207 replies to this topic

[Kael Posavatz]

IDK--Go back and implement what they talked about in 2011?

Working with what they have now?

1)Rewards--loyalist reward tiers were implemented before there was faction-swag (1 hanging/standing/mounted cockpit item was put in shortly before or after). There is little reasons why nearly three years later things that have beans to do with faction warfare are being handed out as 'loyalist' rewards. Also, many high-end rewards are...less than good. GXP? Really? I suppose it makes more sense now with new skill trees, but a lot of people I know still have yet to use up the 'historical skill points' they got for modules.

2) Rewards II--progressive reward tier. A lot of loyalists players hit max reward tier and stop playing because there is nothing to work towards. Mercs...once they max their tiers I suppose they will go faction-hopping again, and which point we're back at 'we need to balance faction populations'. Joy.

3) More 'siege' maps and alterative FW game-modes? I mean, if I want to play QP map/modes I will play QP. Mixing and mingling the two was a way of putting additional map/modes into FW after basically ignoring it since mid 2015 (when vetric forge went in). I agree that more than one mode on the same six maps was needed. But aside from Conquest (which actually plays like how I thought Conquest should have played, aside from that part where you get another mech), all the QP map/modes feel like QP with respawns.

4) Campaigns/events/something going on-- The way PGI treats it, FW is 'here, have fun', with no context. People have asked about how Civil War (which predominantly focused on two IS factions) will play out, and whether there will be Inner Sphere-aligned Clans (Wolves in Exile, Nova Cats), at the last town hall and Russ pretty much brushed it off. He mentioned 'Bulldog/Serpent'. Aside from three battles of Tukayyid there was very little besides a shaded map to make me feel like we were taking part in the Clan Invasion. Since Civil War happens after Serpent, I'm not sure what his thinking is or how any of this will play out, and I hold very little hope for having PGI-provided context let alone an immersive experience. Previous Townhalls have mentioned faction v faction events, but I haven't seen any of these since... I think it was fall of 2015 when PGI tried running 24-hr faction v faction events and then gave it up before going through all the factions?


5--Really, go back to what was described in 2011, or pitched in 2012/13. At of that would be, at least in my opinion, a really neat thing.

Edited by Kael Posavatz, 08 July 2017 - 02:11 PM.

[Kael Posavatz]

Here is Bryan in 2013, pitching Community Warfare.

[naterist]

they might want to start with straight up rethinking how they implement mercs in fw. i think freelancers should be called mercenaries, and units should be forced to go loyalist. no mercenary units anymore. everytime kcom (im only singling kcom out for name brand, and im pretty sure i watched this happen on a discord channel a month or so ago)

anyways everytime kcom switches sides in the conflict, word gets out. other mercenary units also switch to inner sphere at the same time. now, whether theyre switching to avoid kcom like i suspect, or because it genuinely is "theyre scheduled time to change sides" doesnt matter, what happens is that 2/3rds of the active playerbase are dogpiled in a side. that side is probably mad winning, but their ghost dropping because the people who used to be their opponents are on their side now.

so instead of all that bs, i say no more mercenary units. fix loyalist rewards, so mercs dont feel shafted, then make units that want to play fw take a permanent loyalist contract, because lettiing people switch sides is killing things off. its like watching the flash play tennis with himself playing both sides. its hilariously fockin stupid.

[FallingAce]

naterist, on 08 July 2017 - 02:22 PM, said:

anyways everytime kcom switches sides in the conflict, word gets out. other mercenary units also switch to inner sphere at the same time. now, whether theyre switching to avoid kcom like i suspect, or because it genuinely is "theyre scheduled time to change sides" doesnt matter, what happens is that 2/3rds of the active playerbase are dogpiled in a side. that side is probably mad winning, but their ghost dropping because the people who used to be their opponents are on their side now.

some things just don't change

FallingAce, on 12 September 2016 - 12:22 AM, said:

Rather stack 8 deep against Marik than take a 1 in 8 chance of fighting Kcom and the Davions.

Faction warfare has a weird meta going revolving around Kcom.

