94 replies to this topic

[Tarl Cabot]

Quote

As for it then being a choice between attacking and defending, not so much. In any real campaign there are attacks and counterattacks on both sides, regardless of who initiated a conflict in a given theater. I don't see a need for it to be different here.

It is simply odd that ever gain would be in one bucket, an all or nothing deal. Things don't normally work that way.

But this is not a real campaign, is it? There are no commander-in-chief, generals, etc directing the troops. And then there is a lack of a FP population. There are not 1000s playing FP during prime time, much less off hours (State side), be lucky if it is a few hundred. 12/team, 24/drop. IF there are 10 drops happening that is just 240 players. And 4.1 does not show the number of people queued up like the previous setups.

And the current setup one could say there are attacks and counterattacks, it simply is not separated out between systems. I do not see that type of setup returning any time in the near future.

[Marquis De Lafayette]

I know Russ likes the narrative for invasion progressing towards Siege....and it's a "pretty" thought to add some semblance of storyline to the game.

However, in reality many of us players log on (and log off) around the same time everyday, which means we often only get to play 1 or 2 modes in a session....many times the same 1-2 modes every night with the phase resets happening at the same time each day.

While PGI might imagine us pressing through the whole 8 hour "narrative", most of us have lives that don't permit that....so, our experience is far from experiencing the whole narrative....it's more often comparable to reading the same 1-2 chapters of the same book every night. Now, I still have fun (as I play different opponents), but I would like more variety in the mode.

If PGI can't see that something (mode randomization or mode rotation) should be done here, I would challenge them to log on for an hour or 2, at the same time everyday and play the mode for a week. It's an obvious issue for those of us who play the game.

a couple of side thoughts on modes:

Siege: I miss Siege....find a way to get it in there more PGI..

Conquest: I initially hated it, but have grown to really like conquest (it's a just a different challenge)...

Domination: domination is either a fun 5-10 minutes or a total joke depending on the map and/or your opponents (not much in between)...on alpine it's always a joke

assault: face it PGI...it's really a second skirmish mode (for better or worse) on many maps....it's pretty hard to cap a base behind a giant wall and next to 3 spawn points on HPG, unless most of your opponents are already dead. It actually has more the feel of the old invasion "counter-attack" mode.

Skirmish: well it's skirmish...so it's ok. However, getting stuck in skirmish purgatory for a few hours is no fun.

[Insanity09]

The argument was made that if both sides were selecting a planet (or planets) to fight on, then you would have to choose between attacking and defending.
My counterpoint was that in any campaign, real or virtual (virtual with the smallest semblance of simulated reality), attack and defense are inextricably mixed. Even as the "defender" you don't simply defend constantly (unless you want to lose). That seems to have been missed.

The point about dividing the available FW population into more than one effort at a time, that is valid. However, consider these items.

• Many folks (existing FW pop) appear to want more depth to the FW game play
  
• FW population is already low, the current system does not appear to be addressing that, enticing more people into playing FW
  
• Ones of the draws for FW was a different game mode, one you didn't get in QP/GP, i.e. siege. The current system has more or less removed that from the option for most people (unless you get lucky on your timing)

The last point is why this thread exists. The prior two account for parts of this thread as well as numerous others. Changes need to be made to the FW system to make it more attractive (get more people playing it and maintain those there already).


One can hope that the changes slated for the next couple months will do the job.

[Kalimari Krusader]

Insanity09, on 11 April 2017 - 10:39 AM, said:

The argument was made that if both sides were selecting a planet (or planets) to fight on, then you would have to choose between attacking and defending.
My counterpoint was that in any campaign, real or virtual (virtual with the smallest semblance of simulated reality), attack and defense are inextricably mixed. Even as the "defender" you don't simply defend constantly (unless you want to lose). That seems to have been missed.

The point about dividing the available FW population into more than one effort at a time, that is valid. However, consider these items.

