1169 replies to this topic

[Horseman]

Paul Inouye, on 02 August 2018 - 04:43 PM, said:

Fine... if this is what you guys think will work for base defense in Incursion... I'll put it on the task list. However, if I hear any noise about it.. I'm pointing at you guys!

Another thing to consider for Incursion in general is making the Air Control Tower more useful (even by cranking up the numbers). Right now it's basically ignored due to how both weak and uncontrollable it is.

Edited by Horseman, 02 August 2018 - 09:38 PM.

[Peiper]

Any idea I have is pie in the sky when it comes to PGI, it seems.

But here goes.

Easy stuff:

Supply lines and raids: The bigger a faction, the longer the supply to the capital. The more planets between the capital and the planet currently being fought over, the more raid 'slots' there are. Raids are 6 v 6 or 8 v 8 fights where, if the raiders win, they take some extra cbills - the amount of cbills worth of material (pay outs) that hit the front line units. So, if front line units are having their supply lines raided, and their allies are not defending those lines, they do not get paid as much at the end of their drops. The raiders get the money instead. (Of course, there's always a minimum payout, this is extra cbills.)

THE RESULT: The bigger, more expansive factions have a lot of work to do to keep their offensive up. Smaller factions do not have to worry about raids if their supply lines are short, and thus, front line units always get paid extra. Balances things out.
-----------------------------------------------------------
BATTLE VALUE INSTEAD OF TONNAGE
Change tonnage to battle value. So, give every mech a battle value based upon the capabilities of the mech, and tell people they can take that much in the way of battle value. (This will have minimal impact on this game mode, but a big impact on quick play matchmaking, btw.) Battle value is simply a value of 1-100 based upon the capabilities and potential of the mech selected. A pre-nerf Kodiak might have 100 BV, pre-nerf Timber Wolf of 75. A pre-buff Atlas might have a BV of 80 and a pre-buff Orion might have a score of 60. (Currently, the scores are far more even by tonnage due to forcing unlike mechs to be equal.) In any case, the idea that all mechs of a certain weight are equal is bogus. This would change it so mechs are valued on what they can do, not their tonnage. It would both allow PGI the freedom to let the mechs be what they are instead of 'balancing them' into crap or god-ness, and get rid of the whole idea that mechs should be equal when they were never supposed to be in the first place.

TL;DR Battle value is a value of 1-100 based on mech ability. Use this to replace tonnage. Result: IS and Clan no longer have to be equal in tonnage, rather simply equal in battle value vs. each other. (Imagine, Clan mechs in their glory vs. bigger, angrier IS mechs! As it should be!)

Pipe (Peiper) dream stuff:

Planetary assets/combined arms. Taking certain planets gains a faction access to certain stuff in game like off board smoke rounds (creating smoke screens), EM arty (causing clouds of chaff, screwing with IFF and locks for both sides), air-deployed minefields (drop a minefield like an arty shot, but mines persist until detonated), partisan forces (infantry nest pop up and random during a match where SRM equipped infantry shoot a bunch of srms, then hide again), ECM bombs, tanks, VTOLs, extra turrets, battle armor, etc...


________________________________________________________________________________
Stock mode

Self explanatory. Works well with battle value for clan vs. IS fights.

_______________________________________________________________________________

But honestly, until they re-couple the engines and quit with this idea that all mechs must be equal crap, I will continue to take a back seat in this game. Battle value would change things up a lot, and PGI can relax on trying to equalize clan and IS, and hopefully undue the damage they have done. Sure, it might take a long time for a team of Dire Wolves and Kodiaks to get a match in quick play (they'd be matched up vs. the same), But you'll see a lot of IS assaults vs. clan heavies, for example. Things would even out. It's worth a try - and it can't be worse than now. I really think it would be more fun. If you take a clan mech, you'll either be lower tonnage than the IS opponents, or face like-sized clan mechs. That's fair, right? Meanwhile, IS pilots won't have to worry about facing too many clan monsters because they won't be matched against them. Both IS and Clan players would be happy!

__________________________________

Almost forgot: factory planets.

If you control a factory world, you can put a mech of that tech into your drop deck. If you are Steiner, and take over a Jade Falcon factory planet, you can replace one of your IS mechs with a clan mech, and vice versa. Now THAT'S incentive to take planets, no!?

Paul Inouye, on 02 August 2018 - 01:05 PM, said:

Unit coffers
Thoughts on that?

