92 replies to this topic

[Nightbird]

Purpose: Collect ideas PGI can do in one month to make FP a better experience. The premise is that we make FP better every patch iteratively rather than huge risky revamps.

Rules: Suggest or critique an idea. No other discussions please. A valid critique is an idea cannot be done in one month. This means 2 weeks to program (by 1 person) and 2 weeks to QA!

Like every idea you would like to see implemented. Do not post that you like an idea, just click like.

I will poke an admin every two pages we fill, and try my best to get PGI feedback.

Edited by NlGHTBlRD, 28 September 2017 - 07:26 AM.

[FallingAce]

Fix the contract system.

FallingAce, on 28 August 2017 - 10:49 AM, said:

It took me less than 2 hours to take the information from my 2 screenshots, manually enter the numbers into a spreadsheet, apply formulas built into the spred sheet, and output the numbers.

PGI already has the tools to output the leader board and apply those numbers to the in game contracts. Any decent programmer could probably automate this in less than an hour.

[Appogee]

FallingAce, on 28 September 2017 - 06:58 AM, said:

Any decent programmer could probably automate this in less than an hour.

Yes. But how is that relevant to MWO?

[Nightbird]

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

Idea: Battle values in lobby and voluntary handicap (Bidding?)

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 may be 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 having their drop deck compliance rules loosened, such as being able to take fewer than 4 mechs and having no minimum tonnage limit. To incentivize the taking of a handicap, some sort of bonus could be given, For example, mercs can get a cbill bonus and loyalists get a lp bonus for their performance in the match. A sample formula in is (tonnage limit - deck tonnage)/tonnage limit*100 in %. (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, so both are aware of the degree of the handicap given.

Result: The stronger team is encouraged to optimize 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.

Discussion:
1) For experienced players and teams, the voluntary handicap would transform the FP experience. Instead of taking the same drop deck to every fight, there would be a new metagame as to how to minimize your drop deck based on each map and mode. There is an opportunity for great challenges and hilarity.

2) If the BV values are considered reasonably accurate, there could even be a penalty to earnings when not taking a handicap based on the difference in the total BV. For example, if there is a 5:1 ratio in BV, the no bonus/no penalty balance point could be at 75% of total tonnage, and if a pilot elects to take the full drop deck they would drop with a -25% earnings penalty.

Edited by NlGHTBlRD, 02 October 2017 - 07:58 PM.

[Marquis De Lafayette]

I can't believe I am going to say this (being how competitive I am)...but to get the talented population to spread out more you probably need to make playing more matches (win or lose...ugh) more profitable (MC) for units than stacking one side is, so as to have a shot at getting planetary MC.

If long waits and more ghost-drops on the "winning side" paid less overall than quick matches (i.e...getting in more matches) with even a lower winning % did....I bet we would see more spread on the part of the Mercs.

MC isn't everything...but I believe it still talks...and if you could get shorter wait times and more MC playing for a struggling side, more people would do it. If a sort of population balance got close to achieved....lobbies would be so quick that everybody would make more...Hopefully keeping folks motivated to stay spread. C-bills isn't the same for long term players...many of us have plenty.

Being that planetary MC payouts are small per cycle, all they would have to do is maybe take the number of "tags" (won or lose) a unit put in during a cycle. Divide it by 5 (or something) and that would get a number of MC to put in the coffers. That way units that just drop a little might in a cycle would get a tiny bit of MC (which might motivate players to drop some, even when their unit isn't on in force).

Players would likely be more motivated to join units if they had MC attached to it ...even bad units could benefit some as they work on getting better.

This is a unit based mode, so a bit more MC...spread wider could make a difference here in terms of participation....and while it wouldn't address other concerns about the mode could help keep this going while other longer-cycle things get worked on (hopefully).

Could be a stupid idea...but we all do like our rewards...heck look at participation in the ballistics event...some of the challenges were dumb, but people still did them.

Edited by Marquis De Lafayette, 28 September 2017 - 08:05 AM.