[Jman5]

1. Add a Mercy Rule. After 10 minutes, if one team is up by 12 kills the losing team gets an option in the drop screen to vote-surrender. If enough people vote yes, the game ends. When a team is doing nothing but being lined up for slaughter in the drop zone, the game needs to end sooner. drawn out slaughters kill all desire to re-queue.

You can add some secondary prize for the losing team like have the survivors try to escape to an extraction point for bonus points ala scouting. Might take some of the sting of getting wrecked out of it.

2. Create more incentive for regular folk to play. This is sort of vague, but we need a much bigger FP population. Right now you have a couple of big groups scaring most regular players off by demolishing them. If we can increase the population, we can make it less frequent to run into those big premades.

3. Add closer respawns for both teams. I believe the game would be much more action packed and fun if we didn't waste so much time walking 50 miles from our respawn just to get to the fight. Closer respawns that players could choose to to use would add tremendous value to FP for little effort. It would also make Domination less stupid.

Edited by Jman5, 09 July 2017 - 11:59 AM.

[TWIAFU]

Khobai, on 07 July 2017 - 04:44 PM, said:

Get rid of groups vs pugs for starters

if you cant have seperate queues for groups and pugs then just disallow large groups in FW and make the max group size 3 with a limit of one group per team.

Better yet, anyone solo dropping are put into a group of 4. once that group of 4 is made, they then are ok to drop.

NO groups in cw under four.

If solo want to drop solo, go play in solo queue.

[Commander A9]

Perhaps you could make the Houses and Clans more distinct...

Like certain mechs produced by the specific House or Clan cost more or less depending on which Faction you're aligned with-perhaps only Loyalists should enjoy this bonus so as to make the Loyalists gain a benefit for BEING a loyalist?

Add Clan Wolf-in-Exile?

Host an event focusing on the Refusal War? The Fed-Com Civil War? Operation Bulldog? The Word of Blake Jihad?

[Starwulfe]

Jman5, on 09 July 2017 - 11:58 AM, said:

1. Add a Mercy Rule. After 10 minutes, if one team is up by 12 kills the losing team gets an option in the drop screen to vote-surrender. If enough people vote yes, the game ends. When a team is doing nothing but being lined up for slaughter in the drop zone, the game needs to end sooner. drawn out slaughters kill all desire to re-queue.

I could get behind something like this is the winning team still got rewards as if they killed 48+objectives.

[Leggin Ho]

Jman5, on 09 July 2017 - 11:58 AM, said:

3. Add closer respawns for both teams. I believe the game would be much more action packed and fun if we didn't waste so much time walking 50 miles from our respawn just to get to the fight. Closer respawns that players could choose to to use would add tremendous value to FP for little effort. It would also make Domination less stupid.

This would increase the chances of spawn camping though............

[Xoxim SC]

Kael Posavatz, on 08 July 2017 - 02:17 PM, said:

Here is Bryan in 2013, pitching Community Warfare.

Wouldn't mind seeing those bounties and such put into the game. Not shocked to only see part of what was promised implemented though, considering...

[Jman5]

Starwulfe, on 09 July 2017 - 04:40 PM, said:

I could get behind something like this is the winning team still got rewards as if they killed 48+objectives.

Ideally there would be some sort of flat bonus for every unkilled mech on the losing team.

Leggin Ho, on 09 July 2017 - 05:13 PM, said:

This would increase the chances of spawn camping though............

Combine closer spawns with being able to choose spawn locations, which I believe is coming next patch, then players will have more control over respawning in a safe spot.

Although in my experience, smaller maps where the opposing spawn points are closer together don't seem to have problems with camping worse than big maps. I think there is something more going on that determines if a map is better or worse for spawn camping.

[Lovas]

naterist, on 08 July 2017 - 02:22 PM, said:

anyways everytime kcom switches sides in the conflict, word gets out. other mercenary units also switch to inner sphere...

This is just a big load of dog kaka...this phrase is said over and over again by ignorant people who get stomped in CW and they don't know why. Merc groups do not follow eachother. We do not tag team a faction. There are only 2 sides....gonna have some on one side, some on the other. Folks brought this up during Tuk - when the stats showed that the big merc groups were about 50-50 split.

