1169 replies to this topic

[Tier5ForLife]

PGI can't spend $37 dollars to even change the "we have Artillery Support". Or give the Solaris announcer over 7 phrases.

And open up Stranamechty (without a password). 4 of us tried for months and gave up.

We wanted to semi set up a place for real PUGs to gather and discuss.

I know a little about Military operations. If you have two equal sides, the one that had 10 minutes to talk about what to do will beat the one that is just winging it.

[vonJerg]

About units faction swapping and stacked sides of the conflict...
Sounds like we need some kind of community management, body or a person that has the inside info on real population in FP via FP games played in recent history, that will balance the sides by suggesting to particular units to change side via lucrative offers (bribes) or what not. Some kind of Community Manager?

[Monkey Lover]

UnKnownPlayer, on 11 August 2018 - 02:56 AM, said:

The whole first section is about exactly that.

</p>

Other than the lore part i said "maybe to" the whole first section and most of everything else is about rewards. Well they tried it. Giving out mc, gxp,cbill ended up with 1 bucket.


Now we're back again with "give out banners" "give out points to buy banners"

How about make a mode people would pay cbills to play.

You can start by making the mode fun for everyone at all skill levels. This would increase your bucket size by 95%.

Edited by Monkey Lover, 11 August 2018 - 04:44 AM.

[Horseman]

Cadoazreal, on 11 August 2018 - 12:51 AM, said:

Assumption much ?
"Anyone who is willing" - your assuming all people are created equal, people have different levels of ability and skill, some have impairments which limit that, some have toaster P.C.'s and aren't as well off financially as you...

I'm assuming everyone is capable of bringing themselves up to at least a basic level of competence if they apply themselves (the amount of effort needed will vary). That's the extent of it.

There's a difference between someone who simply cannot improve any more and someone who isn't trying to improve at all.

Quote

- actually I am speaking for the handicapped to have equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.

They already have that.

Quote

For the game to be balanced around ALL PLAYERS SKILL

Which won't happen. The issues that cause underperformance in FP tend to be as much in preparation and teamwork (or, more usually, total lack of those) as personal skill.
How do you balance players whose idea of Faction Play is the following:

• Deliberately disabling comms
  
• Yoloing straing into the enemy line with every mech in one's drop deck
  
• Turning around and stopping when at the head of an advancing line, causing a traffic jam and multiple losses due to incoming enemy fire.
  
• Taking drop decks that are undergunned in Siege or drop decks that are too slow in Conquest
  
• Refusing to move together with the team and soloing half a map away
  
• Shooting weapons completely outside of their range / under their minimum range (oh, hey, let's snipe with my AC20 at 1200M, I'm sure I can hit something!)
  
• Disconnecting as soon as they lose their first mech

All those are things I've seen pugs do on a regular basis. Early losses - or lack of mechs on the front line - leads to matches snowballing, in FP even more so than in QP.


Eliminating this sort of fundamental mistakes would improve the enjoyment of the game for everyone, including the pugs themselves. Unfortunately, most of them are too far gone to course-correct even when the constant failures should be a subtle hint they're doing something wrong.

Quote

Ice cube would like a word with Calvin.
Or do we really want to treat others unfairly and segregate this game?

They're being treated fairly - too fairly - by allowing them to opt into the mode when they're nowhere near ready for it.
The only way to balance skill levels is to get the underperformers to improve - and that's something entirely out of PGI's hands and dependent on the players themselves.

Quote

I could not agree anymore strongly with your last paragraph. A close game is the best game.
And how often does that happen these days (before these events) ?

More often than you think, if both teams make an honest effort.

LikeUntoBuddha, on 11 August 2018 - 03:40 AM, said:

And open up Stranamechty (without a password). 4 of us tried for months and gave up.

PGI does not operate that TS hub.

Edited by Horseman, 11 August 2018 - 05:34 AM.

