26 replies to this topic

[naterist]

solaris: home of solo players and 2 player groups. eventually make a seasonal team division

scouting: available to solos and groups up to 4 mans; a stepping stone for finding units and groups and solos can get introduced to various 3rd party voicecomms by passing groups they meet.

fp: home of groups; test it with 12 mans only, and if that doesnt work just make it like how group que is now.

comp que-deleted

qp-deleted




just rewatching the last production update and thinking about it.

Edited by naterist, 21 August 2017 - 03:32 AM.

[KinLuu]

I rather would like PGI to delete FP.

I don't really believe they are able to deliever a decent FP gamemode.

Quickplay is the lifeblood of this game. Without Quickplay, this game would be gone quickly.

[Lugard]

Personally I'd prefer that drop decks get gutted in FP, the idea of dropping in waves makes little sense and forces a bad game to become worse one trickle at a time.
I wouldn't dislike the idea of FP being similar to QP but with faction mech restrictions and the ability to earn loyalty points for MC or faction specific loot. Though I am not sure what to do with the siege maps that require more mechs.

Additionally I would like to give 12 man groups the ability to select debuffs for additional loyalty or C-BILL rewards. Feeling confident? drop a 100 ton less in your 12 man for 10% more C-Bills (Cutting the edges), Allow the enemy to see your mechs for 10% more loyalty (show your might) and other such things, this would give bored units the ability to risk more for higher rewards and give pugs and small groups a potential handicap in their favor, If the enemy team has the same debuffs then it would cancel out the bonus of course.

On a side note, I'd like to have the ability to choose another mech variant of my selected mech after a map is selected so I can choose something that works on the map. You don't change the tonnage or even the mech in general, but end up with more control over the match rather then a poor luck and gives people a good reason to have a few variants of each mech.

Edited by Lugard, 21 August 2017 - 04:54 AM.

[Jman5]

Lugard, on 21 August 2017 - 04:53 AM, said:

Personally I'd prefer that drop decks get gutted in FP, the idea of dropping in waves makes little sense and forces a bad game to become worse one trickle at a time.

I like waves. It's one of the few things that makes FP unique. I think what they really need to do is to figure out some way to speed up slaughter-matches and minimize farming. That is where the bulk of human misery in faction play comes from.

Increasing objective rewards to match the longer game length, and giving some bonus for every unkilled enemy mech so players don't feel the need to farm 48 mechs.

[Davegt27]

I would love 8V8 special ops missions for the comp players

another solution for FP
instead of the death ball alpha strike mode
they could split the lances and have them to go to different way points

but all the maps and game modes are designed around what players want
and most players are stuck in the 12 year old mind set, they can only do what they know
that is to run up to each other and try to out alpha the other guy

almost any and all tactics that show of any hint of something different has been nerfed
so what's left is alpha strike warrior

then PGI uses its computers to tweak the game first one way then the other (tug of war)
of course the players think they are Mech piloting gods (don't all 12 year olds think that)

oh well

Edited by Davegt27, 19 September 2017 - 11:47 AM.

[Koniving]

Jman5, on 21 August 2017 - 06:27 AM, said:

I like waves. It's one of the few things that makes FP unique. I think what they really need to do is to figure out some way to speed up slaughter-matches and minimize farming. That is where the bulk of human misery in faction play comes from.

This part would be rather easy.

Rather than delivering mechs to the same places every single time, miles from the battlefield... each progressive push on Invasion should 'move up' where the mechs are delivered. Each push should get closer and closer.

On the opposite side (the defender side), mechs should have a choice between being delivered by dropship, or "powering up" in mechbays. Could even have the "elevator" approach shown in Mechwarrior 5 Mercs or in MWO's private match Steiner 1vs1 map.

Far as more 'quick play' style modes, approach each one a bit differently. Sadly that's as far as I'm willing to write with this.

[Koniving]

Far as speeding up slaughter matches, if the loss is going too drastic, allow a "retreat" objective where the existing mechs need to try to pull back for extraction. Rather than continuing to drop mechs until every single one is destroyed, stop spawning them and give the order to retreat. If they die they die, if they make it back great. Similar to Titan Fall 1 and 2. The team that is retreating would need to defend the drop ships picking them up, and the team doing the slaughtering, if able to destroy the dropship gets a major victory of course. If the dropship(s) get(s) away it is more of a minor victory.

