20 replies to this topic

[BIOHAZARD]

Dear PGI Team, Fellow Mechwarriors
Firstly, please allow me to express my thanks for this spectacular game of Mechwarrior you are building. Many people in the players community say different things about it,and, yes, some of its features are problematic. Still, I find myself playing MWO for a second year, with great interest, even if anxious at times. I want this game to flourish.

As Community Warfare is the weakest link in this chain I want to start this topic on how to fix it. Here is what I propose:

Firstly, what we need is another button in the top right side of the hangar screen, next to current "Faction Play" button, perhaps left of it, saying: "War Room" or something in the spirit. This would take you to current Community Warfare screen with the IS map and all. All of the existing structure and functionality is fine to remain, with one exception - the map would only be used for voting for which planet should be attacked next. Players could have one vote each, once a day and could only vote for their faction. They would also have one vote a day each, for which planet of their faction should be defended, as well.
As for mercenaries, perhaps they should have one vote daily, total, for which planet will they most happily take contracts, and then they would receive, say, 5% bonus to contract earnings, if they win fighting there.

Second change I want to propose is changing the existing 'Faction Play' button functionality into a sort of 'Faction Quick Play', which would be your standard quick play match, but this time resolved only between faction loyalists or contracted players, specifically for the planets that were voted (see above) as selected at that time, and in teams split along loyalty lines. Player queing and team assignment would be resolve using existing solutions.
The matches results would then count towards possession of that given planet, and its respective regions. These matches should be played on regular quick play maps. Some of the Faction play specific maps can be later, and at convenience of the PGI team either adjusted, or multiplied/ expanded (whatever is cheaper for PGI, I am sure the community will be fine) into new maps in the landscape setting.

Finally, the existing Faction play mode, with its capture the cannon, counterattack and all, would still be played (let's not waste existing infrastructure) but as a sort of a major, decisive battle for that given region (there may be a counter added on hangar screen and the number of such battles to gaining full control may be displayed there - urging players to join in). This part has a lot of room for debate - can we have more players for such match (15? 20? more?). Perhaps rewards for such critical match could be doubled? Can we have the existing maps enlarged, providing more gates/assault corridors. Can we have ramparts within bases? Potential here is endless.

In my opinion these changes will fix Faction Play instantly, rekindling all interest in it. I also want to stress that I do not want PGI to strain itself. Such changes can be costly - lets use as much of what there already is as we can.

Please join in and add your ideas, comments to this topic. Thanks!

[Duatam]

What you suggested here is pretty much exactly what PGI has already decided to implement. The changes will be released around the end of the year. This includes the regular quickplay maps being the main battlefields of community warfare and the capture cannon being the final battle at the end of the planet invasion.

Source: No Guts No Galaxy Podcast #145 Faction Play w/Russ & Derek

[Bud Crue]

The changes being implemented (if we can place any faith in Russ's comments from the podcast) are I'm afraid not going to "fix" CW.

The changes proposed appeal to the competitive shooter segment of the population. Quicker games, fewer buckets, etc. So that segment of the community should be pleased. The lore nerds, and bitter vets looking for an immersive CW experience are NOT pleased. These folks will continue to play QP regular matches. So there may be a short term increase in play when the changes are introduced, but as the bitter vets maintain their bitterness and the lore nerds continue to wonder "what is the point of CW vs QP?" I believe we will end up right back to where we are now. A very limited game mode, with a very limited population of regular players, resulting in long wait times.

But wait there is more. We mustn't forget about Energy Draw. I think ED could have an impact to the proposed CW changes as well. The competitive shooter folks like their alphas. A lot of them like keeping their distance and excelling at peak and poke. I think there will be some of these folks who decide QP with 4 mech respawn where they are now limited to 30 point alpha (or whatever it end up being under ED) is going to be one long drawn out brawl and that they can get quicker matches with better rewards, and where their individual skill matters more in QP than in CW. Thus, I think even some of these folks to whom the proposed CW changes are seemingly directed to appeal to are going to be turned off from CW as a result of ED.

Will ED and its purported lower alphas, and "this more like what BT/MW should be" game play draw the bitter vets and lore nerds to CW? I doubt it for the reasons stated above.