[Marius Evander]

This is MY attempt to "Flesh out" what I am proposing as I was asked by someone earlier in this thread, I am sure people can find plenty of holes in the proposal to attack & bad numbers to argue about I am not a numbers expert, I dont have the access to PGI data to be a numbers expert, I just hope you can improve on these ideas rather than simply and far more easily just shoot them down. I know I dont represent anyones opinion but my own, I am trying to see things from as many angles as possible, but we can all only ever truly see things from our own biased perspectives, mwo FP is a VERY vastly differing group of individuals with different desires and goals, to meet them all in a "Thinking mans 1st person shooter within a conflicts occuring across a galaxy overarc immersive roleplaying element" is extremely difficult.

PLEASE find the problems and offer solutions.

Immediate as soon as "Improved FP" can be relaunched / patched in: -

These INITIAL IMPLEMENTATIONS GET EXPANDED UPON IF PLAYERBASE NUMBERS IMPROVE, THE BELOW IN IMMEDIATE IS THE BEGINNING, DO NOT REPLY TO 1ST STAGE WITHOUT READING SUBSEQUENT STAGES.

Sadly EVERYONE gets reset again. Keeping/Regaining highest ranks ever earnt with all factions.

No Changes to how units work initially, (capping out numbers would have no real benefit with or without the below.)

OPTIONS

Choose Loyalist to any faction, Clan or Inner Sphere.

or

Choose Mercenaries: - Could get dropped on either side of any conflict.

Call to arms makes you a Mercenary, freelancer does not exist, as mercenaries in intial relaunch are filling the role of freelancer with better rewards, (I am sure there were bad mercenaries who are forgotten because they died in a fight as cannon fodder). (Freelancers having no rewards just punished new players)

Motivations / reasons behind choices

Loyalists - Can drop in a group of up to 4, Faction Reputation rewards as they currently are , but with increased or similar amount of reputation requiring rank 21 that gives same rewards as rank 20, Some sort of how many times over rank 20 you have gone tracker/title option/decal ?

Can only break Loyalist contract once every 6? months at the end of a season.

Mercenary
Their efforts contributes to mercenary rewards ranks as currently implemented but with increased or similar amount of reputation requiring rank 11 that gives same rewards as rank 10, Some sort of how many times over rank 20 you have gone tracker/title option/decals ?

Mercenaries can decide to pledge permanent Allegiance to a faction during a season, becoming a Loyalist.

Mercenaries are not supposed to be the largest force in the universe / most individual conflicts, very rarely would they be the biggest force fighting, limiting size of merc groups more than Loyalists helps enforce this.

To cater to this new season length amount of planets shifting sides each cycle is adjusted so we see noticable map changes? PGI to adjust number of planets being disputed in each conflict phase weekly during season (some weeks / days / during offpeak hours only one planet may be being contested, at other times, during highest populatuion (N.A.) peak hours 24 planets may be being contested. Initially these large changes may only be on the IS/CLAN front but in "Later updates" large swathes of planets would also move within IS vs IS faction weeks , Clan vs Clan Faction weeks.

Weekly rotation between IS vs IS, Clan Vs Clan, Clan vs IS.

Mini events between subfactions (davion IS vs kurita IS , Jade Falcon Clan vs Wolf Clan do not exclude the other factions, or even other sides (must have correct sides drop mechs to participate)

During such events all players not in the specific factions in event count as mercenaries, Other Inner Sphere loyalist players during an IS vs IS event will be able to choose a side to fight for ONCE for the duration of the conflict (another option would be who is helping who and why is pre assigned by PGI, multiple reasons why other I.S. factions pilots may be embroiled in the conflict can easily be fleshed out, I have given examples previously in this thread). Clan loyalist pilots with sufficient Inner Sphere mechs to play would be added to the true Mercenary pilots for the duration of the event (undercover the enemy of my enemy is my Ally espionage style mission would be their version of the event?)

For a Clan vs Clan event the reverse would be the case, Clan pilots would choose / be assigned who they were supporting once for duration of event, IS pilots with sufficient Clan mechs would be added to the mercenary fill / balance out matches queue.

2 minute pre launch drop deck selection timer

No trial mechs.

Notoriety rating

Uses slightly improved Solaris system.