• Many folks (existing FW pop) appear to want more depth to the FW game play
  
• FW population is already low, the current system does not appear to be addressing that, enticing more people into playing FW
  
• Ones of the draws for FW was a different game mode, one you didn't get in QP/GP, i.e. siege. The current system has more or less removed that from the option for most people (unless you get lucky on your timing)

The last point is why this thread exists. The prior two account for parts of this thread as well as numerous others. Changes need to be made to the FW system to make it more attractive (get more people playing it and maintain those there already).



One can hope that the changes slated for the next couple months will do the job.

You know CW use to be that way correct? It was only the seige maps and you were either attacking or defending, or counter attacking or counter defending. Each faction use to vote for one faction to fight against per session and you could only take that one planet and fight that ONE faction. Having said that, any clan pilot could defend any clan planet from any other IS advance and vice versa with the IS. (( A Jade Faclon Pilot could defend a Smoke Jaguar planet, so smoke Jaguar, Ghost Bear, Wolf and Falcon pilots could all be on one team BUT only on a counter attack ))

See we want that style back, yes conquest can have more tactics, but if you wanna play Conquest, Skirmish, Assault, Domination or Escort they have a separate game mode for that, it's called quick play and CW isn't anything special or different anymore it's just long quick play.

[Insanity09]

Pardon my irritation.
I'm sorry you didn't grasp that I was pointing out that the current system lacks siege mode. Some of my earlier posts in this very thread state that I want more siege mode.
I'm sorry you simply assumed I didn't know that the prior version of FW was all siege all the time. I still don't understand why PGI thought it was a good idea to add QP modes to FW. I've cut way back on my FW play because of that simple fact.
Having re-read my own post, I'm very unclear why you would think I was suggesting otherwise.

The old system did need some changes and improvements to bring more people into playing FW. I'd suggest, in 20/20 hindsight, it absolutely did not need the changes PGI made. A simple reversion won't fix the problems that existed then, though it will undo the more recently added ones. More needs to be done.

[50 50]

Insanity09, on 10 April 2017 - 10:28 AM, said:

So, one logical question occurs to me. Why the tug of war at all?
I like the siege mode, it offers a little spice into the regular play, I'd like to see more of siege mode (or other variations?).

But back to my question. What is the reasoning behind allowing only one side to make gains at a time? Many times in a war you will see gains made by both sides in different location, especially when being fought over a large front (or fronts).
That's part of strategy. Do you know where the enemy is attacking or will attack? Do you want to commit forces to prevent that, or do you send your forces elsewhere to make gains of your own?

Why is this relevant to this thread? If both sides were able to progress towards their goals simultaneously, running their own campaigns (as would make sense), then we might actually get to more siege modes.
Whether that change and/or others get made to the FW system, something needs to give, clearly.

At the time, the shift to the single bucket was to try and improve waiting times.
That worked to some degree but still has the single problem that the mode must have 12 players on the clan side and 12 players on the IS side. Because we all live in different timezones, have the quick play, scouting and private lobby also competing for players numbers.... sometimes this just isn't possible and we either get no drops, ghost drops or wait extremely long times to have a single game.

The shift to the tug of war was meant to bring the two sides into conflict and was an attempt to resolve the problem where large units would both go on the attack on different planets and avoid actually fighting each other. You could say that the tug of war worked in that sense. Otherwise, it's not really any better than fighting over the territories we had before. It now also seems worse in that the loss of planets seems somewhat accelerated. I mean, the FRR is gone, Kurita and Steiner and nearly wiped out. We are heading for another map reset... which will happen with the Civil are release no doubt. In a mode that is meant to be our MMO version of the game, map resets seem like a bad thing.

I just don't see things improving while we continue to flog the horse and cart down this particular road and way of thinking.
Hence wanting to flip it all around and take a different path before the cart loses a wheel and the horse is dead.

By the way, are the players who suggested all these changes still actually playing?

Edited by 50 50, 11 April 2017 - 02:39 PM.

[Tarl Cabot]

Instead of deleting what I posted, putting in spoiler mode reduce the clutter.

Spoiler

Insanity09, on 05 April 2017 - 09:46 PM, said:

Though I voted for more siege, I can't say the proposed bar by OP interested me.
This thread https://mwomercs.com...__fromsearch__1
had a vaguely more interested change proposal.

