Over the summer,I posted in the It Isn't the Population thread the things that might make me want to play more FP. We are nearly two months into FP 4.1, and my post is linked in my sig, so I decided to look over my arguments and see what -- if anything -- has changed in the way I feel about FP. (Excerpts from my post in spoilers below, full post is here.)
The TL;DR is that I think 4.1 is on track.
I’m eager to hear what other people think about it, particularly the people who, in summer 2016, thought that the changes that were ultimately implemented in 4.1 would drive them from the game. Did you leave? Did you stay? If so, why?
Section A: Reasons I didn’t play FP pre-4.1 A1: Stale Gameplay
Spoiler
Quote
Invasion Mode is incredibly rigid, all maps are essentially identical. It's been said before--choke-point brawls, occasional light rush, not much more. It's just not that interesting to me. In QP you can get some really interesting matches that range all over the map. Not so much in FP. Scouting helped with this--I initially really enjoyed running my Pirate's Bane to cap points and escape--but eventually was drawn back to QP.
Verdict: Much better.
Spoiler
I'd say that adding the QP maps and modes to FP has dramatically increased the quality of gameplay. I find that the QP objectives are far more valuable--you almost always win with caps on Conquest, and a base cap on Assault is a credible threat.
Likewise you can win the objective on Domination, but I think that's mostly because the two maps I've played the most--Grim Plexus and Alpine--are incredibly unbalanced at the moment. Dom is my least favorite mode, so if the tug-of-war is ever stuck there, I'll often switch to Scouting or QP proper.
The biggest change though has been how Skirmish and Assault play out on the larger maps, especially Polar Highlands. Matches tend to build up into two shifting fronts in the middle, with fresh mechs flanking while stripped ones push over the hills. IT provides for a very dynamic gameplay that feels to me like a large scale continuous battle, far more than Invasion ever did.
That being said, I now actually enjoy the Invasion-style maps. Most of this is from simply de-emphasizing them. I go to FP not to play Invasion, but to play MWO with DropDecks, one portion of which is Invasion.
Suggestions: I'd say there's still room for more maps, and better game-modes, and I am looking forward to Incursion and seeing if they can balance and then adapt Escort to FP.
A2: Low population and long waits.
Spoiler
Quote
Due primarily #A1, people just don't play FP. Any time I think of queuing up, I see that attack lanes are empty and it would take me 5-30 minutes to get a match. QP never makes me wait much longer than 2 minutes. Why wait so long for what I find to be repetitive gameplay?
Verdict: Much better. I seldom spend more than 5 minutes waiting to get in a group, and I haven't had a single ghost-drop.
Suggestion: There are times where I do wait for 5 minutes without matching, and I usually drop out of the queue and head to QP. Knowing how many other players were queued up would help--that's probably the one thing I'd bring back from pre-4.1. Also, we still need better LFG/group-making at the Major Faction and Minor Faction levels.
A3: Steep learning curve
Spoiler
Quote
Obviously to a large extent this is solvable only by a PGI-created tutorial of what exactly FP is and how to win it. One of the few PUG attacks I helped call ended up in a loss because one of our guys didn't know what the generators were and shot at buildings that look like power plants. And that's an honest, understandable mistake--one I made my first couple matches--but the problem only starts there. The learning curve is so steep because of reasons A1 and A2. The Invasion Mode is repetitive, meaning that it requires a degree of perfectionism to really succeed. You can only achieve the required level of skill by playing over and over and over again--something that is very difficult to do due to reason #A2. If you can't get matches, you can't learn. If you can't learn the basic tactics, you'll never find the nuances of gameplay that might make it actually competitive and interesting to you, and you'll have no enduring interest in gameplay.
Verdict: Better.
Spoiler
Invasion is still a highly refined game, but dropping in QP-style maps and modes gives you an opportunity to think about drop decks, respawns, and the mechanics that go with that (when to drop what, why to avoid LRMs, etc.) while still playing in a relatively familiar environment.
Obviously there is a slightly different metagame for FP Conquest, Skirmish, Domination, and Assault than there is for their QP counterparts, so there is a small learning curve here, but far easier than going from QP to Invasion with dropdecks.
And when you get to Invasion, you've learned something about the overarching tactics involved with FP, so I'd venture you feel less overwhelmed by the concept. That being said, Invasion is still a logic-defying game mode with a very established set of tactical rules, and it does take a lot longer to master than do the other modes.
Suggestions: In-game tutorials as suggested in numerous FP forum topics (such as this one from MovinTarget).