All players start at 1500 rating Your 1st 10 games must be completed Solo, loyalists will not be able to group as 4 mans till they have completed these 10 games.
Each game moves your rating 100? BONUS points, at the end of those 10 games you cannot be placed higher than 2000 or lower than 1000, if you won all 10 games your rating would sit at 2000, if you won your 1st 7 games then lost your last 3 your Bonus Rating would end at 1900 not 1700 as currently happens in solaris 1v1 mode.
(1500 + (7 x 100 (going over 2000 temporarily during the ) - (3x100)) = 1900 instead of (1500 + 7 x 10 = all points over 2000 cap lost) then (2000 - 3x100) = 1700

The Notoriety rating system from the outset tries to add the total notoriety of each team as closely as it can, when players queue the system starts with the acceptance of very small total difference to launch a drop over time as it waits for players to queue this acceptable margin grows. If a player misses a drop because the system found others for a better match they get priority next drop, whether they stay in queue or rejoin later.

Loyalist Notoriety Rating does not change while playing as a mercenary in an event for the opposite clan/i.s. faction.

Players below 1250 NR get +5 tons players below 1000 NR get +10 tons, Players above 1750 NR get -5 tons, Players above 2000 get -10 tons.

How does your NR change at the conclusion of a match ? Complicated math, probably something Similar to how 2v2 ratings change in Solaris mode.

How does this stop Sync dropping of best players in one team?
In peak hours game will be able to find similar skill pilots for the opposing team or split them into multiple games if required.
During off peak hours Sync drops will be more successful and matches will still be similar to how they are now, until/unless player numbers increase from interest in this improved system for better fights to occur OR the majority of pilots who play during offpeak hours chose the mercenary contract, in which case the system would have the highest chance of matching them evenly.

Just like Solaris, the best matches occur when theirs a large number in a queue (24+ during RJBASS streams, 16+ during JustcallmeASH oceanic off peak time streams etc etc) it will be the same with Faction Play, large numbers means the system works better.

How is this better than what we have already ? Greater chance of closer more exciting matches.

Updates futher down the road

3 minute drop deck selection timer with ready up option imported from Comp Play.

Loyalist group sizes increased to 6

Mercenaries allowed to group in 2's

During Clan vs IS week Only Loyalists INDIVIDUALLY Influence THEIR FACTIONS SPECIFIC map borders, whenever they drop, how well they perform (match score ?, not NR) is tallied up at the end of each 8 hour phase for all players from their faction who dropped during the phase and compared to how well their opponents players did on their adjacent borders, map ownership moves accordingly.

During I.S. vs I.S. week large number of worlds of the 2 specifically involved event factions change sides, no clan planets alter, (other IS factions borders may alter slightly, arguable)

During Clan vs Clan week large chunks of the 2 Specifically involved event factions planets may change sides, I.S. planets do not alter, (other Clan factions borders may alter slightly, arguable)

If population picks up enough we would have Clan vs I.S one week and IS vs IS + Clan vs Clan the next week removing the "Clan loyalist / I.S. Loyalist pilots with sufficient Inner Sphere mechs to play would be added to the true Mercenary pilots for the duration of the event"

(A couple Planets in an event conflict is not a noticable enough alteration on the universe map.)

Mercenaries recieve bonus MC of 5? for a win 3? for a loss (needs to be higher than most loyalists could earn from holding worlds as mercs will not be able to tag planets under this system), decals for their involvement in event's (These are the people who contribute most to balancing individual drops, that is why they are rewarded higher, they also do not see direct results of their actions on the universe map as they may have been on both sides during a conflict)

TRIAL MECHS ADDED, MUST be decent / midrange "rentals" deck for each side, possibly eating into player earnings for using them, encouraging newest players to also Play Quick Play for better incomes while they master the games basics, Loyalists can opt to pay the rental fee for FP trial mechs for friends they are dropping with, Mercenaries can not opt to pay for their 1 buddy, advantage for loyalists, loyalists are the teamwork players, mercenaries put themselves AND VICTORY 1st before their teams survival, Mercenaries are a more cutthroat, you prove your worthy without my assistance bunch. ( I would most likely be playing as a Merc, putting teamwork 1st and sharing armor as a merc, not sitting at back using team as a meatshield, which is opposite to the image of mercs I have proposed above. Their are always exceptions to the RP stereotype. )

Removal of dropships, addition of 4 opening mech hangar bays or droppods or stationary dropship or just teleporting in and dreaming how we got there if we cant get the assets with the personal decision of which drop zone you wish to deploy to before redeployment / where your team are choosing highlighted.

