1169 replies to this topic

[Eisenhorne]

Kin3ticX, on 20 August 2018 - 11:04 PM, said:

4th, Seal clubbing. I can think of no other way to fix this than to limit groups to 4 and allow people to sync drop and maybe or maybe not get with all their buddies. 4-mans should be the anchors for the baby seals on each side. All the force multipliers of a proper 12-man will crush random skittles short of the stars and planets aligning.

I'd probably quit if limited to 4 mans.... The main reason I play with groups instead of pugging is to limit the number of idiots on my team. I did a solo drop today, we ended up getting Polar on Domination. One guy on our team was cursing some of us out for being "cowardly snipers" for bringing ER mechs, and not charging over the top of the hill with assault mechs. I tried to explain to him (calmly) that the best strategy for this map would be to bring long range mechs to counter LRM boats and other snipers, and he got beligerent, telling me to learn to play. He did sub 200 damage in the end.

People like that are the true "toxic" players that need to be weeded out. People who insist they know better, when they are in fact terrible at the game and are not willing to be part of a team.

It's so much more enjoyable to have a team that actually understands how to play, and what to do. Yes, it's unfortunate that the baby seals get clubbed. But if this guy that was on my team is any indication, some of them deserve to be clubbed until they get it through their thick skulls that they do not know best, and they should listen to advice from more experienced players.

[Kin3ticX]

Eisenhorne, on 20 August 2018 - 11:18 PM, said:

I'd probably quit if limited to 4 mans....

What about everyone that quit between 2015 and now? I say, if phase 4 was about retreating down to 1 buckit, then why is keeping 12 man groups sacrosanct anymore?

Telling the pugs to join units and git gud doesn't work.....

[UnKnownPlayer]

Kin3ticX, on 20 August 2018 - 11:04 PM, said:

4th, Seal clubbing. I can think of no other way to fix this than to limit groups to 4 and allow people to sync drop and maybe or maybe not get with all their buddies. 4-mans should be the anchors for the baby seals on each side. All the force multipliers of a proper 12-man will crush random skittles short of the stars and planets aligning.

Changing the rewards to be more win focused or objective focused may reduce some of the farming of PUGs as apparently at the moment people do this to earn CBills (although looking at a lot of the people that claim this they are years old accounts most likely sat on 100s if not 1000s of millions of CBills already)

[Horseman]

UnKnownPlayer, on 21 August 2018 - 12:43 AM, said:

(although looking at a lot of the people that claim this they are years old accounts most likely sat on 100s if not 1000s of millions of CBills already)

You'd be surprised. According to my stats, I ground out some 2 billion C-Bills by now (IDK if it accounts for event rewards, achievements and Skill Tree refund - if it doesn't then you can probably add some 500 mil or so), but my C-Bill balance normally runs at less than 10 mil and I have a shopping list for at least a dozen chassis ahead.

[Monkey Lover]

I listened to the whole pod cast. I can say I went into it expecting to hate it but about after 30 minutes I was turned around.

Love the basic match maker.
Love the lore,
Love the events
Love the loyalist support
100% arty the drop zone if more than 6ish mechs are hiding or if more than 1 enemy mech is attacking.
scouting ,support not allowing the game to end if standing in the pickup zone.

asking,

• Don't mix merc and loyalist on event leader boards (each should have their own)
  
• No more merc fake loyalist. Loyalist jumping should be strongly discourage.
  
• Improve scouting too. Don't forget it!
  
• Scouting drop ship max weight would be nice. Let us take 1 assault and 3 lights if we wanted. Same as group Q.
  
• Match wait counter should be based on playing population. Even if you can't do it dynamic you should know prime times and not. When not prime time increase the wait so the match maker works.

Edited by Monkey Lover, 21 August 2018 - 01:39 AM.

[UnKnownPlayer]

Monkey Lover, on 21 August 2018 - 01:26 AM, said:

• No more merc fake loyalist. Loyalist jumping should be strongly discourage.
  
