348 replies to this topic

[Carl Vickers]

For a PSR to work in FP it really needs to be separate from the PSR for QP, totally different game to QP.

[Deathlike]

Outside of the round table only being a "table with only one man's dictation".... three things...

1) When is FP/CW/FW going to have actual depth and purpose? Go winning planet is not enough, especially with the paltry rewards (lol MC giveaway is a joke).

2) What plans are there to mitigate actual competent play? I've already written down thoughts on how to actually fix this for FW (not ideal/optimal, but a vast improvement over nothing).

Link - https://mwomercs.com...__fromsearch__1

3) Once a player reaches level 20 in whatever faction or Merc unit they are in... what is their purpose past that point?

Bonus) Are there any plans to improve Invasion, since it's a total lopsided garbage mode... like additional spawns, or random elements (like generators not being in fixed spots), or even just additional objectives that provide an actual purpose than just deathmatch with ideal firing lines towards incoming targets?

Edited by Deathlike, 24 January 2017 - 09:12 PM.

[Liveish]

justcallme A S H, on 24 January 2017 - 09:07 PM, said:

So you cannot apply a MM in Oceanic because it'll always be overridden given the low population now the new/shiny has worn off.

Cheers, No CW for me then

I would love to see CW be the casual quick play and then change QP to ranked play with a 8v8 limit

[justcallme A S H]

I wait on average 5-10mins per match in Oceanic each night I'm on

That said, sometimes it's faster. Occasionally there are ghosts. The ghosts are becoming more frequent though and if PGI put their head in the sand over the population issues there, it'll just go back to what it was 4 months ago, 20-30mins wait. So long that I stopped playing.

[Liveish]

I don't want to wait 10 to 20 mins to smash another team for 20 mins 48-0.

its not fun. ( QP is turning into that now too, with faster wait time hahah)

[Jman5]

One of the topics covered before I got on was about maps/modes and how it can be hard to play certain modes if you can't log on early or late into the attack phase.

The guys were talking about voting, but instead, I think it should just be random. If you turn it into a vote then the pugs/small groups will spread their votes all around, while the big premade will be able to concentrate all their votes on whatever suits them.

If you just randomize it then you will have different game modes at all hours and it can't just be hijacked by a 12 man on one team deciding what gets played.

Edited by Jman5, 24 January 2017 - 09:36 PM.

[Sereglach]

Bombadil, on 24 January 2017 - 06:43 PM, said:

There is a community-lead pre-roundtable discussion going on right now: https://www.twitch.tv/mech_xavier

Will also be monitoring comments, suggestions, and feedback here.

Listened to a lot of this stream (at least the last hour and a half or so) and mostly agree with their final 3 points. Here are some related caveats/comments/ideas.

1. Gameplay Windows and Match Voting:

- The biggest thing that made me lose interest in FW was the fact that the planet flip can be decided in the last 30 min to 1 hour of the window. Consider making it so that once the meter is filled over 90% that if it stays over that mark for 1 hour then the planet flips and the next planet is selected.

- I think the game-mode voting while its in the QP game modes would be a good move as it helps bring over the feel of QP for the QP portion of FW. Once that window is breached then leave it to invasion . . . it's the "do or die" moment when you're trying to push the enemy out of your base-of-operations.

- All-or-Nothing needs to go away. I completely agree that 4 "buckets" -one for each planet- in the current system of combined IS vs. Clan should be completely doable even with a smaller population. Scouting could remain as one bucket to keep from splitting up a big solo-player attraction and/or keep everyone with a vested interest to fight for scouting bonuses.

2. Playstyle Rewards:

- Mercs Units are baseline for c-bill pay and XP. However they can receive a % bonus to both, based on the population of the faction they're currently working for. The lesser the Loyalist population, the better the bonuses; but if a faction is overpopulated they won't get any bonuses . . . or maybe even penalties. This encourages them to fill gaps and balance things out across the factions. They get a number of MC equal to their rank for WINS ONLY.

- Loyalists receive a flat minimum salary of XP and c-bills based on Rank (10k c-bills and 10xp per rank up to 200k c-bills and 200xp at rank 20). This ensures they still receive respectable c-bills for a loss as being a loyal member of their faction's military. Then they get a c-bill and XP % bonus equal to their rank (20% at rank 20) on wins. For MC bonuses, Loyalists receive a bonus based on their rank (1 MC every even rank up to 10 MC at rank 20) for wins and half on a loss (rounded down).

