1163 replies to this topic

[GweNTLeR]

I recently got an idea - additional bonus (like 10%) for solo dropping can encourage more players to play FP solo.
Also, additional bonus for accepting "call to arms",based on time remaining till ghost drop (like 10% when it starts calling, increasing by 5% every 20s), might also encourage more players.
Also, I believe that it is necessary to implement old queue system from phase 2, since "searching" doesn't give you any idea of how much you have to wait more to play the game and many players just cancel it before it finds a match(hence, it is much harder to find a match when playing in a small group or solo, what discourages many people who want to try FP).

Edited by GweNTLeR, 05 August 2018 - 04:22 AM.

[50 50]

Unit coffers
I thought the purpose behind this was to let a unit build up their holdings.
Bases, dropships and that sort of thing that assist the unit in some way.
Unless other features are added to the game however, such as something like a logistics system or repairs then there really is no point.
The recruitment tax doesn't work as a way to restrict numbers because the larger a unit, the less their members need to contribute to still add more members.
A weekly tax? I might understand a sort of unit maintenance cost but how is that actually different to paying to repair mechs.
What is it trying to achieve?

If unit size is a problem then straight up put a cap on how many members it can hold.
Stick to the IS military standards and extend it.
Battalions = 3 companies
Regiment = 3 to 5 battalions
It might even be a good idea to look at having a different cap depending on whether the unit is Loyalist or Mercenary.
The Regiment is the largest organisation in common use in Battletech so it would make sense to use it.

I would like to point out that when the suggestion of unit caps came up before, the threat that was used to squash the idea was sync dropping.
My answer to that is: Go for it. Sync drop your little guts out.
What this represents is multiple units getting involved in a large campaign and it's the sort of thing that should be recorded in the war logs when we go to look at the map and see what has been going on. ie. a little bit of immersion.
I strongly suggest sticking to your guns and putting the cap in place anyway.

However, the discussion is on what can the unit coffers be spent on and we are discussing it in relation to Faction Play only at the moment.
We have to remember that creating a unit is not a special/exclusive Faction Play feature.
It has a wider impact.
Therefore the maintenance cost is going to impact beyond the mode.

It makes sense to add a feature to Faction Play that can therefore be used with the unit coffers. Something that has an ongoing cost as well as single purchases that benefit the unit overall.

I am therefore going to suggest a really basic Logistics System that needs to extend to the player themselves.
The ongoing cost:
To commit a drop deck to a campaign costs a player X. (Base it on the drop deck tonnage or something)
Allow players to access the unit coffers to subsidize this cost according to limits on who can access the funds and how much.
Perhaps it could even be a logistics point system instead of c-bills.

A change that needs to be considered here is what is considered 'Committing a drop deck to a campaign'?
If it's a small cost, then it could be something that is applied each time you get a match against an opponent.
Or, we consider changes to the the actual Faction vs Faction conflict, extend the duration and have planets with set biomes (Snow, Forest, Desert etc) so that players pick a drop deck for the week and that's when there is the cost. If we want to change that drop deck to another, then we have to pay to bring that drop deck into the conflict.
The scope of this has wider ramifications but I'm trying to paint a picture.

Single purchases.
Units can purchase drop ships.
THIS should be a resource that a player as the group leader can add to the 'group' they have formed to play the mode.
All it needs to be is a marker on the group and it provides a discount to the logistics cost.
So a big unit that wants to move their players to the battlefront more effectively can buy dropships to reduce that cost.

This becomes a feature improvement in the group screen.
It's like adding a module to the group.

Now there is a side effect to adding a logistics cost to play the mode.
1. Will the players earn enough to pay that cost back? I see this as a good thing. It's a risk that asks for commitment which will pay off with improved performance. Therefore it may act as the gate many have asked for.
2. It will encourage players to join units and group up. Also good things as this is also something the community insists on for the mode.

Which brings me to this point:

Faction Play solo queue vs Group only mode.
I talked earlier about limiting group sizes to a lance, setting up more than 2 sides in the conflict and using more of a free for all approach in the match maker.
I also feel that Faction Play needs to be the group mode.
The players that play it regularly organise groups and use the social features we all ready have to build those groups. This suggests that they will bring solos into their group for the drops.
It should be the rule for the mode and the group screen/system could use a bit more functionality.
This will improve the new player experience.
I would also suggest removing/disabling the freelancer career path as it is not helping the new player experience.

