8 replies to this topic

[50 50]

This is part of a discussion on how to bring more depth, function and immersion into Faction Play and goes along with a few ideas that have been bounced around for years. It is also an attempt to try and find a way to introduce some of the features that were initially envisioned for Faction Play that could really put some meat on the bones of the mode.

This proposal is aimed at adding depth at the Faction Level and bringing back that individual identity of each faction that we can then work features into.

Faction Play is a big complicated beast as looking at one area of the mode will often mean it has to affect another aspect and the whole idea can snowball quickly into something that simply can't be done.

It is hoped that we can keep this particular aspect manageable and work through the details in such a way to make it a reasonable proposal.
When I have the opportunity I will add some short videos to illustrate these points.

CHANGING THE MAP

The map is great for a single player game and the table top where you as the player only exist as a small part in a story written by someone else. It has the assumption that the universe if filled with millions upon millions of other inhabitants that affect the balance and territories of the various factions.

For a PvP game like MWO the player base makes up the entire population and is the only population of our universe. We write the story and control the balance and territories of the factions.
As such, the map we have is not balanced or ideal for a PvP game and the use of borders limits what we can do in the system.

Step 1. Remove the borders.
Setup the map in a more abstract manner so that we are not limited by borders and can therefore fight against any other faction.

Spoiler

The borders in the initial design limited which factions could fight each other.
It also was an immediate problem balance wise as some factions simply had less territory and therefore were at a disadvantage from the start.
Because of this it is also impossible to add values to planets, as has been requested for a long time.

The individual borders have been swallowed up in the single bucket which in turn made the point of belonging to a faction, particularly as a loyalist, less appealing.

If we take a more abstract approach by allocating a set and equal number of planets to each faction and do not use borders as a limitation to who we can fight, we open up some new possibilities.

Not only do we put each faction on an equal starting point in terms of their starting territory, but we can bring back that individual faction identity and more depth than we previously had.

Step 2. Planets, Attack Lanes and Faction Values
By changing the design of the map we can introduce attack lanes to planets that represent a particular faction value and therefore be able to affect enemy factions in the taking of these planets.

Spoiler

In looking at the faction territories in a more abstract way we can create a system that will allow attack lanes to planets that hold a certain relevance to that faction. Faction Values.
Faction Values is an area that can be expanding on but we have a few values we can work with immediately.

Consider each faction to have multiple attack lanes.
These attack lanes represent a particular Faction Value that affects the population of that faction in some way.
Every faction has a base setting for this Faction Value.
Each attack lane consists of one or more Key Planets that is a modifier to this base faction value.
To create an actual attack lane that we can apply effects to, each of these planets needs a series of Buffer Planets that must be taken before an enemy can assault the Key Planet. This is also to provide that sense of a prolonged invasion into enemy territory to reach the objective.
Capturing a Key Planet means adding it to the corresponding attack lane for your own faction and therefore adding its modifier to your Faction Value.

As an example:
One Faction Value could be the base amount of c-bills earned per battle for loyalists.
Let's say 100,000 as a base amount.
Any given faction has at least one Key Planet in this attack lane to begin with which adds a 20% modifier to this value.
Therefore, players loyal to that faction have a base earning of 120,000 per battle.
Should the players successfully attack another faction over a prolonged period and capture the corresponding planet from that faction, they add it to their own.
This would give players an additional +20% modifier to their c-bills and the faction they took it from loses that modifier.

These planets provide a limited resource in the universe that creates the back and forth tug of war between the factions to get control of them.
There is also the option to create some differences in the factions by either having different base values, or by having the factions begin with more than one planet in a given lane.
This would be a great way to bring in some aspects of the lore to the factions.
The discussion would then be around, what are the faction values?

Step 3. Moving to a Free For All system.
With the removal of borders we can have a free for all system that pits one faction against any other and opens the way to bring back some of that individual identity.

