42 replies to this topic

[JC Daxion]

Khan111, on 13 February 2018 - 11:37 AM, said:

Here is a somewhat silly idea that my group suggested a few nights ago. Add the drop deck system to QP without the tonnage restrictions, and still only be able to use one mech per match.

The idea is by giving players agency over what kind of mech to use depending on the map to increase variety and promote niche builds that previously did not see use due to being too specialised and have the meta grow off of that system. You know like old MW games?

By all means though shoot this idea down, it's quite silly even for me

nope.. I say Variant drop deck... meaning you play one of what ever mech you choose.. aka get to choose camo/build but not swap mechs

[LordNothing]

Sergeant Random, on 13 February 2018 - 08:43 PM, said:

This might leave beginners with only 1 mech few options... You might want to put trial mechs in those drop decks...

well of course. it might work where you can choose any mech to start a match, like you do now. on the vote result screen, choose to use that mech or override it with any mech in your deck for that tonnage class. either way its no different from the way things are now. as you aquire more you have more options.

Edited by LordNothing, 14 February 2018 - 12:45 AM.

[LordNothing]

SeventhSL, on 13 February 2018 - 09:23 PM, said:

Haven't seen this topic in a while.

I'll say NO as Per normal. If people could choose Mechs knowing they are going to drop on to a specific map, then there would be lists of map Meta Mechs in no time. Just like faction play, you'd see the same Mechs on the same maps over and over again.

theres always going to be a list of metamechs somewhere. theres no stopping that. but being only able to choose 4 per weight class, that means 4 play styles (per class) maximum. pretty much a hot mech, a cold mech, a brawler and a sniper covers most of your bases. unless you want a mixed build, or a moderate range skirmisher, or a back stabber, whatever. but you are limited to four. i think it could only stand to add fun to the game. no more having a crappy game because you are in an ac20 mech when polar comes up.

Edited by LordNothing, 14 February 2018 - 12:52 AM.

[Scyther]

When you envision a change to the game, the first thing you should do is ask "Does this add to the complexity/delay factors and/or reduce the ease/convenience factors"; in this case, of starting a match.

Complexity: Increases, as you now have to put a deck together instead of select one mech.

Delay: Increases, as you now go through a mech selection stage - on a match startup process that already lasts half as long as many matches.

Ease/Convenience: Decreases.

If these problems were offset by "Yes, more complexity, more delay, less ease, but it is 5X as much fun!" it would be worth going for.

I've supported some versions of this in the past, but I now agree that you'd see the same mechs on the same maps over and over. More extreme builds as people no longer build mechs to confront a variety of conditions, but tune them to various maps. This isn't so bad in itself but would cut down match diversity a lot and further reduce TTK.

Issues with team makeup. Some proposals allow for teams of all assaults, all LRM with NARC support, all stealth/ECM, all poke, all wolfpack lights and meds etc. Give people a choice and they will find the 'broken' combinations.

Problem with '3 of each class' solutions are the same as before - people don't play classes equally leading to long match delays.

Most interesting variety is 'pick chassis, start QP, select version of that chassis while 'Ready' menu is up'. This would cut down on map-tuning, reduce delay, maintain most diversity, and encourage the sale of more than 1-2 variants per chassis. It also wouldn't handicap people who don't have a full stable of mechs.

Another option would be 'Dropdeck of 2, with respawn, pick which mech you start with', although this would have to be a separate 'Dropdeck QP' match queue, which splits an already small queue population and may lead to longer and more frustrating matches.

Edited by MadBadger, 14 February 2018 - 05:16 AM.

[ZippySpeedMonkey]

It is a dumb idea.

You want a drop deck. Play Faction Play.

Quick play is exactly that, quick play. Pick a mech and go. That’s it.

However, I do agree with the idea of gettting rid of map selection. The random nature of the old system forced people to build better all around mechs that were less meta heavy.

