105 replies to this topic

[Zito]

This might of been mentioned, but needs to be back on the table....

Bonuses for rank 10 merc and rank 20 loyalist per match. Not getting anything once you cap out is a cause of other issues being discussed.

[justcallme A S H]

Jaybles, on 30 January 2017 - 11:09 AM, said:

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.

I don't think he knows how it works. Good you clarified.

[MacClearly]

How was matchmaking and tiers not brought up?

[Monkey Lover]

MacClearly, on 30 January 2017 - 01:51 PM, said:

How was matchmaking and tiers not brought up?

Russ did talk a little about balancing by tonnage and how he can't really do it because it doesn't give people time to select mechs.

[mesmer]

MacClearly, on 30 January 2017 - 01:51 PM, said:

How was matchmaking and tiers not brought up?

Because the whole time was spent on minor issues important to IS loyalists and big group units?

[Jarl Dane]

mesmer7, on 30 January 2017 - 02:18 PM, said:

Because the whole time was spent on minor issues important to IS loyalists and big group units?

Yes. Because dropspawns and better match mode selection only matter to IS loyalists and big group units.

(in case you're confused, which is likely, that was sarcasm)

Edited by Mech The Dane, 30 January 2017 - 02:31 PM.

[Void Angel]

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

Here ya go.

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

You didn't. Tell me you did not suggest to PGI that they reward people for dropping undertonned 'mechs... /sob Not everyone plays in a group all the time... I'm having Repair & Rearm flashbacks.

Edit: spelling is had herd hard!

Edited by Void Angel, 31 January 2017 - 12:10 PM.

[MacClearly]

Mech The Dane, on 30 January 2017 - 02:31 PM, said:

Yes. Because dropspawns and better match mode selection only matter to IS loyalists and big group units.

(in case you're confused, which is likely, that was sarcasm)

You are absolutely my favourite Jarl and I really appreciate what you give to this game. A lot of time and energy that many don't understand and I respect above all your strive for excellence.

I am just disappointed that using tiers so that people aren't put in situations that they are stomped didn't come up or using the current group queue/solo queue scheme we have right now in FW.

[Requiemking]

Ok, so in other words, a complete waste of time. Terrific. And here I was hoping that we could finally regain that inter-weightclass balance that been getting thrown out the window for the last 2.5 years.

[Jarl Dane]

MacClearly, on 30 January 2017 - 02:57 PM, said:

I am just disappointed that using tiers so that people aren't put in situations that they are stomped didn't come up or using the current group queue/solo queue scheme we have right now in FW.

I agree completely. That's a major issue and it was a bad mistake on the panelists parts that it was not addressed.

[BLOOD WOLF]

Mech The Dane, on 30 January 2017 - 03:37 PM, said:

I agree completely. That's a major issue and it was a bad mistake on the panelists parts that it was not addressed.

the problem is and I saw it during the pre-meeting. is that there needs to be a better job of just selecting a few key issues through process of elimination so that it leaves room for more points to be brought.

arguing over a point for 20 mins is not helpful.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 30 January 2017 - 03:48 PM.

[Carl Vickers]

BLOOD WOLF, on 30 January 2017 - 03:46 PM, said:

arguing over a point for 20 mins is not helpful.

Lol, now thats funny coming from you, wayyy to much irony.

[Jarl Dane]

Carl Vickers, on 30 January 2017 - 03:52 PM, said:

Lol, now thats funny coming from you, wayyy to much irony.

I recommend saving his quote for future use.

[BLOOD WOLF]

Carl Vickers, on 30 January 2017 - 03:52 PM, said:

Lol, now thats funny coming from you, wayyy to much irony.

dude, you don't want to go there. Your too old to be trolling anyway

Mech The Dane, on 30 January 2017 - 04:08 PM, said:

I recommend saving his quote for future use.

yea, don't worry someone will make another asinine post and I will be there, I will always be there.

aside from carls redundant post, when time is wasted in the meetings that's more important than some fools post on the forums that I have to have contention with.

Nice that some trolls still want to like each others post all the time, but you guys need to figure out how to have better meetings that actually have productive outcomes(or more productive outcomes)

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 30 January 2017 - 04:31 PM.

[mesmer]

Mech The Dane, on 30 January 2017 - 02:31 PM, said:

Yes. Because dropspawns and better match mode selection only matter to IS loyalists and big group units.

(in case you're confused, which is likely, that was sarcasm)

Case in point that the panel had an IS Loyalist/regular merc agenda uninterested in the clan side at all.

Edited by mesmer7, 30 January 2017 - 04:40 PM.

[BLOOD WOLF]

mesmer7, on 30 January 2017 - 04:34 PM, said:

Case in point. IS Loyalists bias.

can you blame them? They feel like they are getting the worst end of the stick.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 30 January 2017 - 04:36 PM.

[BLOOD WOLF]

...........................................I am not even mad. Mad about what? are you serious, you are literally putting evidence that you are trolling me, keep it up.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 30 January 2017 - 04:42 PM.

[justcallme A S H]

Yup, a dozen replies and it's BW upto his usual trick.

How many people have to call this guy out? Point out the incredibly silly flaws in "suggestions" (if you can even call it that)? Show up the general outright trolling (which is of a poor standard on the expert troll level)?

There is a saying - quit while you are ahead. You've tried to run the race a dozen times, we get it. It is time to stop the trolling in all areas, people are sick of seeing it.

[50 50]

Skirmish is good for Quick Play to hone player skill in combat, but it is just an action that happens when two opposing forces collide in any mode on any map.
The same could be said for scouting. You can scout in an assault mech if you wanted to, just not as effective, but it is an action we perform in any mode on any map.

Assault and Domination have been good additions, but could use a bit of work to improve the experience in Faction Play.
Conquest is widely considered the best conversion of a Quick Play mode across into Faction Play and this will be because the Objectives need to be played.
Then there is Invasion mode which is all about cracking the shell. (busting a fortified position wide open)

As we are seeing, the stages of the battle as dictated by the tug of war has a few drawbacks. In an even situation we do get stuck on one mode. Randomizing the mode or using a voting system does not seem like a great option as it still does not really let us experience all the different modes and get that sense of progression. There is also currently no carry on effect from winning or losing in one of the modes other than moving the tug of war bar. ie. Why did we take that base?
What is the reason for us having that fight? What advantage does it provide our forces?

This is a problem with the start/stop 'match stages' design we have and until we get away from the 'match' concept we can't change the dynamic.

The solution is combine the modes into one and give the objectives a function, a reason other than: "Capture this to end the match"

Maybe this change needs to happen in Quick Play first so we can work on it first before implementation in Faction Play. Then again, maybe we just take that leap and get it done.

Put all the mode objectives into one map so we have multiple spots to fight back and forth over.
Give a benefit to the team that controls them so we have a reason to attack those locations.
Put in some serious defensive structures around the major objectives so we get that feel from Invasion and have to fight our way into these locations.
Bring that tug of war and control for territory into the battles and make us feel like we are fighting a war.

[Scout Derek]

mmmm. I see Dane's words reached the forums before me I think.

Mech The Dane, on 30 January 2017 - 04:08 PM, said:

I recommend saving his quote for future use.

I save it. :>