72 replies to this topic

[LORD ORION]

Kobzarrr, on 21 December 2016 - 01:41 PM, said:

Tnx all exploiters and brand new system of group vs solo players faction play, im out , if you want feed some trolls go on . For me its tottaly clear FAction Play - is quick play without any matchmaking system , no weight (first drop tottaly random in solo team) no tier system , [Redacted].

all normal players , who yet don't have good unit - ask you IGNORE faction play , more good people in QP, all exploiters in FP .

48 mech QP maps in FP pretty much made every person who dislikes QP quit the game forever.
Game will be shutdown this time next year.

Edited by draiocht, 02 January 2017 - 12:05 PM.
Quote Clean-Up

[Chagatay]

LORD ORION, on 23 December 2016 - 12:00 AM, said:

48 mech QP maps in FP pretty much made every person who dislikes QP quit the game forever.
Game will be shutdown this time next year.

I am not that pessimistic. Even if FP goes bust there exists many that pretty much only play QP.

[Tiantara]

- Maybe adding small phases with Invasion map after each "QP" phases can help?

[Void Angel]

Chagatay, on 22 December 2016 - 07:25 PM, said:

It is easy they already have the code. It is add a button....that is it. i know it is PGI but.....still add a button (they already have all the code for the other parts).

The coding isn't the private fact I'm objecting to.

[BearFlag]

LORD ORION, on 23 December 2016 - 12:00 AM, said:

48 mech QP maps in FP pretty much made every person who dislikes QP quit the game forever.
Game will be shutdown this time next year.

Maybe not that dire, but yeah, PGI brought in QP in a way sure to PO everyone.

That 5% who like respawn Invasion but not QP maps/modes: not happy.
That 90% who like QP maps/modes but left respawn carnage behind two years ago: not happy.

Just a bad formula.

Now that the maps are in though, may as well leave them in but restrict which modes appear to suit the respawn players (Assault?, maybe Conquest?).

For the 90%, for crying out loud bring in their preferred game. QP modes, no respawn, with matchmaking. Make it a separate queue so you end up with:

Invasion: respawn, no matchmaker, major battles represented
Frontline/Battlefront: QP modes, no respawn, with match building. Minor, continuous battles "on the front"
Scout: as is

This would not generally affect FW queue health because the 90% DON"T PLAY ANYWAY. It would, hopefully, involve them in FW playing their preferred game. This would semi-segregate (you can still cross-over) players into the broad categories of preference while not excuding QP players. I like Scouting these days, but still play Carnage sometimes. Why shoudn't QP players have their own FW mode?

Edited by BearFlag, 23 December 2016 - 02:39 PM.

[Cox Devalis]

LORD ORION, on 23 December 2016 - 12:00 AM, said:

48 mech QP maps in FP pretty much made every person who dislikes QP quit the game forever.
Game will be shutdown this time next year.

Yeah. Got 1 Taiga tonight and 1 Vitric last night for 10 hours of playing FP overall.
2 Faction Play maps per 10 hours. Almost 10 hours of playing QP maps instead of real CW. I hate this new patch. Really. This is the worst update I've ever seen in this game. PGI just removed half of the game. And everyone is happy (!!)

[Tiantara]

- The best solution here is...
1. make QP phases shorter.
2. Add between them Invasion map phases.
3. Make Invasion phase bigger.

Like:
- Invasion Stage 1 - Game Mode: Skirmish (medium) (because it's fun, but not for that long time. More often IS mech was just locked in dropzones and have no chance to get out).
- Invasion Stage 1a - Game Mode: Invasion (Short) (after skirmish having strategy oriented map is great for short phase)

- Invasion Stage 2 - Game Mode: Domination (short) (nice phase, but have some weak points when all active players have... not so speedy mech to come into circle or thay locket in DropZone. Well... that not a best phase in FP now. Clan have better chance to win that. Maybe more than 2 gen with ecm+turret cover can change that mode to better - by splitting mech into gen killers and dominators in circle.)
- Invasion Stage 2a - Game Mode: Invasion (medium)


- Invasion Stage 3 - Game Mode: Conquest (medium) (good phase and i have a lot fun with that in FP)
- Invasion Stage 3a - Game Mode: Invasion (medium)


- Invasion Stage 4 - Game Mode: Assault (short) (that phase always become nascar and fast mech first to capture... no really stategy, no some tactics. Adding seconady point for capture or adding mechanic of destroy 2 generators before starting capture base with support of few turrets and 1 ecm tower - turn that mode in much greater phase as it is now.
- Invasion Stage 4a - Game Mode: Invasion (1\4 of remained phases)

Here some visualization of what I mean.

Spoiler

Maybe that make happy QP players and in same time FP players as well.
Goal - make QP phases shorter to end and make Invasion phases longer in same time.

Edited by Tiantara, 23 December 2016 - 05:24 PM.

