1169 replies to this topic

[Tier5ForLife]

Maybe a real chat room would help. One that does not look like it was from the 1990's.

Give PUGs a way to talk about the game before the game.

[Peter2k]

r0b0tc0rpse, on 10 August 2018 - 11:36 AM, said:

Snip

Sure I get what your saying

You say MM would be a great solution

Paul is saying all good and big groups go to the same side (there will be sides or there wouldn't be factions), because that's what happened regularly in the past

So the MM will continuously put noobs against elite because he doesn't have a choice

And that assumes you have a playerbase that wants to return to the mode in the first place to make use of a MM

[r0b0tc0rpse]

LikeUntoBuddha, on 10 August 2018 - 11:50 AM, said:

The size of units does not matter. It is the number of members that show-up up and play together that matters.

Add NPC units to PUG groups according to the strength difference using Tiers.

Tanks, Hovercraft, etc etc. They would not respawn, they would be "the Unit" stationed there. You could even give them personalities. This unit fights to the death, this other one runs if things get too hot.

It is really about the only way to equal things out SINCE YOU PUSSYED OUT AND GOT RID OF LONG TOM!

The premades would still win 90% of them but they would have to work a bit for it.

I've played 6 games in this current event and all of them were against 12 man premades. I'm quitting every game from now on that starts that way.

I've spent the day digging a grave for my dog (i have a very bad back) that I have to put to sleep tomorrow, I do not need this ****.

I wouldn't waste keystrokes suggesting anything that includes NPC's other than turrets that already exist.

[Peter2k]

LikeUntoBuddha, on 10 August 2018 - 11:50 AM, said:

The size of units does not matter. It is the number of members that show-up up and play together that matters.

Add NPC units to PUG groups according to the strength difference using Tiers.

Tanks, Hovercraft, etc etc. They would not respawn, they would be "the Unit" stationed there. You could even give them personalities. This unit fights to the death, this other one runs if things get too hot.

It is really about the only way to equal things out SINCE YOU PUSSYED OUT AND GOT RID OF LONG TOM!

The premades would still win 90% of them but they would have to work a bit for it.

I've played 6 games in this current event and all of them were against 12 man premades. I'm quitting every game from now on that starts that way.

I've spent the day digging a grave for my dog (i have a very bad back) that I have to put to sleep tomorrow, I do not need this ****.

Premades also controlled long tom
If anything long Tom was THE factor to empty FP

[Daurock]

Marquis De Lafayette, on 10 August 2018 - 10:57 AM, said:

@paul

As I stated above....perception doesn’t match reality. No other units live in terror of the really big units, because the really big units are all training units.....they have some truly good players, mixed with raw recruits in the single 12 man (usually) they put out there. Times have changed and any unit moves that are sync are now more likely motivated by a desire to put a single 12 man together, than by a desire to take a planet or avoid other big units. We all want to get a 12 man together to ensure drops....this means mixed tag groups more often than not these days.

I REALLY hate to say this, but the fact that this is the case, combined with Paul's note that this type of behavior is unbalancing the mode, essentially leads to the following conclusions:
1- The few 12 mans out there, when run in this fashion, are unbalancing the mode all by themselves, and
2- That there aren't enough players on BOTH sides of the conflict to reliably put together large groups.

If there aren't enough players on both sides of the conflict to create a full group consistently, then the sad fact is, there really aren't enough players to create the Group vs. Group action the mode is supposedly for. All you are left with are pug beatdowns, and ghost drops if there are no op-for groups. Is that really the path we want to continue down? If not, the question is, HOW do we get those groups to diversify more, even if it entails NOT being able to group with half the playerbase? (Either by stick, or by carrot, or by some other means.)

Edited by Daurock, 10 August 2018 - 12:16 PM.

[r0b0tc0rpse]

Peter2k, on 10 August 2018 - 11:52 AM, said:

Sure I get what your saying

You say MM would be a great solution

Paul is saying all good and big groups go to the same side (there will be sides or there wouldn't be factions), because that's what happened regularly in the past

So the MM will continuously put noobs against elite because he doesn't have a choice

And that assumes you have a playerbase that wants to return to the mode in the first place to make use of a MM

No, that's not what I'm saying.


