47 replies to this topic

[50 50]

The focus of this suggestion is how we could use some of the existing features to substantially change the feel and flow of Faction Play from a match into a battle or war.

It is also hoped that elements of this suggestion will help to alleviate if not resolve on going issues raised by players about the mode such as spawn camping, being able to select the mode they want, wait times, minimal participation to win as well as some options or ways to introduce additional depth and player/unit interactions.

TURNING THE STAGES/MODES INTO MISSIONS

Spoiler

This bit is pretty straight forward.
The stages of the tug of war each represent a mode and is meant to simulate the progress of one side towards achieving the goal of capturing the planet at the end of the attack phase.
Where it has limitations is in:

• Getting stuck in a particular phase.
  
  This has been alleviated by making the actual modes more random.... which makes the use of stages irrelevant.
  
• The end of attack phase minimal participation rush.
  
  This is where there is a sudden influx of players at the end of the attack phase to deny the results and efforts of players that might have been working on progressing the invasion for hours. This was true when we had the sectors of the planet to fight over and it is still true with the tug of war.
  
• The addition of the quick play maps and modes added a lot of variety to Faction Play but were not designed with Drop Decks in mind. We have seen a few limitations and complications with them as well as adding to the development requirements. It should be noted that even with these changes, we do not have all of the maps and modes anyway.

By changing the way we use the Drop Decks and how we measure our victories, we can resolve these problems and also bring in more depth to Faction Play.


For starters, any development that adds a new map or a new mode to the game should be instantly portable across the different areas of MWO. It should be instantly available in Quick Play and Faction Play with little or no need for additional development time/resources.

What the different modes (Assault, Conquest, Siege etc) provide is a variety of missions that we could select and undertake as part of our own campaigns for our selected Faction. Our success in these missions can then provide a benefit/reward at multiple levels:

• At a personal level we get XP, C-Bills and Loyalty/Reputation points.
  
• As a group, we can incorporate some small benefits that from the different missions that then carry into the next mission or for the duration of our campaign.
  
• Our victories in any of the missions add to a tally for our individual factions which then advance the overarching goals and impact the galactic map and other factions.

It should be noted that Scouting, as a mode, is also a mission we can undertake. The collection of Intel from Scouting is key to this concept and could be utilized differently to integrate it as part of our individual campaigns as a way to unlock/buy into the other modes as missions. See below.


For this to work, the quick play maps and modes should be returned to their original configuration of being a single drop. This has several benefits:

• It becomes a lot easier to add any map and mode into Faction Play which means we can instantly add any missing maps and modes that we currently have. This also simplifies the development process as stated earlier so that any future additions will automatically benefit Faction Play as well.
  
• Only having a single drop will completely eliminate spawn camping on these modes.
  
• By maintaining the structure of the Quick Play modes in Faction Play, we will also make the transition a little easier for newer players.

The final change to the modes is in introducing benefits at a group and individual level and looking to provide new outcomes and options at the faction level.

That is, we need a purpose to sending our forces in to complete the mission.
Why do we want to capture the Radar in Dominaton?
Why do we want to destroy the Orbital Cannon in Siege?
Why do we collect Resource Points in Conquest?
By adding a purpose or a result to successfully completing these missions, we can create ongoing benefits or instant effects which apply to our group or individually.
At a faction level, successfully completing a mission counts as a tally towards our faction for this attack phase. We can create a lot more variety and trigger different events dynamically based on the number and type of missions we complete successfully for our faction.
Therefore at a faction level we can expand the scope from just capturing a planet to include all sorts of buffs and debuffs which will in turn add much needed depth and individuality to each faction. (Each individual House and Clan)

REPURPOSING SCOUTING

Spoiler

Scouting is fun.
It is a high paced small group mode with some unique features.
Where it has a few draw backs is in:

• It allows a small group of players to alter the game play for a larger group.
  
• It is disconnected and used as a global effect, there is no relating our effort in scouting to our personal effort in the invasion at a group level.
  
• Like the other modes, the objective of collecting the Intel seems secondary to shooting each other.

My proposal here is to use the Intel and the mode a little differently.


If we think of scouting as the way to locate enemy forces and strategic targets then we could use the Intel points as a way to unlock/buy those missions for our campaigns. Essentially, we spend our Intel so we may commit one or more lances to a new mission such as Assault or Conquest or Siege.
The spending of the points is necessary as Intel should be considered fluid and dynamic. It also creates a reason to keep scouting.

