78 replies to this topic

[LordNothing]

so i expect solaris to come out. and i expect it to have serious problems on day one. people will abandon it in droves. the next 2 years will be dedicated to fixing solaris without even touching on its serious flaws. when pgi finally throws in the towel, then they will upgrade fp. oh and mw5 will also be inexplicably delayed by at least a year.

thats my prediction based on extrapolating past issues with fp.

Edited by LordNothing, 22 December 2017 - 12:29 AM.

[Davegt27]

Solaris 7 time frame "springish" so not to far off

time hack 8:26:50


https://www.twitch.tv/videos/208145385

LordNothing, on 22 December 2017 - 12:28 AM, said:

so i expect solaris to come out. and i expect it to have serious problems on day one. people will abandon it in droves. the next 2 years will be dedicated to fixing solaris without even touching on its serious flaws. when pgi finally throws in the towel, then they will upgrade fp. oh and mw5 will also be inexplicably delayed by at least a year.

thats my prediction based on extrapolating past issues with fp.

I just predict many tears from the Solaris games

[LordNothing]

Davegt27, on 22 December 2017 - 12:53 AM, said:

I just predict many tears from the Solaris games

i also predict that solaris will become my game mode of choice. which almost guarantees that everyone else will hate it.

[General Solo]

Does the population warrant such a thing

[Kin3ticX]

I'd prefer PGI work on almost anything besides faction play. I know I repeat myself over and over but phase 3 bombed so hard that a good chunk of phase 4 was retreat, regroup, and consolidate.

PGI was not willing to compromise on factions. I wanted to go from 10 down to 4, PGI wanted effectively 2 + "side events".

The job should have been done by phase 4 and people still think its incomplete.

The map is pretty ceremonial, its just an over glorified play now. Space nerd politics was totally gutted by how bad phase 3 was and by how phase 4 ended it for good.

[Davegt27]

xX PUG Xx, on 20 December 2017 - 11:58 AM, said:

Once upon a time a few people wrote very in-depth and well thought out concepts for how FP could work. I myself wrote a few lengthy posts about modifying what we had even the inclusion of the QP modes (sorry folks) but most if not all of these people have fallen by the wayside or simply don't have the energy to try again.

Personally I have ideas but most revolve around a reset to something akin to Ph.2, perhaps with elements of Ph.3 in the larger scale Meta game. The area that actually makes running or being part of a Unit (Loyalist or Mercenary) a worthwhile endeavour. The maps and modes require a fairly extensive rework in tandem with this, syncing planetary information to the map type and mode would be a good start. Look up New Syrtis on Sarna.Net and tell me where Sulfurous Rift fits into that planets biom.

It has always been about immersion (or lack of) that has hurt the implementation of CW/FW/FP. This needs to be addressed and a plan laid out put meat on the bare bones, otherwise it is just QP with respawns and silly little Unit tags.

the search function is sort of screwed up

can you link some of your ideas?

also it can help if the proposals come in smaller bite sized chunks

[xX PUG Xx]

Davegt27, on 23 December 2017 - 03:09 PM, said:

the search function is sort of screwed up

can you link some of your ideas?

also it can help if the proposals come in smaller bite sized chunks

I'll see if I can dig any up but I'm at work right now so it may be after Christmas. Oh and I never did have the patience for adding "spoliers" lol.

[MischiefSC]

Anything that could even be mistaken for depth, purpose or complexity was gutted with 1 Bukkit.

There's no point nor anything to change that would mean anything that PGI has shown they are willing to do.

[xX PUG Xx]

MischiefSC, on 24 December 2017 - 08:21 AM, said:

Anything that could even be mistaken for depth, purpose or complexity was gutted with 1 Bukkit.

There's no point nor anything to change that would mean anything that PGI has shown they are willing to do.

A big IF.

What if they reverted to the individual Factions with the linear planetary conquest lanes I suggested but only for the Clan factions? Each Clan is its own entity once again, fighting their way to Terra via a series if targetted planets. Meanwhile the IS Factions are allied under the Star League banner to defend these world.... however during weekend events each IS faction can be given a historically (Lore based) important planet to fight over between individual factions or groups of factions or perhaps this could be used for some of the big Civil War battles.

Anything that will vastly improve FP will require programming of some description and I firmly believe that the "one bucket" system needs to be reverted, whether partially or fully, to allow FP to gain any semblance of identity.

[MischiefSC]

A lot would help.

Would it bring people back?