I'm saying the way for random groups to win, at all, is to ensure they're against their peers, and that requires matchmaker. Matchmaker isn't ever going to happen, so the reality is telling people that they are going to lose against premades more often than not, and that there is no implementable solution that doesn't involve segmenting a player population already stretched thin.

You can't break up units and expect them not to drop on the same faction regardless of their unit tag.

[Lukoi Banacek]

I think it's very funny that anyone would imply that Long Tom somehow made things more equitable between pugs/small groups vs larger groups. Competent large groups had an easier time avoiding long term than the more broken up elements.

More coordination is always better than less in this game.

[Peter2k]

r0b0tc0rpse, on 10 August 2018 - 11:58 AM, said:

No, that's not what I'm saying.


I'm saying the way for random groups to win, at all, is to ensure they're against their peers, and that requires matchmaker. Matchmaker isn't ever going to happen, so the reality is telling people that they are going to lose against premades more often than not, and that there is no implementable solution that doesn't involve segmenting a player population already stretched thin.

You can't break up units and expect them not to drop on the same faction regardless of their unit tag.

So you've been posting several times promoting no solution at all since you said it won't happen

There is a way to make sure seals are left alone, make it's so it's not worth the time to fight them, while very worth to look for tougher fights
It's a "tool" never used by PGI either, the contract bonus they gave did nothing

Also you can make sure sticking to a side permanently is more rewarding than hopping around

Lukoi Banacek, on 10 August 2018 - 12:05 PM, said:

I think it's very funny that anyone would imply that Long Tom somehow made things more equitable between pugs/small groups vs larger groups.

No idea either

Usually groups used sacrifices when they had to, and if the group was big enough they usually controlled scouting as well
Frankly it was pointless to drop in a match even if you had controll of long tom, it robbed you of fun and income

LikeUntoBuddha, on 10 August 2018 - 11:51 AM, said:

Maybe a real chat room would help. One that does not look like it was from the 1990's.

Give PUGs a way to talk about the game before the game.

Frankly I think this was mentioned lots of times now, isn't it in Paul's list?

Edited by Peter2k, 10 August 2018 - 12:22 PM.

[Iron Buccaneer]

Paul Inouye, on 10 August 2018 - 10:47 AM, said:

Finnnnne.

Let's put the issue directly on the BBQ. Faction swapping so units avoid fighting each other.

Adjusting rewards/incentives does nothing in this scenario due to people swapping to the winning side or just mass joining one faction to ensure it's the winning side. And this is the direct problem I need to hammer down.

As long as you have only one "bucket" front to fight on then big units will switch sides because the rewards for winning far outstrip the rewards for loosing. I'll make more c-bills dropping crap mechs and doing 800 damage without premium time winning compared to dropping hero mechs doing 1200+ damage but loosing.

Big healthy units were essential to multi front faction play during phase 2. A 100-150 member casual unit might be lucky enough to field a 12 man during prime time daily if they had enough active pilots interested in Faction play. If not they might be able to drop 12 mans on Friday and Saturday nights. Even the really big groups were not dropping 12 mans 24/7. I think phase 2 died mostly because it got too stagnate. It wasn't supported all that well. Phase three was announced way too early compared to when it finally dropped and it wasn't popular with the hard core faction players. Phase 4 even less so. Until you address the biggest issue of phase 4, one bucket, not much else matters.
One bucket re-enforces all the negative pug vs group problems and the uber units all on the same side problems. It strips individual factions of any meaning what so ever and gives going Merc a better option than any of the previous pahses. I know it is unlikely that we can get back to contested planets on every front but could we at least get a few more fronts to play on? Give other units a chance to tag planets and solos and casuals a chance to avoid uber unit X from time to time? It could just be 2-4 fronts across the Clan invasion zone. Perhaps you could just open different fronts/buckets when the population is active enough to support it like on the weekends. Also consider not shutting down the Clan/IS front for the faction specific events.

I think everything on your list looks good. It's definitely a step in the right direction as are these themed events. Just consider a bigger picture as an end goal. Phase 4 was way to big a cut in my opinion.

[Marquis De Lafayette]

Daurock, on 10 August 2018 - 11:58 AM, said:

I REALLY hate to say this, but the fact that this is the case, combined with Paul's note that this type of behavior is unbalancing the mode, essentially leads to the following conclusions:
1- The few 12 mans out there, when run in this fashion, are unbalancing the mode all by themselves, and
2- That there aren't enough players on BOTH sides of the conflict to reliably put together large groups.

