425 replies to this topic

[Cato Zilks]

It counts each "game" as multiple "matches." Multi-counting implies that there is some things get added in multiple spots such that the totals do not add up correctly. Importantly, that version of multi-counting decisively undermines the ability of us to use any of the data in any meaningful way.

Edited by Cato Zilks, 02 June 2017 - 01:00 PM.

[Mycroft000]

Grus, on 02 June 2017 - 10:05 AM, said:

I WOULD LOVE TO BATCHALL!! Seriously though that would be a blast, increased rewards for being lower tonnage than your target and less rewards for being over.. he'll if you go WAY over you lose money..

But you would have to bring TT figures back for clan mech's and I'd add in only stock loadouts for clan.

Force the clan drop to have to bring a %lower then the defenders to make any progress on capture threshold.

And if they are at an even further % throw in a small MC reward on a victory.

For IS if they want to bring a Stiner Scout lance then so be it. But total tonnage must be upfront for clans to see so they can bid correctly.

I've been saying for a long time, that Clan drops should reward coming in under tonnage on your drop deck. Make it a personal multiplier for each 5 tons under you are on your own drop deck, and add a lesser multiplier for every player who is under tonnage for the whole team.

Make the individual multiplier 1.05, 1.10, 1.15 etc for your own drop deck whether you win or lose,

For the team multiplier make it 1.1, 1.2 etc but make that contingent on winning.

I think that alone would be enough of a benefit to encourage lower drop deck tonnage that we wouldn't need all the extra restrictions. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see a lot of that enforced, but based on the nature of focused fire, the first Clan mech to enter the battle would get shot by more than one opponent which instantly eliminates the Clans' restrictions to fight 1v1.

[Scyther]

@Insanity09:
I am on board with Cato Zilks explanation of how they are counting matches. It's hard for PGI to provide data in a way that works for all definitions of 'matches played'. Having each player that drops into a match count as 'match played' is a workable way of getting data we can actually use. Otherwise, as Cato pointed out, we get data that we can't really make coherent use of.

The supposed population involved is given, 17,380 unique accounts (some will be alts). How active the community was I will address below. However at a rough estimate it works out to some 30,000 'full' Scouting matches played, and roughly 13,000 'full' Siege matches. (Assuming I interpreted the numbers correctly.)

@Cato Zilks:
Your numbers/statement was: "5,375 people were in the top 225 units. 17,380 total people participated. So 30.93% of the players came from a unit that made the top 225 units list.

Those same units totaled 239,659 matches of the 603,363 in total; 39.72%. So, yes these units were more active on the whole than their counterparts. It is also worth noting that the 'top 225' units are not all active FP units."

Let's flip that around: 12,005 'fairly casual FP' players (not in the top 25 units of any faction) participated, making up 69% of the players in Tukayyid 3.

The 'fairly casual FP' players totalled 363,704 matches played, for 60.3% of all matches played.

Matches Played Per Player (Average)
Top 225 Units : 44.6
Casual Players/Solo Pugs: 30.3 matches

Those numbers are pretty clear. During a decent FP event, the 'dedicated' FP players make up less than a third of the FP population, play less than 40% of the matches, and for every match a 'casual/solo' drops, they drop just under 1.5 matches.

Casual/solo puggers clearly make up the bulk of the FP activity during an event of interest to them.

I would expect quite different numbers during non-FP event play. Anyone have any sources we can refer to?
Otherwise we may have to slap this puppy down on the slab and start some (mad) science experimenting...

I will add some thoughts on what these numbers may suggest a bit later; for now, dinner calls.

Edited by MadBadger, 02 June 2017 - 03:58 PM.

[MischiefSC]

MadBadger, on 02 June 2017 - 03:18 AM, said:

@Cato Zilks:
You are correct, I pulled the wrong column to add up for Davion wins (grabbed matches instead). Also, thank you for the analysis on how matches are counted/totaled. It was late, I was getting tired, and it looks like I misread how that data was presented (largely because I grabbed the wrong column without realizing it, and that made it look to me like multi-counting was occurring). When I get done today I will look at that analysis more closely for double-checking, but on first read it looks good.

