59 replies to this topic

[FallingAce]

Yes, I am what's wrong with Faction Warfare. The leader of a top 3 Kurita Loyalist unit, Top 20 on the overall board.
Phase 2 SRMX held 11 planet tags at one time.
I was here for phase 2. I was here for phase 3. Ive listend to evey podcast/townhall related to faction warfare. I'm not here just playing forum warrior. But what do I know?

[BLOOD WOLF]

FallingAce, on 16 October 2016 - 02:19 PM, said:

Yes, I am what's wrong with Faction Warfare. The leader of a top 3 Kurita Loyalist unit, Top 20 on the overall board.
Phase 2 SRMX held 11 planet tags at one time.
I was here for phase 2. I was here for phase 3. Ive listend to evey podcast/townhall related to faction warfare. I'm not here just playing forum warrior. But what do I know?

I am trying to understand the point you are making. are you saying your units top 20 performance is some indication of the state of Faction warfare?

or are you saying, you are doing your part if FW?

[kuma8877]

FallingAce, on 16 October 2016 - 02:19 PM, said:

Yes, I am what's wrong with Faction Warfare. The leader of a top 3 Kurita Loyalist unit, Top 20 on the overall board.
Phase 2 SRMX held 11 planet tags at one time.
I was here for phase 2. I was here for phase 3. Ive listend to evey podcast/townhall related to faction warfare. I'm not here just playing forum warrior. But what do I know?

Good for you. You invalidate your opinion with your attitude when you take out your own angst for PGI on players who are just trying to discuss the direction they are taking FW in, in any kind of possibly hopeful or positive light. Why should I take you seriously based simply on your ego and play time?

So yeah, in a round about way, you and the other players who let the salt in their snatch towards PGI dictate how you treat honest inquiry into the game type and it's direction from other players coming from outside FW, with childish veiled insults and a bunch of suppositions about what the new FW will/ will not be like when actually implemented, are what's wrong with FW and it's current perception from outside FW. Just as much as PGI's mishandling of the game type.

Edited by kuma8877, 16 October 2016 - 04:17 PM.

[BearFlag]

kuma8877, on 16 October 2016 - 09:12 AM, said:

I can appreciate the position a lot of the vet's have here. But one of the things I might also draw attention to, is that this plan seems much more inside the scope of PGI's actual ability to produce as a studio, against their ability to talk up features they can't readily produce. Most of the underlying programming structure is already there as are the map\game type assets from QP, as well as the ability to add gametypes or maps (if they get made) in the future.

Really, it's mostly several new UI elements and a new contract\rewards system that require any extensive work. Given that, I think this plan has realistic goals as it's base, and solves (hopefully) the problem with wasted queue time that players like myself, just don't have to waste on waiting around without the sure reward of some decent matches without pointless ghost drops and lost time I could just as easily invest in something else like QP or other, more fruitful entertainment choices.

I'm hopeful, this is something they can actually pull off in a reasonable amount of time since the structure is mostly in place already.

I have to disagree with most of what you've said.

1) UI elements are unavoidable with any change. Structural programming and DB work. Ditto. The question is how much and how 'sensitive' is the code (ie How much QA?) Including the QP maps/modes with respawn will mean touching every map to be included. And this to replicate gameplay that 90% of the population doesn't like: Carnage Mode, er, Invasion. Drop decks, lack of matchmaker will lead to precisely the same bloodbaths across four mechs. Spawn camping is unresolved too. Include QP modes without respawn and you can probably get away with just putting a FW wrapper around the match AND a lot of QP players might actually consider playing it. The saved effort could be put into revamping the queuing/matchmaker system to give it some oversight on the new FW12 matches *. FW48 and FW4 could be included later once the expanded matchmaker is in place.

As I've said many times now, bring the best of QP to FW, not the worst of Invasion to QP/FW.

2) The number of buckets is not the problem. Visibility on those buckets is. Players self-regulate and gravitate to where the action is. If I'm FRR and the action is in Steiner's attack queue, I can't join. Make all allied buckets visible as the defense queues are now. As to the too few players/too many buckets, distinguishing is important for determining the cause. If the cause is not addressed the problem is never solved, and bandaids will not greatly help. We can safely assume that long wait times are a feedback loop leading to longer wait times. BUT, long waits didn't originally cause long waits. Gameplay did. And that list is well known and not easily repaired if PGI's actions over a year and a half are informative.