I don't know. At this point a promise from PGI and $5 wouldn't get you a coffee, because you wouldn't trust the $5 isn't fake. Look, overall I like PGI and wish them all the best. However FW was not delivered and painfully mishandled. There's no basis for trust. Solaris is going to be a cluster.

[Positive Mental Attitude]

LOL This poor "community" is so desperate for anything worthwhile theyre hoping for more 1 way conversations from russ...

Why?

[xX PUG Xx]

Davegt27, on 23 December 2017 - 03:09 PM, said:

the search function is sort of screwed up

can you link some of your ideas?

also it can help if the proposals come in smaller bite sized chunks

A lot of my old work from during Closed Beta was lost on a memory stick but this is one I could recover from 2015. Apologies for the format but it was originally written in MS Office, which doesn't transfer easily to these forums, I have tried to break it down to spoilers and their headers.

Originally written April 2015.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------


I recently replied to a thread on the MWO forums which I initially wrote off as another solo player whining that he had been stomped by a large premade group in CW and that he should either accept that CW is engineered for just such premade groups or he should find a way to up his game to be able to compete in the “big kids pool” environment of CW if he chose to play solo there.
However it then got me thinking, what could be done to “include” as much of the player base (the Community) into the Community Warfare section of the game?

At present the solo and group queues are simply meaningless beyond grinding for CBills and XP, they have no real impact on the “Meta” game that I feel should be the REAL reason for playing with gigantic walking avatars of war. The Battletech universe has as much depth and character as anything JRR Tolkien envisioned and has the potential to give us a hugely diverse and rewarding background to immerse ourselves into.

I touched on my belief that EVERY game played in the online lobbies (with the exception of Private lobbies) should affect the Universe we are fighting in, each game should contribute to the overall Community Warfare map and each player should feel engaged and essential to the success of their chosen Faction. Therefore there would be no Solo/Public queues, only Community Warfare and the combat missions attached to the various planets, how this would affect the overall conquest or defence of the planet I have not worked out and would require a programmer/developer to figure out the technical aspects.
Each game mode and map has the potential to be used for niches in the CW experience; for example the Conquest mechanic has many possible applications, while the full game mode could easily be “tweaked” to accommodate a scouting role in Community Warfare. To expand further on this it could be possible to allocate certain team size caps to certain mission types, giving solo players (and new players) somewhere to get their feet wet and learn the ropes.


Contracts (game modes) available to Lone Wolves (Solo players).

Spoiler

• Solo only - 4 ‘Mech small scale combat and scouting missions, Skirmish and Conquest on the smaller maps such as River City, Forest Colony and Canyon Network.
Lower flat rates for LP and CBill payments, with higher modifiers for team based in-game actions to emphasis the lower risk involved but encourage engagement and teamwork.
• Small group and Solo – same as above but with slightly better rewards, encourages Lance sized groups to play and co-ordinate. Possibly with the DropShip reinforcements added and min/max tonnage limit.
Use current rates for LP and CBill payments for game win/loss and in-game actions, this is the introduction to the “Big Leagues”; overall the payments should be slightly higher [5%] than the solo only queue.
• Up to Demi-Company sized groups (max group size 8) in Company (12 ‘Mechs) combat operations – Assault, Skirmish, Counter Attack/Defend and Attack (current CW modes).
LP/CBill payments set higher again [5%] with high modifiers for combat based in-game actions to reward combat and co-ordinated gameplay.

Contracts (game modes) available to groups.

Spoiler

2 - 4 players
• Skirmish and Conquest in the Small Group/Solo queue
LP/CBill rewards for completion of the contract should be [5-10%] higher than the Solo player rewards, reflecting the higher risk/reward factor for Groups entering into battle with an unknown players alongside them. Modifiers for in-game actions set at current levels.
2-12 players (inclusive of group sizes 2 – 4)
• Assault, Skirmish, Counter Attack/Defend and Attack (current CW modes)
LP/CBill rewards [10-15%] for completion of contract/mission higher than Solo player, modifiers for in-game actions set at current levels.

Solo/Group contract breakdown proposal summary.

Spoiler

I believe this would make only 8 queues, 4 for attacking a planet and 4 for defending, multiplied by how ever many planets are up for contention. Therefore wait times should be much lower since every player is included in the Community Warfare experience but still has the choice of what level they wish to play at;

• The soloist can stick to the smaller scale engagements but still feel as though they are contributing and will likely be earning slightly more CBills than they presently do in the Solo queues, while earning LP to go toward the Faction based rewards.

