47 replies to this topic

[naterist]

im unsatisfied with the current faction identity ideas thatre coming out. i have an alternate for your consideration, which is focused on dropdeck type, as opposed to other methods of giving identity

i will explain the innersphere side, then the clan side. they are mirrors of each other.

frr, since it merges with cgb, would have dropdecks that consist of 2 clan mechs, and 2 inner sphere mechs.

the lyran alliance and draconis combine, as hosts to 2 clans (cwie, and cnc) recieve 3 innersphere mechs and 1 clan mech, and a slightly higher tonnage than the frr.

marik, davion, and liao, as not being near the border, are all innersphere mechs, with the highest teir of dropdeck tonnage.




clan mirror.

cgb, as future members of the ghost bear dominion, should recieve 2 innersphere mechs, 2 clan mechs.

clan wolf, and clan nova cats, as members with innersphere enclaves, should have 1 innersphere mech, 3 clan mechs, and a higher dropdeck tonnage than cgb.

the other clans have the highest tonnage, and are all clan mechs.

[Deathlike]

Kyrie, on 28 July 2017 - 04:58 AM, said:

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

Lemme fix that for you.

Fundamentally speaking, if PGI took that mode and put actual TLC (tender, love, and care) in it by getting feedback and iterating it on a reasonable timeframe.. it could actually be something.

When you leave something unattended, unfinished, and uncared for (like bandaids for large gaping wounds), this is what you end up with.

You can't blame players for what the developers didn't accomplish in a timely manner or even a completely competent manner.

Edited by Deathlike, 28 July 2017 - 04:10 PM.

[Kyrie]

Deathlike, on 28 July 2017 - 04:09 PM, said:

Lemme fix that for you.

Fundamentally speaking, if PGI took that mode and put actual TLC (tender, love, and care) in it by getting feedback and iterating it on a reasonable timeframe.. it could actually be something.

When you leave something unattended, unfinished, and uncared for (like bandaids for large gaping wounds), this is what you end up with.

You can't blame players for what the developers didn't accomplish in a timely manner or even a completely competent manner.

There is no blame on the players. ;-) I suppose I didn't spell it out, but I definitely meant to imply that the existing design makes it impossible to become invested in it.

Edited by Kyrie, 28 July 2017 - 04:17 PM.

[50 50]

With the drop deck tonnage discussion, I wanted to mention that it would be easier for players that like to take lighter mechs if the minimum tonnage was lower.
However you can imagine that this might be seen as a handicap on certain missions particularly with the random mode selection we have now.
To compensate for that, you allow the selection of the missions so if you have a group of players that favour the smaller mechs, then they can create a lance and focus more on missions more suited to those mechs.

To also clarify the concept behind reducing the match requirements from 12 v 12 to allow smaller groups is not to split the queues, but to let the matches start if there is at least 1 lance on both sides.
If we can see who is queued up and have the lance requirement then it should be easy to get groups fighting.

[Mystere]

Kyrie, on 28 July 2017 - 03:16 PM, said:

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.

Other than the "nothing but a giant CRUD app", I agree with you.

A purely CRUD app will just give us nothing but crud(). CW needs campaign systems at the planetary, strategic, and logistical levels.

[Mystere]

50 50, on 28 July 2017 - 11:22 PM, said:

With the drop deck tonnage discussion, I wanted to mention that it would be easier for players that like to take lighter mechs if the minimum tonnage was lower.
However you can imagine that this might be seen as a handicap on certain missions particularly with the random mode selection we have now.
To compensate for that, you allow the selection of the missions so if you have a group of players that favour the smaller mechs, then they can create a lance and focus more on missions more suited to those mechs.

Alternatively, instead of limiting the number of mechs, just limit the weight. If someone wants to bring 12 locusts (on an 240-ton limit drop), then so be it.

[50 50]

I personally don't mind that too much.... though those pesky locusts can all die!!
But you see the same at the other extreme as well with 12 of mech X.
Not having a group limitation on the drops makes it possible and you get to see things that are generally not possible in the other modes.

