52 replies to this topic

[Reza Malin]

LordNothing, on 28 January 2017 - 02:27 AM, said:

i think i would do something like that but in a less abrasive way. i think that units who say they want to fight equally matched units instead of pugs should be actually able to put their money where there mouth is. to that end you implement a unit rivalries feature. any unit simply can declare war on any other unit (or all the units for that matter) and have scheduled 12 man conflicts, potentially allowing betting of unit assets (mc, cbills, planets, etc). these games are worth 3 or 4 times as much as a normal game and can allow units to progress at a faster rate. at the same time you require like 50% more games to flip a planet, so units who choose to play the easy way, farming pugs, they make less progress, and are put behind in the planet securing game.

this is probibly not enough on its own, and will depend on play schedules. so there are going to be situations where pug vs unit is the only option. when faced with this pugs usually switch to qp for the day, and if there is a lot of unit disparity then nobody gets any planets. so when these situations arise you have some kind of honor system that units can opt into in order to trade greater rewards (higher capture rate) for a handycap (something like tonnage caps or fewer waves or something). granted its totally opt in, but a unit that chooses this option may very well be the one to win the planet. this encourages good units to try to do the same job with less, giving the pugs a little bit of leeway, and netting them larger rewards in the process. this does not however interfere with casual units who probibly arent going to do enough work to flip a planet anyway. they might take the easy road and fight pugs, but ive won more than my fair share of games against such units and im just t2.

the only fundamental difference between mercs and loyalists are the way rewards are distributed. and so mercs might get an underweight bonus as they dont have to haul as much tonnage to the battle field, resulting in a big purse of cbills at the end of a victorious match. loyalist might get extra lp as they are considered spec ops. freelancers dont really have any purpose anymore and i still fully believe that this needs to change. it should serve three purposes, new player experience, training, and dumping ground for perpetual potato players. they need a tree and some sort of system like cadet bonuses that need to be completed in order to take call to arms drops (and always used as space filler for 6+ man groups), and for eventual selection of another career. players who stay in that mode should have their own slightly less lucrative tree. they would get their own bucket too, it would be 8v8 + mixtech (you may have clan and is players on your team, but you must choose one or the other, no mixed decks). it might also permit trial mechs where the other 2 career paths prohibit it. im thinking limit 5 games per day unless premium time, to help lessen the server cost of running fewer players.

I like this idea! Thanks for taking the time to add something constructive. I get people aren't taken with my idea of limiting merc drops.

The essence of my suggestion is down to this. A lot of the experienced players play mercs. Rather than them stomping groups of uncoordinated pugs, which is "allegedly" no fun for either side. I am just looking for a way to integrate both groups fairly and in the right proportions. That way the inexperienced can learn from the experienced.

I believe the key to this, is having small numbers of inexperienced players, and a majority of veterans. And also, having the same numbers of each on both sides.

For the record, I win more games than i lose in FP, dropping solo. Probably because i am clan. This is not a complaint thread based on my own play experience.

Edited by Reza Malin, 28 January 2017 - 02:49 AM.

[xX PUG Xx]

Reza Malin, on 27 January 2017 - 11:57 PM, said:

Barely veiled offensive tripe, using stereo-typing, assumptions and language best suited to a COD playing teenager

Reza Malin, on 28 January 2017 - 12:50 AM, said:

Yet more offensive diatribe aimed at attacking instead of discussing.

If you want to have a discussion you really need to work on your ability to put your ideas into some form, then reason them out with how you see them working and their consequences. WITHOUT attacking people and trying your best to offend them. Especially since those that you are having a go at are those that have, by their actions and words, are those that have shown the inclination to play, support and build the game mode that you purport to want to improve.

As an example of my "investment" in the "best game mode"; over four years ago I suggested the inclusion of some of the QP maps alongside their game mode variations and continued to advocate it over the years. I wasn't alone and although I can't take credit for those changes being implemented I like to think it at least helped to put the idea in the developers minds.

The problem we currently have with player retention is NOT because of Mercs, it is because of the system currently in place and you even admitted it yourself. The "unit circle jerk" (yeah nice mature turn of phrase there and a sure fire way to get people on your side) is again a symptom of the system. IF PGI had stated 5 years ago that players would be limited to what tech they could use in the end game mode of Community Warfare established players could have chosen to focus on one type of tech based on which side they wanted that account/character to play on. The current system of Merc career choice is PGI's way of allowing those players to make use of there purchases and a veiled nod at the mistakes that were made in the development and implementation of both the game as a whole and Community Warfare specifically.