To clarify, I am not trying to 'spin' anything. I don't have an FP agenda, I don't have a Clan/IS agenda (other than to accurately estimate and find interesting ways to balance the sides), I don't have a group vs. pugs agenda, I don't even have an 'I feel the need to win more' agenda. My only concerns are:
-that MWO as a whole should present a variety of interesting and different game modes
-that FP should support enough population and enough player interest to make it worth developing
-that it should be interesting and rewarding to play both IS and Clans
-that these goals should support player spending at a rate sufficient to keep PGI developing MWO as a title

I try to get the clearest and most factually supported info I can from what we have available, and use that to draw conclusions from. Apparently you feel the same. If I make an error I am happy when someone corrects it, so long as they provide actual reasoning and figures that check out, and don't just counter with 'well my opinion is a fact so you're wrong!'.

As for "Leggin ho has already pointed out why this is dumb on your part.", he has not, in fact, done so. He stated an opinion, unbacked by facts. Which is basically the same you are doing here, although you have a little more numbers to back it. You still have no actual data on how many games pugs played vs units overall, only a somewhat-calculated rough guess. Your rough guess differs from mine, in that I don't feel the 'active FP units' played, in total, more matches or the majority of matches in the event. They may have, proportionally, played a certain amount more per player than the average solo casual. For the purposes of the conversation, it's a distinction without a difference.

@MischiefSC:
My 'solution' is not about killing FP, nor does how much some players you know spend on MWO have anything to do with the conversation really. Unless you think PGI somehow knows they spent that money because of FP.

You said: "The solution is not 'aim for the lowest standard and lowest common denominator'. The solution is 'what's the most results we actually want (more units/team oriented players) we can get with the least effort/cost'."

As PFC Carsten said, that approach demonstrably leads to a dead FP. People need to stop asking 'how can PGI force players to play this mode the way we in theory want the mode to be played?' and start working with 'what will attract an actually viable population to play FP, enjoy it, and keep on playing it?'. Putting the cart before the horse doesn't get you very far in reaching your goals.

Anything I suggest is a change that I think will make the mode more viable, backed up with actual observable gamer behaviour. It's intended to open up realistic ideas. "Let's continue down the road that killed FP, only more so" isn't a realistic or viable way to rescue FP.

Except, again, the viable population for FW is units and team players. Full stop. That's the point of a FW environment. We already have a casual solo environment. Two of them in fact; one for solo, one for playing solo with a couple of friends.

A solution that involves making FW a solo casual pug environment is tossing out FW for new maps/modes in QP.

So, again, the question is, how do you attract and make the game fun for teams and unit players. Like it was originally.

[Crockdaddy]

I know this is heresy ... but maybe we don't allow groups bigger than say 6 in FP matches. If pugging is as big as it supposedly is then it shouldn't be a big deal to the all important 99% of the voting (paying) population right? I'd be fine with it but then again my unit has not fielded multi-12 man groups in a very long time so I do have some self interest here.

[Johnathan Tanner]

Crockdaddy, on 02 June 2017 - 08:02 PM, said:

I know this is heresy ... but maybe we don't allow groups bigger than say 6 in FP matches. If pugging is as big as it supposedly is then it shouldn't be a big deal to the all important 99% of the voting (paying) population right? I'd be fine with it but then again my unit has not fielded multi-12 man groups in a very long time so I do have some self interest here.

[Crockdaddy]

Johnathan Tanner, on 02 June 2017 - 11:53 PM, said:

Its a dumb idea but I like the fun of a chunk of guys working together with a bigger group of solos. I often enjoy drop calling when not farming for damage and ePeen.

[Scyther]

@MischiefSC:
You really seem stuck on this idea of "Let's keep doing what destroyed FP, only do it harder". You aren't even replying with ideas or numbers, just opinions and rejections.

So let's play it your way for a bit. You want FP to be 'only units and team players. Full stop'. That means no casual pugs allowed, for one thing. Oh but wait, 'we can't split queues because bad wait times, no matches'.

