348 replies to this topic

[Wing 0]

Heres another idea! Start penalizing players for using their DZ's as a camp site by taking 100k Cbills from their rewards! If a dropship makes a kill, the team is penalized 10 fold! Death is not a Disgrace!

Edited by Wing 0, 25 January 2017 - 08:35 PM.

[naterist]

my 3 step solution to rounding off the last rough edges of 4.1

1)make balance better, i wont cover this in depth since yall seem on the ball with it already, so movin on.

2)put in an academy teir that allows mixed tech dropdecks. pilots in that teir can take the time to learn, and to counter questions about population, ill put in this statement of fact, if there are people who can never get out of teir 5, then there will be people who will never get out of cw academy, and maybe thats fine and theyd like that. matches played between academy teams should not effect the real map of fw, and the call to arms for it should be unique, and go out to graduates of the academy who are rewarded for being "instructors" purely in loyalty points, to inspire them to focus more on teaching then playing. (if you could track every academy players average game score, then give bonus's to the player "instructor" for every person on their team who goes over their average score, would also help encourage teaching.
upon graduation (which would require raising your k/d ratio over 1.01, or getting your average match score past a certain number) you are required to swear your loyalty to either a faction, or you can opt to join a merc unit. people who go loyalist should get one free, high quality, faction specific mech for use in their dropdecks. mercs do not get that free mech as it is expected that their unit will look out for them right off the bat.

3) keep loyalists exactly as they are. now remove mercenaries from being able to get planet tags and mc via that method, and institute a new one.

3 a) assign all merc units a base number that is directly related to their leaderboard position. higher numbers for higher ranked units on the leaderboards. use that number to find theyre contract payout in the steps below.

3 change movement up and down the leaderboards so that beating a unit ranked higher then you on it will move you higher then beating a unit lower than you, to encourage units to spread out and actively try and fight each other, so we dont get the dog piling into one faction that we currently have. (leaderboard position is important for part 3 of my solution).

3 c) pay mercs half upfront to the merc unit, and half to the player themselves, with players direct pay being spread out equally over every day of their contract. how much to pay them, and in what? well, thats were leaderboard comes in. your units number, which is based on your leaderboard position, should pay in mc if you are in the top 100 or so merc units in fw. players ranked 20-1 get 5 mc per day payed to them, and 5 mc to the unit (mercs are a business, so gotta pay the company as well as the employees, right?) that mc amount goes down 1 mc for every 20 ranks. mercs not in the top 100 dont get any mc, because only the best are competing for MC, but maybe theyre good enough to get payed in a bunch of cbills, and thats payed out in 2 parts, same as mc.

3 d) add a 3 times multiplier to their contract payment if 3/3 of the last days attack phases were lost, a 2 times multiplier if they lost 2 of 3, and no multiplier (or multiply by 1, whichever) if their contract is with a faction that lost 1/3 phases, and a mild reduction in pay to the next paygrade below your current one if the faction you are signing a contract with won 3/3 phases the previous day. (ex- the top ranked unit signs with someone who won all 3 previous waves, so they get payed like a unit ranked number 20 on the leaderboards, 4 instead of 5 mc. ex 2- a unit ranked 100 does the same thing, they get paid in cbills instead, because they got knocked out of their paygrade by choosing the winning sides contract, ex-3 unit ranked 1 joins the side the got roflstomped all 3 phases yesterday, they get paid 15mc instead of 5mc. (remember, daily mc is only payed to individuals who played a game that day. you dont show up to work, you dont get paid).

[Marius Evander]

A better colors sorting/searching system by price etc

[Falconer Cyrus]

Wing 0, on 25 January 2017 - 06:45 PM, said:

Ban Trial Mechs from Faction Play. Make players get 4 good builds made before they are able to take on Faction Play.

Yes! And add some achievement (that opens FW play) to prevent green noobs from being stomped in seconds.

[James Argent]

You can't ban trial mechs from FP in a free to play game. Do the math. You get four starter mechbays from PGI. What are the odds that between 2 tech bases and 17 different tonnages that someone is going to purchase exactly one full dropdeck worth of mechs with their four mechbays? This also assumes that dropdeck tonnage is going to remain constant, and we all know how that worked out. I'm not even a free player, but I got caught by the tonnage changes in one of my dropdecks, and I had to use a trial mech for a short time while I settled on what to buy to fill the last slot.

So they should get more mechbays, then? The only source of free mechbays, outside of infrequent events where mechbays are prizes and other events where MC can be accumulated, is FP itself. Some of these free players can be just as good as or better than those of us who've paid PGI some money...they just might not have the resources available to pay cash for mechbays. FP can't be locked behind a paywall.