NB – as a side note this particular queue could be broken down further to allow for new players to the game, perhaps having a separate queue mechanic to keep the “Cadets” from facing seasoned Veterans until they have their 25 battles under their Neurohelmets. As well as giving them the flexibility to venture into Company (12 ‘Mech) group queues if they so desire.

• The smaller Units have the choice of where and how they commit their time and energy; while either giving themselves an opportunity of fighting on equal terms with an opponent or taking the chance of going into a Company drop against a possibly larger grouped enemy team. CBill and LP earnings will be on par with current levels, perhaps slightly higher.

• Likewise the larger Units can choose how to use their forces, engage in the smaller scale fights and perhaps help to tip the balance on the planet or fully commit to Company sized engagements in the hope of overwhelming their opponents attack/defence.

One thing that was mentioned was the ability for players to simply jump in and play a random game without worrying about the tactical consequences, a “throw away” game mode not unlike what unfortunately makes up the majority of the gameplay at present. Further down the road of development it may be good to have something like a Solaris, 1 vs.1 up to 8 vs.8 game mode; something there has been a large calling for over the years. This could provide the side show games for some stress relief if required but I think the layout above would provide enough variety to cater for everyone’s taste.

The remaining question would be; what percentage does each game mode attribute to the overall defence/conquest of a planet? This I would leave to the developers, as it would undoubtedly require many tweaks to get the right ratio. It may even be that, given the possible implementation of logistics and economy in the long run, different game modes (missions) could have different consequences on different planets. This would have to be something for future discussion and exploration but I do feel the above layout provides some flexibility to the developers to explore this option.

The next question would be; how does which Faction a player chooses affect Contracts and what rewards are available from them?

Spoiler

The easiest answer for the developers at this stage would be to scrap the Mercenary / Lone Wolf Factions and simply have players choose between Clan and House. This may cause a bit on an upset but it would eliminate a whole quagmire of programming issues.

However…

I believe there could be some difference in how a Loyalist is rewarded versus a Mercenary or Lone Wolf and below I have outlined an idea I came up with. Essentially it revolves around boosts to either LP or CBill rewards, the Loyalists (House/Clan players) are rewarded for their loyalty by increased LP rewards (or perhaps even have a separate LP rewards tree with shorter gaps or higher rewards per level/more levels). Mercs/Lone Wolves are rewarded through increased CBill income but lower LP rewards or it might even be regulated by having a separate LP “tree” for the Mercs/Lone Wolves with slightly longer LP gaps between rewards or lower rewards per level.

Loyalists are essentially the line Units of the main Factions, honour and loyalty bound to the chosen House or Clan. As such they do not have the freedom to attack planets at will and are subject to the desires and strategic whims of their Liege Lord or Khan. However their emphasis would be in the ability to take planets in stewardship for their Houses, gaining rewards based on ownership and therefore boosting CBill earnings by implementation of bonuses per planet owned. This could be given as a Faction wide payment, the more planets a Faction holds the larger the “pot” and therefore the larger a share goes to the individual players, therefore making it fairer on the smaller units that stand less of a chance in “tagging” planets.

However Mercenaries and Lone Wolves would “survive” financially by taking salvage and contract completion bonuses, therefore the emphasis for this group would be on completion of missions and ‘Mech kills.

How would Contracts (games) be generated and how would it be possible to differentiate between the types available to players.

Spoiler

Here is an example that I thought up:

The House Liao CCAF High Command (controlled by PGI’s in-game algorithm) generates an “Attack” combat action against a planet on the House Davion border, which shows in the normal way on the Faction screen for the Loyalist units. In turn it also generates a series of Solo, Small Group, Demi-Company and Company (as listed above) “attack” and “defence” contracts for this planet on an “MRBC Contracts Board” for use by all Lone Wolf players and Mercenary Units. These would not be based on the game “mode” (attack, counter attack, etc.) but as a broad based contract for combat operations in support of one House or the other; thus adding a little “unknown” element to the drops and hopefully forcing a little diversity into players’ drop decks.

This would be where Lone Wolves and Mercenary Units would be able to choose the length of their contracts;
• Single drop – [0%] LP boost – [1%] CBill boost
• 1 day defence/attack – [1%] LP boost – [2%] CBill boost
• 3 day defence/attack – [2%] LP boost – [4%] CBill boost
• 7 day defence/attack – [5%] LP boost – [7.5%] CBill boost
• 14 day defence/attack – [7.5%] LP boost – [15%] CBill boost

Loyalist Units are already receiving a 15% boost on LP rewards, the above incremental increase in LP rewards will not allow the Lone Wolves / Mercenary Units to earn as much LP as the Loyalists but the CBill rewards would plateau at 15%, therefore giving an emphasis to the “soldier-for-hire” choice of Lone Wolves and Mercenaries.