Guess what? No casuals/pugs is the same as splitting the queues, except it cuts off your trickle of new players entering the mode and learning it. So basically you are saying "Keep the pugs/casuals in so we can farm them for FP wins, but don't change anything that might actually improve FP population."

Well let's keep playing it your way. You haven't even responded to my original suggestion, except to somehow determine that changing anything is equivalent to turning FP into QP. Let's consider the actual effect of putting an FP MM in place, that puts tier 1-2's in one queue, tier 4-5's in the other, and uses tier 3's to fill either queue. (Groups get matched by their highest tier, with some modifications for tier 4-5 groups that have a few 3's in them not getting thrown into the 1-2 pool)

The tier 1-2 queue, with 3's for filler, is the 'Unit and Team Play endgame' that FPers say they want. Anyone in tier 1-2 may not be good, may be perma-bad, but they've at least had time to skill up some mechs, experiment with builds, earn some C-Bills for consumables, and meet some people from units that they might join. They might not be good team players but they certainly aren't newbies. Anyone in tier 3 who fills a match has at least a basic understanding of game mechanics, some skilled mechs, and should be able to follow basic instructions if anyone is calling.

The tier 4-5 queue is anyone who is interested in FP, is still learning, may even be using Trial mechs to fill his drop deck. He could be a terrinoob, he could be a decent player just starting out. He certainly isn't going to improve by getting farmed by group drops, and yelled at by teammates because he 'just shouldn't be in FP'.

He will likely be teamed with some tier 3's who can at least provide basic direction (because they are learning it from the tier 1-2's they occasionally get dropped with). He can poke around, learn the maps/objectives, learn some basic strategies, learn how to follow a drop caller, all while he is working his way up to tier 3 and starts getting matched with better players, more units, and he has better mechs to work with.

(I recall my own first drops in CW, I didn't know what generators were, where they were, I didn't know the maps, people were saying 'Go for alpha now now now!' Where the hell is alpha?' People should be learning this stuff in starter mode, not when they are being dropped against EVIL)

Now he knows the basics, didn't get pugstomped 3 out of 4 matches so he's still playing FP, and he's probably ready to join a unit and 'contribute to the endgame team/unit play that FW is supposed to be'. Even if he stays solo he has at least learned enough to follow a drop caller and not get lost on the maps.

This gives FP a way to attract and train new players into better players who are more likely to join units and contribute to team play. It also gives units a place and an opportunity to notice, evaluate, and invite new players into their unit. Same for solos looking to learn about what unit to join.

Now what was your question again? "So, again, the question is, how do you attract and make the game fun for teams and unit players. Like it was originally." Well there's your answer.

Oh, and btw, it was never that fun originally. It was okay, at best. Unless you were a solo pug. In which case it kinda sucked from day 1. I guess it may have been 'fun' if you were one of the people in a unit stomping pugs until you killed off the FP population. If it was that much fun, where did all the players who were having fun go?

Note: making FP more welcoming and progressive for casuals/solos isn't the same thing as "A solution that involves making FW a solo casual pug environment is tossing out FW for new maps/modes in QP."

Edited by MadBadger, 03 June 2017 - 05:39 AM.

[PFC Carsten]

MischiefSC, on 02 June 2017 - 05:20 PM, said:

Except, again, the viable population for FW is units and team players. Full stop. That's the point of a FW environment. We already have a casual solo environment. Two of them in fact; one for solo, one for playing solo with a couple of friends.

A solution that involves making FW a solo casual pug environment is tossing out FW for new maps/modes in QP.

So, again, the question is, how do you attract and make the game fun for teams and unit players. Like it was originally.

Not sure if trolling...

OTOH you say:
„Except, again, the viable population for FW is units and team players. Full stop. That's the point of a FW environment.“

OTOH you say:
„A solution that involves making FW a solo casual pug environment is tossing out FW for new maps/modes in QP.“

So, if the queues are split, it is exactly what you imply in your first statement. Schizzo much? I mean really, what will you lose from a solo/PUG queue for the match types that are in faction play? No one does give a shiat about the star map that gets reset at will anyway.