3) Lore/Timeline based mini-events. Would be nice. Takes continuing effort though. And there was nothing preventing PGI from holding such events through Phase 2 and 3.

4) The Round Table was a disappointment. Instead of a "meeting of equals" where Russ might have heard some of the core problems with FW, he spent five minutes at the start to brow-beat the panel. Buckets would be the topic, buckets are the solution and only buckets will be discussed. That's not a round table; it's a chaired meeting at best, a unilateral announcement at worst. Nothing came of it except to affirm the bucket decision Russ had already made. It didn't become interesting until Long Tom. lol

* Long post on how to include QP modes, a couple of methods for giving the matchmaker say (opt-in and weight), and some related stuff
http://mwomercs.com/...qp-modes-in-fw/

[kuma8877]

BearFlag, on 16 October 2016 - 04:40 PM, said:

I have to disagree with most of what you've said.

1) UI elements are unavoidable with any change. Structural programming and DB work. Ditto. The question is how much and how 'sensitive' is the code (ie How much QA?) Including the QP maps/modes with respawn will mean touching every map to be included. And this to replicate gameplay that 90% of the population doesn't like: Carnage Mode, er, Invasion. Drop decks, lack of matchmaker will lead to precisely the same bloodbaths across four mechs. Spawn camping is unresolved too. Include QP modes without respawn and you can probably get away with just putting a FW wrapper around the match AND a lot of QP players might actually consider playing it. The saved effort could be put into revamping the queuing/matchmaker system to give it some oversight on the new FW12 matches *. FW48 and FW4 could be included later once the expanded matchmaker is in place.

As I've said many times now, bring the best of QP to FW, not the worst of Invasion to QP/FW.

2) The number of buckets is not the problem. Visibility on those buckets is. Players self-regulate and gravitate to where the action is. If I'm FRR and the action is in Steiner's attack queue, I can't join. Make all allied buckets visible as the defense queues are now. As to the too few players/too many buckets, distinguishing is important for determining the cause. If the cause is not addressed the problem is never solved, and bandaids will not greatly help. We can safely assume that long wait times are a feedback loop leading to longer wait times. BUT, long waits didn't originally cause long waits. Gameplay did. And that list is well known and not easily repaired if PGI's actions over a year and a half are informative.

3) Lore/Timeline based mini-events. Would be nice. Takes continuing effort though. And there was nothing preventing PGI from holding such events through Phase 2 and 3.

4) The Round Table was a disappointment. Instead of a "meeting of equals" where Russ might have heard some of the core problems with FW, he spent five minutes at the start to brow-beat the panel. Buckets would be the topic, buckets are the solution and only buckets will be discussed. That's not a round table; it's a chaired meeting at best, a unilateral announcement at worst. Nothing came of it except to affirm the bucket decision Russ had already made. It didn't become interesting until Long Tom. lol

* Long post on how to include QP modes, a couple of methods for giving the matchmaker say (opt-in and weight), and some related stuff
http://mwomercs.com/...qp-modes-in-fw/

Now this is good info. And I would agree, but the workload is still much less than trying to create all the needed assets for a bunch of new, more complex systems in FW with PGI at the helm from scratch. Most of the programming substructure is already present in many of the current systems with their new plan. Yes, a lot of rearranging and QA, but to me, it sounds like something they can actually accomplish. I'm not too confident in their ability to actually realize a bunch of fully new features consistently and in a timely manner, no one here is.

I see a lot of calls for what would be complex new systems added to FW, which would be awesome, but I think they are, more often than not, simply beyond PGI's current abilities and thusly cannot/shouldn't be entertained, to help buffer expectations. I do like your ideas on exposing the faction queue's to resolve the core issue while maintaining the full faction functionality. I am also one for fixing core problems rather than bandaiding symptoms.

I didn't find the initial townhall very informative at all, (rather than disappointing) tho I did personally like the later description of their thought process and formalized ideas after the fact to be much better sounding and reasonable in scope, even though a lot of great ideas should have been heard and discussed that never saw the light of day which is unfortunate (I lurk a lot). I'm willing to work with what PGI has described as the future of FW and to give it a go rather than wading into the current quagmire or hoping for some flashback to phase 2 as PGI will clearly not accept that as an answer.