[Kin3ticX]

50 50, on 30 July 2017 - 07:47 PM, said:

I personally don't mind that too much.... though those pesky locusts can all die!!
But you see the same at the other extreme as well with 12 of mech X.
Not having a group limitation on the drops makes it possible and you get to see things that are generally not possible in the other modes.

One idea I saw someone post to shake up the dropdeck system is to have two tonnage pools. I think the intention of this was to end the 4 heavy or 3 heavy 1 filler mech meta.

Basically you would have ~2/3 of your tonnage in slot 1, 2, and ~1/3 of the tonnage in slot 3, 4. Im not really lobbying for it but maybe something similar to that could be pitched.

I still think some kind a class specialization thing is the way to go. That way you can bring 4 lights without gimping the team and players that like assaults can have 4 assaults.

[50 50]

Or you set the drop decks to be 1 of each weight class though I'm not really liking that idea.
Mission selection might create changes.
If you go into a campaign saying that you are going to focus on a particular type of mission then you set up a drop deck according to the tactic you want to use.
Where it gets challenging is in:

• Needing to do scouting to get the intel to unlock the missions.
  
• Potentially wanting to complete another mission like Conquest to get the resource points or Domination for the Radar sweep.
  
• Losing a mech in battle that you might have wanted for one of those missions so you end up in a less than ideal situation.

Essentially this campaign idea is to take all the modes and treat them as missions where we have both a before and after space for planning and tactics and we have a flow on effect from the missions we complete. I would think that if it felt like group quick play with some added features that build that depth and provided more options that it would naturally make it more attractive to players.

• The single drop for a mission fixes the spawn camping issue immediately.
  
• Reducing group requirement so we don't need a full 12 player team should do wonders for wait times and also provide greater variety for battles. (4 v 4, 8 v 8 and 12 v 12 all feel a little different to play)
  
• Allowing mission selection means we can pick which ones we like so we have the choice to only play the modes we want.
  
• Visibility into the queue means we know if we will be waiting, or which missions we can chose to undertake if it means getting a fight with another team.
  
• Not having to make big changes to the maps to allow for multiple drops means any new modes and maps can be instantly added, they just need a benefit for completing the objective to work within the context of a campaign.

By the way Kin3tiX, I thought over the 'Space Nerd Politics' aspect a bit more in regards to bring back Faction Identities and believe that there might be an option to build that back in using the one bucket system. I can see a possibility if we discuss the meaning of the Victory Points we acquire for our faction when completing the missions successfully.

Consider this little idea:

• We bring back the voting for each faction to say who they are 'attacking' during this invasion period.
  
• We do a mission.
  
• We get a Victory Point specific to that type of mission added to our faction.
  
• The different Victory Points tally up.
  
• At the end of the Invasion Period, we vote on a single effect to apply to the faction we were attacking based on those points, or a buff for our own faction.
  
• That effect remains in place for the next invasion period.

There are a bunch of different effects we could apply to a variety of different values that would be pretty interesting.
Because it is based around our success in the missions, it also means the actual opponent we face in those missions does not matter, though if we can view the missions and who is waiting we can certainly seek out particular opponents.
(This also gives us a bit of a way to build up rivalries between units by letting us seek each other out)

Oh, and just had a quick thought.
Working in lances, it might be possible to directly attach a payment option to invite other lances to the group for a mission.
Bit of an extension and tweak to the LFG screen.
Hmmm... that's got me interested, going to think over that concept a little more.

I'm also redoing the vid and will put up a new version once it's done. (I'm having fun )

[Kin3ticX]

50 50, on 31 July 2017 - 12:15 AM, said:

Or you set the drop decks to be 1 of each weight class though I'm not really liking that idea.

PGI would never do it because like I said before they already enticed people to buy dupes just for CW, many of which are premium dupes. They also started to sell dropdeck slots. Although I doubt they are making a killing selling dropdeck slots anyways.

50 50, on 31 July 2017 - 12:15 AM, said:

By the way Kin3tiX, I thought over the 'Space Nerd Politics' aspect a bit more in regards to bring back Faction Identities and believe that there might be an option to build that back in using the one bucket system. I can see a possibility if we discuss the meaning of the Victory Points we acquire for our faction when completing the missions successfully.


