105 replies to this topic

[Jarl Dane]

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...


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

The Lighthouse, on 29 January 2017 - 11:13 PM, said:

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

So, what I think happened was the pre-meeting was full of more serious CW/FW players from mostly more serious units. They were trying to address tangible problems they had with the game-mode. Which to them was spawn locations, not enough mode variety and loyalist getting deep diçked.

At the meeting I brought up phase length and the issues of us lacking a match maker.. but it got tabled pretty quickly by the majority. I think phase length is a factor in units playing CW, because most look at what's going on.. realize they wont play for 8 hours and cannot effect change in a smaller amount of time, and don't bother to commit - they play QP instead. I think if it was shorter (4 hours) or if there was no hourly commitment at all (the planet changes side when the battle is WON) it'd be more enticing for a unit/group of guys to participate.

Furthermore the lack of a match maker is obviously an issue. I don't know if match maker is a solution though, as you know there is fair bit of back and forth about if the population could handle it or not, but I think steps could be made towards alleviating some of the problems.

I didn't get to either of these topics during the roundtable, and apologize for that. I didn't really get a chance to bring anything up until we had about 15 minutes left in the meeting and, since these were personal concerns of mine, I tried to put the community first and ask questions that were asked of me as a representative. None of the questions I forced through at the end were mine.

These though are the real questions and the real problems and I probably shoulda forced them through.
My bad.

[justcallme A S H]

I was listening to the pre-meeting. I was stuck @ work though (usually daytime US). So I couldn't go... If I had a heads up 24hrs prior I can alter my work sched as I run my own companies to get on. You guys got a bit lost at some points TBH.

My issue with selecting dropzones etc etc is essentially a baid-aid fix that won't do anything. Fact is PUGs won't communicate well enough to know "where" to drop to avoid the camping - and people doing the camping - will just alter their play style to suit it (camp dual zones).

Lets face it camping only happen in Team vs PUG matches and in certain modes. It tends to rarely happen on Conquest, the only mode.

Yeah the MM is a massive gamble. It will only work if the population rises, because of it. If it's doesn't, it's failed. Actually... No not failed. If it makes say 25% of matches "closer" then it's doing a better job that the PUG's simply can't do on their own.

Honestly I'm still confused about why faction perks would've been brought up - that is just, i dunno, something that will waste time and offer nothing.

[KinLuu]

Spawncamping also happens a lot on PUG vs. PUG matches, as those are easily as lopsided as Team vs. PUG matches, if one side has two or three good players. It also tends to happen in Team vs. Team matchups, because lets face it, most teams that play FP are garbage at best.

[justcallme A S H]

And also not having a go at you guys either. You got on, you gave ya piece, tried etc.

It takes a lot to get even a small step with PGI on issues. Heads in the sands it seems over there - I cannot understand how they don't truly understand where the real issues are in the game. I just don't...

[Carl Vickers]

justcallme A S H, on 30 January 2017 - 03:57 AM, said:

And also not having a go at you guys either. You got on, you gave ya piece, tried etc.

It takes a lot to get even a small step with PGI on issues. Heads in the sands it seems over there - I cannot understand how they don't truly understand where the real issues are in the game. I just don't...

Quite simple really, they dont play it enough at a high enough level to know what is really wrong.

[KinLuu]

You do not even have to play it at a high level to see that there are significant issues.

One or two solodrops a day - lets say after breakfast, before starting with work - would be enough. This should be mandatory practice for every game designer.

[justcallme A S H]

KinLuu, on 30 January 2017 - 03:40 AM, said:

Spawncamping also happens a lot on PUG vs. PUG matches, as those are easily as lopsided as Team vs. PUG matches, if one side has two or three good players. It also tends to happen in Team vs. Team matchups, because lets face it, most teams that play FP are garbage at best.

Yeah true...

https://mwomercs.com...ost__p__5595149

7 man, easily controlled by 2-3 good players... Wasn't a total camp, but they were well and truly pinned down. But then, it was mass LRMs. So it went as expected.

[Jarl Dane]

justcallme A S H, on 30 January 2017 - 03:38 AM, said:

I was listening to the pre-meeting. I was stuck @ work though (usually daytime US). So I couldn't go... If I had a heads up 24hrs prior I can alter my work sched as I run my own companies to get on. You guys got a bit lost at some points TBH.