Section B: Potential improvements suggested pre-4.1 that I didn’t care about B1: Rewards
Spoiler
Quote
I don't give a flying f**k about the rewards for playing as Merc/Loyalist. To me, rewards are a nice extra, but by no means an incentive. I may represent a tiny minority of potential FPers, but I consistently see rewards touted as the downfall or solution to low FP numbers. Believe me, the only thing that will get me into FP is a solution to Problem #A1. Honestly, the fact that there was such consistent outcry among loyalists post-Phase 3 really alienated me and I'm guessing others like me. It gave the impression--however accurate or not--that the bulk of the FP crowd is an insular group that feels a sense of entitlement for playing the least-popular game mode.
Verdict: As a PUG in a very small merc unit, it's something I'm ready to start hearing about. Now that I am able to drop into FP, find a match in a reasonable amount of time, and have some fun playing, I think we can start talking about rewards as a way to keep the old guard happy and invested.
Suggestions:
Spoiler
As I've said elsewhere, I'm pretty strongly against implementing in-match faction-based mech-performance bonuses. In theory it's a great idea and it has me watering at the mouth, but I don't think PGI has the resources to do it effectively, and if they could, I doubt they would implement an in-game interface that adequately explains what you are gaining or losing by signing on to one faction.
I'll make a shameless plug for my own idea (which hasn't received any likes yet, so...I think I'm alone on this one), which is setting up faction-based Cbill multipliers for certain achievements. For example:
-Liao, famous for their use of infowar and scouting (I think) would get extra cbills for UAV Detection, ECM Countered, TAG Damage, and NARC Kill achievements.
-Kurita, famous for their gunnery (right? The gunslinger program?) would get extra Cbills for Component Destruction.
-Marik, famous for combined arms, would get extra Cbills for teamwork-based achievements, like Lance in Formation, Protection Proximity, and Protected Light/Medium.
-Steiner, famous for using Assaults, gets bonuses to Brawling and Defensive Kills. Or maybe, famous for being rich, get a flat +X% boost to earnings across the board.
I'm absolutely on board with anything that gives Loyalists more faction-oriented items, whether permanent or tied to a continuation of their contract.
I'll also support making the top tier for Loyalists infinite--so either you keep getting the Top Rank reward for every million (or so) LP, or after you get the Top Rank, you get a permanent additional bonus and then start from Rank One again.
B2: Planet Flipping
Spoiler
Quote
I'm not really concerned with how often planets flip--I DON'T EVEN FULLY UNDERSTAND HOW THIS WORKS. I've watched Kanajashi's videos and read the Google Docs guide and it's so convoluted that I refuse to waste the time to learn. All I know is that about half the time that I want to play FP, the map is dead due to a CeaseFire. So I go back to QP and forget about FP for another month.
Verdict: The tug-of-war makes perfect sense to me. Really happy they got rid of the cease-fire.
Suggestions: I can get on board with Bear Flag’s variation on Hobbles v’s proposal here.
I've also suggested elsewherethat they switch to a 7-hour phase, so that even if you sign on at 8pm local time every day, over the course of a week you'll play at the beginning, middle, and end of a phase.
B3/4: Rewards for planet ownership (Unit/Faction)
Spoiler
Quote
B3. Rewards for planet ownership (Unit). I'm not in a big unit, so I'll never stand to gain from MC rewards. My impression is that raising a stink over these rewards will affect the big units only, which is the current FP playerbase. If you want to engage my demographic, leave these alone and focus on other aspects. As I state in B2, I barely understand how ownership works, and these rewards which are beyond my reach aren't sufficient incentive to learn.
B4. Rewards for planet ownership (Faction). I get that this concept is supposed to tie into a larger player-run economy, but I don't think such a feature would end up fixing the fundamental problem (A1). All it would do is grant the winning faction a steamroll modifier, causing QQ and disinterest along the lines of the Long Tom. The only thing I might see as beneficent would be certain 'mech bonuses--price discounts for purchasing or outfitting 'mechs produced on planets your faction owns (but not if you are a merc). But if planet ownership affects tactical elements of the game, forge it, I'm out--or rather, still not in.
Verdict: I'm still apathetic about the first, ambivalent to hostile about the second.
Suggestions:
Spoiler
Regardless of original promises, the FP community needs to recognize that its future lies not in continuing to demand that people "join a unit and git gut" but to have PGI address the fact that people with access to FP are going to play FP regardless of whether they are solo or potatoes or both.
For logistics, I am adamantly against a system whereby controlling planets gives a faction a tactical edge, as this will result in necessarily unbalanced gameplay. I also prefer to see PGI spend time and resources on continuing to improve in-match FPS gameplay rather than implement a half-assed logsitical system.