TLDR: the proposed changes to CW (podcast and OP have same vibe: make CW QP with respawns) will only appeal to a portion of the community, and not a large enough portion to provide much decrease in wait times, etc. over what we experience now. The changes will do nothing to draw new players in, and they will do plenty to keep a good portion of the community as alienated as they are now, if not more so. ED will exacerbate these shortcomings.

[Crockdaddy]

Bud Crue, on 16 September 2016 - 06:21 AM, said:

The changes being implemented (if we can place any faith in Russ's comments from the podcast) are I'm afraid not going to "fix" CW.

The changes proposed appeal to the competitive shooter segment of the population. Quicker games, fewer buckets, etc. So that segment of the community should be pleased. The lore nerds, and bitter vets looking for an immersive CW experience are NOT pleased. These folks will continue to play QP regular matches. So there may be a short term increase in play when the changes are introduced, but as the bitter vets maintain their bitterness and the lore nerds continue to wonder "what is the point of CW vs QP?" I believe we will end up right back to where we are now. A very limited game mode, with a very limited population of regular players, resulting in long wait times.

But wait there is more. We mustn't forget about Energy Draw. I think ED could have an impact to the proposed CW changes as well. The competitive shooter folks like their alphas. A lot of them like keeping their distance and excelling at peak and poke. I think there will be some of these folks who decide QP with 4 mech respawn where they are now limited to 30 point alpha (or whatever it end up being under ED) is going to be one long drawn out brawl and that they can get quicker matches with better rewards, and where their individual skill matters more in QP than in CW. Thus, I think even some of these folks to whom the proposed CW changes are seemingly directed to appeal to are going to be turned off from CW as a result of ED.

Will ED and its purported lower alphas, and "this more like what BT/MW should be" game play draw the bitter vets and lore nerds to CW? I doubt it for the reasons stated above.

TLDR: the proposed changes to CW (podcast and OP have same vibe: make CW QP with respawns) will only appeal to a portion of the community, and not a large enough portion to provide much decrease in wait times, etc. over what we experience now. The changes will do nothing to draw new players in, and they will do plenty to keep a good portion of the community as alienated as they are now, if not more so. ED will exacerbate these shortcomings.

I disagree and agree. Comp guys don't really play CW and haven't for the duration for much of its life. Sure you see them in matches at times but largely the competitive players (tourney types) are not into CW and never have been. GH 2.0 ... wont' change whom is good and whom needs to "git gud". The type of player that figures out and adapts will change faster than the type whom doesn't. Although as a two button mouse player I might be in a bit of trouble with GH 2.0 ... hard to say though.

IF PGI was or had deeper game play, then shrinking the buckets wouldn't be needed and we would all be more patient, but it is clear to me that deeper game play won't really happen. So if CW is largely an arena shooter, if you want me and others to consistently play getting into matches faster is pretty important. I have around 700 to 1000 CW matches ... I can't bring myself to wait 10 minutes for a possible Ghost Drop anymore. In fact I hate it and haven't spent any money here in sometime. Having a game mode which gets the player into the action faster is preferable if the game play isn't deep. I don't have a problem or as much of a problem for long wait times if the game play is deep (see my 1600 hours of grind in grindy yet buggy yet oh so immersive and deep ARK Evolved).

[Monkey Lover]

I agree a lot with the last two posts. I'm sure a lot of people will be happy with the changes but they're basically removing every loyalist. I will play faction IS v IS events but that's about it.

[Bud Crue]

Monkey Lover, on 16 September 2016 - 07:10 AM, said:

I agree a lot with the last two posts. I'm sure a lot of people will be happy with the changes but they're basically removing every loyalist. I will play faction IS v IS events but that's about it.

As a casual, crappy player who only came to the game for the BT lore and the CW experience, even I won't jump to true loathing of the proposed changes until I experience them; and who knows maybe I will be shocked and how great they are.