This is one of many problems with FP and all of them are symptomatic to the system NOT the the players.

• Population balance: This has been an issue from day one, just look back at the Battle of Tuk and the horrendous wait times for Clan players, again this is due to the system and lack of hard capping to prevent population bias. Something the player base is unable to change, only PGI can alter this. So not the fault of Mercs.
  
• Skill disparity in individual drops: There is no match maker based on anything other than getting 24 players together to fight. AGAIN not the fault of Mercs and solely a system (or lack) of failure that only PGI can fix.
  
• Lack of immersion to promote Loyalty over floating from Clan to IS: AGAIN not the fault of Mercs, something only PGI can fix and there is multiple suggestions out there and again something I have posted suggestions for in the past but doesn't tackle a players ability to use all of their 'Mechs.
  
• No mixed Tech(yet): which would actually be the easiest way to reduce the number of Merc units and alongside increased or simply better incentive to be a Loyalist would most likely be a major factor in balancing out populations. I can think of a system that MIGHT work here and is based on the way the MRBC and similar leagues integrate mixed tech into their rule sets.
  
• Solo and Groups mixed in one "bucket": AGAIN not the Merc units fault. The failed "Tagged / non-Tagged" queue failed because it was not based purely on a pilot dropping as a solo player. IF this was to be implemented in the same fashion as the QP match maker, alongside a limit of the same tagged unit players being on one team and a reduced impact for the matches effects on the "tug'o'war" system, I feel this would provide a "FP lite" environment for the newer players to "get their feet wet". However this would need a fair amount of tweaking and is not as simple to implement as it sounds.

These are a few things that I can think of but none of them are BECAUSE of Merc units, Mercs are simply the result of the system that is currently in place. I made a similar suggestion to your own around a year ago, suggesting a maximum of an 8 man and subsequently reasoned it out, in the end I realised it would actually do more harm than good: the current system of the full game rewards team work over and above everything else and limiting the players that invested time, energy and in many cases, a lot of hard cash into the game would most likely drive them away. The idea does have merits but I feel the overall effect would be more negative on player retention than positive. The simple fact is that those players inclined to play in a unit are more inclined to play FP due to the nature of the game mode, so alienating them would do more harm than good to player numbers.


(As a side note: I'm a nearly 40 year old, married, Dad of two and if you'd spend more than twenty minutes talking to me you'd realise I was anything but "Elite" or even "Quasi-Elite". I also don't need the validation or congratulation of my unit, again if you knew any of us you'd realise they prefer to ridicule my attempts to try and improve things due to threads like this one and the attitude of players like yourself. Unfortunately the way you are putting yourself across is not inductive to a "discussion" and will only prove to put peoples backs up, most would simply dismiss it as "trolling". Simply my opinion and it's up to you to take it on board or not, as it is mine to choose to discuss yours or not.)

[justcallme A S H]

Carl Vickers, on 28 January 2017 - 01:57 AM, said:

If he picks small parts to comment on its because of the rest is just ramble. You lost pretty much any point you had because of hyperbole and you admitted it, post can be closed now.

Pretty much.

[Jon McFuzzy]

Well, with that kind of title, it's surely going to ruffle some feathers, and you can expect some flak .

There are people who has the same thought as the OP, but let's differentiate between effects and the cause here.
What is currently happening with a certain "faction" dominating FP is an effect due to the conditions set by PGI.
I am guessing it's the reason why Russ said FP 4.2 (launched April?) would give more benefits to Loyalist.

Fix the cause, and the effects will change. There are already tons of ideas on what can be done better.

To those who said FP is the end game and intended for Team play? Yes and No ... Why does PGI allow solo drop? They can make it exclusive if they want. It would be nice to have another set of game which only allow team/group drop so that the focus will only be on Skills and strategy. A true competitive mode. As an analogy, nobody would ever complain of balance if Barca or Real Madrid (whose players worth millions of dollars) destroyed Osasuna like 10-0 in a Team-based league.

But in current state, FP is open to anyone. This means the PUGs have a right to say. Hey, they might be the (silent) majority!
If FP continues to be open like this, then everybody deserves a game that is exciting, fun, and enjoyable, either winning or losing.