[Exilyth]

Sure, in an ideal world, commanders could choose to attack or defend targets depending on whether the terrain, weather, force size and other factors are on their side, but information is often not reliable and the enemy is trying to do the same: force the opponent into a position which is favourably to allied forces while disadvantaging opposing forces.

Relying on material and resources like food, water, replacement parts, lubricants and other chemicals, a force equipped with mechs is forced to return to their dropship/base every once in a while.

Ambushes are a thing everyone hopes to be on the right side of.

The enemy disabled our sattelites and landed on the other side of the planets? Send a patrol to find out where they're attacking from.

They're protecting the convoy with a force larger than expected? We have no choice, we need that supply now or we won't last another week.

Sometimes, you just don't have a choice.


Also, according to lore, a mechwarrior can be happy to be one of the select few people who own a hand-me-down-through-generations barely functional family heirloom of a mech or be provided one of theese rare machines by their employer/superior.


And let us not forget about the clan mentality: clans abhor waste and value honour. It is no wonder they often perform a ritual known as bidding before combat operations: The commander who bids the least troops earns the right of command, but only gets to use the troops which are part of the bid. The less troops used to bring down a foe, the higher the honour gained by the commander and each warrior.

Edited by Exilyth, 14 February 2018 - 11:15 AM.

[Lanzman]

All I really want from Quick Play is for the map I just completed a match on to not show up as a choice for my next match. Tired of playing eight matches that go Frozen City - Polar Highlands - Polar Highlands - Polar Highlands - Frozen City - HPG Manifold - Frozen City - Frozen City.

[Khobai]

the bigger problem with quickplay is the map voting. they need to go back to random maps.

[ROSS-128]

If we did go back to random maps, I would want to be able to have a blacklist of maps that I will never have to see again.

[Scyther]

Yeah I am not sure why the map voting gets such a bad rap. It pretty much ensures that most of the players get the map they want (from the given selection), most of the time. I can't really fault 'maximizing player control of their match'.

Of course if I was PGI I'd put in a dynamic map selection routine that applies different weights to the maps that have been played a lot recently vs the ones played a little, so that you don't get too much of the 'Frozen Frozen Polar HPG Polar Frozen' stretches. That's really a matter of fine tuning though since it probably doesn't happen that often, and even so the map voting counter helps to offset those.

[justcallme A S H]

Champion of Khorne Lord of Blood, on 13 February 2018 - 11:43 AM, said:

I've suggested a lot of times for the map to be picked first then people pick their mech. Would lead to a more interesting mix of different specialized metas for each map rather than a singular meta that works reasonably well everywhere.

Nothing good will come from this. Hence it will never happen.

It will further punish those with limited mechs, builds and weaponry loads outs in the game while enhancing the better players with properly equipped mechs.

So no - do not want.

Khan111, on 13 February 2018 - 11:37 AM, said:

Here is a somewhat silly idea that my group suggested a few nights ago. Add the drop deck system to QP without the tonnage restrictions, and still only be able to use one mech per match.

The idea is by giving players agency over what kind of mech to use depending on the map to increase variety and promote niche builds that previously did not see use due to being too specialised and have the meta grow off of that system. You know like old MW games?

By all means though shoot this idea down, it's quite silly even for me

As for QP with dropdecks - Again won't happen. You cannot balance it.

What happens if 8 players pick Heavy/Assaults and the other 8 pick Med/Light.

You've just broken the game. Sorry but the idea is shortsighted, doesn't account for any issues and just creates a bunch of stuff that will not work.

Edited by justcallme A S H, 14 February 2018 - 02:04 PM.

[Spare Parts Bin]

MadBadger, on 14 February 2018 - 05:07 AM, said:

When you envision a change to the game, the first thing you should do is ask "Does this add to the complexity/delay factors and/or reduce the ease/convenience factors"; in this case, of starting a match.

Complexity: Increases, as you now have to put a deck together instead of select one mech.

Delay: Increases, as you now go through a mech selection stage - on a match startup process that already lasts half as long as many matches.

Ease/Convenience: Decreases.

If these problems were offset by "Yes, more complexity, more delay, less ease, but it is 5X as much fun!" it would be worth going for.