Quote

Why not increase that number to 20 phases making the game mode change every 5% in a repeating pattern. Small swings in the progress bar will allow the game mode to change rather than one side requiring a significant advantage for the later modes to come into play.

In one of your posts, you linked another thread but did not carry over any of that info, nor try to build on it.

Quote

So, one logical question occurs to me. Why the tug of war at all? I like the siege mode, it offers a little spice into the regular play, I'd like to see more of siege mode (or other variations?).

Many agree that more "siege" mode is wanted but how to do that? But you also brought up tug-of-war. Why NOT tug of war of an X amount of planets on both sides, winner takes all? That could still be done with "siege" maps but without the visual aid of what siege map you will get.

Quote

The last point is why this thread exists. The prior two account for parts of this thread as well as numerous others. Changes need to be made to the FW system to make it more attractive (get more people playing it and maintain those there already).

Attractive in what way? Again, no one is posting that they want to see less Siege, even yourself, but HOW would YOU go about it? I believe that attacking a system is NOT just about the siege maps, at least the current maps/setups, but the current QP maps is attractive for some players while pushing others away because of the loop. Have you provided way to do that, even if it is working on another's idea? No, you are just irritated

Should Siege maps be the end event? imho no, it shouldnt it be. I mean that for many planets or systems there should be more than one area that needs to be subdued, ie thread you originally linked where the pic was the following:



As for the siege maps themselves.. orbital bombardment? Only the Capitols/capitals, heavy industry systems should have those cannons. Others systems should be be reimagined into military complexes (both active and rebuilding), something along the previous counter attacks or holding territory but with more... depth to them.

ATM the quickest change though would be to alternate the drops something similar to that other thread but remove Skirmish and possibly Dominion. The current setup is 30 battles on each side of the TOW. Dropping 2 QP leaves 3 map types, Assault, Conquest and Invasion/Siege, or 10 battles for each. 2 of each broken up into 5 sectors. It would not really matter how it is broken up, since the next available battle type is determined by OWNSHIP.

How does it really work now? You have 10 units dropping for each side at the start then 5 more 5 minutes later. Currently everyone starts off in Skirmish because no one has EARNED the right to go into the next available drop. There could be 30 combat drops going on but all would be in skirmish. Right now each drop is worth 3.3 to the winner, ties are 0.0, and each section is 6 except for Skirmish which is 7 drops to one side. For one side to get to the next mode that is 6 straight wins (7 if start of event). So it is not just what needs to be won, but also how many combat drops are actually occurring, and the percentage of those won drops need to be enough to move to the next sector.

I am liking Hobble's idea cause what drop you can get will vary depending on the latest win, or almost everyone will get the same drop cause there were 8 drops with 4 wins and 4 loses within for one side a few seconds of each other and still the same game type.

The other way would be more along the line of the previous FP map wheel, people dropping on different map types, example 2 combat drops are skirmish, next two conquest, then dominion/assault/siege..

And PGI can put it forth that this is an average system invasion setup where there are multiple sectors that have to be attacked/defended.

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 11 April 2017 - 07:22 PM.

[mesmer]

BUMP. NEED2FIX.

[Tarl Cabot]

Actually, I want to submit a counter proposal, because the issue is the zones being used to seed the drops for that specific mode instead of seeding it for the most drops while in that sector but adding 2-4 other modes in the lineup, with lower amount of modes being used, ie 5/4/3/2/1.

Right now the advanced, owned sector is what is used to seed the drop til enough drops are won or lost to be moved to the next sector.

If all game modes are kept..

• Cut down each non-siege modes from 6 drops to 5 drops for 66% instead of the current 80%
  
• Siege mode changes from 6 drops to 10 drops or 33%
  
• Use the non-siege sector to seed the initial 5 drops that sector, followed by 4 drops for the next one, etc with 1 Siege drop occurring if the sector has not moved on yet. (or entertain that seeded mode followed by 2 other modes then Siege)
  
• And it wraps around.
  
• If/when a side gets to the last 33%, the Siege line, then....
  
