to succeed, the universe has to feel permanent and vulnerable. Players have to feel like their decisions will actually have an impact and last beyond a simple reset date. Let the map play itself out and don't nanny the factions.

Consequences:

There is very little sense of reward when there is little-to-no risk. Right now Faction Warfare is too safe. As soon as a match is done, players receive their mech back in pristine condition regardless of how badly it was mauled. That makes the universe feel fake and safe. If a weapon is destroyed in FW, let the player repurchase the weapon. If a mech is cored, give the player the mech back, but without the engine, weapons, etc. If a mech is badly damaged but not destroyed, let the player pay a repair cost in C-bills. Have pilots fork out the cash to reload their mech's ammo. It doesn't grow on trees after-all. Damage and death should matter, which brings me to my next point.

Rewards:

If you are going to increase the consequences, you have to increase the rewards to match/offset the risk. Currently players get far too little C-bills for their work. If you implement the Consequences listed above, you have a natural credit-sink which will keep the game from being flooded with C-bills. At the same time, players who manage to gain victory with minimal damage will have that much more reward to enjoy. Heck, for victorious teams, maybe randomly give a player a stripped out mech chassis as 'salvage' from the battle. Or maybe a random weapon. Make it feel like an actual victory. I'll outline this more below, but consider rewarding player clans with money proportionate to the number of worlds their faction holds. Good old wartime taxation.

Interaction and Resource Management:

I understand this is not Sim-City. But players need a certain level of involvement and choice-making ability to feel invested. You have a structure that can be used to this end. For each world a given Faction holds, they should receive a mass sum of C-bills (we're talking in the low millions). And by Faction, I mean Parent Faction (Steiner, Davion, Jade Falcon, Ghost Bear, etc.).

The leaders and officers of each Unit or Guild or whatever we're calling them receive the ability to manage the distribution of these C-bills to their members and the upkeep of their Unit.
If a particular Mercenary group really saves a House or Clan Unit's backside, let them give that group a bonus out of their own coffers.

Some examples for credit sinks and management: Setting pilot pay per cycle (increase wages for good pilots, penalize pilots who are causing trouble), Per cycle cost of Mercenary Units, Cost of relocating Unit to new battleground, Cost of reinforcement cards, Upkeep of equipment and hangars, Ammo, Black market intel. This rolls rather nicely into...

The World:

For Faction Warfare to succeed, the world you are creating cannot be flat. It has to have depth and interactivity.

The current map is a good starting point, but it could be so much more if it were given attack lanes similar to a Risk board. Or you can think of it like Star Wars Battlefront. Possession of certain planets opens up attack lanes to other planets. Heck, you could even give some planets mild bonuses (such as a lowered cost for buying Ammo if the Parent Faction controls a planet with a munitions factory).

Also an idea stolen from Battlefront, why not allow Units to use resources to create "Reinforcement Cards"? At the start of each battle, Unit Leaders would have the option to use a Card to give a bonus to their Unit. These bonuses could be as mild as all the Unit mechs receiving a specific quirk (such as decreased energy weapon heat) for that one battle, or a carpet bombing run (Massive one-time-use Airstrike). You could even re-introduce the dreaded LONG TOM as a consumable "Reinforcement Card" that only bombards the area for 2 minutes. Of course, you can't just make the best cards MC-only. All cards would have to be crafted.

Another VERY important part of making the world feel alive and not dead is giving players variety. Nobody wants to play the exact same battle with the exact same objective ad nauseum. Scouting and Invasion modes are a good start, but it could be so much more. This guy has an excellent idea for how to do this. I'm sure he was inspired by the Assault mode of Battlefield 3.
http://mwomercs.com/...well-ever-need/

Conclusion:

Faction Warfare has a ton of potential and is not a complete loss. However, it is dying because there is an identical game-mode that is much easier and more varied already available and thriving (Quick Play). Your players want to care. They want to feel invested, they want to act on this universe and feel the repercussions of their actions. This cannot happen if the universe continues to be carbon-copy battles in a universe that is reset back to ground-zero at the end of every year.

This is the social battleground of this game. Don't be afraid to let your players act upon this universe and shape it. Let them have more choice, more consequences, and more rewards.

Get your players invested. If you succeed in creating a believable, immersive battleground where players can easily band together, you will start to see an increase in both players and profit.

