56 replies to this topic

[LordNothing]

it wont grow until pgi fixes the obvious problems. making it an elitist's hangout is not the way to make it grow. its only currently attractive to said elitests or anyone good enough to make it out better than qp (like me). if you cant pull a million a game fairly regularly its just not worth playing, less than 500k and you will have a hard time just paying for your consumables. now pretend im in tier 4 and doing a couple hundred a game, im not going to want to play, id loose money. even if you doubled the payouts that t4 player isnt going to make enough to break even. and then the wait times and the seal clubbings sap whatever was left of your enthusiasm. you want to make it grow, cater to some other types of players.

no im not saying matchmaker because i know that cant work without first growing and maintaining a larger population. some new freelancer rules, maybe, but only for one type of player. pugness rating and matching, maybe, but would slow down game formation. it might work with a relief valve system where larger differences in pugness would be allowed when the population is sparce, an event would really balance things out. split queue, very unlikely, would simply divide down a sparse population. split queue with soft or "leaky" buckets might work. doing something to balance player numbers on each side would help and would be a good place to start. better rewards would bring in more of the t3 population but wont really help t4/5 players unless it is absurdly high. mc victory play would bring in more players in order to farm mc, but not many, and not anyone who is low skill. in fact i dont see one solid way to fix fp, but we know maintaining the status quo wont work. perhaps we need to explore the maybes.

Edited by LordNothing, 14 June 2017 - 01:39 AM.

[TWIAFU]

LordNothing, on 14 June 2017 - 01:23 AM, said:

it wont grow until pgi fixes the obvious problems. making it an elitist's hangout is not the way to make it grow. its only currently attractive to said elitests or anyone good enough to make it out better than qp (like me). if you cant pull a million a game fairly regularly its just not worth playing, less than 500k and you will have a hard time just paying for your consumables. now pretend im in tier 4 and doing a couple hundred a game, im not going to want to play, id loose money. even if you doubled the payouts that t4 player isnt going to make enough to break even. and then the wait times and the seal clubbings sap whatever was left of your enthusiasm. you want to make it grow, cater to some other types of players.

So, it's elitists, meaning those that play by and within it's primary design intent, that are ruining or limiting it's growth.

Conveniently ignoring that it is those that refuse, flat out refuse, to take a minimal part in participation as any factor.

Cater to what, more lowest common denominator play? Isn't there far to much of that already in QP/Group? Cannot there be ONE queue where people can play to rise above the rest of the mind numbing ******** players?

Ironic, or moronic, to claim those playing as designed are elitist and then want only your solo playstyle to be emphasized.

[SuperFunkTron]

Though there are merits to trying to separate the potential FP player base based on skill, there is still a lack of system to effectively determine player skill. Further, the lack of population really makes splitting of any kind likely to result in failures until a larger number of players decide to start playing regularly.

The best thing we can do is train and reinforce the behaviors needed to do well in FP. The "extended field training" idea in which players have to complete specific tasks to qualify (group formation, etc...) in mechs from each class so they can get ingrained into their play styles. This is far from a quick solution, but it will at least start to prepare the weaker players for wading into FP.

Further, putting up "expected minimum" scores in the FP UI would be a great way to force the players to consider if they are performing at what can generally be accepted as a minimum accepted performance (players who tend to cap and contribute to objectives likely will be aware that their focus on objectives will likely give them lower scores which will be offset by their contribution to meeting the win conditions through non combat task). If new players see in official writing that 500-600 damage puts them at the "bottom of the barrel" of competence, as well as giving some tips on how they could continue to train and improve for the game mode (obviously they should be joining a unit or learning to coordinate as a team).

There is no quick remedy for the situation and just as any other competitive association, investment in the future talent and finding ways to reduce the skill gap by improving training for newer players is the most solid way to increase the population. Soft gates like Extended Field Training, "Official" expectations, and other methods that provide a clear path to improvement is not only how we can improve the current players, but also increase retention. Adding more depth and interesting politics would be great, but until we start helping the weaker players improve, we really don't have a way to keep people in a competitive mode if they feel that they never have a chance to do more than receive savage beatings.

[LordNothing]

TWIAFU, on 14 June 2017 - 02:52 AM, said:

So, it's elitists, meaning those that play by and within it's primary design intent, that are ruining or limiting it's growth.

Conveniently ignoring that it is those that refuse, flat out refuse, to take a minimal part in participation as any factor.