B5. Choice
Spoiler
Quote
I delve into this a lot more in the next section, but the whole aspect of choice that is repeatedly emphasized by PGI and the FP diehards has little appeal to me. In the abstract sense it does, but first we need A1, A2, and A3. If those reasons are never addressed, choice of faction, choice of unit, choice of planet, choice of enemies or allies will not draw me in. It's a red herring until fundamental gameplay becomes interesting.
Verdict: As a merc, I've not lost anything by getting lumped into a two great buckets. In general I stand by my comment here and in Section C below--restricting choice in FP will increase the overall quality of gameplay and of community.
Section C: Things pre-4.1 that might have gotten me invested in FP C1: More varied tactical gameplay
Spoiler
Quote
Maps with multiple attack corridors--or better yet no corridors. Maps twice or ten times the size of Polar Highlands where we need to prioritize targets to attack or defend within a match, and commit to them. Anything that doesn't involve grinding brawls in bottlenecks.
Verdict: Much better now that we have QP maps and modes. Would still like to see innovation on Invasion maps that abandon the corridor concept. See Section A1.
C2. Clearer campaign purposes and an overarching narrative.
Spoiler
Quote
There is a strong desire for an Eve Online sort of player-run economy and political map, but I don't think that is possible in MWO for two major reasons: Lack of overall population; and lack of developmental resources. Whether its time or skill, PGI just can't cut it, and never will. I'd rather see a more limited but purposeful campaign. I might not get to choose, but there is a clear goal to the fight. Operation Bulldog and Serpent. The FedCom Civil War. And yes, Operation Revival. Give us a 3-month season with two clear goals (one for each side) beyond trading planets. During these campaign seasons, allies and enemies are assigned by PGI (or whoever designs and runs the campaigns), restricting choice but funneling gameplay into defined goals and matches.
Verdict: No progress on this front. I'm eager to see how the FP Special Conflicts turn out.
C3. Better faction-based communication and recruiting tools.
Spoiler
Quote
This is probably DOA due to how long it took to implement VOIP and basic chat (as I understand it), but we need faction lobbies within game. Even if it's just text chat and redirection to the TS hub. Use the faction to act as a giant surrogate unit for PUGs like me. People who want to play in units will play in units. People who don't just won't. But if you create a giant forum where we can consistently meet and play with other PUGs of our faction, we might be more inclined to build esprit d'corps and maybe even join units. And give units better recruiting tools in-game. It's just too much effort to try to find a unit via forums in my experience.
Verdict: Consolidating into two factions has helped a bit by making it easier to find matches. But in general the communication interfaces need work. Lots of work.
C4. Restriction of Choice.
Spoiler
Quote
Force us into a random faction or the smallest population faction the first time we click on FP. New players know next to nothing about the factions, and since there is no in-game lore or tactical reason to choose one IS over another IS, it really doesn't matter. Place heavy emphasis on the loyalist factions and less emphasis on Mercs. Drawing emphasis away from Mercs with their tendency to switch loyalties will put emphasis on....loyalty, and the sense of in-game community that comes with it. To become a Merc you have to consciously break your initial Loyalist contract--the one you were forced into when you were "conscripted" or called to your liege's banner or smtg. Perhaps the Merc is where Units can still shine, but with well-established in-game loyalist communication tools I'd like to think the power of giant merc units would be significantly reduced.
Verdict: I like 4.1. I like that we are all in two factions, I like that I don't have to worry about hopping in the queue for one planet and watch the queue for another planet grow while mine empties out.
Suggestions: I'll stand by my previous analysis/suggestions for now. Also...
TL;DR: The main thing that keeps people like me away is stale gameplay. Stale gameplay leads to low populations, making it harder to find matches and therefore harder to earn the experience necessary to really master the nuances of Invasion.
Proposals that focus on anything beyond the fundamental game play (e.g., choice of allies, personal or planetary rewards, game economy, attack lanes) are red herrings as far as I am concerned. I'd rather see less player choice if it means that there is more of a narrative purpose to the game, and the varied types of goals and actual gameplay that might accompany such narrative purpose.
Overall Verdict: I think gameplay is better, matching time is better, and the overall quality of games is better.
I’ve noticed more PUGs and small groups playing, and while 8- or 12-man groups still do sometimes stomp skittles, I find that they are both (1) less common than before, and (2) less stompy (though that just may be me getting better at the game). I’d attribute this to there being a higher population of people playing more games and therefore having a better grasp of the game, such that being in a skittles team is not as compromising as it once was.
Also, by adding the QP maps, which PUG Jables knows intimately, we now have less of a knowledge gap between PUG Jables and UNITleetPro, resulting in a better overall experience. That knowledge gap will persist in Invasion, but is mitigated by allowing PUG Jables to get his feet wet in FP-Conquest, etc, before diving into the deep end.