If there aren't enough players on both sides of the conflict to create a full group consistently, then the sad fact is, there really aren't enough players to create the Group vs. Group action the mode is supposedly for. All you are left with are pug beatdowns, and ghost drops if there are no op-for groups. Is that really the path we want to continue down? If not, the question is, HOW do we get those groups to diversify more, even if it entails NOT being able to group with half the playerbase? (Either by stick, or by carrot, or by some other means.)

Just to be clear: I have no idea how many 12 man’s are out there in total, I am running mostly with or up against 6 man’s or less....but am having little trouble getting games.

The point is that I hear zero chatter about any FW regulars trying to avoid siding against the big (in total number of members) units, which is what Paul is talking about. If there is data leading to that assumption, the real story of “why” bigger units end up more on one side is missing. Assuming there is such data and that the data is meaningful (i.e...not just that their are big units stacking a side, but those units are dropping enough FW players to unbalance things....alignment means nothing without activity) the question would be “why?”....avoiding fighting other big units seems to be the least likely reason for this behavior at this point in time though.

[Van mw]

Paul Inouye, on 10 August 2018 - 10:00 AM, said:

I have another question I need to look into here...

Unit Size Restriction.

Spoiler

Here's the issue that has proven itself over and over. Multiple massive units not picking opposite factions to align to. Even with contract locks in place, when it came time to switch, they all switched to the same faction. IS/Clan... didn't matter... Russ mentioned this casually in a roundtable a long time ago and this situation hasn't changed.

Don't get me wrong here. I was guild leader for a 250 member WoW raid guild. I know the benefits and fun of being in this type of social gathering place. However, WoW didn't allow your typical faction change (Horde/Alliance) at all. That was the population balancer there. We made the guild based on the players already locked into our faction.

With MWO, we've allowed the massive faction changing ability (Clan/IS) to allow players to participate and use the 'Mechs they've purchased.

Now sometimes this behavior was a coincidence and other times it was intentional. But it's this behavior that makes it very difficult to population balance and to make sure the large units out there are fighting each other.

A unit size cap will not stop the behavior of creating multiple sub-units of a super unit. But it does breakdown the overall influence of a singular entity above a certain size.

What am I getting at? Can the community get behind a unit size cap of X size? And I'm guessing that X would be less than 100.

First of all, thank you VERY MUCH Paul for communicating with us, community, directly. This is a proper round table that we (I believe) were hoping for a long time. I understand that you are gathering ideas to evaluate what is possible to implement in current time/money budget. Still it's very encoraging and motivating for folks like me - some average pilot who interested in coordination and tactics rather than leader board rank and so on.

Now, to topic, unit size limit.

Eisenhorne, on 10 August 2018 - 11:05 AM, said:

Truth. The "big scary group" people avoid is usually comprised of a smattering of 2-3 guys from BCMC, EVIL, 420, HHoD, BRZY, or whatever other unit has a few really good players that group up. People will sometimes actively avoid fighting this group since it will crush most 12 mans from big units. I don't think I've ever been in a group where people have actively dodged ARC7, MS, Templars, CGBI, HHoD, SPQR, WTAU, or any of the other large units where people were dropping en-masse.

Actually, and it pains me to say this since I like dropping in my mixed unit super group that crushes people, but a limitation on groups where only members of the same unit can be in a faction play group may solve this. If EVIL can only field 4 guys, then they can only drop as a 4 man instead of picking up 8 other good players players from other units to form a super group. This would encourage unit play, and discourage "super groups" which players will often go out of their way to avoid.

I agree on first part - today it's hard to find a group that will have pilots from the same unit and would be formidable to face for an experienced pilot. However I disagree with second part as I, as single active member in FW currently of my unit (11 people + 1 alt), won't be able to group up with pilots from other units and get what I want - coordination and some kind of effectiveness on the battlefield.