But what I do know is that CW in its current Phase 3 model (including...what?...four nerfs of the LT) is a step in the wrong direction from what Phase 2 or even 1 was; and frankly they were bad, especially when viewed from the perspective of what PGI advertised CW to be. Will the changes being proposed atm make it even worse? I think so. But that is from my BT fan, crappy player perspective. A majority of others may love what is purported to be coming, but I just am not seeing how those changes will be attractive enough to a sufficient part of the community to make CW "better" than it is now (that's a low friggin bar right there) or make it into the true end game content that it is supposed to be.
Can only wait and see I guess.

[Tavious Grimm]

Notice what it says around the 1:00-1:03 minute mark...THAT"S what I want. Not the let's roll up into a huge gorram deathball.

Edited by Tavious Grimm, 16 September 2016 - 08:30 AM.

[Bud Crue]

Tavious Grimm, on 16 September 2016 - 08:30 AM, said:

Notice what it says around the 1:00-1:03 minute mark...THAT"S what I want. Not the let's roll up into a huge gorram deathball.

Yeah...see at about 1:16 mark as well: Rewrite Battletech History.
I am sure with 8 planets to chose from (or was it 4) I am certain that Battletech and its History will be at the forefront of the new CW experience.

Gimmie a break.

Edited by Bud Crue, 16 September 2016 - 08:37 AM.

[Commander A9]

Prepare for Public Cue 2.0.

But hey! Who are we to tell PGI what we actually want?

Edited by Commander A9, 16 September 2016 - 09:08 AM.

[BIOHAZARD]

Much obliged for all of your replies and their quality.

My point (amongst others) was: the game is way too deep into development for anyone to get a major change. Whether we like it or not PGI is a business and, if what players want is not cheap to implement, it will just not happen.

I was not aware about the podcast - so much of this stuff to follow - so thank for pointing to it. I thing the vets and hardcore lore fans have their cause lost already. No point in stopping for them, I am afraid. MWO is an arena shooter and will be. What we should insist on is improvement to its quality.

[Bud Crue]

VooDoo Doll, on 16 September 2016 - 03:12 PM, said:

I thin[g]k the vets and hardcore lore fans have their cause lost already. No point in stopping for them, I am afraid. MWO is an arena shooter and will be. What we should insist on is improvement to its quality.

Yes, you are likely right. Alas, if/as this game becomes less and less BT and MW and more and more a mere arena shooter, I think the population will drop even more. There are lots of arena shooters, there is only one Mechwarrior.

[MischiefSC]

Crockdaddy, on 16 September 2016 - 06:53 AM, said:

I disagree and agree. Comp guys don't really play CW and haven't for the duration for much of its life. Sure you see them in matches at times but largely the competitive players (tourney types) are not into CW and never have been. GH 2.0 ... wont' change whom is good and whom needs to "git gud". The type of player that figures out and adapts will change faster than the type whom doesn't. Although as a two button mouse player I might be in a bit of trouble with GH 2.0 ... hard to say though.

IF PGI was or had deeper game play, then shrinking the buckets wouldn't be needed and we would all be more patient, but it is clear to me that deeper game play won't really happen. So if CW is largely an arena shooter, if you want me and others to consistently play getting into matches faster is pretty important. I have around 700 to 1000 CW matches ... I can't bring myself to wait 10 minutes for a possible Ghost Drop anymore. In fact I hate it and haven't spent any money here in sometime. Having a game mode which gets the player into the action faster is preferable if the game play isn't deep. I don't have a problem or as much of a problem for long wait times if the game play is deep (see my 1600 hours of grind in grindy yet buggy yet oh so immersive and deep ARK Evolved).

I don't know how else to explain this -

Reducing buckets will do nothing to speed up drops. Nothing. In fact going to 1 or 2 buckets will increase the wait.

The only way to fix that is to either a) have it fill IS v IS/Clan v Clan as needed which *may* help a little or b ) just have everyone in a single queue and fill teams QP style with mixed Is/Clan on each side. That would be the only way to make players fungible and fill based on total pop.

Reducing buckets will do nothing. At all. In any way. At all. To reduce waits. The problem is not that there's 12 IS players sitting in one queue waiting and 12 Clans in another waiting. It's that when there's 63 people on one side and 46 on the other you're going to have 37 people sitting around total, d*ck in hand, waiting. Of those only 12 are even getting a ghost drop timer.

