First of all, I skimmed through this entire thread and read most of what people wrote; I recommend anyone with strong opinions look around at all the different opinions here. It might seem simple or obvious to you, but it is rare that a single idea is universally bad or universally good. And nothing is certain until it's tested.
I am going to be at the Roundtable, it's why I read this thread. I was also at the pre-roundtable roundtable and those of you good enough to listen may have head my voice a few times. More importantly you likely noticed with a group of 10-30 players, there was a decent amount of disagreement. It's just not easy.
As far as representation goes...
I was also present at the last (first) roundtable, along with about 12 other guys. That was way, way, way too many people and anyone who actually listened to that roundtable knows it. Everyone there had good intentions and a reason to be there, they represented some portion of the population, but it was just too much. And really, the idea that each perceived community needs a their own representative is.. I think.. a little over the top. We all play this game, we're all part of the same (already somewhat small!) community. Yeah, there are a few artificial and even fewer real differences between us (Clan/IS, Loyaist/Merc, Comp/Casual, Solo/Unit, Large Unit/Small Unit) most of these are smoke.. most of the problems that plague us, plague us regardless of the 'niche' community we say we're part of.
Furthermore, in that last meeting despite their being
12 guys that really did run the gambit of all those distinctions; the community was
still livid about being 'underrepresented' - it was like some bad parody it was so farical. I actually wrote up a big arse reddit post about it..
which can be found here..
We need to remember that we're all on the same side, we all want this game to be better.
Finally, recall that last time we really only discussed 3-4 topics with Russ in 3 hours. It's impossible that everything on here will or can be discussed. It's part of the reason for the pre-roundtable roundtable, despite it's obvious flaws, it allows us to distill ideas/opinions down to a few core ones that can be addressed.
As to the agenda of Tarogato has already made an excellent post about what it is going in...
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 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.
I'm going to add.. that, I have some personal thoughts that didn't get much time at the meeting or were politely shunted for.. later.
I think the 'surrender button' issue is important. I don't think there should be a surrender button, but I feel like there needs to be some sort of answer to some lower-skill players getting stomped then 'Get Good'. There are people who have played this game for years and skill wise, they are where they are, that isn't going to change - and if they are allowed to play in CW then there should be a place for them in CW. I think part of the reason it wasn't too seriously considered or discussed at the pre-roundtable roundtable is that it is outside most the other guy's experience there. They all run and play in units often with pretty exacting expectations and support; where as I have a relationship with an entire faction...
The other thing was 8 hour phases, I think that needs some serious work too. 8 hours is too long for events, it's too long for most units to commit to on a regular basis. I think 4 is better, and personally, I even think a case can be made to limiting how much CW is even accessible - I think maybe deceasing CW from 24/7 to 12/7
might be a good idea. With new incentives and a few other goodies tossed, we see if we can create a situation where people play QP normally.. and then funnel into the CP game-mode during those 4 hours it's up (my suggestion here would be 4 hours in NA prime time, 4 hours in EU prime time, 4 hours in Oceanic prime time.) I just see it as being more manageable for smaller units, and a potential boon to the QP and CW population as the gametypes aren't always fighting each other for both.
But this is more of a fringe belief of mine and there might be serious dissent towards it. Either way, I think 8 hours is too long for a phase
So.. now for a few things I saw skimming this thread...
BluntObject, on 24 January 2017 - 11:32 PM, said:
Would it be possible to have some OC representation during the round tables? instead of just the usual NA suspects?
You might laugh at me and roll your eyes, but most of the Community Warfare I've played has been in the Oceanic Timezone. The worlds I won, was during the oceanic timezone. So if you want someone with significant oceanic experience, here I am.
I am not sure, other then understanding the low population at those times, how that makes me somehow more qualified to ask questions and give feedback to Russ, then say a NA or EU player, but there you go. Arbitrary distinction achieved.
Jman5, on 24 January 2017 - 10:08 PM, said:
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.
Yes. That is important, I'll try to find a way to bring it up. If I have the time/opportunity.
Sigmar Sich, on 25 January 2017 - 09:57 AM, said:
If any of guys, present on this roundtable, will be so kind, please ask about what happened to concept of "lore units". You can remember early CW concepts, there were two types of units - player-driven, one we have now; and other - non-player-driven, with fixed alligiance, with lore names (which are blacklisted for player-created units)..
If I can find a chance to get it in; I will.
11