[justcallme A S H]

54MR has been IS for like 4-5 weeks now, we were here before anyone else this time around... Everyone must have followed us like we are the shepherds!

That said once Clan wait times skyrocket, it's no surprise that Merc units move sides next contract... Only issue is IS PUGs/Loyalists will show up no matter who is where... Clan PUGs/Loyalists wont show however if they face IS teams and no Mercs around to carry them.

Hence IS has won a number of phases in the last week simply from half a dozen Merc units moving (literally, that's it, 6 units).

Makes me laugh.

Edited by justcallme A S H, 09 July 2017 - 06:43 PM.

[Koniving]

Sedmeister, on 05 July 2017 - 11:35 AM, said:

So, give me your thoughts. What would be your top three recommendations to fix/improve Faction Warfare?

My top three?

1) Do not lock the "queue" to 4, 8, or 12 players. Instead, allow the match to start as soon as there are at least 4 players ready on each side and then allow the addition of more players as the match progresses through the use of Call to Arms. This makes battles start faster, which is one of the greatest boons to FW Furthermore, it is well known that once a match is close to starting, players try to flock in to catch that train because it beats the waiting, as such if the match is already in play, players can join it for immediate action. This also makes the battle feel a lot more dynamic and immersive, too.

2) Rather than immediately terminating a battle after it has concluded and returning to the main screen, players should continue to the next battle. More on this as part of point 3.

3) Rather than a set of 'digits' on a screen indicating the battle and some assigned map with otherwise random unlinked battles...

Once you make the queue, you'll fight on a map and a game mode representing neutral territory with the attacking team delivered via orbital drop while the defending team is more or less either 'already there' and patrolling or being brought over to intercept the intruders. Most likely, it would begin with just 1 chosen mech out of the drop deck per player. The mode most likely would be Skirmish. The twist is that the edges of the map would allow the mechs to 'exit' said battle.

If the defenders kill the attackers at this initial point, the next battle will be another map on Skirmish with orbital dropping mechs until the attackers run out of mechs or the attackers make some headway.
If the attackers kill the defenders, the game moves on with the attack. The same is true if all the surviving attackers make it to the other side of the map.

Survivors (of both sides) could be carried onto the next fight, while an additional mech from the drop deck could also be employed. It would be advantageous if the attackers killed the defending party since that would be fewer defending mechs later on, much the same with defenders killing attackers. As subsequent battles progress, 'attackers' will spawn as arriving on the scene or delivered via dropship, preferably close to their allies. Defenders may choose between 'arriving on the scene' in which they appear to travel 'onto' the map by foot, spawning at any suitable 'mechbay' that might be in the area (these would be on small to large bases near objectives if an enemy isn't too close to it) or being delivered via dropship.

Battles would then be able to go back and forth akin to a General Chaos territory map. Attackers progress forward in different ways depending on the mode of that particular map. If it is simply Skirmish they can win by reaching the other side and if it is an objective based mode they would win by completing the primary objective. Optional secondary objectives should exist that if completed will make the final objective easier to achieve, but these would come with their own risks and defenses.

Attackers regress backward when the defenders either kill the allotted attackers or force them to retreat.

Defenders win if they can kill all presently attacking forces. Attackers win if they make it all the way to defender's charge, which could be an orbital cannon, factory, base, etc. and complete that objective. The final objective should be a bit random but very well defended.

After four matches regardless of headway, all of the mechs a player has in his or her dropdeck is available, meaning they must either progress, regress or die. This makes battles quite a bit more dynamic. Between this, allowing players to join mid game, and allowing 'expended' (no mech left) players to be replaced with fresh players, it should make for a much more on going 'war' feeling.

Because of the nature of this, the word "presently" is important. If attackers are regressed back to orbital drops, no additional attackers can join until they make headway again. Defenders can be replaced infinitely.

Of course, there would be numerous simultaneous battles of similar natures, and after X number of successful attacks the roles switch up.

This idea naturally could use a lot of refinement. But the overall idea is that battles will start quickly and span over multiple maps, with damage retention, advance and retreat mechanics, dynamic reinforcements, etc.