It's FP - Faction Play - I hope the word "Faction" means something. The loyalists need to be encouraged to play more, and play better.

[Reza Malin]

xX PUG Xx, on 28 January 2017 - 03:09 AM, said:

If you want to have a discussion you really need to work on your ability to put your ideas into some form, then reason them out with how you see them working and their consequences. WITHOUT attacking people and trying your best to offend them. Especially since those that you are having a go at are those that have, by their actions and words, are those that have shown the inclination to play, support and build the game mode that you purport to want to improve.

As an example of my "investment" in the "best game mode"; over four years ago I suggested the inclusion of some of the QP maps alongside their game mode variations and continued to advocate it over the years. I wasn't alone and although I can't take credit for those changes being implemented I like to think it at least helped to put the idea in the developers minds.

The problem we currently have with player retention is NOT because of Mercs, it is because of the system currently in place and you even admitted it yourself. The "unit circle jerk" (yeah nice mature turn of phrase there and a sure fire way to get people on your side) is again a symptom of the system. IF PGI had stated 5 years ago that players would be limited to what tech they could use in the end game mode of Community Warfare established players could have chosen to focus on one type of tech based on which side they wanted that account/character to play on. The current system of Merc career choice is PGI's way of allowing those players to make use of there purchases and a veiled nod at the mistakes that were made in the development and implementation of both the game as a whole and Community Warfare specifically.

This is one of many problems with FP and all of them are symptomatic to the system NOT the the players.

• Population balance: This has been an issue from day one, just look back at the Battle of Tuk and the horrendous wait times for Clan players, again this is due to the system and lack of hard capping to prevent population bias. Something the player base is unable to change, only PGI can alter this. So not the fault of Mercs.
  
• Skill disparity in individual drops: There is no match maker based on anything other than getting 24 players together to fight. AGAIN not the fault of Mercs and solely a system (or lack) of failure that only PGI can fix.
  
• Lack of immersion to promote Loyalty over floating from Clan to IS: AGAIN not the fault of Mercs, something only PGI can fix and there is multiple suggestions out there and again something I have posted suggestions for in the past but doesn't tackle a players ability to use all of their 'Mechs.
  
• No mixed Tech(yet): which would actually be the easiest way to reduce the number of Merc units and alongside increased or simply better incentive to be a Loyalist would most likely be a major factor in balancing out populations. I can think of a system that MIGHT work here and is based on the way the MRBC and similar leagues integrate mixed tech into their rule sets.
  
• Solo and Groups mixed in one "bucket": AGAIN not the Merc units fault. The failed "Tagged / non-Tagged" queue failed because it was not based purely on a pilot dropping as a solo player. IF this was to be implemented in the same fashion as the QP match maker, alongside a limit of the same tagged unit players being on one team and a reduced impact for the matches effects on the "tug'o'war" system, I feel this would provide a "FP lite" environment for the newer players to "get their feet wet". However this would need a fair amount of tweaking and is not as simple to implement as it sounds.

These are a few things that I can think of but none of them are BECAUSE of Merc units, Mercs are simply the result of the system that is currently in place. I made a similar suggestion to your own around a year ago, suggesting a maximum of an 8 man and subsequently reasoned it out, in the end I realised it would actually do more harm than good: the current system of the full game rewards team work over and above everything else and limiting the players that invested time, energy and in many cases, a lot of hard cash into the game would most likely drive them away. The idea does have merits but I feel the overall effect would be more negative on player retention than positive. The simple fact is that those players inclined to play in a unit are more inclined to play FP due to the nature of the game mode, so alienating them would do more harm than good to player numbers.


(As a side note: I'm a nearly 40 year old, married, Dad of two and if you'd spend more than twenty minutes talking to me you'd realise I was anything but "Elite" or even "Quasi-Elite". I also don't need the validation or congratulation of my unit, again if you knew any of us you'd realise they prefer to ridicule my attempts to try and improve things due to threads like this one and the attitude of players like yourself. Unfortunately the way you are putting yourself across is not inductive to a "discussion" and will only prove to put peoples backs up, most would simply dismiss it as "trolling". Simply my opinion and it's up to you to take it on board or not, as it is mine to choose to discuss yours or not.)

THANKYOU PUG.

A reasonable well written response, that has got me thinking.

Some of what you say works both ways mate.

You launched into a rant, based around the misinterpretation saying i was complaining about my own gameplay experience, which i clearly wasn't.

