27 replies to this topic

[Cyrus Drake]

In addition to my votes: I stopped playing as Neither side can get to invasion mode before the last 30-50mins of the phase, sometimes not even then, so I'm stuck playing QP games 95% of the time.
Trough the last event during the holidays, I only had 6 Invasion games. 4.1 ruined FW for me completely.

[Husker Dude]

Ironically, I think the majority of the FP games I've seen have been pinned firmly in the Invasion mode.
It's a shame, I think the Conquest FP mode has been quite good, I'd like to play that mode more often but it's a very narrow window when that mode is active. It's been the best for avoiding the inevitable push of a weak team all the way back to the spawns in Skirmish/Assault, and the accidental quick Domination win.

[BearFlag]

Volkodav, on 04 January 2017 - 12:37 AM, said:

If PGI trying to balance 50 \ 50 clans vs sphere, then at his achievement, in theory, FW maps we do not see at all. )

Do you want that?

I would have left only the Assault mode for FW, but not the one which is now, and the one who announced, with normal bases and others. And return old screen to prepare for the match, where you can see queue.

Spoiler

Good idea. In the map voting, Assault was the most popular followed by Conquest. That would limit the respawn modes to two, so dedicated Invasion players would see their mode more often.

Although it didn't do well in the voting, I also favor the idea of a third queue. Invasion, Scout and Frontline (or something like that). To appeal directly to QP players habits, make it 12v12 (or 8v8) with no respawn and as much matchmaker as can be brought to bear. All or some of the QP modes could be tasked. This would give QP players a familiar game in which to take part in FW and maybe function like a gateway drug to bring them deeper in. Most of the 80 or 90% don't have much to do with respawn modes so it shouldn't hurt the Invasion (+Inv/Assault) queue.

I suspect if more QP types were voting the result would be different.

Edited by BearFlag, 04 January 2017 - 07:49 PM.

[50 50]

Overall I have played more Faction Play since 4.1 that I think I have all year.
While I like the inclusion of the maps and modes I believe the next step needs to be to combine them into one REALLY BIG MAP in a longer prolonged battle we can rotate more than 12 players per side through in waves.
I can see some real potential in making the mode more open and continuous.

[Van mw]

50 50, on 13 January 2017 - 12:57 AM, said:

I believe the next step needs to be to combine them into one REALLY BIG MAP in a longer prolonged battle we can rotate more than 12 players per side through in waves.

I believe I saw/heard response that that is impossible due to game engine/performance.

[50 50]

Van mw, on 13 January 2017 - 02:09 AM, said:

I believe I saw/heard response that that is impossible due to game engine/performance.

Ah, 12 mechs per side is apparently the limit though with recent improvements in the netcode it may be possible to get more.
What I am referring to is player count.
Consider how the waves in Faction Play work and if it might be possible to put new players into the next wave to replace those that fall or retreat from the battle as it rages on while those players themselves return to a waiting queue in a following wave.
No more that 24 mechs active in a battle at one point, but it may be possible to have more players waiting to reinforce.
Consider that we have the spectator option in the Private matches.
That is two additional players.
If the reinforcements were limited to a battlegrid view of some sort to plan and watch events unfold, I don't see why it wouldn't be possible.

Imagine the level of strategy and tactics that might evolve if we can group with up to 36 players in a team to fight over multiple objectives in a more epic scenario.

Having said that, I also believe it should be possible to just have a single player commence a battle by scouting the map, performing some raids and preparing a map for potential full scale invasion while avoiding enemy patrols.

[SteelMantis]

I voted, "No, never" for matchmaker because I don't think we need a mmr style matchmaker.

However I strongly support a better system to match groups with other groups and pugs with other pugs.

[BearFlag]

SteelMantis, on 14 January 2017 - 12:15 AM, said:

I voted, "No, never" for matchmaker because I don't think we need a mmr style matchmaker.

However I strongly support a better system to match groups with other groups and pugs with other pugs.

"No matchmaker" received good support in the voting with 41.3% of (currently) 104 votes cast. The same percentage favors matchmaking in Invasion mode while 45.2% favor it for QP maps/modes in FW. Scout was lowest with 33.6% desiring a MM. Overall, MM/no MM is split down the middle.

In retrospect, I should have captured ~who~ is voting. Since it's about FW and posted in FW, I suspect most voters are FW players. At some point in the future it'd be nice to hear the whys behind 80 - 90% not playing FW.

A question about group/pug matching would have been good too.

Edited by BearFlag, 14 January 2017 - 01:44 PM.