1163 replies to this topic

[creativeabyss]

Paul Inouye, on 03 August 2018 - 09:43 AM, said:

Keep in mind that Call to Arms is what draws the PUG players into the queue. The back loaded delay is to allow people active in FP to be queued first and then the CtA fills.

maybe it could be upped to the 5 minute mark instead of the last 2 then. something I will notice in que is that if we ghost drop, then re-que immediately and get a lobby immediately, we'll usually have a match in the first minute, and itll mostly be the pugs that answered the call to arms earlier + a 2 or 3 man or something similar. increasing to the 5 minute halfway point means one less ghost drop, but the same results match an teams-wise (to be honost I thought it launched at the 5 minute mark already, hearing its the last 2 minutes were it pops off is a surprise).

[color=#222222][font=&amp]

Eisenhorne, on 03 August 2018 - 09:45 AM, said:

[/font][/color][/left][color=#222222][font=&amp][/font][/color][/left][color=#222222][font=&amp]

That explains the pathing for the Escort Atlas then!

[/font][/color][/left][color=#222222][font=&amp]

[/font][/color][/left]
lol.

Edited by creativeabyss, 03 August 2018 - 09:50 AM.

[Spheroid]

I think some of these suggestions are overly ambitious. The idea was to make major substantive tweaks using the elements already coded.

Edited by Spheroid, 03 August 2018 - 09:49 AM.

[Paul Inouye]

Eisenhorne, on 03 August 2018 - 09:45 AM, said:

That explains the pathing for the Escort Atlas then!

At times I'm surprised he stays on the map.

[SilentScreamer]

Paul Inouye, on 03 August 2018 - 09:37 AM, said:

Thanks for the posts so far guys.

Taking notes for the podcast and points to clarify. There are quite a few things we can add from what has been mentioned. There's quite a few we can add for September's patch as well (a lot of those are QoL). Then there's a few that are far outside of possible scope and I'll try to clarify those in the podcast.

There are some technical blockers in play as well. Order of operations in relation to what state you are in while flowing from clicking Launch to being in the air to be dropped off. When does the backend service pass you from one state to another and finally to a dedicated server? It's in this area where things like selecting your 'Mech after a map has been selected becomes a problem. This feature request has been out there for not just FP but all modes. Problem is, changing this flow of operations is a major undertaking and I honestly can't tell you if it's even possible with our current system.

I have never liked the idea of selecting a mech post map selection.

1) Lore - Mechwarrior's typically have one mech the are asigned or own. Not everyone is Jay Leno with a garage full of rides to choose from.

2) Training -
i. Each pilot/soldier has their role in the unit. Some roles are always useful while other specialties are not. Medics are useful in the Rockies as well as Death Valley. Alpine Survival is not. The same ges for mech builds; just because your unit has a hot running PPC mech doesn't mean you leave him behind on Terra Therma. He goes with his unit and performs as best he can. Everyone can gripe at command sending them their in the first place after the mission is complete.
ii. Omnimechs are the solution to this problem. The machine can be reconfigured with minimal hanger time and pilot retraining. I would be okay with a Direwolf switching pods/loadouts.

3) Balance -
i. Once players start switching mechs teams balance will be completely shot. Group/dropdeck tonnage limits mean nothing if the guy you took a Locust so the group of 8 could drop switches to an Atlas after the map has been selected. Do you throw the team back into lobby to get back in the tonnage limit or just go with it?
ii. Min/Maxing is a tradeoff. Builds will become even more specialized if the min/max can switch after map selection. Does anyone want 6 LRM boats on their side when Polar Highlands is picked as a map?

Too messy for my taste.

Edited by SilentScreamer, 03 August 2018 - 11:05 AM.

[Dr Gonzo316]

Rework the Faction XP bar: Give unique items iconic for the factions (cockpitstuff, camo, colours, Mechs!) so it makes a difference which faction you are playing for. I really dont need another Leopard Dropship...

Of course, as ASH already mentioned, bar needs to reset once you get to the top or it is open end with continuous rewards.

[creativeabyss]

in regards to some player requests to be able to see whos in que, I fear itll end up as 24 people in fw watching the que, while only 2 of those people are actually in the que, which is something I used to see in 3.0, and something I see in solaris. being able to see if you are the only one in que for either side is different, but seeing exactly how many people are in que and their group size is likely to make ques longer, not shorter.


edit: also, saw this from the official mwo twitter feed... wait, i mean russ bullocks twitter feed.
[color=#14171A][font=&amp]

[color=#14171A]Russ Bullock[color=#14171A]‏[/color][color=#14171A] [/color][/color][color=#657786]

@russ_bullock

[/color]

Follow Follow

@russ_bullock

More

[/font][/color][/left][color=#14171A][font=&amp]

Faction Play chatter is overdue - we have some good ideas brewing on how to meld community with FP in MWO.