My issue with selecting dropzones etc etc is essentially a baid-aid fix that won't do anything. Fact is PUGs won't communicate well enough to know "where" to drop to avoid the camping - and people doing the camping - will just alter their play style to suit it (camp dual zones).

Lets face it camping only happen in Team vs PUG matches and in certain modes. It tends to rarely happen on Conquest, the only mode.

Yeah the MM is a massive gamble. It will only work if the population rises, because of it. If it's doesn't, it's failed. Actually... No not failed. If it makes say 25% of matches "closer" then it's doing a better job that the PUG's simply can't do on their own.

Honestly I'm still confused about why faction perks would've been brought up - that is just, i dunno, something that will waste time and offer nothing.

I really have nothing to say about dropzone spawns. I didn't think it was a big issue going into the pre-meeting and I didn't leave pre-meeting thinking it was either. But clearly some people did/do and getting that cleaned up should help the gamemode, at very least it'll be nice to select which spawn you're spawning in.

The issue with camping in CW, is that sometimes an enemy team can isolate an enemy spawn and target those 4 guys for camping. Which can be annoying and hard to deal with. I do think though the bigger issues is where you're skirmish or invasion and your team loses the match in the first drop and is basically camped for the rest of the match... which means both sides get to be part of a boring, uninteresting fight for 20-25 minutes.

A big reason why Faction perks were brought up was because Spider was hugely in love with them, and they sound fun at a cosmetic level and, I think, everyone agrees faction loyalists do need love. It seemed like an easy thing to get behind. But I agree they are too pie-in-the-sky and the community frame-work for their implementation is non-existent at the moment.

If you check the thread I just linked you can see that despite having the idea, Spider really had no idea how on how they'd actually be brought into the game, or what they even are.. you can see me trying to push for some sort of cohesive presentation in that thread, but there just wasn't time.

It's just one of those things that sound great in un-detailed theory, but is going to take a lot of work and significant tweaking to get remotely right; something PGI really isn't know for.

[justcallme A S H]

The way you look after loyalists is easy.

Reach lvl 15, get a 10% cbill bonus.
Reach lvl 20, get a 15% cbill bonus / 1MC per win - capped @ 5MC a cycle

To balance that, Mercs @ lvl 10 get the same MC per cycle, capped. Don't need cbill bonus as that is Merc life.


Something very simple, change it however you want. Actually make it WORTH something to ACHIEVE something.

I mean I play a lot and I'm still only Merc rank 9 - To get rank 10 merc(or 20 loyalist) is a fair level of commitment. People need more than some crappy UAV buff IMO. And, MC talks. Always has.

Edited by justcallme A S H, 30 January 2017 - 04:45 AM.

[FallingAce]

Spent 25 minutes waiting for a drop as an I.S. 12 man. Last month the I.S. was getting instadrops. A matchmaker is not going to work with the population imbalance and the wild population swings.

If PGI can't figure out how to get the player base closer to 50/50 stable player distribution between the I.S. and clans, the rest of the ingame stuff really doesn't matter..

[justcallme A S H]

That is cause it's Team (IS) v PUG (Clan) tonight

But that highlights my points... Right now population decline is the biggest issue. It was always going to be the biggest issue once 4.1 was shown for what it was - a band-aid solution. It was never a real fix, just temporary spot-fix that had more flaws than FP3 in many ways.

Now we have to wait until April, some what, 5 months later. It's going too little, too late, as per standard PGI. They had a great chance with FP3 - but totally missed the mark on many many key aspects.

[Metal Militia]

James Argent, on 29 January 2017 - 06:34 PM, said:

But it's my experience that most of the time nobody on a farming team ever takes advantage of the other modes' ability to end the match quickly. They make every player on the other team drop all four mechs every time, the last ones not even making it to the ground from the dropship before being destroyed. It's not as if they really fear my Mist Lynx and seeing it emerge from the dropship causes them to panic at the thought of letting it take a single step. They could just walk away with our lunch money minutes earlier (and get more C-Bills by doing shorter, more frequent drops), but they always decide to stay and push our faces in the mud for the full pain of 48 mechs because 'LOLZ, GIT GUD NUBS.'

Skirmish is Skirmish. If it's going to remain a mode in FP, then 48 mechs on one side will have to be destroyed. The biggest problem isn't how Skirmish works, it's that Assault and Domination are allowed to be played exactly like Skirmish. That's why I suggested the 'lightning round' above. Take the win by completing the main objective, or lose by ignoring it.