Now obviously the Lone Wolves and Mercenaries are unable to hold (or “tag”) the planet, this would be done by the most successful Loyalist unit; so the Lone Wolves and Mercenaries “reward” for fighting for Liao will come from the drop by drop bonuses. The Loyalist units will earn less in the short term but the rewards will even out or possibly be higher with successfully capturing a world; the emphasis for them being the taking of territory for their chosen House.

I am not mathematically minded, therefore it would take someone else to fully work out the figures but I think by now you get my idea (hopefully).

The TL:DR version
• Incorporate all game modes/queues into the persistent world of “Community Warfare”
• Allow Solo / Group players to choose which queue they play in:
o 4 vs. 4 solo only
o 4 vs. 4 mixed solo/group (1 – 4 players in a group)
o 12 vs. 12 with a max group size of 8 (1 – 8 players in a group)
o “Standard” Community Warfare drop with any combination of group size. (1 – 12 players in a group)
• Game mode (assault, conquest, skirmish, counter attack, attack) determined by the game as is necessary for the stage of the planetary conflict.
• Loyalist players and Units have an emphasis placed on increased Loyalty Point rewards, perhaps with a separate Loyalty Reward Tree.
• Mercenary Units / Lone Wolf players have an emphasis placed on CBill earnings on a match per match basis, with bonuses paid for longer contracts.
• Loyalist players and Units earn a territorial reward, by means of a “pot” determined by the amount of planets or planetary value held by their chosen House.
• Military High Command for each House designates Attack / Defend lanes for Loyalist players and Units.
• MRBC Contract Board generates individual contracts based on planets under attack; these can have increased / decreased rewards depending on population of given Factions in contest of the planet.

Edited by xX PUG Xx, 26 December 2017 - 02:17 AM.

[xX PUG Xx]

This is another I have managed to recover but it is obviously part of a larger conversation which I have not saved. Originally written August 2016, around about my birthday so I may have been drunk


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I think the goal here should be to make FP as easy for a player or group to get “into” an Invasion or Scout mission as it can be made, while obviously keeping it within the realms of the BT universe and the Inner Sphere setting.

If PGi were to take my suggestion above and dilute the number of planets in each faction down it would be a step toward streamlining and hopefully making the whole FP experience more appealing to a larger proportion of the player base. At the moment the vast majority of the players are in the Quick play mode, what we need to ask is why and what can be learnt from that to improve the appeal of FP? The most glaring reason I can think of is the ease in which a player can get into a match and this has nothing to do with the number of players in the QP queues as these numbers are not visible. When a player chooses to click on the big green button on the top right of their screen they are simply interested in getting into a game and shooting stuff in their big stompy robot. What happens once they are into that game it can be as simple or complicated as they want it to be but the initial actions of selecting a ‘Mech and clicking on Quick Play is straight forward.

Faction Play is hurt by the multitude of choices present in its design; choose a Faction, choose a planet to attack or defend, choose to play in Scout or Invasion mode and each choice dilutes the player base while not providing enough quick, clear information for the average player to make good choices. More importantly it makes it difficult to quickly get into a match and do what we all really want to do, play the game.
So here is a streamlined idea for getting a player into a Faction Play game.
(Based upon the premise that the single “attack/defend” planet discussed at the Round Table is implemented along with the Faction alliance vote and my suggestion of having planetary information linked to the map types and modes on a particular planet)

• A player chooses to sign for Ghost Bear as a Loyalist and looks to see what action is happening.
• The Clan has voted to attack FRR and the planet Radstadt is in contention; the player can see the maps and modes listed for the Invasion and Scout modes listed under the planetary information.
• He can now choose to setup his Drop Deck to cover as many eventualities as possible for these maps and decide whether to play Invasion or Scout by simply selecting the appropriate DD.
• Once ready he simply clicks on the Faction “Quick Launch” button and the Match Maker begins the search for a match on the planet.
• If the Faction has elected to ally itself with another, the MM can also search for an appropriate match on the planet of that ally.

Using this setup there is a total of 6 buckets/queues for any given player but all he needs to do is click “Quick Launch” and the MM does the rest, virtually the same way the QP MM does. Now this player can (hopefully) get into a FP match with the minimum of effort and with the incorporation of the larger QP maps has a good variety of match types to expect.