As the retreaters, the difference is a major defeat (pays like the current defeat) versus a minor defeat (pays a bit better).

[Positive Mental Attitude]

Forcing people to play a dead mode bc theyre grouped sounds like something pgi would do.

[Hobbles v]

12 man only queue is plain stupid.

[Jman5]

Koniving, on 21 August 2017 - 07:06 AM, said:

Far as speeding up slaughter matches, if the loss is going too drastic, allow a "retreat" objective where the existing mechs need to try to pull back for extraction. Rather than continuing to drop mechs until every single one is destroyed, stop spawning them and give the order to retreat. If they die they die, if they make it back great. Similar to Titan Fall 1 and 2. The team that is retreating would need to defend the drop ships picking them up, and the team doing the slaughtering, if able to destroy the dropship gets a major victory of course. If the dropship(s) get(s) away it is more of a minor victory.

As the retreaters, the difference is a major defeat (pays like the current defeat) versus a minor defeat (pays a bit better).

I have never played titan fall, but a retreat mini-game would be a nice alternative to just: get farmed to 48. Plus it gives the losers at least some solace in the face of the slaughter.

Basically I'm for anything that will lower the salt levels without compromising the victors their fair share of the money and accolades. The less you discourage people the more willing they are to continue dropping Faction Play. If you throw them a bone and give them a secondary objective "win", they might think: well my team was a bunch of bads, but I get this nice silver medal for the extraction.

[Wing 0]

naterist, on 21 August 2017 - 03:04 AM, said:

solaris: home of solo players and 2 player groups. eventually make a seasonal team division

scouting: available to solos and groups up to 4 mans; a stepping stone for finding units and groups and solos can get introduced to various 3rd party voicecomms by passing groups they meet.

fp: home of groups; test it with 12 mans only, and if that doesnt work just make it like how group que is now.

comp que-deleted

qp-deleted




just rewatching the last production update and thinking about it.

Epic Fail.

[LordNothing]

fp is the only mode right now that has any depth. having bubbled up to t1 i find i do better pugging up the fp than i do playing qp. qp is dull as hell and i try to avoid it. you just have nothing invested when you play, you play until you either die or win and then repeat. the battles themselves are meaningless. in fp if you screw up on one of your drops you have a chance at redemption.

and anyone who says things like 'ban pugs' or 'split the queue' or 'do a matchmaker' dont seem to understand the current situation. pugs really are the life blood of the system. when units do their mass exodus to the side thats winning its the pugs that keep the game "playable". if you ban them then the drop rate gets abysmally low. other side of it is if you ban the units then pugs will have a blast. thats not really feasible either. split queue would have such issues for the same reason. matchmaker? nah, that doesnt even work in qp most of the time. peak time in fp is a lot like oceanic in qp, and in oceanic the valves are so open you often find t1s facing off against t4s and you may as well just do random. you would need a qp peak population in fp for that to even approach functional.

these are the popular options to fix fp and they are all bloody wrong. we need out of box thinking:

fuzzy queues, like dropping a large group means you can only play teams with large groups while dropping smaller groups means you will play everyone. pugs still fill out empty spaces.

making a distinction between garrison forces (pugs) and spec ops (units) where the former is given a small advantage.

free trade down would help the mass exoduses that seem to plague unit distribution. no penalties for loyalist to switch over to the inferior side, only going to the wining side incurs the current penalties. same thing would apply to merc contracts. taking a contract with the winning side makes you pay a massive jump fee or something, these are paid by the host faction if you switch to the loosing side.

new merc contract rules. like if you switch from clan to is, you are required to complete a certain number of is contracts before you are free to switch back to clan. perhaps have contracts that need to be leveled to maximize rewards. mercs that stay put get more than ones that move around. drop fees are another thing. every time you change contract you have to pay a jump fee from your coffers, switching from davion to kurita would cost less than switching from is to clan.

contract bonuses based on faction performance rather than population. winning factions pay less because they can while loosing factions will put up a huge pile of cbills to anyone who will fight for them.

go to a four side system where all sides are at war with the other 3. if the sides are even you are allowed to drop against 75% of the population, current 2-side system only lets you drop against 50% and it would permit the clan v clan and is v is drops we currently do not get (do you really think pgi's side quest thing will work?). the 2 most populated sides are forced into a bitter conflict while the two least populated faction are limited to minor border skirmishes. the remaining to conflict paths are proportional to the relative population.

thats just a few ideas (not all are mutually inclusive). when you let go of the non-functional options then the you can crack the problem.

