348 replies to this topic

[MovinTarget]

tee5, on 29 January 2017 - 03:48 PM, said:

I read your surrender-button suggestion multiple times.
And it gets not better the more you post it.
I say NO.

CW has a liitle warning, when you first start CW.
It is the playground of the more expirienced guys and has no matchmaker.
So you have been warned.
And sometimes you meet some groups, who are really really better than you. And then you lose.

If you can not bear a rofl stomp, and this makes you quit CW forever, good than this is not the place for you (but also not good because we lose a player, but we can not protect and help the cry babies all the time, because then this is no longer the playground of the big boys, and big boys don't cry, they knock off the dust and keep on playing.

I can not count the rofl stomps I have endured, and I still play.
Maybe grouping up, find a good Unit, using teamspeak, and make good mechbuilds, and torso twist, is a good start for the beginners.

I get your point about the warning but i think people pay about as much attention to that as they do instructions for assembling their first piece of ikea furniture...

If there is no mercy rule then there should be a gate.

Edited by MovinTarget, 29 January 2017 - 04:37 PM.

[BWS2K]

I've mentioned all my stuff before, and even on my YT channel in an open letter to PGI, but I'll repeat it here for emphasis: Nothing means anything until PGI takes an official stance about the purpose of Faction Play.

This is all like trying to achieve balance on a see-saw, only there's no fulcrum and it's just a plank of wood in the dirt. The same with IS/Clan, the same with QuickPlay, etc. Until PGI says "QuickPlay is mostly for ___ and Faction Play is mostly for ___" there's literally no way to tell if something is balanced or not. Is it about a lore-immersive experience? Then utilized more themed changes and components, like Faction/House differentiation with perks and minimize mercenary units for Clans, etc. Is it about a fast-paced competitive environment for veteran players, chasing that eSport dream? Then don't bother including 'PUGs' in any of your considerations. Is it supposed to be for everyone, at all levels? Then ditch anything that doesn't specifically account for people who just installed MWO playing in a match against someone who's been playing for years (which is difficult enough without not being sure if it's actually what we're trying to do). This isn't about whether we, as the players, have a good idea of what's what, it's about setting achievable goals and reaching them through systematic progression. Most of us understand, in a general sense, that QuickPlay is for beginners and Faction Play is not - and that's great to say in a Beginner's Guide or to explain a particularly rough match... but it's a terrible foundation upon which to attempt to base major changes in game features. You need something more solid, like an official statement from the game developers. You measure any changes or additions from that standard.

You can't know what road to take if you don't know where you want to go and you definitely won't know when you've arrived.

[Tarogato]

BWS2K, on 29 January 2017 - 05:45 PM, said:

I've mentioned all my stuff before, and even on my YT channel in an open letter to PGI, but I'll repeat it here for emphasis: Nothing means anything until PGI takes an official stance about the purpose of Faction Play.

This is all like trying to achieve balance on a see-saw, only there's no fulcrum and it's just a plank of wood in the dirt. The same with IS/Clan, the same with QuickPlay, etc. Until PGI says "QuickPlay is mostly for ___ and Faction Play is mostly for ___" there's literally no way to tell if something is balanced or not. Is it about a lore-immersive experience? Then utilized more themed changes and components, like Faction/House differentiation with perks and minimize mercenary units for Clans, etc. Is it about a fast-paced competitive environment for veteran players, chasing that eSport dream? Then don't bother including 'PUGs' in any of your considerations. Is it supposed to be for everyone, at all levels? Then ditch anything that doesn't specifically account for people who just installed MWO playing in a match against someone who's been playing for years (which is difficult enough without not being sure if it's actually what we're trying to do). This isn't about whether we, as the players, have a good idea of what's what, it's about setting achievable goals and reaching them through systematic progression. Most of us understand, in a general sense, that QuickPlay is for beginners and Faction Play is not - and that's great to say in a Beginner's Guide or to explain a particularly rough match... but it's a terrible foundation upon which to attempt to base major changes in game features. You need something more solid, like an official statement from the game developers. You measure any changes or additions from that standard.

