105 replies to this topic

[justcallme A S H]

Zito, on 29 January 2017 - 11:25 AM, said:

Seems the conversation was dominated by Loyalist ideals. Not much there about making the mode more fun. Variety in play, lower wait times, and specific improvements to the mode should be dominating the conversation. Please stop trying to push your agenda.

#SquareTable

Agree. It didn't cover the real problems. The stuff about "Faction perks" was just totally going off on a random tangent that offers nothing to FP right now.

1. Population drop off - It's real, it's already happening now the "shiny/new" has worn off. Ghost drops are back and there are more each week.

2. Quality of player in 4.1 - Fact is FP is now just filled with T5-T3 users cause they think it's QP, bring **** builds and simply don't care - then cry hacks... So;
a. Proper tutorial
b. Attempt at a matchmaker.
c. Some kinda better UI even to allow units to recruit ingame so they can train up these T3-T5 players.
d. Hell even gate the mode. Make it 200 matches of QP before you can FP. I see some T5 users posting in "new player help" and "Hi, I've only played for 2 weeks and wanna do FP"... That can't be allowed, I know that'll upset people, but they just don't have the experience of how the game works and won't for a while. It'll discourage them forever. Or even make it match score based - Avg of 180 or something. Not this stupid PSR bar which almost anyone half competent can get into T1 with.

Addressing some of the above will, potentially, slow the spawncamping issue as long as the population decline is STOPPED. If it continues a MM won't help. It will likely be too little/too late.

3. Eternal QP modes was lightly touched on and it was clear PGI have seen this issue... But, no solution or even idea how to fix it? It's driving most people I know crazy playing say, 4 games of domination in 1.5-2hrs.

4. Skirmish just needs to go


I could go on for a while about the actual problems... But that's the issue in itself, if problems are not addressed, people keep bringing up wild/crazy ideas - which some are great, they are - but they are for LATER. Once the core stuff in the mode is fixed to stop the increasing population exodus.

Edited by justcallme A S H, 29 January 2017 - 08:48 PM.

[1 21 Giggawatts]

justcallme A S H, on 29 January 2017 - 08:12 PM, said:

Agree. It didn't cover the real problems. The stuff about "Faction perks" was just totally going off on a random tangent that offers nothing to FP right now.

1. Population drop off - It's real, it's already happening now the "shiny/new" has worn off. Ghost drops are back and there are more each week.

2. Quality of player in 4.1 - Fact is FP is now just filled with T5-T3 users cause they think it's QP, bring **** builds and simply don't care - then cry hacks... So;
a. Proper tutorial
b. Attempt at a matchmaker.
c. Some kinda better UI even to allow units to recruit ingame so they can train up these T3-T5 players.
d. Hell even gate the mode. Make it 200 matches of QP before you can FP. I see some T5 users posting in "new player help" and "Hi, I've only played for 2 weeks and wanna do FP"... That can't be allowed, I know that'll upset people, but they just don't have the experience of how the game works and won't for a while. It'll discourage them forever. Or even make it match score based - Avg of 180 or something. Not this stupid PSR bar which almost anyone half competent can get into T1 with.

Addressing some of the above will, potentially, slow the spawncamping issue as long as the population decline is STOPPED. If it continues a MM won't help. It will likely be too little/too late.

3. Eternal QP modes was lightly touched on and it was clear PGI have seen this issue... But, no solution or even idea how to fix it? It's driving most people I know crazy playing say, 4 games of domination in 1.5-2hrs.

4. Skirmish just needs to go


I could go on for a while about the actual problems... But that's the issue in itself, if problems are not addressed, people keep bringing up wild/crazy ideas - which some are great, they are - but they are for LATER. Once the core stuff in the mode is fixed to stop the increasing population exodus.

Yup well said Ash... i agree, i think gating the mode in some way could help players achieve a bit of knowledge / skill about the game, hopefully avoiding getting farmed when they do drop.