The shields artwork assets from Solaris 1v1 / 2v2 added to Siege mode doors, so the shield generator loosing power allows an explosive charge to "blow the door" (or just replace the doors with the shield wall)

More depth of storylines / lore to events, Espionage behind enemy lines deep strike missions, more plot and characatures, This wont happen in a substantial way unless we get more people playing.

Eventually may be able to have more than 1 Clan Vs Clan IS vs IS conflict during those weeks.

More different unit tags on more different planets would be a result of more planets changing alignment during phases.

Loyalist Unit benefits, the current tags on worlds giving unit leader MC system changed to giving individual ACTIVE loyalists mc rewards for "fighting to hold onto worlds" they already "own" / have tagged.

More players units specific decals in game ? (loyalist / merc specific rewards)



Improvement to friendslist So we can see what game mode people are playing , what game mode people are in LFG for, what game mode people are inviting us to / refreshing list so offline players dont continue to appear online / favourite friends.

More importance to the drop caller role, more options in the minimap/command wheel (only being able to attack an area OR attack a target, unable to mark both....

The stuff in below that can still be done with the above.

Paul Inouye, on 09 August 2018 - 10:02 AM, said:

Spoiler

My notes:

While not all encompassing on every single topic... these are the notes that are in for investigation for the update. These are higher level notes in which if your suggestion touches on the same area, consider your suggestion to be part of the discussion.

FP Update – Notes from the Community
Make faction alignment meaningful and rewarding

• Faction specific rewards (Colors/boltons/cockpit items/skins/etc)
  
• LP used as a currency
  
• Story/Lore/Faction driven choices to cement a desire to stay loyal
  
• Expand on the Loyalist path drastically
  
• Expand on lore in global descriptions in FP

Map Alterations

• Revisit sightlines
  
• Revisit pathing
  
• Look at generator positioning

Game Mode/Hooks

• Tug-of-War adjustment for less punitive win condition flips.
  
• Removal of Tug-of-War mechanic for smaller events with different win scenarios.
  
• Incursion base building health adjustments.
  
• Drop Zone wall angle adjustments.
  
• More reward kickers based on player behavior.
  
• Bring back queue count.
  
• Planet/event specific map selection.
  
• Objective play reward increase.
  
• Conquest score adjustment.
  
• Adjust launch countdown.
  
• Earlier win conditions based on team destruction (stomps)
  
• CalltoArms timer change.
  
• Unit based objectives.
  
• Queuing integrated into LFG
  
• Reward group play at a higher level than solo
  
• Scouting mode end condition investigation (diving)
  
• Rewards for CalltoArms participation
  
• Battlefield based tonnage restriction (e.g. only 4 assaults at a time)

Systems Update

• More than 4 drop decks
  
• VoIP prior to drop

UI

• Refresh on friends list
  
• Favorites on friends list
  
• Status indicator (drop type/game area)

Coffers

• Unit management taxation removal/change.
  
• C-bill transfer between players.

Misc

• Tool for players to enter planetary data

NOTE: This list is not a list of things definitely going in. Again, it's a list of investigation points that I'll be presenting on top of what is already in play to see if anything can be included. i.e. NOTHING on this list is promised.

Yes what I have hypothesised above does not allow for 12 people to drop together, that might eventually be able to be readded in for loyalists and mercenaries up to groups of 4, but as the game currently stands I do not believe we can be afforded that luxury. Their is a big difference between a TEAM of your mates, and teamwork, teamwork means working with people you dont like / dont have your skill level / dont have your desire to meta mech. HAVING SAID THAT, As the Notoriety rating system spreads the playerbase out more of each group would get more matches with more people of similar in game ability / style of play (yes only during higher population hours and to a much lesser extent during low population hours). You can still chat with friends on external voip programs and queueing at the same time as them will have varying levels of success.