- Solo players get a rank system similar to Mercs that's only for "Lone Wolves". Because they fill ranks where needed, and do not get put in the best of circumstances (or are often newer players), they get a "Hazard Pay Bonus" that is based on this Lone Wolf ranking structure. They receive a flat c-bill bonus and a % XP bonus based on their rank. Then they receive a MC bonus similar to what Loyalists receive.

- These not only make each play style more unique, but it allows people to have a flavorful experience based more on lore. Mercenaries are hired to win; and get the best rewards for winning. Loyalists receive steady rewards for being loyal to their faction, but the potential isn't as high as Mercs. Lone Wolves fill ranks when desperately needed, and receive modest participation rewards for providing those needs to make matches launch . . . even knowing that they're not headed into a favorable situation for themselves.

3. Faction Related "Quirks":

- Should NOT make mechs handle differently between QP and FW. QP is like the "practice grounds" to grind your mechs and learn how they play. Any benefit (like directly altering weapon properties) should be off the table.

- Should require FW participation to receive. For instance: Lets say that each faction provides discounts on lore-friendly chassis/variants to help people get what they want and play the mechs they like. Those discounts should only be active as long as you played at least 1 FW match that day.

- Consider offering drop-deck advantages to loyalists of 10-20 tons as long as three quarters of their drop deck is filled with faction favored chassis/variants. Give them a small MC bonus if they win the match and their drop-deck is filled exclusively with faction specific mechs.

- Consider offering Clan loyalists % bonuses to XP & c-bills the more their drop deck is under weight. Give them 1 MC per 10-20 tons that their drop deck is under-tonnage and they still win a match.

- Give hefty bonuses to Scouting drop decks that use faction-favored chassis/variants and extra bonuses based on lighter chassis tonnage (especially if the tonnage for Scouting is going to stay at 55).

If there's time for extra suggestions, I'll just link this recent post, HERE as it talks about possible changes to Scouting Mode to make it more lore-friendly and immersive . . . while offering a more exciting and role-related experience.

[Deathlike]

I keep forgetting this, but this is important...

Please stop counting players in a faction that don't play FW.

It distorts things pretty significantly as loyalists tend to be in certain popular/notable factions, but that doesn't change their want of playing FW/CW/FP by any stretch.

[BearFlag]

Bombadil, on 24 January 2017 - 06:43 PM, said:

There is a community-lead pre-roundtable discussion going on right now: https://www.twitch.tv/mech_xavier

Will also be monitoring comments, suggestions, and feedback here.

Let's not talk about that last one. I'll stick to short term, easy to implement....mostly.

1) Since a matchmaker isn't likely, mitigate stomps in all respawn modes with auto-victory conditions. It's a pervasive tool in wargame design. For MWO, something like this: if the kill (not suicides) spread reaches 15 or 20, Mission Abort. Up team wins, down team loses. Queue up for the next one. Doesn't have to go to the bloody and forgone end. Reduce some of the spawn camping and player frustration that goes with it. If nothing else, use it for Skirmish which has no victory by objective. (Secondary, reduce objective gaming for the purpose of farming by reward or mechanism.)

2) Name these conflict types. Right now, "Invasion" means a type and a mode. As a type, it includes all respawn modes like Skirmish, Assault, etc. Although Scout has only one mode ATM, ditto. For respawn, something like "Onslaught." So a sensible hierarchical naming like "Onslaught - Invasion", "Onslaught - Skirmish." For Scout it could be Scout, Raid, Patrol.

3) Help loyalists. We need love. We also need a much larger, active loyalist base to offset the wild swings that accompany merc shifting.

4) Control population. Sterilize all Clanners. No wait. I mean balance population. No ideas from me. But it shouldn't have to involve monitoring and intervention on PGI's part.

Longer term:
Get the other 90% involved in FW. Introduce a third conflict type that specifically targets QP players. Bring their game to FW (but not of course Clan/IS coed). Name of the conflict type could be Frontline or Battlefront or some such. 12v12 or 8v8, no respawn, and a schizophrenic matchmaker. That is, extend a matchmaker to use both pool/PSR/weight methods and a "balance of last resort" method. Last Resort method is weight class bumping. Frontline drop decks would be composed of one each light, medium, heavy and assault with one "preferred." Only one goes into the match, probably the preferred, but if the MM sees imbalance it can bump as a final means. During low population, this might be the ONLY method available. Limit teams. Frontline battles affect the tug-o-war less than Onslaught (Invasion) naturally.

[Big Tin Man]

Two things, and I've hit on them before.