I now drop in FP on a regular basis, and just bought my first mech just so I can bring it into FP—my second HBK-IIC-A. From where I’m standing, that’s a really good sign for the future of Faction Play.
TL;DR
I’d say: Keep going PGI. I’m ready for 4.2.
Edited by Jables McBarty, 10 February 2017 - 12:35 PM.
Jables McBarty, on 10 February 2017 - 12:31 PM, said:
I'd say that adding the QP maps and modes to FP has dramatically increased the quality of gameplay. I find that the QP objectives are far more valuable--you almost always win with caps on Conquest, and a base cap on Assault is a credible threat.
Ok so...
1. No idea what game you're playing but the introduction of QP maps has lowered the standard of playing to mass LRM boating from T5-T3 QP PUGs who refuse to work as a team.
Player quality was FAR better in FP3. Even if you had to wait an extra 5-10mins for a match.
2. FP 4.1 missed the mark almost as badly as FP 3, problem being FP 3 was SO bad it drove many, many players away.
3. How you can say "The tug-of-war makes perfect sense to me"????????? Tug of War flat out doesn't work. The final 4 matches, of the 8hrs cycle, decide if planetary victory is achieved.
4. And I've had ~20 ghost drops now, population is declining, people see what FP 4.1 is - nothing really better than FP 3
From my point of view 4.1 is this:
1. Occasionally faster match times, I still regularly wait up to 10mins to get into a queue with the eternal "searching", then another 5mins for an match, even in US. So 15mins to get a game... So much for "buckets" fixing it.
2. Quality of games is absolutely terrible now with QP PUGs.
There is a long way to go with FP 4.2 if it's actually going to be any level of decent. And given the recent around table, if some of that stuff happens and doesn't address the actual issues - then FP 4.2 won't deliver squat either.
i agree with most of your points, except i feel if there was some non gameplay bonus to having certain planets, like a cbill boost for planets that make the mech you run, you could implement it. i do understand why you dont want planets having an in match effect though.
the other thing i didnt agree with was bringing back the ability to see who else is in que. if theres only 5 people in que, and 20 people seeing those 5 and waiting to que until theres more, itll never fill. i think that was one of the problems in 3.0. there were 3 teams worth of people looking at the que, and none of them willing to que up till they say it at 10 or 11.
justcallme A S H, on 10 February 2017 - 01:02 PM, said:
The quality of play
Ok so...
1. No idea what game you're playing but the introduction of QP maps has lowered the standard of playing to mass LRM boating from T5-T3 QP PUGs who refuse to work as a team.
Player quality was FAR better in FP3. Even if you had to wait an extra 5-10mins for a match.
I'm referring more to the enjoyability of play, not necessarily the skill level. Compared to Invasion all day e'ry day I find 4.1 to be actually enjoyable. It has more variety. More game modes, and different tempo between them. For example, the QP modes lack that period of just walking from one side of the map to the other every 6 minutes before a push.
Quote
2. FP 4.1 missed the mark almost as badly as FP 3, problem being FP 3 was SO bad it drove many, many players away.
Can you elaborate more on what you mean by this? What "missed the mark" for you specifically?
Quote
3. How you can say "The tug-of-war makes perfect sense to me"????????? Tug of War flat out doesn't work. The final 4 matches, of the 8hrs cycle, decide if planetary victory is achieved.
I mean that I can look at the tug of war and immediately know exactly what is going on. The old system with the pizza slices was unnecessarily complex.
From a fictional realism standpoint obviously the ToW doesn't make sense. But I can at least gauge where everything stands at a glance.
I think also this comes down to the fact that I care less about the Overmap than I do about actual gameplay. (Section B was stuff I didn't care about, but that's just me)
Quote
4. And I've had ~20 ghost drops now, population is declining, people see what FP 4.1 is - nothing really better than FP 3
Interesting. What time/zone do you usually play?
Quote
From my point of view 4.1 is this:
1. Occasionally faster match times, I still regularly wait up to 10mins to get into a queue with the eternal "searching", then another 5mins for an match, even in US. So 15mins to get a game... So much for "buckets" fixing it.
2. Quality of games is absolutely terrible now with QP PUGs.
There is a long way to go with FP 4.2 if it's actually going to be any level of decent. And given the recent around table, if some of that stuff happens and doesn't address the actual issues - then FP 4.2 won't deliver squat either.
Re the PUGS, I can only think drawing more people into the game mode is a good thing for the game mode, regardless of their skill level.
i agree with most of your points, except i feel if there was some non gameplay bonus to having certain planets, like a cbill boost for planets that make the mech you run, you could implement it. i do understand why you dont want planets having an in match effect though.
the other thing i didnt agree with was bringing back the ability to see who else is in que. if theres only 5 people in que, and 20 people seeing those 5 and waiting to que until theres more, itll never fill. i think that was one of the problems in 3.0. there were 3 teams worth of people looking at the que, and none of them willing to que up till they say it at 10 or 11.