I'm sure that all of us who've dumped money into the unit coffers would like a refund. Then do away with the coffers. They are an unecessary thing at this point. Especially if you implement my supply lines/raiding stuff above to the mix. Factions, no matter their unit size, that start to dominate the Inner Sphere will have lots of stuff to contend with other than the main planetary assault. Meanwhile, little factions will be basically guaranteed good money, especially if their supply lines are so short there's no 'slots' for raids against them.

Furthermore, if you can provide planetary assets (e.i. fun, maybe mostly cosmetic effects to the game based upon the key planets you have under your control, that encourages people to conquer.) The factory world idea is one that should go well, especially combined with battle value. As a mech is valued on it's abilities and not it's tonnage, it no longer technically matters whether you have clan or IS tech in your drop decks, as long as you don't exceed the battle value limits you're allowed to have.

A further idea with battle value, too, that can be used is combining that with supply lines. If you gobble up almost a whole house or clan, that clan will have only the best of the best warriors and mechs left defending it. Meanwhile, their opponents will be at the extreme end of their supply lines. Perhaps some changes to the amount of battle value can be put in a drop deck could be related completely to how far away you are from your supply?

Logistics instead of unit coffers, Paul. Logistics are fun and interesting. Unless you're bringing back the idea of us buying and flying our own dropships, forget the idea all together. Time to refund all that loot back to us, because it's hard enough to recruit new guys with the group and solo queues segregated. Having to pay 4+ million Cbills per new recruit that might not even play, or might ditch the unit, yeah, coffers are useless. And at least if you refund everyone, we'll get back money invested in dead beats! Win for everyone!

Edited by Peiper, 02 August 2018 - 10:13 PM.

[GweNTLeR]

Xaat Xuun, on 02 August 2018 - 08:57 PM, said:

I was reading into this, and the thought, Unit owned Dropships, this could be a place mechs can be stored for others to use, they cannot sell the mechs once in the drop ship. the mechs can be already built to the desired loadout, but unskilled like a trial (this would be the downfall to using a unit mech), maybe but there is still the possible of the loanee can place mech skills, in the loan Mech , {the skill thing I cannot think of a solution how to make it work}
a mech already in use cannot be used by another unit member at the same time
Basically a unit mechbay.
who can add and remove , and change loadouts, needs to be decided

Imagine if unit members could use unit coffin money to buy those mechs...that would be fantastic! But I think it would be just to allow people to skill those mechs.
The problem is, how to separate usage of such mechs? It would be problematic to save drop decks with such mechs.

[Major Major Catch 22]

@Paul

Thankyou for starting this up.

I have a suggestion that i think may be easy to do.

Can we have the maps change environments. ie. Make the temperature range different so a hot map will have a "night" mode which will be significant cooler and vice versa.

Also during a game make the temperature change over time in some instances:
"Planet is in morning to midday battle time- expect temperature to double (tripple) during that time period)

This I hope will make people think more about their drop decks and mech planning.

It will also make it more interesting as you cant build a metta to one temperature for one map.


Secondly a slightly harder suggestion (as I havent seen it before) can we have environmental visibility changes (and or weapon range changes)

ie. Snow that blinds, that decreases some weapon ranges ie lasers or lock on with missiles (or others) this feature to tell players that today alpine peaks/polar highlands you will have to contend with extreme weather conditions. Thus making people change blue laser and narc lurm metta to something different

It may also mean Beagle active probes more relevant.

These two suggestions I hope are helpful and less costly than building new maps-- and therefore keeps the game signinifcantly more interesting.

G

[justcallme A S H]

Peiper, on 02 August 2018 - 09:50 PM, said:

Spoiler

Any idea I have is pie in the sky when it comes to PGI, it seems.

But here goes.

Easy stuff:

Supply lines and raids: The bigger a faction, the longer the supply to the capital. The more planets between the capital and the planet currently being fought over, the more raid 'slots' there are. Raids are 6 v 6 or 8 v 8 fights where, if the raiders win, they take some extra cbills - the amount of cbills worth of material (pay outs) that hit the front line units. So, if front line units are having their supply lines raided, and their allies are not defending those lines, they do not get paid as much at the end of their drops. The raiders get the money instead. (Of course, there's always a minimum payout, this is extra cbills.)