1. FP needs a hard barrier to entry. The pop up box doesn't cut it, and pugs are ruining their fp experience for themselves by clicking the nag box away and then getting their teeth kicked in while dragging down their team. Here's some loose requirements as a start: 1. No tier 5, ever. Not sorry about that either. They just don't belong in hardcore mode. 2. Scouting requires 100 qp drops or tier 3, whichever comes first. 3. Invasion/whateveritscallednow requires 250 qp drops or tier 2, whichever comes first. People love unlocking achievements, so give them a new one to get. Maybe it's not drop numbers, maybe it's an equivalent amount of gxp. But whatever it is, it cannot be clicked away in seconds (edit: OR BOUGHT) .

2. In regards to mercs: https://mwomercs.com...jumping-around/

I also started a minor fw fixes thread (bugs and qol annoyances) a while back, but I'm not going to necro it from my phone.

Edited by Big Tin Man, 24 January 2017 - 10:02 PM.

[50 50]

Bombadil, on 24 January 2017 - 07:35 PM, said:

If you agree or disagree with what is being discussed, please post your suggestions here. Even if you're not listening, but have suggestions to improve Faction Play, please post here.

Jolly good.

I would suggest that the biggest positive to come out of the last change was the inclusion of the quick play maps and modes.
In particular it has been widely accepted that Conquest has ported across very well which I attribute to the multiple objective points that can be captured and recaptured. Being able to use the drop decks has changed the dynamic for the quick play modes and the longer match times have made them seem more epic.

Where it there have been some negatives is in the nature of the tug of war system where players do not get a chance to enjoy the variety of modes due to the current tug of war position. This is true of the quick play maps/modes and also for those who enjoy the Invasion mode and maps. Some of the quick play modes have not ported across as well which has brought back some old problems such as spawn camping.

I would suggest that the best option is to not use a staged approach to the battle, but to combine the modes into one battle, one map so we have a combination of objectives and can take aspects from the different modes that make them unique.

I would propose the following:

• Setup an Assault Base, the Domination Radar and the Invasion Cannon as major objectives on the map held by the defending side.
  
• Have the control of these objectives provide a benefit just to the team that controls it on that map in that battle.
  
• Allow these major objectives to be captured and recaptured so we have shifting battle lines and objectives during the battle... ie. a tug of war in the battle.
  
• Setup these major objectives like the Invasion mode, give them a gate to get through, wall them in and multiple turrets to defend them. Make them significant.
  
• Have the Resource Points from Conquest added to the map as minor objectives that can also be captured and recaptured.
  
• Give these resource points some defences to overcome to give them more substance.
  
• Have the resources points mean something to the players individually. ie. Accumulate the points on the player drop decks while they are in the field.
  
• Allow players to spend these points via their drop decks to repair a mech or save them as a form of 'Loot'.
  
• Change the 'Win' condition so that it is not based on total resource points or the control of one of the major objectives. Change the win condition so all three of the major objectives must be held/controlled for victory by an attacking team.

Several important features to look at including:

• When players are waiting to drop into battle, ie, they are in the Drop Ship, we need a way to change the drop location if the default is overrun. This can't be a random spot on the map. It should be a point controlled by your team such as one of the objectives.
  
• Include a way to retreat from battle. Once again, this needs to be at a point controlled by your team, but it allows a player to return to their drop deck to bring out a fresh mech and get the damaged one repaired/rearmed as per the use of resource points above. Look at the scouting mode extraction as a starting point.
  
• Hide the objectives. Do not automatically show them on the battlegrid or compass. A bit of random placement of the locations will help here. create a natural reason to scout within the battle.

Alot of the above is massively in favour of the defending team. It is their planet/battle to lose and in a galaxy with a limited number of planets split between factions that want to protect them, rapid loss of multiple planets as we have been seeing is not good for any side. That said, the attacking forces do need a chance to get into the battle:

• I would personally love to see the Union dropships land and act as the bases for the attacking team. Not sure it if is possible, but if the 3D model can be ported in from you know where, can we do that? Otherwise, use the Leopards.
  
• For a defending team, their win condition is to remove the beachhead established by the invaders. ie. Do enough damage to the dropships so they take off.
  
• Change the dropship loadouts so there is a variety of weapons providing a variety of threats. They have turrets and bays.... let them be objects that can be destroyed.
  
• Hide the location of these dropships so they need to be scouted out and 'discovered'. They are pretty big so visual sighting may not be too hard but they do not appear on the battlegrid until discovered and they could have different drop locations to begin with.

Now I realize that this seems like a lot and requires some work, but at the moment we are still playing 'matches' and are limited in our concept. I would like to see Faction Play become a battle, make it a war.

Thanks.