[Void Angel]

I've enjoyed the quick play Faction Warfare maps. The shorter times and more concentrated fighting is rewarding, and the pain of getting camped when your team won't adapt to the enemy is also reduced. This format will allow players new to CW a little breathing room before they're thrown to the (diamond) sharks and expected to know what to do when they walk into Boreal Vault and are greeted by the typical Clan Skyline of long-range and LRM 'mechs. Since the time investment required combined with the possibility of being trapped in a bad match for that timeframe are the main things dragging my Faction Play participation down, it seems reasonable to suppose that other people feel the same way.
But of course, this is only my experience. None of us are in a position to predict that the new format "killed" Faction Play, or declare that people are "quitting the game forever." Making those claims just makes us seem foolish to PGI - they know the real numbers, and they know we don't have them.

The Christmas event has periodic offerings designed to encourage people to try the new Faction Play format - once the event is over, they'll evaluate things from there. I would; and if you want less normal maps and more long sieges, well... PGI already made adjustments to that mix, so it's hardly outrageous to suspect they might do it again - if they get constructive feedback that's not talking down to them from a position of ignorance.

[HB10]

Cox Devalis, on 23 December 2016 - 02:31 PM, said:

2 Faction Play maps per 10 hours. Almost 10 hours of playing QP maps instead of real CW. I hate this new patch. Really. This is the worst update I've ever seen in this game. PGI just removed half of the game.

Tiantara, on 23 December 2016 - 05:23 PM, said:

- The best solution here is...
1. make QP phases shorter.
2. Add between them Invasion map phases.
3. Make Invasion phase bigger.

PGI are directed to diversify FW experience. In order to test QP modes in FW and gather more statistics in a shorter period of time, they are increased probability of getting those modes in comparison with classic invasion. So, it is very likely that in future QP phases will be shortened again.
Topic starter though seems to be pissed more by injustice of matchmaking system and cheating rather than by new FW additions. Just to clarify if there is point to discuss anything about it.
As for me, the main problem with new FW is that QP maps are not designed for it at all. DZ on maps like Forest Colony and Toutmaline are so far away from each other that in some common situations reinforcements are not able to reach other forces to regroup in time. Also, those awkwardly placed walls in DZ. In Forest Colony DZ wall is placed near indestructible tree in the way it really disturbs movement. But what is the point in those walls at all? To provide cover from dropships to make DZ farm safer? Why not set up there some turrets? They won't make worse.

[Commander A9]

Exploiters, huh?

Playing the game as it was designed is not an exploit.

It sounds like you have a problem with facing better-skilled players while fighting by yourself, without a unit, without a team, without coordination...

So, here's my response.

Edited by Commander A9, 24 December 2016 - 09:57 AM.

[Evil Goof]

Kobzarrr, on 21 December 2016 - 01:41 PM, said:

Tnx all exploiters and brand new system of group vs solo players faction play, im out , if you want feed some trolls go on . For me its tottaly clear FAction Play - is quick play without any matchmaking system , no weight (first drop tottaly random in solo team) no tier system , [Redacted].

all normal players , who yet don't have good unit - ask you IGNORE faction play , more good people in QP, all exploiters in FP .

It is really sad that you go straight to hackusations instead of trying to understand the issues. I don't hear top level players going on about cheating. Just terrible players who can barely shoot straight and think that lrm Atlas' are next to God.

Edited by draiocht, 02 January 2017 - 12:07 PM.
Quote Clean-Up

[Tiantara]

HB10, on 24 December 2016 - 08:32 AM, said:

PGI are directed to diversify FW experience. In order to test QP modes in FW and gather more statistics in a shorter period of time, they are increased probability of getting those modes in comparison with classic invasion. So, it is very likely that in future QP phases will be shortened again.

- Hope so! But all statistic would be less accurate until players found some strategy to play on that map. Now most popular strategy - kill all, use range and lock on dropzones with killing one by one. But, hope they become shorter.

HB10, on 24 December 2016 - 08:32 AM, said:

Topic starter though seems to be pissed more by injustice of matchmaking system and cheating rather than by new FW additions. Just to clarify if there is point to discuss anything about it.

- Seems all comments and post about cheating and injustice appear only when two sides have one conflict and no wars between houses\clans.

HB10, on 24 December 2016 - 08:32 AM, said:

As for me, the main problem with new FW is that QP maps are not designed for it at all. DZ on maps like Forest Colony and Toutmaline are so far away from each other that in some common situations reinforcements are not able to reach other forces to regroup in time. Also, those awkwardly placed walls in DZ. In Forest Colony DZ wall is placed near indestructible tree in the way it really disturbs movement. But what is the point in those walls at all? To provide cover from dropships to make DZ farm safer? Why not set up there some turrets? They won't make worse.

- Totally agree. But here we have some chance of using ability of commander to change drop zone by moving pilot from lance to lance by communication within team. To collect all in one drop zone. But... it really hard to do in real battle. Maybe adding ability to choose drop zone by enforcing player could change that. All other yeah - not best level design decision.

[Votanin FleshRender]

Commander A9, on 22 December 2016 - 12:52 PM, said:

There's your problem right there, buddy. You're dropping as a solo pug in a game mode dominated by big teams

Is it? I mean, I know big teams dominate winning, but as far as the total CW population, are big teams dominating the population? I would LOVE to see some numbers on what percentage of players in CW are solo, 2-4 man, 5-8, or 9+. And I would wager heavily that at a minimum, at least half of the total CW population is soloers.