Nothing you do with queues will really fix that aside from shortening match length (faster turnover), reducing players/match (more matches with fewer people in each. 8 v 8 in the above scenario would only have 22 people with **** all to do) or at least have more total queues so both full teams on the Clan side are each in their own line and getting a ghost drop instead of 1.

Combining the queues will do nothing except drive a few more people out of FW. That's it, full stop. The idea that it'll reduce wait is based on assumptions by people (apparently including PGI) who didn't bother to even do napkin math, not to mention a full fishbone on what it will actually do.

It's so ******* incompetent I just don't even. It's part for the god damn course. It's wasted effort for no benefit and even a moderate out of actually analyzing both environment and actual population impact shows that.

[Tarl Cabot]

Tavious Grimm, on 16 September 2016 - 08:30 AM, said:

Notice what it says around the 1:00-1:03 minute mark...THAT"S what I want. Not the let's roll up into a huge gorram deathball.

I see lots of deathballs there. The perceptive gives that nice looking scenes. Clans moving faster than IS mechs unless IS mechs use the glass isXL engine then Clanners perform a torso check and that mech is out of the game, quirks or no quirks.

Each planet though is the same, the drops are on the same maps, there is no feeling that you are on a particular planet, and an example would be where people are living under glass domes/tunnels, and the series of maps are a generic representative of the planet's conditions.

And that orbital gun should be seen only on specify planets, be it a heavy populated, industrialized, high priority planets.

Basically, besides changing how the players are funneled to specific planets for fights, the overall dynamics, the missions, need to change and expand, while also increasing the payout.

[Kin3ticX]

Bud Crue, on 16 September 2016 - 06:21 AM, said:

The changes being implemented (if we can place any faith in Russ's comments from the podcast) are I'm afraid not going to "fix" CW.

The changes proposed appeal to the competitive shooter segment of the population. Quicker games, fewer buckets, etc. So that segment of the community should be pleased. The lore nerds, and bitter vets looking for an immersive CW experience are NOT pleased. These folks will continue to play QP regular matches. So there may be a short term increase in play when the changes are introduced, but as the bitter vets maintain their bitterness and the lore nerds continue to wonder "what is the point of CW vs QP?" I believe we will end up right back to where we are now. A very limited game mode, with a very limited population of regular players, resulting in long wait times.

But wait there is more. We mustn't forget about Energy Draw. I think ED could have an impact to the proposed CW changes as well. The competitive shooter folks like their alphas. A lot of them like keeping their distance and excelling at peak and poke. I think there will be some of these folks who decide QP with 4 mech respawn where they are now limited to 30 point alpha (or whatever it end up being under ED) is going to be one long drawn out brawl and that they can get quicker matches with better rewards, and where their individual skill matters more in QP than in CW. Thus, I think even some of these folks to whom the proposed CW changes are seemingly directed to appeal to are going to be turned off from CW as a result of ED.

Will ED and its purported lower alphas, and "this more like what BT/MW should be" game play draw the bitter vets and lore nerds to CW? I doubt it for the reasons stated above.

TLDR: the proposed changes to CW (podcast and OP have same vibe: make CW QP with respawns) will only appeal to a portion of the community, and not a large enough portion to provide much decrease in wait times, etc. over what we experience now. The changes will do nothing to draw new players in, and they will do plenty to keep a good portion of the community as alienated as they are now, if not more so. ED will exacerbate these shortcomings.

The importance of Space Nerd Politics is highly underestimated. Someone like Antonius Rex or Bud Crue help give a reason to care about the map and also plot and scheme. Phase 3 killed all that. PGI even closed the only way to pay cbills for doing a job. Phase 3 basically acted as a massive barrier between the player and actually playing and longtom also served to clear queues. I am slightly dissappointed that PGI either must give us 10 factions or 2* factions. Me personally, I think 4 factions could work. Imagine the top 4 factions suddenly bolstered by all the holdouts in the bottom 6 factions. I would make it something like Jade, Wolf, Steiner, FRR and to hell with the lore purists.

[Crockdaddy]

MischiefSC, on 16 September 2016 - 04:01 PM, said:

I don't know how else to explain this -

Reducing buckets will do nothing to speed up drops. Nothing. In fact going to 1 or 2 buckets will increase the wait.