Edited by LordNothing, 21 August 2017 - 07:17 PM.

[Leggin Ho]

Koniving, on 21 August 2017 - 07:06 AM, said:

Far as speeding up slaughter matches, if the loss is going too drastic, allow a "retreat" objective where the existing mechs need to try to pull back for extraction. Rather than continuing to drop mechs until every single one is destroyed, stop spawning them and give the order to retreat. If they die they die, if they make it back great. Similar to Titan Fall 1 and 2. The team that is retreating would need to defend the drop ships picking them up, and the team doing the slaughtering, if able to destroy the dropship gets a major victory of course. If the dropship(s) get(s) away it is more of a minor victory.

As the retreaters, the difference is a major defeat (pays like the current defeat) versus a minor defeat (pays a bit better).

How do you keep this from being abused when a team or random players see another team they don't even want to attempt to play, then you have one group that have sat waiting when the other team just decides to not even attempt to fight wasting that other teams time, now I can see maybe allowing it if the entire other team votes to retreat AND they are more than 50% down in kills vs the other team. That would ensure that folks get to at least get in enough game play vs the time spent waiting if the other team decides to retreat and you won't see as many 48 to 12 matches.

[Leggin Ho]

LordNothing, on 21 August 2017 - 07:15 PM, said:

fp is the only mode right now that has any depth. having bubbled up to t1 i find i do better pugging up the fp than i do playing qp. qp is dull as hell and i try to avoid it. you just have nothing invested when you play, you play until you either die or win and then repeat. the battles themselves are meaningless. in fp if you screw up on one of your drops you have a chance at redemption.

and anyone who says things like 'ban pugs' or 'split the queue' or 'do a matchmaker' dont seem to understand the current situation. pugs really are the life blood of the system. when units do their mass exodus to the side thats winning its the pugs that keep the game "playable". if you ban them then the drop rate gets abysmally low. other side of it is if you ban the units then pugs will have a blast. thats not really feasible either. split queue would have such issues for the same reason. matchmaker? nah, that doesnt even work in qp most of the time. peak time in fp is a lot like oceanic in qp, and in oceanic the valves are so open you often find t1s facing off against t4s and you may as well just do random. you would need a qp peak population in fp for that to even approach functional.

these are the popular options to fix fp and they are all bloody wrong. we need out of box thinking:

fuzzy queues, like dropping a large group means you can only play teams with large groups while dropping smaller groups means you will play everyone. pugs still fill out empty spaces.

making a distinction between garrison forces (pugs) and spec ops (units) where the former is given a small advantage.

free trade down would help the mass exoduses that seem to plague unit distribution. no penalties for loyalist to switch over to the inferior side, only going to the wining side incurs the current penalties. same thing would apply to merc contracts. taking a contract with the winning side makes you pay a massive jump fee or something, these are paid by the host faction if you switch to the loosing side.

new merc contract rules. like if you switch from clan to is, you are required to complete a certain number of is contracts before you are free to switch back to clan. perhaps have contracts that need to be leveled to maximize rewards. mercs that stay put get more than ones that move around. drop fees are another thing. every time you change contract you have to pay a jump fee from your coffers, switching from davion to kurita would cost less than switching from is to clan.

contract bonuses based on faction performance rather than population. winning factions pay less because they can while loosing factions will put up a huge pile of cbills to anyone who will fight for them.

go to a four side system where all sides are at war with the other 3. if the sides are even you are allowed to drop against 75% of the population, current 2-side system only lets you drop against 50% and it would permit the clan v clan and is v is drops we currently do not get (do you really think pgi's side quest thing will work?). the 2 most populated sides are forced into a bitter conflict while the two least populated faction are limited to minor border skirmishes. the remaining to conflict paths are proportional to the relative population.

thats just a few ideas (not all are mutually inclusive). when you let go of the non-functional options then the you can crack the problem.

I like a lot of the ideas other than once again hamstringing unit's because they are unit's, 12 vs 12 should not be with one side handicapped just because they put int he effort to get together and group up. Jump fee's and Contract requirements sound good as a Merc myself. I'd like to see payout also be based on your performance, they more your winning %, the higher your payout, but that's because I'm a greedy Merc.