So on a level PGI has succeeded, I'm looking forward to trying the proposed changes (coming from outside FW) and think I will have fun with them even though everyone of us can easily come up with many better ways to do MWO FW. When it drops, I'm in.

[BearFlag]

kuma8877, on 16 October 2016 - 05:21 PM, said:

Now this is good info. And I would agree, but the workload is still much less than trying to create all the needed assets for a bunch of new, more complex systems in FW with PGI at the helm from scratch. Most of the programming substructure is already present in many of the current systems with their new plan. Yes, a lot of rearranging and QA, but to me, it sounds like something they can actually accomplish. I'm not too confident in their ability to actually realize a bunch of fully new features consistently and in a timely manner, no one here is.

I see a lot of calls for what would be complex new systems added to FW, which would be awesome, but I think they are, more often than not, simply beyond PGI's current abilities and thusly cannot/shouldn't be entertained, to help buffer expectations. I do like your ideas on exposing the faction queue's to resolve the core issue while maintaining the full faction functionality. I am also one for fixing core problems rather than bandaiding symptoms.

I didn't find the initial townhall very informative at all, (rather than disappointing) tho I did personally like the later description of their thought process and formalized ideas after the fact to be much better sounding and reasonable in scope, even though a lot of great ideas should have been heard and discussed that never saw the light of day which is unfortunate (I lurk a lot). I'm willing to work with what PGI has described as the future of FW and to give it a go rather than wading into the current quagmire or hoping for some flashback to phase 2 as PGI will clearly not accept that as an answer.

So on a level PGI has succeeded, I'm looking forward to trying the proposed changes (coming from outside FW) and think I will have fun with them even though everyone of us can easily come up with many better ways to do MWO FW. When it drops, I'm in.

Oh me too. When the changes come, I'll be among the first to try them - and maybe among the first to complain. Fair to say everyone wants FW to bounce back and become the heart of MWO.

If indeed we are to have IS vs. Clan consolidation which is punctuated by controlled/scheduled internecine battles, then making the allied queues visible may be sufficient. Larger groups would likely be choosing which planet is to see action, while solos and small groups are left to gravitate. It may not be the planet they want, but at least they see where there's fight to be had.

My biggest worry is the inclusion of QP modes in FW with respawn. If we bring Invasion-like gameplay to HPG, it's difficult to see why it should be any more popular than Invasion, especially with direct queuing and no matchmaker. Invasion has its following and I'm sure they would like it, but I'd like to see that 80 or 90% come back. Something akin to their preferred mode is the way to do it. But balance is imperative.

My lengthy proposal called for the creation of a crossover pool of pilots. No small task to build and integrate with the matchmaker. Credible balancing cannot, IMO, be achieved without such a pool. But it's possible to go barebones and still have a "balance-of-last-resort" option. Forget the pilot pool. Include QP in FW without respawn. Use existing direct queuing and Call to Arms. Players have a QP/FW drop deck with one each light, medium, heavy and assault. Once the game forms, a simple version of the matchmaker determines imbalance and performs weight class bumping.

Even without respawn, the fear should be of 12-mans steamrolling and driving players from the mode. Mercifully, it would be only one mech and not four, but it's still a blowout. Some balance, any balance, should be taken if it's reasonably available. Weight BOLR (balance of last resort ) is a minimum, IMO, to mitigate stomps. Others may have better ideas with even lower overhead.

I agree a rollback to Phase 2 wouldn't solve much. Besides, Phase 3 brought in some neat stuff that starts to create that immersion that everyone pines for. Unfortunately, it was overshadowed by other stuff.

[B L O O D W I T C H]

Monkey Lover, on 14 October 2016 - 11:54 AM, said:

That's the plan man, they had their round table with basically mercs and as you can guess mercs don't give a crap about factions so now factions are removed.

I couldn't attend but i remember that i asked sader a day later who was attending and who was invited.
Turned out that 1 (one as in singular) loyalist was present. Rest was all mercs.

Although, i might point out that i have confidence that the MS guys i know of also had loyalists and their needs in mind when voicing their opinions.

[FallingAce]

FallingAce, on 16 October 2016 - 12:49 PM, said:

You're opinion is based on the crap sandwich that was/is phase 3. If you had played phase 2, you would have a better understanding of where phase 3 went wrong. Instead, you want to double down on the mistakes of phase 3.
You're 1st name wouldn't happen to be Russ or Derrick would it?