I've supported some versions of this in the past, but I now agree that you'd see the same mechs on the same maps over and over. More extreme builds as people no longer build mechs to confront a variety of conditions, but tune them to various maps. This isn't so bad in itself but would cut down match diversity a lot and further reduce TTK.

Issues with team makeup. Some proposals allow for teams of all assaults, all LRM with NARC support, all stealth/ECM, all poke, all wolfpack lights and meds etc. Give people a choice and they will find the 'broken' combinations.

Problem with '3 of each class' solutions are the same as before - people don't play classes equally leading to long match delays.

Most interesting variety is 'pick chassis, start QP, select version of that chassis while 'Ready' menu is up'. This would cut down on map-tuning, reduce delay, maintain most diversity, and encourage the sale of more than 1-2 variants per chassis. It also wouldn't handicap people who don't have a full stable of mechs.

Another option would be 'Dropdeck of 2, with respawn, pick which mech you start with', although this would have to be a separate 'Dropdeck QP' match queue, which splits an already small queue population and may lead to longer and more frustrating matches.

justcallme A S H, on 14 February 2018 - 02:02 PM, said:

Nothing good will come from this. Hence it will never happen.

It will further punish those with limited mechs, builds and weaponry loads outs in the game while enhancing the better players with properly equipped mechs.

So no - do not want.




As for QP with dropdecks - Again won't happen. You cannot balance it.

What happens if 8 players pick Heavy/Assaults and the other 8 pick Med/Light.

You've just broken the game. Sorry but the idea is shortsighted, doesn't account for any issues and just creates a bunch of stuff that will not work.

In Physics for every action there is an opposite reaction as many have pointed out too much change to the system may have unintended and unwelcome consequences.

[Variant1]

No and yes.
No for putting a drop deck into qp. HOWEVER we could make a mode where you can have a drop deck and call it drop zone or sumthin. But definenetly adding to all of qp game modes is a bad idea

[Cementi]

MadBadger, on 14 February 2018 - 05:07 AM, said:

When you envision a change to the game, the first thing you should do is ask "Does this add to the complexity/delay factors and/or reduce the ease/convenience factors"; in this case, of starting a match.

Complexity: Increases, as you now have to put a deck together instead of select one mech.

Delay: Increases, as you now go through a mech selection stage - on a match startup process that already lasts half as long as many matches.

Ease/Convenience: Decreases.

If these problems were offset by "Yes, more complexity, more delay, less ease, but it is 5X as much fun!" it would be worth going for.

I've supported some versions of this in the past, but I now agree that you'd see the same mechs on the same maps over and over. More extreme builds as people no longer build mechs to confront a variety of conditions, but tune them to various maps. This isn't so bad in itself but would cut down match diversity a lot and further reduce TTK.

Issues with team makeup. Some proposals allow for teams of all assaults, all LRM with NARC support, all stealth/ECM, all poke, all wolfpack lights and meds etc. Give people a choice and they will find the 'broken' combinations.

Problem with '3 of each class' solutions are the same as before - people don't play classes equally leading to long match delays.

Most interesting variety is 'pick chassis, start QP, select version of that chassis while 'Ready' menu is up'. This would cut down on map-tuning, reduce delay, maintain most diversity, and encourage the sale of more than 1-2 variants per chassis. It also wouldn't handicap people who don't have a full stable of mechs.

Another option would be 'Dropdeck of 2, with respawn, pick which mech you start with', although this would have to be a separate 'Dropdeck QP' match queue, which splits an already small queue population and may lead to longer and more frustrating matches.

Why would it be to complex. If you want only one choice just leave the other three as trial mechs.

As to the delay......seriously 5 seconds more every match would be a very small price to pay to never get rock paper scissored by map selection ever again.

The ease/conveniance complaint does not fly for me as it is basicly a variation on the complexity....which you can ignore but simply ignoring the other three slots as trial mechs.

We allready see basicly the same mechs every match. If anything this might add variety because when a odd ball map pops up you might see people take a more niche mech instead of the typical meta.