[LordNothing]

Leggin Ho, on 21 August 2017 - 10:59 PM, said:

I like a lot of the ideas other than once again hamstringing unit's because they are unit's, 12 vs 12 should not be with one side handicapped just because they put int he effort to get together and group up. Jump fee's and Contract requirements sound good as a Merc myself. I'd like to see payout also be based on your performance, they more your winning %, the higher your payout, but that's because I'm a greedy Merc.

i fully believe that pugs and units can co-exist given the correct mechanics. its more about giving units that fight the hard battles a bit more than ones who are constantly switching to the superior faction knowing full well that the result of that will be a lot of seal clubbing and predetermined match outcomes. the pugs are always fighting the hard battles and they dont even get mc for it. sometimes you win and you get, slightly more cbills than if you played well but still lost. ive had those fights, the ones where you win against impossible odds and it feels like a loss.

like the garrison fights where the units fight at a disadvantage. a unit with 8 players could still totally trounce a team of 12 pugs hands down. more mechs to go around means better scores in this case, all translating to better rewards. i wouldn't even call that hamstringing, id call that an opportunity. fight a hard battle and get paid more. fighting pugs is like playing a game on easy mode and calling yourself skilled when you beat it.

[Koniving]

Leggin Ho, on 21 August 2017 - 10:53 PM, said:

How do you keep this from being abused when a team or random players see another team they don't even want to attempt to play, then you have one group that have sat waiting when the other team just decides to not even attempt to fight wasting that other teams time, now I can see maybe allowing it if the entire other team votes to retreat AND they are more than 50% down in kills vs the other team. That would ensure that folks get to at least get in enough game play vs the time spent waiting if the other team decides to retreat and you won't see as many 48 to 12 matches.

You'll have that kind of abuse no matter how the game is set. After all we have it now.

The current punishment is you get farmed.

The punishment with the retreat mechanic is you get farmed anyway.

It doesn't stop farming if you decide not to fight. It wouldn't even kick in until victory is blatantly impossible. Drop ship pickups are usually on the opposite end of the map, so if you refuse to fight the simple result is you get farmed.

Edited by Koniving, 22 August 2017 - 09:09 AM.

[Koniving]

Jman5, on 21 August 2017 - 02:01 PM, said:

I have never played titan fall, but a retreat mini-game would be a nice alternative to just: get farmed to 48. Plus it gives the losers at least some solace in the face of the slaughter.

Basically I'm for anything that will lower the salt levels without compromising the victors their fair share of the money and accolades. The less you discourage people the more willing they are to continue dropping Faction Play. If you throw them a bone and give them a secondary objective "win", they might think: well my team was a bunch of bads, but I get this nice silver medal for the extraction.

Will have a video on it soon for some decent action. In the mean time, this kinda gives details.


Or this just gives a quick demo.

Basically you lose completely, and the mission "epilogues" with an escape sequence for the losers, and a slaughter sequence for the winners. It's not a total farm, and while it takes 40 seconds for the dropship to arrive, within 4 seconds of the announcement respawns are disabled.

[Jman5]

Koniving, on 22 August 2017 - 09:07 AM, said:

Or this just gives a quick demo.

Basically you lose completely, and the mission "epilogues" with an escape sequence for the losers, and a slaughter sequence for the winners. It's not a total farm, and while it takes 40 seconds for the dropship to arrive, within 4 seconds of the announcement respawns are disabled.

Argh, that was so much more impressive than the sit in the square thing they put into Scouting missions.

You know they could enlarge the scope of this and add it into normal quickplay matches too. If your team loses the objective you get this secondary phase of Escape/Slaughter.

[Commander A9]

KinLuu, on 21 August 2017 - 03:50 AM, said:

I rather would like PGI to delete FP.

I don't really believe they are able to deliever a decent FP gamemode.

Quickplay is the lifeblood of this game. Without Quickplay, this game would be gone quickly.

How is Faction Warfare not 'decent' as it is now?

Please explain, with an argument that focuses on PGI controllable metrics such as core game mechanics rather than the performance of the players please.

Edited by Commander A9, 22 August 2017 - 03:37 PM.

[Carl Vickers]

Remind me Naterist, how did that vote for split queues you did a while ago go for you?

All you want to do is be able to farm puggles without running into KCom ect.