Cater to what, more lowest common denominator play? Isn't there far to much of that already in QP/Group? Cannot there be ONE queue where people can play to rise above the rest of the mind numbing ******** players?

Ironic, or moronic, to claim those playing as designed are elitist and then want only your solo playstyle to be emphasized.

look, you want people to show up you need a place for everyone. elitests arent everyone, they are a small slice of the edge of the bell curve. if you want fp to stagnate and die out by all means keep your position on the matter. i like fp, even more than qp, and i want it to not die and im willing to put up with a few low skilled players if thats what it takes. low skill casuals exist but they are the other extreme of the bell curve, most of the players are moderately skilled players who would show up if they felt it was worth their time. if you give those players a reason to show up you could see fp numbers double or even triple.

if a challenge is what the units really want (and i have my doubts with some of the posts they spew defending their precious status quo of seal clubbings, free mc and actual 12v12 matches being few and far between), perhaps that new 8v8 mode is where it belongs, or maybe it needs to be taken to custom games. ive been pushing for better custom games to give everyone more control over what kind of games they get. i certainly dont like being stuck with a quasi-functional match maker that only fixes for a w/l of 1, and qp is much less engaging than a match i have to invest a half hour into (i miss those hour long mwll games).

also pgi figured out before that flop called phase 3 hit that you couldn't grow a mode without all kinds of players. but their plans for this failed and they reverted to the status quo and the game stagnated. phase 4 was a breath of new life but it only addressed one of the major underlying issues, bukkits. i think the next step should be to address clan/is player number disparity (not the balance that everyone raves about, thats fine in my book), its measurable and has a huge impact in the rate of game formation and has that meta chasing avalanche effect where you get a mass migration of units to where the current meta lies. i find it disgusting how the quest for a half a percentile point is so disruptive to the game as a whole. there are no incentives for units to take the hard road.

[Deathlike]

It can't grow when PGI doesn't know how to or want to grow it.

It's simple as that.

Edited by Deathlike, 14 June 2017 - 02:25 PM.

[Chagatay]

Let it go, let it go!
Can't hold it back any more.
Let it go, let it go!
Turn away and slam the door.

[50 50]

The structure of the mode doesn't give us the choice we need to let the mode grow.
I brought a comparison up in one of the other threads:

If we compared Faction Play to other MMO ARPG games like World of Warcraft, then the attack on a planet to capture it should be the equivalent of taking on a raid boss.
To succeed at this you need:

• To be in a team.
  
• To have an appropriate drop deck for the objective.
  
• To co-ordinate and communicate appropriately.

What the mode needs however is the option for more casual play and smaller groups to still participate without necessarily being involved in the same drop or restricted to the same objectives.
These players do not need to be segregated out into more modes like scouting and further split up a small population, nor do we need to rely on any sort of match maker if we have the ability to look before we leap.

We do have the opportunity with MWO to have our own unique version of this if we take the BIG steps required to make it happen.

[LordNothing]

50 50, on 14 June 2017 - 06:43 PM, said:

The structure of the mode doesn't give us the choice we need to let the mode grow.
I brought a comparison up in one of the other threads:

If we compared Faction Play to other MMO ARPG games like World of Warcraft, then the attack on a planet to capture it should be the equivalent of taking on a raid boss.
To succeed at this you need:

• To be in a team.
  
• To have an appropriate drop deck for the objective.
  
• To co-ordinate and communicate appropriately.

What the mode needs however is the option for more casual play and smaller groups to still participate without necessarily being involved in the same drop or restricted to the same objectives.

These players do not need to be segregated out into more modes like scouting and further split up a small population, nor do we need to rely on any sort of match maker if we have the ability to look before we leap.

We do have the opportunity with MWO to have our own unique version of this if we take the BIG steps required to make it happen.

this is kind of what i mean when i say we need leaky buckets. there are divisions but they softer and allow some players to leak through. like if you make a rule that freelancers may only participate in games with a team disparity of 4 or less. 12 mans can only drop in games with at least an 8 man on the other side. if you are not at one of these extremes anything goes so long as it doesn't violate the other two rules. if the freelancers still have problems after this they should go back to qp or the academy. if 12 mans think games are taking to long to form maybe they should drop an 8 man instead or split the team. having a pair of 6 mans in different games might be a good way to accelerate planet capture and provide a better challenge for all. all the while you got various types of players rubbing elbows and circulating ideas around for everyone to improve. as you might have casual freelancers finding themselves dropping in an organized drop with a chance of winning, and seal clubbing is all but gone unless your team is really bad.