Im not sure how this could be achieved one option is banning trials (however nowadays the trial builds are better than the stuff PUG's r bringing)... or perhaps only allowing mechs that have been 'mastered' in the drop deck?

Agree'd skrimish doesnt really work with this format. Do we really need assault as well when we have invasion? Not that we get to play invasion very often these days :-(

One point that I was sad to see wasnt brought up, is the flaw in how the tug of war works now. A unit / group can drop for 5/6 hours, winning every match. Then at the end of the window if PUGS lose 2 matches you can lose the planet... This is pretty unfair - the old system once you got a planet to 100% you needed to lose what - 6 of the sectors to flip it back?

This will drive players away from CW if hard work / wins is not being rewarded with planets... Once a planet is 100% it should take quite a lot of effort from the other side to stop it from being captured..

[The Lighthouse]

justcallme A S H, on 29 January 2017 - 08:12 PM, said:

Agree. It didn't cover the real problems. The stuff about "Faction perks" was just totally going off on a random tangent that offers nothing to FP right now.

1. Population drop off - It's real, it's already happening now the "shiny/new" has worn off. Ghost drops are back and there are more each week.

2. Quality of player in 4.1 - Fact is FP is now just filled with T5-T3 users cause they think it's QP, bring **** builds and simply don't care - then cry hacks... So;
a. Proper tutorial
b. Attempt at a matchmaker.
c. Some kinda better UI even to allow units to recruit ingame so they can train up these T3-T5 players.
d. Hell even gate the mode. Make it 200 matches of QP before you can FP. I see some T5 users posting in "new player help" and "Hi, I've only played for 2 weeks and wanna do FP"... That can't be allowed, I know that'll upset people, but they just don't have the experience of how the game works and won't for a while. It'll discourage them forever. Or even make it match score based - Avg of 180 or something. Not this stupid PSR bar which almost anyone half competent can get into T1 with.

Addressing some of the above will, potentially, slow the spawncamping issue as long as the population decline is STOPPED. If it continues a MM won't help. It will likely be too little/too late.

3. Eternal QP modes was lightly touched on and it was clear PGI have seen this issue... But, no solution or even idea how to fix it? It's driving most people I know crazy playing say, 4 games of domination in 1.5-2hrs.

4. Skirmish just needs to go


I could go on for a while about the actual problems... But that's the issue in itself, if problems are not addressed, people keep bringing up wild/crazy ideas - which some are great, they are - but they are for LATER. Once the core stuff in the mode is fixed to stop the increasing population exodus.

These really should had been the MAIN discussion topics for the roundtable. But what we got was completely worthless.

[Reza Malin]

mesmer7, on 29 January 2017 - 02:57 PM, said:

Loyalist types (or mercs who only play one side mostly) don't get it:

Mercs moving from side to side is good for the game. If wait times are bad as one side, we move to the other. Not just EVIL does it. Most elite units do by now.

In theory this sounds good.

In reality, a lot of the more active merc units will hedge their bets at whichever faction is going to have the easier time at stomping, or any other myriad of personal reasons that have nothing actually to do with the game.

If you made more of the faction selections stick, for longer, the populations would actually balance out.

People might then actually PICK a house or clan and stick with it, as i assume the game intended to do. This is the basis of any faction orientated game.

I really, don't believe when they thought of how to implement FP, no matter how flawed some of their ideas, they intended it to be dominated by fairweather merc units that could switch around and destabilise the population at any time.

Make contracts more binding, give loyalists something unique that isn't realistically crap, give units actually a real incentive to play any faction and not just mercs, and try and get the population to actually stabilise into real factions, of players, not just lorewise.

None of that is worth a damn though, if we don't get newer/put off players invested into FP. Seriously, i go on about this, but its true. This is a free to play game. People can install it for free, try it for free, and if they have negative experiences too often, ditch it, at no cost to themselves and never come back.