I am 35 years old, i am a man and can admit when i am wrong. Maybe my opener was a bit heavy handed, and now you have made me think about why, so i thank you for that. The power of discussion. Which, as many of my posts here allude to, is what i want on the issue.

A few things though. Unit circlejerk, is a quite appropriate term and i don't see your issue with it. It also well fits the current social "meta" that if you are a long term player here, you are somehow more valid than a new player for example. Which as i keep saying, is why this game is pretty much stagnant.

You can add all the quickplay maps to FP that you like, but unless something addresses the demographics of the game, that makes it more appealing to people who havent played for years like us, it will continue to stagnate.

The frustrating thing is, a lot of the veteran players seem to be very aloof and unable to embrace any viewpoint that doesn't essentially place the blame firmly on the guy who has just installed and started playing a game, with one of the hardest learning curves of any game i know.

Add to that, it is free to play, and people can test it, and then write it off without any financial investment, only exacerbates the issue of new player retention.

People need to ask themselves, do they prefer how the game is now, or do they want it to be more successful to drive change? The more popular the game becomes, the more willing PGI will be to implement bigger and better things.

With the new tech reveal coming up, now is a good chance for us to generate some hype and get people back here, or get them invested from the outset. What i don't want is this potential new playerbase to be greeted by a kick in the teeth, and "git guds" dropping like arty, so that they just go back to playing For Honor, or Mass Effect.

That is the reality we all need to consider. The last couple of years, all the hardcore BattleTech fans, who love this game for lore and gamplay, have been telling newer players, to embrace units and git gud.

It hasn't worked. Its blatantly obvious. Ash's statement earlier about how many people are in his unit and how many actually take part in FP is an unintended and tragic reminder of that. If established units can only generate numbers like that from dedicated players, what hope do you think we have of encouraging new players enough to learn how to play the game properly before they decide to jack?

We need to change our attitude. In my opinion, there should be 12 vs 12 for people who want to be the git gud of all git guds. Knock yourself out. If you strive to be as competitive as possible, like so many keep claiming here is the essence of git gud, then surely going 12 vs 12 against equally minded people is what it is all about?

Then, leave anythnig less than 12 vs 12 to everybody else. Find ways to balance the numbers so experienced and inexpereinced players are primarily balanced on both sides, and preferably, veterans are the majority and not a minority. So the minority of newer players taking part in the match can learn, rather than being surrounded by equally inexperienced players, like the blind leading the blind.

Right now, we don't get anything close to this, unless by luck because a couple of units may drop light as 4 or 5 mans for example. For the record, those are the best FP matches i have had as a solo, when both sides have a premade group of anything between 4-8, and the rest are pugs of any ability.

Why cant we set up anything other than 12 mans to drop like this? To me, more than 8 is too many, and i think the best way would be 4 man groups. Eg. 2 four man groups on each side and then 4 randoms. but unless it is standardised, the "matchmaker" wont be able to manage it.

That is why i said to limit mercs, because mercs are the largest source of veteran players. I get that isn't popular and fine.

So.

We already know, that "git gud, join a unit", is not cutting it, and hasnt been for some time. So what else can we do to make the game, outside 12 vs 12, more accessible at FP for all skill levels. Its not endgame. Its an enhanced QP mode. Endgame in MWO is 12 vs 12, so all the "pros" can face off against each other and see who is the most skilled.

FP in its entirety is not endgame, despite that crappy blue text wall you see when you select it. Apparently, endgame is rolling over groups of new pug players and laughing at them as they rage in chat without even understanding enough of the game to realise why they are being rolled. I find it sad as i think of how many players will possibly uninstall as a result of each match like that.

Finally, i also think another factor is how a lot of us learnt to play. When i first played there was no FP or clans. it was just IS QP. I did this for over a year before i joined a unit. The learning curve was far easier for peopel then because you only had QP, there was no choice or temptation to run CW, which is a much more enjoyable mode when it is balanced.

The game was also a bit simpler, having only IS, and no balance issues other than weapon balance and poptarting. Therefore it was easier to learn than say, if you got the game now, with 10 times more mechs, 2 factions, lots mroe maps, 2 different game modes, etc etc.

So when i see people using the old, "i did it this way so why cant you" is again, a bit obtuse.

Essentially, I just want more experienced players, which is a lot of merc units, to take more responsibility for driving the game than "git gud."