Just integrate CW-style gameplay into a solo queue and have the unit players fight over the star map all by themselves all day long. Everyone's happy, even the first persona of you.

[MischiefSC]

MadBadger, on 03 June 2017 - 05:32 AM, said:

@MischiefSC:
You really seem stuck on this idea of "Let's keep doing what destroyed FP, only do it harder". You aren't even replying with ideas or numbers, just opinions and rejections.

So let's play it your way for a bit. You want FP to be 'only units and team players. Full stop'. That means no casual pugs allowed, for one thing. Oh but wait, 'we can't split queues because bad wait times, no matches'.

Guess what? No casuals/pugs is the same as splitting the queues, except it cuts off your trickle of new players entering the mode and learning it. So basically you are saying "Keep the pugs/casuals in so we can farm them for FP wins, but don't change anything that might actually improve FP population."

Well let's keep playing it your way. You haven't even responded to my original suggestion, except to somehow determine that changing anything is equivalent to turning FP into QP. Let's consider the actual effect of putting an FP MM in place, that puts tier 1-2's in one queue, tier 4-5's in the other, and uses tier 3's to fill either queue. (Groups get matched by their highest tier, with some modifications for tier 4-5 groups that have a few 3's in them not getting thrown into the 1-2 pool)

The tier 1-2 queue, with 3's for filler, is the 'Unit and Team Play endgame' that FPers say they want. Anyone in tier 1-2 may not be good, may be perma-bad, but they've at least had time to skill up some mechs, experiment with builds, earn some C-Bills for consumables, and meet some people from units that they might join. They might not be good team players but they certainly aren't newbies. Anyone in tier 3 who fills a match has at least a basic understanding of game mechanics, some skilled mechs, and should be able to follow basic instructions if anyone is calling.

The tier 4-5 queue is anyone who is interested in FP, is still learning, may even be using Trial mechs to fill his drop deck. He could be a terrinoob, he could be a decent player just starting out. He certainly isn't going to improve by getting farmed by group drops, and yelled at by teammates because he 'just shouldn't be in FP'.

He will likely be teamed with some tier 3's who can at least provide basic direction (because they are learning it from the tier 1-2's they occasionally get dropped with). He can poke around, learn the maps/objectives, learn some basic strategies, learn how to follow a drop caller, all while he is working his way up to tier 3 and starts getting matched with better players, more units, and he has better mechs to work with.

(I recall my own first drops in CW, I didn't know what generators were, where they were, I didn't know the maps, people were saying 'Go for alpha now now now!' Where the hell is alpha?' People should be learning this stuff in starter mode, not when they are being dropped against EVIL)

Now he knows the basics, didn't get pugstomped 3 out of 4 matches so he's still playing FP, and he's probably ready to join a unit and 'contribute to the endgame team/unit play that FW is supposed to be'. Even if he stays solo he has at least learned enough to follow a drop caller and not get lost on the maps.

This gives FP a way to attract and train new players into better players who are more likely to join units and contribute to team play. It also gives units a place and an opportunity to notice, evaluate, and invite new players into their unit. Same for solos looking to learn about what unit to join.

Now what was your question again? "So, again, the question is, how do you attract and make the game fun for teams and unit players. Like it was originally." Well there's your answer.

Oh, and btw, it was never that fun originally. It was okay, at best. Unless you were a solo pug. In which case it kinda sucked from day 1. I guess it may have been 'fun' if you were one of the people in a unit stomping pugs until you killed off the FP population. If it was that much fun, where did all the players who were having fun go?

Note: making FP more welcoming and progressive for casuals/solos isn't the same thing as "A solution that involves making FW a solo casual pug environment is tossing out FW for new maps/modes in QP."

I'm all for split queues. Absolutely. Always have been. Wanted the FW content put into rotation in QP.