THE RESULT: The bigger, more expansive factions have a lot of work to do to keep their offensive up. Smaller factions do not have to worry about raids if their supply lines are short, and thus, front line units always get paid extra. Balances things out.
-----------------------------------------------------------
BATTLE VALUE INSTEAD OF TONNAGE
Change tonnage to battle value. So, give every mech a battle value based upon the capabilities of the mech, and tell people they can take that much in the way of battle value. (This will have minimal impact on this game mode, but a big impact on quick play matchmaking, btw.) Battle value is simply a value of 1-100 based upon the capabilities and potential of the mech selected. A pre-nerf Kodiak might have 100 BV, pre-nerf Timber Wolf of 75. A pre-buff Atlas might have a BV of 80 and a pre-buff Orion might have a score of 60. (Currently, the scores are far more even by tonnage due to forcing unlike mechs to be equal.) In any case, the idea that all mechs of a certain weight are equal is bogus. This would change it so mechs are valued on what they can do, not their tonnage. It would both allow PGI the freedom to let the mechs be what they are instead of 'balancing them' into crap or god-ness, and get rid of the whole idea that mechs should be equal when they were never supposed to be in the first place.

TL;DR Battle value is a value of 1-100 based on mech ability. Use this to replace tonnage. Result: IS and Clan no longer have to be equal in tonnage, rather simply equal in battle value vs. each other. (Imagine, Clan mechs in their glory vs. bigger, angrier IS mechs! As it should be!)

Pipe (Peiper) dream stuff:

Planetary assets/combined arms. Taking certain planets gains a faction access to certain stuff in game like off board smoke rounds (creating smoke screens), EM arty (causing clouds of chaff, screwing with IFF and locks for both sides), air-deployed minefields (drop a minefield like an arty shot, but mines persist until detonated), partisan forces (infantry nest pop up and random during a match where SRM equipped infantry shoot a bunch of srms, then hide again), ECM bombs, tanks, VTOLs, extra turrets, battle armor, etc...


________________________________________________________________________________
Stock mode

Self explanatory. Works well with battle value for clan vs. IS fights.

_______________________________________________________________________________

But honestly, until they re-couple the engines and quit with this idea that all mechs must be equal crap, I will continue to take a back seat in this game. Battle value would change things up a lot, and PGI can relax on trying to equalize clan and IS, and hopefully undue the damage they have done. Sure, it might take a long time for a team of Dire Wolves and Kodiaks to get a match in quick play (they'd be matched up vs. the same), But you'll see a lot of IS assaults vs. clan heavies, for example. Things would even out. It's worth a try - and it can't be worse than now. I really think it would be more fun. If you take a clan mech, you'll either be lower tonnage than the IS opponents, or face like-sized clan mechs. That's fair, right? Meanwhile, IS pilots won't have to worry about facing too many clan monsters because they won't be matched against them. Both IS and Clan players would be happy!

And now sets in the feeling of despair that comes with spending a bunch of time typing something up in the short-lived excitement that Paul, Chris, Russ and the bunch will consider what we say.

New Game Mode - 6v6 / 8v8 - not happening

Battlevalue - impossible to work out due to mech customising. You change the build, you change the viabilty and there are way, way to many factors involve to accurately calculate that. Not to mention any weapon balance or mech quirks, changes it. Another layer of complexity won't get implemented and nor should it.

Stockmode - Just no. We've discussed that HERE - Short of it, the vast majority are against it. MWOs key selling point is Mechlab.

[Johnathan Tanner]

[Redacted]

Edited by Tina Benoit, 03 August 2018 - 10:38 AM.
Please post CONSTRUCTIVE feedback. Flaming/Insults/Toxicity is against the Code of Conduct

[dante245]

Johnathan Tanner, on 02 August 2018 - 10:05 PM, said:

[Redacted]

well some ones not being productive...at least ash is making some good points and referring between PGI and the people to actually get things done.

[Wing 0]

Here's something for ya Paul.

For Players:

1. Player who participate Dailey should get some degree of MC and Cbill bonuses Per Cycle. (The more they play, The more Rewards they earn).

2. Players who play and contribute by playing and if they take a planet should be given some degree of MC (depending on which side faction they are in).

3. Players playing only Scouting will only give you small Cbill bonuses. Scouting Mode needs works. I don't play It because of players committed to doing only Smoke Dive. aka avoid drawing blood method.


Events:

Must have Dailey FP Events. Lets be honest Paul. You guys were giving out events that only focus on Quick Play. That has to STOP. You said we aint doing another Tuk event ever again so what you going to do to fix that.