[VorpalAnvil]

Reza Malin, on 28 January 2017 - 12:50 AM, said:

Woopee fecking do mate, your unit has 104 players. Lets count up all the regular active units and see how many players they have as well.

Wow, thin skinned much? He was stating his unnit size to demonstrate the massive variance in skill level present in it. Not to brag about muh yuuuuge group. But someone capable of critical thinking and not a kneejerk emotional response would realise this.

Reza Malin, on 28 January 2017 - 12:50 AM, said:

The old, "join a unit, git gud, expand your horizon, raise your skill ceiling" mentality, DOESNT WORK

Except for the fact that in literally every case of someone who is trying to improve their skill level it does. Do you think the guys in EMP started there? No more than any player on a professional sports team started at that level instead of on a high school or community league level. People who want to improve will improve. People who think that they deserve to win regardless of effort, skill, etc, but don't will blame literally anything but themselves.

Frankly, players with your mentality are the problem. Not the so called elitists who shape the meta and create the guides for the new players who want to not continue to be noobs.

Edited by VorpalAnvil, 28 January 2017 - 03:58 AM.

[Reza Malin]

VorpalAnvil, on 28 January 2017 - 03:44 AM, said:

Wow, thin skinned much? He was stating his ubnit size to demonstrate the massive variance in skill level present in it. Not to brag about muh yuuuuge group. But someone capable of critical thinking and not a kneejerk emotional response would realise this.

Except for the fact that in literally every case of someone who is trying to improve their skill level it does. Do you think the guys in EMP started there? No more than any player on a professional sports team started at that level instead of on a high school or community league level. People who want to improve will improve. People who think that they deserve to win regardless of effort, skill, etc, but don't will blame literally anything but themselves.

Frankly, players with your mentality are the problem. Not the so called elitists who shape the meta and create the guides for the new players who want to not continue to be noobs.

Ok lets draw a line in the sand, because everything before this is just a cluster of misinterpretation and non constructive posts. Read my last post, in reply to PUG and lets go from there.

[Starwulfe]

I don't get this mindset. Many other PvP games don't limit who drops in them, there's no matchmaker.
I joined in Planetside and Battlefield 4 well after they started. Probably about a year into each.
In both it was normal to get rolled by those that had spent more time in the game, had the gear, knew all the nooks and crannies.
I never visited the forums for those games so I don't know if this type of thinking was prevalent there or not, but my answer wasn't to quit or complain.
It was to buckle down and learn. Never did join a unit in either but I'd shadow a group and see what they did. Find a friendly sniper and see where he sat and moved. I'd ask to be included in groups so I could hear their comms.

Balance tech, tonnage, and assets; Don't shackle the players just because of skill.

Plenty of units and TSs out there happy to drop with whomever and help them get better, if they want to.

Edited by Starwulfe, 28 January 2017 - 04:02 AM.

[justcallme A S H]

So much TL:DR here...

[Reza Malin]

Starwulfe, on 28 January 2017 - 03:59 AM, said:

I don't get this mindset. Many other PvP games don't limit who drops in them, there's no matchmaker.
I joined in Planetside and Battlefield 4 well after they started.

Games with much larger playerbases you mean?

Simple numbers, if you look at QP leaderboards, which i rarely play, im at about 12400, with 41 matches played this "season".

So for argument's sake, lets just call it 15k QP players. So QP, is in a decent position.

Then we have FP. Ash himself, stated his unit numbers, and they can barely get a third of their established unit to take part. If that is common across the board, which from my experience, i suspect it is, then FP is nowhere near attracting even close to the percentage of the playerbase that is active.

This is reinforced by the fact that ghost drops are even a thing.....i mean come on.

What hope is there without changing our attitude to encourage newer players.

I don't know how long you have been playing, but FP has been flogging a dead horse, on and off. The git gud rhetoric has been spouted by "alpha" males everywhere for a long time, yet it never improves. So when do we start to change our attitude, or simply carry on as we are, and accept the current unit circlejerking is as good as it will ever get.

I just want the most interesting game mode to be popular with more than the minority BT nerds, clearly i am in a minority in that regard as well.

justcallme A S H, on 28 January 2017 - 04:12 AM, said:

So much TL:DR here...

Not sure what the problem is Ash. You are on a forum mate, where people discuss, and read. Its not just for kids to share meme's and scoreboards.

If you don't want to read it then why are you here? Ha ha, trying to insinuate that there is something negative about writing on a forum, is pretty desperate attempts to troll.