[Marius Evander]

Limit of 2 trial mechs then if cant ban them for above reason ?

[Tarogato]

So I listened to the pre-roundtable roundtable, and here's my thoughts:

I think the three main points were:


1. Spawn selection. Individual players should be able to freely choose between any of the three dropzones when spawning in. It's up to PGI to work out the implementation.


2. Gamemode voting. Remove the "phases" from the Tug O'War, and just present teams the option to vote on a gamemode when a match is found. After a gamemode is selected, randomly choose a map and plop players into their mech select lobbies.


3. Loyalist incentives. Loyalists should probably get a per-match C-Bill bonus once they've achieved Rank 20. Optionally, a per-match MC bonus. Another more challenging option is to give Loyalist in-game perks, such as mech quirks that only apply to FP matches, and help differentiate the factions. Another thing you could do is provide a C-Bill price reduction to mechs tied to your faction in lore. Also, achieving a certain rank (maybe rank 10?) should, imo, give you reduced prices on camo unlocks for your faction's camo pattern as long as you are loyal to that faction. As well as cockpit items.

---

Extra tidbits that were either discussed, or are chiefly my own ideas:


♦ ScoutingMode bonuses. The bonuses are currently not in the order of their influence. I would say first should come Radar Jamming, and then Combat ID, and then Satellite Sweep. Also, when you lock onto mechs via Satellite Sweep, it should allow you to acquire their loadouts. Also, the further your Tug O'War bar is along the ScoutingMode, the more effective each of the bonuses should be. For instance, if Radar Jamming occurs every two minutes for a five second duration, then that duration can be increased for every percent that Scouting is in your favour - i.e., if the Tug O' War is 100% in your favour, you get a 100% buff to Radar Jamming (ten seconds in this case.)

♦ Gating new players. At the very very very least, require players to finish 25 Cadet Bonus matches before being allowed to enter FactionPlay. Ideally, 100 matches or more. Because still... who after 100 matches has a firm grasp of this game? (Personally, I would also like to see a skill gate, where you have to be achieving an average of 200 match score or greater in QuickPlay before being allowed to enter FactionPlay. I say 200 match score because that is approximately the mark that divides the playbase into exactly two halves - 50% are above that mark, and 50% are below it. It's a very easy goal to reach. Once you achieve that goal, it grants you an Achievement and permanent access to FactionPlay. Instead of 200 match score, you could just base it off of PSR tier. But PSR is broken, and that's a whole 'nother discussion.)

♦ Matchmaker? If you introduce a matchmaker of some sort, gating new players might not even be necessary. FactionPlay will be considered a joke as long as there is no separation between high skill and low skill. With a matchmaker funneling competitive premades specifically toward each other, more of them might return to play the mode since they have higher odds of facing each other instead of wasting time farming potatoes. Similarly, low skill but high enthusiasm lore grognards who were chased away by getting stomped against high skill teams, if protected against the competitive-premade-boogeyman... might also return. The hypothesis is that low population is a merely a symptom of a bigger problem, and if you improve the bigger problem, even if it makes longer queue times, more people might come back and the queue times will resolve themselves.

♦ Improving the New Player Experience. Trial mechs should come with full Skill Tree (Elite) bonuses. End of story.

♦ 8-hour phases. It's pretty widely agreed upon that 8-hour phases present a lot of problems. But solutions differ. I like the suggestion that once you push the Tug O'War to the 100% mark (or maybe hold it past 90% for 30 minutes), something happens. That something could be ... it immediately triggers the end the phase and flips one planet (not all four, just one), or it triggers a countdown to end the phase and you have until the end of the countdown to maintain 90% control to win the planet.

♦ Incentivising solo players. (note, if you implement some sort of matchmaking system, then this paragraph becomes rather moot.) Personally, I think solo players should be discouraged from FactionPlay. Instead, they should be encouraged to join units and play as a group. Solo players and pug groups are just cannon fodder and contribute nothing positive to the game mode other than monotonous C-Bill farm. Part of the reason I'm sure many units don't play FactionPlay is because it is a joke - there is no matchmaking, it's nothing but sealclubbing. This is why they continue to stick to third party leagues such as MRBC, or just play QuickPlay where there is at least some semblance of a matchmaking system.