[Jaybles-The-PegLeg-PotatoCaptain]

Use a variation of the elo system and matching system from the comp play queue to slot teams for FP in the one bukkit. Let the MM have very loose criteria for matching, but as the number of people in queue increases, the elo spread decreases, forming theoretically better matches as more people queue up.

[Nightbird]

Marquis De Lafayette, on 28 September 2017 - 08:03 AM, said:

I can't believe I am going to say this (being how competitive I am)...but to get the talented population to spread out more you probably need to make playing more matches (win or lose...ugh) more profitable (MC) for units than stacking one side is, so as to have a shot at getting planetary MC.

I agree with your post, below is my take on an implementation, which you may or may not agree with.

Problem: FP MC reward structure heavily favors units stacking one side in order to take planet tags. This creates a bad experience for all involved, and drives players out of FP.

Idea: Reward MC per match based on position of tug-of-war bar, with the winning side earning less.

Description: When tug-of-war bar is in the middle (50%), both sides get 1% of LP/RP earned as MC. (MATH below) As the bar moves, the winning side earns less MC linearly. At 75%, the losing side still earns 1% and the winning side earns 0.5%. When the bar hits 100%, the winning side earns 0% in MC.

I am not fixiated on 1%, it's just a nice round number. A typical FP match earns 500-1000 RP/LP, 1% of this equals 5-10MC per match. It would take hundreds of matches to earn a free hero mech, but it is consistent earning that doesn't require being one of the top 4 units on the winning stacked side. (If this is giving away too much MC, toss out the loyalty rank MC, which encourages grinding, stacking, and seal clubbing)

Result: Strong disincentive for the skilled players and units to stack one side, more balanced and competitive FP. Rewards players more for participating, with an overall better experience.

Edited by NlGHTBlRD, 02 October 2017 - 08:01 PM.

[Marquis De Lafayette]

NlGHTBlRD, on 28 September 2017 - 09:33 AM, said:

I agree with your post, below my take on an implementation, which you may or may not agree with.

Problem: FP MC reward structure heavily favors units stacking one side in order to take planet tags.

Idea: Reward MC per match based on position of tug-of-war bar, with the winning side earning less.

Description: When tug-of-war bar is in the middle (50%), both sides get 1% of LP/RP earned as MC. (MATH below) As the bar moves, the winning side earns less MC linearly. At 75%, the losing side still earns 1% and the winning side earns 0.5%. When the bar hits 100%, the winning side earns 0% in MC.

I am not fixiated on 1%, it's just a nice round number. A typical FP match earns 500-1000 RP/LP, 1% of this equals 5-10MC per match. It would take hundreds of matches to earn a free hero mech, but it is consistent earning that doesn't require being one of the top 4 units on the winning stacked side.

Result: Strong disincentive for the skilled players and units to stack one side, more balanced and competitive FP.

I am not sold on my own implementation....i was really just spitballing. I do think you can use MC incentives to encourage playing more matches (even with the potential of a lower w/l ratio) vs. more waiting and ghostdropping, just so you can try to "out-tag" other units on the stacked side. Make playing more actual games (not ghosting) pay more...then market forces might do PGI's balancing work for them as players want to make more sweet MC. So, I am open to how to implement this principle.

[Daurock]

NlGHTBlRD, on 28 September 2017 - 09:33 AM, said:

I agree with your post, below is my take on an implementation, which you may or may not agree with.

Problem: FP MC reward structure heavily favors units stacking one side in order to take planet tags. This creates a bad experience for all involved, and drives players out of FP.

Idea: Reward MC per match based on position of tug-of-war bar, with the winning side earning less.

Description: When tug-of-war bar is in the middle (50%), both sides get 1% of LP/RP earned as MC. (MATH below) As the bar moves, the winning side earns less MC linearly. At 75%, the losing side still earns 1% and the winning side earns 0.5%. When the bar hits 100%, the winning side earns 0% in MC.