Edited by Reza Malin, 28 January 2017 - 04:25 AM.

[xX PUG Xx]

OK,here's the post I made a few years back. It is a long read and as is my way does ramble a bit so it takes a while to work through but some of it may be what you are thinking of and doesn't "punish" those "big, bad 12 man groups" or the high skilled solo players.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Spoiler

At present the solo and group queues are simply meaningless beyond grinding for CBills and XP, they have no real impact on the “Meta” game that I feel should be the REAL reason for playing with gigantic walking avatars of war. The Battletech universe has as much depth and character as anything JRR Tolkien envisioned and has the potential to give us a hugely diverse and rewarding background to immerse ourselves into.

I touched on my belief that EVERY game played in the online lobbies (with the exception of Private lobbies) should affect the Universe we are fighting in, each game should contribute to the overall Community Warfare map and each player should feel engaged and essential to the success of their chosen Faction. Therefore there would be no Solo/Public queues, only Community Warfare and the combat missions attached to the various planets, how this would affect the overall conquest or defence of the planet I have not worked out and would require a programmer/developer to figure out the technical aspects.

Each game mode and map has the potential to be used for niches in the CW experience; for example the Conquest mechanic has many possible applications, while the full game mode could easily be “tweaked” to accommodate a scouting role in Community Warfare. To expand further on this it could be possible to allocate certain team size caps to certain mission types, giving solo players (and new players) somewhere to get their feet wet and learn the ropes.

Contracts (game modes) available to Lone Wolves (Solo players).
· Solo only - 4 ‘Mech small scale combat and scouting missions, Skirmish and Conquest on the smaller maps such as River City, Forest Colony and Canyon Network.
Lower flat rates for LP and CBill payments, with higher modifiers for team based in-game actions to emphasis the lower risk involved but encourage engagement and teamwork.
· Small group and Solo – same as above but with slightly better rewards, encourages Lance sized groups to play and co-ordinate. Possibly with the DropShip reinforcements added and min/max tonnage limit.
Use current rates for LP and CBill payments for game win/loss and in-game actions, this is the introduction to the “Big Leagues”; overall the payments should be slightly higher [5%] than the solo only queue.
· Up to Demi-Company sized groups (max group size 8) in Company (12 ‘Mechs) combat operations – Assault, Skirmish, Counter Attack/Defend and Attack (current CW modes).
LP/CBill payments set higher again [5%] with high modifiers for combat based in-game actions to reward combat and co-ordinated gameplay.

Contracts (game modes) available to groups

2 - 4 players
· Skirmish and Conquest in the Small Group/Solo queue
LP/CBill rewards for completion of the contract should be [5-10%] higher than the Solo player rewards, reflecting the higher risk/reward factor for Groups entering into battle with an unknown players alongside them. Modifiers for in-game actions set at current levels.

2-12 players (inclusive of group sizes 2 – 4)

· Assault, Skirmish, Counter Attack/Defend and Attack (current CW modes)
LP/CBill rewards [10-15%] for completion of contract/mission higher than Solo player, modifiers for in-game actions set at current levels.
I believe this would make only 8 queues, 4 for attacking a planet and 4 for defending, multiplied by how ever many planets are up for contention. Therefore wait times should be much lower since every player is included in the Community Warfare experience but still has the choice of what level they wish to play at;
· The soloist can stick to the smaller scale engagements but still feel as though they are contributing and will likely be earning slightly more CBills than they presently do in the Solo queues, while earning LP to go toward the Faction based rewards.
NB – as a side note this particular queue could be broken down further to allow for new players to the game, perhaps having a separate queue mechanic to keep the “Cadets” from facing seasoned Veterans until they have their 25 battles under their Neurohelmets. As well as giving them the flexibility to venture into Company (12 ‘Mech) group queues if they so desire.
· The smaller Units have the choice of where and how they commit their time and energy; while either giving themselves an opportunity of fighting on equal terms with an opponent or taking the chance of going into a Company drop against a possibly larger grouped enemy team. CBill and LP earnings will be on par with current levels, perhaps slightly higher.
· Likewise the larger Units can choose how to use their forces, engage in the smaller scale fights and perhaps help to tip the balance on the planet or fully commit to Company sized engagements in the hope of overwhelming their opponents attack/defence.