I feel loyalist's individual (not clan vs i.s.) factions are your "Team" you may not always get in the same drops with them / your unit mates and that is where attempting teamwork with the majority in the drop / faction(not clan vs i.s.) comes in.

Yes, to Start with it will be a mess, Kai Stray vs Promowar in the same drop as someone who doesnt do 100 damage in 4 mechs vs someone afk/dc'd I expect that COULD RESULT in a BETTER fight for all than a EVIL/KCOM as eg vs 12 tagless skittles or the like, which happens currently during events. Off peak hours will just have to learn how best to play with a wider variety of player co-ordination.


I am sure there are many things I have missed, please help, thankyou for your time.

edit to remove spoiler tags

Edited by Cadoazreal, 20 August 2018 - 08:48 PM.

[MischiefSC]

Horseman, on 10 August 2018 - 11:26 PM, said:

Here's an idea I'd like to toss in: a &quot;notoriety rating&quot; for pilots based on their FP performance that is indicated visually on their target box and player list (so that pugs know which targets are the biggest threat) and adds a bonus LP / C-Bills payout for kills / KMDDs / assists against them (which could be pretty substantial compared to normal payouts).
Should motivate high skilled players to go up against other high skilled players rather than pugs (and consequently switch sides so that they get more equal matches), and would compensate pugs for putting up a fight against a superior enemy (as long as they can avoid a 48-0 roll).

To give extra motivation... is it possible to increase the value of a planet's MC generation based on how many high-ranked players participated on opposing sides or in some way increased by the number of victories the losing side scored during the phase?
That would make a world that was conquered by units just stacking one side and rolling pugs worth less than one where the fight was stacked more evenly.

I've repeatedly put forward the idea that your payout should depend on who you play. A pug team vs a top tier premade should make about as much on the loss as the premade makes on the win. The pugs should make a ton more on kills and damage and especially objectives in that situation. A great premade vs pugs should make like 60 or 75% what they do now.

You use an Elo based system so that it pays teams more to take new player or pugs along and to play vs comparably skilled teams and pugs get a big payout for working with the teams they play with.

You wont get any success trying to force teams to play each other. Trying to force teams to split up will just get people not to play, or ensure those teams dont split up so they switch together and drop together. You play teams less vs pugs and more vs teams, the better the enemy the more you pay, and it'll balance itself.

[Surn]

1. many of us enjoyed being able to take planets by being able to choose where to fight. Yes, we would look for places with few defenders

2. Being able to place mechs with a specific build on planets would make the entire game more interesting. These mechs could be "trial" loadouts and maybe skill trees now available only on a specific planet when modifying a drop deck.

So, when on the planet, new trial mechs are available saved as a mech variant with a load out already associated in a new database table.

When a player adds a mech to a planet: Table including mech reference, planetid, chassis id, load out hash, name or new table for all owned and 91/91 skilled mechs that includes planetid

available only to loyalists, who can place mechs only on that factions planets. If planet is taken, that variant is available based on planet not group...but can be moved.


How this benefits PGI...

1. Placing/movng mechs could cost MC or cbills based on how many "trial mech" are reasonable to have on each planet. People like me who like resource based battletech are inclined to supply our loyalist areas with lore based "trial mechs" and would pay .

2. If a lore based mech would be nice to place on all the planet of "Faction A" or just a good variant, or just some ego maniacal "Surn Zeus 9S" ... players would need to buy multiple copies of the mech, 1 for each planet.

If this is unpopular, each time a player saves a "trial loadout to defense garrison" it could cost MC or CBILLS or whatever in a significant amount, but much cheaper than buying new mechs and mechbays.

Like mechbays, maybe players would need to buy "Defense Garrison mechbay upgrade" that would place the mechbay on a loyalist planet?


3. New mechs that PGI just released could have a FP variant or Lore variant meant for distribution to the planets to boost sales. "rush to the front sales events"

Edited by Surn, 11 August 2018 - 07:53 AM.