• Scouting drop ship max weight would be nice. Let us take 1 assault and 3 lights if we wanted. Same as group Q.
  
• Match wait counter should be based on playing population. Even if you can't do it dynamic you should know prime times and not. When not prime time increase the wait so the match maker works.

Discouraging loyalist changing would be great, it's the lack of "fighting against those guys" that makes FP so boring for me at least at the moment, there is never a consistent opponent, this makes it hard for the lore / meta gaming which provides a lot of the end game content which I find more interesting.

The scout drop deck tonnage would be a great idea but i don't think it would be possible to implement it unless it was a pre-made 4 man group, if 4 solo players got dropped in to a live 60 second count down I don't think they would have time to organise the weights, plus there is always the language barrier and also the person who "only takes 'x' so won't change for others"

The match timer change is also a good idea.

Edited by UnKnownPlayer, 21 August 2018 - 01:37 AM.

[Bishop Six]

Eisenhorne, on 20 August 2018 - 11:18 PM, said:

I'd probably quit if limited to 4 mans.... The main reason I play with groups instead of pugging is to limit the number of idiots on my team. I did a solo drop today, we ended up getting Polar on Domination. One guy on our team was cursing some of us out for being "cowardly snipers" for bringing ER mechs, and not charging over the top of the hill with assault mechs. I tried to explain to him (calmly) that the best strategy for this map would be to bring long range mechs to counter LRM boats and other snipers, and he got beligerent, telling me to learn to play. He did sub 200 damage in the end.

People like that are the true "toxic" players that need to be weeded out. People who insist they know better, when they are in fact terrible at the game and are not willing to be part of a team.

It's so much more enjoyable to have a team that actually understands how to play, and what to do. Yes, it's unfortunate that the baby seals get clubbed. But if this guy that was on my team is any indication, some of them deserve to be clubbed until they get it through their thick skulls that they do not know best, and they should listen to advice from more experienced players.

Meanwhile, and this is sad, i am going so far to not invite people in my FP group anymore who are showing behaviour like this.

Middays, when my unit is not on, i go into FP solo and it is really like you said: H o r r i b l e.

If i do a FP group i do NOT demand which mech people should take, but sometime an easy frame of a basic tactic for our team is necessary.

Or to say: Dont bring ******* Lurms to attack mode! I am not harsh or strict, but even in my groups there are some guys, who are just walking somewhere on the map instead of attacking the sector which was called out.

People really need more discipline. My main problem atm is the topic: Pushing around a corner. I cant count the time i was shoot in pieces after going in first. No problem if the push is succesful and my team went with me. But if i die and i still dont see the 2nd mech coming around the corner after 10 seconds, im getting angry.

[50 50]

Looks like a lot of the 'problem' points should be fixable.

I am.... unsure.... about the event system and would like more clarity around that bit. It doesn't seem sustainable.
Is FP to now be an event driven system?
That is, each week there is some sort of 'themed event' with a bit of back story as derived from lore but basically scripted into the game?
We pick a side to fight for regardless of our current faction allegiance and build/lose reputation accordingly?
If it is an IS event and I am a Clan loyalist, do I need to shift to an IS faction to participate or do I play as Clan because it would benefit my clan to favour one of those sides in the conflict?
If so, does that mean I use Clan mechs?
Same goes for IS players ina Clan vs Clan event.
What happens if there isn't an event on?
Are we just engaged in some border skirmishes or something?

There seemed to be a few conflicting points in the discussion.
Few other points to discuss as well.

The early win condition against a team that is stomped for example.
A surrender option was discussed but I feel like this would not be the right approach.
In the scenario that one team has not been able to hold their line for whatever reason, they will either:
A.) Lose the objective in which case that is the end of the game.
B.) End up with enemy mechs in the drop zones and we are back at the spawn camping problem.
So if A occurs there is nothing that needs to happen, the existing win conditions sort it out according to the objectives.
But if B occurs then the team should lose their drop zones and therefore the ability to respawn.
The winning team shuts the door by using the same mechanics we have in place for the conquest objective points.
Defending players > attacking players in the drop zone radius = drop ship still turns up.
Defending players < attacking players in the drop zone radius = drop ship does not turn up.
Tied? I don't know. Pick one. But probably give it to the defenders to have a chance to regroup and keep fighting.
That's what it is about in the end.