[xe N on]

50 50, on 14 June 2017 - 06:43 PM, said:

If we compared Faction Play to other MMO ARPG games like World of Warcraft, then the attack on a planet to capture it should be the equivalent of taking on a raid boss.

Yeah, it is like WoW end game, but with the exception that your e.g. level 50 raid group cannot freely choose an raid instance of their level. Instead the group is randomly deployed into an instance that can range from level 1 to level 100.

I think that would have driven most WoW players away from the end game ... And surprisingly, that is what happened in MWO FP ...

Edited by xe N on, 14 June 2017 - 09:56 PM.

[50 50]

xe N on, on 14 June 2017 - 09:52 PM, said:

Yeah, it is like WoW end game, but with the exception that your e.g. level 50 raid group cannot freely choose an raid instance of their level. Instead the group is randomly deployed into an instance that can range from level 1 to level 100.

I think that would have driven most WoW players away from the end game ... And surprisingly, that is what happened in MWO FP ...

That's because the system tries to use a match maker instead of letting us pick and chose our battles and retreat from them if we need to.

It's also because the mode now forces us into one bucket where we should instead take the step to allow smaller conflicts.

The high end game of capturing the planet and having that major objective is ok.
But there is no lead up.
No allowing for smaller groups to do the minor objectives that may setup the battle for the invasion..... or not.
What is wrong with just attacking the planet to steal some resources for example?
Why not allow us as players to have these smaller missions where just as a lance we drop onto a planet and start pinching some stuff? If that's as far as we want to take it and then ********** that should be fine.
If we want to hang around and cause a problem then the scenario might begin to escalate until suddenly, it is teh big war effort and we have the bigger teams going for the major objectives.
That's cool.
I might decide to make way at that point and let them take over the scenario but I know my little effort has contributed towards what they might now try to achieve.

MMOs like World of Warcraft have areas where you create your group and then it generates an instance for your group to perform that raid, ie. take on that major objective, and you might need 20 or 30 players or something.
But prior to that, you might have had a smaller group and run around doing the smaller quests, the minor objectives, that then lead up to or unlocked the ability to do that instance.

I'm suggesting we can do something similar but in a unique way for MWO.

I've gone over a few ideas and new features that would fit together to make it work and give it more depth in the features thread, but consider this concept:

We have a galactic map that we can pick a planet on. (Old map with all the faction territories)
Each planet has some territories. (Bit like we used to)
These territories have a specific map type (think desert, arctic, forest etc) so we know what we are going to drop into.
We select our drop deck accordingly and commit it to attack that planet.
This creates a bucket, I prefer scenario, that is open for other players to join if they want to.
Now the maps and single objectives as they are will not be suitable, so let's expand them a bit:
-Put three major objectives in defensible locations at the back of the map under the control of the defending faction. (Think the assault base, the domination radar and the siege cannon)
-Heavily fortify these objectives. Walls, gates, towers, turret and let's get some AI tanks, VTOLS and infantry around them as well so they are tough as nails. These are our 'bosses'. Nasty enough that if I get too close as a solo, I'm dead. These are the objectives that need the big pre-mades and a dozen mechs or more to take over even before defending players are taken into consideration.
-Then put the 5 minor objectives, the conquest points, around the middle section of the map and neutral.
-Fortify these objectives as well so that as a solo player I might burn through my whole drop deck trying to capture one of them, I'd be better off forming a lance and tackling it as a small team.
-Hide all of these objectives from me unless they are controlled by my side.

This gives me purpose as a solo player to scout out the locations, capture some listening beacons (think the towers in escort or from scouting) and gather intel for my side that I can use when I drop into the scenario.
Let me, scout the map, skirmish with some AI defenses and any defending players that join in.
Let me retreat from that scenario if I find I am suddenly outnumbered.
I might leave, form a group, come back again with a different drop deck and look at the minor objectives as my mission.
Maybe I'll start there with a small group.
I might leave and go and do the same thing somewhere else.
But let me play the game and achieve something that might draw in more players and escalate the scenario.
I may not be able to complete one of the major objectives, but I can see what is required to do so and either build up to that level or not.
Maybe I'm part of a large group and we can see that some other allied players have been scouting or raiding on a planet on a territory and it's just right for us to jump in enmasse and attack.
Or maybe as part of that large group we decide that those allied players on that planet over there are making a nice diversion for us to start our own thing and drop in a surprise attack somewhere else.