Good points both.
For the queue counter, I agree with that phenomenon being a problem. I was thinking something more along the lines of
[Anybody looking at the FP Map] + [Any players in an Invasion/Scouting Group] = [Current FP Lobby Population]
So not dependent on searching, but simply being engaged with the FP interface.
But it might still create that problem, where the population flickers between 10 and 11 because the second someone comes in and sees that they are #11 they drop out. So like 100 people cycle in and out.
Yeah. Actually I really don't like my new proposal anymore.
Thanks for the shout-out, Jables. Nice post and mostly agree.
But as one who was here when CW launched public, I think two major categories can explain the absence of 90% of the player base. CW was never strong. Early January, 2015, when the Stocking Stuffer event ended, the population abruptly crashed and never really recovered. This FW sub-forum is sometimes an echo chamber with its participants often not realizing that "their" game mode is just not popular. And this is bad news. Long run, you're right, FW NEEDS a healthy chunk of QP players coming on board. I'm glad PGI hasn't given up on FW. They have every justification to do just that.
That said, I have to admit, I've never liked the respawn mode. I play a lot of Scout but averaged only a couple Inv/CA games a week during that first year and a half. Why? Not fun. Sorry, just don't like it. And over two years, it's those words, "not fun" I've heard again and again as droves left. I bring this up because I think I've a pretty good idea WHY they leave. I'm kinda one of them.
You hit on many of them, but here's the big 2:
Match Balance
Respawn
I know, respawn was THE defining thing for CW - at least until Scout showed it didn't have to be only respawn. As for match balance, we all know blow out matches are bad. Bad for the players; bad for the game. Omitting a MM was probably the single biggest error in CW's history.
This forum loves respawn. 90% don't and here's why:
Long matches
Mismatches
Excruciatingly drawn out mismatches
"I thought I was dead?" (Immersion problem for some.)
Double death rate (48 mechs in 30 mins v. QP 12 in 15)
Spawn Camping (still broken)
Increase mech TTK (looks like Skill Tree will do this)
Fix spawn camping (Doable, but prob not. Labor/engine intensive)
Incorporate a 12v12 or 8v8, no respawn, w/MM conflict type into FW (Invasion, BattleFront, Scout). Give QP players 'their' game in FW. Gateway drug.
MATCHMAKER: (per match balancing)
First pass: draw from queued player pool (some day, we hope)
Second pass: Draw special Call to Arms
Third pass: balance by weight, Mech pool approach https://mwomercs.com...ost__p__5623601
Special CtA:
Personal Call to Arms Opt-in - the MM can invite opt-ins of the skill level it needs. Bonus. Some % must be answered.
Mandatory Call to Arms Opt-in: the FW MM can levy QP queued opt-ins from the QP MM. Bigger bonus.
Jables McBarty, on 10 February 2017 - 12:31 PM, said:
I’ve noticed more PUGs and small groups playing, and while 8- or 12-man groups still do sometimes stomp skittles, I find that they are both (1) less common than before, and (2) less stompy
Nope. There is still no matchmaking. My experience has been that, with each passing week, the frequency of matches in which a larger group farms clueless PUGs has increased.
* I reluctantly stopped playing FP two weeks ago. There is now too little chance of experiencing a reasonably balanced match. I can no longer be bothered spending a half hour in a one-sided stomp because half the players I'm dropped with die within the first two waves having done <500 damage. It's the opposite of enjoyable.
Thanks for the shout-out, Jables. Nice post and mostly agree.
But as one who was here when CW launched public, I think two major categories can explain the absence of 90% of the player base. CW was never strong. Early January, 2015, when the Stocking Stuffer event ended, the population abruptly crashed and never really recovered. This FW sub-forum is sometimes an echo chamber with its participants often not realizing that "their" game mode is just not popular. And this is bad news. Long run, you're right, FW NEEDS a healthy chunk of QP players coming on board. I'm glad PGI hasn't given up on FW. They have every justification to do just that.
That said, I have to admit, I've never liked the respawn mode. I play a lot of Scout but averaged only a couple Inv/CA games a week during that first year and a half. Why? Not fun. Sorry, just don't like it. And over two years, it's those words, "not fun" I've heard again and again as droves left. I bring this up because I think I've a pretty good idea WHY they leave. I'm kinda one of them.