Lose all your drop zones?
Have a retreat point, aka the pickup location feature from Scouting, that any remaining mechs can try and make it to.
Make the matches at least feel dynamic in terms of what happens between the teams.

Oh, and if it's lore that's wanted, why not give the dropships their cannon loadouts. That would be more interesting.

Two other hot topics to discuss:

Gating new players.
Teams of 12x mech A in a wave.

Might be able to sort both problems by only allowing group play but also limiting groups (not teams) to 4, which should also make building a full team a lot easier with a standard building block. Was not this very point asked about the match maker just recently?

Edited by 50 50, 21 August 2018 - 04:51 AM.

[Peter2k]

Eisenhorne, on 20 August 2018 - 11:18 PM, said:

telling me to learn to play. He did sub 200 damage in the end.

People like that are the true &quot;toxic&quot; players that need to be weeded out.

A basic match maker has been discussed
First it tries to put groups against each other first, trying to put big groups against each other first before filling up empty spots

Secondly using a skill metric Paul refers to continuously as SSR, not sure what kind of statistics flow into this, but on a basic level it's supposed to put more veteran players against each other
Though frankly I hope in the end it would include some kind of performance metric

So bad players tend to play with and against bad ones, really good players get some fun matches

That with making loyalists CONSIDERABLY more appealing (I forgot which word Paul used, but he was adamant about how much he wants to improve loyalist) should help in leveling out fairness

The only thing negative thing I came away with from the podcast was the following:
If Paul is agreeing so much on adding lore and meaning he could've done so for a few years


Sigh
But at least things seem to be happening again

[Peter2k]

50 50, on 21 August 2018 - 04:39 AM, said:

Looks like a lot of the 'problem' points should be fixable.


Gating new players.

I feel we could alleviate this problem by letting the FP community (or maybe the better players in FP) come up with pre build drop decks "trial mechs"
Using the 2 drop decks that are standard one could go so far as to build a brawling and long range (or better mechs for cold maps, colder mechs for hot maps and so on) deck specific for each map type, thx to load out sharing it should be trivial to get the builds themselves implemented



If those builds are useful then newly recruited players would also have a good enough choice of a drop deck available so drop commanders know what they are dealing with

Frankly I would go so far that the unit leader could mark one of his mechs to set a standard camo and colors so those "trial mechs" would appear in the chosen camo/color ingame
Could be made a use of unit coffers too

[Kin3ticX]

By gating you mean only allow tier 3 or tier 2 and up to play? Maybe that could have been tried 3 years ago but even then I'd give that about a 0 chance of happening.

I think most of the chronic sub 400 damage players are bypassing trial mechs and using their own bad ideas.

Dropdeck contruction is the first low hanging fruit because anyone can just copy a known good dropdeck regardless of their skill....it's just that, too many FP players fail to emulate what works and throw out the bad. For some players, dropdeck building is simple while for others its just a random mishmash of what they happen to have bought equipped with all the wrong builds. Since dropdeck construction is setting up players for failure, I think the dropdeck system itself should get a refresh more significant than adjusting tonnage.

A lot of players try to frontload that probably should be using equal decks that keep them at equal strength the whole match (instead of being in locusts at the end).

I don't know....I just think that after watching the mode basically fail repeatedly....eventually systems that were never touched have to be looked into....like the dropdeck system.

Edited by Kin3ticX, 21 August 2018 - 08:02 AM.

[Daurock]

On gating of new players -

After listening to the podcast, i suspect that the gating of new players is going to be something that the system does to some extent, on its very own. The players least capable of creating a drop deck, have the least experience, etc, are going to be the ones furthest away from the medium and large sized groups.