Consider this little idea:

• We bring back the voting for each faction to say who they are 'attacking' during this invasion period.
  
• We do a mission.
  
• We get a Victory Point specific to that type of mission added to our faction.
  
• The different Victory Points tally up.
  
• At the end of the Invasion Period, we vote on a single effect to apply to the faction we were attacking based on those points, or a buff for our own faction.
  
• That effect remains in place for the next invasion period.

There are a bunch of different effects we could apply to a variety of different values that would be pretty interesting.

Because it is based around our success in the missions, it also means the actual opponent we face in those missions does not matter, though if we can view the missions and who is waiting we can certainly seek out particular opponents.
(This also gives us a bit of a way to build up rivalries between units by letting us seek each other out)

Space nerd politics cant possibly work under the framework of phase 4. It requires an open world galaxy map like in phase 2.


Now its everyone vs everyone playing CW. Back in phase 2 if you got some people or units together you could make in impact on the map because it was 1 attack lane and whoever could reach it. You could push on something with a couple 12-mans and have an impact.

I am not even sure how their win conditions are supposed to work when its everyone vs everyone. When its everyone vs everyone there is no vulnerable front to move to and push on it. Your 1 or 2 12-mans is like pissing in the wind so to speak. Before you could get a lot done with a couple 12-mans.

I see major problems ahead for this tiny CW update.

[50 50]

Kin3ticX, on 31 July 2017 - 01:20 AM, said:

PGI would never do it because like I said before they already enticed people to buy dupes just for CW, many of which are premium dupes. They also started to sell dropdeck slots. Although I doubt they are making a killing selling dropdeck slots anyways.

Yeah... I didn't like that idea either.

Kin3ticX, on 31 July 2017 - 01:20 AM, said:

Space nerd politics cant possibly work under the framework of phase 4. It requires an open world galaxy map like in phase 2.

Now its everyone vs everyone playing CW. Back in phase 2 if you got some people or units together you could make in impact on the map because it was 1 attack lane and whoever could reach it. You could push on something with a couple 12-mans and have an impact.

I am not even sure how their win conditions are supposed to work when its everyone vs everyone. When its everyone vs everyone there is no vulnerable front to move to and push on it. Your 1 or 2 12-mans is like pissing in the wind so to speak. Before you could get a lot done with a couple 12-mans.

I see major problems ahead for this tiny CW update.

From the perspective of making the borders shift and picking individual planets, sure.
Need a huge population for that to work properly and even when there was more players invested in the mode, it still struggled.
We know the map with the individual borders is still there, it seems a simple request to put in a button to toggle between the Clan vs IS warfront and the individual faction view.

However, given that the taking of the planets has become more abstract, is it actually something we need to see? (Meaning the shift of borders and the map changing)
We could just use an arrow across the map heading for the 'Event Point' and count the number of victories a faction needs to get there.
Might be able to use a connect the dots sort of view so there is a semblance of a supply line which invites other possibilities.
It's a way to connect our individual efforts in our groups and our day to day campaign with the larger faction level over arching campaign.
It is still meaningful, we are just going about it in a different fashion.

Edited by 50 50, 31 July 2017 - 02:16 AM.

[50 50]

Koniving, on 28 July 2017 - 07:25 AM, said:

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.]

Nice.
The Victory Point concept I've touched on in this thread could be used to let players trigger different events.
In the end, it's very similar to the tug of war but broken down to the individual factions.
If it was tallied up over a week, we can then vote on an effect which is then in place for the following week.
That should give players ample time to contribute but also to feel those effects which creates a dynamic between the different factions.

This could mean that each week there is some sort of event relating to those effects.
Or we have a more significant event each month should a faction apply the same effect 4 weeks in a row.
Or it builds towards the Capital Planet events that PGI mentioned.
eg. The Clan invasion. If they complete enough Siege matches during the week they can vote to take a planet.
4 weeks in a row and this creates a special invasion event.
Go for long enough and the Capital Planet event kicks in. (Provided the push is against the same enemy each week/month)

Little bit of an abstract way of doing it, but might be easier to manage and add on to.
ie. Winning assault missions might push towards an alternate event such as control of a mech factory.