You hit on many of them, but here's the big 2:
Match Balance
Respawn
I know, respawn was THE defining thing for CW - at least until Scout showed it didn't have to be only respawn. As for match balance, we all know blow out matches are bad. Bad for the players; bad for the game. Omitting a MM was probably the single biggest error in CW's history.
This forum loves respawn. 90% don't and here's why:
Long matches
Mismatches
Excruciatingly drawn out mismatches
"I thought I was dead?" (Immersion problem for some.)
Double death rate (48 mechs in 30 mins v. QP 12 in 15)
Spawn Camping (still broken)
Increase mech TTK (looks like Skill Tree will do this)
Fix spawn camping (Doable, but prob not. Labor/engine intensive)
Incorporate a 12v12 or 8v8, no respawn, w/MM conflict type into FW (Invasion, BattleFront, Scout). Give QP players 'their' game in FW. Gateway drug.
MATCHMAKER: (per match balancing)
First pass: draw from queued player pool (some day, we hope)
Second pass: Draw special Call to Arms
Third pass: balance by weight, Mech pool approach https://mwomercs.com...ost__p__5623601
Special CtA:
Personal Call to Arms Opt-in - the MM can invite opt-ins of the skill level it needs. Bonus. Some % must be answered.
Mandatory Call to Arms Opt-in: the FW MM can levy QP queued opt-ins from the QP MM. Bigger bonus.
You forgoty one obvious one. both company commanders have a surrender option so if thee is a stomp they aren't forced to continue playing but go back to the drawing board and try again
Wait wait... So one bukkit is a brutal failure when populations decline a bit, creating an imbalance that generates 30 minute waits for matches on higher population side but every match vs a premade on low pop side?
If only some brilliant, handsome, sexy genius had predicted this when it was put forward? Someone who actually works in analytics for a living and would have recognized that the idea would create a false impression of faster matches for a bit while creating an even more brutal environment that would churn the pugs, loyalists and others out, reducing the already small population even more. While it would be slightly more forgiving of a small population it would have nothing to draw the people lost in 3.0 back and plenty to push the existing loyalists out.
Boy, too bad nobody saw this coming.
Edited by MischiefSC, 22 February 2017 - 07:28 PM.
Here are my 2 cents on the matter based on what I have seen and read.
Currently only clanners are enjoying faction play the rest are just targets.
Please do not tell me that the factions are balanced they are not. Please look at the stats. Clanners are getting planets non stop, the victory rate is skewed to the clans. Last I checked the graph line was a steep line down to the bottom then flat at blue.
A healthy gaming graph should have ups and downs something like a hospital life graph. Anyone would be put off if they are merely targets. Game marketing strategy should be about getting more new players to join and keeping them there not make them run off to competitors.
My suggestion is to follow the lore:-
Lore wise the Inner sphere cannot win using tech, they used their numbers. If you want to follow the lore follow it properly. PGI has already said that they want to follow the lore and show that clan tech is overpowered (they have nerfed it a bit to 70% later)(What PGI said)
If you put two sides with equal numbers against each other then the one with better tech obviously wins.
Even the Com Guards fought them using numbers, they had horrible losses but won the trial if I remember correctly.
So matches in faction play should be like this (based on the lore)
Clan
1 binary = 2 stars = 10 mechs (clans do not have lances)
Vs
Inner Sphere
1 company = 3 lances = 12 mechs
But as usual lore will be ignored, the clanners will jump out saying this cannot be done, its about skill blah.. blah
any idiot who took an elementary math class could figure out that our populations were too divided prior to phase 4. id like to call the problem solved at this point. there are still other problems that need to be resolved. this was just one line item on a long list.
Edited by LordNothing, 23 February 2017 - 09:09 AM.
One could argue there are too many weapons - so many people build bad mechs. Just remove what isn't meta. That would be a better game....
Right?
With no factions there is no factions warfare. Just another QP environment. No point out purpose and so people are getting bored and moving on. One bukkit is a bit friendlier to low population but by removing most of what little depth it had it's given no reason to retain people, play loyalists, etc.
The same logic that says 1 bukkit says the next logical step is to merge clan/is, just like QP, split QP/group queue and have a leadwrboard that tracks wins by faction affiliation. That would also allow a basic MM. That would likely make finding matches much faster and help cover up the Clan/IS balance issues.
Because otherwise you'd need to add depth, purpose and complexity to draw and retain players and that's too much work!
2 buckets didn't fix the wait times. Depending on the distribution of the mercs wait times for for one side are still the same if not worse. At least phase 3 you could see the map and where the action was. Now all you get is a spinning circle. Even 12 mans get 20-30 minute wait times.
The problem was/is/will be low player population. You need to give people a reason to play faction warfare. Phase 4.1 didn't didn't do this. Phase 4.1 didn't address many of the core issues of faction play and doubled down of many of faults of phase 3.