Keep in mind, the new players that can/should be gated out are going to be the last ones picked to play in a faction battle. The big groups are going to (generally) get the best Solos to fill out their que, since those guys are the ones picked first under the new system. The average and bad solo's are going to wait until the end, when the only people left to build out a game are other solos. Some of them will be even left to the next timer, and I did't see one way or another if they were going to be given priority. (They may not be, just FYI, which means they may be waiting a LONG time if they solo-drop and find themselves at the bottom end of the player list.) That last game, of bads vs. bads, is going to be..... interesting, but it will at least keep most of the people that don't ALSO fit into the "Dropped solo, beginner player" out of that game. That's probably a good thing all around.

Edited by Daurock, 21 August 2018 - 08:13 AM.

[Mycroft000]

I can't go through 39 pages to look for this idea, but has the concept of using conquest capture points in order to make spawn points capture-able and requiring a presence to maintain the captured spawn point?

[Peter2k]

Mycroft000, on 21 August 2018 - 08:24 AM, said:

I can't go through 39 pages to look for this idea, but has the concept of using conquest capture points in order to make spawn points capture-able and requiring a presence to maintain the captured spawn point?

I think not
That being said the idea of selectable spawn points has been brought up, and shot down a few times by PGI, and your idea isn't that far away from it

Daurock, on 21 August 2018 - 08:10 AM, said:

On gating of new players -

I suspect that the gating of new players is going to be something that the system does to some extent, on its very own. The players least capable of creating a drop deck, have the least experience, etc, are going to be the ones furthest away from the medium and large sized groups.
.

Maybe, most likely if PGI can use metrics that matter

It really depends on how they are going to match players and on what
I agree that if we had the numbers in players then MM should put new players against new players and so on

Kin3ticX, on 21 August 2018 - 07:58 AM, said:

By gating you mean only allow tier 3 or tier 2 and up to play?

I think it's the idea of keeping new players out of the mode, so I guess like tier in a way (as tiers aren't skill based but more an XP bar)

That being said, Paul wants some match making, getting big groups and high skilled players to fight with and against each other
On the other side that would mean bad/new players should be matched accordingly; that is if we have the numbers


Also, again I think a well rounded pre build "trial" drop deck would help even those who just put some craptastic mechs into the drop deck, maybe
Maybe if ones own mechs didnt succeed they would pick a "trial" deck? Maybe


Still, gating refers in the podcast to players that have no experience playing MWO yet, that includes the mechlab and what works on what map.

Edited by Peter2k, 21 August 2018 - 11:18 AM.

[MW Waldorf Statler]

Peter2k, on 21 August 2018 - 05:34 AM, said:

I feel we could alleviate this problem by letting the FP community (or maybe the better players in FP) come up with pre build drop decks "trial mechs"
Using the 2 drop decks that are standard one could go so far as to build a brawling and long range (or better mechs for cold maps, colder mechs for hot maps and so on) deck specific for each map type, thx to load out sharing it should be trivial to get the builds themselves implemented



If those builds are useful then newly recruited players would also have a good enough choice of a drop deck available so drop commanders know what they are dealing with

thats can not helping by Players thats bad in Movement and Playing , thats playing with gamingwheels or bad calibrated Cosole Controllers ,or not interested to see and learn Minimal ranges and maximum ranges of Weapons or waht make the Minimpa and what im can seeing of it.

Peter2k, on 21 August 2018 - 05:34 AM, said:

Frankly I would go so far that the unit leader could mark one of his mechs to set a standard camo and colors so those "trial mechs" would appear in the chosen camo/color ingame
Could be made a use of unit coffers too

love the Idea for Immersion ...like MW4 , only never come ...PGi will buy Camos,Colors, Decals and Bolts ...Most Guys will his own individual Circus mech...Many Players thats not will Help "you not my daddy"-im will Brawl-instantaction and not will stand behind cover in a Game " will not Rules and Restictions for Playstyles and Individual Designing of mechs or Builds...and the others trys her best in the circus

Edited by Old MW4 Ranger, 21 August 2018 - 11:39 AM.