  • Reverse it, 1st 5 drops are Siege, then 4-skirmish, 3-xx, etc (or Siege then 2 other modes)
    
  • or it is all Siege.
• Or the sector seeds the first 5 games followed by 4x another sector/ 3xSiege (or 4 seeded games/3 of one of the other modes /2Siege)

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 11 April 2017 - 09:00 PM.

[Insanity09]

Thank you 50 50 for your well reasoned and sensible answer. It brought to light certain aspects of the thinking behind that change that do indeed make sense.
I suspect it might have been possible to make some of those changes (move to one bucket) without others (adding QP modes) in a way that might have been more positively received, but who can say at this point?

I too like the idea of Invasion (siege) being the beginning of each fight. The basic process would go something like invade (siege), consolidate (with with a few QP-FW modes), then back to siege mode for the next piece of (imagined) territory. This lets siege mode alternate in on a regular basis, rather then being stuck out at the end of the tug of war rope.

Tarl Cabot, regarding making FW more attractive to folks... (this gets long, be warned)

Premise: People are interested in playing FW because they want to see some sort of grander impact on the MWO map rather than simply rehashing QP/GP style.

One issue with the present system is that regardless of how hard IS fights (or more accurately, the more-losing side, almost always IS at present), regardless of how many wins they actually manage to rack up, those wins are utterly meaningless in the face of an overwhelming number of clan (more-winning side) victories . That is very disheartening, to say the least.
Disheartening = unattractive.
To make FW more attractive, there would need to be some good results from the wins both sides do manage to get. So, not so much tug of war, as one bucket with wins collecting for both sides towards the goal of capturing planets. Clan might have enough wins to get all four planets they wanted, but IS got enough to take one of their targeted planets.

Another way to think of this would be more of a funding drive thermometer for both sides. As each side racks up wins, their thermometer grows higher and higher. When one side gets enough victories, they get all four (or however many) planets, the less winning side gets however many they've earned, and there is a brief cease fire. This could mean the current war/cease fire cycle, and set timing, wouldn't be needed.

Premise: People used to like faction warfare because it was different from any of the QP modes.

Bring back more siege. Lots of ideas both in this thread and others on how to make that happen. I'd also suggest that new FW only modes be added.
(It is a shame that incursion is going to be QP, not FW. Otoh, I've not played the mode on pts, so I might be happier with incursion NOT in FW. <shrug>)

Premise: To entice more people to play FW, the rewards must be noticeably better than QP/GP.
Three ideas, these could work separately or together.

Reputation boost. At present, the rewards for FW are cbills, xp, and loyalty reputation. Loyalty reputation is a long slog, so that portion almost feels non-existent. A boost to loyalty received (or lowering costs of achievements), making that the faction rep more visible (ie. show your {highest?} rank and/or loyalty score somewhere on the main screen, make it a possible title?), might help here.

Choice. At present, when you achieve loyalty ranks, you get what you are given, deal with it. With xp and cbills you can choose what you want to buy. I'd simply suggest that the same be allowed with faction rewards. Treat it as another currency that you can spend as you get it.
Having a whole other currency you can use and earn simply by playing is something tangible and easily understandable.
(possibly limit the number of times you can buy a particular thing, e.g. at present you can get 5 mech bays from FRR loyalty ranks, so in this system, you could buy up to five, with each one being progressively more expensive).
(oh, and btw, the warhorns for each faction should really be on the loyalty reward list, just saying)

Spoils of War. As of now, this is more or a tease than anything else. The promise of mc rewards for playing FW is there, but for the vast majority of players, it never materializes (have to cap a planet, have to have your unit tag it). I'd suggest that the MC rewards for planet captures be automatically divided amongst ALL the players who helped capture a given world. I can't imagine this would result in more than a tiny trickle of MC for any particular player, but it would be a regular and tangible reward. I seriously doubt this would impact PGI's revenue stream (as far as people buying MC).
This whole idea would only work IF my fundraising thermometer were used. In that method, even if the less-winning side capped only 1 planet, if they did it with fewer people, the MC reward might actually be more meaningful. As FW works now there is zero incentive to be on the less-winning side.
(It is conceivable that this might help the less populated side in FW as a result)

[50 50]

I've tried to map out different options starting with the existing tug of war, looking at a 'group progression' option and also the open war concept. Each time I look at the different possibilities there is also a raft of road blocks or limitations when we still use stages. I thought initially it could be done and have some more depth, but I just keep running into problems which I simply don't see when looking at an open war concept.