By assigning a point value to the different missions we can also setup levels of difficulty relevant to those missions or as a way to alter events.
For example, it might only cost 5 Intel points to send a single lance on a skirmish mission, but it may take 15 to send one lance on a Siege mission. Or perhaps as an event where the objective is to cut enemy supply lines, the cost of buying Conquest missions is reduced.

Having a cost associated with the different missions provides the game with a variable that we can affect with other features and further build some depth and variety onto Faction Play. For example: Liao may have very good Intel channels so they get an automatic reduction to the cost of unlocking/buying missions. That is, a 'quirk' at the Faction level that players in the faction can benefit from which creates a reason to be aligned with that faction.

Because Faction Play is designed as a group game, we can accumulate the Intel points in the group screen and also look at other options to spend the Intel on that would provide appropriate benefits for our group.

Maintaining Scouting as a 4 v 4 only mode is necessary, but the restrictions on mech tonnage need to be lifted as will become more evident when we start talking about the drop decks.
Additionally, Scouting is an asymmetrical mode. We have an attacker and a defender. With this proposal this is not a viable way to manage the mode and it needs to be symmetrical. This means changing the rules a little for both sides in the Scouting mission so that the collection of the Intel is key and the first lance to reach 11 Intel points summons their drop ship and it is on them to then escape and add those points to their group total. Should they fail, then the other team can have a chance to escape with the intel they have collected. If no-one escapes, no-one gets any intel.

ENHANCING FUNCTIONALITY IN THE GROUP SCREEN

Spoiler

To further enhance the system and emphasise the intention of Faction Play as a group mode, we need a few adjustments to how we setup and use our groups.
As the whole game is built around lances, we also need to setup some strict group requirements based on that structure and the multiple of 4 players.

We have to ignore the Clan Star setup I'm sorry and keep it uniform in the lance : company structure.

Enforcing this structure is to ensure we can more easily get the missions started and cater for different levels of active population. This will also provide variation in the combat as a 4 v 4 game will play out differently to 8 v 8 or 12 v 12.

Because part of the campaign concept is to bring back a bit more individual faction identity, we have to avoid mixed groups. This is also to enable Clan vs Clan and IS vs IS conflicts in addition to the existing Clan vs IS which will in turn provide more variations in the combat.

It would still be nice to build up and manage a group of up to 12 players in the group screen. However we need a small adjustment to be made to allow the individual lances to ready up and drop independently. We can use the group screen to sync drop the lances and can look at ways to pool Intel and other mission benefits as a larger group by way of increasing the management aspects in the screen for Lance and Company command positions.

Additionally, we could look at some further visual enhancements such as:

• Marking a lance with a role. ie. Command, Support, Scout etc.
  
• Classifying them according to the average tonnage so they can be seen as a Light, Medium, Heavy or Assault lance.
  
• Using the average tier to show the experience of the lance. ie. Cadet, Regular, Elite, Veteran etc.
  
• Should we work out a battle value for the mechs based on the various stats (fire power, armour, speed etc) then we could show that in some way as well.
  
• Colour code them, a few little icons or something.

Not essential, but nice to have.


This information is not only useful for groups to organise themselves but could serve as another option to spend Intel points on, the identification of forces, as well as information that might be recorded in a war log for the campaign or the attack phase.
"An Elite <unit> Heavy Lance has been attacking <mission objectives> for <Clan/house>"

A campaign view of the planet with some nice visual representations for the missions along with the groups queued would serve well here adding some small elements of immersion and planning.

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF DROP DECKS

Spoiler

Drop decks allow us to measure our attrition in battle with our mechs representing a resource that we need to manage. With the current setup we drop our entire deck into a single mode and it is more like 4 lives for respawn.

If we look at our involvement in Faction Play as launching on a campaign then the drop decks can really fulfill the purpose of being a limited resource for the duration of each campaign. This involves changing the order/flow of how we participate in the war.

As the proposal here is to create an extended feel to the game play, when we select to join in we pick a drop deck to commit for a campaign. This means we only get those four mechs for as many missions as we can keep them running for. MWO is a skill based game. By using the drop decks a little differently and in having the option to select our missions, we are bringing in a strategic level and expanding the scope.