Spoiler

We have seen how the individual borders created limitations in engagements.
We have seen how the one bucket and single border has also limited our options.
A free for all system becomes possible with the proposed change to the map and removing the borders as it allows several key changes.
• We can bring back that sense of representing and fighting for the individual faction we have chosen.
• We can enable a variety of conflicts as it would allow IS v IS, Clan v Clan as well as IS v Clan
• It does not mean splitting queues or adding buckets.
• It may be another step towards improving wait times as it allows inter faction conflict.
If we ignored the map presently, we could introduce a free for all system immediately.
Consider how the Quick Play group queue works, we need only put a couple of rules in place.
• Groups/Teams have to consist of players from a single faction.
• You cannot fight your own faction.
If we recall how strong the social hubs were for the individual factions, there was a real connection and sense of belonging.
A free for all system would allow us to return to that while avoiding the problems of splitting players up into different buckets and diluting the active player base.
It becomes a case of your chosen faction against all others and you fight for the glory of it.
However, there is one point that needs to be addressed. We have too many factions to make it meaningful.

Step 4. Too many factions
Keep the 5 great houses, divide clans into warden and crusader and make the FRR part of a periphery faction so we can manage how many sides are in the conflict but also allow for new factions to be added.

Spoiler

We begin to see a problem in the system with having too many factions. Under the one bucket, we effectively only have 2 sides. But should we wish to return some semblance of identity to the factions it means breaking up those sides into their individual components.
Right at this point we have 13 individual factions. 7 Clan and 6 Inner Sphere with the possibility of more to be added on both sides.
So how do we address that issue and streamline the factions while allowing still more to be added?

Right at the start, the sheer number of clan factions is a problem. 7 at the moment and approximately 20 all up.
Representing the clans individually is not practical.
Pooling them all into one entity is also not practical as it combines too many players under one banner and also prevents the option to have Clan v Clan conflicts.
The answer may be to split them into two groups, Warden and Crusader, to allow for some division in the population and therefore the possibility of internal conflicts as well as allowing for the possibility of more clans to be added.

Similarly on the Inner Sphere side we have the possibility of more factions that could be added.
If the constant is to be the 5 Great houses, then splinter states such as the FRR, St Ives, the various periphery kingdoms and even Comstar could comprise a single entity and territory under a free for all system.
Let’s consider this group ‘The periphery states’ purely as a mechanism to allow the introduction of new factions for the Inner Sphere while controlling the sheer number of territories and where players will pool.

This still allows us as players to select an individual faction to represent but it reduces the territories and sides in a free for all conflict to 8 which becomes manageable while still allowing enough individual identity to be attached to those ‘factions’.

Step 5. Voting for effect and adapting the tug of war.
Return to voting which faction to attack and which attack lane your forces are invading. Use a tally system to determine outcomes.

Spoiler

The ability to vote takes on a bit of a different approach in a free for all system and harkens back to an earlier iteration where we voted to determine which enemy faction we were going to attack.
With this proposal, the act of defending is as significant as attacking as it is the accumulation of victories that matter and allows us to keep all the players in a single bucket as we do not need to split into an attack or defence queue.
By declaring which enemy we are attacking we allow those victories to tally against our opponent and determine whether we have been successful in our efforts.
We introduce a second vote to determine which attack lane we are focusing on and therefore where our lines will extend. This provides the players with a specific goal and reward for success.

The tug of war already looks at the victories for a side, this merely breaks it up to show the individual factions. The overall effect remains the same.
A faction that achieves more victories and accumulates more victory points that the enemy they have voted to attack will advance down the attack lane they have chosen.
For example, in a particular attack phase:
Faction A is attacking Faction B and Faction B is attacking Faction A.
Over the course of the attack phase, Faction A secures more victories than Faction B and advances their attack into Faction B’s territory down a particular attack lane.
Faction C was also attacking Faction A and secured more victories than Faction A did so at the same time they have extended their attack line into Faction A’s territory.
Faction D was attacking Faction C but failed to secure more victories and did not advance.
And so on.