[Nightbird]

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?

If people want more time, let's try 90 seconds first. I personally find 60 to be plenty.

Also, please consider reducing the ghost drop time from 10 minutes. You don't get much rewards anyways, and people may wish to do something else other than waiting.

[Angm4r]

LikeUntoBuddha, on 11 August 2018 - 03:14 AM, said:

Long Tom will not help premades but then they do not need it and the PUGS are going to lose anyway. But Long Tom did give PUGS a chance.

Probably a minority opinion, but I liked the concept of Long Tom. What I didn't like was the execution of Long Tom. Instead of the system picking when and where Long Tom dropped (which was dumb), it should have been a callable targetted location weapon like other air strikes/arties.

Better teams would see when a Long Tom was going to drop on them, scatter, and then use a target mech to bring the Long Tom in on the team that had earned it. Great revenge but stupid execution.

[Angm4r]

Horseman, on 11 August 2018 - 05:26 AM, said:

How do you balance players whose idea of Faction Play is the following:

• Deliberately disabling comms
  
• Yoloing straing into the enemy line with every mech in one's drop deck
  
• Turning around and stopping when at the head of an advancing line, causing a traffic jam and multiple losses due to incoming enemy fire.
  
• Taking drop decks that are undergunned in Siege or drop decks that are too slow in Conquest
  
• Refusing to move together with the team and soloing half a map away
  
• Shooting weapons completely outside of their range / under their minimum range (oh, hey, let's snipe with my AC20 at 1200M, I'm sure I can hit something!)
  
• Disconnecting as soon as they lose their first mech

Eliminating this sort of fundamental mistakes would improve the enjoyment of the game for everyone, including the pugs themselves. Unfortunately, most of them are too far gone to course-correct even when the constant failures should be a subtle hint they're doing something wrong.

I wonder if instead of a tier system, or perhaps, in addition to it, if you had a player comment "5 star score" system like Uber, except the stars reflected their teamwork score. When players did things like the above their "teammates" would have the opportunity to give stars to their teammates on exit. There could be a variety of options to use that sort of information, anything from limiting the ability to participate, letting random groups know what kind of team the had going in (and get that sorted out in the extra time before the drop starts to clarify expectations), or limiting the rewards of a match (more so than out right losing).

[UnKnownPlayer]

Monkey Lover, on 11 August 2018 - 04:42 AM, said:

Other than the lore part i said "maybe to" the whole first section and most of everything else is about rewards. Well they tried it. Giving out mc, gxp,cbill ended up with 1 bucket.


Now we're back again with "give out banners" "give out points to buy banners"

How about make a mode people would pay cbills to play.

You can start by making the mode fun for everyone at all skill levels. This would increase your bucket size by 95%.

OK so, as the thread is suggesting, we are waiting for your constructive input.....

[Marius Evander]

Angm4rs uber stars , end of game screen click 2 people other than yourself you thought contributed most to teamwork and 2xpeople you think contributed the least, High stars get assigned drop caller (if they want it) low stars get rewards penalties?

Also like dropping ghost drops timer to 6 mins?

No long tom but to make scouting matter more satelite last longer or more often, and radar jamming not simultaneously with sat sweep but just after. You gather info on where enemy is then after as you use that info to engage the radar jams enemy reducing their targeting data. Right now radar going off at the same time as sattelite tends to be wasted.

Edited by Cadoazreal, 12 August 2018 - 04:56 AM.

[Horseman]

Monkey Lover, on 11 August 2018 - 04:42 AM, said:

You can start by making the mode fun for everyone at all skill levels. This would increase your bucket size by 95%.

PGI doesn't have a magical "fun" slider to adjust. What's "fun" for experienced players with a lot of mechs and builds to choose from will be entirely unfun for a comms-deaf newbie who expects the mode to be quick play with respawns and promptly loses all of his mechs before everyone else goes through their second - and vice versa.

Edited by Horseman, 11 August 2018 - 10:47 PM.