Having the limited resource of 4 mechs for the drop deck will create that sense of attrition and put us in the position of being left with mechs that may not be overly suitable for the mission we might embark on. If we maintain damage states, collect Intel and Resources that we can utilize while on our campaign, we start to build a very different picture for Faction Play.

Because we are incorporating Scouting as a mission, the weight restrictions for Scouting do not work too well. Dropping into a scout match with assault mechs may not be the best option if there is a greater emphasis on collecting the Intel, though we can simply consider this a tactic.... developed by Steiner.
The same can be said of the other missions.

The drop deck then becomes a feature we use for different campaigns we might embark on. If we wanted to focus purely on Siege missions, we could structure a drop deck accordingly, keeping in mind that we might want one of those mechs kitted out for Scouting so we can get the intel necessary to buy the Siege mission.

Being able to chose our missions flips the process around so that we plan ahead and pick our strategy instead of finding ourselves assigned randomly to a mode and then scrambling to pick a drop deck.
We have the randomness in Quick Play.
For Faction Play, having it feel different is important so changing the approach and giving players that chance to plan ahead, pick strategies and outfit their mechs accordingly is something that will benefit the mode.

With any resource we want to be able to replenish that resource so we can keep on going. This is where mission selection starts to play a factor. Conquest is perfectly setup as a mission that provides resources which could translate into a point system allowing us to repair mechs with a very simple mechanic. One of the other missions could provide a replacement for a destroyed mech. If we add in a couple of extra features we have some options that we can not only build on in other areas of the game, but also work with as mission outcomes.

Using the drop decks in this way requires a commitment to continue using that drop deck. If we can simply leave the war and re-enter with a different drop deck it defeats the need to even use drop decks. For this reason alone, we need a gating mechanism which commits us to using the mechs we have selected. I propose using a logistics cost as a way to manage this aspect as well as add some new functionality and depth to Faction Play.

With our participation in Faction Play extending over multiple missions and potentially taking a greater amount of time, having better visibility into the current war front becomes more significant. By this I mean showing the type of planet we will be dropping on and therefore the type of maps we can expect so we may select an appropriate drop deck before we commit to the war.
It may not seem like much, but simply being able to pick a camo and colour scheme to fit the maps adds a little bit of immersion that is missing. ie. Setting up your mechs with desert camo if you know the maps are going to be desert based.

This suggests we can apply themes to planets, different biomes and conditions to fight under and is little more than adding some extra information and tying in different maps on the Invasion screen for the planet. As the concepts being explored in this thread revolve around the larger invasion drop decks (4 mechs) and incorporating scouting as part of that process, the current small scout drop decks (1 mech) can be repurposed for use. It may be that we use them for hot drop options, or where we draw a replacement mech from. I will explore some options for the scout drop decks at a later date.

VICTORY

Spoiler

By using a campaign system based on our own participation we are able to measure our own success and contribution at a personal level. As Faction Play is about the Factions we represent while in the field, we need to be able to see that contribution according to each individual faction. This is about breaking up the view and the information we see so it brings back some of that faction identity and pride.

As this concept focuses on participation according to the number of lances, to keep it balanced and recognise the contribution, each lance that participates in a battle contributes a point towards the Victory tally for their faction on a win. That simply means that should the mission take three lances (one wave of 12 players) per side, then the winning side adds three Victory Points to their faction tally for that type of mission. 1 point per lance in the battle.

In a mission such as Siege where there are multiple drops into the one mission, each wave is effectively a new lance which could result in a winning team adding 12 points to the tally. Whether Siege should be altered so that it is a single drop is a discussion on it's own but there are obviously some finer details to discuss and work out. It may be a case of weighting different missions, then it becomes a multiplier to the Victory Points earned from those missions. Weighting the victory points according to the mission may provide a way to define events.

At the end of each Invasion period, the Faction with the highest total is the one that achieves it's goals.

Should we want to add different types of effects from the end of each attack phase, ie. not just "Faction X captured planet Y", then we could use different types of Victory Points to trigger those effects. For example, winning a lot of Conquest missions may reward Resource Victory Points at the faction level which may result in an economic penalty to the opposing faction for the next Invasion period.

It might be a great way to build up different rivalries between the factions and even between units and groups as the instigators, particularly if considering border conflicts between the Inner Sphere Houses or Trials between the Individual Clans.

Using a tally system such as Victory Points also means that should a group work diligently over a significant amount of time that their efforts are not undone by last minute blocking from players that have not been participating. Greater participation is the key.