You can't know what road to take if you don't know where you want to go and you definitely won't know when you've arrived.

+1


PGI envisioned Faction Play as being the competitive environment, for unit vs unit engagements, and a meta game to tie the matches together (the Innersphere map). But these days, it's the casuals that seem to embrace Faction Play, and not the competitive crowd. So what does PGI want Faction Play to be? Do they want it to cater to all players and be accessible to everybody, just like Quick Play? Then it is no different from Quick Play. Or do they want it to be a competitive environment, where units rule the roost and everybody else merely plays a supporting role? Maybe they want it to be something else? How can we know, because they are not very transparent.

[naterist]

tee5, on 29 January 2017 - 03:48 PM, said:

I read your surrender-button suggestion multiple times.
And it gets not better the more you post it.
I say NO.

CW has a liitle warning, when you first start CW.
It is the playground of the more expirienced guys and has no matchmaker.
So you have been warned.
And sometimes you meet some groups, who are really really better than you. And then you lose.

If you can not bear a rofl stomp, and this makes you quit CW forever, good than this is not the place for you (but also not good because we lose a player, but we can not protect and help the cry babies all the time, because then this is no longer the playground of the big boys, and big boys don't cry, they knock off the dust and keep on playing.

I can not count the rofl stomps I have endured, and I still play.
Maybe grouping up, find a good Unit, using teamspeak, and make good mechbuilds, and torso twist, is a good start for the beginners.

unfortunatly we dont have enough good players who are interested (or even exist) to fill the gamemode, and its somewhat elitest to say only the best should play this mode. your gonna hide the only good content in a place were people who might have that as a make or break for the game cant access it for moths till they "git gud"? really?

[naterist]

Just, quick question for pgi, kinda food for thought thing.

Wouldnt it make way more sense for FW to be the main mode with matchmaker, and qp the open free for all for units and try hards. Would make the quick part much quiker, and the deep content more accessable.

[Tiantara]

naterist, on 29 January 2017 - 07:46 PM, said:

unfortunatly we dont have enough good players who are interested (or even exist) to fill the gamemode, and its somewhat elitest to say only the best should play this mode. your gonna hide the only good content in a place were people who might have that as a make or break for the game cant access it for moths till they "git gud"? really?

- So, then why make Clan vs IS only battle if we all know that most of good players can play on IS mech and we have not so much of them and all crowd players anyway choose Clan mech and just stomp small group of good pilots?
I miss the day when we have house conflicts at least I feel better on my IS XL mech...

[Aargh Tenna]

Tiantara, on 29 January 2017 - 10:37 PM, said:

- So, then why make Clan vs IS only battle if we all know that most of good players can play on IS mech and we have not so much of them and all crowd players anyway choose Clan mech and just stomp small group of good pilots?
I miss the day when we have house conflicts at least I feel better on my IS XL mech...

Even better, new mode, called Ambush, which is 12v4. 12 clanners with 4 elite IS, objective is - try to survive for 10 minutes.

[Sigmar Sich]

Aargh Tenna, on 30 January 2017 - 01:31 AM, said:

Ambush, which is 12v4. 12 clanners with 4 elite IS, objective is - try to survive for 10 minutes.

Clans don't ambush, tactic is for barbarians. Even focusing fire for them is dishonorable. Out of necessity to save limited resourses in internal conflicts, they developed ...peculiar combat doctrine. This is how OP clantech handicapped in lore.

[MovinTarget]

Sigmar Sich, on 30 January 2017 - 02:49 AM, said:

Clans don't ambush, tactic is for barbarians. Even focusing fire for them is dishonorable. Out of necessity to save limited resourses in internal conflicts, they developed ...peculiar combat doctrine. This is how OP clantech handicapped in lore.

And the reason they get nerfed in game, becuase unless pgi can come up with a way to encourage clan honorable combat and discourage dezgra, it simply would not be fair.

[Brother MEX]

MovinTarget, on 30 January 2017 - 04:03 AM, said:

And the reason they get nerfed in game, becuase unless pgi can come up with a way to encourage clan honorable combat and discourage dezgra, it simply would not be fair.