Please feel free to comment or suggest additional ideas.

I got as far as your ideas on mechs getting cored out and having to purchase a new engine, etc. Sure this concept might make things more interesting and give a reason for players to care. But with the "Paul econ" and the snails pace earnings and grind in this game....this concept if put into effect would make the "grind" even worse! PGI would have to increase earnings by 50% or better for this to fly...if not, few would endure this.

[Carl Vickers]

Snowballs chance of this happening.

A/ Paulconomy
B/ Wayyyyyyyy too much work for PGI to implement
C/ Mercs rule atm cause it is only slightly less boring than being loyalist
D/ Wayyyyyyy too much work for PGI to implement

I do like the idea though, if it was implemented from the start it may have had a chance, now is way to late.

[Zolaz]

Sorry OP, you are no longer MWO's target audience.

[Mr Beefy]

Not to change the topic.... but ummm yeah.... I just unlocked my supply catches from the event. I got a ermed laser and a LRM10.... this just goes to show how this game and PGI roll's. I mean seriously, what do they charge for a Key? 25MC? 25MC for a ermedlaser.... or a Lrm10? How out of touch are they with the rewards vs. time spent or money spent on this game?

[Carl Vickers]

What you need to do Beefy is work out how much cbills you get for the lurm 10 and then convert to MC, makes it marginally palatable.

[Dredger]

Mr Beefy, on 16 August 2016 - 04:54 PM, said:

I got as far as your ideas on mechs getting cored out and having to purchase a new engine, etc. Sure this concept might make things more interesting and give a reason for players to care. But with the "Paul econ" and the snails pace earnings and grind in this game...

You stopped before getting to the "Rewards" section, where I talk about improving the earning rate of C-bills so players don't get stuck in poverty.

Leone, on 16 August 2016 - 03:58 PM, said:

Repair and Rearm did not do us any favours on the new player retention. Do not concur.

Faction Warfare would be the only mode that features Repair and Rearm. Quick Play would not. Faction Warfare would be for those looking for a more immersive experience while Quick Play would still function as an Instant Action mode.

Zolaz, on 16 August 2016 - 05:25 PM, said:

Sorry OP, you are no longer MWO's target audience.

Funny. What audience are you placing me in, may I ask?

It does strike me as rather depressing that my original clickbait post "MWO gameplay sucks" recieved more views, more positive feedback, and generated more hope than this reformatted and refined version.

[Carl Vickers]

The issue is, Russ wants MWO to be e-sports so dont expect much development for CW, thats why we are not the target audience.

There will be some changes in the near future but after a few years of hoping for change to make this what was promised to be to begin with, most have left the game and are probably not looking back.

Edited by Carl Vickers, 16 August 2016 - 07:34 PM.

[Kael Posavatz]

Leone, on 16 August 2016 - 03:58 PM, said:

Repair and Rearm did not do us any favours on the new player retention.

Repair/rearm was a feature very early in Beta. I'm not sure that what happened then in terms of player retention is applicable now, especially since other games (World of Warships, etc.) has a similar feature and does not seem to be hurting for players.

That said, I have been playing this game for a very long time. I have amassed a not terribly small fortune of c-bills. Despite that, if I had to buy new engines and refit mechs to replace those destroyed? I'd probably never play FW again. I mean, the rewards would have to be flipping huge to offset losses.

In a close-fought match say your team wins, but most of your players lose three mechs, and a handful are out four. Let's say you drop, oh, TBR/HBR/EBJ/VPR, the Viper drops last and survives the match. You're looking at almost 17 million just for the engines. If equipment needs to be repurchased, you are talking about forcing the Clans to rebuy endo/ferro/double heatsinks for most mechs (The IS can at least choose to do without, and some mechs are even viable with single HS), plus omnipods, fixed equipment like JJ, and...

17 million just for the engines? I have a hard time imagining rewards where I'd break even on the matches that I win. The first time someone new brings his fully tricked out lineup to FW and gets it blown away and has to face the possibility of spending a month grinding for it he is G-O-N-E, and he ain't never coming back.

The good teams would actively have reason to 1) Avoid fighting other good times, and 2) be rewarded for seal-clubbing.

No thank you.

Edited by Kael Posavatz, 16 August 2016 - 08:39 PM.