Queue Info System Needs to be Reinstated:

Give us that system we had tells us at least if a team is formed. No need for the numbers need to be listed, just the QUEUE Numbers. Call to Arms don't work as intended that much. That screen shot showed us how easy it worked. If you modified it where only the Arrows show, Great.

Most of us are having to switch sides if were in a group just trying to get games now. Certain teams are trying to avoid us and that's really stupid. And those so called units call themselves MechWarriors. "Cowardice Shall Not Be Tolerated"




GamePlay:

REMOVE QUICK PLAY MAPS/MODE: The players you brought to that Round Table Meeting were a joke. Most of those players who NEVER participate in the Faction Play mode should not have been allowed to voice in ideas like "How about we add QP Maps into Faction Play". The idiot that said that never plays Faction Play from what I recall and this idea should never been implemented. It forced a large amount of people to leave the game period.

Bring Back Siege and Make Faction Play Great Again

Fix the Tug-O-War bar. Previous system worked just fine. 50/50 if you know what I mean.
The Original system worked just fine. It just needed to be modified for a 1 bucket system.

No More Unit Tagging on Planets. Honestly... We had units who were exploiting the system and One team already did that. Sorry MercStar but you guys were behind that.

Theres more where this came from but Ash already had mentioned several things that I agree on his post.

Edited by Wing 0, 02 August 2018 - 10:28 PM.

[C H E E K I E Z]

I know this list will be short and sweet, but thats how i like to keep things.

~Vitric Forge-Needs to be re-worked. For both sides it is far to easy to defend on.
*Clan gets up high, all across the map and reems down on IS.
*I.S. just stacks Armored out the butt brawlers in the 2-3 choke points and murderfaces clan.

in a 12v12 equally skilled team, the defenders should win almost every time on this map, and i've seen entire lances DC if its an attack on Virtic vs a 12 man, or a large number of same unit people vs pugs.

~Boreal Vault~
*The problem with this map, is that pugs have 0 idea what to do on it. It's the 1 map that makes ER-LL/LRMS/PPC's actually viable* So the defenders just stack up tons of ERLL/LRM/PPC. On Pugs vs Pugs, its an absolute ****-show of one side never getting to open the gate because defenders wreck them. And if it's a Unit vs pugs...you might as well AFK. Your not getting that gate open.

*the solution is on both sides bring fast mid-range laserboats. Nothing under 74kph for Is, and nothing under 81kph for Clan. If you bring 12 of any of those (grasshoppers/warhammers/black knights/(fast battlemasters)/(hellbringers/ebons/summoners/timbers) You will have the gate down and be halfway up one side before the other team even has a chance to get into positon with their slow mass laser boating assults.

*Now the problem is, getting units who know what to do on certain maps. There used to be (known) strats for every map, on attack and defense, we have now gone away from those, and only 1-2 units even remember what those strats were. The maps are fine, The modes are fine (outside incursion) Just get more players in here.

*i was reading someone's post about allowing new players to drive certain mechs that their unit has built using their coffers, as an incentive for solo players to learn what builds works and use mechs the unit owns.*

I ABSOLUTLY ******* LOVE THIS IDEA, and i want to piggy-back off of it a bit.
Allow the unit leaders to make a base mold of a mech, skill-tree, lay-out of weapons, **** even the paint scheme and warhorns. Make the first mech cost a little bit more to make the mold of the mech, Then allow the unit leaders to purchase copies of this mech and give to the players who are in their unit. That way you don't run into the problem of "what happens if x person leaves unit but has not paid the unit back. Force the unit to pay out of the coffers (i know our unit has billions in its coffers) But make the player have the Mech-bay for it.

i know i said i was gonna keep this short and sweet but i love this mode too much to not write an essay >.>

Edit: will post more when i wake up tomorrow.

Edited by C H E E K I E Z, 02 August 2018 - 10:31 PM.

[Peiper]

justcallme A S H, on 02 August 2018 - 10:05 PM, said:

New Game Mode - 6v6 / 8v8 - not happening

Battlevalue - impossible to work out due to mech customising. You change the build, you change the viabilty and there are way, way to many factors involve to accurately calculate that. Not to mention any weapon balance or mech quirks, changes it. Another layer of complexity won't get implemented and nor should it.

Stockmode - Just no. We've discussed that HERE - Short of it, the vast majority are against it. MWOs key selling point is Mechlab.

