92 replies to this topic

[naterist]

1 month? return mc rewards for successful defense on the slider. So stalemates reward both sides, and make them worthwhile to fight for.

[Nightbird]

naterist, on 28 September 2017 - 10:13 PM, said:

1 month? return mc rewards for successful defense on the slider. So stalemates reward both sides, and make them worthwhile to fight for.

Could you flesh this out a little? How much per person or unit? Is it more than the amount that can be earned by maintaining the maximum amount of tags, or less?

[LordNothing]

totally onboard with more rewards. especially applied in a way that regulates the good players and keeps the pugs from going back to qp. though i kind of think it needs to have different levels for victory pay and participation pay. say 25 for a win and 5 for a loss, times a multiplier based on how op your current faction is (in terms of both numbers and win rate). players dropping with underdog factions get more. also need a system where inactive players can be flagged as reserves so they can be excluded from performance calculations. this would be recalculated every phase to make sure the numbers stay consistent with the current state of affairs.

Edited by LordNothing, 29 September 2017 - 06:33 AM.

[Marquis De Lafayette]

naterist, on 28 September 2017 - 10:13 PM, said:

1 month? return mc rewards for successful defense on the slider. So stalemates reward both sides, and make them worthwhile to fight for.

Ironically, the multi-bucket system worked better in encouraging unit spread, as more units could get paid MC..for taking or defending a planet. So, 1 bucket consolidated population, but encouraged stacking a side...so as to get planet tags....stalemates in this system are no good for any unit who wants MC.

The problem with paying MC for stalemates in 1-bucket is you would likely have to pay both sides (as both did successfully defend), While, this would encourage unit spread (as everyone looks for a piece of the MC pie) it would also encourage stalemates. So, the map might not move much at all....which defeats the whole storyline PGI is going for.

Edit: I do think something tying MC rewards to number of drops (not just wins), would encourage spread as it cuts down waiting.....allowing more drops. For example if a Merc unit becomes concerned that they might get outdropped in their timezone (and not get a tag). The best thing MC-wise they could do is switch to the other side. They couldn't get planet MC, but with an increased number of drops they could make up that difference and it would be a sure deal (vs. maybe we get planet tag or not deal). If you didn't count ghost drops in the MC calculation, it would punish stacking...as you would risk getting far less MC-tied actual drops by being on a stacked side.

Edited by Marquis De Lafayette, 29 September 2017 - 07:46 AM.

[Nightbird]

NlGHTBlRD, on 28 September 2017 - 07:03 AM, said:

Problem: Bad matches when teams of disproportionate skills meet in FP

Idea: Battle values in lobby and voluntary handicap

Description: When a lobby is formed, the battle value of your team and that of your enemy team is displayed. The battle value of a pilot is their (KDR + WLR)*100 from their last 100 FP matches. After viewing the respective BVs, the team with the higher BV may elect to take a handicap by being allowed to use dropdecks with fewer than 4 mechs. To incentivize the taking of a handicap, mercs get a cbill bonus and loyalists get a lp bonus for their performance in the match. The formula in % is (tonnage limit - deck tonnage)/tonnage limit*100. Suppose limit is 250 tons and you take 110 tons, your handicap bonus is (250-110)/250*100=56% cbills or loyalty points depending on you're a merc or loyalist. In the drop screen, the average handicap given is displayed to both teams.

Result: The stronger team optimizes by taking the minimal tonnage needed to secure victory. The weaker team has a chance of taking advantage of the stronger team's overconfidence. Both sides will find the match challenging.

I wanted to explain this idea more because I think it would improve the FP experience for everyone.

When two teams of equal skill meet in a match, both sides have a good time. This does not happen often in FP because there is no match maker - the population doesn't support it. Can you make a match competitive when the team strengths are dramatically different?

To start, you need to first quantify the difference: calculate a number to represent a team's experience. The BV value (the exact formula does not matter) crunches out numbers both teams can see in a lobby. Using the provided formula as an example, a team with average .5 KDR and .5 WLR will have a BV of 1,200, a team with average 3 KDR and 7 WLR will have a BV of 12,000. Such a match-up will not to be a competitive or fun match for either team.