I played FW as a solo pug for its first year plus. About 18 months really. Then I did the mech bay tour and pugged every faction, playing with countless teams and meeting teams while pugging and getting on their TS. "Mischiefsc - Totally Not A Spy" is registered on most the TS you'll find around here. I have easily 1500 or 2k pug matches in FW. Probably as many as I have matches dropped in TS with a team. I'm absolutely familiar with that experience.

I brought good mechs, worked hard on my pug wrangling and started every single match with "who wants to call this?"

I had a better than 1.0 w/l as a pug.

In no way, shape or form did good teams rolling bad teams kill FW. If that were true then group queue would be closed. FW died because there's no depth or purpose to it that justifies the deeper time and effort involved for most groups. Dropdecks, more involves strategies, plus the maps and choke points. Wasnt worth it to most because it was just a messier version of group queue.

Pure Skittles teams are uncommon. Usually it's a 5-8man + pugs vs a 1-5man or two and pugs. 12mans are very rare outside of events. Good teams head less good teams. That's always been the game. FW however is, in theory, the teamwork focused environment. It was supposed to have the logistics, depth and purpose to make that worthwhile. It doesn't so for most it isn't. Gutting it to be just another QP branch with no team environment is just embracing failure.

[Scyther]

@MischiefSC:
Well, those are some good points, and in some cases match my own CW/FP experiences (albeit with quite a few less drops). Yes, the fact that CW lacked any true depth is a big factor.

However, "In no way, shape or form did good teams rolling bad teams kill FW." is sheer hyperbole. There's a reason you don't drop tier 5's in with tier 1's. There's a reason every actually well played mode in most shooters has a matchmaker. I happen to think that even "a 5-8man + pugs vs a 1-5man or two and pugs" is an unbalanced match. Particularly when it's actually a 5 or 6 man, plus a 2 man, plus a few pugs, vs. a 3-man, a 2-man, and 7 pugs. That's all it takes for an unbalanced match, and that doesn't even take into account whether the people on one side are tier 1's and the people on the other tier 3's.

Yes, CW needs more development and more depth to be attractive as an end-game mode. And PGI hasn't committed the resources to do that, and won't commit them so long as they feel 'only 10% of the player base FPs'. (Note: I don't have a link for that comment, I've only seen it enough that I assume it was an actual statement. It could be apocryphal.)

Also, you still keep throwing out this notion that simply separating newer players and veteran players in FP is somehow "Gutting it to be just another QP branch with no team environment". Would you care to explain how 2 queues, newbies vs vets, is gutting it into QP? Or eliminating teams? Since both queues will still have teams. Or is that just your knee-jerk reaction to any proposed change?

So what method do you propose to introduce new players to FP, to train them up progressively, to give them an opportunity to meet and join units, and to build the population up to the point where it might be worth PGI's time to develop it further?

Edited by MadBadger, 03 June 2017 - 07:57 AM.

[PFC Carsten]

MischiefSC, on 03 June 2017 - 07:03 AM, said:

I'm all for split queues. Absolutely. Always have been. Wanted the FW content put into rotation in QP.

By all means...

[Pat Kell]

You're arguments amongst yourselves is kinda silly guys. I just don't think PGI is going to spend the time and effort into splitting the ques of a game mode that was designed to be a team environment. I honestly like the idea of having ques split based on tiers (although we all know some people will just constantly make ALT accounts so they can farm the lower tiers, we see that right now in the QP split ques), I just don't think PGI has any desire to do it. They advertised this mode as hard mode/end game content and allowing people to participate in it as such in whatever fashion they chose was their original intent.

Also, if you do split the ques, what would you do with the map and the taking of planets? Would you make 2 independent maps that each que would fight over or would you make both tiers count towards the same map? I know most of you don't give a hoot about the planets or the small amounts of MC given for taking them but some units have made a fair amount of MC by taking planets and use it to help their unit out with various things. For example, our unit gives enough MC to each player to purchase the K.C.O.M. letters so they can display it on their mechs if they want. I am sure others have done similar things. I am not sure PGI would be willing to put in a second map and essentially double the amount of MC they are handing out but maybe... I am also not sure it's a good idea to reward the tier 4 and 5 players with anything because it would just encourage the making of ALT accounts to farm pugs and prizes, plus it just stinks of participation trophies...yuck.