[feeWAIVER]

I'd really like to see this game be full loot with rearm/repair and a real salvaging and crafting system.
They would need to dramatically decrease the cost of mechs, or increase rewards.

And instead of selling mech packs, they would need to sell mech licenses.



Look to games like Darkfall Online, Ultima Online, and EVE as prime examples of what a full loot economy could look like.

Edited by feeWAIVER, 16 August 2016 - 09:33 PM.

[WARCRACK]

Instead of seeing season eliminated, I would prefer to have them shortened (one month). No map reset at the end.

Then what's the point of seasons?

Each season will offer a cluster of 15-20 planets in between factions. Instead fighting over a thousand different planets, why not have hotspots in between each factions. When the season ends, move the hotspots to a new cluster of 15-20 planets between each faction. Planets flipped by each faction remains with their conquerors until a season rolls around making that planet a hotspot again.

[50 50]

Hi Dredger.
I read both posts but it's taking me a bit longer to write a reply for yours... I had a bit more to say and I'm trying to juggle that in between other things I'm doing.

I agree with some of the ideas there but believe others might be easier to implement and therefore more palatable for PGI if done another way. Some of these ideas may just need a smaller first step before opening up to larger changes. (Got to get the foot in the door first/get the ball rolling etc etc)

One point that I really agree on is the removal of seasons.
Having the efforts of so many players wiped out and reset is not encouraging and I would suggest it does not fit in well with the whole idea of the Innersphere being in a continual conflict.
One of the problems here is the speed at which we can go around capturing planets.
When phase 3 was released, by the time I got home from work to log in and check it out, Ghost Bear had lost 2 planets and then a 3rd shortly after.
The ability to march from one side of the map to another in a week just spells danager to me. The taking of a planet is not significant enough, and I don't mean the rewards, I mean it plays like a game of Basketball instead of a game of Tennis or American Football (basically something more long winded)

To me this is a big problem with thinking of Faction Play as 'Matches' and not 'Battles'. It's a mindset that instantly limits how we think of the mode and therefore how it could grow.

With regards to making Faction Play different to Quick Play, yes and no.
It's odd, Faction Play is meant to be the 'Bigger Game' but managed to be far more limited and restricted than Quick Play. One problem is that Faction Play tried to be a glorified (multiple drop decks and take a planet) copy of the Quick Play 'Match'. But it failed to utilize the aspects from Quick Play that make it work, namely:
- Make it easily accessible for solo players and small groups as well as large groups.
- Bring across features and mechanics that players wll be familiar making transitioning to the mode easier.
I am of the opinion that if Quick Play is where we learn to master our mechs, then we need those modes merged into Faction Play, not as individual options but a combined mode that makes Faction Play and epic battle. I also suggest that Scouting be integrated as part of Invasion instead of a seperate queue which takes players away from Invasion.

Where it should be different is in making the game a continual battle, open up the game play so we have multiple objectives, can rotate players through so it's not 12v12 but anywhere from 1 up!

Repair and Rearm.
I believe there is a place for it but believe we could use a point system with the drop decks during the battles to manage it and not use c-bills at all. As a small step this would be much easier to implement but also allows the possiblity for further detail and complexity to be added if that seems like a good idea.

I have been working on the various parts of a proposal for Faction Play myself so I'm not going to re-write my thoughts here. What is pleasing to see is that there are so many players who are keen to play, would like to get into the mode and enjoy it and have so many ideas.

Edited for formatting

Edited by 50 50, 17 August 2016 - 04:43 AM.

[Dredger]

50 50, on 16 August 2016 - 11:35 PM, said:

Repair and Rearm.
I believe there is a place for it but believe we could use a point system with the drop decks during the battles to manage it and not use c-bills at all. As a small step I this would be much easier to implement but also allows the possiblity for further detail and complexity to be added if that seems like a good idea.

Hmmmm. What about a combination of the two? Say a Unit Commander has the option of hiring repair crews which act as a resource? Each repair crew has a specific number of 'points' that can be used per cycle (basically how much damage they can repair). The Unit Commander can increase the number of repair crews he hires for an increased C-bill cost. Each component of a mech would have a specific point value. Say, 1 for a weapon, 2 for a component, and 3 for an engine. If each repair crew had 100 points to invest and cost 100,000 per cycle? Just a thought.