I am not fixiated on 1%, it's just a nice round number. A typical FP match earns 500-1000 RP/LP, 1% of this equals 5-10MC per match. It would take hundreds of matches to earn a free hero mech, but it is consistent earning that doesn't require being one of the top 4 units on the winning stacked side.

Result: Strong disincentive for the skilled players and units to stack one side, more balanced and competitive FP. Rewards players more for participating, with an overall better experience.

One thing to keep in mind a bit, is that teams what win get roughly 2-3x more LP/RP due to winning. Bar would have to move 3/4 of the way over or more to keep the "winning" side from still gathering more MC than the "Losing" side on a match per match basis. It might make more sense to make it a sliding scale all the way from 2% when near your own end zone, to 0% at the other, still keeping the 1% each when at the midpoint. (That way, the break even point is probably nearer to 60% instead of 75%-80% captured.)

I really like the concept though

[Duke Einholt]

How about an individual reward system for number of Fw matches played 100 matches player gets mech bay and any light of your choice presently available for Cbils, 200 matches medium mech, 300 matches heavy mech , 400 matches assault mech and at 500 any mech you want. ( excluding any of those 500.00 dollar gold mechs cause that would be like boring salt in a wound).
Other prizes could be offered at 50 match increments consumables, colors, patterns, decals, war horns cockpit items etc.

After maxing out at 500 matches the rewards system counter reset again at zero.Whole idea is to give tangible incentive for playing in the faction warfare que that don't cap out.

[Marquis De Lafayette]

Daurock, on 28 September 2017 - 11:23 AM, said:

One thing to keep in mind a bit, is that teams what win get roughly 2-3x more LP/RP due to winning. Bar would have to move 3/4 of the way over or more to keep the "winning" side from still gathering more MC than the "Losing" side on a match per match basis. It might make more sense to make it a sliding scale all the way from 2% when near your own end zone, to 0% at the other, still keeping the 1% each when at the midpoint. (That way, the break even point is probably nearer to 60% instead of 75%-80% captured.)

I really like the concept though

Correct.....any change has got to make sure whatever change is done is done in a way that it's not "game-able"....i.e...that it actually provides the MC (bonus) to whom it is intended to. As if we (the players) can find a way to exploit the system to our advantage...we will.

Edited by Marquis De Lafayette, 28 September 2017 - 11:54 AM.

[Duke Einholt]

I think the bonus given for being a loyalist is to low, I think a small gift for going loyalist who have played 50 or more FW matches for their chosen house or clan should receive some or all of that factions decals, patterns or colors. Small things like this help build loyalty.

[Marquis De Lafayette]

Duke Einholt, on 28 September 2017 - 11:47 AM, said:

How about an individual reward system for number of Fw matches played 100 matches player gets mech bay and any light of your choice presently available for Cbils, 200 matches medium mech, 300 matches heavy mech , 400 matches assault mech and at 500 any mech you want. ( excluding any of those 500.00 dollar gold mechs cause that would be like boring salt in a wound).
Other prizes could be offered at 50 match increments consumables, colors, patterns, decals, war horns cockpit items etc.

After maxing out at 500 matches the rewards system counter reset again at zero.Whole idea is to give tangible incentive for playing in the faction warfare que that don't cap out.

We have proven that we are willing to participate in the stupidest of challenges for a little bonus prize (clan autocannons anyone?.) so, yes a playerbase can be bought...I do like individual (non-capped) bonuses...maybe that aren't faction specific. Heck, you could even do a season (or some timeframe) long player challenge that resets. Just to really reward those who are willing to grind a lot of FW

Duke Einholt, on 28 September 2017 - 11:58 AM, said:

I think the bonus given for being a loyalist is to low, I think a small gift for going loyalist who have played 50 or more FW matches for their chosen house or clan should receive some or all of that factions decals, patterns or colors. Small things like this help build loyalty.

Agreed in principle. Loyalty to one faction should get greater rewards of this kind...give more than a cup of pop standing item.

[Bud Crue]

Reset to phase 2.