[Cruor vult]

All your offers are meaningless, no one will return to the game for coloring or superfluous 100000000 cbils, you are offering ideas that are designed for the influx of 30 new players, this is not true at the root, because you need to think about how to return those 30,000 fans who gone. All this happened in stages:
1. Introduction skilltree > outflow of players
2.Adding Quick cards and modes in the FP> outflow of players
3.Nerf armament, imbalance in armor / weapons> outflow of players
4.Polovlennye declared events> outflow of players
5. Desinck engines rated> outflow of players
and you will sell killing the desire to play an auxiliary weapon as compared to the basic weapon (nowskill weapon). The easiest solution to these problems is:

Yushi, on 03 August 2018 - 11:39 PM, said:

Make that all can take in FP all Mechs, (you can explain that it's salvage, black market etc.) and it will no problem with balance IS vs Clan.

There is a difficult decision to change the situation, which is unlikely to go to the PGI, the rollback of all changes over the past 1.5 years, but with access to the already introduced weapons, equipment and interface changes.
I.e :
1. Remove Quickcard and modes from FP
2. Set the threshold of entry into the invasion, say - 3 tier , in the scout - 100 games
3. And MAIN, do not change the rules in the course of actions or events.
4. Optionally, you can add the various changes already proposed before me to attract players for entry, to be in units.
If it seems to you that the balance at that time was not ideal, enter changes to the drop deck, the Clan VS IS - 10x12 with the same tonality,IS VS IS -12x12 with the same tone, Clan VS Clan -10x10 with the same tone.

Edited by Cruor vult, 05 August 2018 - 04:17 AM.

[UnKnownPlayer]

50 50, on 05 August 2018 - 02:12 AM, said:

Now there is a side effect to adding a logistics cost to play the mode.
1. Will the players earn enough to pay that cost back? I see this as a good thing. It's a risk that asks for commitment which will pay off with improved performance. Therefore it may act as the gate many have asked for.
2. It will encourage players to join units and group up. Also good things as this is also something the community insists on for the mode.

A current issue is the DZ farming, going to 48 kills instead of objectives etc. Applying a cost to dropping would only exaggerate this issue, maybe if the rewards for completing objectives outweighed the rewards for killing we would see a different approach but i suspect that 12 man groups would just farm to 47 then complete the objective anyway.
This isnt a bad thing for those l33t 12 mans that want to kill each other but would be fairly toxic for new players or lower skilled teams.

Maybe a dropship cost if you have a group, cost scales with the number of players in the group, a central unit coffer could be used to cover the cost. Solo players or maybe those below lance level could drop for free.
However, I still think this would increase farming as the players in those groups would be the ones donating money to the coffers in order to pay for the dropships. However it might break larger groups up if they dont need to pay to play with 3 of them in a group.

Edited by UnKnownPlayer, 05 August 2018 - 03:14 AM.

[50 50]

A drop cost does nothing towards drop zone camping.
The logistics idea was just an example of what a new function for unit coffers might be, but also how a small change can roll into other areas and have different affects as well as some of the potential pitfalls with adding a new feature.

For drop zone camping specifically I would suggest:
* The ability to select a drop zone - because it not only allows players to retreat to another location to get back into the game, but it also adds a new tactical element.
* The ability to capture a drop zone - because it give every single mode additional objectives and combined with being able to select drop zones adds new dynamics and tactics.
* Drop Ships do not enter a contested zone - this prevents players from being thrown stupidly into a location that has been overrun.
* Being able to delay your drop until you have a full lance - because that's just sensible.

Edited by 50 50, 05 August 2018 - 03:52 AM.

[Cato Zilks]

50 50, on 05 August 2018 - 03:51 AM, said:

For drop zone camping specifically I would suggest:
* The ability to select a drop zone - because it not only allows players to retreat to another location to get back into the game, but it also adds a new tactical element.
* The ability to capture a drop zone - because it give every single mode additional objectives and combined with being able to select drop zones adds new dynamics and tactics.
* Drop Ships do not enter a contested zone - this prevents players from being thrown stupidly into a location that has been overrun.
* Being able to delay your drop until you have a full lance - because that's just sensible.