This...This is why I don't play FW anymore. It's the attitude of the players and the stupid comments.

[justcallme A S H]

To an extent it's the attitude of the farmers.

However the farmee, that bring mass LRM boats, sits in the back and really - contributes absolutely nothing meaningful damage wise, they stand still, die in seconds.... etc etc. There is a point where said players need to accept that are also part of the problem.

Every game I see LRM boaters. They end up with usually 30% of the dmg numbers I have. I play between 300-500m. They can play out to 1000m.

So tell me again how effective they are?

[Metal Militia]

Never brought LRMS in more than a single launcher to FW. Thuds on IS side and Hellbringer on Clan side. And that was a long time ago, because I haven't seen a single change that says FW is playable now.

[Sjorpha]

BLOOD WOLF, on 30 January 2017 - 02:03 AM, said:

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.

It definitely is a one game mode problem, in all the other modes except invasion on defence, which has the same problem, you can end the match through objectives and thus avoid the boring farming/spawncamp part of the match

Objectives also provide a potential point to the second half of the lopsided match even if the winning team wants to farm, the losing team can make a last ditch effort to get the objectives and steal the win. In Skirmish it's farm or be farmed with no redeeming factors.

Quote

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.

I can't be bothered to play unnecessary time wasters is exactly right, my time is valuable to me and I play this game to have fun. Any time spent playing already won matches is a waste of my time and therefore a warning flag signaling bad design.

This has nothing to do with dealing with losing or winning, the second half of every skirmish match is a boring waste of time for BOTH teams.

Quote

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.

This doesn't address the problem at all. Skirmish is a bad boring mode for the winning team, it is primarily the winning team that needs a way to end the match, not the losing team.

Quote

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.

Absolutely, the solution is to add a secondary win condition that you can go for instead of farming 48 boring kills.

If you want to keep the secondary wincon kill based to preserve the skirmish-esque feel you could make it so you win when you are (for example) 15 kills ahead. I´d be down with that, it would add a challenge where you can try winning as close to 15-0 as possible against skittles and so on.

Edited by Sjorpha, 30 January 2017 - 06:17 AM.

[Positive Mental Attitude]

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

It really felt like the loyalist wanted company in misery. I get that they want the word of people who really dont play the mode that much to get involved but man... the fact that they think mercs (aka only EVIL in their minds) switching factions is the cause of imbalance and getting pgi to change something bc of it says a lot. I guess they didnt realize EVIL has been clan the entire time this month bc of all the stomp balls that went IS are fun to fight....

thanks for helping ruin FP?

Edited by Redjack d3, 30 January 2017 - 08:41 AM.

[Terrorsdawn]

Idea to reduce spawn camping.

Maybe it's time to introduce the Overlord to MWO.

1. Each team comes into the map with the landing of the Dropship.
2. Each drop ship has 3 hanger doors revealing a bay useing an elevator to deliver the mechs to it.
3. Each lance deploys at the same time on the first drop.
4. Use the same zone coverage as the domination mode and when there is 6 or more friendly mechs in that range the Overlords defences are offline. This is to remove the option for a large group using the dropship as a shield.( May seem unreal but lets say it's to prevent friendly fire damage to mechs.) Or base the activity on the number of mechs from each team in the range. The moment the defenders have an edge the defenses drop removing what could be an unfair advantage.
5. Hanger selection can be added to provide a safer exit for single spawns but if there are more then 1 dropping everyone goes where the first option was chosen.

This same idea could be used if fixed bases are added to the game and even better yet one team gets a base the other gets the dropship. Would give a a lot of feel to the game. Can be implemented with assets we know PGI has excluding the Overlord of course.

[Willard Phule]

Bogsveigir, on 29 January 2017 - 07:16 AM, said:

Hi Jarl!

I have a thought. I'm listening to the discussion now, I'm about 30 minutes in. I'll revise if I hear anything that invalidates this idea.

The Dropship issue . . .

I hear people talking about the flight-paths and the conflicts/crashes. What about larger Dropships? If there is more than a lance to drop at once, a larger Dropship is used. If a lance or less is used, then the smaller Dropship would be used. That would alleviate the conflicting flight-path issue, but at the expense of having to create a new asset for the game.

