29 replies to this topic

[Dex Spero]

Bud Crue, on 14 November 2016 - 08:05 AM, said:

the factions represent an npc aspect that pgi could use

This may blend well with a PvE mode later...

[TWIAFU]

xX PUG Xx, on 15 November 2016 - 05:24 AM, said:

Unfortunately I have come to agree with you there, I will keep playing in FP as often as I can but it's hard to put any real energy into trying to help PGI improve it when they don't seem to either be listening or even putting in an appearance in the forums...let alone playing FP themselves.

It is clear now that the primary function of CW/FP, Group/Unit play, is no longer the primary function.

It will be time to pack up and uninstall when solo pugtards have the advantage over the Group/Unit to own planets.

[Graugger]

The original poster of this topic looks like a dev's alt account -.-

[Crockdaddy]

Knighthawk26, on 14 November 2016 - 07:44 AM, said:

The priorities that players seem to want out of MWO are as follow: (1) quality game play at the tactical level, then (2) strategic and economic incentives that make tactical play relevant to a bigger picture somehow, (3) lore.

With respect to number 1, the tactical play at present is pretty decent. We need more diverse scenarios and maybe some new maps, maybe add some arena type matches with weight class restrictions. But mostly fix the matchmaker and queue times. And fix Faction Play, but that leads into (2) the second priority.

When it comes to immersing the tactical play into a broader, strategic level, this does NOT need to be based on political factions. If the focus was on merc units rather than politics or factions the strategic system would be more flexible. The tactical game should mesh into competition be between the merc units in the game, to gain resources, prestige, influence etc. The fake faction politics need to fade into the background, most players don't know anything about it anyway. The attempt to include both merc units and factions into a strategic system divided the player base into too many separate groups, therefore long queue times, not enough players in the game at one time to make it playable.

Very few players care anything about the fictional political factions. Most players like being a part of a unit or team that is doing something more than just fighting meaningless tactical battles. So focus on the units, PGI. Offer contracts to attack or defend certain planets or groups of planets against other units (not factions). Offer bigger payouts to defend planets that are being heavily assaulted by a big merc unit, thereby drawing more defenders into the fray. This could be done day by day or hour by hour (or let the matchmaker do it). Anyway, PGI would have more control over the matchups in faction play and could insure that drops are always available, perhaps more balanced, and adjust the contracts available based on the number of players online at any given time. Focus on merc contracts instead of faction loyalty to fix the game for now.

Wait ... you mean they don't focus on MERCS already. Oh boy ... thanks for this post. I was shocked to learn MERCs didn't already have an amazing preferential treatment inside of MWO. Thank you kind sir for the correction.

[iLLcapitan]

Ragnar Baron Leiningen, on 15 November 2016 - 07:18 AM, said:

I personally think their should be 3 buckets
Clan vs clan
Clan vs is
Is vs is

+50

[Tarl Cabot]

The not necessarily the initial setup, if it was just to get CW into game as a bare minimal product, a place holder, but the followups did nothing to enhance CW.

CW started off with:

• Everyone and every unit being considered mercs with different contract lengths.
  
• Loyalty/Reputation ladder that encouraged switching factions.
  
• Two attack lanes for each minor faction decided by game.
  
• Many IS pilots hated to be on attack mode vs Clans.
  
• To attack Clans, it took units to force the issue, and except for the few "Loyalist" units it was generally the larger merc units rotating from Clan to IS, IS to Clan that got the ball rolling.
  
• Southern Houses could only obtain other House's defense drops vs Clans.
  
• Southern Houses thus only had two attack lanes vs their Innersphere neighbors.
  
• Clans also had two attack lanes but the majority would cough up hairballs if a merc unit attacked another Clan.

So some would say, what was wrong with that? Remember, besides the MW3-4 leagues there was able the MPBT units, comprised primarily of House units. The number of those units that were recreated here did so as Loyalists, not to be mercs. But PGI did not incorporate anything into CW to allow Southern House units to co-op on assaults vs Clans. The only way said units could do that was to actually change faction, so a Davion, Marik or Liao had to listed as a Steiner, Kurita or FRR.