1) while this is a fine addition, it will just backlog the safe dz, causing players to have to wait around instead of playing. Russ actually talked about this ages ago.
2) While I am not opposed to this idea, it does not seem like something we need. Moreover, it only would be useful/relevant on maps that have spread out DZs.
3) So the system needs to monitor where the enemy is and not drop near them? That sounds like a lot of work and like something that provides free map intel.
4) Again this just creates more waiting less playing. Also, the ability to wait is totally going to be abused by people who want to delay a good team from ending a match quickly.

In short, no. I do not think these are good solutions. I still prefer some solution that makes the walls less useful for the attackers. I also think we should drop down to one large DZ like we have on Polar. It is much harder to push a DZ where three dropship-jesuses can target you. I find that more often than not people stay back a bit from the DZ on Polar and wait for people to come out. Compare that to Forrest colony where the L10 dz just gets slaughtered on a daily basis because it is so isolated. Or dropping in the F4 dz on tourmaline. Making one dz means that at least you will drop with everyone else.

[Marius Evander]

Sorry I made a confusing error in my initial post

"Boreal, the gates are too close together and especially the (attackers) right hand gate has too little cover / wrong angle to enter, would be better if that left outcrop just inside the (attackers) right gate was was moved to the right side......"

I meant "Boreal, the gates are too close together and especially the (attackers) right hand gate has too little cover / wrong angle to enter, would be better if that RIGHT outcrop just inside the (attackers) right gate was was moved to the LEFT side......

[Marius Evander]

Only 13 Pages, how far we have fallen down the Spiral. Guess you wont need much time to catch up the weekends additions after all Paul.

[Terrorsdawn]

A quote form Paul's post:

[color=#00FFFF]Here's my personal thoughts as to what we can do with what is currently in FP:[/color]
[color=#00FFFF]- A while ago, we removed all the penalties for switching factions. Personally I think this is a good thing. My main thought on this is to move forward with this notion where ANYONE wanting to play Faction Play can choose their path of participation on a per match level.[/color]

I truly believe that this is one more step in the wrong direction for PGI to go. Each removal of restrictions, penalties or cool downs for faction swapping has led to more people stacking one faction or side. Each step has led to more people getting frustrated and quitting the mode or game all together. Or just joining the steam roller stacked faction and driving others out of the mode/game.


There needs to be a framework put in place to drive a more balanced population and yes I think it needs to be done before many of the other good suggestions put forward in this thread.

Some things as simple as:
1 Each faction must have one merc unit contracted before a second can sign on to a faction and so on and so on.

2 When the contract expires each unit must then sign on to another faction to keep groups moving around and provide other units a chance to get a contract with that faction. (If a unit wants to stay they can always go Loyalist with said faction.)

3 Bring back penalties for breaking Loyalty but don't punish long time Loyalists by giving them no further LP rewards to work towards. There always needs to be something to work for.

4 If a faction for some reason has a very low population introduce alliances between compatible houses/clans to maintain balance.

I'm sure there are many more ideas along this line of thought that could help flush this out and to prevent a wall of text I'll stop there.

Paul also mentioned the engineers have perfected a "DEATH STARE" to be honest if they can't create a UI to do this simple of idea maybe some one should check their pulse. They may be already dead and no one bothered to close the eye lids.

Maybe it's time to put the Sparky on sale with all proceeds going to buy portable defibrillators to put in the PGI office.

[Appogee]

50 50, on 05 August 2018 - 03:51 AM, said:

* The ability to select a drop zone.

Good idea.

Edited by Appogee, 05 August 2018 - 08:01 AM.

[Peter2k]

Cruor vult, on 05 August 2018 - 03:11 AM, said:

All your offers are meaningless, no one will return to the game for coloring or superfluous 100000000 cbils, you are offering ideas that are designed for the influx of 30 new players, this is not true at the root, because you need to think about how to return those 30,000 fans who gone

and yet the que is full in FP for this event, and it omits players who aren't Kurita or Davion (and don't want to swap for they're own reasons)
rewards do something
its obviously also a quick n easy thing to do

Of course I'm hoping for more deeper rewarding changes, just seems unrealistic to get those in under a year or so

lastly 1 through 5 are hated changes throughout MWO, rolling back would definitely do something
its just that it seems unlikely that we are going over balancing (or rather unfunning of MWO) in this thread

Appogee, on 05 August 2018 - 08:00 AM, said:

Good idea.