♦ Incentivising people to join units. First change should be that the FactionPlay's "FACTION CHAT" should be viewable at all times in in Front End UI. You shouldn't have to click FactionPlay to read and post in Faction Chat. Second change: display [unit] tags in front of player names in the chat. Third change, when hovering over or clicking on a [unit] tag (be it in chat, or on the leaderboard, or if possible on the scoreboard in match), it should provide a pop-up of information about that unit, such as the full name of the unit, who the unit leader(s) is, how many members, and a button that submits a request for membership to that unit. Optionally, also include their FactionPlay leaderboard rank, and maybe a blank field to be filled out by the unit leader that could include TS or Discord server info, a link to an mwomercs forum recruitment thread, or maybe just an "About" paragraph.

♦ Incentivising unit play. Every time a planet is won, it evenly distributes some amount of MC to all units according to their amount of participation. If you were 1% of the individual player wins during the phase that won the planet, your unit gets 1% of the MC. This is in addition to the MC that a planet gives per phase by default to the chief occupying unit.

Edited by Tarogato, 26 January 2017 - 06:34 AM.

[Cyrilis]

important esp. for Loyalists:

pls find something people of rank 20 can do with their exess loyalty points.

I could think about:
- open up one (and only one!) additional skill node (must be paid for each chassi and should be lost if loyalty is broken!)
- let us buy supply cache keys for a certain number of loyaltiy points

Edited by Cyrilis, 26 January 2017 - 01:56 AM.

[BluefireMW]

Restrict Merc Units in size and number to be a % of the loyalists, that they are not the majority.
In lack of a economy, there is no other way.
Mercanries are fighting for money, but in here, there is no money, that pays mercs.

[MovinTarget]

BluefireMW, on 26 January 2017 - 02:46 AM, said:

Restrict Merc Units in size and number to be a % of the loyalists, that they are not the majority.
In lack of a economy, there is no other way.
Mercanries are fighting for money, but in here, there is no money, that pays mercs.

While I am not fully adverse to unit size limits as I was previously, I feel like the harder, but more accurate approach would be to limit their *activity* in FP...

Take 228, I'm not with them anymore but their ~200 players are spread across multiple timezones and many simply don't do FP. Don't penalize them for their size... players from all of their subdivisions contributed to making 228 the presence that it is so its not fair for them to have disband or cut off the Wild Ones, or heaven help us, Black Watch... while smaller groups which may ultimately have more active FP players can keep on trucking...

So let's look at this:
You want mercs to fill in for low pop factions but not flood the high pop ones... or do people care if the mercs flood one of the lower population factions too?

To me, its not a question of how limit merc unit sizes, its how do you get more people to go loyalist?
Give loyalist better deck tonnage.
Give loyalist new levels with sexy rewards.

Open to others thoughts here b/c a flat unit cap won't solve your concern, methinks...

My other thought is that you could have a unit but within that unit you can have a subset of players that individually "sign the FP contract" where no more than X people can be in the merc sub-group at a time.

Edited by MovinTarget, 26 January 2017 - 03:58 AM.

[WANTED]

Tarogato, on 26 January 2017 - 01:30 AM, said:

So I listened to the pre-roundtable roundtable, and here's my thoughts:

I think the three main points were:


1. Spawn selection. Individual players should be able to freely choose between any of the three dropzones when spawning in. It's up to PGI to work out the implementation.


2. Gamemode voting. Remove the "phases" from the Tug O'War, and just present teams the option to vote on a gamemode when a match is found. After a gamemode is selected, randomly choose a map and plop players into their mech select lobbies.


3. Loyalist incentives. Loyalists should probably get a per-match C-Bill bonus once they've achieved Rank 20. Optionally, a per-match MC bonus. Another more challenging option is to give Loyalist in-game perks, such as mech quirks that only apply to FP matches, and help differentiate the factions. Another thing you could do is provide a C-Bill price reduction to mechs tied to your faction in lore. Also, achieving a high rank (maybe 15 or 20) should, imo, give you reduced prices on camo unlocks for your faction's camo pattern as long as you are loyal to that faction. As well as cockpit items.

---

Extra tidbits that were either discussed, or are chiefly my own ideas:


♦ Gating new players. At the very very very least, require players to finish 25 Cadet Bonus matches before being allowed to enter FactionPlay. Ideally, 100 matches or more. Because still... who after 100 matches has a firm grasp of this game? (Personally, I would also like to see a skill gate, where you have to be achieving an average of 200 match score or greater in QuickPlay before being allowed to enter FactionPlay. I say 200 match score because that is approximately the mark that divides the playbase into exactly two halves - 50% are above that mark, and 50% are below it. It's a very easy goal to reach. Once you achieve that goal, it grants you an Achievement and permanent access to FactionPlay. Instead of 200 match score, you could just base it off of PSR tier. But PSR is broken, and that's a whole 'nother discussion.)

