10 replies to this topic

[naterist]

so we all keep talking about the voting to get more selection, but what if we tweaked it so that instead of the slider representing phases, it represents maps. so instead of going through the conquest stage, you are now going through the alpine peaks stage, and you vote for the mode.

invasion modes seem to be textured after qp maps, so when ever you are on a comparable map (alpine to boreal, and hpg to vitric, and canyon network to hellibore springs, some double up, like boreal and polar and alpine, and if their added mining and vitric might combo in addition to vitric and hpg) and you vote invasion, it brings up the comparable invasion map.

then you can randomize the order of the maps on the slider for each planet, to give each planet a unique feel.

to add immersion, add in a voice over or in some way communicate to the player that you are trying to subdue so and so section of the planet, and each objective is a mission to help conquer that section of the planet.
example) the slider is at polar highlands, you vote for conquest, you get an in game message from command saying 'we have identified some vital rescources in the polar highland operational territory, capture them for the glory of (insert faction here). meanwhile, a dom game is happening on polar, and in the storyline of that planets invasion, its just another area and objective command is sending forces to in order to take that particular region of the planet.

crimson straight and river city could sync up with emerald taiga, and caustic and terra therma with sulphourous rift. i realized thats the only invasion map without an equivelant in the examples, so i just wanted to add that.

[Albino Boo]

Voting is a repressive construct invented by dead white males to legitimise their imperialism. We need a system of map choosing maps based on extensive discussion to generate a consensus of what map to play next. I purpose that we have community guiders appointed, on the basis on the number of forum post, to lead these discussions. We would obviously have to develop an extensive algorithm to check to the quantity and quality of posts. I call on Naterist to lead community discussions on the algorithm.

[QueenBlade]

I was hoping that instead of the phases determining game modes, that instead as you crossed into the next phase it would increase the weight that invasion game mode would come up.

Meaning as the progress bar crossed over the thresholds that determined the game mode, it would increase the chances of Invasion.

Example: 0-20%: Skirmish = 1
Conquest = .8
Domination = .6
Assault = .4
Invasion = .2
21-40: S = .8
C = 1
D = .8
A = .6
I = .4
41-60: S = .6
C = .8
D = 1
A = .8
I = .6
61-80: S = .4
C = .6
D = .8
A = 1
I = .8
80-100: S = .2
C = .4
D = .6
A = .8
I = 1

Edited by QueenBlade, 13 February 2017 - 10:46 AM.

[Sonny Black]

Albino Boo, on 13 February 2017 - 09:19 AM, said:

Voting is a repressive construct invented by dead white males to legitimise their imperialism. We need a system of map choosing maps based on extensive discussion to generate a consensus of what map to play next. I purpose that we have community guiders appointed, on the basis on the number of forum post, to lead these discussions. We would obviously have to develop an extensive algorithm to check to the quantity and quality of posts. I call on Naterist to lead community discussions on the algorithm.

Its All Part Of A Giant Insidious Plot! Comes The Revolution There Will Be payback.

[naterist]

Albino Boo, on 13 February 2017 - 09:19 AM, said:

Voting is a repressive construct invented by dead white males to legitimise their imperialism. We need a system of map choosing maps based on extensive discussion to generate a consensus of what map to play next. I purpose that we have community guiders appointed, on the basis on the number of forum post, to lead these discussions. We would obviously have to develop an extensive algorithm to check to the quantity and quality of posts. I call on Naterist to lead community discussions on the algorithm.

as soon as i finish my computer science class this semester and i understand wtf an algorith is perfectly, then i will lead the forums in algorithm revolt.

[Pat Kell]

naterist, on 08 February 2017 - 12:16 PM, said:

so we all keep talking about the voting to get more selection,

WTF is this "we" stuff....I don't want voting, I want random maps and modes. Just program in a random selector and you get what you get. No need to make this complicated (although to be honest, I have no idea how complicated it would be to create a random map and mode selector).

Edited by Pat Kell, 13 February 2017 - 08:09 PM.

[justcallme A S H]

Pat Kell, on 13 February 2017 - 08:09 PM, said:

WTF is this "we" stuff....I don't want voting, I want random maps and modes.

Who knows. He posts that often but I rarely see anyone on the forum actually post about what is being "suggested". I can only deduce it's the IS PUG based teams from the FRR/Kurita Hub?