A more refined, and less MWO-oriented concept might be found in due time referenced in the Hypothetical thread with links to whatever threat it will eventually become.

[50 50]

Jman5, on 09 July 2017 - 11:58 AM, said:

1. Add a Mercy Rule. After 10 minutes, if one team is up by 12 kills the losing team gets an option in the drop screen to vote-surrender. If enough people vote yes, the game ends. When a team is doing nothing but being lined up for slaughter in the drop zone, the game needs to end sooner. drawn out slaughters kill all desire to re-queue.

You can add some secondary prize for the losing team like have the survivors try to escape to an extraction point for bonus points ala scouting. Might take some of the sting of getting wrecked out of it.

Though I understand the concept I would be really hesitant about this sort of thing.
You get 7 players who want to quit and that ends the game for the other 17.
It's similar to players who run out of bounds or overheat to deny the opponent the kill.
Not sure about it.

Jman5, on 09 July 2017 - 11:58 AM, said:

2. Create more incentive for regular folk to play. This is sort of vague, but we need a much bigger FP population. Right now you have a couple of big groups scaring most regular players off by demolishing them. If we can increase the population, we can make it less frequent to run into those big premades.

Definitely need an incentive to bring more players in.
I believe this is more a problem with trying to use a match maker and getting thrown into random matches.
We need to have a more open system that allows smaller groups to jump into a scenario and gain some experience in the mode while at the same time allowing larger groups to also go head to head.
We need more visibility in the lobby, who is fighting where and what sort of map we can expect.
I don't understand this whole 'jump in blind' approach.
Ditch the match maker.
Provide visibility.
Let the players make their own choice.

Also need an incentive for development.

Jman5, on 09 July 2017 - 11:58 AM, said:

3. Add closer respawns for both teams. I believe the game would be much more action packed and fun if we didn't waste so much time walking 50 miles from our respawn just to get to the fight. Closer respawns that players could choose to to use would add tremendous value to FP for little effort. It would also make Domination less stupid.

Extra respawns.
Start at the drop zone.
Capture a forward point so we can select the next drop from that location if we want to.
It creates a tug of war in each map.

[justcallme A S H]

50 50, on 09 July 2017 - 07:33 PM, said:

Extra respawns.
Start at the drop zone.
Capture a forward point so we can select the next drop from that location if we want to.
It creates a tug of war in each map.

Forward cap point / drop zone = increase in DZ farming.

[50 50]

justcallme A S H, on 09 July 2017 - 07:47 PM, said:

Forward cap point / drop zone = increase in DZ farming.

Not if you can capture them.
It simply denies the drop at that location and sets them up as objectives to fight over.
It becomes a battle for territory within the single scenario.
DZ farming is only a problem when one team can't hold onto their drop zone and the other team can't do anything with it other than wait for the enemy to be dropped in.

We also get another possible layer of tactics if we can control our drops as it sets up the idea that a lance could get to a location, capture it, then get reinforced by a second lance that drops at that location.

[50 50]

Koniving, on 09 July 2017 - 07:28 PM, said:

1) Do not lock the "queue" to 4, 8, or 12 players. Instead, allow the match to start as soon as there are at least 4 players ready on each side and then allow the addition of more players as the match progresses through the use of Call to Arms. This makes battles start faster, which is one of the greatest boons to FW Furthermore, it is well known that once a match is close to starting, players try to flock in to catch that train because it beats the waiting, as such if the match is already in play, players can join it for immediate action. This also makes the battle feel a lot more dynamic and immersive, too.

I think that's the biggest thing that could be done right now.
What does it matter if it's only 4v4?
Let it build up naturally until we have 12 v 12.
Or not.

I will suggest that if we can let players join a scenario that is all ready underway, then what is stopping us from having players leave and new ones join so it becomes a continuous rolling battle until one side dominates?
Isn't that warfare?.

I am not convinced that continuing with 'stages' is the way forward.
If we have a scenario that simply fights on until one side wins, it could go on for hours. Get rid of the time limits.
But should a team achieve quick(ish) victory, then that's a point to that side and we move onto another battle.
There are things we could see added if the engagements were longer that would add depth.