By using a tally system and extending the attack phase duration we allow more players to contribute to the success of their faction and reward their victories.
It also allows a measure of balance for a faction that is under attack from multiple enemies as it creates a situation where the attackers end up competing against each other for victories.
We must consider that there will be player alliances formed outside of the game and that there will be co-ordinated voting creating a 1 vs many situation.

Step 6. Extending the attack phase to allow new effects such as supply lines.
Allow time for greater participation and give the process more significance. Allow more time for effects to have an impact on the factions as an invasion progresses.

Spoiler

An 8 hour attack phase is too short.
It is a very quick turn around to determine the fate of 4 planets meaning that there can be drastic changes to the map in a short span of time.
It doesn’t allow a player base spread around the world in multiple timezones to be able to participate in what should be a fairly significant achievement.
It also prevents the ability to introduce features that require time to take effect.

With a reduction in the size of territories for each faction and a more limited pool of planets, we can extend the duration of the attack phases to allow greater player involvement in each step and introduce new features.
By using attack lanes in each territory as described earlier with buffer planets as milestones, we create a way to impact each faction individually and allow for effects such as supply lines and more.

We might realize supply lines as a change to drop deck tonnages as it represents the ability of a force to maintain its strength the further it extends into enemy territory.
For example:
Faction A achieved more victories than Faction B this attack phase and has taken a buffer planet in the attack lane of their enemy.
The next attack phase they repeat their vote to attack Faction B and the same attack lane.
As they have now begun extending their attack into enemy territory, as represented by the buffer planet, they have a -5 ton penalty to their drop deck limits.
Should they be successful again, then the next attack phase they would be at -10 tons trying to capture the 3rd buffer planet, then at -15 tons assaulting the key planet.

For an effect like this to have significance we need time for it to take effect and be felt.
That means extending the attack phase duration.
Given the reduction in planets overall, a week may be an appropriate timeframe.

A supply line effect such as this adds significance to the drop decks as it requires an attack drop deck which has the limitations imposed, and a defence drop deck which does not.
This also allows a measure of advantage to a defending side, particularly if they find themselves the target of multiple enemies.
The attack drop deck would only get used against the enemy voted for.
In all other match ups in the free for all system, the defence drop deck would be used.
As the effect is in place over an extended duration, the players in that faction have a chance to be affected by it and we add some depth to the process.

Edited by 50 50, 24 January 2018 - 01:32 PM.

[50 50]

Hoping we have some people in the community that can work through some details, particularly from a programming perspective and see if this is a feasible approach worth pushing for.

Happy to discuss and work through the points and would welcome feedback, particularly if you do feel there are problems with this approach.

Edited by 50 50, 24 January 2018 - 03:58 PM.

[Cato Zilks]

There is just waaaaaaaaaay too much here and this is far too dramatic of a departure from where the game currently is to be considered a remotely viable option. You cant take this to Russ and say, "this please". It is a massive investment with no reward.

[50 50]

Cato Zilks, on 04 February 2018 - 04:40 AM, said:

There is just waaaaaaaaaay too much here and this is far too dramatic of a departure from where the game currently is to be considered a remotely viable option. You cant take this to Russ and say, "this please". It is a massive investment with no reward.

Not so much a this please, more of a 'is this a way forward?'
Hence wanting to discuss the various components.
Granted, changing the map is the biggest part and that is to setup for other features.
But breaking down to the 8 different sides could be done right now.

Consider the way the match maker works in terms of pitting one team against another.
In FP all it is doing is saying: We need 12 IS players and 12 Clan players.
Chuck them in a match.
The winner adds a victory to the tug of war.

We saw that the Event system allowed the teams to be specifically broken up and isolated to try and create the themed conflicts.
It didn't work so well as there are not enough players to split into what was effectively different queues.

However, if we define the sides in the conflict and then limit the creation of the teams accordingly, we suddenly get back the inter faction conflict without splitting the queues and that lets us get back some of the original identity we had with the factions we picked.

So for example, as a Marik player if you pugged or grouped it would only be with other Marik players.
This allows more options in the match maker as you are not restricted to only fighting Clan, it is any other IS or Clan team that has formed that is not a Marik team..
You might have a match against a Clan team one drop, but the next one you face Kurita or Steiner.