I share that opinion ... Clans without ZELLBRIGGEN rules are too overpowered !

[Sigmar Sich]

MovinTarget, on 30 January 2017 - 04:03 AM, said:

And the reason they get nerfed in game, becuase unless pgi can come up with a way to encourage clan honorable combat and discourage dezgra, it simply would not be fair.

Of course.
There are ways, like reward penalties similar to current team damage, different team size, etc. But i believe this game is too far gone from point in time when this was a possibility. And i'm okay with this. Besides, even with balanced tech clans will still be OP in stock mode, so there will be some refuge for lore.
______________________

I'm actually very optimistic about coming time leap and new tech. Sure, there will be balance troubles, but i survived LRMs back in the early days, mass poptarting, 6*PPC Stalkers, etc. I'm rather curious about next horrors.

So only thing that needs serious improvement, to my opinion, is CW mode. And i think absent matchmaker is the main problem. With it, and some interesting rewards, you can pull in more players, and when majority of playerbase would enjoy this mode, with increased CW population, road to new improvements is open.

Well, i would also wish less boating, less murder-alphas, role warfare.. It pains to see all diversity reduced to boating current meta in currently most optimal mech. But... *sigh*

Edited by Sigmar Sich, 30 January 2017 - 04:43 AM.

[WANTED]

Stop making so much sens BWS2K. That kind of talk is not allowed here.

Exactly though. I've never understood why PGI has their foot in 3 different areas with nothing ever solidified design wise ( quick play, Faction Play, Esports ) Now add Mechwarrior 5 development to the mix and that's a ton of resources and manpower being dilluted with no clear goal in mind. Drives me nuts

Edited by WANTED, 30 January 2017 - 05:39 AM.

[MovinTarget]

I think Zellbringen would be difficult to manage unless we want to penalize players for accidentally shooting someone targeted by another clanner...

It would be *really* tough in QP if the aren't comparable clan mechs on both sides to balance how many are going to be beholden these rules on each side.

Would love if when you join FP you declare your role and then your performance is graded on your execution of that role... or you declare each wave, and you can't pick the same role each time... it would take coordination...

[Kael Posavatz]

MovinTarget, on 30 January 2017 - 04:03 AM, said:

And the reason they get nerfed in game, becuase unless pgi can come up with a way to encourage clan honorable combat and discourage dezgra, it simply would not be fair.

A couple of Clan units actually tried to develop zellbrigen, or at least briefly experimented with it, way back when. PGIi's apparent disinterest in encouraging proper behavior was only part of the problem.

Target-tracking at long range was a significant issue. All well and good to say 'I have the Jager', but if it turns out there are three JagerMechs on the field and you cannot tell them apart at range... Once the range closed and you could use alphabetic designators it got a bit better.

Map balance was a concern as well. The QP maps had some areas that allowed Clan mechs to make full use of their range advantage, at least until IS mechs closed, but on many of the FW maps point-of-contact was often well-within optimal range.

The constricted terrain of the most usual engagement areas of FW maps also hampered efforts. Very often only a few Clan players could engage the body of the IS force at any one time, and a Clan player whose chosen target had scampered could find himself quickly focused by enemies he 'could not' engage.

There was at least one unit that, when we made out batchall in the FW lobby, would drop some mechs with back-loaded armor, and send them after unengaged mechs in the rear.

Finally there was a great deal of debate about how closely zellbrigen should be adhered to. There are some Clans that are utterly inflexible, and some that took a more nuanced approach. Many players on the other side were quick to take advantage of the former--which was expected, really--but also complained vigorously about the latter.

Repeated nerfs and the Great Quirkening, made an already difficult situation utterly untenable and those experimenting with it either stopped or left the game.

Edited by Kael Posavatz, 30 January 2017 - 07:10 AM.

[MovinTarget]

Nice explanation... As I thought it makes for a bit of logistics nightmare... I'm not completely sure PGI could overcome it even if they threw a lot of resources into it.