[BWS2K]

I apologize for bringing this up but I'm really trying to get an answer from someone:

When patch notes say that "...the data shows...", like with the Summoner or Shadow Cat for example, what data is being referenced? It's not just a quirk-based question to be easily dismissed, and it's not limited to just those two mechs. There were explanations like this in other recent patches as well, and it implies that PGI has a way that it wants mechs to be played but isn't sharing, leaving us fumbling about and bouncing from patch to patch wondering if we're playing it right yet. There are so very many variables (pilot skill, loadout, map/mode, unlocks, modules being used, etc.) that I find it really hard to believe there's any reliable data to look at and say "No, this mech is over-performing." It's important because we'll just have the same issues with skill trees after a couple months, guaranteed. Mechs will start getting skill tree boosts or some such. Additionally, if pilots don't have access to this data at least in part, how are we expected to keep playing any mechs except those that seem 'safe' from changes?

Where is the official PGI guide on How To Play Your Mech So We Don't Fiddle With It Repeatedly?

If you have a response, feel free to message me here on the forums or reply in the linked thread - I don't want to totally hijack this... though I think it's pertinent to the players here as well. Thanks!

[Jman5]

Deathlike, on 24 January 2017 - 09:47 PM, said:

I keep forgetting this, but this is important...

Please stop counting players in a faction that don't play FW.

It distorts things pretty significantly as loyalists tend to be in certain popular/notable factions, but that doesn't change their want of playing FW/CW/FP by any stretch.

This times a million. Davion, Steiner, and Wolf are drowning in innactive loyalists and it's artificially pushing their contract bonuses down. Meanwhile factions like Smoke Jaguar and Liao are perpetually offering a nice bonus because they aren't saddled with all these inactives.

You can see it too in the total faction leaderboard. The best contracts per side is Smoke Jaguar and Liao. The most games played per side has been Smoke Jaguar and Liao. The worst contracts are Davion and Wolf and they're both near the bottom in terms of total games played.

Nobody goes Davion because Davion has a perma -20% penalty. Nobody goes wolf because wolf has a perma -20% penalty.

Edited by Jman5, 24 January 2017 - 10:10 PM.

[Big Tin Man]

Other random fw thoughts:

Eliminate skirmish from tug of war. It's just spawn camping once one side takes hold.

Mix modes with tug of war, give ranges of conquest/Dom, dom/assault, assault/invasion to keep drop decks honest and game play interesting.

Bring back lrm turrets.

Radar jamming is weak and lame as a final reward. Upgraded consumables is the answers (I. E. Uav with extended range and duration, airstike becomes dropship strafing run, atry becomes a 40 point long tom).

[Kael Posavatz]

ebolachan, on 24 January 2017 - 07:26 PM, said:

you invite any clan loyalists to the group, or are you vonna keep stomping them into star citizen?

He doesn't need to stomp us to drive us into Star Citizen.

[Kael Posavatz]

InnerSphereNews, on 20 January 2017 - 12:58 PM, said:

We want to stress that we are not solely looking at Engine balance as only being a matter of IS XL versus Clan XL, but between all Engine options available to the player. This includes Standard Engines and smaller Engine sizes of both types. There's been much discussion about the option of IS XL Engines being provided the same benefits as Clan XL Engines, but in light of the other benefits provided by larger Engine sizes and the massive offensive boost XL Engines can facilitate, such a change is not currently conducive to appropriate XL versus Standard Engine balance.

Can this be further clarified?

In particular the following points:
How is this not "only...a matter of IS XL versus Clan XL"? How did this change improve game-balance across all engine types?

"between all Engine options available to the player." For a great majority of the mechs affected, the player's only Engine option--if it can be called such--is whether or not to play the mech. The Mechs available without this binary set are insufficient to play FW. Is there a plan to expand Engine options for these players to bring them into better balance with the array of choices other players have?

"Appropriate XL versus Standard Engine balance." Can this be defined?

InnerSphereNews, on 20 January 2017 - 12:58 PM, said:

this should not be evaluated strictly as an XL Engine issue, but an overall balance question between Engines of all types.

How did the change to Clan XL engines, which by design will absolutely affect ~75% of Clan Mechs (21 Omnimechs) improve overall balance between Engines of all Types?

Edited by Kael Posavatz, 24 January 2017 - 10:47 PM.

[Cyrilis]

as suggested earlier:

https://mwomercs.com...ost__p__5556457

increase the distance between the drop zones (esp. on the invasion maps, where basically all the dop zones are together), and let make dropship always kick you out at that spawnpoint that has the least enemy mechs close to it. (would be the easiest to do). In a worst case scenario that would put you up against 5 enemy mechs, but 5 enemies that are damaged can probably be handeled. 12 cannot.