1. 6v6/8v8 raids - not really a new game mode. Just use the QP modes with fewer mechs. Not a big deal. There's little programming that has to go into it, even less than the scout mode which WAS a new mode when it came out. (remember, too, raids only happen on BIG factions that are attacking, so PGI can add or subtract the number of available slots in order to address 'bucket' issues when pops are down.)

2. Battle value: based upon metabuilds (or at least what people are using). This chart was from Paul himself, showing mech performance of where it is and where he wants it to be. https://i.imgur.com/WumhKvE.png

Now, look at the chart: I presume those mechs have names in the PGI databases. Assign a value of 1-100 for those mechs based on these charts and boom! Battle value. It's SO SIMPLE. And just like as mechs rise and fall in Solaris 7, mechs performance will rise and fall, and their battle values can be adjusted on the fly, if need be. PGI has the stats. They can poop out a sheet like this every week, adjust the BV, and they don't even have to try to make mechs equal any more.

(the above graph is from this thread: https://mwomercs.com...s-and-planning/

3. Stock mode FP can be an event. I know not everyone is keen on it, but it would be fun from time to time. As far as BV in stock mode, it might be harder to gather that data outside of the world champs, and those are only 3025 mechs.

And, Justcallme A S H, don't simply tell me things won't happen or can't be done because 1. they most certainly can. 2. YOU are not PGI.

Paul, any thoughts?

Edited by Peiper, 02 August 2018 - 10:43 PM.

[Narcissus79]

justcallme A S H, on 01 August 2018 - 08:48 PM, said:

My Top Ideas / Quick Wins.

Most of which we've all seen before...

• Loyalist / Merc Tree - Max Rank 20 Loyalist / Rank 10 for Merc. Many users achieved this 2 years ago, there is no motivation. From a LORE/Roleplay perspective some people do not WANT to pledge allegiance to another Clan, in fact most people in FP loyalist camp won't. Tree reset needs to occur once you max it out, it is an absolute neccesity at this point.
  
• 1-Bucket Merger / Purpose of the map - There is now no 'purpose' to Faction Play. It is just IS against Clan and the Tug-o-War bar essentially means nothing. There is rarely one side that 'wins' the fight anymore as a result, which ties into the below point.
  
• Mercs Insta Contract Switch vs Loyalist- While this idea in theory was good, in practice it is poor. It just allows teams to switch side to avoid fights while still punishing loyalists excessively. This means the queue volumes jump around too much and #2 - occurs even less because of constant switching. IMO this change should be reversed for Mercs.
  
• Tug-O-War bar is BROKEN - You can win all games, get the bar to 97% full and in the last 30mins the opposing side can get 2 wins and claw the back back to under 95% and stop a planet capture. Matt Neuman knows this is an issue, thus PGI does, even a TUK win result was altered (from Clan to IS) because of this poor calculation. It needs to be resolved.
  
• Loylist Probation Games - Make it 5 and not 10. Least you can do it in an hour via scouting rather than 2-3hrs. No reason to have it 10 games.
  
• IS v IS / Clan v Clan - This really has not eventuated at all. Needs to happen, keeps things interesting.
  
• Incursion - Is often just a pointless base rush. Increase base points hitpoints by 30% so it cannot be taken out as a means of instant victory but still leaves it open to those who just want to throw 48 mechs at an objective without actually shooting the enemy mechs (which often makes games boring/frustrating).
  
• New Player Experience - We all know it isn't great. PGI has a big warning screen for new players but they don't listen. New Players should be gated from Faction Play as a result. Understand this is controversial but it is not the new place for anyone fresh to the game. Lets gate FP by making new accounts spend 50-100 games in QP first to 'qualify'. While it won't stop all the issues, it will alleviate some (basic gameplay, map awareness etc).
  
• Regular Events - We were promised regular stuff as part of FP4.1. It just isn't happening, that was December 2016.

Some larger stuff

• SEIGE Maps - Some maps are inherrantly bad like Boreal Vault and Sulferous Rift. Boreal needs some of the middle hills inside the gate reworked and so does Vitric. Make it a little less choke-point to defend, expand the trenches a little etc. Can expand on this in greater detail if required, otherwise post will get too long. I know PGI have previously acknowledged Boreal Vault as an issue, be good to see that fixed.
  