These are the top three topics the roundtable should focus on. Keep it simple so Russ can digest and everyone can add enough to the discussion. The bulleted point by Tarogato is also one I would like to see discussed but only if time allows. Good things that came out of the last Round table are the new QP maps and the reduction in buckets. It has made me even play FW more than before since matches kick off quicker.

[General Solo]

Make the dropships OP but killable
Once the dropships are down no more respawns and Game Over Man
Adds Immersion

That way it hurts to spawn camp
and gives a way to finish the game quick if team is out matched
makes spawn farming very difficult

If you spawn farm you take damage from drop ship
If you kill dropship you have no mechs to farm
Dropship destruction needs a good reward

Edit: Just to add some feedback for PGI
I been liking the new FW better, thanks

Edited by OZHomerOZ, 26 January 2017 - 07:09 PM.

[SmokeGuar]

Giving higher level loyalist more c-bills is non-incentive, such players are more likely able to rack 0.5 to 1.0+ c-bills per game. MC is way more better. Considering that a handful of teams collect almost all MC from planet captures, a thing to look at.

Tonnage for both IS and Clan loyalist should be same. In order to drive mercs to IS side PGI is just shafting Clan loyalists, highly non-incentive move. Balance on scouting has clearly swung to IS side, yet nothing is done to improve balance.

Bring back sector clock and toss tug of war. Selection of modes to different sectors, increase of FW maps.

[MovinTarget]

SmokeGuar, on 26 January 2017 - 05:14 AM, said:

Giving higher level loyalist more c-bills is non-incentive, such players are more likely able to rack 0.5 to 1.0+ c-bills per game. MC is way more better. Considering that a handful of teams collect almost all MC from planet captures, a thing to look at.

Tonnage for both IS and Clan loyalist should be same. In order to drive mercs to IS side PGI is just shafting Clan loyalists, highly non-incentive move. Balance on scouting has clearly swung to IS side, yet nothing is done to improve balance.

Bring back sector clock and toss tug of war. Selection of modes to different sectors, increase of FW maps.

Give high level loyalists access to new variants... or access to lost/recovered tech. Too much MC undermines their business model.

Tonnage for clan and IS loyalists should be independent from mercs... perhaps not exactly the same though.
There are 4 scenarios between clan/IS and merc/loyalist.
Make all 4 independent so that tweaking one group, clan mercs for example, does not directly affect the drop deck of the other three scenarios. This way you could attempt to balance by making the specific scenario more or less attractive.


And yes, i don't mind if the fp maps are used more again... qp maps are fun but getting stuck in the same mode for hours...

[Tarogato]

As I read through, I see more and more people suggesting, "ban trial mechs from FP", and in the pre-roundtable roundtable, there were people complaining about how bad the old trial builds are...

- Those "old" bad trial builds are no longer in the game.

- The current trials, while not purpose-built for CW, are mostly quite okay these days. Mostly.

- People bringing four of their own mechs to FP will still bring worse builds than the trials. Guaranteed.



So the suggestion to "ban trials" makes no sense, as it fixes nothing.

[MovinTarget]

Tarogato, on 26 January 2017 - 06:19 AM, said:

As I read through, I see more and more people suggesting, "ban trial mechs from FP", and in the pre-roundtable roundtable, there were people complaining about how bad the old trial builds are...

- Those "old" bad trial builds are no longer in the game.

- The current trials, while not purpose-built for CW, are mostly quite okay these days. Mostly.

- People bringing four of their own mechs to FP will still bring worse builds than the trials. Guaranteed.



So the suggestion to "ban trials" makes no sense, as it fixes nothing.

Fair enough, the main reason I suggested it is that it is a natural gate for preventing players not ready for FP from stumbling in...

[Deathlike]

Tarogato, on 26 January 2017 - 06:19 AM, said:

As I read through, I see more and more people suggesting, "ban trial mechs from FP", and in the pre-roundtable roundtable, there were people complaining about how bad the old trial builds are...

- Those "old" bad trial builds are no longer in the game.

- The current trials, while not purpose-built for CW, are mostly quite okay these days. Mostly.

- People bringing four of their own mechs to FP will still bring worse builds than the trials. Guaranteed.



So the suggestion to "ban trials" makes no sense, as it fixes nothing.

The "ban trials" movement was born on people not actually understanding the game (as in, they haven't played enough games to own their own set of mechs).