I hate to say it but I don't think there is a really good or easy answer to this issue. I agree that the current state is rough on a lot of new players. I agree that putting in more content would help bring in more players. I see a lot of fairly good ideas out there but you all seem to be acting like your own personal idea is easy, simple and would work. I have yet to see one that would. Every idea I have seen so far could be horribly abused, would take extensive coding time or just flat out not work period. What this has led to is a lot of finger pointing that is quite frankly unfair. Units did not cause CW to lose participation. People quitting CW caused lack of participation. That is a simple fact. I am sure that there are numerous reasons why each individual person decided to move on from CW but trying to pin it on one single thing is a little nearsighted and puts you at risk of not being able to identify and suggest a true solution that could address multiple reasons for people quitting rather than just the one that seems to be affecting you.

That being said, I have no idea how to fix CW. I just know that the reasons I see here tend to be focused on one issue or another and aren't addressing the bigger picture. Most of you are taking your own personal experience, figuring out what would work for you to get you to participate more and then presenting that idea as the way to fix CW. I just disagree wholeheartedly with that approach. There are too many things wrong with CW right now for one quick fix solution and honestly a more complex solution may be too much for PGI to pull off either due to a lack of resources or simply not having the desire to do it. So my suggestion is to work within the system as it is now. Stop spending so much time on these forums putting forth ideas that are unlikely to either work or be implemented and see if there is a way you can make the current game mode fun for you. Set realistic goals, join a team, do whatever. Find something that you can motivate yourself with and go give it a shot. What's the worse that could happen? You could Fail? Well...isn't that already happening?....

Edited by Pat Kell, 03 June 2017 - 08:21 AM.

[MischiefSC]

MadBadger, on 03 June 2017 - 07:54 AM, said:

@MischiefSC:
Well, those are some good points, and in some cases match my own CW/FP experiences (albeit with quite a few less drops). Yes, the fact that CW lacked any true depth is a big factor.

However, "In no way, shape or form did good teams rolling bad teams kill FW." is sheer hyperbole. There's a reason you don't drop tier 5's in with tier 1's. There's a reason every actually well played mode in most shooters has a matchmaker. I happen to think that even "a 5-8man + pugs vs a 1-5man or two and pugs" is an unbalanced match. Particularly when it's actually a 5 or 6 man, plus a 2 man, plus a few pugs, vs. a 3-man, a 2-man, and 7 pugs. That's all it takes for an unbalanced match, and that doesn't even take into account whether the people on one side are tier 1's and the people on the other tier 3's.

Yes, CW needs more development and more depth to be attractive as an end-game mode. And PGI hasn't committed the resources to do that, and won't commit them so long as they feel 'only 10% of the player base FPs'. (Note: I don't have a link for that comment, I've only seen it enough that I assume it was an actual statement. It could be apocryphal.)

Also, you still keep throwing out this notion that simply separating newer players and veteran players in FP is somehow "Gutting it to be just another QP branch with no team environment". Would you care to explain how 2 queues, newbies vs vets, is gutting it into QP? Or eliminating teams? Since both queues will still have teams. Or is that just your knee-jerk reaction to any proposed change?

So what method do you propose to introduce new players to FP, to train them up progressively, to give them an opportunity to meet and join units, and to build the population up to the point where it might be worth PGI's time to develop it further?

So adding depth is going to involve giving winning purpose and value. You don't get to take a works that means something from another faction while getting to avoid the best opponents they have to field.

I'd rather new players get introduced to FW maps/modes in QP and that FW have better rewards. I'd love rewards to scale based on who you're playing - so an average team playing a 228 12man would have a much higher reward than them playing 12 skittles. Win or lose. I'd be willing to try limiting dropping in FW to being grouped up in at least a 2man.

We need a lobby system and I need to be able to click on someone's name in the scoreboard in a match and link them to my TS and invite them to group and lobby.