To further signify the effort of players and make the mode as inclusive as possible we should look at extending the Invasion period so that we do not have such a short turn around on the map. The 8 hour attack phase to win 4 planets is a very short period of time and we can see significant and drastic changes in the map as a result. Losing an entire faction from the map in the space of a week should not be possible and the speed of change does not let us explore other ideas and features that would benefit from slowing the process down. Having to reset a map that should be more persistent is not good for a game that wants to promote continual conflict.

We need to remember that this community is split around the world in multiple time zones so we should allow everyone to participate. We should use the three servers, one for each attack phase, so there is some regional focus and advantage to players in those regions. However we should also extend each invasion block so that it is at least a 24 hour period if not longer. Given real life commitments, it may not be unreasonable to set that invasion period to a week so by the weekend, we have that shift of borders and it's a bit of an event but more importantly it gives players ample opportunity to participate in that lead up.

If we enforce groups to only contain players from a single House or Clan, we can bring back some of the conflict and faction identity from the earlier iterations of Faction Play.
Features such as voting which faction we were going to attack for example.
This would still work even in the one bucket system as we fight for victory for our selected faction regardless of who that might be against. Bringing back some of the individual faction identity is important to many players and we can use the different victory points to penalize our chosen enemy for an attack phase.

When we look at extending the duration of the conflicts, we can make the mode more inclusive for players and allow for the addition of other features such as creating differences in the individual factions that in turn can be influenced by our actions.

Edited by 50 50, 21 November 2017 - 01:11 PM.

[50 50]

EVOLVING THE IDEA

After watching the changes to the map with the current setup and considering how the map was prior to the one bucket Clan vs IS it has occurred to me that it is not really suitable for PvP.

The map has been beautifully represented in MWO but it is a map designed for the table top and single player games. I'm going to discuss the points here and hope to get another vid up about it.

It's 2 dimensional.
Great for a book.
But this immediately sets up the problem of having some factions not able to face off against others.
This meant that factions such as Liao, Marik and Davion were not able to fight against the clans until the clans had pushed far enough into the map. As this was where the main point of conflict was, you pretty much had to swap to a different faction to get a match simply due to there not being enough players.
Not only that, but due to the borders there were also multiple instances where certain factions could not fight another.

Not all factions are equal
Some factions were at a massive disadvantage right from the start simply due to the size of their territories.
This is why we have not been able to give planets more value than just being a dot on the map.
Had that happened and each faction had a planet with a factory, or a space port etc. Some of the factions would immediately be at a disadvantage due to those strategic locations being closer to a border.
There is no way to balance this with the map as it is

Map resets are not good
Players want to feel involved and invested in the conflict. Massive and drastic changes to the map in a short amount of time means that at some point the map needs to be reset and the process starts again.
This has to happen because we are limited by the design of the map having borders.
When the individual factions were shown, it was possible for a faction to lose all of it's territory on the map in a short amount of time They would be reduced to a capital planet because those couldn't be taken.
It was terrifying how fast the borders could change in a short amount of time. Were we knocking over dominos or involved in intergalactic warfare fighting over planets?
Eventually this lead to the Tukayyid events and the map got reset. For a game where we might want to see the conflict as ongoing and never ending, treating the territories and planets so trivially reduces the desire for players to invest in the mode.

So what would we have to change?
A different approach is worth looking at.
One that provides all the factions with an equal starting point.
One that allows us to give planets values that when controlled provide a faction with bonuses.
We need a map that allows all the factions to fight against each other, one that is not limited by borders.
The conquest of a planet needs to have more weight, it needs to take more time. This is to allow the impact of losing or gaining a planet to be felt, to have a duration that changes the dynamics for players.
I will try and get this drawn up in a vid as it is a little hard to explain in writing but let's see how I go.

• Remove the map as it currently is.
  
• Each faction has a starting territory with multiple lanes containing multiple key planets which represent a portion of certain Faction Values
  
• Each of these planets has a number of buffer planets leading up to it which need to be taken before we fight over a key planet.

By changing the structure of the map, we allow the mode to introduce some of those key ideas that were initially envisioned for Community Warfare.