Spoiler

I'm too stubborn and value loyalty too much to leave my unit (because after several leaders left the unit I got "the crown") or change faction or drop solo a lot. So if there would be no way for me to join a team it would be end of the mode for me personally because our unit won't have a lot of people - Davion russian speaker is quite rare beast in this jungle. However I haven't spent any money on the game, so my leave might be nothing in comparsion to "the whales"

The solution I see is to mitigate the sadness and disappointment from the stomp by "bribe" - additional reward for the weak pilots/lost team so they will come again to play even if that MIGHT happen again. You have FW leaderboard data, my idea if there was a stomp and statistics shows that one side is much more experienced (Win/Loss ratio, Kill/Death ratio) - incentivise "noob" players by additional reward. But to make it clear it should be additional screen/popup, not just a row in statistics. With explanation like "you have faced the elite force regiment, there is compensation for your losses from the contractor/faction and payment for the every killed mech on their side." . The logic might be quite complex and variable in sums, so I'll stop here.
TL DR idea - to compensate negative emotions with "money".
I believe this is kind of universal solution that will affect the population even when it comes back to growing (let me dream a bit ). The MM and additional checkbox "prefer to fight other premaid" don't look like a viable solution at current state of the mode. However at some point, and better sooner than later, there should be some mechanic to choose to fight stronger than a "weak/medium" team. Without this matches are too ofter one sided and without any challenge that is not fun for most of the pilots (I hope so).

Some points about other ideas:

• [Added] (not new) Increase the pre-match countdown to 2-3 minutes, please. Coordination require some time.
  
• Missed merc bonus since last contract reset - I'm a loyalist so am biased but I don't see reason why mercs should have additional payment based on "broken" statistics - total faction players rather than active one. So I believe it can be reintroduced when 1 - statistics count "real" strength of the faction, 2 - contracts are given for the conflict side rather than faction (IS/Clan strength but not the individual factions in "regular" conflict).
  
• (not new) Loyalist rank cap is something that encourange twinks and loyalty break for the veterans.
  
• (not new) FW is end mode for most of us, so really new players should be aware of the danger. One popup is not enough. Misclick and you are not aware.
  
• A new idea: Is these a possibility of showing video examples of the FW mode aspects in-game? Like "youtube" video catalog/channel accessable/watchable from the game? I believe community will participate in filling in and keeping up to date such convinient "tutorial". And will help a lot to introduce FW to new players.
  
• A new idea: Add a mechbay reward once per season for the Solaris 7 division for "very active and not so successful" players so there is another way to "farm" mechbays and not ruin games for others Maybe in a cost of 1-2 from the FW ranks.
  
• (not new) Fix last scout achievement sound/spelling - it's not "artillery" for a long time. Ruins immersion and stresses me sometimes, you know
  
• (not new) Filling the planet info is kind of important
  
• (not new )Thanks again for the "reaching out", really great no matter what.

Edited by Van mw, 10 August 2018 - 01:22 PM.

[Eisenhorne]

Yea, I'm not a fan of the idea too much either Van since my group is usually mixed, but I'd rather find a solution that ensures newer players keep coming back to FP for more.

Maybe... dynamic tonnage limits based on team skill? "Team skill" could be measured by averaging the W/L ratio of everyone on the team. If you've got a team who has an average W/L ratio between them of 1, and your opposition has an average W/L ratio of 4, then you're obviously going up against a group who usually wins. If their W/L ratio is higher than yours by say a factor of 2, then when the game enters the "Live Drop" phase when the counter normally resets to 1:00, it resets to 2:00, pops up a red warning message flashing on the side of the screen saying something like, "Elite opposition detected, additional forces authorized for deployment", and your tonnage limit per deck gets increased by 30-40 tons.

When I'm in a stacked group, I notice that the first wave is often the only close wave we have, because the enemy teams front-load their tonnage significantly. If they could pack 2-3 large assault mechs in their drop decks, it would allow them to be more competitive I think. It would also give the stacked group a more fun experience, because we like getting high damage numbers, and it's easier to do that when you're fighting lots of big assault mechs.

it would also benefit PGI because people would have more of a reason to buy more mechs and mech bays, because they'd need to plan not only normal drop decks, but they'd be able to plan "uphill battle" drop decks where they have extra tonnage.

[Horseman]

Paul Inouye, on 10 August 2018 - 10:47 AM, said:

Let's put the issue directly on the BBQ. Faction swapping so units avoid fighting each other.
Adjusting rewards/incentives does nothing in this scenario due to people swapping to the winning side or just mass joining one faction to ensure it's the winning side. And this is the direct problem I need to hammer down.