Also every FPS out there has scrubs playing vets - while everyone seeds out. Then the scrubs don't get to compete for top tier rewards and championships. So I'm in favor of skill based matchmaking so long as below a certain cutoff you don't get certain rewards. For example the L.P. rewards are tied to your "tier" in FW. You want LP 20 rewards you need to perform at LP 20 skill level, which is say a w/l over 5 and KDR over 3 and X planetary wins. You dont get to take worlds unless you're over X level of skill.

Then it's fine. However having people competing for the same rewards but at widely varying levels of skill isn't good. This would help create your progression. Good teams WANT to help people get better. Love to. Happy to. Most don't want to.

The impetus needs to be on the player to put in the effort to get better. Not on everyone else to force them to or carry them. If they're not putting in the effort why would they get the same rewards?

[MischiefSC]

@Pat -

I don't have an easy answer to fix FW either. I'm arguing against the idea that we need to make it another pug mode. Also the idea that pugs lose because big mean groups farm them, they lose because the other team put more effort in. Same reason everyone else does. Success should scale with effort put into succeeding, and largely it does. The winners are not obligated to carry the losers or scale back to let the losers win more anyway.

[Pat Kell]

MischiefSC, on 03 June 2017 - 08:27 AM, said:

@Pat -

I don't have an easy answer to fix FW either. I'm arguing against the idea that we need to make it another pug mode. Also the idea that pugs lose because big mean groups farm them, they lose because the other team put more effort in. Same reason everyone else does. Success should scale with effort put into succeeding, and largely it does. The winners are not obligated to carry the losers or scale back to let the losers win more anyway.

I agree Mischief, that post wasn't really aimed at you, although I do think this thread is a bit of a waste of time. Kinda wish I had my typing time back now . I agree, effort equals results. That is the main issue here and I just wish people would put more effort into the battlefield instead of coming here to tell their woe's to the world.

[MischiefSC]

Pat Kell, on 03 June 2017 - 08:40 AM, said:

I agree Mischief, that post wasn't really aimed at you, although I do think this thread is a bit of a waste of time. Kinda wish I had my typing time back now . I agree, effort equals results. That is the main issue here and I just wish people would put more effort into the battlefield instead of coming here to tell their woe's to the world.

I'm at work over 12 hours today. This is as close to the battlefield as I get.

[Scyther]

I type when I'm waiting for other things to happen.

@Pat Kell:
Agreed that the problem with FP has multiple roots, and that no one solution, particularly no one easy solution, will resolve them. Unfortunately that leaves us with 3 approaches:

1.) PGI implements an effective re-write/modification of FP which addresses most issues, and then also effectively promotes the mode long enough to show people that it now works. I rate this as a 'low probability event'.

2.) We get behind small, workable changes, that PGI can easily implement, that address at least one aspect of the problem. It doesn't have to be a 'solution', it only has to make things 'slightly better'. Then we work towards the next step.

3.) We just basically say to heck with it, it can't be fixed, let PGI make a few more top-level changes from the point of view of non-players and then leave the mode on minimal life support for the few who still play it.

I obviously go for option 2, using systems PGI already has, that players are familiar with, that require minimal coding, and that basically can't hurt the mode any. If PGI did a PSR tier split and then ran a week-long mini-event every 3rd week for 4 months, that would be 6 events. It would certainly introduce a lot of people to a different FP experience. And while it could potentially be abused, the current system is abused every day. I doubt it would be worse.

@MischiefSC:
I can see ways that having FW maps/techniques introduced in QP could at least familiarize players with FP mechanics. So that's something to consider. Tiering up rewards by performance is also good as it moves the progression along from solo play to 'I need to team if I want the better rewards'. You still have not said how tier-splitting the queues turns FP into QP, although you continually repeat that same thing.

The only possible 'bad effect' of splitting the queues by tiers is having slower match times because casual pugs aren't there to fill matches, and not having solo pugs for unit teams to rack up easy wins against. You seem to think the casual pugs shouldn't be in FP at all, so splitting their queue off won't be worse than that. What bad effect are you actually predicting from a queue split, given that we say tier 4-5 queue teams can't 'win the big rewards'? Like what, anyway? A dribble of MC? A couple mech bays? By the time they can win anything they will be tier 3 or higher and dropping with the unit/team 'end game' you desire.