Example. Smaller dropships could be used as-is, Ship-Alpha to Drop-Alpha, S-Bravo to D-Bravo, etc., unless you select some toggle for Group-Drop, which would allow waiting for lance-mates. Lance-Command then selects the Drop-Zone. Lance Command could also opt for Company-Drop, which would wait for a second and/or third lance, and call-in an Overlord/Conquistador or intermediate ship, that adds more firepower to combat spawn-camping, and lets one ship drop everyone all at once. The logic could have a race-condition that allows the Overlord/Conquistador to take priority selection, the smaller ships either wait or re-route to alternate DZ.

That makes sense to me for a full 12-mech drop on one TeamSpeak, or for multiple Lances that can work together, getting over their egos. It allows for at least two Lances coordinating with a lance of PUGs. Overlord/Conquistador with priority drop still makes for one Dropship and flight-path, leaving two alternates open for a lance of individual drops.

. . .

That's one idea. In FP/CW drops, there's a 15 to 60 second delay between returning anyway. In that time-frame, it would allow time for the selection(s).

The thing that I think makes that idea work is having 'Lance Command' and 'Company Command' mean a bit more. When you return-drop in the current system, you have the option of racing back to the mech-grinder, or to report to X# and re-group before resuming the push as a group. I'm not a FP/CW master, but most drops that I've made that weren't mostly PUGs, involved the latter re-grouping. The time spent doing that could be spent in the DropShip readying to drop as a Lance/Company.

That's my main thought.

. . .

I do have a second idea. I forget who made the comment about Pod-drops, and the advantage of a DropShip drop adding firepower.

What if the DropShip came in and launched the pods on a ballistic trajectory instead of a vertical drop? Multiple could aim for the same DZ walled area. It would be the same general idea but you could theoretically have an array of three Leopards providing cover over the area.

. . .

Tertiary, and my weakest idea. What if the spawn points were DropShip landing zones. The continued presence of the DropShip would deter spawn-camping to some degree. Especially if a Scouting Mode unlocked something like Calliope Turrets for the DZs? That would mean that each Lance only dropped or emerged from that DropShip location when they respawn. That would do nothing for the isolated drops like were mentioned, but at least getting farmed would be a little more costly. The guys set-up to alpha-strike mechs as they fall helpless from the sky would be less likely if they're taking return-fire from Calliopes and Leopards/Conquistadors/Overlords. . . .

Just ideas.

I like the dropship idea. 3 drop zones, 1 Overlord dropship. If they loaded it the way it's supposed to be, there wouldn't be any spawnfarming. Noone wants to get close to an Overlord. And if it's dropping the reinforcements in the same place, you wouldn't have to worry about grouping up before you moved out.

[Sixpack]

justcallme A S H, on 30 January 2017 - 04:45 AM, said:

The way you look after loyalists is easy.

Reach lvl 15, get a 10% cbill bonus.
Reach lvl 20, get a 15% cbill bonus / 1MC per win - capped @ 5MC a cycle

To balance that, Mercs @ lvl 10 get the same MC per cycle, capped. Don't need cbill bonus as that is Merc life.


Something very simple, change it however you want. Actually make it WORTH something to ACHIEVE something.

I mean I play a lot and I'm still only Merc rank 9 - To get rank 10 merc(or 20 loyalist) is a fair level of commitment. People need more than some crappy UAV buff IMO. And, MC talks. Always has.

Counterargument:

Loyalists get that cool **** at rank 10.

Mercenarys need to get to rank 20.

Why?

Mercs can already get more than +15% via selecting the right contract and there is a clear curve when trying to reach higher ranks. Your suggestion is the equivalent of dousing loyalists in gasoline and setting them on fire.

[Jaybles-The-PegLeg-PotatoCaptain]

Sixpack, on 30 January 2017 - 10:27 AM, said:

Counterargument:

Loyalists get that cool **** at rank 10.

Mercenarys need to get to rank 20.

Why?

Mercs can already get more than +15% via selecting the right contract and there is a clear curve when trying to reach higher ranks. Your suggestion is the equivalent of dousing loyalists in gasoline and setting them on fire.

Are you proposing to add 10 ranks to the merc path? As it stands MERC rank 10 and Loyalist rank 20 require the same LP/RP points and give the same reward. The Current system actually gives loyalist more free junk on the career path, although the major GXP, MC and Cbill rewards are the same.