Imagine the following:
My faction has a lane with 4 Key Planets, each with 3 Buffer Planets.
This lane I am going to call my 'Capital' lane and it represents my Faction Value for C-Bills.
My faction has a certain base value for c-bill earning per battle and the Key Planets add to that base amount meaning that the more my faction controls, the more I will earn.
All the other factions have the same number of Key Planets and Buffer planets in the same lane to start with.
Each faction has multiple lanes, each lane representing a different Faction Value but setup the same way with 4 Key Planets, each with 3 buffer planets.
The objective is to attack an enemy faction along one of these lanes, work through the Buffer Planets and capture a Key Planet.
When we capture a Buffer Planet, we advance down that lane extending our attack. It gets harder as we go as our Supply Line becomes stretched. Our drop deck maximum tonnage changes as a result when we are attacking this faction.
When the Key Planet is captured, it is added to our own lane along with the three Buffer Planets. Controlling that Key Planet modifies our Faction Value increasing our C-Bill earnings. Our opponent's C-Bill earnings has decreased.
We also consolidate our Supply Line and our drop deck tonnage against this faction is restored to normal.
It might be a little hard to envision just from the description so I will endeavour to get a vid done and I will add more detail when I can.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EDIT 05/08/2017 Redid the video.
EDIT 13/10/2017 Re-wrote and restructured the OP
Mock up of the concepts in this proposal:

Edited by 50 50, 08 December 2017 - 04:21 PM.

[Appogee]

I wish you worked for PGI. You clearly care about, and have some ambition for, Faction Play.

Unlike the current management of PGI.

But then, that's where all the salt comes from. We know how great MWO and FP could be. PGI even knew once, as they demonstrated in their first Powerpoints.

Now they can't be bothered.

[Kin3ticX]

Nice work. Repair rearm would be an idea I would entertain but I am generally not a fan of it. It was such a horrible thing from closed beta. Something simple for the unit coffers which PGI still hasnt really figured out what to do with after almost 3 years.

For example, repair rearm in the context of the current game would be very bad because you need access to all 4 mechs. They are likely going to be lost every game. You need to be able to consume them without fear of some kind of killer penalty. However, in your plan I suppose it would be worked out somehow.

If you want 50 50 we can do one of those Mercstar Roundtables on my twitch with Antonius Rex(Mercstar Prime) and Queenblade(228 IBR) and you can lay out these ideas in the spoken word.


Lets be realistic though, you are practically telling PGI to go back to the drawing board which is what I would tell them. There were many sky high ideas presented to PGI which were less work than what you proposed and were shot down.

CW has some major problems going back into phase 2 that phase 3/4 just exacerbated.

1. The invasion mode is unpopular. The maps kinda suck, dropdecks kind of suck too. Waves of 12 assaults etc etc.

2. Farming baby seals 8 of 10 games turns away talent and scares away newcomers. No CW player or unit tiers.

3. Quickplay maps and dropdecks are a shotgun marriage. Again, walls of assaults on quickplay maps is bad and all of the other extremes.

4. The map is now a 24/7 tukayyid, the map and factions are becoming increasingly vestigial. Everyone knows its just Clan vs IS now and you just hit Fight Now. Literally dont need the map for ANYTHING. Space nerd politics is dead and this probably one of the most important things to the success of CW.

5. Contracts only come from the ether, from PGI. No way for units to wire cbills to each other (unit-unit coffer transfers for any purpose). You could do this via a cheap workaround in phase 2.

...I guess I could go on and on, like what about the current tonnage handicap being the tonnage pre new tech? No adjustments? Really?



PGI is really in a rock and a hard place because they need a matchmaker for the combat but that problem also prevents them from making the map do anything.

If I was in one of those super exclusive Roundtables, I wouldn't try to tell them what to do except that everything after Summer 2015 in CW sucks *** and I have no idea how to fix it.

Edited by Kin3ticX, 23 July 2017 - 01:44 AM.

[50 50]

Thanks guys.

While I've had a few grandiose ideas about turning Facton Play into more of an ongoing open concept, this one I've really tried to think more about keeping the stages and making a few subtle changes that would be a lot easier to accept than a complete re-write.

Under the current system because we do use all 4 mechs in a single drop, there is no post battle ramifications other than "we won/lost, ready up and lets drop again." It's very rinse and repeat.We don't need a repair feature, nor would it work very well under the current system.
We have seen that the quick play modes expanded the content in Faction Play but the drop decks do not quite work as nicely as they could due to map design.... and the whole spawn camping debate.

