92 replies to this topic

[Nightbird]

Oh this isn't in response to that, that was poor commuication by a certain streaming player who was helping the enemy by not shooting them and even body blocking them from us. it was also 8vs3 there, I don't think this would have saved it.

I also don't want to increase defender bonus, the turrets can be weakened and the timer can be shortened to the point defenders bonus is less than today.

[Nightbird]

P.S.
Dom also prevents gen sniping, which is why the enclosures today were added. As long as there is a defender, shooting at a gen through the hole means pointing your back to the enemy spawn. For even matches, I think it hurts attackers a lot more than my suggestion which not only doesn't waste an attacker's heat and cooldown, but also gives them cover.

[Husker Dude]

Yeah, I didn't think it was in response to that match in particular, but I have had the same thought about restructuring the siege objectives the odd time I've dropped solo in CW and come up against a CGB gen rush.

[Nightbird]

This has come up a lot the past week so I'll repost it here:

Idea: Solo Queue for Faction Play. If dropping as a group, you will always enter group queue. If dropping alone, you have check boxes to enter solo queue or group queue. Select both for faster search times select solo to only match up against solo players. Sync dropping as a unit will be added as a ToS violation.

Important: Use a faction play only event to launch this mode, with both solo fp queue and group fp queue rewards.

[Nightbird]

Idea: Change dropship zones to this format to greatly reduce farming. No Trump walls needed. Make sure the drop zone is at an elevated location, with slopes that give no cover to attackers within dropship range. The mechs are dropped into a slight depression (bombed out crater using earth moving ordinance), protecting them from all incoming fire due to elevated position. Make change on one-two maps at a time to fit within scope of 1 month improvements.

Edited by Nightbird, 05 November 2017 - 10:23 AM.

[slide]

I like that idea NightBird, but fear it would be too much work for PGI.

To stop spawn camping and turtling, why not have each Dropship drop a Long Tom round on the spawn a couple of seconds before touchdown. Anyone trying to farm or Turtling from the previous drops (sorry disco's bad luck) get nuked. Will at least make people get away from the DZ's and fight somewhere else. (perhaps for safety if you only just dropped and are moving away then you are immune).

[naterist]

For spawn camping?

How bout what they actually proposed for fixing this at a roundtable a year or so ago, and being sble to choose your landing site and choose to spawn with a full dropship, instead of 1 or 2, spread out, at a time.

[Nightbird]

naterist, on 06 November 2017 - 04:49 PM, said:

For spawn camping?

How bout what they actually proposed for fixing this at a roundtable a year or so ago, and being sble to choose your landing site and choose to spawn with a full dropship, instead of 1 or 2, spread out, at a time.

They're working on choosing your dropship, but it doesn't matter if all your spawns have Trump walls with enemies waiting on opposite sides right? Slightly further in the right direction IMHO

[Nightbird]

Easiest idea ever: enable FP warning for every login. If there has to be a way to disable it, put it into settings.

[ANOM O MECH]

For the baby steps approach or maybe Tik/Tok cycle such as Intel has embraced... I digress.

What I would like to see for CW/FP is information in the queue before we start tinkering.

To clarify, I mean I would like to see the queues. Specifically I would like to see a how many groups and their size are in the queue as well as how many pugs. Not just on my side either. I want to see if there are a bunch of units on the other side, that would make it worth teaming up, or should I just pug life it with the rest of whoever might be in there.

Adding this may be enough to give the players some choice as well as allowing the community to help regulate itself a bit. What I mean by this, is that this would be much easier than how we do it now running around checking everybodies TS and seeing how many guys they have on.

Not related to my idea but everything you write here on these forums I read to myself in a robot voice.

[Nightbird]

Nightbird, 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 (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.

An improvement on this idea using a comment from MischiefSC: If the battle value of two teams is significantly different, the weaker team will automatically get a large payout bonus % to encourage fighting back. The bonus should allow even an average performance on a loss will pay more than a win. The idea is that fighting against the odds should be thrilling, not a drag.

[Nightbird]

Idea: get rid of tug-of-war which requires organized units to stack on one side to tag planets, in favor of wins/planet. For each phase, it takes a declared X number of wins per planet. X can be linked to online pop.

Suppose X is 50 for the NA prime time, then every 50 wins will award a planet for that side. Therefore if at the end of a phase Clans have 165 wins and IS 138, then Clans will win 3 planets and IS 2 planets.

Tug-of-war can still be used for events, provided a win is changed to 55% of the bar and a crushing victory instantly ends the event at 100% (do some math to ensure this takes 2 days at at least)

Edited by Nightbird, 17 November 2017 - 09:15 AM.

[Nightbird]

bump