Edited by Dredger, 17 August 2016 - 03:39 AM.

[50 50]

I recall an old post somewhere that was in regards to adding some personal touches to the mech bays. One of those was to add some NPCs but to also have those NPCs provide some sort of effect. But yes, something like that would be fun and practical to add.

Adding a point system to components is probably too complex and not needed given there is already a c-bill cost associated with them. If using that NPC idea it would be quicker to implement using the c-bill cost as the base and using the NPC to either:

• Reduce cost by a percentage
  
• Reduce repair time by a percentage.....which is something that should be considered in a repair system.
  
• Act as a repair limit so instead of actually costing something, you can only repair up to X c-bills worth... perhaps with a cool down so it could be reused.

Any repair system like this does need the duration of Faction Play battles to be changed. Got to say I'm all for that so adding in some additional features like technicians is something that would be cool to add down the track.

The point idea I was getting at was to try and implement repairs in a very simple way that tied in with combining modes and utilizing the drop deck to manage it all. Essentially, if we had the conquest points added in where we had to capture them to generate resource points, then those points can accumulate on our drop decks and can simply represent tonnage. To fully repair a 20 ton mech that is 100% destroyed takes 20 points. To fully repair a 20 ton mech that is only 25% damaged would take 5 points. Add in a little button to repair that lets you select the mech. When you do it takes the points out of your pool and the mech shows as being repaired with a little timer that might take 10 minutes or something.

Obviously, still needs the actual mode to be a bit different and this might seem overly simplified but how hard would that actually be to implement? Then if something simple like that is then in place, elaborating on it and building in some more depth does not seem such a difficult idea to put forward to PGI. Small steps.

[ZealotTheFallen]

The idea and suggestions made are well and good. But as someone mentioned, you all are beating a dead horse with your opinions. They do not care, if you all buy mechs every month, why would they spend that money to benefit the game instead of their own pockets. Minimum amount of work is being done. Town hall meetings are to show that, or trying to show they care. They don't, all they says is what you want to hear nothing else. They just show pictures and do nothing.

[DarklightCA]

I can agree with most of what you said. PGI never properly defined their gamemodes. Faction Play would have been a lot more popular if it was the best alternative for larger groups to play and also had PGI given Units actual proper incentives to conquer and fight each other for those planets.

Units fighting Units by killing opponents and completing objectives to conquer planets and be rewarded for that effort should be what Faction Play is about. Solo queuing or playing with a few friends to get some c-bills or level mechs should be what Quick Play is about.

I disagree about the consequences though. I agree that there should be some consequence to it, maybe re-add the re-arm and repair cost to that gamemode but what you are suggesting seems way too drastic. Weapons cost a lot of money and to have to constantly fund readding them every time is insane let alone having to keep replacing the expensive as hell engines.

As for rewards, I think Quick Play should the gamemode about making all the cbills. I think what Faction Play pays out is good as it is, the only rewards I think should be added is better incentives for Units to play the gamemode and care about conquering planets. If PGI is worried about giving out too much MC to get rid of the planet cap to create any form of competitive environment than pick a different reward that that would motivate Units to compete for planets that PGI wouldn't care if they gave out.

[50 50]

I will disagree with the tagging of planets and the MC as a reward being a good idea.
I think this hurts more than helps the situation.
1) It's only units that can get the reward
2) It's a very small amount of MC compared to the unit membership required to field and co-ordinate enough players to tag a planet
3) MC should be an exclusive currency and it's probably given away too much which in turn hurts PGI's back pocket.

We could use a better system.
Giving players some sort of investment in the planets would be ideal. This could be done in a very simple format and elaborated on in the long term. I would suggest different options for freelancers, loyalists and mercenaries to the different 'career' paths are unique.
I would also suggest that the loyalty and reputation ranks actually use a point pool in addition to the ranks that can be used as a currency to provide individual buffs either temporarily or permanently. Once again, I believe a simple initial version of such a feature could easily be implemented.

One of the problems faced in Faction Play is that it is designed at the 12 player group level failing to take into account that there are 12 individuals making up these groups. In other words, it is scaled at the high end with the requirements and cannot be scaled down. It's the attempt at a big picture without the detailed foundation to support it. Need to swap that around and build from the solo up so the mode can scale effectively.