To go through the process a bit (because it's good to discuss the ins and outs of these things).

Tug of war
Because this is managed at a faction level with the two sides competing against each other we force the whole population into the one mode that is currently being contested.
Because the dominance may shift back and forth based on players coming and going over the 8 hour attack phase, the tug of war will move back and forth over the earlier stages meaning the later stages rarely see action.
On the odd occasion that the bar does make it all the way to the end, all of the effort from all of the players for that faction can be lost in the last few minutes.
It's a real all or nothing setup compounded by the problem of player populations over the course of the attack phase and differences in the group capabilities.
While it uses stages and this has provided a bit of a feel of progression, it is somewhat abstract to actual player involvement at different times meaning we don't have that personal buy in of making our way through the stages to victory.

Let me quickly say that having the different modes is nice, has added some variety and depth and I am enjoying FP more than I have previously. But it is still severely limited and unfortunately does not address many old concerns.

There have been several ideas about adding more map rotations into each stage... a sort of subset of battles if you will. While this should mean getting more variety on the maps it still uses stages and still uses the tug of war meaning other problems are not addressed and it may compound some of the other issues.

A tournament style progression
This hasn't been brought up as an idea before so I'll go into some detail. Think of it like a tournament with pool stages... a bit of a pyramid sort of look.
This concept is more about bringing the level of success down to a player/group level instead of the faction as a whole.
That is, your group wins and advances to the next stage.
You gradually work your way through the stages until you hit siege and can win that mode.
A win on siege adds a tally to your faction.
The faction with the most tallies at the end, wins that conflict and the planet.
Because this would allow successful groups to progress and we look at it from a player/group perspective it allows us a few benefits.
Individual success is not affected by other groups as it doesn't use the faction level tug of war and means a player group can get through the phases provided they keep winning.
At the end of an attack phase, a last ditch concerted effort to undo player work is nullified if they do not have the tallies anyway. This encourages greater participation over the whole attack phase.
The progression would also mean that at the far end, the elite groups should end up facing each other and get through the lower stages a bit faster while the rest of us continue to battle it out and push up the stages a bit slower.
It also opens up some opportunity to have a level of benefits attached to each stage that can carry over into the next which will provide us with some continuation of the story we write each time we drop. That would be nice.
However.... there are still old problems to deal with and a bunch of new ones.
A tournament style progression means that to get matches as we get through the stages we also need players on the other side also doing the same thing. This can be partially solved using an attacker/defender setup so an advancing team is always on the attack and can be matched up against a 'militia' group should there be no opposition after a certain time.
while it does open up some other possibilities to add more depth, it still doesn't fix any of the population or match maker issues as it is really just a restructure of what we have now.

Open warfare.
Way too much to write about it here but feel free to look over the idea outlined here: Moving to an open system
The concept of this proposal is to move away from stages, bring the tug of war into the single battle and allow players to rotate through the conflict for as long as they are able or willing.
Think of it as all the modes combined into one map.
Change the behaviour of the objectives so we have some dynamics and variety.
Alter the actual 'win the planet' condition but also allow the mode to mean more than just 'win the planet'. (Ie if we just want to raid or scout... then let us)
But most importantly, enable us to play the game regardless of player participation levels.
The biggest problems with this is that it does require a significant change to the mode with not only how the mode is structured, but how we also participate. That may be a little scary or seen as pure fantasy, but if we don't ask we won't know.

[Terrastras Rex]

50 50, on 12 April 2017 - 07:15 PM, said:

A tournament style progression
-Group wins and advances to the next stage.
-You gradually work your way through the stages until you hit siege and can win that mode.
-A win on siege adds a tally to your faction.
-The faction with the most tallies at the end, wins that conflict and the planet.
-The progression would also mean that at the far end, the elite groups should end up facing each other
-levels of benefits attached to each stage that can carry over into the next
-continuation of the story we write each time we drop. That would be nice.