[VitriolicViolet]

its all been downhill since 'The Dong' thats when i stopped playing essentially. ive tried a quite a few times since but its just been bad decisions stacked on delays stacked on more bad decisions since phase 3. i used to play that mode a whole lot, most of time was in CW. its unfortunate, but i dont think it can be improved short of a total overhaul.

[Vellron2005]

Sedmeister, on 05 July 2017 - 11:35 AM, said:

I've interacted with some really clever and thoughtful players over the years playing this game with some great ideas on how to improve the FW experience. So I thought I'd start a thread and gather some of that creativity in one place.

So, give me your thoughts. What would be your top three recommendations to fix/improve Faction Warfare?

Hold on to your breeches, here we go!

How to make FP awesome:

1) Port MWO to Unreal4 engine because it allows cooler stuff like procedural map generation.

2) Turn every planet on the IS map into a HUGE procedurally generated map, add some hand-crafted peices and resources like individual buildings or whole city blocks.

3) Make the modes have objectives suited to planetary conquest. Objectives such as capturing VIPs, taking out orbital cannons, capturing important sites like factories and starports and alike. Make it realistic and lore-immersive.

4) Add planetary value to every planet. Some planets are more valuable than others cose' they have mech factories, big starports, high-population cities and valuable mining operations. Those "priority worlds" allow access to certain mechs, weapons, and/or technologies. Factions that control these planets can buy these. So for instance, only a faction that controls all 8 worlds where saaay, the King Crab is produced can buy a King Crab at regular price. All the rest have considerably higher prices in the black market. Introduce the Black Market to support this mechanic. If from the 8 worlds, 2 belong to saay, Liao, and 6 to saaay, Steiner, those two factions can buy the King Crab, but at different prices.. The more factories a faction has, the lower the price. Unless you wanna buy in the expensive Black Market.

5) Disband all units. Instead, organize people by faction only. Take a lucky few players from the population and pay them full-time jobs to play specific PGI-sponsored lore-famous celebrities, that lead their factions. That means that the clans truly DO have a leader called Khan Ulrich Kerensky, and he drops for clan wolf and leads drops regularly. The IS really do have a Hanse Victor Davion and Kai Allard Liao who lead their own factions into drops. The people PGI pays to play these accounts are payed for full-time jobs, and they can change over time as needed. But the accounts lead their factions.

6) To support point 5), open faction-specific TS servers, on introduce the equivalent of that in-game.

7) Change the game modes so a single battle on a huge procedurally generated map can have long-standing objectives, and short-term objectives.. Long term objectives could be taking our an orbital cannon, short term objectives could be capturing a supply depot. Introduce rearm&repair infrastructure to support this, and allow players to jump in and out as time permits.

The point is that any disputed planet has an ongoing battle with short-term objectives that pop up randomly, and standing long-term objectives that transfer ownership of the planet when achieved. This ongoing battle could have players popping in-and-out, and when the planet is captured, it is moved to the next planet the faction members have voted for.

8) Write detailed lore and descriptions for every planet, and designate 2-3 terrain and temperature types for each that can appear when procedurally generated maps. That way, if the planet has a type of "hot, temperate and cold", you can get parts of the map that are vulcanic, forest-covered and ice covered, depending where on the random map you land. Some planets would be all volcanic, some all ice, and some all forest, farmland and cities. The point would be that they are always random, and players have to actually for real scout, and think tactically. No more senseless brawling in well-known locations.

9) Have faction-based events like raids, in-fighting between rival-but-unified factions, and create a newsreel and reports from the front lines so the players can see what's going on and be even more immersed into a truly galactic war.

10) Introduce A.I. bots in the form of tanks, aerospace and battlearmors, that randomly fight for either side, give the appearance of a much more wide-scale grand battle. Also, if possible, make the number of players that are simultaneously on the map (without the game lagging) alot higher.

THERE.

That's what Faction Play is supposed to look like..

Edited by Vellron2005, 10 July 2017 - 04:01 AM.