I'll admit i was wrong. Judging by the faction play leaderboards, kuma8877 has done zero drops in faction warfare. So either you're lying about your experience in phase 3 or you're hiding behind an alt account.

Come on Russ, admit you've been found out.

[Aylward]

Toha Heavy Industries, on 17 October 2016 - 12:01 AM, said:

I couldn't attend but i remember that i asked sader a day later who was attending and who was invited.
Turned out that 1 (one as in singular) loyalist was present. Rest was all mercs.

Although, i might point out that i have confidence that the MS guys i know of also had loyalists and their needs in mind when voicing their opinions.

I was that one loyalist at that meeting (Dane was there too but he'd just gone loyalist like the day before so most didnt notice or count him), and I'm here to tell you it wouldn't have mattered how many there were loyalists, Vaunted forum warriors or any other group.....that "round table" was pigeonholed from the get. We were all told to stay muted until called for with threats of ejection for noncompliance (which i get is protocol for much larger meetings but this was a dozen people), and they orchestrated it to hear what they wanted and say what they wanted. This was not a merc agenda, It was not even a player driven agenda like it was billed. No, it was PGI's agenda... we came with a long list of things to talk about that we spent DAYS together working on, mercs and loyalists. it was reduced to a few minutes of desperate pleas that were largely ignored other than the tug of war idea that was transformed into something PGI could manage i guess and a splash image of that list sent across the twitch once.. and our final desperate calls to have the long tom removed once we realized the rest of our agenda was being ignored and they asked if there was one more thing we all wanted to put out... Long tom was the burning one at the top of that list so it's what we threw out. The rest were all pushed aside to instead listen to Russ' predrawn conclusion that reducing "buckets" was the answer even before we started.. he opened the meeting talking about how he wanted to hear every idea...no matter how encompassing it was, but really, he came to tell us they were gonna reduce buckets, period. The fix was already in....then they a let a few of us babble on with some of our ideas anyway, but it was a setup from jump and we all knew it at that point. Giving us "credit" for what they came up with was rather insulting to me actually...as this was the LAST thing we wanted, and never asked for. You may be able to demonize the mercs about a lot of things.. but the outcome of that meeting is not one of them. this was an orchestrated event put on by PGI and NGNG (maybe unwittingly, maybe not...doesnt matter though). That it did not happen on "neutral ground" should have been a big red flag for us, but we were too busy hoping we might be heard. It was a big fear from the get that this would be a dog and pony show, and we'd be used as pawns...but again..the possibility of "being heard" was too big a chance to pass up. Once it was going and we heard what was going on, all we could do was ride along and say what we could.

My personal opinion is the Round Table was Russ' idea to see if the players would save him the trouble of pitching IS vs Clan, which they were already set on. When that didn't happen and we instead proposed alliances and basic supply lines (ie more depth), they dragged their feet for a month or two without a word other than "were gathering notes", then came forth with a "podcast" instead of another round table, because they werent prepared for the screaming that would ensue (and/or didnt care...take your pick), and simply announced they dismissed all our major points and were going IS vs Clan anyway... cuz "..programming is hard". The only thing they didnt know how to do yet, and they drew inspiration from one of the RT ideas put forth in a different context, was mash all those planets together in one bucket yet..so they took Shim's tug of war idea and bent it to their one dimensional needs for one big bucket tug of war..

So now, as remaining loyalists leave the game faster then refugees fleeing Mosul, awaiting the next studio to take over, and many of the rest still playing the game are leveling up clan mechs now, (as pgi's last "balance passes" have produced what many are calling "easy mode" on the clan side now), The burning question is... How long will clueless IS pugs and a few diehard IS units feed the bucket until it's only filled on one side ? And how is ANY of this supposed to improve the lack of depth in this game mode, being that you just made it shallower ??

Sorry to say, That's what came out of the "Round Table"...

[kuma8877]

FallingAce, on 17 October 2016 - 01:41 AM, said:

I'll admit i was wrong. Judging by the faction play leaderboards, kuma8877 has done zero drops in faction warfare. So either you're lying about your experience in phase 3 or you're hiding behind an alt account.