It's less about what they actually bring on their own mechs (because bad builds will still be brought to the match).

I think there is some legit gating for new players that needs to happen though.

[SuperFunkTron]

In terms of gating to prevent new players being crushed an dragging down teams, why not consider using the individuals average damage for the last 10 games they played. I'm sure that we can say once a player is regularly knocking out 200 damage per a game that they've made it to minimally viable place to start learning in FP. Regardless of what mech type they are in, it means that they've at least got basics down about positioning and attacking, at least for long enough to put out more than 2 or 3 alphas.

Aside from player gating and trying and trying to improve competitiveness in FP, immersion as well as incentive to create more loyalists seems to be one of the strongest recurring themes here. There have been a lot of great ideas written above so I really hope that it is addressed at this round table. Having a reason to care about the banner you choose can only come from giving it context and that comes from helping it stand out in one way or another.

Addition of Depth and improving both the learning curve and retention rate for FP:
In addition to the c-bills benefits, lower mech prices and clan affiliated gear, I strongly believe that incentivizing the use of faction specific mechs through bonuses but I feel that without adding some in game info as to who these factions and their fight philosophy as well as quirking loyalists of that faction toward that fight philosophy will help create an emotional/psychological investment in that faction (this works in any other game factions with varying but balanced abilities). With earnings incentives and balanced positive/negative quirks to slightly differentiate each faction, not only will there will be a reason care about for whom you fight, but you will also start to address the bad builds issue that new players have when trying to figure out FP.

Just think of how much it would have helped in the beginning to know that in a game with so many varied options for load outs that you could at least have a greater possibility of dropping with similar load outs that are conducive to a play style that a player actively selected. Being able to direct new players toward factions that support the play style that they are looking to improve in would be even more constructive as the more experienced players will have an easier time giving advice that is specific to how the player can improve in that facet. Sure, we can leave it as generic as clan tech vs IS tech, but that clearly is helping with neither the overwhelming jump into FP or the the retention of veterans who like to have some more depth and diversity in the game. For those who enjoy the freedom of being a merc/lone wolf, they could be left as an unquirked group with the advantage of being able to use the mechs they like (maybe even offer them a mixed tech deck of 2 IS, 2 Clan mechs- or another reason to balance out their decision to not get the quirks of a specific faction).

The idea is surely a bit polarizing, but isn't that the emotion you want to awake in the people who play MWO? The need to prove that their preferred faction is better than the others?

In terms of solving as many of the presented issues as possible, diversifying factions provides the most tools to not just make those interested in lore happy, but to increase the depth that this game so badly needs, address play styles and preferences of many different view points (at least 10 if you count all the factions and mercs), provides direction and guidance for new players, and incentivizes loyalists not only to wear a banner, but to also play in a style considered typical of their faction. The only issue that would need to be dealt with over time is to make sure that quirks on each of the factions are adjusted accordingly to constantly stay on top of ever evolving balance.

Edited by SuperFunkTron, 26 January 2017 - 07:20 AM.

[MovinTarget]

Been thinking alot about BV (battle Value) that someone else was pushing, and while I don't know how we'd properly apply BV to MWO as it will certainly *not* be directly portable from BT... *if* it could be derived properly, it could possible alleviate some of the knuckle-headedness we see...

You could have BV min and max per drop deck (possibly in conjunction with weight), but you could also have BV min/max per mech with the idea that people couldn't bring absolute garbage builds and maybe even prevent ridiculously high BV mechs from proliferating. The latter kind of scares me as it could get heavy-handed treatment and too many too-good builds get blocked from FP...


But all this wouldn't necessarily gate unprepared players from doing FP.

Would *LOVE* to see a series of FP-oriented Academy training/trial scenarios added though:
"How to open a door (hint, DO NOT SHOOT THE DOOR)"
"How to kill and O-Gen"
"How to kill Omega"
Conversely, but perhaps not as easy to teach:
"How to defend an O-gen"

Some people will never get it, but I really hope that little exercises like this would help the guys that don't understand the language we are trying to communicate to them in or don't have comms on, or simply never stop to listen to those of us trying to help...

Edited b/c apparently "g estapo" is a bad word?

Edited by MovinTarget, 26 January 2017 - 06:54 AM.

[Kyrs]

FactionPlay question ONLY:

1) Will the drop deck tonnages be adjusted with the "player win/loss+ unit win/loss ration"?. ( This should prevent T1 player of using bonus tonnage intended for T5. )

2) Will the kill bounty be adjusted to the value of the player skill?. ( Killing an Evil player in FW should give you larger amount of c-bill that an T5. )