True
But I seem to remember that it got canned as an idea because the programming to make drop ships wait in line something something too complex something something

Edited by Peter2k, 05 August 2018 - 08:15 AM.

[SilentFenris]

Cadoazreal, on 04 August 2018 - 11:07 PM, said:

MORE SIMPLE "SOLUTION" IF YOU REFUSE TO DO SOLO AND GROUPED QUEUE.




MORE COMPLEX, IM DREAMING, SOLUTION.

If dropships/walls/towers come into play during a match one team has already been soundly defeated in the field. First wave 12-X, second wave 24-Whatever, third wave, etc. Yes, the loosing team needs protection from spawn-camping, but the walls also hinder teamwork/coordination and encourage the losing team to bunker down which is not always the best solution.

Not a fan of the ramp/45 degree wall or even a fortress-style bunker with towers, here is why:
- good because the base prevents your mech from taking damage on drop
- bad because the walls protect the enemy if he gets close enough to hug them
- bad because the "defensive" structure acts as a chokepoint, leaving cover forced-single file
Solution - Make defense structures half circles to allow defenders more movement and less constricted to regrouping with allies. Place timed air strikes on any enemy mechs hugging the defenders walls while the dropship is there.

The fact that dropships drop mechs off to their DZ every 30 seconds or so:
- good because you get back in the action quick
- bad because dropships will put you in a "hot" zone and alone if nobody in your lance is respawning
Solution - Dropships should not care about who is in a lance after the first drop. If one pilot from Alpha, one from Bravo and one from Charlie are waiting to drop all three pilots should be placed in the same dropzone randomly assigned by the server. Not three seperate dropzones/dropships.

Edited by SilentFenris, 05 August 2018 - 09:45 AM.

[WobblyShooter]

So ill caveat this post with the fact that i have no idea if this is hard to do or not, but i assume it will be difficult.

The thing ive heard over and over again is that faction warfare is meaningless. the planets don't mean anything, the factions don't mean anything, nihilism writ small? if the game mode means nothing, why play it? (other than the fact its the most satisfying and engaging team play experience possibly on the internets).

First up, lets fix the factions being meaningless. Easiest option, joining a loyalist faction unlocks the factions paint job and basic emblem decal for the player once the probationary period has ended. if you leave you lose it. makes people feel warm and fuzzy and part of the team. The harder fix, and the one that would really make factions feel different, is having the various factions have exclusive mechs according to lore, for example...Liao gets

Raven
Vindicator
Cataphract
Highlander?

These would be given to the player to modify as they see fit along with mech bays to store them, but they have the (Liao) designation and if you leave the faction they leave your account. Other factions would not have access to these mechs. My biggest concern would be some factions having an obvious best selection of faction mechs.

As for planets, lets go to the lore well again. its been determined which mechs and weapons are made where, so lets use that. If a planet makes a mech, you get that mech at a c-bill discount for as long as your faction controls that planet. One could take it even further and allow faction exclusive mechs to fall into other factions hands. Kurita mounts an offensive into steiner space and manages to capture Hesperus II? Congrats! kurita can drive fafnirs now! I think there is a solid enough list of general IS mechs to help keep thing pretty even if a faction loses control of a exclusive chassis or two. Could even make it exclusive variants as opposed to chassis, or a mix of the two.
Exclusive equipment wouldn't work well me thinks due to balance issues, but cheaper equipment based on where the factories are makes sense to me.

[Jonathan8883]

As a FP-avoider:
1) Siege is a terrible game mode. You spend half the time waiting, and by the time the first wave is over, you can tell who is going to win or lose. The remaining 15 minutes of time is a waste, for rewards that are only about double what you get for a decent QP drop. It's boring and un-fun.
1a) Siege seems to be the default mode, at 70-90% of invasion drops that I've participated in over the last year. It's not worth the risk of getting Siege.
2) If you have multiple conflicts going on at once, have different parameters for each planet (ie, planet X has a lower drop deck weight, planet Y has a higher drop deck weight, etc.) to add more variety. A "max 180 ton drop deck" match would be pretty entertaining.