[Sereglach]

Mcgral18, on 24 January 2017 - 07:51 PM, said:

Could we get an official statement regarding the XL (and general) engine balance?

Because the Patch Notes spiel was pretty weak, being summed up as:

"Clam Battlemechs can feel free to have their superior XL engines, and completely ignore STDs, while Spheroid XLs must pay the death tax to use them"

Clam Battlemechs have exactly that choice, often with lighter and outright superior weaponry.
Clams have options with larger, and smaller engine at the 75 ton bracket, and both are top tier. Not all are, see Mr Gargles, but the Battlemechs have the same construction rules as Spheroid mechs, but get all the good tech.

The fact this message completely ignores the current necessity of buffing STD engines is appalling. They compete with Clan XLs at the moment, and it is a COMPLETELY laughable idea to ever consider one on a Clam battlemech.
The XL has no real consequence which is outweighed by the heat penalties, because you still avoid death.

And no, making cXLs die upon ST loss would just ruin the current lineup ranging from GodTier to rubbish. It would also decrease TTK a large amount, while most would agree a slight increase would be nice

Buffing the STDs to not be worthless in the form of +Structure and +Agility (because you sacrifice weight, you often sacrifice engine size, which is directly proportional to your mechs twist speed, and as a result damage mitigation via twisting)

Buff the isXLs in one of two ways:

• sidesToDie=2, cXL method. Easy, simple, still inferior
  
• Buff STs to equal CT, or greater HP wise, keeping ST death. This means they have a greater potential for damage, and have a higher skill floor and ceiling compared to Clan XLs, which would just have the ST penalties (and 60% damage reduction through destroyed components)

STD buffs are required either way, because they compete with cXLs
LFEs coming in won't fix the engine imbalance, they'll just shelve the STDs from ever being used again

TL:DR
What's up with the Patch Notes XL engine post? It completely misses the reality of the game, and ignores Clan Battlemechs.
This is relevant to Faction Warfare, because the XL imbalance (and faction imbalance) is a large part of population differences, as one is seen as more powerful/durable

Like usual, you pretty well nail it. Just to take it a step further and/or add to it:

- Can't emphasize it enough . . . STD engines need a serious buff to compete in the game. Otherwise, if your chassis is "XL friendly" you're basically wrong for not taking one.

- IS XL's could live through ST loss with 60% penalty while Clans lose 40% (3 crit vs. 2 crit loss) and I don't think anyone would complain about that change.

- PGI touches on "all engine types" which makes us believe more engine types will be added. Give a LFE half of the buffs of a STD engine along with the torso loss penalties of a Clan XL to balance it out.

- Make the XXL engines (when/if they come out) the only engines to instantly die of 1 ST is lost, for either faction's versions.

There, all engines have some choice and promote more balance between factions and therefore promote more balance in FW.

Hell, look at the way previous MW games managed their mechs . . . in MW2, MW3, and MW4 the only way to die was through cockpit, double-legging, or CT loss . . . regardless of engine type. They basically just said "XL's are automatic upgrade" and left it at that. MWO should be able to easily do better; and you outlined a great start.

Equipment balance will always help FW balance; and while the emphasis of this Round Table will probably be the game modes this is something they absolutely should bring up if they have the time.

Edited by Sereglach, 24 January 2017 - 11:27 PM.

[Rick Windwalker]

Get rid of scouting mode as solo mode to bring those players in the "big" cw-games.

Implement scouting in the "big" cw games instead. Why not have scouts (light/medium only) working on beacon points while an heavy/assault armada approaches their target at the same time on the same map? Tactics, roles, meaning, depth would be improved.

Do not use the boring and meaningless blinky blinky beacons. Use satelite-antenna buildings, radar trucks or whatever as points to conquer and/or hold for the scouts.

Implement more things from the Battletech universe like Tanks, Helis, clan elementals (as consumable?), repair/rearm vehicles, mines....you get it: look at the good old tech manuals and choose cool stuff out of those hundreds of vehicles and things to make this game live. Give Alex and other desginers real time to make cool gfx on that.

Make IS XL engines not dying after ST-loss!
Yes, let em live but with heavier speedloss and/or heat penaltys than clans maybe.

Do not nerf clans any further.

Implement something that prevents hight rate alpha gameplay.

Do not listen to people not actively playing the cw gamemode.

Whatever it comes out. If Russ does not deside real steps to improve depth and meaning of cw games i do not know if there will be a future.

Rick out

Edited by Rick Windwalker, 24 January 2017 - 11:53 PM.

[Blunt_Object]

Would it be possible to have some OC representation during the round tables? instead of just the usual NA suspects?