Often those situations happen because fighting against a highly ranked unit does not generate more rewards than fighting against pugs. What if the MC generation by planets depends on relative "active player balance" between factions? That would penalize dogpiling one side and reward units moving to keep the conflict relatively equal.

r0b0tc0rpse, on 10 August 2018 - 11:00 AM, said:

Is there a way to stop people from re-enforcing when it's not appropriate and feeding the enemy kills without curtailing a teams ability to re-enforce when it is needed?

Longer intervals between dropships?

LikeUntoBuddha, on 10 August 2018 - 11:50 AM, said:

Add NPC units to PUG groups according to the strength difference using Tiers.
Tanks, Hovercraft, etc etc. They would not respawn, they would be "the Unit" stationed there. You could even give them personalities. This unit fights to the death, this other one runs if things get too hot.

Mentioned before... PGI doesn't have NPC AI that would work with this game.

Quote

I've played 6 games in this current event and all of them were against 12 man premades. I'm quitting every game from now on that starts that way.

You know that triggers matchmaking penalties and is considered a code of conduct violation, right?

Edited by Horseman, 10 August 2018 - 12:59 PM.

[Van mw]

Eisenhorne, on 10 August 2018 - 12:56 PM, said:

Yea, I'm not a fan of the idea too much either Van since my group is usually mixed, but I'd rather find a solution that ensures newer players keep coming back to FP for more.

Maybe... dynamic tonnage limits based on team skill?

Spoiler

"Team skill" could be measured by averaging the W/L ratio of everyone on the team. If you've got a team who has an average W/L ratio between them of 1, and your opposition has an average W/L ratio of 4, then you're obviously going up against a group who usually wins. If their W/L ratio is higher than yours by say a factor of 2, then when the game enters the "Live Drop" phase when the counter normally resets to 1:00, it resets to 2:00, pops up a red warning message flashing on the side of the screen saying something like, "Elite opposition detected, additional forces authorized for deployment", and your tonnage limit per deck gets increased by 30-40 tons.

When I'm in a stacked group, I notice that the first wave is often the only close wave we have, because the enemy teams front-load their tonnage significantly. If they could pack 2-3 large assault mechs in their drop decks, it would allow them to be more competitive I think. It would also give the stacked group a more fun experience, because we like getting high damage numbers, and it's easier to do that when you're fighting lots of big assault mechs.

it would also benefit PGI because people would have more of a reason to buy more mechs and mech bays, because they'd need to plan not only normal drop decks, but they'd be able to plan "uphill battle" drop decks where they have extra tonnage.

I see 2 problems:

• need to react quickly on tonnage change and be aware of such "feature".
  
• tonnage increase for IS leads to slower mechs that usually ruins the game more than other factors especially on quick play maps. A top team will have difficulties only if enemy knows how to use the tonnage. So probably won't help noobs. They need to get the idea that teamwork is OP first. Tonnage will help them later. Maybe some kind of advertisment for "training" units would solve this more effectively?

Edited by Van mw, 10 August 2018 - 03:31 PM.

[Paul Inouye]

Prior to a match. How much time would you want to have to talk tactics?

Eg. you queue up as group or pug... right now the system backs everyone up into their perspective queues and at the end of launch timer, it quickly assembles teams and kicks off the match to the dedicated servers. IF (no promises) we could add a pause between team building and match kick off, to give you the chance to talk (limited to text chat) strats, how long should that be. Remember, this adds to the overall time you're not IN the actual match.

60 seconds? 90 seconds? 2 mins?

[Eisenhorne]

Paul Inouye, on 10 August 2018 - 01:24 PM, said:

Prior to a match. How much time would you want to have to talk tactics?

Eg. you queue up as group or pug... right now the system backs everyone up into their perspective queues and at the end of launch timer, it quickly assembles teams and kicks off the match to the dedicated servers. IF (no promises) we could add a pause between team building and match kick off, to give you the chance to talk (limited to text chat) strats, how long should that be. Remember, this adds to the overall time you're not IN the actual match.

60 seconds? 90 seconds? 2 mins?