We can make the mode cater for both ends of the player and group spectrum without needing to split the population or use match makers or create alternative modes. I also feel there is a way to extend the scenarios so that we can have more than 12 players involved per side if we restructure the way we handle the waves and the queues. We might only be able to have 12 active mechs per side, but how would the big groups feel about being able to bring 24 or 36 of their unit members, or a mix of allies, to a single scenario if we can better utilize the waves and queues? Let's make it EPIC.

And the advantages of using an open system like this?
No wait times. Pick a planet and go.
We still get to mingle the different levels of players so there is still the opportunity to meet players and invite them to the group or unit.
We create activity all over the galaxy of our choosing be it small scale actions all the way up to significant conflicts for planetary control.
With more objectives and fortified locations, we can look at how to change our drop (spawn) locations and some player controlled options for the drops.
In a scenario that does not end until we leave it, we can explore and add features that only work in an extended scenario, such as repairs.
With an open system we also have the option to play only for as long as we would like or are able. We can rotate players through so a battle could wage on for hours, or it may last for minutes.
Plus more.
If we have the control, we make the story.
PGI make the sand pit. We play in it and build our castles and smash them down.

Edited by 50 50, 16 June 2017 - 12:25 AM.

[Jugger Grimrod]

LordNothing, on 14 June 2017 - 01:23 AM, said:

if you cant pull a million a game fairly regularly its just not worth playing, less than 500k and you will have a hard time just paying for your consumables.

-chuckle- So... if I earn 450K, and spend 80K(...hell, let's say 120K for 3 consumables), somehow... I'm not making a profit? What math are you using? Someone help me out here, because according to basic math I am coming out ahead.

Now, if you are stating that if you, yourself, can't earn a million C-bills in a FP drop then you refuse to drop in it, that's your choice. I'm fine with that. Everyone makes their own choices.

As to FP... this is it people. This is as good as it will ever get. Period. Russ is "kookoo for cocopuffs" about Comp Mode and eSports being the future of this game. (Not a chance in hell, but it's going to be fun to watch the trainwreck.) Faction Play is crap as an eSports platform. All of the hoping, all of the discussion, all of our wasted posts, will not change the fact that FP is a finished product as far as PGI is concerned. Get used to it, 'cause it isn't going to change any time soon. The sooner you stop wasting time asking for what will never happen, the happier you'll be.

Remember, they don't read their own forums, only Twitter posts... so who's attention are we trying to get?

Edited by Jugger Grimrod, 17 June 2017 - 06:35 AM.

[Deathlike]

50 50, on 15 June 2017 - 07:32 PM, said:

That's because the system tries to use a match maker instead of letting us pick and chose our battles and retreat from them if we need to.

It's also because the mode now forces us into one bucket where we should instead take the step to allow smaller conflicts.

The high end game of capturing the planet and having that major objective is ok.
But there is no lead up.
No allowing for smaller groups to do the minor objectives that may setup the battle for the invasion..... or not.
What is wrong with just attacking the planet to steal some resources for example?
Why not allow us as players to have these smaller missions where just as a lance we drop onto a planet and start pinching some stuff? If that's as far as we want to take it and then ********** that should be fine.
If we want to hang around and cause a problem then the scenario might begin to escalate until suddenly, it is teh big war effort and we have the bigger teams going for the major objectives.
That's cool.
I might decide to make way at that point and let them take over the scenario but I know my little effort has contributed towards what they might now try to achieve.

MMOs like World of Warcraft have areas where you create your group and then it generates an instance for your group to perform that raid, ie. take on that major objective, and you might need 20 or 30 players or something.
But prior to that, you might have had a smaller group and run around doing the smaller quests, the minor objectives, that then lead up to or unlocked the ability to do that instance.

I'm suggesting we can do something similar but in a unique way for MWO.