Cause not one of the units I drop with, or the players within those units - have said anything to that effect... In fact most players - and I'd argue I chat to more of the top 200 leaderboard players than anyone else given I'm a TS slart - the summary would be:

- Remove domination / skirmish - and perhaps look at altering from 3.3% to 5% for a victorry.
- Add more invasion somewhere
- Fix the 3 late wins to counter a 8hr cycle of effort.

Those would be the top issues, that are also quick wins for PGI. Rather than creating involved/long to test/implement fixes or total changes to how it works now. The above stuff is basic, basic stuff. Even random maps, but then goin back to drop decks AFTER map selection, is a bit of a PIA/time waster.

Edited by justcallme A S H, 13 February 2017 - 08:45 PM.

[justcallme A S H]

Oh I forgot one:

Or with the domination - make the circle bigger or oval shaped or something. Both of which mean core map changes though, not as easy as the other stuff in terms of "doing it right now".

[QueenBlade]

Each battle can sway the capture percentage from two to five percent.

Crushing Victory - Win with more than 36 mechs difference for your side, 5% pull (kill score)
Clear Victory - Win with 35-24 mechs difference for your side, 4% pull
Average Victory - Win with 23-12 mechs difference for your side, 3% pull
Close Victory - Win with less than 12 mechs difference for your side, 2% pull

This would create a more dynamic approach to the battles. PGI and players would be able to clearly see the outcomes of each drop, which faction is getting more sway (whether is be from population, or quality of players, or maybe the matches are close?) and be able to set / offer contracts to better suit the faction that isn't doing as well.

For many, there will be the argument that this makes the main objective less. In that case, how bout introducing cases for them as well.

Conquest:
750 - 1250 resource difference, 5% pull
749 - 550 resource difference, 4% pull
549 - 350 resource difference, 3% pull
349 - 1 resource difference, 2% pull

Assault: % of base bar remaining
75 - 100% difference, 5% pull
74 - 50% difference, 4% pull
49 - 25% difference, 3% pull
24 - 1% difference, 2% pull

Domination:
1:00 - 1:30 difference, 5% pull
:59 - :45 difference, 4% pull
:44 - :30 difference, 3% pull
:30 - :01 difference, 2% pull

Skirmish:
Use the formula at the top

Edited by QueenBlade, 13 February 2017 - 10:30 PM.

[naterist]

we as in a collective group. i use it to describe people ive talked to in teamspeak. i dont remember everyones names, but when things come up it is discussed. and we as a cummunity as i mean the middle bit of the roundtable. if you disagree, obviously you are not in the 'we' cool club.

justcallme A S H, on 13 February 2017 - 08:33 PM, said:

Who knows. He posts that often but I rarely see anyone on the forum actually post about what is being "suggested". I can only deduce it's the IS PUG based teams from the FRR/Kurita Hub?

Cause not one of the units I drop with, or the players within those units - have said anything to that effect... In fact most players - and I'd argue I chat to more of the top 200 leaderboard players than anyone else given I'm a TS slart - the summary would be:

- Remove domination / skirmish - and perhaps look at altering from 3.3% to 5% for a victorry.
- Add more invasion somewhere
- Fix the 3 late wins to counter a 8hr cycle of effort.

Those would be the top issues, that are also quick wins for PGI. Rather than creating involved/long to test/implement fixes or total changes to how it works now. The above stuff is basic, basic stuff. Even random maps, but then goin back to drop decks AFTER map selection, is a bit of a PIA/time waster.

ya, you and like, 5 people are saying doms a problem.

[Fuerchtenichts]

naterist, on 08 February 2017 - 12:16 PM, said:

so we all keep talking about the voting to get more selection, but what if we tweaked it so that instead of the slider representing phases, it represents maps. so instead of going through the conquest stage, you are now going through the alpine peaks stage, and you vote for the mode.

I would expect the following to happen. The "typical" 12 PUG player drop won`t be able to agree on one map/mode combination so anyone will stick to its preferences. The "opposing" premade will have optimized their drop deck on the contrary.

Expected result:
Another outcry in the MWO forum how organized groups ruin the game play experience of the lone wolf casual gamer.

Edited by Fuerchtenichts, 14 February 2017 - 04:19 AM.