[Peter2k]

Old MW4 Ranger, on 21 August 2018 - 11:32 AM, said:

thats can not helping by Players thats bad in Movement and Playing , thats playing with gamingwheels or bad calibrated Cosole Controllers ,or not interested to see and learn Minimal ranges and maximum ranges of Weapons or waht make the Minimpa and what im can seeing of it.
love the Idea for Immersion ...like MW4 , only never come ...PGi will buy Camos,Colors, Decals and Bolts ...Most Guys will his own individual Circus mech...Many Players thats not will Help &quot;you not my daddy&quot;-im will Brawl-instantaction and not will stand behind cover in a Game &quot; will not Rules and Restictions for Playstyles and Individual Designing of mechs or Builds...and the others trys her best in the circus

I get what your saying
But hear me out

A lot of players want to outright ban trial mechs from FP, and I get why, I think most people would understand why
But I understand why PGI might not want to
You could be a player with 200 matches under your belt, but it's kind of unlikely that you have 4 Hellbringers in your mechbay to bring to a FP match, especially if you only have like 8 mech bays it seems unlikely you dedicated 4 of them to the same mech and load out

So you pick whatever you can to get into a FP match, including normal trial mechs, which might spell disaster all in itself
So maybe a pre build deck would be better, if the deck is actually good


On the second thing
Well were talking about coloring trial mechs, like the group invited a new player, but doesn't have 4 suitable mechs yet
So he picks a trial mech or 2
Now those could be colored in the groups colors every time they drop (still taking trial mechs here), as long as that player is part of the group
For a price (unit coffer, LP)
Since were not getting a unit inventory soon, maybe never

[Vasili Kerensky]

Mercenaries have an unfair advantage over players who belong to other factions because they can switch allegiance without penalty and participate in any type of faction warfare. PGI already tried to address the overall issue of factions and faction warfare by grouping the IS and Clan factions but it's not enough. It could go one step further and eliminate faction allegiance from faction warfare. Let anyone participate in any conflict and maintain faction allegiances for the accumulation of loyalty points and the rewards that come with it as well as representation of personal preference regarding game lore. Perhaps the loyal players could enjoy some benefits in conflicts of their faction and that would be the extent of gameplay discrimination.

If this is done, players can be proud of their faction without hating the fact that they're banned from participating in aligned faction warfare. Thematically nothing is lost and mechanically everything is gained.

Edited by Vasili Kerensky, 21 August 2018 - 03:23 PM.

[Cato Zilks]

UnKnownPlayer, on 21 August 2018 - 01:37 AM, said:

The scout drop deck tonnage would be a great idea but i don't think it would be possible to implement it unless it was a pre-made 4 man group, if 4 solo players got dropped in to a live 60 second count down I don't think they would have time to organise the weights, plus there is always the language barrier and also the person who "only takes 'x' so won't change for others"

No, this would be very simple. You run it just like the group queue QP. 55 tons for a solo player. Group of 2 gets 100 tons (50 avg), group of 3 gets 135 (45 avg), and 4 man gets 160 (40 avg).

And if you wanted to allow heavier mechs like MonkeyLover said (which I am not a fan of), a four man could consist of 1 100 tonner and 3 20 tonners, so it could be feasible (heavies would be more viable). But again, I think the cap to mediums is probably a smart cap to keep, just with smaller weight averages for larger groups.

Edited by Cato Zilks, 21 August 2018 - 04:35 PM.

[Monkey Lover]

Cato Zilks, on 21 August 2018 - 04:31 PM, said:

No, this would be very simple. You run it just like the group queue QP. 55 tons for a solo player. Group of 2 gets 100 tons (50 avg), group of 3 gets 135 (45 avg), and 4 man gets 160 (40 avg).

And if you wanted to allow heavier mechs like MonkeyLover said (which I am not a fan of), a four man could consist of 1 100 tonner and 3 20 tonners, so it could be feasible (heavies would be more viable). But again, I think the cap to mediums is probably a smart cap to keep, just with smaller weight averages for larger groups.