So it seems as if this two faction Clan vs IS concept is gaining traction sadly. For some reason people have the misguided idea that population is the problem and that if we just reduce the attack lanes we will suddenly have faction warfare going 24/7 and we will never have to wait for a match again.
The problem with that thinking is that population problems are a symptom of what is wrong with Faction Play and forcing the entire population into two factions is only going to aggravate that problem.
With phase 3 the attack lanes were greatly reduced and did that suddenly make things better? Nope it did not. It's just getting worse and worse. In fact we are already playing IS vs Clan on the Steiner/FRR vs Jade Falcon front. Absolutely nothing serious is going on anywhere else. Even the formerly lively Capellan vs Federated Suns front is dead. If that isn't fun for you now forcing everyone into two factions will not help. The faction population imbalance will become even more problematic and we will pretty much be fighting a seesaw battle at best or one faction will dominate all the time. Not to mention it won't be Battletech and believe it or not a lot of us are playing because we want Battletech and not Red vs Blue.
The mode is the problem. Scouting was a nice addition but tac nuke Long Toms empty the que. At best they should be slightly heavier arty strikes. That would still be worth while but not game breaking. "Invasion mode" can be fun but I think it should be used either for more important planets or as final battles fought for individual regions on planets. It should be called siege mode because that is what it really is. Most of our battles could be fought 12 vs 12 on regular maps. People don't always want to que up for larger battles that funnel mechs into the same kill zones. If we had another drop deck for 12 vs 12 that required us to have one of each mech class then matchmaker could choose a good balance and assign each pilots a mech for that battle. It would encourage cross training as well. Raids that would have an affect on faction economy would be nice. Perhaps a faction could vote for one faction to be at war with and two others to raid each phase.
Factions need dynamic content with flavor that fits the faction and mercs could have something that reflects their MRBC ratings. Instead of shorter contracts we should be able to take even longer contracts to promote faction stability. Faction incentives should reflect not only the population of the faction but also the success of the faction.
If this mode had true end game content then population would not be an issue. It wasn't in the past but since we were promised a dynamic end game with Faction Warfare and got nothing but empty promises and tweaks of Beta content even the diehards are burning out. You can tell the entire game took a population hit after the disappointment of phase 3. Dumping us into two factions will not save this mode or this game and neither will E-Sports.
This thread is pretty much spot on. Not much changed with the release of phase 4.1
I seem to be the opposite of you... I left QP because the maps bore me to tears... now I can't even get away from them in FP... Only reason I'm playing now is my Supernova preorder but once the newness of that wears off I'll probably stop playing again cause this game is nothing but QP no matter where you play now with an occasional FP map thrown in.
Nope. There is still no matchmaking. My experience has been that, with each passing week, the frequency of matches in which a larger group farms clueless PUGs has increased.
* I reluctantly stopped playing FP two weeks ago. There is now too little chance of experiencing a reasonably balanced match. I can no longer be bothered spending a half hour in a one-sided stomp because half the players I'm dropped with die within the first two waves having done <500 damage. It's the opposite of enjoyable.
In the several weeks since first posting this I've also noticed an increase in wait times. And it seems that the novelty has worn off for pugs, so there are fewer of them.
My anecdotal experience has been to queue up for ~10 minutes then switch to QP. If I do get a match, it tends to be ~8 man on one team, the other is mostly pugs who crumble.
Anyway from other threads (especially Why no Solo Que in FP?) it sounds like the renewed dearth of interest in FP comes from the lack of MM as you point out. I'd like to think if they introduced a MM or separate queues at 4.1 the population bump would have continued rather than being a momentary spike.
MNML86, on 22 February 2017 - 08:16 PM, said:
Here are my 2 cents on the matter based on what I have seen and read.
Currently only clanners are enjoying faction play the rest are just targets.
Please do not tell me that the factions are balanced they are not. Please look at the stats. Clanners are getting planets non stop, the victory rate is skewed to the clans. Last I checked the graph line was a steep line down to the bottom then flat at blue.
...
But as usual lore will be ignored, the clanners will jump out saying this cannot be done, its about skill blah.. blah
1) Balance is still in the eye of the beholder. My friend who I play with always complains about how OP the IS are. I try to correct him but you'll always have these perceptions.
2) Binaries vs. Lances could be fun, but it would then throw off all balance in the QP arena, and since that's 90% of the game's content, I doubt they'd even try it. They could do something where different rules and quirks apply to FP and QP, but I don't think that'd go over well with the player base, mostly because it wouldn't be communicated well in game.