[Terrorsdawn]

Yes please Paul, 2 mins to ready the group at the start of the match would be a huge help getting a group ready to fight. The one minute timer is way to short when you have to say things like "Make sure you hit select or your changes wont stick!" Mistakes happen a lot and it can be a real pain at times to have people not even try to play well, just because they brought the wrong deck.

Putting a cap on units I feel will have little to no effect. People that want to play together will always find a way to do so. It's very easy to form teams from multiple units so capping it would effect nothing unless you can control how many units are in each faction. The changes for balance have to be made in the game before the matches even start and will require some form of framework being implemented by PGI.

I also think a framework has to be put in place for everyone not just MERCS. The problem was evident even before the Merc role was introduced. In phase 1 it was Kurita against everyone and mind you I had a lot of fun with instant matches and a choice to pick who we fought by the planet we defended or attacked. The fact is the balance problem was already happening and introducing a role that allowed people almost total freedom to jump factions as they pleased destroyed any chance of ever having balance in population.

So we need a simple framework put in place such as maybe:

1. A faction can no longer be joined as loyalist, if it has x number more units then any other faction.

2. No additional Merc contracts offered until each faction has taken on a merc unit to a balanced number with each faction. Like I posted earlier in the thread. (Trying to be brief.) Keep the contracts for each Merc unit limited to one term to keep Mercs moving and allow others to have a turn in the faction. If a merc unit wants more terms with a faction they have to go Loyalist and maybe they should get an offer to do so at the end of the contract if there is a room in said faction see point 1.

3. No one man units make the minimum 4 members. To insure at least a unit can field a lance. Also make it so the unit can not be created unless all four members are online at the time of the unit creation.

4. If people want to be freelancers that's ok but they can only answer the call to arms. No forming teams should be allowed by a single player with no unit what so ever.

No one wants to have restrictions on where they can go but without restrictions people will always use any and all means at there disposal to win or gain an advantage regardless how it effects the game. Faction stacking is a strategy used and it is one of the main reasons a lot of people I know have quit in frustration when the steam roller effect starts crushing it's way across the Inner Sphere.

So it's time to charge the paddles and scream "CLEAR!". Get those engineers back to life Paul and working on a framework to force a population balance in Faction Play. We all know leaving it to the players has not worked and will never work.

PS. NEVER BRING BACK LONG TOM or introduce a game feature that takes the killing out of the players hands. Even if it sounds really cool and Russ keeps saying it over and over, giggling a little more each time he says it out loud.

[Bishop Six]

Terrorsdawn, on 11 August 2018 - 11:06 PM, said:

Yes please Paul, 2 mins to ready the group at the start of the match would be a huge help getting a group ready to fight. The one minute timer is way to short when you have to say things like "Make sure you hit select or your changes wont stick!" Mistakes happen a lot and it can be a real pain at times to have people not even try to play well, just because they brought the wrong deck.

Putting a cap on units I feel will have little to no effect. People that want to play together will always find a way to do so. It's very easy to form teams from multiple units so capping it would effect nothing unless you can control how many units are in each faction. The changes for balance have to be made in the game before the matches even start and will require some form of framework being implemented by PGI.

I also think a framework has to be put in place for everyone not just MERCS. The problem was evident even before the Merc role was introduced. In phase 1 it was Kurita against everyone and mind you I had a lot of fun with instant matches and a choice to pick who we fought by the planet we defended or attacked. The fact is the balance problem was already happening and introducing a role that allowed people almost total freedom to jump factions as they pleased destroyed any chance of ever having balance in population.

So we need a simple framework put in place such as maybe:

1. A faction can no longer be joined as loyalist, if it has x number more units then any other faction.

2. No additional Merc contracts offered until each faction has taken on a merc unit to a balanced number with each faction. Like I posted earlier in the thread. (Trying to be brief.) Keep the contracts for each Merc unit limited to one term to keep Mercs moving and allow others to have a turn in the faction. If a merc unit wants more terms with a faction they have to go Loyalist and maybe they should get an offer to do so at the end of the contract if there is a room in said faction see point 1.

3. No one man units make the minimum 4 members. To insure at least a unit can field a lance. Also make it so the unit can not be created unless all four members are online at the time of the unit creation.