All you folks wanting your 'holy hawdcore' mode don't realize and have never realized, is that without soloers, there is no CW. You've been shown the evidence in Phase 1-3, that once soloers are tired of getting ***** in CW, they leave, and once they leave, CW is a ghost town. You'll be shown the evidence in phase 4 too, I believe very strongly, although the fact that PGI is hiding the queue might help prolong it.

I badly, SO badly want CW to be something it will doubtfully ever be, with depth, goals, rewards, ANY kind of RP aspect to make me care enough about it to try it and join a unit, but at this point I'm done wishing in one hand and crapping in the other. It's just another playmode, no more, no less. And with zero matchmaking, it will die again.

Edited by Votanin FleshRender, 24 December 2016 - 07:57 PM.

[Sedmeister]

ztac, on 22 December 2016 - 07:31 AM, said:

I think that the fact that the playerbase has shrunk so much certainly is an indicator that something is wrong with this game.

Maybe not so many cheats .. but the game itself is not exactly fair due to balance issues. And of course faction play is wide open due to the small player base...

Around 60% play IS and 40% clans.... generally at peak times so far all I have seen is 1-1.5k players. Which for a game like this is poor by any standards. But it is Xmas almost.......(And I have only played for the last week or so).

Still I am hoping for MW5 to be a nicer game than this as it has potential so long as PGI don't mess that up too!

How did you get your hands on player stats? I thought PGI never released that data?

[Commander A9]

I'm not asking solo players to leave.

I'm telling them to stop whining.

Edited by Commander A9, 24 December 2016 - 08:56 PM.

[Chagatay]

Commander A9, on 24 December 2016 - 08:56 PM, said:

I'm not asking solo players to leave.

I'm telling them to stop whining.

The basic fact is, the current system as implemented is not sustainable as shown by phase 1-3. Players will leave and the queue will be deserted unless bribed. Bribery only works short term. How to solve the long term problem is up to PGI. Personally, I believe it is going to take some form of queue separation, matchmaking, and/or enforced team balancing such as one group of 4 allowed/required per side (previously done in quickplay for example). There are not enough of the "Eve" mentality type people in this game to make that work....

What's that....you don't believe me? See how well repair and re-arm worked......

Void Angel, on 23 December 2016 - 11:24 AM, said:

The coding isn't the private fact I'm objecting to.

The solution I put forward is the easiest I can think of and has been done already to great success....namely you just split the queue (not that fake, weak, halfhearted split they did earlier but a real honest solo/group split). They can of course do the 1 team of 4 per side route and fill with pugs* or any other sort of solution that makes sense. I am open to this as well. They could even invest more money and development but I just see that as an unrealistic expectation to have at this point in time.

As to the hard core people who insist that it should remain the same...well I just see it as a huge waste of development if only a couple hundred people out tens of thousands enjoy what the developers have worked on. Of course, this is also not new. As for example, Blizzard development saw this issue with Naxxramas as only the top raiding guilds (<1% of the population requiring 40+ man guilds) got to play what took a good deal of development time. Ultimately, Blizzard opened it up with the WoLK expansion as a 'new' lesser manned (only 10 people required nowhere near as hard) raiding dungeon to let other players experience it. Most people that still played WoW at that time would have played that version as it was one of the earliest raid instances you could do.

[Void Angel]

Still going right over your head.

The problem with your assertions is that you're assuming there's enough people to do what you want to do - leaving aside whether or not it's a good idea. That's what you're missing, and it's an assumption you just can't justify.

[Stormie]

Sedmeister, on 24 December 2016 - 08:44 PM, said:

How did you get your hands on player stats? I thought PGI never released that data?

I don't know for sure but my guess is he's getting the peak population from steam (despite many people not using steam) steam numbers vary from up to 2000 ish in US prime time to 550/600 in Oceanic prime time.

The population stats I believe hes just adding the % attributed to the factions on the merc contract select screen. Again we know that these figures are as useful as **** on a bull, given theres no distinction between active and inactive

[Chagatay]

Void Angel, on 24 December 2016 - 11:20 PM, said:

Still going right over your head.

The problem with your assertions is that you're assuming there's enough people to do what you want to do - leaving aside whether or not it's a good idea. That's what you're missing, and it's an assumption you just can't justify.

Then your solution is do nothing...I can accept that. It is an opinion that I don't share but it is yours. FW 4.1 could well be sunshine and rainbows for all. (Oprah voice) You get a unicorn, I get a unicorn, they get a unicorn...everyone gets a unicorn. I'll concede for now as there is little data to go by at this point as to whether or not PGI was successful in 4.1.

I just have my doubts.....serious doubts. Maybe I actually am too pessimistic.

Edited by Chagatay, 25 December 2016 - 01:14 AM.

[Jungle Rhino]

I'm an IS solo-drop potato that adds very little to my teams chances of winning - so take this with a grain of salt.

I think I'm 2/7 right now in CW.

Seems to me this follows the general trend.

All other things being equal - teamwork/player skill/whatever.

Where does the discrepancy in results come from?