How then do you make this match competitive? There are any number of way to go about this, but the bottom line is that the stronger team cannot fight with the the same tonnage and number of mechs as the weaker team, i.e. a handicap is needed. The method I proposed, loosening dropdeck rules, is intended to be an easy-to implement-solution. It is not the only solution. Likewise, the incentive I suggested is easy to implement, encourages the taking of a handicap, and is informative. If in the drop screen the weaker team sees that a 50% average handicap is given, they know the other team gave up 50% of their tonnage. The road to victory, while still long, is much shorter than a full dropdeck match. The stronger team on the other hand knows the spoils of victory will be greater, but any mistakes will lead to an unsightly defeat. Both sides can expect a more challenging and fair match than exists today.

Making the handicap voluntary has multiple benefits: simplicity, flexibility, and entertainment. A required handicap would be hard to calculate and implement fairly, whereas a voluntary handicap can be programmed in a day. Each pilot is unique, a strong team will still have novice pilots, so each pilot can choose their own handicap based on their own skill. If the stronger team takes no handicaps, fine, but with a great difference in experience its silly to not to. Lastly, top teams can challenge themselves with who can win with the largest handicap. "You won with 12 summoners and a 75% handicap? Well we can win with 12 Griffins and a 85% handicap." "Forget you all, here's a video of us winning with 12 locusts and a 93% handicap." Such challenges will be entertaining to the community, push good pilots to the limit, and result in many losses to pugs.

Edited by NlGHTBlRD, 29 September 2017 - 06:45 PM.

[Husker Dude]

Problem: Too many matches of premade groups vs. a team of mostly solo players.

Idea: Force FW teams to be a full twelve man premade.


Hopefully, this would encourage players grouping up in a game mode that is supposed to revolve around teamwork, rather than catering to players who want the game mode bent to accommodate solo play. The LFG tool would become more used, as teams would often need to pull a player from there to complete their group, and this would also help acclimate new players to the game mode, since they'd be much more likely to be dropping with players who have actually done it before.
Also, in the absence of any in-game recruitment tools, this could be a pretty nice feature for existing units to find new compatible players.

[naterist]

NlGHTBlRD, on 29 September 2017 - 06:29 AM, said:

Could you flesh this out a little? How much per person or unit? Is it more than the amount that can be earned by maintaining the maximum amount of tags, or less?

Just bring back what they had in 3.0 is all. If you stop the planet flipping, then you get your unit tag on it.

[Lances107]

Beating a dead horse I have to agree with, but going to have to give it a go. PGI has the info but because of there bias they will not fix some of it. I am no elitist but on some level it needs to pan out.
1. First thing I would do is kill comp play, the q is awfull, because I believe the population is spread too thin. Though some of the elitist that focus comp play will hate this. Faction play was here first, and to be frank faction goes, I go. I have no intrest on sticking around if faction play is lost. Although as stated this is a belief and I have no numbers to support it.

2. Restrict faction play to units only. Pugs should not be anywhere near faction play, it is highly reliant upon communication, and a persons ability to obey orders.

3. Increase drop deck to 250 tons for clan on invasions and increase clan drop deck to 55 tons on scouting.

4. The only modes that should be in faction is incursion, escort, and Siege. Conquest heavily favors the IS due to the heavy drop deck they have. The other modes make no sense for faction warfare.

5. Yes add a decently charged mc reward for loyalist pilots. Right now mercs control the faction war 100 percent. It does not matter what loyalist do. Whatever side the mercs support is the side that will win. The only other option is to eradicate the merc/freelance career path. The only fair way to do that would be allow them to join a faction and get that factions rank equivalent to their previous merc/freelance rank. Although even then they are still going to be pissed as hell and for good reason. So the mc reward is probably the least destructive way to go.

In the end it comes down to endless waves of clan nerfs, which demoralize the clan player base on a constant basis. This does not help faction play. The lop sided treatment of the drop decks. Too few players spread across not one, not two, but three modes.

[Husker Dude]

Lances107, on 29 September 2017 - 11:00 AM, said:

4. The only modes that should be in faction is incursion, escort, and Siege. Conquest heavily favors the IS due to the heavy drop deck they have. The other modes make no sense for faction warfare.