So one of the thoughts was to not allow multiple drops in the quick play maps/modes.
This immediately eliminates spawn camping as a possibility. Let's face it, it's not something that we hear about in Quick Play.
It also makes something else immediately possible from a development perspective that I feel is actually really important, the ability to immediately port a new map and mode straight into both Quick and Faction Play. If we think about development effort in a game that is getting more and more modes, having a simple way to expand the content in each of those modes without needing to multiply development efforts etc is the smart way to go forward.

The argument here of course is what then makes Faction Play different to Quick Play?
That might just be in how we actually use the drop decks and attaching a benefit to each mode for successfully completing it.
We use the drop decks as a resource across multiple missions until we have no more mechs left.

The basic process would go something like this:

• Go to the Faction Page and bring up the conflict for this week.
  
• We can immediately see what sort of environment we will be fighting in so we can customise our mechs, build our drop decks and then commit that deck into a campaign.
  At this point, we need to pay a logistics cost which can be a simple upfront c-bill jumpship cost as it prevents deck hopping.
  
• Once in we get a 'world view', which is where the video starts and we pick the mission we want to go on.
  
• The first mission has to be a scouting mission as the concept behind the campaign is to scout for intel and use the intel to unlock the other missions.
  
• So select a mech and we scout, get our intel and go for another mission.... or scout again to get more intel and unlock a harder mission.
  
• The mech we used for scouting might get a bit damaged or maybe it was destroyed, but we see that in our drop decks and could take it again if it's still usable.
  
• Keep going until we have no usuable mechs or we decide to leave the conflict.

Once we have left the conflict, all mechs are repaired automatically it's back to normal and we can pick that same drop deck or another one and go back to the conflict. Which is why we need the logistics cost.
However, as we are keeping track of the damage on the mechs after each mission, repairing them becomes something we will want to do if we want to do as many missions as possible.
I admit I was not around for when it was tried before but I understand that it was not well received mainly because it was a c-bill cost that came out of your match earnings.
My suggestion is to use the Conquest mode as a mission to obtain resource points. It's what the mode does anyway, let's just add those points as a value we can spend to repair our mechs via a simple function in our drop deck screen.
At it's most basic, we use the % of damage as the cost for repairs but it comes from these resource points.
The formula would be something like: (100-mech current health) x tonnage x modifiers = resource point cost.
We give it a bit of room to allow for the introduction of other features but to also account for bigger mechs costing more to repair.
Or.... take the points as loot and get a c-bill bonus for them so we can explore the idea of raiding.

Big part of it is having a reason to complete the missions, the objectives need some sort of benefit that we can add.
Domination might give us the radar sweep for our next match or more for example.

If we also provision for different types of victory points to be recorded from successfully completing missions, then there might be a really interesting and possibly fairly simple way to bring back more of those 'space nerd politics'.

Anyway, veeeerrry easy to get caught up in some of these ideas, but I do believe there is a way to make a few smallish adjustments that could open up and add new dimensions to Faction Play.
But as you said, we can only present any ideas we might have, PGI are the ones that need to do the work to make it happen.
Can only talk about it and hope so happy to have that chat and see where it goes.

[Kin3ticX]

50 50, on 23 July 2017 - 03:46 AM, said:

Under the current system because we do use all 4 mechs in a single drop, there is no post battle ramifications other than "we won/lost, ready up and lets drop again."

If saving CW means changing the dropdeck combat in any way, we might as well give up. There are players that have bought dupes just for CW with real cash and they would burn twitter and the brown sea down over this. The thing that would save CW, combat wise, is the very thing that would create a PR storm.

Edited by Kin3ticX, 23 July 2017 - 10:34 AM.

[50 50]

Maybe.
Maybe not.
I am one who threw down some money for one of those MC packs and picked up all the drop decks I could.
I've also got quite a lot of duplicate mechs to use in the drop decks as well.
The drop decks make things convenient and easy to swap between.
That still applies but we get the option to be more pro-active in our choice instead of reacting to what we are getting thrown into and there is nothing stopping us from using a drop deck full of duplicate mechs.

Be interesting to gauge how people actually feel about using the drop decks this way.

Edited by 50 50, 23 July 2017 - 07:06 PM.

[Spheroid]

Bring on R&R I have 350 mechs ready to go for this vary reason. War destroys things. Make it a cool down timer representing repair time.

The less endowed can use trial mechs. Mech purchases in the name of the war effort is the ideal c-bill sink.