But to make the conflict meaningful we need to look beyond just getting matches and ask how do the victories we accrue benefit our chosen faction?
Changing the vote and the display for the victories shouldn't be too bad.
But the taking of a planet and how we display or represent that would need to be re-envisaged, hence looking at it in a more abstract way.
In doing so, it might be possible to bring in more depth to the planets and what it means to control them. ie. Using the attack lanes as a way to represent certain values that affect the players.

It might all be well past the point where we will see anything new in FP and it will always just be what it is.
I am certainly aware that this is the view of various players and I am prepared to accept that.
However, if it's simply that the development of the game has gone down a certain path which seems to have taken it away from what was initially proposed, it might just be that we need to think outside the box or come at it from a bit of a different angle and the mode might just get there.

To me, that's about saying "Hey, you know if we did this bit here a little differently then we might be able to make this bit over here work."

Appreciate the feedback.

[Cato Zilks]

You try to frame your ideas as little nudges in a better direction. The problem is, nothing of what you have proposed is a small change.

I am not 100% clear on what you were going for with the limiting team creation bit. If you meant, make it more difficult for 12 mans to form up, that is both a bad idea counter to the very founding principles of Faction Warfare, but also is an overhaul of the system. If you meant it preventing IS or Clan hodgepodge groups see below.

You are wanting to create several persistent bukkits. We moved away from that because we had too many ghost drops, we don't have the population to keep a lot of bukkits going at once. That also represents a major overhaul of the system.

You want to lengthen the battle cycles, which is a major overhaul of the current system.

You want to create a logistics system, which is a major overhaul of the current system.

Most of these ideas would require weeks of meetings, planning, polling, and play testing. But after that, it would do little to assure Russ that this large time investment was helping to fund his company. Proposed fixes need to be financially viable for this small company and they cant risk increasing ghost drops which PGI has identified as a major killer of the game mode.

Edited by Cato Zilks, 05 February 2018 - 03:30 PM.

[Johnathan Von Tanner]

Depreciated game is depreciated.

[Cato Zilks]

Who is this person? This one named after the prophet but also from the prophet.

[50 50]

I am going to use Sides as a way to describe a collection of factions.

Cato Zilks, on 05 February 2018 - 03:30 PM, said:

I am not 100% clear on what you were going for with the limiting team creation bit. If you meant, make it more difficult for 12 mans to form up, that is both a bad idea counter to the very founding principles of Faction Warfare, but also is an overhaul of the system. If you meant it preventing IS or Clan hodgepodge groups see below.

If we want to be able to represent individual factions and not just a big Clan or IS blob, then you can't have mixed teams or there has to be some way of limiting it.

When the system moved to the single Clan vs IS front we lost pretty much all of that faction identity and as a result, hundreds of players. We were left with two sides in the conflict.

So yes. I am suggesting that if we want to be able to fight for Davion or Marik or Steiner and have our victories specifically benefit those factions that the teams that form have to only consist of players from those factions so we can break the conflict down and have more sides represented.

This presents an immediate problem in that we have too many factions to represent each one as an individual side in the conflict.
At the moment there are 13 and there is potentially more on the way. The Clans alone have about 20 and there a number of splinter (eg. St Ives Compact) and periphery houses within the IS.
We simply cannot have 476 sides doing their own thing because it means we cannot give each of those sides any greater meaning or depth that what they have now.

If we don't change from the 2 blobs we have now, we can add as many additional factions to both sides as we would like because they don't mean anything.

So consolidating some factions with others as a particular side would need to be done.

I was thinking 8 might be a good number and we divide the Clans into two sides, Warden and Crusader and put the splinter factions like FRR in a side that can be expanded to allow other IS factions. Leave the 5 great houses as is.
That may not necessarily be the way to form the sides and maybe Davion and Steiner combine as the Federated Commonwealth and some of the others are mixed together. We can debate the combinations.