• In-game UI - Tweaks so Units can recruit players. Currently they only real way is in the depths of sub-forums here or the somewhat troublesome in-game chat. Make a 'Marketplace' of sorts where a Unit Leader can advertise. Have some basic searchable items/tags like 'Competitive / Casual' 'Loyalist / Merc' etc.
  
• Drop Zone walls - To alleviate some spawn camping sitiatuons need to move the Spawns a bit closer to gether on some maps and also have the walls face 45deg INWARD toward the drop zone centre. This will stop spawn camping a little by letting dropships shoot OVER the walls. Currently you can hit behind walls, wait for dropship to leave, go kill mechs. Adjusting the wall angle instantly resolves this big complaint. Will it stop it entirely? No, but it will help.

I agree with pretty much all of this. I also think, to alleviate spawn camping that drop ships firepower should be increased to make it hurt them more. I also think as well as increasing base hit points in incursion they should have more than just a couple of ML turrets around the base. Make a few SRM turrets and LL turrets so that you can't just have a light sneak in and own the entire incursion by himself while everyone else is outside brawling..

[QueenBlade]

Understood, I'll look into changing up the document to modify the rearm/refit mechanic but still keeping the idea behind the system.

[justcallme A S H]

Peiper, on 02 August 2018 - 10:42 PM, said:

And, Justcallme A S H, don't simply tell me things won't happen or can't be done because 1. they most certainly can. 2. YOU are not PGI.

I can tell you they wont happen if I want - and honestly - they should not. 6v6 would not be, in any way/shape or form - balanced. It's then yet another mode/bucket to fill a queue with. Same with stock mode CompQ, it's the quietest it's ever been, cause stock mode.

This was kinda the issue with the round-tables. Some stuff came up that not a lot of people agreed with and we are kinda stuck with at the moment rather than addressing far more of the critical issues.

Paul / PGI seem to wanna fix those critical ones this time around and this is good, good news.

[Johnathan Tanner]

justcallme A S H, on 02 August 2018 - 10:58 PM, said:

Paul / PGI seem to wanna fix those critical ones this time around and this is good, good news.

LOL baited.

[justcallme A S H]

Johnathan Tanner, on 02 August 2018 - 11:02 PM, said:

LOL baited.

Maybe.

You can either try and get onboard or don't really dude. I'm ad jaded as everyone else, you all know that, but if Paul wants to give it a shot - and this is the first time in many years it's happened, we'd all be fools not to give it a try.

Hence I'll try give / collate the best feedback and what not and pay keen attention to the podcast points etc.

Edited by justcallme A S H, 02 August 2018 - 11:05 PM.

[vonJerg]

Number of ppl interested in playing stock mode < number of ppl playing comp (as some of these are there 'couse of prizes, and will play what ever).
I for one am 100% not interested in playing garbage that is stock mechs.

[Johnathan Tanner]

justcallme A S H, on 02 August 2018 - 11:04 PM, said:

Maybe.

You can either try and get onboard or don't really dude. I'm ad jaded as everyone else, you all know that, but if Paul wants to give it a shot - and this is the first time in many years it's happened, we'd all be fools not to give it a try.

Your right, However I am bitter about this after watching unit after unit die. Training new players just to see them get run out of the game over the skill maze and crap.

And honestly I haven't been to impressed by alot of what ive heard in this thread. Paul defending the unit tax when it was known from day one to hurt smaller new player units instead of the big dawgs. People defending incursion in any form. Guys lying down and accepting the bukkit.

I think the unit leaders should get together and make a fp proposal that we can submit to pgi and be ignored. But like the balance guys. Well be able to hold our heads up and say told you so.

[Mochyn Pupur]

(1) Reduce the MC price of spare drop decks (-50%) and increase the number you can have to eight - allows for more creativity and ability to put decks together for more situations.

(2) Fix the idiotic choke points that literally funnel the attackers into a death zone regardless of the defenders' abilities (Boreal Vault, Sulphurous etc . . . . ) actually encourage participation.

(3) Re-examine the 12 man premade situation - there have been many well reasoned posts about this one that tries to incorporate peak playing times; yes drop as a 12 man when there are other 12 man groups expected to be around, but limit to lances at other times.

(4) Make the rewards for both winning and losing sides attractive enough to keep the differential, but make it worth while to FP over QP; seriously need to encourage new FP players and bolster the whole spread of game modes.

(5) ASH's suggestion on changing the drop zone structures - Yes please! Doesn't turn them into a "nanny state" protective zone, but may reduce the likelihood of spawn camping . . . in this aspect, also fix it so mechs cannot be targeted until they have hit the ground.