I've gone over a few ideas and new features that would fit together to make it work and give it more depth in the features thread, but consider this concept:

We have a galactic map that we can pick a planet on. (Old map with all the faction territories)
Each planet has some territories. (Bit like we used to)
These territories have a specific map type (think desert, arctic, forest etc) so we know what we are going to drop into.
We select our drop deck accordingly and commit it to attack that planet.
This creates a bucket, I prefer scenario, that is open for other players to join if they want to.
Now the maps and single objectives as they are will not be suitable, so let's expand them a bit:
-Put three major objectives in defensible locations at the back of the map under the control of the defending faction. (Think the assault base, the domination radar and the siege cannon)
-Heavily fortify these objectives. Walls, gates, towers, turret and let's get some AI tanks, VTOLS and infantry around them as well so they are tough as nails. These are our 'bosses'. Nasty enough that if I get too close as a solo, I'm dead. These are the objectives that need the big pre-mades and a dozen mechs or more to take over even before defending players are taken into consideration.
-Then put the 5 minor objectives, the conquest points, around the middle section of the map and neutral.
-Fortify these objectives as well so that as a solo player I might burn through my whole drop deck trying to capture one of them, I'd be better off forming a lance and tackling it as a small team.
-Hide all of these objectives from me unless they are controlled by my side.

This gives me purpose as a solo player to scout out the locations, capture some listening beacons (think the towers in escort or from scouting) and gather intel for my side that I can use when I drop into the scenario.
Let me, scout the map, skirmish with some AI defenses and any defending players that join in.
Let me retreat from that scenario if I find I am suddenly outnumbered.
I might leave, form a group, come back again with a different drop deck and look at the minor objectives as my mission.
Maybe I'll start there with a small group.
I might leave and go and do the same thing somewhere else.
But let me play the game and achieve something that might draw in more players and escalate the scenario.
I may not be able to complete one of the major objectives, but I can see what is required to do so and either build up to that level or not.
Maybe I'm part of a large group and we can see that some other allied players have been scouting or raiding on a planet on a territory and it's just right for us to jump in enmasse and attack.
Or maybe as part of that large group we decide that those allied players on that planet over there are making a nice diversion for us to start our own thing and drop in a surprise attack somewhere else.

We can make the mode cater for both ends of the player and group spectrum without needing to split the population or use match makers or create alternative modes. I also feel there is a way to extend the scenarios so that we can have more than 12 players involved per side if we restructure the way we handle the waves and the queues. We might only be able to have 12 active mechs per side, but how would the big groups feel about being able to bring 24 or 36 of their unit members, or a mix of allies, to a single scenario if we can better utilize the waves and queues? Let's make it EPIC.

And the advantages of using an open system like this?
No wait times. Pick a planet and go.
We still get to mingle the different levels of players so there is still the opportunity to meet players and invite them to the group or unit.
We create activity all over the galaxy of our choosing be it small scale actions all the way up to significant conflicts for planetary control.
With more objectives and fortified locations, we can look at how to change our drop (spawn) locations and some player controlled options for the drops.
In a scenario that does not end until we leave it, we can explore and add features that only work in an extended scenario, such as repairs.
With an open system we also have the option to play only for as long as we would like or are able. We can rotate players through so a battle could wage on for hours, or it may last for minutes.
Plus more.
If we have the control, we make the story.
PGI make the sand pit. We play in it and build our castles and smash them down.

Well, it can have some stuff in between... but again, the requires PGI to spend time on it... time not spent in MW5 or whatever. Mind you, I don't give a crap about MW5... it's more of the things PGI is not really capable of doing.

It's possible to have different ramp up stages for different sized groups, and reward accordingly to participation (specifically those participating in bigger battles).

The thing is though is that you can a certain level of dilution of players... for instance there's a likely chance that if we put all solos together, it would just be good enough to get Scouting off the ground, but not any sort of 8v8 gamemode.. let alone a 12v12 gamemode. We've already seen Tukayyid 3 to be primarily ScoutWarrior when you can get more points with less effort/time (yet unfortunately occasionally outperforming Invasion/Siege rewards per amount of time/effort spent - grabbags in MWO make me rage on Invasion due to rewards for 1 Invasion are apparently equal to 1 Scouting match)... so it's one of those things that participation and rewards go hand in hand (not just gamemode design) in how population for CW/FP ramps up.

[Angm4r]

Some folks have noted that PGI makes their money from mech packs. I raised this issue at MechCon - that this is a declining revenue stream over time. If you don't bring in new players, develop new content, and as people have noted, you don't have a 20 minute wheel spinning when the attention span of the Internet age is < 10 seconds.

They've made some strides with new game modes, but still apparently refuse the basic math of user developed content.

Jugger is on point. FP is as good as it is going to get.