[SuperFunkTron]

I think the one way for them to be able to make some semblance of a return to non adjusted balance requires an entirely new system that would be pretested for fairness and already includes the vast majority of the fixes and enforced rules for this to have a chance. It would have to be developed as a side project an would regularly need PTS time to identify the issues and find a suitable way to address the power discrepancies. If there is really a big enough imbalance favoring the clans, enforcing a "bidding" of 1 star vs 1 company could be a very interesting solution. There would be very little need for enforcement of zell as it could be forgone as a casualty of the "low bid" force, but this is where stomps could create a misconception of imbalance if those playing the clan mechs were inexperienced players. To add further balance to the idea, at least in quickplay, the type of star (light heavy/assault) could determine an equivalent "BV" force of the opposing company. But this would restrict it to clan vs IS. The other option for QP would be to foce an equal number of clan and IS mechs on each side of the equation. There are options, its just a matter of finding which will be most conducing to pay on a large scale despite the loud whining of a few discontent who want excessive freedom in this game and the power to make any force they want regardless of the BT universe boundaries or tendencies.

[BWS2K]

WANTED, on 30 January 2017 - 05:39 AM, said:

Stop making so much sens BWS2K. That kind of talk is not allowed here.

[tokumboh]

My view of FP is that it is taking up resources that could be used for other things. My feeling is that we either have Clan versus IS across the board or not. I would have it in QP as well and then you can resolve this issues of balance and the like. You could give the Calns the more powerful weapons but give IS the numbers and start from there. I would make QP games cound as FP you are always playing for a planet so you can make the planets Tiered so that tier 5 -4 only fight on a tier 5-4 map for example

Now we could argue about spawns and the like and have the e sports but in the end what the FP needs is numbers. I admit that I have only played in the Battle of Tukayyid event and that was a blast but only because there was some good guys on some of the matches and they guided us dubs through it all. I play casually and so can really commit to a unit as I contract abroad and may not play for months at a time but this would at least get the numbers up. The next issue is rewards, a crap player could average around 100K a game and 500 XP with a little effort it and you could get 6 games an hour in on QP so you would be talking around at least 5-600K and 2500 XP per hour and if you are decent that goes about 1.5M and 10000XP to get that on FP you would need to be good and not lose essentially.

Lastly the community is it's own worst enemy. The idea was the good units would fight each other but I believe that actually that does not happen often enough.

[Reno Blade]

Too many mercs, and too many on one faction?

Make it so there are a number of (maybe even different) contracts available per faction.
You can select your contract with downsides and upsides and this contract is then no longer available for others.
(For the beginning, it could just be x contracts for clans and x for IS, to make is easier)

e.g.
currently 100 merc units existing, 50 of them with less than 12 players
8 factions with 15 contracts available each. (plus some extra in case there are many more new units)
5 of these contracts are for units below 12 man and the other 10 are for units above 12 man (optional roleplaying stuff)
some contracts get higher CBill rewards, some last longer, some give more drop weight and others might give more GXP/Loyalty.

now if you have many units selecting House Steiner and Clan Jadefalcon, the contracts are used up fast and other mercs need to take contracts for Kurita, Liao or Smoke Jaguar...

This provided:

• balance between mercs
  
• additional "lore" background
  
• more depth for contract taking
  
• additional effects on contracts

[MovinTarget]

Screw it lets make it simple:

- Contracts last 8 hours *AT MOST* (ie - from one ceasefire to the next)
- Contracts are on an individual basis, mercs can be in one unit but take different contracts but...
- Contracts are on an "as need" basis, once a faction is doing "well", they cancel merc contracts b/c they don't need them. This will drive mercs to the struggling factions.

So mercs in a unit can generally all take the same faction, unless they are too numerous and then they have to split up... but it would only be for a phase. This would force some semblance of distribution but wouldn't force units to break up since there are many units with lots of players that only occasionally play FP, if at all.

The alt-version would be that a group of mercs (same unit or not) can sign/fill a contract sheet for 6- 15 mercs max (3 alternates) good for one FP phase with a particular faction. If they don't fill the sheet immedeately, they can add people during the span of the contract. At the end of the phase, this contract ends. Again this manages the *active* population and can be used to prevent or at least discourage overloading one side.