4. If people want to be freelancers that's ok but they can only answer the call to arms. No forming teams should be allowed by a single player with no unit what so ever.

No one wants to have restrictions on where they can go but without restrictions people will always use any and all means at there disposal to win or gain an advantage regardless how it effects the game. Faction stacking is a strategy used and it is one of the main reasons a lot of people I know have quit in frustration when the steam roller effect starts crushing it's way across the Inner Sphere.

So it's time to charge the paddles and scream "CLEAR!". Get those engineers back to life Paul and working on a framework to force a population balance in Faction Play. We all know leaving it to the players has not worked and will never work.

PS. NEVER BRING BACK LONG TOM or introduce a game feature that takes the killing out of the players hands. Even if it sounds really cool and Russ keeps saying it over and over, giggling a little more each time he says it out loud.

I thought about capping the Faction population as well. Instead of capping unit sizes, we could cap the size of a faction. Lets say if Jade Falcon has a population of 30 %, then it is full, no changes allowed anymore until some players go away from Jade Falcon again.

[justcallme A S H]

Bishop Six, on 12 August 2018 - 01:31 AM, said:

I thought about capping the Faction population as well. Instead of capping unit sizes, we could cap the size of a faction. Lets say if Jade Falcon has a population of 30 %, then it is full, no changes allowed anymore until some players go away from Jade Falcon again.

If you know how many active players there are then it is possible... ... IF you know active population, it will fail if you don't.

That said stacking is fine is the penalties for doing so are harsher. I reckon it would be less issue filled if LP is somehow used as currency as Paul suggested becuase that then becomes critial if you are missing 300-400LP a match because you stacked... Provided you have a purpose for the LP or it doesn't cap out like the Loyalist/Merc Career Trees etc. otherwise then it won't mean anything.

Edited by justcallme A S H, 12 August 2018 - 01:39 AM.

[Laser Kiwi]

Angm4r, on 11 August 2018 - 12:18 PM, said:

I wonder if instead of a tier system, or perhaps, in addition to it, if you had a player comment "5 star score" system like Uber, except the stars reflected their teamwork score. When players did things like the above their "teammates" would have the opportunity to give stars to their teammates on exit. There could be a variety of options to use that sort of information, anything from limiting the ability to participate, letting random groups know what kind of team the had going in (and get that sorted out in the extra time before the drop starts to clarify expectations), or limiting the rewards of a match (more so than out right losing).

I like it, even if players give you a hard time in the game, if you are generally good it will average out that those players opinions don't matter so you can avoid salty players downvoting you cause they have a difference of opinion on how the game should be played, and players who step up and call and do that best for the team often at the expense of their own performance can be recognised.

Edited by Laser Kiwi, 12 August 2018 - 04:09 AM.

[TWIAFU]

Angm4r, on 10 August 2018 - 03:34 PM, said:

Bias (I'm the leader of the HHOD) and we tend to run in the 105 - 115 headcount range. (Do people think that's big?) As a general rule I'm not a fan of a cap < 100. But I will say we have decided to cap membership ourselves internally at ~120 to accommodate our mix of casual and FW players.


It would seem like a cut too deep would negatively impact the bringing the newer player base up to speed on what it takes to be successful in FW.

As a former, and PROUD, member of HHoD, I would be very much against anything that would limit their, or ANY Unit's ability to train new pilots in MWO.



Paul, I hope you notice one very important underlying factor here;

Your player base WANTS CW to be more then it currently is. We WANT that quintessential Battletech Experience. CW is that experience that you and MWO provides, at least tries to. By all these posts and suggestions anyone can easily see that.

Edited by TWIAFU, 12 August 2018 - 05:28 AM.

[Deathshade]

Change the ability to switch, create limits to the Factions or base unit size on actual active players.

[Angm4r]

TWIAFU, on 12 August 2018 - 05:19 AM, said:

As a former, and PROUD, member of HHoD, I would be very much against anything that would limit their, or ANY Unit's ability to train new pilots in MWO.

Miss you T!