The only way to fix that is to either a) have it fill IS v IS/Clan v Clan as needed which *may* help a little or b ) just have everyone in a single queue and fill teams QP style with mixed Is/Clan on each side. That would be the only way to make players fungible and fill based on total pop.

Reducing buckets will do nothing. At all. In any way. At all. To reduce waits. The problem is not that there's 12 IS players sitting in one queue waiting and 12 Clans in another waiting. It's that when there's 63 people on one side and 46 on the other you're going to have 37 people sitting around total, d*ck in hand, waiting. Of those only 12 are even getting a ghost drop timer.

Nothing you do with queues will really fix that aside from shortening match length (faster turnover), reducing players/match (more matches with fewer people in each. 8 v 8 in the above scenario would only have 22 people with **** all to do) or at least have more total queues so both full teams on the Clan side are each in their own line and getting a ghost drop instead of 1.

Combining the queues will do nothing except drive a few more people out of FW. That's it, full stop. The idea that it'll reduce wait is based on assumptions by people (apparently including PGI) who didn't bother to even do napkin math, not to mention a full fishbone on what it will actually do.

It's so ******* incompetent I just don't even. It's part for the god damn course. It's wasted effort for no benefit and even a moderate out of actually analyzing both environment and actual population impact shows that.

Except for at least my last half dozen experiences ... there is NO ONE IN THE OTHER BUCKET. PERIOD. A bucket with 12 ... 24 or whatever and zero on the other side isn't all that fun. At least if I see 63 to 41 I have an expectation that people are in fact playing the game. No matter how you slice it that is a step forward. Right now its a total crap shoot as to whether someone is around or even queues up. I do completely understand what you mean but 10 buckets and require each side to fill ... 2 buckets simplify it. I can't help what happens after that. We jump factions praying the other side will have someone in the enemy bucket. ...

One way that might help fix it is to have real tangible reasons for units to stay loyalist and to fight each other but that requires deeper game play and a system that doesn't so heavily reward MERCs or that at least boosts loyalist rewards dramatically.

Bud Crue, on 16 September 2016 - 07:38 AM, said:

As a casual, crappy player who only came to the game for the BT lore and the CW experience, even I won't jump to true loathing of the proposed changes until I experience them; and who knows maybe I will be shocked and how great they are.

But what I do know is that CW in its current Phase 3 model (including...what?...four nerfs of the LT) is a step in the wrong direction from what Phase 2 or even 1 was; and frankly they were bad, especially when viewed from the perspective of what PGI advertised CW to be. Will the changes being proposed atm make it even worse? I think so. But that is from my BT fan, crappy player perspective. A majority of others may love what is purported to be coming, but I just am not seeing how those changes will be attractive enough to a sufficient part of the community to make CW "better" than it is now (that's a low friggin bar right there) or make it into the true end game content that it is supposed to be.
Can only wait and see I guess.

At least you care just like most whom post. I have advocated often for Loyalist to have some strong advantages but it falls on deaf ears.

[MischiefSC]

Crockdaddy, on 16 September 2016 - 07:13 PM, said:

Except for at least my last half dozen experiences ... there is NO ONE IN THE OTHER BUCKET. PERIOD. A bucket with 12 ... 24 or whatever and zero on the other side isn't all that fun. At least if I see 63 to 41 I have an expectation that people are in fact playing the game. No matter how you slice it that is a step forward. Right now its a total crap shoot as to whether someone is around or even queues up. I do completely understand what you mean but 10 buckets and require each side to fill ... 2 buckets simplify it. I can't help what happens after that. We jump factions praying the other side will have someone in the enemy bucket. ...

One way that might help fix it is to have real tangible reasons for units to stay loyalist and to fight each other but that requires deeper game play and a system that doesn't so heavily reward MERCs or that at least boosts loyalist rewards dramatically.



At least you care just like most whom post. I have advocated often for Loyalist to have some strong advantages but it falls on deaf ears.

The difference is in your head. If you have 0 people available in any queue to drop against then you'll see the exact same in 2 queues. There are several stretches of time in this game that literally don't have enough people to fill a match.