The other issue of "seal clubbing"; I like some of the notion people have brought up about giving newbs some missions and growth targets to hit before they enter FP. That will help but newbs will still be awful because...

Teamwork is OP.

You need to train with a team to learn how to operate with a team.

[LordNothing]

Jugger Grimrod, on 16 June 2017 - 11:50 AM, said:

-chuckle- So... if I earn 450K, and spend 80K(...hell, let's say 120K for 3 consumables), somehow... I'm not making a profit? What math are you using? Someone help me out here, because according to basic math I am coming out ahead.

Now, if you are stating that of if you, yourself, can't earn a million C-bills in a FP drop then you refuse to drop in it, that's your choice. I'm fine with that. Everyone makes their own choices.

As to FP... this is it people. This is as good as it will ever get. Period. Russ is "kookoo for cocopuffs" about Comp Mode and eSports being the future of this game. (Not a chance in hell, but it's going to be fun to watch the trainwreck.) Faction Play is crap as an eSports platform. All of the hoping, all of the discussion, all of our wasted posts, will not change the fact that FP is a finished product as far as PGI is concerned. Get used to it, 'cause it isn't going to change any time soon. The sooner you stop wasting time asking for what will never happen, the happier you'll be.

Remember, they don't read their own forums, only Twitter posts... so who's attention are we trying to get?

you have 4 mechs so multiply by 4. 4*120=480, which i rounded to half a mil. i think it pays off to take more than 2 consumables in these fp drops. taking fewer or just taking coolshots is going full pug. even if you pug it you should still try to function as a group to some degree. so buy some consumables and use them. by all means if you are coming out in the green, good, you are not wasted space.

i come out well into the green, but im tier 2, not quite the fat part of the bell curve. im not who you need to target, you need to get the t3s in there. they have to stay there and make enough to make it worth their while and enjoy the game. after all the long waits and the pug stomps certainly make it hard to get paid more than the same time spent in quick play. thats the pool you need to convince to come over to our side.

if you dont want it to grow, we can always keep it the same forever, thats a proven method to let it die out. i like fp as it is but i dont see it as sustainable. it needs the occasional patch and events to get people to check it out again. that gives it a little more life support. there are a lot of patches coming to fp in the near future, they just need to address real problems.

Edited by LordNothing, 16 June 2017 - 09:46 PM.

[Jugger Grimrod]

LordNothing, on 16 June 2017 - 09:22 PM, said:

you have 4 mechs so multiply by 4. 4*120=480, which i rounded to half a mil. i think it pays off to take more than 2 consumables in these fp drops. taking fewer or just taking coolshots is going full pug. even if you pug it you should still try to function as a group to some degree. so buy some consumables and use them. by all means if you are coming out in the green, good, you are not wasted space.

I see your point. Maybe I do use fewer consumables during FP? True there. Maybe I should use more? True as well. But, allow that my purpose in participating in FP may be different. While I understand your position, mine is of a different perspective. FP, to me, isn't about making C-bills. FP, to me, is about putting my unit's tag on a Planet and putting MC into our coffers. That means Wins - everything else is secondary, including my bank account. If I happen to come out ahead AFTER we win a few matches, that's cool, too. Currently, when I need C-bills, I'll grab my fav Hero and farm new players in QP!

[LordNothing]

Jugger Grimrod, on 17 June 2017 - 07:50 AM, said:

I see your point. Maybe I do use fewer consumables during FP? True there. Maybe I should use more? True as well. But, allow that my purpose in participating in FP may be different. While I understand your position, mine is of a different perspective. FP, to me, isn't about making C-bills. FP, to me, is about putting my unit's tag on a Planet and putting MC into our coffers. That means Wins - everything else is secondary, including my bank account. If I happen to come out ahead AFTER we win a few matches, that's cool, too. Currently, when I need C-bills, I'll grab my fav Hero and farm new players in QP!

i dont want to take away the unit experience from those who already enjoy it. i just dont want to put that over the entire mode itself. not everyone wants that experience. i enjoy the modes and i win enough to find it rewarding, but i do not enjoy the unit lifestyle. of course if you want to grow the mode the unit players arent the people you want to draw in, they are already here. you want to draw in would be pugs and convince them to stay. when they stay some might join units. problem is they come here and dont want to stay. they view it as hopeless and leave. not every pug is good enough to thrive here. growth requires new faces, happy faces that think fp is the best mode in the game.