One thing that was mentioned was the ability for players to simply jump in and play a random game without worrying about the tactical consequences, a “throw away” game mode not unlike what unfortunately makes up the majority of the gameplay at present.

Further down the road of development it may be good to have something like a Solaris, 1 vs.1 up to 8 vs.8 game mode; something there has been a large calling for over the years. This could provide the side show games for some stress relief if required but I think the layout above would provide enough variety to cater for everyone’s taste. The remaining question would be; what percentage does each game mode attribute to the overall defence/conquest of a planet? This I would leave to the developers, as it would undoubtedly require many tweaks to get the right ratio.

It may even be that, given the possible implementation of logistics and economy in the long run, different game modes (missions) could have different consequences on different planets. This would have to be something for future discussion and exploration but I do feel the above layout provides some flexibility to the developers to explore this option.

The next question would be; how does which Faction a player chooses affect Contracts and what rewards are available from them?

The easiest answer for the developers at this stage would be to scrap the Mercenary / Lone Wolf Factions and simply have players choose between Clan and House. This may cause a bit on an upset but it would eliminate a whole quagmire of programming issues.

However…..

I believe there could be some difference in how a Loyalist is rewarded versus a Mercenary or Lone Wolf and below I have outlined an idea I came up with. Essentially it revolves around boosts to either LP or CBill rewards, the Loyalists (House/Clan players) are rewarded for their loyalty by increased LP rewards (or perhaps even have a separate LP rewards tree with shorter gaps or higher rewards per level/more levels). Mercs/Lone Wolves are rewarded through increased CBill income but lower LP rewards or it might even be regulated by having a separate LP “tree” for the Mercs/Lone Wolves with slightly longer LP gaps between rewards or lower rewards per level.

Loyalists are essentially the line Units of the main Factions, honour and loyalty bound to the chosen House or Clan. As such they do not have the freedom to attack planets at will and are subject to the desires and strategic whims of their Liege Lord or Khan. However their emphasis would be in the ability to take planets in stewardship for their Houses, gaining rewards based on ownership and therefore boosting CBill earnings by implementation of bonuses per planet owned. This could be given as a Faction wide payment, the more planets a Faction holds the larger the “pot” and therefore the larger a share goes to the individual players, therefore making it fairer on the smaller units that stand less of a chance in “tagging” planets.

However Mercenaries and Lone Wolves would “survive” financially by taking salvage and contract completion bonuses, therefore the emphasis for this group would be on completion of missions and ‘Mech kills.

How would Contracts (games) be generated and how would it be possible to differentiate between the types available to players.

Here is an example that I thought up;
The House Liao CCAF High Command (controlled by PGI’s in-game algorithm) generates an “Attack” combat action against a planet on the House Davion border, which shows in the normal way on the Faction screen for the Loyalist units. In turn it also generates a series of Solo, Small Group, Demi-Company and Company (as listed above) “attack” and “defence” contracts for this planet on an “MRBC Contracts Board” for use by all Lone Wolf players and Mercenary Units. These would not be based on the game “mode” (attack, counter attack, etc.) but as a broad based contract for combat operations in support of one House or the other; thus adding a little “unknown” element to the drops and hopefully forcing a little diversity into players’ drop decks.

This would be where Lone Wolves and Mercenary Units would be able to choose the length of their contracts:

· Single drop – [0%] LP boost – [1%] CBill boost
· 1 day defence/attack – [1%] LP boost – [2%] CBill boost
· 3 day defence/attack – [2%] LP boost – [4%] CBill boost
· 7 day defence/attack – [5%] LP boost – [7.5%] CBill boost
· 14 day defence/attack – [7.5%] LP boost – [15%] CBill boost

Loyalist Units are already receiving a 15% boost on LP rewards, the above incremental increase in LP rewards will not allow the Lone Wolves / Mercenary Units to earn as much LP as the Loyalists but the CBill rewards would plateau at 15%, therefore giving an emphasis to the “soldier-for-hire” choice of Lone Wolves and Mercenaries.

Now obviously the Lone Wolves and Mercenaries are unable to hold (or “tag”) the planet, this would be done by the most successful Loyalist unit; so their “reward” for fighting for Liao will come from the drop by drop bonuses. The Loyalist units will earn less in the short term but the rewards will even out or possibly be higher with successfully capturing a world; the emphasis for them being taking territory for their chosen House.

I am not mathematically minded, therefore it would take someone else to fully work out the figures but I think by now you get my idea (hopefully).