The closest you could get would be to try and *force* people who don't want to drop against you to drop against you... which, as history shows, will just get them to go play something else.

All the combined queue will do is help with the psychological issue of feeling that 'there's matches happening elsewhere I don't see'. In practice however as someone who's got 2 alts literally just to track population variance I can say that doesn't happen.

Instead here's what will happen - so, suppose, you're in CJF and there's nobody anywhere but what you don't see is the 36 v 12 going on where CGB is attacking Kurita. So you'll pile into that queue...

and wait 60 minutes for a match.

However in less than 30 minutes of staying in the CJF attacking Davion queue you'll likely accumulate 12 pugs in the Davion queue who get in, see the dogpile on Kurita and decide they'd rather wait to fight the lone 12man in CJF.

See, in a combined queue the 12mans will keep cutting to the front and pushing the pugs to the back so the high population faction will see a *longer* wait for pugs. Conversely the low population will be dropping almost exclusively against 12mans or large groups and a few pugs, meaning pugs in the low pop queue will be seeing 100% stomps. How long will that last?

The idea that it'll make things better is absolutely false and based on a vague assumption based on half-complete observations. Do the math, fishbone it out. It'll do nothing good. There may be instances where it'll manage to pull 12 pugs together who may not have been in the same place and potentially get a small increase in fill times in return for reducing the total population (which is absolutely will do and has already done. Again, I'm playing other games already with people who've left over it and even a brief view of threads on the topic give a pretty clear indication of opinions on the loss of faction identity) and at the end of the day we'll be lucky if it breaks even.

It's a worthless change. Absolutely worthless, done to give the illusion of 'condensed population' when that already happens due to anyone can defend and an already tiny active population. All this does is bake in failure to FW and confirm, beyond all doubt, that PGI has no intention of adding any worthwhile depth to the game and put a bullet in the head of what few hopes were left among some people that the promised FW might show up some day.

It's the embrace of failure. Nothing else. Nothing in the whole plan will bring more people to FW and without that there's nothing in place to increase drop speed. If you don't want ghost drops, go to the low population side. That's it.

[Bud Crue]

Kin3ticX, on 16 September 2016 - 06:35 PM, said:

The importance of Space Nerd Politics is highly underestimated. Someone like Antonius Rex or Bud Crue help give a reason to care about the map and also plot and scheme. Phase 3 killed all that. PGI even closed the only way to pay cbills for doing a job. Phase 3 basically acted as a massive barrier between the player and actually playing and longtom also served to clear queues. I am slightly dissappointed that PGI either must give us 10 factions or 2* factions. Me personally, I think 4 factions could work. Imagine the top 4 factions suddenly bolstered by all the holdouts in the bottom 6 factions. I would make it something like Jade, Wolf, Steiner, FRR and to hell with the lore purists.

I believe you suggested this (4 factions...any 4 factions) to Russ via twitter before, no? It was, to put it lightly, ignored. And now here we are. Fuc.....

[Crockdaddy]

MischiefSC, on 16 September 2016 - 07:57 PM, said:

The difference is in your head. If you have 0 people available in any queue to drop against then you'll see the exact same in 2 queues. There are several stretches of time in this game that literally don't have enough people to fill a match.

The closest you could get would be to try and *force* people who don't want to drop against you to drop against you... which, as history shows, will just get them to go play something else.

All the combined queue will do is help with the psychological issue of feeling that 'there's matches happening elsewhere I don't see'. In practice however as someone who's got 2 alts literally just to track population variance I can say that doesn't happen.

Instead here's what will happen - so, suppose, you're in CJF and there's nobody anywhere but what you don't see is the 36 v 12 going on where CGB is attacking Kurita. So you'll pile into that queue...

and wait 60 minutes for a match.

However in less than 30 minutes of staying in the CJF attacking Davion queue you'll likely accumulate 12 pugs in the Davion queue who get in, see the dogpile on Kurita and decide they'd rather wait to fight the lone 12man in CJF.

See, in a combined queue the 12mans will keep cutting to the front and pushing the pugs to the back so the high population faction will see a *longer* wait for pugs. Conversely the low population will be dropping almost exclusively against 12mans or large groups and a few pugs, meaning pugs in the low pop queue will be seeing 100% stomps. How long will that last?