Open warfare.
Way too much to write about it here but feel free to look over the idea outlined here: Moving to an open system
The concept of this proposal is to move away from stages, bring the tug of war into the single battle and allow players to rotate through the conflict for as long as they are able or willing.
Think of it as all the modes combined into one map.
Change the behaviour of the objectives so we have some dynamics and variety.
But most importantly, enable us to play the game regardless of player participation levels.

I like the ideas I précised here.. I also liked the ideas in your 'open system' thread.

They address the problem of the 8hour phase.. When I play, its usually 2-4 hours max. If I don't see any direct benefit from that playtime, it sucks. =/

With the 8hour tug of war - I have to hope that when I login, the guys before me have been grinding, or hope that the guys after me finish the job.

Ideally I'd like to see my 2 hour playtime turn into a planet acquisition if I'm dropping in 12mans. I think far less planets are changing hands in 4.2 than they did in 4.1

[justcallme A S H]

Kalimari Krusader, on 11 April 2017 - 11:23 AM, said:

You know CW use to be that way correct? It was only the seige maps and you were either attacking or defending, or counter attacking or counter defending. Each faction use to vote for one faction to fight against per session and you could only take that one planet and fight that ONE faction. Having said that, any clan pilot could defend any clan planet from any other IS advance and vice versa with the IS. (( A Jade Faclon Pilot could defend a Smoke Jaguar planet, so smoke Jaguar, Ghost Bear, Wolf and Falcon pilots could all be on one team BUT only on a counter attack ))

See we want that style back, yes conquest can have more tactics, but if you wanna play Conquest, Skirmish, Assault, Domination or Escort they have a separate game mode for that, it's called quick play and CW isn't anything special or different anymore it's just long quick play.

Yes and no man. If I'm honest, some of the more intense games (of QP modes) I've had are on Conquest.

The issue there is 1250 tickets isn't enough. A lot of people are only on second mechs. Maybe 1500 tickets would be a better option for a drawn out game.

That said I still love invasion. SOOOOOOOO many games came down to the last wave it was waay more INTENSE. With all these QP modes, often it's over after the first wave

Edited by justcallme A S H, 13 April 2017 - 07:27 AM.

[Kalimari Krusader]

justcallme A S H, on 13 April 2017 - 07:23 AM, said:

Yes and no man. If I'm honest, some of the more intense games (of QP modes) I've had are on Conquest.

The issue there is 1250 tickets isn't enough. A lot of people are only on second mechs. Maybe 1500 tickets would be a better option for a drawn out game.

That said I still love invasion. SOOOOOOOO many games came down to the last wave it was waay more INTENSE. With all these QP modes, often it's over after the first wave

lol yet again though, Faction isn't faction warefare anyways it's super long quick play. I probably play a siege map once a day maybe in a 10 hour day of MWO. Yes the qp mode can be intense as they should be but the point we're trying to make is CW was suppose to be different from QP not just long QP.

As for conquest the ratios are all different and weird, 4 times as many mechs but only 67% longer for the time? The point in having the factions, units and and rep was for CW and man, might as well just grind qp at this point.

[Kubernetes]

justcallme A S H, on 13 April 2017 - 07:23 AM, said:

Yes and no man. If I'm honest, some of the more intense games (of QP modes) I've had are on Conquest.

The issue there is 1250 tickets isn't enough. A lot of people are only on second mechs. Maybe 1500 tickets would be a better option for a drawn out game.

That said I still love invasion. SOOOOOOOO many games came down to the last wave it was waay more INTENSE. With all these QP modes, often it's over after the first wave

Yeah, I hate domination in FW, but I can't deny that it's unique and creates some novel challenges. I've won and lost domination matches soley because of the timing of deaths. It definitely makes you think differently.