(6) build in a "desertion" option that would allow a team being stomped to leave without penalty - BUT - still offer a better reward than an uncontested drop to the winning side, i.e. planetary advancement, C-Bills and Loyalty points. (Putting the onus on getting people to participate, but not as seals in an arctic clubbing contest!)

(7) Fix the maps where terrain issues are able to be exploited - invisible ground, transparent walls, molecular transparent builds that allow weapons fire to pass through unhindered).

(8) For the love of big stompy robots - no Long Tom - the balance of the three Scouting benefits are just about tolerable and can be remedied by switching to scout mode if necessary (seen most conflicts run as is though, with Long Tom . . . well, folk just didn't bother playing when the top tier units farmed scouting as well).

(9) Limit Arty/Air Strikes to one per mech, the silliness of being ripped apart going down the only available channels while being hit for full damage effectively at 2.5k away just isn't fun . . but to be hit 12 - 18 times per drop before you get in range seriously throws the match out of the window.

[iLLcapitan]

Ok, salt aside (one last time).

Back to Phase II lobby-wise (might limit the front to 5(or whatever) planets), keep skirmish, conquest and assault.
Variable drop tonnage per planet (shake things up).
Can drop IS vs IS and clan vs clan (thus drastically reduce wait times + more fun/variety)
Remove unit tax (srsly we wish we had those giants units now)
Invasion maps need to show up more often (2/3 of the tug o war maybe) - I know some loudspoken guys here on the forums dont like em, but no other map/mode emphasizes teamplay as much as they do. They are what makes FP special.
Events/ stuff from Queenblades doc to give the whole thing some meaning.
Give loyalists some love.

Edited by iLLcapitan, 02 August 2018 - 11:38 PM.

[S O L A I S]

Paul Inouye, on 02 August 2018 - 12:41 PM, said:

We are making changes to the event system that the marketing team uses to allow us to make Clan vs Clan and IS vs IS a lot easier. Plus adding a story/meaning behind those fights.

First off as a member of BCMC a unit whose focus is CW, I can't thank you enough for your participation. Drop a lot with members of Evil and Emp and your response has created a bit of a buzz and it's very positive so far.

I am thrilled that you are currently considering changing and running more events. The IS v IS, Clan v Clan was great and almost everybody I know in the CW community loved it. That said my opinion is that as you mentioned in your podcast with Phil about balance, granular changes make the most sense. The last major overhaul adding quick play maps and going to one bucket was a bit of a shock and too much for some to adapt to. Clearly that was PGI doing it's best to deliver and the community being a bit too divided over what it wanted.

It also makes sense from the bucket perspective as if we had three permanent buckets, we'd be in trouble.

Am curious as well if PGI would perhaps consider making a change to the lobby mechanics. What I would really like to see is the ability to choose your drop deck after you are matched up against a team.

There are a few reasons I would like to see this;

1. Added strategy. Seeing the who as well as the map would allow for counter tactics with teams you are familiar with, instead of just being prepared for map conditions.

2. Make scouting actually mean something again, but not with longtom. Think hockey and home ice advantage. If this change were made, combat ID, sweep, and having last change would be more meaningful from a strategic standpoint. Right now I don't scout, because why would I? That would change though if it meant I got last pick for drop deck.

3. This might open the possibility to allow teams like the ones I generally run to ton down when the opposition is only made of pick up players (or even other units of different skill). As undoubtedly you are aware, there are a lot of solo players who won't venture into CW because they know running into a grouped up team versus all pug team, doesn't work out too well. Matches that end 48-4 are not only driving the losers away, my unit has lost at least half our guys because smashing 8 pug groups to get into a decent match against a unit gets boring. If incentivized in some way such as cbill bonuses similar to how the old contract bonuses worked would be great. End of the day though, it'd be great to be able to make it a challenge and at least closer, longer matches. And if it were done by choice, it wouldn't gimp newer units who may not be able to afford losing tonnage.

In closing I'd like to finish off by saying at the end of the day, with CW, it makes the most sense to try and lure in existing, established players and possibly getting some old ones back. Brand spanking new players should be following your warning and getting themselves trained up and familiar with the game in quick play. Please consider removing the low hanging fruit in the rewards trees with the mech bays. Perhaps things more meaningful to people who like lore such as the warhorns.