There is plenty of room to have some fun and it's still possible under the current 'one bucket' setup.

EDIT: Also wanted to say that I love the idea of factions have a bit more individuality. If we look at the various different values we can work with, there is plenty that could be used. The Liao Intel advantage for example. In this proposal where I am suggesting we use the scouting missions to collect Intel to unlock the missions, giving Liao a natural discount on the cost of unlocking the missions might be a nice way to represent that.

Edited by 50 50, 31 July 2017 - 04:28 AM.

[50 50]

Well, there we go.
Redid the vid.

Not saying it's the way it should be.
Just some possibilities.

[Ade the Rare]

I like the idea of mechs in a drop deck being locked out for a set time for repairs; it adds a whole new layer of strategy.

Honestly, all the ideas floated here are pretty damn good and obviously have had thought put into them. Problem is, I think FP/FW/CW (whichever acronym you want) needs simplifying to broaden it's appeal and encourage more players to play it.

The whole UI for that area of the game needs streamlining. You pick a conflict to engage in; there's about eight different options, but only one will actually have enough players to make it worthwhile queuing in. They're named for planets, which unless you're a lore die-hard means nothing to you. You're a faction loyalist, but this doesn't seem to really mean anything except getting less C-Bills than a merc.

Have three conflict selections named "IS v IS", "Clan v Clan", "Clan v IS". When there's a CW event, grey out the IS v IS and Clan v Clan options, or highlight the Clan v IS option, or highlight according to how many people are playing which one. Like a traffic light. Simple.

For CW events, where planets are up for capture, do it one at a time over the course of a day-per-planet. Whether a planet is capped by a certain side is weighted on how many victories fall for their side that day; you should get a bonus for participation (C-bills, MC, whatever), increasing if your faction won the planet. And it should come as an account injection, so it pops up and you see something extra for having done it; a "reward".

I know I'm going to get a lot of flak for saying this. I'm not stupid; I'm degree-educated. I do a hard job. When I saw the latest event, mapping invasion lanes and explaining the victory conditions I just switched off, solo-pug'd enough games to get one or two bonuses then went back to QP. It shouldn't be a chore to figure out how to play, and therein lies the primary reason for low population. My free time is precious, and overly-complex, lore-centric versions of games will always lose to quickplay variants, and it will always divide player bases.

At it's core it should be simple. Not even the UI for it is simple.

[50 50]

@Ade
Thanks for the feedback.
Quick play is robust enough and simple enough for a good chunk of players to play that happily forever and a day.
Faction play in the end is not that different and that is one of it's problems.

If we can agree that the combat itself and the modes on their own are good enough to keep quick play going along nicely, then what this thread is proposing is to essentially take that and add a strategic element before and after each mission.

The UI could definitely be improved.
Please excuse the poor attempts I have in the video, paint.exe is not a great tool for editing.

[50 50]

Small observation to be made.
If the style of game play is basically what we have in quick play with a timed match, single drop and then pew pew.
What we should expect is that same approach to be present in any of the modes we have in MWO.
Where we get differences is in:

Quick Play is just the casual drop and fight with some randomness.
Competition mode has the single mode and a map vote but has the post battle leaderboard.
Solaris would probably be very similar.
Faction Play should then have more options pre and post battle.

I think that is something we would have to accept.
While having some form of continual warfare with unique maps and all the other thousands of things that would be awesome to have as dynamic effects while we play, it's just not setup that way and would require re-writing the entire thing.

If we have the content in Faction Play outside of the battle, then it will automatically be expanded by any development of new maps and modes as will all the other areas which means the focus can then be on more maps and more modes.

[50 50]

So.... event system incoming next month.
Be interested to see how that works out.

New maps on the way, nice.
Hopefully they can be ported straight into Faction Play.

... and Solaris... which will have it's own maps, and features etc.
May not be a huge division in the player base being 1v1 and 2v2 but 30 to 40 spectators drinking beer and eating popcorn while they watch will be.