The idea that it'll make things better is absolutely false and based on a vague assumption based on half-complete observations. Do the math, fishbone it out. It'll do nothing good. There may be instances where it'll manage to pull 12 pugs together who may not have been in the same place and potentially get a small increase in fill times in return for reducing the total population (which is absolutely will do and has already done. Again, I'm playing other games already with people who've left over it and even a brief view of threads on the topic give a pretty clear indication of opinions on the loss of faction identity) and at the end of the day we'll be lucky if it breaks even.

It's a worthless change. Absolutely worthless, done to give the illusion of 'condensed population' when that already happens due to anyone can defend and an already tiny active population. All this does is bake in failure to FW and confirm, beyond all doubt, that PGI has no intention of adding any worthwhile depth to the game and put a bullet in the head of what few hopes were left among some people that the promised FW might show up some day.

It's the embrace of failure. Nothing else. Nothing in the whole plan will bring more people to FW and without that there's nothing in place to increase drop speed. If you don't want ghost drops, go to the low population side. That's it.

I understand your points. I don't disagree with your meaning but I don't think CW has much going for it with the large number of buckets currently from a "get a match point of view". NS (and we are hardly alone) stopped with CW for the most part. Having a place to find a match without shifting contract and guessing would help but we would form 12 man groups of NS or other units we know well. PUGs are by definition pretty much screwed in CW ... this isn't news to anyone.

It is easy ...
PGI deepens the game.
Makes Loyalist compelling (slows the unit shifting)
Builds some sort of logistics and alliance system (deepens the game allows units to fight at hot spots while retaining their identify of House / Clan etc.

Or PGI gives up completely on deepening the game, and works on its screwed up queue system which makes finding matches asinine and incredibly difficult.

Also at this point the unit recruiting mess is largely useless now and too little way to late.

[Kin3ticX]

Bud Crue, on 16 September 2016 - 08:10 PM, said:

I believe you suggested this (4 factions...any 4 factions) to Russ via twitter before, no? It was, to put it lightly, ignored. And now here we are. Fuc.....

Its because no matter which faction gets axed the forums will probably burn down and refund threats will be made

If you have the faction tattoo'd on your *** you would be pretty mad wouldnt you

Edited by Kin3ticX, 16 September 2016 - 08:49 PM.

[BIOHAZARD]

I admit I did not take organized groups into my analysis. That's a very good point.
One solution might be making the major battles prioritizing teams, while regular fight over planets available to random players or groups of, say, 4 max. A team might only drop a lance for the 'quick' faction play. This would also work fine with the idea that a military force can only project itself in so many places, making use of irregulars elsewhere, at best adding a unit to keep them in check. Immersion Gentlemen.

I dont care about pugs in FW. The very idea behind Factions is that whoever signs up should have it easier and better. Pugs in such case represent mercs, who make a trade off: it's easier to go where they pay more, but the job's riskier as you fight in weaker teams against sometimes organized crowd. Makes sense - the idea of hiring mercs is that they WILL be cannon fodder. As it is now, there really is no incentive for being a loyalist aside from lore.

And this brings me to one more point - being a loyalist needs to be more rewarding. How about minute player-level MC awards for a win (in 1-10 range depending on performance). How about some recognition mechanism like medals or badges for major battles? All players could get a detailed 'service' record, like in real life, describing their highlights. Right now there is only the title in the parish of flashing how good you are, and where you've been. If people could see a mouse-over-your-name pop up in the que screen, before the match, detailing how good you are - and you can only get those in FW - wouldnt that be nice?

I dont think reducing the number of factions is a good idea. We would lose the lore completely.

Community Warfare can only be fixed by shortening wait times. Period.

One idea came to me with regards to what lore fans and vets would want. Right now the game is very fast paced and shooty. It is because the only controls you have to use is WSAD (and everybody goes full throttle all the time), your mouse and weapons. Also, from time to time, you switch between thermal and night vis, and, of course you fire weapons. Shooter it is.

What if PGI added more simulation to this. Engine control? Damage overriding? There is a lot of unused real estate in the cockpits. What do you guys think?