I'm not sure why conquest favors heavier mechs. I think Conquest is one of the few modes that plays well in FW, and most games I've seen have been determined by who actively controlled the cap points through the match, almost none have ended due to full kills. Having more heavier (and slower) mechs isn't a boon for Conquest.

[naterist]

Marquis De Lafayette, on 29 September 2017 - 07:39 AM, said:

Ironically, the multi-bucket system worked better in encouraging unit spread, as more units could get paid MC..for taking or defending a planet. So, 1 bucket consolidated population, but encouraged stacking a side...so as to get planet tags....stalemates in this system are no good for any unit who wants MC.

The problem with paying MC for stalemates in 1-bucket is you would likely have to pay both sides (as both did successfully defend), While, this would encourage unit spread (as everyone looks for a piece of the MC pie) it would also encourage stalemates. So, the map might not move much at all....which defeats the whole storyline PGI is going for.

Edit: I do think something tying MC rewards to number of drops (not just wins), would encourage spread as it cuts down waiting.....allowing more drops. For example if a Merc unit becomes concerned that they might get outdropped in their timezone (and not get a tag). The best thing MC-wise they could do is switch to the other side. They couldn't get planet MC, but with an increased number of drops they could make up that difference and it would be a sure deal (vs. maybe we get planet tag or not deal). If you didn't count ghost drops in the MC calculation, it would punish stacking...as you would risk getting far less MC-tied actual drops by being on a stacked side.

Maybe in that vein, 5 mc each phase for a win, 3 for a successful defend.

[Nightbird]

naterist, on 29 September 2017 - 10:42 AM, said:

Just bring back what they had in 3.0 is all. If you stop the planet flipping, then you get your unit tag on it.

Well, supposed I was a dirty bird and wanted to exploit this would I go for balance or stacking? If I went for balance, and got a tag for defence, how to I keep it for the next phase? I can't keep the other side from voting for it again, there would need to be massive collusion to keep voting for untagged planets. So much effort. On the other hand, if the top 4 units stacked one side, they can keep tagged planets for 36 attack phases as the border moves taking planets out of the vote. Much easier to keep the MC rolling in.

The days of mercs deciding wins is over, everyone in a top unit has the top merc rank, so it's selecting loyalist contracts now for a few months at a time to earn rank rewards. Don't be surprised if they randomly always pick the same side with this or the current setup, there's honestly no difference imho.

It's not gaming the system, it's not exploiting the system, it's what the system encourages people to do.

Please scrutinize my ideas in the same way, how would you abuse them?

[naterist]

NlGHTBlRD, on 29 September 2017 - 11:40 AM, said:

Well, supposed I was a dirty bird and wanted to exploit this would I go for balance or stacking? If I went for balance, and got a tag for defence, how to I keep it for the next phase? I can't keep the other side from voting for it again, there would need to be massive collusion to keep voting for untagged planets. So much effort. On the other hand, if the top 4 units stacked one side, they can keep tagged planets for 36 attack phases as the border moves taking planets out of the vote. Much easier to keep the MC rolling in.

The days of mercs deciding wins is over, everyone in a top unit has the top merc rank, so it's selecting loyalist contracts now for a few months at a time to earn rank rewards. Don't be surprised if they randomly always pick the same side with this or the current setup, there's honestly no difference imho.

It's not gaming the system, it's not exploiting the system, it's what the system encourages people to do.

Please scrutinize my ideas in the same way, how would you abuse them?

Thats always an inherit risk in tags. My unit a couple tags removed in 4.1 before it was milked dry, thats just part of it. Always has been, always will. We were just happy to be getting tags.

[Marquis De Lafayette]

naterist, on 29 September 2017 - 11:36 AM, said:

Maybe in that vein, 5 mc each phase for a win, 3 for a successful defend.

With those numbers, losing side gets paid...but I still think it would pay to stack a side.