And the MPBT versions were all 3025 timeline that was spread over 10 years, long enough to build a core of PC Loyalist players, whereas the Mechwarrior series were a combination Clan/IS, spread across a few league over a shorter timespan but really none of the community building foundation that the MPBT had with a persistent interface. Do not forget those who played the boardgame, some of the MW games but did not participate in the leagues but still had a House preference.

imho, PGI underestimated the Innersphere Loyalist section, or did not understand how to take advantage of it while failing to build the Clan Loyalists, basically neglecting them, in that due to the merc system the Clans were never really able to build their Loyalists. Now all that is really left are the merc units, those who flipflop from Clan to IS and back to take advantage of updates to one tech or another.

Woah, a wall of text with some spacing. The ultimate failure not integrating the QP into CW in a meaningful way with the QP maps. People do not have to know much of the lore at the start as long as the game sets them up to learn and interact with others while playing.

[Dreadgorth]

Mercs should of never of been put into this game before PGI had advanced the game and player base enough that this game actually had the population to actually support the number of factions that they have placed into this game. A even bigger problem is the fact that Mercs can take clan contracts when in lore the clans would NEVER of hired mercs as it would be a stain on their honor. Putting mercs into this game has just made it cool for ppl switch to whatever clan faction is doing best atm and pile drive in sheer numbers across territory that they never could of taken so easily otherwise.

[naterist]

shouldve made 2 types of mercs. mercs called mercs for the IS and mercs called bandit caste for the clans, in lore some clans used the bandit caste like mercs. its a bit shakey but it wouldvee helped keep people for switching around as much and mightve made sense lore wise (its shakey). but thats what ifs. we have something coming saturday and im excited for it.

[Fuerchtenichts]

naterist, on 29 November 2016 - 11:16 PM, said:

shouldve made 2 types of mercs. mercs called mercs for the IS and mercs called bandit caste for the clans, in lore some clans used the bandit caste like mercs. its a bit shakey but it wouldvee helped keep people for switching around as much and mightve made sense lore wise (its shakey). but thats what ifs. we have something coming saturday and im excited for it.

In my opionion most of the current Merc players are less interested in lore but in playing every mech chassis they have in their hangar. They are primarily looking for matches and PGI promoted this style of playing by offering them additional bonuses for switching factions and gaining faction rewards. Besides the lore aspect, this alone contradicts your proposal.

Edited by Fuerchtenichts, 01 December 2016 - 11:21 PM.

[Kael Posavatz]

They already tried focusing on Mercs.

The original reward scheme incentivized merc behavior. Doing the so-called 'grand tour' netted twenty mechbays for only 318000 LP. In contrast, a loyalist would have reached reward tier 14 and received four mechbays.

The revised reward scheme in Phase III ignored loyalists, and once again incentivized Mercs, this time with their own reward tier (why it gives Mercs fewer c-bills than loyalists earn is something you will have to ask PGI at MechCon).

For that matter, under the original roll-out of FW everyone was considered a merc. It flat-out said so. It's just that units had the option of being permanently contracted to a specific faction. This irritated some lore-junkies who were associated with factions that dislike/despise mercs (DC, FRR, any Clan...) but ultimately it was something that we lived with.

If I thought, for one minute, that ditching lore--which is a good portion of why any loyalist is still playing this game--would somehow 'fix', or enable PGI to fix, CW, I'd be behind it. But I see nothing in the original post that makes me believe that a fix will materialize by taking the step of not only calling everyone a merc, but forcing them to change faction as needed to balance population.

I mean, if you aren't forcing the proposed former-loyalists to change faction when you need, then nothing will stop the 'loyalists' from being 'permanently contacted' to a specific faction. If you are going to force them to change faction you're basically dictating what corner of the sandbox MechWarrior Joseph Bloggs is playing in on any given day. One of these makes the proposed change meaningless, the other makes it reprehensible.

The only way to make "the focus...on merc units rather than politics or factions" without doing either of these, is to not have politics or factions at all. At which point we are no longer playing MechWarrior™ but 'giant, stompy robots'.

Edited by Kael Posavatz, 02 December 2016 - 08:10 PM.