Come on Russ, admit you've been found out.

You're a funny one. And you're reading comprehension is stellar. I never said I've ever dropped in FW. I said what was offered didn't interest me, and that's one of the reasons i've never gotten into into. The other being that I didn't feel I was good enough to be an asset to my team during my limited play time when I was checking in after open beta.

I now feel I can be an asset, am interested in the gametype and I have a decent garage full of mechs. So if that's a problem for you, I guess... it's your problem.

[Bud Crue]

Aylward, on 17 October 2016 - 07:09 AM, said:

I was that one loyalist at that meeting (Dane was there too but he'd just gone loyalist like the day before so most didnt notice or count him),...

Pando Box was/is also an IS loyalist.

[B L O O D W I T C H]

Aylward, on 17 October 2016 - 07:09 AM, said:

I was that one loyalist at that meeting "..."
Sorry to say, That's what came out of the "Round Table"...

Thanks for the effort, mate. I really appreciate it, sums up the premise in a rather brutally honest way.

Still hoping for some light at the end of the tunnel but it does look rather grim indeed.
Thus, i will probably stick with my guns..

Toha Heavy Industries, on 13 October 2016 - 02:48 PM, said:

The day that happens i am gone for good.

[Graugger]

Solution... All players go to a single faction on a single side for the next few months this way not even Clan vs. IS would be functional.

All PGI talked about was MWOs bucket list... I mean Bucket Warfare.

[Jack Booted Thug]

Aylward, on 17 October 2016 - 07:09 AM, said:

Sorry to say, That's what came out of the "Round Table"...

It's what many of us figured. Thanks for confirmation.

The wallet is staying closed. It will take more than a minimally viable product for it to reopen.

[Roland09]

Aylward, on 17 October 2016 - 07:09 AM, said:

we came with a long list of things to talk about that we spent DAYS together working on, mercs and loyalists. it was reduced to a few minutes of desperate pleas that were largely ignored other than the tug of war idea that was transformed into something PGI could manage i guess and a splash image of that list sent across the twitch once..

Just out of nostalgia and a damnable propensity to muse on what could have been, is that list still available somewhere? Or has linking to that list been made a bannable offense here?

[AnTi90d]

Roland09, on 17 October 2016 - 12:50 PM, said:

Just out of nostalgia and a damnable propensity to muse on what could have been, is that list still available somewhere? Or has linking to that list been made a bannable offense here?

The premeeting is still on YouTube.





Dixons out for that guy.. even though I strongly oppose what they suggested / how it was conducted.

Rest in peace, salt miner.

[BearFlag]

Roland09, on 17 October 2016 - 12:50 PM, said:

Just out of nostalgia and a damnable propensity to muse on what could have been, is that list still available somewhere? Or has linking to that list been made a bannable offense here?

Bombadil's pre Round Table thread is another source.

EDIT: Sorry, here's the link:

http://mwomercs.com/...ay-round-table/

Edited by BearFlag, 17 October 2016 - 06:29 PM.

[Roland09]

Thanks for the links to the list and the videos.

[4EVR]

• Faction Play: Improved the animation of the spinning Planet while waiting for a Match.

More good changes incoming! Maybe. We hope. Tug of war and quickplay maps and modes were both community suggestions. They did ignore every other suggestion, however, AFAICT. Well they said they were going to fix the rewards, but I'm not too confident that it will actually happen...

Regarding the blackballing, look up Dunning-Kruger effect if you don't know the term by now.

Also for the LAST TIME: IS-vs-Clan is 2 buckets, not one. Since there are more IS pilots, there will need to be overflow IS-on-IS matches or IS pilots will sit in the queue for a long time.

Edited by 4EVR, 18 October 2016 - 12:09 PM.

[A Shoddy Rental Mech]

4EVR, on 18 October 2016 - 12:00 PM, said:

• Faction Play: Improved the animation of the spinning Planet while waiting for a Match.

That should fill the buckets back up.

4EVR, on 18 October 2016 - 12:00 PM, said:

Also for the LAST TIME: IS-vs-Clan is 2 buckets, not one. Since there are more IS pilots, there will need to be overflow IS-on-IS matches or IS pilots will sit in the queue for a long time.

Actually, with all the mercs sitting on the clan side of the border it will be the other way around unless PGI does something to entice mercs to go I.S.