As to the match delay complaint "shrug" play something other than a heavy. Allthough they could relax that slightly and allow up to 4 of a weight class to lock in however I think that would comprimise match balance if one team decided to go 4/3/3/2 and the other went 2/3/3/4. It might work and could be worth trying.

I am confused as to how you would find the same concept more interesting if you choose a chassis and could pick which one you wanted before drop. Alot of chassis do not have that great of variety in builds (some do). Not to mention that getting people away from having to own multiples of the same mech was a big deal. The chassis might be interesting to those of us with 200 mechs but not for the new guy. He would likely much rather have a choice between 4 distinctly different mechs. If anything I think a chassis deck would be far more restrictive to a new player.

No to respawns in QP. Match time is fine where it is.

justcallme A S H, on 14 February 2018 - 02:02 PM, said:

Nothing good will come from this. Hence it will never happen.

It will further punish those with limited mechs, builds and weaponry loads outs in the game while enhancing the better players with properly equipped mechs.

So no - do not want.




As for QP with dropdecks - Again won't happen. You cannot balance it.

What happens if 8 players pick Heavy/Assaults and the other 8 pick Med/Light.

You've just broken the game. Sorry but the idea is shortsighted, doesn't account for any issues and just creates a bunch of stuff that will not work.

Sorry but the entire PGI's entire approach to making money, in fact the entire approach to making money for any f2p game is to encourage people to buy more stuff. It is not pay to win but it is pay to have variety. If you want to play the game with 4 mechs that is your choice. Having a system in the game that encourages people to own more mech bays and more mechs is actually good for the game. I am personally on board for PGI finding ways to make money other than just mechpacks so that MAYBE they will develop something beyond an arena shooter.

Maybe actually read the thread before saying that it won't happen because it cannot be balanced. I suggested a way that would balance the matches and would be far closer than the current method that has at times given one team a 300+ ton advantage. The way I suggested could never give a team more than a 195 ton advantage and that would require every single player on one team choosing the lightest option for their class and the other team having every single player choosing the heaviest option for their class. A highly unlikely senario.

It has not broken the game. Has been thought out, and does account for many issues to create a much more balanced way of making matches. At least as far as the equipment goes. Players......thats a bit to random to ever fix.

[justcallme A S H]

Cementi, on 14 February 2018 - 06:45 PM, said:

Sorry but the entire PGI's entire approach to making money, in fact the entire approach to making money for any f2p game is to encourage people to buy more stuff. It is not pay to win but it is pay to have variety. If you want to play the game with 4 mechs that is your choice.

Sorry but if PGI delivered on HALF of what they have promised - my wallet would still be WIDE open I assure you.

That is how you make money, good business.

MWO has dropped into the non-viable in my eyes and the eyes of many others. There are enough whales around keeping things afloat however it seems.

[ROSS-128]

I think I probably would like being able to queue as a weight class, then getting a minute or two after the map is selected to see my team's mechs, peek at their loadouts, and pick my mech.

After all, if my team is all Gauss boats I might not want to drop in my MPL Thunderbolt (that isn't really a thing anymore since it lost the quirks, but it's just an example), maybe I should take the one with PPCs instead. Or I might not want to bring a NARC Raven on a team that is all laser boats.

[Kanil]

MadBadger, on 14 February 2018 - 05:07 AM, said:

Most interesting variety is 'pick chassis, start QP, select version of that chassis while 'Ready' menu is up'. This would cut down on map-tuning, reduce delay, maintain most diversity, and encourage the sale of more than 1-2 variants per chassis. It also wouldn't handicap people who don't have a full stable of mechs.

Problem with this is that bringing four different Crab builds doesn't give you as many options as having four Hunchback IICs to choose from.

I mean, it'd be better than nothing, and it might be amusing to see people's.. *ahem*creative approaches to making a Terra Therma Hellbringer... but I'd much rather let players choose between a tonnage, or ideally an entire weight class.