LordNothing, on 23 February 2017 - 09:09 AM, said:
any idiot who took an elementary math class could figure out that our populations were too divided prior to phase 4. id like to call the problem solved at this point. there are still other problems that need to be resolved. this was just one line item on a long list.
Can't tell if you are replying to me or MischiefSC? My argument is basically the same--other fundamental things need to change, though I like the direction it is going in.
DANKnuggz, on 23 February 2017 - 01:46 PM, said:
I seem to be the opposite of you... I left QP because the maps bore me to tears... now I can't even get away from them in FP... Only reason I'm playing now is my Supernova preorder but once the newness of that wears off I'll probably stop playing again cause this game is nothing but QP no matter where you play now with an occasional FP map thrown in.
I'm with you on the "bored to tears" but I find FP to be even more boring.
One could argue there are too many weapons - so many people build bad mechs. Just remove what isn't meta. That would be a better game.... Right? With no factions there is no factions warfare. Just another QP environment. No point out purpose and so people are getting bored and moving on. One bukkit is a bit friendlier to low population but by removing most of what little depth it had it's given no reason to retain people, play loyalists, etc. The same logic that says 1 bukkit says the next logical step is to merge clan/is, just like QP, split QP/group queue and have a leadwrboard that tracks wins by faction affiliation. That would also allow a basic MM. That would likely make finding matches much faster and help cover up the Clan/IS balance issues. Because otherwise you'd need to add depth, purpose and complexity to draw and retain players and that's too much work!
I argued before/during/after the Summer FP Roundtable that the biggest problem with CW is that it is Unit-based, and not faction-based.
What do I mean by this?
A faction is literally only a picture beside your name. That's all it ever was, except earlier it also restricted what types of allies you could group with on attack, whereas now it doesn't.
But wait, you say a faction is more than that, yes it's something from lore, but it's also a larger group of units and individuals with shared community and vision? True, but only in the out-of-game areas. On TeamSpeak and various forum echo chambers.
A real faction, as I posit in theseposts, would be its own "megaunit." It would be an in-game lobby where comrades-in-arms could organize drops and help each other train. Regulars could form their own sub-units (perhaps the seeds of eventual merc corps) and recruit and train newbies. It would be a place where hardcore units and pugs could quickly lance up and round out teams.
In short, it should be in game what the faction TeamSpeak hubs are outside the game.
The complexity of the TS hubs are impressive and I applaud the communities and individuals that run these things, but they will only ever appeal to a dedicated niche because those are the people who want to work so hard to make FP succeed.
Your average player is either unwilling to make these commitments or ignorant of how to do them. How do I know? The number of tagged players in solo queue, and the number of players in FP.
Anyway, since my initial post was long and complex, the priorities as I see them are:
Good, interesting gameplay (in my opinion, they are on the right track, finally, after admitting that the Invasion/Siege mode is repetitive and appeals only to a niche audience).
Simple, intuitive social tools for grouping and strategizing.
Balanced-feeling gameplay, which means IS/Clan balance, but more importantly the feeling of fairness between teams, whether that comes from a solo queue or a matchmaker.
Additional logistics and depth once core functionality is addressed (though I definitely vote for more in-game lore text which should be easy to implement).
1 and 3 are the biggest factors keeping FP small. People didn't have fun playing Invasion/Siege; and when they started to have fun playing QP w/ dropdecks, they found they consistently got stomped and grew bored.
2 interacts with 3 in that they can complement or compete with each other for a gaming experience (e.g., a very robust and comprehensive solution to 2 might obviate 3).
2 also ties in with 4 because you can use robust faction social tools to make lore and faction loyalty relevant. And without ways to communicate with all faction members in-game, the logistical element is superfluous.
Anything beside these should be seen as an interim step.
If its not the population shortage in FP then why cant I find a game?
I can queue up FP and wait for15 min 30 min to a hour not 1 game the new system is just as bad as the old system because it lacks players to fill buckets.
If its not the population shortage in FP then why cant I find a game?
I can queue up FP and wait for15 min 30 min to a hour not 1 game the new system is just as bad as the old system because it lacks players to fill buckets.
Except now you've driven away the bulk of the loyalist players, which reduced population but at least it brought in all those pugs, right?
Except with 1 bukkit pugs on the low population side play almost exclusively 12mans from the high population side, and the only variance required for high/low population is 24 total players more on one side than the other is pretty much enough to guarantee pug teams on high pop (where all the pugs are) will get rolled almost every match by 12mans on low pop.
Which gets the pugs to quit FW because they lose 90% of their matches.
So now we've got the population of 3.0, minus the loyalists and even fewer pugs.
Because there was no other way this could have worked out. If only someone could have predicted! Oh, wait, we did. But PGI 'knows better', better than math apparently, and did it anyway.
1