I have mix feelings about allowing heavy mechs mixed in. I think it would change up scouting but i have the same worry if it hurt something i can't think of. I have had freinds who only pilot larger mechs. It would allow us to bring them. The size of the maps and having to make the drop zone if youre the last alive should take care of most builds.

Mostly I like the idea of giving the pugs a little more weight for balance. This is coming from someo e who does not pug anymore

Edited by Monkey Lover, 21 August 2018 - 05:05 PM.

[50 50]

Peter2k, on 21 August 2018 - 05:34 AM, said:

I feel we could alleviate this problem by letting the FP community (or maybe the better players in FP) come up with pre build drop decks "trial mechs"

While it would be with the best intentions to give new players a bit of a leg up with which mechs to take and the loadouts etc, the problem with trial mechs and prebuilt trial drop decks is that inevitably what might be good one month is rubbish the next. New mechs, quirk changes and balance adjustments will make the trial mechs a poor choice and therefore the trial drop decks a handicap instead of the intended guide.

The only thing I can think of that might alleviate that problem to some degree is giving trial drop decks a different tonnage limit but I am not sure that is a good idea.

The only other thing that they might be useful for is to have the decks built using mechs relating to the faction's preferred mech in each weight class. eg: From memoruy for Ghost Bear I think that would be a drop deck of Executioner, Maddog, Viper and whatever the light was. The only purpose for doing this would be to give some sense that when you come up against a certain faction you would typically face mechs A, B, C and D. Maybe even have the odd event using them.

In the end though, I don't see trial mechs and trial decks helping that much.

Kin3ticX, on 21 August 2018 - 07:58 AM, said:

By gating you mean only allow tier 3 or tier 2 and up to play? Maybe that could have been tried 3 years ago but even then I'd give that about a 0 chance of happening.

I think most of the chronic sub 400 damage players are bypassing trial mechs and using their own bad ideas.

I don't know....I just think that after watching the mode basically fail repeatedly....eventually systems that were never touched have to be looked into....like the dropdeck system.

I am not sure what the best answer is for gating new players into the deep end of the pool, maybe restricting by tier would allow them to at least gain some experience, earn some c-bills and have some of their own mechs before they get there.
But this also extends to players that have been around a while that would like to start getting involved in Faction Play and I think the best tool available is to get players to group up and start communicating.
It was mentioned in the pod cast about how the FP experience can go both ways and there are plenty of people in the community who are willing and able to take on new players and help them out so both have a better experience.

But this is where the mode should only allow groups but also apply the group maximum of 4 (lance) for several reasons.

• Players that want to learn will want to group up anyway.
  
• It will make forming a small training group less disruptive to a team in battle and between battles where builds might want to be discussed and more time taken.
  
• Good players who want to play but not necessarily be part of a unit can still be easily picked up in lfg along with the other changes suggested in the podcast.
  
• A small group is a lot easier to build and get readied up than a bigger one.
  
• Forcing groups acts as it's own gate.
  
• Negative players can still form militia groups with a bunch of other random players but their behaviour can be managed by the group and the player base as a result of this limitation.
  
• It should help limit the pug vs premade to some degree.

As an added side effect, having a 4 player limit means we could incorporate scouting as part of the invasion queue to further consolidate player numbers.

Mycroft000, on 21 August 2018 - 08:24 AM, said:

I can't go through 39 pages to look for this idea, but has the concept of using conquest capture points in order to make spawn points capture-able and requiring a presence to maintain the captured spawn point?

I have a few times.
I see several benefits in having this functionality which would be further improved with the selectable spawn points.

Peter2k, on 21 August 2018 - 11:04 AM, said:

I think not
That being said the idea of selectable spawn points has been brought up, and shot down a few times by PGI, and your idea isn't that far away from it

Paul did ask the question about removing the dropships and just having players spawn in.
It seemed like not having the dropships would make it easier for other options..... potentially it might be related to the selectable spawn points.