Or they just avoid it and stay in QP. Like the 15,000 or so active QP pilots on the leaderboards, who just let the few 100, and that is being generous, that play FP regularly get on with it.

That shows FP is not engaging a substantial portion of the active MWO playerbase which is concerning. I also agree that skirmish is not helpful in FP. It should be removed from the lineup.

Edited by Reza Malin, 29 January 2017 - 11:21 PM.

[Reza Malin]

1 21 Giggawatts, on 29 January 2017 - 08:59 PM, said:

This will drive players away from CW if hard work / wins is not being rewarded with planets... Once a planet is 100% it should take quite a lot of effort from the other side to stop it from being captured..

Mate you really think one of the priorities of FP is who or what flips planets?

If we had enough players in the game mode to make it relevant, then i would agree, but right now, the few hundred FP, out of the thousands that play MWO is mroe of a burning issue of things that need to be looked at with the game mode.

No point trying to run before we can walk, again. We should focus on trying to get more people to play the mode, before we worry too much about some of the minor mechanics of it. It is not an issue that is going to go away.

Maybe as Ash said, a matchmaker is long overdue. I think a matchmaker would tempt some players back to FP initially, as would the upcoming tech introduction which will no doubt boost logins.

But we need to ensure people stay around and keep playing. So if that matchmaker is not implemented correctly, a month or two down the line we will be back here, discussing ghost drops and faction imbalances, for a game mode with barely 500 invested players.

Edited by Reza Malin, 29 January 2017 - 11:28 PM.

[Crockdaddy]

Mech The Dane, on 28 January 2017 - 12:32 PM, said:

Here ya go.

That's a word for word of the entire meeting.

meh ... is pretty much how I feel about it

[Crockdaddy]

BLOOD WOLF, on 29 January 2017 - 10:30 AM, said:

Go back and revise step 1

You honestly have the worst opinions consistently in this game. It is almost like you don't even play it. Skirmish in FP is just fail. There is zero point beyond rolling the team or getting rolled and then holding onto your momentum. At least objectives gives you something to do beyond simply killing the enemy team or one side camping it out which happens somewhat often.

[KinLuu]

justcallme A S H, on 29 January 2017 - 08:12 PM, said:

2. Quality of player in 4.1 - Fact is FP is now just filled with T5-T3 users cause they think it's QP, bring **** builds and simply don't care - then cry hacks... So;

This was always the case and is not really related to 4.1.

FP is by design a magnet for all those more lore-oriented players.

[BLOOD WOLF]

Crockdaddy, on 30 January 2017 - 12:10 AM, said:

You honestly have the worst opinions consistently in this game. It is almost like you don't even play it.

Right, because everyone at the round table agreed with just removing skirmish, everyone on the forums agrees with removing skirmish. Its just me that wan'ts to keep it. In your head only me and just my worst opinions which you can't really name, just assert all day.

Stop getting rolled. That's the solution, and if you get rolled deal with it.

Crockdaddy, on 30 January 2017 - 12:10 AM, said:

You honestly have the worst opinions consistently in this game.

Oh yea, I wan't to highlight this statement, If any one can catch that.

Its the most stupid statement I have ever read. I can't have the "worst opinions", because there are no Best opinions. Honestly you should have said bad Ideas, that would have made sense, but would still be wrong as I have never presented any ideas for this game since it came out, only argued for the ones that made the case.

back on the forums and not even 2 days in to into it................................................................these comments people made, oh my

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 30 January 2017 - 01:53 AM.

[Carl Vickers]

Those lower skill players ^ need a place with no objectives so they can shine too Crock

Edited by Carl Vickers, 30 January 2017 - 01:53 AM.

[BLOOD WOLF]

Carl Vickers, on 30 January 2017 - 01:52 AM, said:

Those lower skill players ^ need a place with no objectives so they can shine too Crock

so that's why you won't face me with recording. so you can just sit on the forums and pretend as if your good. When in reality its your teamates that carry you.

kinda odd to put my skill into question when you are afraid to accept my batchall. anyways, that was a childish comment, and my wanted to keep skirmish has nothing to do with skill

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 30 January 2017 - 01:56 AM.