[50 50]

Don't know if I emphasized this point, but if we scout for intel to unlock the missions we get to pick our favourites.
That should mean that the players that like Siege get to play it and those that don't can pick something else but everyone contributes to the overall success of their clan/house and faction.

[50 50]

I don't know how we could get the inter faction conflicts (IS vs IS/Clan vs Clan) working under the current system with one bucket.
Just doesn't seem feasible.

While the reduction to one bucket was to improve wait times and get the teams matching up against each other, I feel we did lose a lot of options and should have instead looked at reducing the match requirements from a full 12 player team on each side.

Would be great to find out if it is even a possibility, but would the system work with the individual territories of the houses and clans if we could select a planet on a border and set up drops of 4 v 4, 8 v 8 or 12 v 12?

Would it be better to have more activity around the galaxy of varying scales, get people involved in different types of missions?

[50 50]

I'm not great at graphical editing but I'll try and elaborate on that video a bit if it helps to provide context.

[Kyrie]

PGI needs to go back to the drawing board. Creating a proper CW means creating a proper framework, implementing key ideas that Kesmai had working back in 1992.

[SuperFunkTron]

50 50, on 24 July 2017 - 06:43 PM, said:

I don't know how we could get the inter faction conflicts (IS vs IS/Clan vs Clan) working under the current system with one bucket.
Just doesn't seem feasible.

While the reduction to one bucket was to improve wait times and get the teams matching up against each other, I feel we did lose a lot of options and should have instead looked at reducing the match requirements from a full 12 player team on each side.

Would be great to find out if it is even a possibility, but would the system work with the individual territories of the houses and clans if we could select a planet on a border and set up drops of 4 v 4, 8 v 8 or 12 v 12?

Would it be better to have more activity around the galaxy of varying scales, get people involved in different types of missions?

I've actually got an interesting idea for inter faction conflicts but it requires the addition of the each faction voting on which "mission/campaign of the week" they want to pursue and the repercussions of that choice. Since both IS and Clans use companies of 12, mixing the tech trees would cause much trouble, but would allow for a much more dynamic political map with alliances being made and broken on a (bi)weekly basis.

Example: Clans Wolf and Jade Falcon are each offered 3 missions. 1 of those missions is to capture said planet from the IS that happens to be on each of their borders. Aside from some sort of small reward for successfully capturing said planet, tensions could rise as both competing factions are "stepping on each other's toes" and thus creating an invasion lane conflict. Both Factions could have a set of options that would allow for a peaceful concession of the planet in exchange for a larger reward bonus, the chance to battle each other for the planet (a short window for the conflict would be created for those 2 factions to attack each other), or a third option (open to suggestions). Players from those clans would be given to participate either in this inter clan conflict or continue participation in the battle against the IS. Of course, we would need to show how many players are involved in that conflict during the window so we don't end up with absurdly long wait times in one of those two lines.

This is only a surface level attempt at a solution, but there are other basic concepts that are needed to make this more interesting such as incentivizing Faction Specific Mechs (in my opinion, the single most important first action needed for FP), as well as the addition of "key planets" with special rewards/consequences for conquering/defending them as well as a mission system for each of the clans to vote on.

Realistically, a long term plan would need to be adopted by PGI and implemented in a step wise fashion. Ideally, the goals would be to:
1. Individualize factions, even if they are fighting in the same buckets (attributes meaning to choosing a banner)
2. Create a "mission of the week" system
3. Give rewards/incentives for participating in and accomplishing the mission of the week
4. Create a dynamic political system in which selection of said missions could cause tension or strengthen alliances between factions (assisting an ally in a border conflict could also be an option, especially if such a window would exist for both IS and Clans at the same time in order to maintain single buckets)

There are many more details that need to be fleshed out of course, but stat with the broad bullet points is the best way to start discussing ideas for the best system to implement.

[DANKnuggz]

Most of this sounds infinitely better than what we have going now.... It would inject some much needed purpose into what currently feels like 24/7 Solaris games with no real reason for any of it.

[50 50]

Kyrie, on 27 July 2017 - 05:17 AM, said:

PGI needs to go back to the drawing board. Creating a proper CW means creating a proper framework, implementing key ideas that Kesmai had working back in 1992.