[50 50]

Deathlike, on 16 June 2017 - 03:02 PM, said:

Well, it can have some stuff in between... but again, the requires PGI to spend time on it... time not spent in MW5 or whatever. Mind you, I don't give a crap about MW5... it's more of the things PGI is not really capable of doing.

It's possible to have different ramp up stages for different sized groups, and reward accordingly to participation (specifically those participating in bigger battles).

The thing is though is that you can a certain level of dilution of players... for instance there's a likely chance that if we put all solos together, it would just be good enough to get Scouting off the ground, but not any sort of 8v8 gamemode.. let alone a 12v12 gamemode. We've already seen Tukayyid 3 to be primarily ScoutWarrior when you can get more points with less effort/time (yet unfortunately occasionally outperforming Invasion/Siege rewards per amount of time/effort spent - grabbags in MWO make me rage on Invasion due to rewards for 1 Invasion are apparently equal to 1 Scouting match)... so it's one of those things that participation and rewards go hand in hand (not just gamemode design) in how population for CW/FP ramps up.

The extended mode itself should allow for greater reward without the need for events to lure in more players.
Don't get me wrong, events are great. It's nice to get all those bonus bits and pieces and PGI is massively generous in that sense.
But the just from playing the game itself we do get a variety of rewards in both c-bills and XP for just playing the game. Scouting doesn't pay off much because it is 4 v 4 and the matches can be quick and can be completed without firing a shot..... which admittedly is where the majority of the rewards come from. Quick play you can earn a decent amount when comparing the time it takes to get into a match and fight a single round 12 v 12. There is simply more time and more mechs. Faction Play takes that a level further, with an increase in time and a multiple of mechs so there is the potential to earn quite a lot from a single match.

So the thought would then be, if there was no time limit to the 'matches' and we had more to do on them, can rotate more than 12 players through per side, achieve objectives multiple times (because we should be able to capture/recapture any of them) and then have some additional options such as what I suggested in this thread about repairs, rearm or loot ... the earnings could be quite impressive.

However, I would suggest that one of the reasons to play in Faction Play is just the length of the mode and the different challenges. If I can join in a game and play along for as long as I like or am able, I am getting my enjoyment from it regardless of how much I might be earning at the end. Which brings me to my next point.

It is the wait times that will kill this game, not just the mode.
Friday night (16/06/2017) here in Australia my unit had a little group going, a lance of 4, and I reckon we got 5 matches in 2.5 hours between 8:30pm and 11pm AEST.
4 in group queue, 3 times against the same opponents and 1 scout match which we got into straight away but had to wait for about 6 minutes before we had opposition. We could not get into Invasion within what was considered a reasonable time when we tried.
This scared me a little as a bad sign and I hope it was just some bad luck or an oddity but it made me think.

Initially when you jump online and form a group, you don't notice the wait as much as your talking and catching up. Discussing builds, mechs or events etc. Second time around you might say "it's taking some time tonight" but keep going.
But as the night goes on, you really notice those wait times and progressively have less patience for them, you might bounce to different modes/queues but eventually quit because it is just waiting your time.

This would have to be the single biggest concern as if I can't get a game, why would I spend money on it?
For the first time on Friday night I had this thought. I have been looking at getting one of the pre-orders but suddenly thought, hang on, why am I going to shell out money for something I can't use because I cannot get a game?

That's why we need an open system.
It can work for Faction Play. It's not going to work for the competitive mode, which is bound to cause some disruptions in the queue, and it is not practical for quick play.
We need a mode that allows us to just get in and play the game, enjoy using our mechs and do something even if it's just a handful of players.
Having this ability still allows the big groups to get what they need out of the game, but it also allows everyone else to enjoy the mode up to the level they would like to.

We don't need 3 different modes doing the same thing.

LordNothing, on 17 June 2017 - 02:25 PM, said:

i dont want to take away the unit experience from those who already enjoy it. i just dont want to put that over the entire mode itself. not everyone wants that experience. i enjoy the modes and i win enough to find it rewarding, but i do not enjoy the unit lifestyle. of course if you want to grow the mode the unit players arent the people you want to draw in, they are already here. you want to draw in would be pugs and convince them to stay. when they stay some might join units. problem is they come here and dont want to stay. they view it as hopeless and leave. not every pug is good enough to thrive here. growth requires new faces, happy faces that think fp is the best mode in the game.

Completely agree with you there.