The point is, if we do have a faction like Davion represented as it's own individual side in the conflict, then you cannot have teams form with mixed players unless they are included as part of that side.

In terms of actually getting this work done, unless the code has been removed, it should already be there as we did have this limitation on team composition when Community warfare was introduced. It should not be difficult to implement.

Where we could foresee some problems is in making it difficult for a full team of 12 players to assemble. I wasn't going to really discuss it here, but the system needs a way to allow smaller conflicts to occur. That is a problem now and could be solved to some degree if we could get 4v4 or 8v8 battles. That is purely to combat wait times and allow us to play when the active population fluctuates.

Given that in the past we have seen players organise their own conflicts and form the teams, it's hard to say how much of a problem it might actually be. Regardless, the system needs some flexibility.

Cato Zilks, on 05 February 2018 - 03:30 PM, said:

You are wanting to create several persistent bukkits. We moved away from that because we had too many ghost drops, we don't have the population to keep a lot of bukkits going at once. That also represents a major overhaul of the system.

No.
I am suggesting we take it a step further by allowing the internal conflicts to occur within the one queue.

There are occasions where there might be more players active on the Clan side than on the IS and as a result the wait times for Clan are extended, or vice versa.
But if we have a system which allows any one team to fight any other team because they are on a different side, then we alleviate part of that problem by allowing a Clan team to face a Clan team, or an IS team to face an IS team.
So if we have 8 sides all up, then a team from Side 1 can face a team from any other side.
This is why we get rid of the limitations created by 'Borders' on a map.

Cato Zilks, on 05 February 2018 - 03:30 PM, said:

You want to lengthen the battle cycles, which is a major overhaul of the current system.

That can't be difficult.
It's a timer.
Didn't Tukayyid 2 run as a single attack phase for 4 days?

Cato Zilks, on 05 February 2018 - 03:30 PM, said:

You want to create a logistics system, which is a major overhaul of the current system.

Supply lines in this thread, to represent the ability to supply the front line with the equipment to continue the fight.
It's not possible at the moment for a few reasons.
It may be possible by changing the map to have the strict attack lanes and planets as described.
Because we don't have any other representation for supplies, the drop deck tonnage seemed a logical way to represent it.
But perhaps that could be better done with some sort of 'Supply Counter' that we use up.

Does this require some development work? Absolutely.
If we change the map, it might be a possibility that we can look at. Don't have to do it straight away but if we want some more depth in the whole concept of Community Warfare, there is an option.

Logistics is a measure of time and cost. I would suggest doing that differently.

[50 50]

Take the state of Faction Play back a few years to where we had 4 clan factions and the 6 IS factions.

We fought continuously over the borders.
Clan factions were driven back to just their home planet.

It was all out and non stop warfare.

I am sure there would be plenty of players out there that would agree on various points about how that was setup.
But it did have it's limitations.
What I am trying to push for here as an initial step is to turn this single bucket into a free for all system where we have one side face any other side and the 'war' wages on and on.
I have seen enough big groups recently to think that it is not impractical to limit teams to a particular side in the conflict, and then have those teams face off against each other.
It may be that on different days of the week you see different sides involved in the conflict. But that's why we extend the attack phases... we allow more time for everyone to be involved.

If we set it up so there are sides in the battle, with some of those sides consisting of more than one faction (little bit to be discussed later here), then we have a chance to get back to that on going, back and forth conflict for planets.

I wanted to throw in a quick word about the 'Events' as there is potential to have the ongoing conflict of the Inner Sphere and then have some lore related events thrown in by PGI to break it up and celebrate the history of the game.

If what we do as players day to day and week to week is push the agenda of our chosen side, then we can still enjoy the event system as a way to celebrate the game and its history. It would be fun to have a big 'Faction' event every three months or so and do 'the Battle of Luthien' or which ever lore battle it might be. We pick a side and beat each other up for the event rewards and the prestige of playing for that side in the event regardless of where our loyalties might lie and separate to what might actually be going on in the FFA system.

I wonder if that is possible.