I really hope there is some significant impact from the event system but right at the moment this seems more like a way to trigger events, like it is with attacking capital planets. Hope we get some more information about it soon but I fear it is not adding some additional layers of depth for Faction Play that will engage players in different ways.

While some of the ideas I have proposed in this thread aim to add in some new features in a fairly simple way, my hope would be that they could be expanded on at some point and given more visual elements and complexity. Faction Play sorely needs some extra layers to it beyond 'Quick Play with Drop Decks'.

[Grus]

Would be nice but to quote PGI "programming is hard"

[50 50]

Absolutely.
If the core part of MWO is based on the combat system/matches we have at the moment, then what we are looking at here is bracketing that with functions and meaning, some of which already exists.

Features such as providing a team with an after match benefit, or breaking up the tally for the factions based on mission successes would be new but does not seem inaccessible.

[50 50]

Even though we have the one bucket system at the moment, it still feels like we could bring back some individual faction identity without making a mess of the queue times.

Essentially it works on keeping the tally of victories for each faction as it actually doesn't matter who we fight.
Consider that as a Ghost Bear, if we got a group together of 4, 8 or 12 players and jumped into the missions as described in the OP, any victory we get adds a tally to the Ghost Bear faction. But we might fight a variety of Inner Sphere opponents and even Clan opponents.
It doesn't matter. That's just about getting an opponent to fight against... removing wait times to play the game.
But, by participating and earning those points, at the end of the attack phase those points are tallied and that's when we can determine the outcome for Ghost Bear.
Had we voted to compete against Clan Wolf at the start of the phase, then whatever outcome was determined from our victories would be applied against Clan Wolf. Had it been Kurita, then it would be against Kurita.

To make that really interesting, then the victories for the individual missions might contribute towards different effects.
For example:
Should Ghost Bear attain more Siege victories than Clan Wolf, then we could take a planet.
However, if Ghost Bear attained more Assault victories than Clan Wolf, then we could penalize them with increased logistics cost or perhaps a drop deck penalty.
This could be a vote, but it could simply be an automatic effect applied at the end of an attack phase that will remain until the end of the next one.
Maybe the effect is a static value.... perhaps it could be a value based on the level of success.

There are four points worth emphasizing here.
1. We bring back some Faction Identity.
2. We solve a problem inherent with the tug of war system that was also there when we used the planet sectors, taking into account and rewarding player/unit participation. (Stops the problem of working all day on victory only to have that all undone in the last few minutes by players that have not been participating,)
3. It gives the system more options and needed depth beyond just taking planets if we can apply other penalties to the faction we declared war against.
4. Being able to affect opposing factions in different ways gives us new strategic options in the galactic conflict.

While some of this concept also needs other features added to Faction Play so those features can then be influenced, they are not massive features requiring a redesign of the whole mode.
Consider that adding in these features is also a way to give the different factions some individual flavour and appeal.
For example:
Davion may have a really good logistics system that provides a 5% reduction in costs to players in that faction.
However, after an attack phase where Kurita declared war against them and then scored more Assault victories, they could apply a 10% cost increase to the Davion logistics modifier for the next attack phase which nets a +5% cost increase in logistics for the players.
(The logistics cost being a calculation of c-bills * number of mechs in drop deck * total tonnage of the drop deck... in case you missed that bit in the post or links)
If it was a scaled value then it would work on the difference in those victories, so if Kurita had 15 Assault victories compared to Davion's 5, then it would be a 10% modifier.

If we look at the different missions we have (the modes) then it is possible to have quite a few different variables we could influence.
That would be pretty interesting.
(I'm also just throwing out some ideas for which modes might have which effect etc, but feel free to comment on what you think might be appropriate based on the modes we have)

Want to look a bit further down the track with that idea?
If an attack phase was a week long, what would happen if a Faction scored the same type of victory and applied the same type of effect on it's enemy 4 weeks in a row?
What if that automatically triggered an event based on the type of victories that lead up to it at the end of that month and specific to those two factions? Could have more than one of these events occurring between different factions at the same time.
Isn't that what we want to see with Clan vs IS, IS vs IS and Clan vs Clan?

Edited by 50 50, 11 September 2017 - 07:39 PM.