[/font][/color][/left][color=#14171A][font=&amp]

[color=#657786][color=#657786]5:12 PM - 1 Aug 2018[/color] [/color]

[/font][/color][/left]


what idea if I may ask? im pretty sure no one here will be shy about honestly critiquing or praising said thoughts, if we knew what they were.

Edited by creativeabyss, 03 August 2018 - 11:23 AM.

[Horseman]

Spheroid, on 03 August 2018 - 09:49 AM, said:

I think some of these suggestions are overly ambitious. The idea was to make major substantive tweaks using the elements already coded.

It just proves again that end users typically have little to no idea as to what consitiutes a "small" change (mostly because they have no idea about software development to begin with).

@Paul: Besides the QOL issues, one complaint I've seen levelled against FP is that it just doesn't reward participation to the same degree as QP or Solaris do. Here's a question... what if FP offered incentives for daily participation, eg 2x payouts (C-Bills, LP, cache progress etc) for first Invasion victory of the day and another 2x for first Invasion match played ? If it brings at least some players into FP for just 1-2 matches a day it might help attract more of them to commiting to the mode on a more frequent basis.

Edited by Horseman, 03 August 2018 - 01:38 PM.

[ShaneoftheDead]

- Make Planetary Rewards Personal - Let players that drop in faction earn some of the Planetary MC directly. In other words, subsidize the game mode. In stead of only giving MC to the Top Unit based on some score (still do that), add MC payouts to every player that drops. Maybe it's only 5 MC per drop in Invasion, win or lose? Or maybe it is 50 MC for every 10 drops? The point being is that the mode is hard, long at 30 minutes, and the rewards are low. Pay the players for providing you content (people to play with and against) in those matches. Bribery does work. If it's not enough, you can always increase the payout.

- Virtualize All Buckets - Bring back IS vs. IS and Clan vs. Clan, but virtualize them. You pick your planet you want to attack or defend. Then get thrown into the single bucket for that mode. you fight. The outcome either adds or removes capture points only for you or your group from the planet you picked. (1 players is worth 1 point, so a 7 man is adding or subtracting 7 points) Theoretically, any given match could be deciding points for 24 different planets at the same time. You may even want to track Attack vs. Defend and create the teams from the Bucket on that instead of IS or Clan. You only need to make sure that there is never the same Faction or Unit on both sides of a match to prevent match fixing.


To avoid confusion, you can alter what we see in the player lists for their Factions to be a new generic Mercenary tag if it does not match up. So if we are House Steiner and we are defending a Steiner planet and we get some Smoke Jaguar that is defending one of their planets from House Kurita, we see the Smoke Jaguar on our team as a generic Merc. (and they see you as the same from their point of view in their list as they fight for their planet in the same match)


You could even wrangle Quick Play battles into Faction Warefare this way. Just have them pick a planet first. Rename the game mode to Combat Patrol.

- Remove Mech Restrictions - Let IS players take Clan Mechs and vice versa. This balances Faction with the fewest lines of code. It's Civil War era, after all. This makes Bucket Virtualization a lot easier since you won't care if you fight along side opposing technology.

- Give Bonuses to Top Performers - Give out c-bills and GXP to top performers in each mach. Have different categories. Examples: MVP, Most Capture Points, Most KMDs, Most AMS Missiles Destroyed, Most Damage taken and Survive, Most Damage done by a Dead Player, Most time spent Over Heated, etc. Make it fun.


- Have a Re-Lauch Party and Advertise - Have a re-launch party. Give away stuff to new players. Host a small invitational virtual tournament with modest prizes (MC, Decals, Tags, etc. You know, bragging rights stuff.). Have a PGI 12 man queue up and play all challengers. Have NGNG stream it all. Advertise all this on Steam and PC Gamer and wherever in advance.

Edited to remove formatting tool errors.

Edited by ShaneoftheDead, 03 August 2018 - 11:48 AM.

[Natural Predator]

Spheroid, on 03 August 2018 - 09:49 AM, said:

I think some of these suggestions are overly ambitious. The idea was to make major substantive tweaks using the elements already coded.

True and Ash pointed that very same thing out to me in discord. But as with all things coach quick fixes with bigger ideas. Same as in business.

[Spheroid]

SilentScreamer, on 03 August 2018 - 10:57 AM, said:

I have never liked the idea of selecting a mech post map selection.

1) Lore - Mechwarrior's typically have one mech the are asigned or own. Not everyone is Jay Leno with a garage full of rides to choose from.

No, let me explain why that is a bad belief. Unlimited grinding is highly desireable in a F2P game as it prolongs both spending and player population.