The TL:DR version
· Incorporate all game modes/queues into the persistent world of “Community Warfare”
· Allow Solo / Group players to choose which queue they play in:

o 4 vs. 4 solo only

o 4 vs. 4 mixed solo/group (1 – 4 players in a group)

o 12 vs. 12 with a max group size of 8 (1 – 8 players in a group)

o “Standard” Community Warfare drop with any combination of group size. (1 – 12 players in a group)

· Game mode (assault, conquest, skirmish, counter attack, attack) determined by the game as is necessary for the stage of the planetary conflict.
· Loyalist players and Units have an emphasis placed on increased Loyalty Point rewards, perhaps with a separate Loyalty Reward Tree.
· Mercenary Units / Lone Wolf players have an emphasis placed on CBill earnings on a match per match basis, with bonuses paid for longer contracts.
· Loyalist players and Units earn a territorial reward, by means of a “pot” determined by the amount of planets or planetary value held by their chosen House.
· Military High Command for each House designates Attack / Defend lanes for Loyalist players and Units.
· MRBC Contract Board generates individual contracts based on planets under attack; these can have increased / decreased rewards depending on population of given Factions in contest of the planet.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A lot of this is redundant due to the changes implemented in 4.1 but some of it, mainly the group suggestions, could possibly help with easing new players into the game. However I am fairly confident that it would require that 15k players to actually allow it to work and have a functional skill based match maker but where would that leave Quick Play and the "casual" player?

Edited by xX PUG Xx, 28 January 2017 - 04:47 AM.

[Reza Malin]

I see your 12 vs 12 with max group size of 8, is similar to what i had in mind too. As i said, when the teams are roughly laid out like that now in FP, they are the most fun games i have.

I think the 4 vs 4 mode you mention is a good idea, and i remember hearing something about PGI attempting to implement it, which i believe may be what led to scouting mode.

The real question is, with scouting being reasonably popular and quite interesting, why have they not implemented a true 4 vs 4 game mode?

I also agree, that to encourage faction play, they need to offer further incentive for each contract type. If LP is one option, i think they should maybe offer an incentive to rank up. I know there are rank rewards already but they are one time only. Maybe some kind of wage system could be introduced, which is also dependent on how active you are of course. Even potentially some kind of very small MC reward once a month or something, again depending on how active players are as well as what rank they are.

Essentially though, just offering incentives to factions is only a small part. The main issue is how the game modes are organised to make FP more appealing to all levels, while still keeping the 12 vs 12 potential for top tier endgame play.

To my mind:

“Standard” Community Warfare drop with any combination of group size. (1 – 12 players in a group)

To me, is not necessary if you implement the other groups from your suggestions. I feel that the sweet spot would be most of what you already put forward:

- 4 vs 4 solo only

- 4 vs 4 solo/group

- 12 vs 12, with max group size of 8

- 12 vs 12, with full 12 man groups only.

The only issue i see is that with so many brackets, it will dilute the population of each game type.

So initially, until the possibility of attracting more players to FP was real, i would go with:

- Scouting as is now

- 12 vs 12, solo/max group size of 4

- 12 vs 12, full 12 man only.

- 12 vs 12, standard community warfare drops as we have now.

Then we can gather some metrics and see what is salvagable. If the most popular game mode, for groups is still 12 vs 12 as we have now, then the game is doomed. As then we officially know that large groups would rather stomp pugs than play vs equal skill.

If the other game modes thrive, with larger organised groups going 12 vs 12 and smaller less active groups and solo players running the adjusted, max group size 4 queue, then there is hope.

The only discrepancy would be group size 5-11 but we could see from metrics how many of these size groups there were outside the 4 man groups and 12 man groups and work out what is the most popular group sizes. Then adjust accordingly.

Edited by Reza Malin, 28 January 2017 - 05:08 AM.

[Reza Malin]

xX PUG Xx, on 28 January 2017 - 04:36 AM, said:

However I am fairly confident that it would require that 15k players to actually allow it to work and have a functional skill based match maker but where would that leave Quick Play and the "casual" player?

And this, is another burning issue. One way could be to simply make FP more appealing than QP, but again that comes down to making it appealing enough.

My best opinion would be to make 4 vs 4 more casual friendly. That could then be the "casual" mode for FP.

Edited by Reza Malin, 28 January 2017 - 05:13 AM.