[Scyther]

Well, I've got nothing against choosing a tonnage or a weight class as opposed to a variant on your original mech. Variant model is simply because it can be done with virtually no change to the existing interface. You select one mech and hit QP. If you only have the one mech variant, nothing at all changes. If you have more than one variant, during the 20-60 second countdown in the 'Ready' phase you get a dropdown arrow beside your mech name that allows you to switch variants. Team makeup, tonnage, chassis type, anything the MM might consider barely changes.

It would also encourage the sale of more mechs of each variant and make new multi-mech packs more attractive.

PGI has made it resoundingly clear that they simply will not implement game changes that are complex, difficult, require additional resources, and are not already in their overall 'progress' plan. An extremely minimal change is the most we can reasonably hope for.

As for Cementi's notion that mech selection would add 5 seconds to the process... well it appears that he envisions a different type of player and UI interface in his head than anything I've ever seen in actual gameplay, so I can't really respond to those visions.

Edited by MadBadger, 15 February 2018 - 05:21 AM.

[Cementi]

justcallme A S H, on 14 February 2018 - 07:08 PM, said:

Sorry but if PGI delivered on HALF of what they have promised - my wallet would still be WIDE open I assure you.

That is how you make money, good business.

MWO has dropped into the non-viable in my eyes and the eyes of many others. There are enough whales around keeping things afloat however it seems.

While I do not blame you if it is non viable why are you bothering to comment? Not being snarky just legitimately curious.

I do not play as much as I used to and frankly there just is nothing left that they seem to be adding that I will spend money on. It is not that my wallet is closed, simply that I am no longer interested in mechpacks.

I also tend to read the forums now and then when I am break at work as the salt can be amusing and I still am kind of lingering hoping something interesting will be developed.

MadBadger, on 15 February 2018 - 05:20 AM, said:

Well, I've got nothing against choosing a tonnage or a weight class as opposed to a variant on your original mech. Variant model is simply because it can be done with virtually no change to the existing interface. You select one mech and hit QP. If you only have the one mech variant, nothing at all changes. If you have more than one variant, during the 20-60 second countdown in the 'Ready' phase you get a dropdown arrow beside your mech name that allows you to switch variants. Team makeup, tonnage, chassis type, anything the MM might consider barely changes.

It would also encourage the sale of more mechs of each variant and make new multi-mech packs more attractive.

PGI has made it resoundingly clear that they simply will not implement game changes that are complex, difficult, require additional resources, and are not already in their overall 'progress' plan. An extremely minimal change is the most we can reasonably hope for.

As for Cementi's notion that mech selection would add 5 seconds to the process... well it appears that he envisions a different type of player and UI interface in his head than anything I've ever seen in actual gameplay, so I can't really respond to those visions.

I am actually puzzled how you find a variant deck would be easier and that you cannot envision the kind of ui I am describing. Mostly because it is literally in the game allready. Let's see if I can make this clear.

Currently you load into the game and the timer starts at I think 60 seconds. It's irrelevant so I do not pay attention to it. Once everyone is connected the timer drops to I think 20 seconds or something. Again not sure because it is such a small amount of time that it is also irrelevant to me. Now if you have ever played faction play your 2nd,3rd, and 4th drops are picked while in match. So picking a mech at this point is still possible, they allready have the code. So once everyone connects the timer drops to 20 seconds (or whatever it is again). For the first 5 seconds no one can pick a mech out of their drop deck. Then you have 15 seconds to lock in a choice. If your too slow you may not get the weight class you want. If you went afk then the cpu will assign you whatever is left and start the match. I actually do not think it would even add time if done correctly.

They could even alter the 3/3/3/3 rule according how many are in premade groups kind of like they do tonnage now. Ie maybe a 12 player drop would get 4/4/2/2 to limit their tonnage.

[Mole]

This sounds like a fantastic idea to me. In reality no sane soldier selects their equipment before they know what type of evironment they will be operating in. You ever seen a soldier bring a shotgun on a mission where they know they will be engaging the enemy at long range?