[Sjorpha]

BLOOD WOLF, on 30 January 2017 - 01:42 AM, said:

Right, because everyone at the round table agreed with just removing skirmish, everyone on the forums agrees with removing skirmish. Its just me that wan'ts to keep it.

Yes.

[BLOOD WOLF]

Sjorpha, on 30 January 2017 - 01:55 AM, said:

Yes.

okay, go do a poll

if its 100% to 0 you got me convinced.

Going tor re watch the round-table for clarification also.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 30 January 2017 - 01:59 AM.

[Sjorpha]

BLOOD WOLF, on 30 January 2017 - 01:42 AM, said:

Stop getting rolled. That's the solution, and if you get rolled deal with it.

It's even worse for the winning team that is forced to farm to the end, actually that is the major complaint here. How you deal with that?

[BLOOD WOLF]

Sjorpha, on 30 January 2017 - 02:00 AM, said:

It's even worse for the winning team that is forced to farm to the end, actually that is the major complaint here. How you deal with that?

gee, I don't really know. In all game modes you can just wipe the other team out, so this is not a one game mode problem. I like the idea of making it so the drops can be ordered to one spot, maybe that would be better.

Might not be anything we can really do. "forced to farm"? my word, can't be bothered to mop up for a few extra minuets.

Anyways, There can be room for a surrender option given certain conditions are met. Actually, surrender, retreat, whatever its called. and DC's should be a auto loss for a team who has only disco's left.

On a bigger point, its better to work on a solution to what seems to be a simple problem, than to throw it out. Chucking it out is not the first step to anything. You work through the problem, and go over all possibilities and after you exhausted all options then you can consider throwing it out.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 30 January 2017 - 02:12 AM.

[Clownwarlord]

My opinions are as followed on the subjects of what was talked about in the round table:

- Select-able Drop Zone -
Why not get rid of the leopard drop-ship and go with an Overlord Dropship that is grounded, thus allowing multiple bays like three to be designed on the Overlord and then have a lance assigned to each bay. Then have multiple grounded Overlord drop-ships grounded on the battlefield for each player to choose from.

- Game Modes -
First I have to say I like the quick play game modes being added to Community Warfare. Now the issue mentioned was the lack of getting to every game mode due to one side has to progress far enough in the IS vs Clan winning bar? But anyway I have an idea how about a weighted map rotation that the weight of which game mode changes based on the progression of the bar. Thus allowing PGI to keep the bar mechanic and still have it so everyone has a chance of eventually getting the game mode they want instead of slowing down the time to get a match with a vote screen. So my example is it would start with a map rotation of 35 Skirmish, 10 Conquest, 10 Assault, 10 Encounter, 10 Invasion then as the bar progresses to the next stage it changes to something like 10 Skirmish, 35 Conquest, 10 Assault, 10 Encounter, and 10 Invasion. Eventually when you get to the end of the bar you will have the weighted 35 go through every game mode. It still allows everyone a chance to get the game mode they want.

- Loyalty Differentiation -
Well currently the only thing to be is Loyalist or Mercenary (Freelancer sucks because it literally gets no benefits that the others can not gain). Loyalist while I do agree suffer to Mercenary getting the same thing if not better; that being they both get leveling system to progress through, and they both get CBill bonuses for their win. But the Mercenary also get to use both clan and is based on their choice of contract which is easily changed. Mercenary also get the chance to get bigger bonus cbills through which contract they pick and get faster matches based on their contract selection. So my suggestion would be maybe bigger drop decks like an extra 10 tons. Why? well it would be lore based on that a great house for example would rather transfer better equipment and more of it per person than they would a mercenary. Outside of that bonus which would go for any loyalist I can only suggest maybe discounts based on their level in the mwo in game store for mechs or weapons or faction items.