Well, you already have the 60 second countdown (What the timer resets to after chilling in lobby waiting for the opposing team to form) when you have an opponent found, and you're setting your drop decks. Adding an additional 60 seconds to it I think would be sufficient, since even experienced players sometimes fail to set the deck in time, and they know what they're doing. 120 seconds would give people enough time to talk a little bit, and pick which 4 mechs they want to bring.

Edited by Eisenhorne, 10 August 2018 - 01:30 PM.

[Daurock]

Marquis De Lafayette, on 10 August 2018 - 12:37 PM, said:

Just to be clear: I have no idea how many 12 man’s are out there in total, I am running mostly with or up against 6 man’s or less....but am having little trouble getting games.

The point is that I hear zero chatter about any FW regulars trying to avoid siding against the big (in total number of members) units, which is what Paul is talking about. If there is data leading to that assumption, the real story of “why” bigger units end up more on one side is missing. Assuming there is such data and that the data is meaningful (i.e...not just that their are big units stacking a side, but those units are dropping enough FW players to unbalance things....alignment means nothing without activity) the question would be “why?”....avoiding fighting other big units seems to be the least likely reason for this behavior at this point in time though.

I tend to believe a couple of things -
1- That Paul is being more or less honest, and looking at good participation data when he talks about there being a Population imbalance. It shouldn't be too hard to look through war logs, and the actual participants in those games, and see who was grouped up, and not, especially if they keep at least some sort of track of that type of data. I note that their general feels, are usually reasonably on-point (though their solutions to to those problems... yeah. not going to go there.)

2- That, just like you said, players that group up, tend to "Stack" a side more to create a group, rather than avoid a group. That is, probably more than anything else, is the "Why" when it comes to the group discrepancy between sides. (People following their friends, and thus a bit of a herd mentality.)

3- The "Call to arms" probably makes the FW imbalance look better than it really is, but may be having other unpleasant side effects. It believe that it certainly helps generate games, but anyone pulled in via call to arms is likely coming in as a pug. Those pugs then have a pretty good chance of facing off against an organized team. (Because there were probably more organized teams on the op-for side in the first place, creating the need for a call to arms in the first place) It probably plays a little bit into the consistent complaints people have against the whole "pug vs. premade" thing. Just how common these players are, and just how detrimental it is, are certainly up for a lot of speculation here.

Honestly, I don't really have a good way to keep a herd mentality from consistently taking over, short of faction caps, having your side picked for you on a day/week/game basis, or some other draconian measures.

[Marquis De Lafayette]

90 secs is probably sufficient. 120 is fine as well. 60 secs (current) is too short

[justcallme A S H]

Paul Inouye, on 10 August 2018 - 01:24 PM, said:

Prior to a match. How much time would you want to have to talk tactics?

Eg. you queue up as group or pug... right now the system backs everyone up into their perspective queues and at the end of launch timer, it quickly assembles teams and kicks off the match to the dedicated servers. IF (no promises) we could add a pause between team building and match kick off, to give you the chance to talk (limited to text chat) strats, how long should that be. Remember, this adds to the overall time you're not IN the actual match.

60 seconds? 90 seconds? 2 mins?

To be honest, for me, there is already that much waiting between getting a team together / lobby / opponent / load into match / walk the first 90s where no fighting happens...

I really don't want to see an increase anywhere. It's 60s now in an active lobby, maybe making it 75s I could live with but that's it. Anymore waiting will send me insane.

[Eisenhorne]

justcallme A S H, on 10 August 2018 - 01:35 PM, said:

To be honest, for me, there is already that much waiting between getting a team together / lobby / opponent / load into match / walk the first 90s where no fighting happens...

I really don't want to see an increase anywhere. It's 60s now in an active lobby, maybe making it 75s I could live with but that's it. Anymore waiting will send me insane.

Alright then Ash, how about a minimum of 120 seconds then? Right now, if the queue is super active, you can click the "Launch" button and get an insta-drop, and have 60 seconds to discuss the plan and set a drop deck. That's enough for someone who knows what they're doing, but it's not enough time really for newer players. Obviously though if you've already been sitting in lobby for 5 minutes your deck is already set and you don't need the extra time. So if you queue up, get an insta-drop, the minimum timer is 2:00 to make a plan and a drop deck.

Edited by Eisenhorne, 10 August 2018 - 01:40 PM.