If the map and opponent are both unknown all players will default to the mechs that result in the best average levels of performance. That goal is very short term. All players will reach that mech number quickly. There is no opportunity to outdo a superior opponent through dedication to grinding and accumulation of equipment that bests superior skill.

Given the inability to improve game performance you will actually hurt retention as the pointlessness of the situation becomes quickly evident to new or bad players.

Also eventually the mechpack business model will break down as the new mechs don't exceed the combat potential of already released goods. That cash stream will dry up. People claim they only buy for nostalgia, but that is a lie. There are many, many unhappy Uziel owners out there.

What doesn't dry up is mechbays sales, which are a sunk cost and generate pure profit. I have 459 mechs owned in six years of gameplay. I accumulated these mechs in the anticipation of needing a myriad of build choices in FP. I also bought all the Clan chassis so that I could study the strengths and weaknesses of the opposition. If the Clan average dropdeck was a known four, I wouldn't have been in QP grinding them out all that time.

Population of both QP and FP would have been harmed through decreased grinding. They are more intertwined than you suspect.

Grind more, buy more duplicates. Keep the lights on. Its to everyone's benefit.





The restricted campaign you want is more properly realized in BattleTech or MW5, not MWO.

[Eisenhorne]

Spheroid, on 03 August 2018 - 12:13 PM, said:

Grind more, buy more duplicates. Keep the lights on. Its to everyone's benefit.

This is very true. I personally own 5 VTR-9A1, 6 WHM-6R, 3 ASN-23, and a lot of doubles of the same mech (including double Sleipnir, IV4, and Thunderbolt). They are all specialized builds that I only take for specific maps and situations. I wouldn't need those mechs (and the mech bays) if all maps were random, I'd just take the most generic mid-range trade mechs I can think of that would do decent in every situation so I'm never caught off guard.

[tutzdes]

Should I feel bad for wishing for solo q FP? So people would just need a drop deck (with tight upper and lower tonnage limits) and could participate in PuG chaos.

For Group Q FP make rewards higher than for solo Q and, like was proposed her, introduce forced LFG mechanics.

I also would like to see some "trial drop decks"/"trial FP mechs" with pre-defined community-made FP-meta-mechs with regular limitations of trials, so people could get into FP earlier/easier. For small units fielding a full-premade FP squad is a very tough task. We can easily train people to get into scouting (one mech needed, 4 people squads), but proper invasion drop deck is a huge limiting factor. A relatively new, but good player is torn between getting mechs he has the most fun playing and the collecting stuff for a proper drop-deck. Some actually viable "default drop deck" would be a great starting point.

That would make FP easy to get into for newbies, would make lone-wolves join FP in some way and more competitive dudes will move from Solo FP to FP Group Queue to get higher rewards. That would revitalize FP which is currently in comatose state and does great job at repelling new (or new to FP) players.

[SilentScreamer]

SilentScreamer, on 03 August 2018 - 10:57 AM, said:

I have never liked the idea of selecting a mech post map selection.

1) Lore - Mechwarrior's typically have one mech the are asigned or own. Not everyone is Jay Leno with a garage full of rides to choose from.

Spheroid, on 03 August 2018 - 12:13 PM, said:

No, let me explain why that is a bad belief. Unlimited grinding is highly desireable in a F2P game as it prolongs both spending and player population.

If the map and opponent are both unknown all players will default to the mechs that result in the best average levels of performance. That goal is very short term. All players will reach that mech number quickly. There is no opportunity to outdo a superior opponent through dedication to grinding and accumulation of equipment that bests superior skill.

Given the inability to improve game performance you will actually hurt retention as the pointlessness of the situation becomes quickly evident to new or bad players.

Also eventually the mechpack business model will break down as the new mechs don't exceed the combat potential of already released goods. That cash stream will dry up. People claim they only buy for nostalgia, but that is a lie. There are many, many unhappy Uziel owners out there.

What doesn't dry up is mechbays sales, which are a sunk cost and generate pure profit. I have 459 mechs owned in six years of gameplay. I accumulated these mechs in the anticipation of needing a myriad of build choices in FP. I also bought all the Clan chassis so that I could study the strengths and weaknesses of the opposition. If the Clan average dropdeck was a known four, I wouldn't have been in QP grinding them out all that time.

Population of both QP and FP would have been harmed through decreased grinding. They are more intertwined than you suspect.

Grind more, buy more duplicates. Keep the lights on. Its to everyone's benefit.


The restricted campaign you want is more properly realized in BattleTech or MW5, not MWO.

First, you have mistaken the term Mechwarrior in my post to mean the player of MWO. That is incorrect, as I am referring to a "Lore Mechwarrior", a soldier trained to operate a giant warmachine. Not a person role-playing an Online Video Game.