Obviously this does not address the “content” issue of FP or fully address the map design of the existing FP layouts but it would provide a decent mix and a good middle ground to keep players interested while PGI work on bringing more map and mission types to both FP and QP. Since both modes share some assets any additions to one can be used in the other with minimal effort, this can only be seen as a win-win for both players and PGI.

Have I explained this better and what are your thoughts?

[Appogee]

I think PGI have comprehensively indicated they are not interested any further in FP.

I can't see why anyone would even want to participate in a round table, given the last one resulted in zero change.

Russ and Paul are focused on MW5. I can't see how we could ever convince them to work on an ostensibly fringe game mode in a game they seem increasingly uninterested in.

It's a shame. FP is pretty much all I want to play these days. (Matchmaker keeps me away from QP.)

Edited by Appogee, 26 December 2017 - 02:56 AM.

[C E Dwyer]

Grus, on 20 December 2017 - 01:30 PM, said:

How about if we are attacking a hot planet we will drop on hot maps.. cold planet's get cold maps so on so forth?

This, and lore descriptions. should have been in ages ago, and still remain undone.
Both things are time consuming but not beyond the scope of what P.G.I can do, and would give the mode some depth, even though neither would change game play.

The only other things that can be done with the mode of play, other than choosing drop zones, and new maps, are things that P.G.I said would be part of Faction Warfare, or added in another way.

There are only two major aspects that will or would have given the mode real value.

The first was unit insignia or as P.G.I presented it joining the unit. If this had been implemented.

It would have populated the game mode, not just for a week while an event is on for some bad reward, but all the time, as people ground out the loyalty points to own their favourite units markings.

You want to be in the Lyran Guard or get their badges. you fight for the Comonwealth until you get the loyalty points and then you gain the badge.

Instead P.G.I turned one of the things that would have made Faction warfare the place to be, into a micro transaction, so anyone can just buy it, completely devaluing owning the units colours.

While giving us basically crap cockpit items that none bought, and a few MC rewards which it's not worth fighting for and far easier to buy, these became the Rewards for hours of game play on two not very good maps.


The second was a modifiable dynamic game economy.

Each planet had a strategic value, mech parts, or weapons made there, the price of your Highlander just went up a million c-bills, go play Faction Warfare and recapture the planets that caused the jump in price. Or capture the planet that unlocks the ERPPC.

Not every planet has to cause this economy change, but even the planets that don't are still worth fighting for, because they are the stepping stones to the ones that do..

Nothing in my post is new, it's things that were talked about as going be in the mode, by P.G.I

The choosing your drop zone as presented by the round table talks.

Or items that myself and others felt were needed in the mode to make it interesting, or a desired mode to play.

Only one is really going to effect how the mode is played, but the others do have a big impact on the game or how the mode is presented.

Until they're realised, no other changes will cause F.W popularity to increase.

I'm pretty sure P.G.I know this, and this is why the mode is ignored, as none of the changes will make money, or the more complex are beyond P.G.I's skill set.

[Davegt27]

thanks Pug for the info

I think presenting stuff in smaller bit size chunks might be the ticket

[Black Ivan]

I don't think a roundtable would sort or help anything. PGI has shown they have no interesst in FW anymore and switched to Solaris and MW5.

Thre would have to be a serious reasong like preorders chancels en masse or more to have them sit up and take notice, and even then they have to get people into the mode with more than bribing them.

[MeHowDude]

So the core of the game (faction play) has been abandoned, and now they are trying to make mwo an e-sport game like counter strike through solaris and quick play. What are they thinking? no competitive player in his/her right mind would decide to play mwo on a competitive level; additionally, the majority of the player base of battletech or MechWarrior series are not interested in competitive gameplay (now mwo is just "downgraded version of csgo"). And the saddest thing is that the mwo animation is not even close to MechWarrior 4, it still feels like alpha stage . No point of beating a dead horse. Its time to move back to MechWarrior living legends and MegaMek.

Edited by MeHowDude, 27 December 2017 - 05:41 AM.

[Sunstruck]

Untill PGI gives any sign about giving a **** about Faction Play why should I.

[Deathlike]

There's no point.

Even if you put up a polished consensus on what is needed, it takes only 2 seconds to let it get ignored by Russ and PGI.

A round table only matters if PGI doesn't treat everyone else like squares that doesn't fit in their round hole of ideas.

Edited by Deathlike, 27 December 2017 - 03:20 PM.