You can't win matches and sit at tier 4 or 5 for long, and even the tier 3 intermediate stage is a couple months at best.

Back to Pat Kell: The reason for discussing things among ourselves is that, rare though it may be, PGI does respond to some player feedback/requests. If every FPer backs a different solution that is frankly unworkable due to PGI not committing the resources, they can ignore it all. If even a small minority gets behind a minimal effort (on PGI's part) partial solution, there is at least a small chance it might get tested.

[MischiefSC]

MadBadger, on 03 June 2017 - 10:37 AM, said:

I type when I'm waiting for other things to happen.

@Pat Kell:
Agreed that the problem with FP has multiple roots, and that no one solution, particularly no one easy solution, will resolve them. Unfortunately that leaves us with 3 approaches:

1.) PGI implements an effective re-write/modification of FP which addresses most issues, and then also effectively promotes the mode long enough to show people that it now works. I rate this as a 'low probability event'.

2.) We get behind small, workable changes, that PGI can easily implement, that address at least one aspect of the problem. It doesn't have to be a 'solution', it only has to make things 'slightly better'. Then we work towards the next step.

3.) We just basically say to heck with it, it can't be fixed, let PGI make a few more top-level changes from the point of view of non-players and then leave the mode on minimal life support for the few who still play it.

I obviously go for option 2, using systems PGI already has, that players are familiar with, that require minimal coding, and that basically can't hurt the mode any. If PGI did a PSR tier split and then ran a week-long mini-event every 3rd week for 4 months, that would be 6 events. It would certainly introduce a lot of people to a different FP experience. And while it could potentially be abused, the current system is abused every day. I doubt it would be worse.

@MischiefSC:
I can see ways that having FW maps/techniques introduced in QP could at least familiarize players with FP mechanics. So that's something to consider. Tiering up rewards by performance is also good as it moves the progression along from solo play to 'I need to team if I want the better rewards'. You still have not said how tier-splitting the queues turns FP into QP, although you continually repeat that same thing.

The only possible 'bad effect' of splitting the queues by tiers is having slower match times because casual pugs aren't there to fill matches, and not having solo pugs for unit teams to rack up easy wins against. You seem to think the casual pugs shouldn't be in FP at all, so splitting their queue off won't be worse than that. What bad effect are you actually predicting from a queue split, given that we say tier 4-5 queue teams can't 'win the big rewards'? Like what, anyway? A dribble of MC? A couple mech bays? By the time they can win anything they will be tier 3 or higher and dropping with the unit/team 'end game' you desire.

You can't win matches and sit at tier 4 or 5 for long, and even the tier 3 intermediate stage is a couple months at best.

Back to Pat Kell: The reason for discussing things among ourselves is that, rare though it may be, PGI does respond to some player feedback/requests. If every FPer backs a different solution that is frankly unworkable due to PGI not committing the resources, they can ignore it all. If even a small minority gets behind a minimal effort (on PGI's part) partial solution, there is at least a small chance it might get tested.

I have said repeatedly I have no issue with splitting solo out of FW. What I'm against is limits on groups and a dedicated MM in FW without other significant changes, such as up-scaling rewards. Like taking worlds gets unit members a discount on mechs produced by that faction or something comparably great. Taking a world should be a big deal and have real worth. Taking specific worlds should be worth fighting for.

There's a big difference between focusing FW on the casual pug play and splitting the maps/modes out for casual pug play. Against the former, support the latter.

[Willard Phule]

Here's a thought....stupid as it sounds.....

Since PGI is totally incapable of doing anything to balance matches as far as groups and pugs are concerned, how about you just disband groups altogether and make FW nothing but solo pugs. If groups want to drop together, make them try to sync drop.

Yep, I know it sounds stupid, but if every match is a potato match....there won't be any group harvesting going on anymore. May be stupid, but it's definitive.