Two, Your post is exactly the kind of min/maxing I want to see LESS encourage in the game. We differ on opinion here. And yes, I do have multiple copies of some of my better mechs/chasis, which is a bit like the pot calling the kettle black, but I would rather not have 5 different variations of the same mech just to be competitive in FP. "Keep the doors open by buying mechbays" only works as long as multiple environments that favor those builds are available. Better to support the game by making sure new players can establish themselves to complete without spending lots of $$$ on mechbays. You stop buying at 30 or 50 instead of 12 or 24. Keep the number lower, make FP more welcoming to players who have mastered 12-24 mechs.

Three. Paul already mentioned he is looking at Lore/Roleplay for a bigger role in Faction Play. Not everyone will like that stance, but it is what it is.

Paul Inouye, on 02 August 2018 - 10:19 AM, said:

- Adding lore and decisions to your participation in any given conflict. For example, if the conflict is between Clan and IS, when I select a planet that is in contention, I will choose at that point whether I want to play as Clan or IS. If the conflict is between IS and IS, I can choose the faction I want to back. Even as a Kurita Loyalist, I can choose to fight in a conflict between Steiner and Merik and not have to be penalized for doing so. I also want a story or story arch to tell me WHY I'm going to be fighting.

-Paul

Edited by SilentScreamer, 03 August 2018 - 12:57 PM.

[Eisenhorne]

Eh, I would enjoy solo FP vs group FP honestly, but I don't think there's the population for it. Everyone would just end up waiting.

Now, its controversial, but if you were to REMOVE Quick Play entirely, and replace it with Solo Queue Faction and Group Queue Faction, i'd be 100% behind it.

[NUMBERZero1032]

Oh my god, muh lore arguments. How about no, the amount of stress and discouragement from ending up on Polar Highlands or Alpine with a brawler mech in quickplay is so bad. If you get locked in FP with a brawler deck and you get Polar or Alpine or even Boreal, you're stuck with four mechs like that! That's four times the stress.

[Eisenhorne]

SilentScreamer, on 03 August 2018 - 12:56 PM, said:

Your post is exactly the kind of min/maxing I want to see LESS encourage in the game.

Not the guy you're quoting.... but this isn't going to happen. In any competitive online game, there will always be min/maxing to get the most competitive builds. You cannot discourage it, you cannot get around it. Any system you make will have rules, and those rules will always be used to find the objective best builds to play. Either min/max yourself, or get used to losing in online games against those who do. Or go play a single player game.

[SilentScreamer]

Eisenhorne, on 03 August 2018 - 12:59 PM, said:

Not the guy you're quoting.... but this isn't going to happen. In any competitive online game, there will always be min/maxing to get the most competitive builds. You cannot discourage it, you cannot get around it. Any system you make will have rules, and those rules will always be used to find the objective best builds to play. Either min/max yourself, or get used to losing in online games against those who do. Or go play a single player game.

I agree with your assessment. As I stated I have multiple copies of specific mechs. I have sat down and finished my plate, but that does not mean I enjoy eating my vegetables.

As far as the single player coment, I have been here since Beta and have no plans on leaving. See you on the battlefield. <o

[SilentFenris]

As far as Faction Play goes, one of the more frustrating aspects is the tendency of matches to snowball into a one-sided victory. Even a well-fought quickplay match can end 12-6, which translates to 48-24 in a Faction Play Match.

The 4-drops of 12 started with the Invasion/Siege mode when Faction play was introduced, but is it best for the Quickplay modes ported to Faction Play?

I would rather see Skirmish/Assault/Conquest/Domination modes split into multiple engagements. If the game-engine would allow,each player drops two mechs on one mode/map. Server then transfers all players to a new map/mode for a fresh start.
- This would allow the team that lost the first engagement a fresh start to pull their act together.
- It might also mean less rage quits in the first wave of a match knowing there is a "halftime" coming up.
- Clean win is 2 victories. A win and a loss is a Draw and I do not need to explain a loss.

Remember, this is suggested for the non-Siege Invasion modes. Keep Siege on Boreal/Tiaga/Sulferous/etc as the 48 mech fest.

[DarkFhoenix]

Tukkayid 3 to me felt more like how a faction play should be . A two or three week campaign event on some random planet , the personal challenges , the story and stats .

Solaris has a season and end of season payouts , something similar for FP would be nice . A whole season just battling over one planet .

[Horseman]

Here's another thing to incentivizing participation... introduce some form of score chasing to motivate players. Reward scoring multiple kills / KMDDs on the same chassis (incentivizes staying alive instead of burning the mech).

Perhaps an additional "top achievers" screen at the end of the match for players who both reached certain thresholds in contributions to their team in combat and objective progression - not unlike Heroes Of The Storm does, but explicitly with separate categories for one's own team and enemy team.

Show their mechs on that screen, and you've also got an advertisement for cosmetics. (yeah, that might be pie-in-the-sky).