[Nightbird]

I don't disagree with more rewards to draw people to FP. My main concern is the FP experience is straight out worse than QP, and more rewards won't change that experience for the better. I'm hoping the priority will be on making matches interesting and challenging and as fair as possible first, rewards and role playing elements can come after the basics are done right.

[Marquis De Lafayette]

NlGHTBlRD, on 28 September 2017 - 12:42 PM, said:

I don't disagree with more rewards to draw people to FP. My main concern is the FP experience is straight out worse than QP, and more rewards won't change that experience for the better. I'm hoping the priority will be on making matches interesting and challenging and as fair as possible first, rewards and role playing elements can come after the basics are done right.

To me the biggest thing you could do without a ton of re-work (on the content and depth of FW...which yes is more important, but can't get fixed in a month) is to incentivize a more balanced (unit-wise) and active population. Unit v unit matches are the most fun and if everyone could "get paid" the same (or closer to the same) to be more balanced (IS v Clan) it would motivate units to consider strongly any side where drops were quicker on a given week. We all like getting paid, good matches and hate waiting. So, that is why I suggested they try to put "market forces" on the side of balance for once. How exactly (execution) is the thing to work out in my mind.

Oh...and fix the loyalist tree. Add more bonus levels and better bonuses to current levels. Would take like a week to come up with something better than we have now.

Edited by Marquis De Lafayette, 28 September 2017 - 12:54 PM.

[DevlinCognito]

Bit of an odd one, but each time a Loyalist hits Rank 20 they get the option to use 1 Mech from the opposite Tech Base. While I'm dead against Mix-Tech, at least give real Loyalists a unique goal to work towards.

[Nightbird]

Jaybles-The-PegLeg-PotatoCaptain, on 28 September 2017 - 08:17 AM, said:

Use a variation of the elo system and matching system from the comp play queue to slot teams for FP in the one bukkit. Let the MM have very loose criteria for matching, but as the number of people in queue increases, the elo spread decreases, forming theoretically better matches as more people queue up.

Eventually, when we have a good sized FP population to do match making, some sort of system would be great. Currently with 1-2 matches ending every 10 minutes, that's only 150 concurrent players. When we achieve 1500 concurrent players, we'll be able to do MM.

[50 50]

Seeing as it relates more to the end concept in my own thread I've put the details there.
But as a first step.
Bring back some individual House and Clan identity as well as fix wait times by changing the group limits and removing some match restrictions.

Make the minimum and maximum group size a lance.
Only allow each lance to contain players from a single House or Clan. (no skittles)
Change the match maker so it pits any one lance from a House or Clan against a lance from another House or Clan.
Keep the maximum team size of 3 lances for the full 12 players but let the system use a time threshold so it can be 12 v 12 if there are lots of players, but drop to 8 v 8 or 4 v 4 within a short space of time so it can cater for fluctuations in player numbers.
Show the House and Clan victories individually and by mode throughout the attack phase.
Bring back the voting for who we attack per attack phase so we can get internal conflicts.

[Timuroslav]

Idea: make it so Merc units can't own planets. The planets contracted for the Mercs to attack and hold, but they're technically property of the Clan or Loyalist Faction.

Double money rewards for Merc units half MC rewards.
Idea: increase contract duraction cooldown with no Loyalty point reduction.

More Faction specific camo only to be equipped with minimum required Loyalty points.

I see the problem is that Merc are the biggest most effective group and because of that they don't want to fight other Merc units and so the IS Loyalists are still in boycott.

Also " why fight other Merc Units when you can just recruit from Loyalists and bandwagon with other units for the Challenge points"

Loyalty points need to have value. I'm honestly gonna be blunt but I think Mercs are the Elephant in the room. They have so much weight on how CW changes hands that Loyalists feel like there is no point in being a loyalist.

Also they want to be hired but they outnumber everyone, so they just recruit and wait for Challenge events.

Edited by Timuroslav, 21 November 2017 - 05:24 PM.