Jump to content

Ways To Have Closer Matches In Fp

Balance

21 replies to this topic

Poll: Possible Adjustments to FP (68 member(s) have cast votes)

Should we ban trial mechs from FP?

  1. Definitely (32 votes [47.06%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 47.06%

  2. This is OK (8 votes [11.76%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 11.76%

  3. Unsure (8 votes [11.76%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 11.76%

  4. Not a good idea (5 votes [7.35%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 7.35%

  5. Absolutely not (15 votes [22.06%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 22.06%

The minimum pilot Tier to drop in FP should be:

  1. No minimum (30 votes [44.12%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 44.12%

  2. Tier 4 (11 votes [16.18%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 16.18%

  3. Tier 3 (22 votes [32.35%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 32.35%

  4. Tier 2 (1 votes [1.47%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 1.47%

  5. Tier 1 (4 votes [5.88%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 5.88%

The minimum group size for dropping in FP should be:

  1. Solo allowed (56 votes [82.35%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 82.35%

  2. 2 or 3 player minimum (8 votes [11.76%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 11.76%

  3. 4+ player minimum (1 votes [1.47%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 1.47%

  4. Full 12 player teams ONLY (3 votes [4.41%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 4.41%

Should matchmaking be introduced in FP?

  1. Yes, immediately. (17 votes [25.00%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 25.00%

  2. Yes, but not if it makes high skill players wait longer. (10 votes [14.71%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 14.71%

  3. Unsure (7 votes [10.29%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 10.29%

  4. No, because it won't work (small population). (23 votes [33.82%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 33.82%

  5. No matchmaking (11 votes [16.18%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 16.18%

Should drop deck size dynamically change (loser gains, winner drops)?

  1. Yes, this would really help. (6 votes [8.82%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 8.82%

  2. This would be fine. (12 votes [17.65%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 17.65%

  3. Unsure (18 votes [26.47%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 26.47%

  4. Not a good idea (20 votes [29.41%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 29.41%

  5. I hate this. (12 votes [17.65%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 17.65%

What is the maximum percentage of mercs that should be able to go Clan at one time?

  1. 100% (no restrictions) (30 votes [44.12%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 44.12%

  2. more than 60% (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  3. up to 60% (3 votes [4.41%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 4.41%

  4. up to 50% (15 votes [22.06%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 22.06%

  5. less than 50% (7 votes [10.29%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 10.29%

  6. 0% (ban Clan mercs) (13 votes [19.12%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 19.12%

Do you support 10 Clan vs. 12 IS mechs?

  1. Yes, this is better than tonnage differences.. (19 votes [27.94%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 27.94%

  2. Unsure (8 votes [11.76%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 11.76%

  3. No, this is probably even harder to balance. (19 votes [27.94%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 27.94%

  4. No, this is terrible idea. (22 votes [32.35%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 32.35%

To compare to the other answers: how potato are IS Loyalists?

  1. They are only held back by OP Clan Tech (7 votes [10.29%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 10.29%

  2. Proper balance would help, but . . . (18 votes [26.47%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 26.47%

  3. They need to shed their LuRMtards and TT grognards (27 votes [39.71%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 39.71%

  4. Pure Idaho Russets (16 votes [23.53%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 23.53%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#21 naterist

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary Rank 6
  • Mercenary Rank 6
  • 1,724 posts
  • Location7th circle of hell

Posted 02 January 2017 - 02:17 PM

View PostKingCobra, on 31 December 2016 - 12:47 AM, said:

If they had balance people wouldn't care about fighting a team.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Monkey let me tell you about how tonnage does not mean crappola to teams I personally have been on top tier comp teams Clan and IS for 4 years (not this name) and have seen teams on both sides Clan and IS take drop decks of 4 lights and just slaughter smaller team groups and pugs and casuals by the thousands for farming.

Top tier 12 man PREMADES CAN TAKE ANY TONNAGE AND FARM ALMOST EVERYONE in MWO except other similar groups and that's the real reason they don't want to fight other teams.

They just want to farm seal club and slaughter pugs/casuals and small team groups no matter if they kill the game and PGI lets them do this for 4 years now because at one time they financed the game by 50% not its like 20% they only fund the game and its in PGI's best interest to cater to who is paying for the game the most.



considering most of those founders say they arent paying pgi anymore, because their upset this isnt THEIR vision of mwo, should we even listen to em at all?

#22 KingCobra

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 2,726 posts
  • LocationUSA

Posted 03 January 2017 - 02:12 PM

Vincent said ( just thought of a different idea, though. What if there were a series of matches being built (say, one for each planet being contested)? People in groups of 4 or more would be auto-assigned to a particular planet. People who were solo or small group would get to choose what planet they went to. The interface would show the group size and average Tier of the players in those groups, then people would queue up accordingly. As people waited on a particular planet, a "Call to Arms" bonus would slowly accumulate for anyone who joined that queue, which would be automatic rewards at end-of-match, win or lose. Thus, you would be incentivized to stay put, and incentivized to fill holes in the queue. It's essentially player-driven matchmaking. )
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Great idea Vincent there are many ways to tackle the FP problems is all a matter of =(IS PGI AND RUSS LISTENING)??????????
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Naterist said (considering most of those founders say they aren't paying pgi anymore, because their upset this isn't THEIR vision of mwo, should we even listen to em at all? )
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm a founder (under another name) and have paid into MWO considerably but I think personally everyone should have a equal say in how they feel about MWO and what the future of the game becomes especially if your a paying customer.

When the DEVS or company personnel only listen to one groups opinions about this game(MWO) they(PGI) assume the responsibility of game failure and loss of compensation($$$$$) by the majority of active players still wanting to play and believe that the game will become better over time.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users