I've had a bit of a look at those threads and there is a lot to take in.
Right at this point, if we talk about going back to the drawing board we will more likely just see Faction Play closed down.
I feel it's important to take what we have at the moment, not just in Faction Play, but in all the different areas and look at tweaking those a little and adding some extra functionality to some screens and bringing it together.
In doing so and in changing the approach a little we might get to a point that works along some of those lines discussed in those posts.

[Kyrie]

50 50, on 27 July 2017 - 07:04 PM, said:

I've had a bit of a look at those threads and there is a lot to take in.
Right at this point, if we talk about going back to the drawing board we will more likely just see Faction Play closed down.
I feel it's important to take what we have at the moment, not just in Faction Play, but in all the different areas and look at tweaking those a little and adding some extra functionality to some screens and bringing it together.
In doing so and in changing the approach a little we might get to a point that works along some of those lines discussed in those posts.

The irony in all this is that originally, in a Town Hall a few years ago, Russ explained that the lack of CW development was all IGP's fault; that IGP had never "bought in" to the CW concept. Now its clear that PGI has the same problem as IGP did, no real belief in the revenue-stream CW may generate particularly after a few failed iterations.

Ultimately, there are a series of fundamental problems to resolve in FP:

• solo vs groups in queue
  
• declining overall player base
  
• No player investment in the mode

The business case for CW must be made first. Unless the business case is made for a proposal that fixes those three factors, there is no point in further work in CW. The first point has a long history in MWO: Pepperidge Farm remembers when groups farmed PUGs long before the advent of QP. The reasons and need to separate the queues became obvious and the logic remains clear to this day.

Taking a lesson from that, whatever CW proposal gets accepted has to work on the same principles that QP does: the solo experience in CW needs to be legit; its what has worked for the only profitable game mode that MWO has. Related to this point -- bribery to overcome poor game-play experience of being farmed will simply not work.

The argument I make is that to address all three points, an epic rebuild of CW is necessary. Makinga solid business case that redirecting all three major departments (design, coding, art) to this project will produce profit for PGI is the only way forward. The only way to reinvigorate the game is with a major investment in CW; we are running out of tech to be added. ;-)

Half-measures are doomed. There is an important principle that I have embraced as an old gamer: players will put up with a lot of problems as long they are emotionally invested in the game; this emotional investment has a principal component of social involvement. Getting that emotional investment will rely, in part, in working on what is often referred to as RPG elements: character development, progression, story-line.

A properly developed CW system, inspired by what existed in 1992 can fill this gap.

PGI reminded me of this clip:

[Poptimus Rhyme Wallace]

Why did people ever buy that IGP/PGI thing?
If you bothered to check up on things back then you would know that IGPs share majority back then was owned by "The Rabbithole" a very appropriately named holding company owned by Russ Bullock...

Edited by Poptimus Rhyme Wallace, 28 July 2017 - 05:23 AM.

[50 50]

Maybe for MWO2 in a different engine.
Probably at this stage the sort of depth and features suggested are too much.
Hence trying to work with a lot of the features we already have and perhaps look at things from a different angle.

[Koniving]

I'm combing these ideas and digesting them to see what I could reflect in both the Faction Play campaign mockups I'm currently working on ^1 and possibly some future "Battletech Sim" animations.

^1(At the moment: Davion versus Kurita [or vice versa], Marik attacks Liao and Liao attacks Davion) [The two with Liao were requests and I like them because I can use them to show the great diversity in canonical Liao's defense and offense forces and strategies; I'm glad you touched on intel as I'm working that out. Liao is especially known for fumbling with enemy intel as well as having very advanced intel on their enemies, which helps with their severe disadvantages.]

[Kyrie]

50 50, on 28 July 2017 - 06:12 AM, said:

Maybe for MWO2 in a different engine.
Probably at this stage the sort of depth and features suggested are too much.
Hence trying to work with a lot of the features we already have and perhaps look at things from a different angle.

Creating a role-playing-shell is not a game-engine issue. It is three main issues:

• Front-end UI.
  
• Database Design.
  
• Server Code adjusted to the expansion of the DB requests.

The interesting part is that this part of the game is eminently portable, whereas the maps, shooter-game is not. Consequently, an investment in this portion of the game can be done that can be reused.

A CW system is nothing but a giant CRUD app, the main work is in the game-design, database, and UI to execute interactions. And it has nothing to do with the game-engine.

As an example, the entire set of QP maps can be used and the CW system proposed with units, lances, supplies and so on is simply overlaid on top of it -- the resources in the map are determined by the new CW system.