If you kept things the same for a win (planetary MC), but made actual drops pay a tiny bit of MC per drop you could keep planet wins meaningful, but potentially make it more profitable to play matches (giving per match MC) on the other losing side (without the chance of planet MC). If one side gets uber-stacked and has long waits and ghosts, while the other side racks up match MC...it's possible it would be more profitable to swap over for units. Market forces at work....
My point is If they could create a system where playing one side is not necessarily more profitable than the other it could encourage spread. No one likes waits...teams do like to play other teams...just the current system financially incentivizes stacking a side. So, if we could solve that, some other problems might be lessened as well.

Edited by Marquis De Lafayette, 29 September 2017 - 11:52 AM.

[naterist]

Marquis De Lafayette, on 29 September 2017 - 11:49 AM, said:

With those numbers, losing side gets paid...but I still think it would pay to stack a side.

If you kept things the same for a win (planetary MC), but made actual drops pay a tiny bit of MC per drop you could keep planet wins meaningful, but potentially make it more profitable to play matches (giving per match MC) on the other losing side (without the chance of planet MC). If one side gets uber-stacked and has long waits and ghosts, while the other side racks up match MC...it's possible it would be more profitable to swap over for units. Market forces at work....
My point is If they could create a system where playing one side is not necessarily more profitable than the other it could encourage spread. No one likes waits...teams do like to play other teams...just the current system financially incentivizes stacking a side. So, if we could solve that, some other problems might be lessened as well.

I was thinking, each person with 1 win per phase gets 5mc, and planet tags 10mc a phase.

[Marquis De Lafayette]

naterist, on 29 September 2017 - 11:57 AM, said:

I was thinking, each person with 1 win per phase gets 5mc, and planet tags 10mc a phase.

Sorry I am not tracking with your exact plan here. Anyway, you could spell it out in more detail? Or maybe someone else here gets it and can rephrase?

Edited by Marquis De Lafayette, 29 September 2017 - 12:15 PM.

[sub2000]

Marquis De Lafayette, on 29 September 2017 - 11:49 AM, said:

With those numbers, losing side gets paid...but I still think it would pay to stack a side.

If you kept things the same for a win (planetary MC), but made actual drops pay a tiny bit of MC per drop you could keep planet wins meaningful, but potentially make it more profitable to play matches (giving per match MC) on the other losing side (without the chance of planet MC). If one side gets uber-stacked and has long waits and ghosts, while the other side racks up match MC...it's possible it would be more profitable to swap over for units. Market forces at work....
My point is If they could create a system where playing one side is not necessarily more profitable than the other it could encourage spread. No one likes waits...teams do like to play other teams...just the current system financially incentivizes stacking a side. So, if we could solve that, some other problems might be lessened as well.

Clan side (it is silly to talk about sides here) is stacked because of better easier mechs on the clan side, and because "lore", lrm enthusiasts etc. form an active core of the IS. Simply put to form a team on IS side is more a challenge.

Edited by sub2000, 29 September 2017 - 12:53 PM.

[naterist]

Create a pgi run ts, and put links to it in fw, add a channel for each unit ingame, and order it by activity levels. Discord also would work, with text and voice channels for each unit

Important pgi basically spam your face with links when you go into the faction tab. A repeated popup or a box with it that never goes away in the corner. Hopefully some pugs may get the idea and go to it.

[Kaoba]

sub2000, on 29 September 2017 - 12:38 PM, said:

Really and which of the mentioned ideas find you good? You know to make FW more populated and with less ghost drops...
There are fundamental problems with FW starting with relative "ease" of mech bay tourism (and AFK players who "participate" rather than play first 10 invasion drops). There is huge difference in skills among participants.
Do you want a good idea? The unites with W2L ratio of 4 or more go to one TC and start organizing matches between them(they claim they don't enjoy seal clubbing, do they?), hence freeing "brown see" from their presence.
You know what will happen? FW will be populated in no time. No extra MC bribes will be needed.
Of course populated to the level of QP, which is not so much to brag about.

Soo how this relate to my post?? My statement is true pgi never reads brown sea, heck they pay more attention to reddit.

[naterist]

Then link it to reddit.

[Nightbird]

Keep it focused guys, if it's not a suggestion or a critique, please don't reply to it. Thanks!

Edited by NlGHTBlRD, 29 September 2017 - 04:21 PM.