[Templar Dane]

My friends and I don't care about the map. We join whichever side has the fewest participants, for shorter wait times. We played the hell out of invasion because of siege, but now with that mode practicaly dead we hardly play the game at all. The only time we can really get a game of siege is on the weekend, if we're lucky enough to be awake and actually online.

The only problems we really had with invasion before the change was the matchmaker. A small group + pugs vs 12man = not fun most of the time.

Long-term I don't see any of my small group returning and playing every day without something fun to replace siege. After the change we didn't even log in for 3 months and surely we aren't the only group of players that did that. After years of the sameness of quickplay 12v12 deathmatch over and over and over, siege kept us playing.

edit

I don't understand how someone could want the borked quickplay modes in FP except that it generally makes the matches faster......unless you're dropping with a big group against pugs and want to grind out LP faster.

Edited by Templar Dane, 19 April 2017 - 02:57 AM.

[Davegt27]

Need to change the name of Siege to something else

It makes me think of non mobile units slugging away with artillery

Maybe we could call it invasion

[justcallme A S H]

Kalimari Krusader, on 17 April 2017 - 03:42 PM, said:

lol yet again though, Faction isn't faction warefare anyways it's super long quick play. I probably play a siege map once a day maybe in a 10 hour day of MWO. Yes the qp mode can be intense as they should be but the point we're trying to make is CW was suppose to be different from QP not just long QP.

As for conquest the ratios are all different and weird, 4 times as many mechs but only 67% longer for the time? The point in having the factions, units and and rep was for CW and man, might as well just grind qp at this point.

Indeed, it's nothing to do with faction warfare, totally agree. It needs depth, it should've come in FP3 - instead we got LT and single attack lanes (WTF?).

I haven't played Siege now for nearly 2 weeks lol. Makes me sad. Have come close a few times but no cigar.

Indeed only 67% longer, but, I don't think that matters so much once you count in reinforcement ability and so on. Matches usually don't last the full 25mins unless it's Skirmish on Polar or something where literally 6-8mins of the 25mins is spent walking across a map doing absolutely nothing. but talking **** in chat, cause that's all you can do.

Kubernetes, on 17 April 2017 - 05:03 PM, said:

Yeah, I hate domination in FW, but I can't deny that it's unique and creates some novel challenges. I've won and lost domination matches soley because of the timing of deaths. It definitely makes you think differently.

Indeed, I've had a couple of those too, but it's generally not too common type thing and was mainly the stupid Alpine Peaks games.

[Terrastras Rex]

119-19 votes..

over 100 people want Siege to return ... this poll has only been up two weeks.

@PGI? Anyone home?

[theUgly]

Actually i belive the game has depth right now .

Also i do miss siege mode to, but siege mode is not
the problem. The problem is that the game is evolving
too slow and while losing vet players left and right.

Most old heads i know, left because of the bad pugs,,
incompetent to follow a simple instruction ,even if on ts
... game in and game out .

Or just losing interest in it .

Even if PGI makes a separate Q only for siege mode
MWO will still continue to lose old players ..

The game will not die ,,, population will remain low ..
new stubborn pugs will become the vets getting pissed at
the new players and this sh@t circle will continue.

The only way to keep the old players from getting burned out
is if PGI lets go of milking people for money-mc ,
rewards them for the grinding in CW so people
can customize their mechs, by mech bays or do whatever
they want with them. Even if the process is slow.
Give players 10 mc for a win and 5 mc for loss for invasion .
You will see ma$*&@%ks grouping up expeditiously .

Drop a new map every month, drop a new mode every 3 months
.. lower prices on new mechs to something reasonable so everybody
can support the game ..instead of dropping 40-60 us$ for
a f@@kin virtual robot ,, getting mad for doing so and saying
" i ain't doing this sh@t again " and grinding everything else after.

Last time i checked, dlc-s for other games
costs like 5-6 bucs. If that was the case with MWO
i would personally buy every mechpack just to support the game,,
cause at the end i do love it .

Kind of funny, but the main problem of this game is
"We are trying to grind the game, while PGI is trying to grind us".

Until this problem of rewards, MC vs. real money is solved
sh$t aint changing. With more siege or no siege at all .