- Side bar about Freelancers -
Is there anything that can be done to benefit them? They help fill the ranks of your matches to make it possible for quicker to get into a match. Any benefit they get Mercenary get as well through being able to change contracts every 7 days.

- Faction Differentiation -
Outside of again giving discounts on items anything done would lead to balance issues in the game. So while I would like something to help differentiation between the factions or houses or clans I have no great suggestions.

- Other concerns I have -
Me personally I like being able to select who I want to play for at the drop of a hat hence why I like Freelancer but because there is not real benefits I had to create a unit just to go mercenary because every benefit Freelancers get Mercenaries also get and then they get more on top of it. Then I also have concerns about lack of mechs to select still for the clans at specific weights, example no 20 ton mechs and there are others these gaps prevent some possible drop decks. Next issue I have is still corridor warfare, map sizes, and some game modes just all filter down to be up in kills and then hide in drop zone.

[justcallme A S H]

KinLuu, on 30 January 2017 - 01:19 AM, said:

This was always the case and is not really related to 4.1.

FP is by design a magnet for all those more lore-oriented players.

I played since Dec '15, only really got "into it" come Apr '16. From where I stand, since Apr '16 - the matches were, generally, half reasonable (overall) in FP3. Some stomps, but not epic bad 48-12 constantly.

Since 4.1 - There is rarely a match either I solo drop or group drop that is really a challenge. The LRMs are the worst they have ever been. As are trial mechs (not saying trials are bad, just a good indicator)

Crockdaddy, on 30 January 2017 - 12:10 AM, said:

You honestly have the worst opinions consistently in this game. It is almost like you don't even play it. Skirmish in FP is just fail. There is zero point beyond rolling the team or getting rolled and then holding onto your momentum. At least objectives gives you something to do beyond simply killing the enemy team or one side camping it out which happens somewhat often.

x11ty as per standard

Reza Malin, on 29 January 2017 - 11:28 PM, said:

Mate you really think one of the priorities of FP is who or what flips planets?


Maybe as Ash said, a matchmaker is long overdue. I think a matchmaker would tempt some players back to FP initially, as would the upcoming tech introduction which will no doubt boost logins.

After grinding the ToW bar to 100% over 7hrs (which I've done a few times)... I can tell you there is nothing more disheartening that losing it in the last 45mins.

It means all the work/effort put in by units can be undone in literally 30mins or less. It's happened a few times and really fark's people off.

I don't really like the idea of a MM in FP - I enjoy coming against way better teams, I enjoy losses more than wins. But if that is what has to happen, to keep FP alive - Then... I'll submit and back a MM for the good of the mode.

I reckon there is more than a few hundred actives (probably closer to 500-600). If a MM gets it up to 1,000? Even better players coming back? I'll take it.

Edited by justcallme A S H, 30 January 2017 - 02:22 AM.

[Carl Vickers]

BLOOD WOLF, on 30 January 2017 - 01:53 AM, said:

so that's why you won't face me with recording. so you can just sit on the forums and pretend as if your good. When in reality its your teamates that carry you.

kinda odd to put my skill into question when you are afraid to accept my batchall. anyways, that was a childish comment, and my wanted to keep skirmish has nothing to do with skill

Absolutely no reason to, told you before, I dont duel potato.

Edited by Carl Vickers, 30 January 2017 - 02:29 AM.

[KinLuu]

Well, for me Phase 3 was stomp after stomp after stomp - we only ran into a decent enemy like KCOM or old MS in like 1 of 10 matches.

I assume you feel that way because it might be possible, that you grew up as a player since Dec 2015. After all, thats over a year ago.

[justcallme A S H]

I reckon by Jun I was up and running pretty well. Was doing comp stuff not long after (and did real well).

I dunno, just felt like I ran into more teams more regularly.

Possibly given 4.1 the PUG population has gone up massively, which is evident by much lower search times.