Other random ideas
If you want to gore some sacred cows, limit merc units to no more than 6 players per drop. After all, they are just employed by houses and are no replacement for true loyalist forces. This would reduce the "mercs switching sides and dominating the map" problem.

Increase Conquest to 2000 points.

Cut the merc "reward" tree in half. Give loyalists better rewards, up to and including free mechs with faction-appropriate paint job at levels 10, 15, 20.

[SilentScreamer]

Jonathan8883, on 05 August 2018 - 09:47 AM, said:

Other random ideas


Increase Conquest to 2000 points.

I like the current feel of 48 mech Conquest at 1250. It encourages both teams to pay attention to caps rather than go into "Skirmish-mindset" and attempt to oblitertate the other team. Matches during the current Davion-Kurita conflict phase have been fun.

[MischiefSC]

Total wins over 24 hours on a point value. Top contributors on both sides at a player level get a small MC reward. So worlds flip based on total wins over 24 hours - huge point gap means extra world flipped. Ghost drops worth 1/2 as much.

So if you pug a crap ton of matches and are part of a lot of wins you might still get MC for that cycle. Make it a 1x thing, just rewards like an event award not sustained payouts for holding.

Elo for payouts. Your payout for winning a match should depend on the relative Elo of the teams and players. ASH dropping with an EVIL 12man vs terribad pugs should pay very poorly while the puggles get a decent amount even on a loss *if they can get kills, do good damage or destroy some objectives*. So it rewards pugs for doing their best to win even in matches stacked against them. It strongly rewards good teams for putting in the effort to find other good teams to play vs. It rewards teams for dropping with less than 12 and it rewards both the team and pugs for working together (lower total Elo so better payout).

[UnKnownPlayer]

I agree that a mis-match of randoms should definitely get rewarded more than a pre-organised group in the case of a loss, these are generally the people that need the rewards the most as they are newer, have a small / non-existent friends list and are often not in units.
I'm sure some maths involving a grouped up number and the positions on the leaderboards of the people involved could be used to calculate a win / loss reward modifier.

[Horseman]

Locking FP events to specific loyalty contracts really isn't a good idea when you consider the impact on units - if an officer with contract change privileges isn't on in time, it hurts unit members who don't just turn their back on the unit (because they may miss out on the event rewards) and at the same time promotes others to leave the unit just to switch contracts (they may never return, and even if they do - the unit is out the cost of a player invite ticket). Hell, I've seen some do the latter just because they were impatient.

Proposal: Map loyalty contracts to conflict sides so that players fight for one side of the conflict or the other without having to change their permanent contract.

Proposal #2: Instead of having side-specific conflict rewards (we've seen that before), just use the pick-a-prize system for those.

Edited by Horseman, 05 August 2018 - 09:09 PM.

[Marius Evander]

SilentFenris, on 05 August 2018 - 09:03 AM, said:

If dropships/walls/towers come into play during a match one team has already been soundly defeated in the field. First wave 12-X, second wave 24-Whatever, third wave, etc. Yes, the loosing team needs protection from spawn-camping, but the walls also hinder teamwork/coordination and encourage the losing team to bunker down which is not always the best solution.

Not a fan of the ramp/45 degree wall or even a fortress-style bunker with towers, here is why:
- good because the base prevents your mech from taking damage on drop
- bad because the walls protect the enemy if he gets close enough to hug them
- bad because the "defensive" structure acts as a chokepoint, leaving cover forced-single file
Solution - Make defense structures half circles to allow defenders more movement and less constricted to regrouping with allies. Place timed air strikes on any enemy mechs hugging the defenders walls while the dropship is there.

The fact that dropships drop mechs off to their DZ every 30 seconds or so:
- good because you get back in the action quick
- bad because dropships will put you in a "hot" zone and alone if nobody in your lance is respawning
Solution - Dropships should not care about who is in a lance after the first drop. If one pilot from Alpha, one from Bravo and one from Charlie are waiting to drop all three pilots should be placed in the same dropzone randomly assigned by the server. Not three seperate dropzones/dropships.

"but the walls also hinder teamwork/coordination and encourage the losing team to bunker down which is not always the best solution."

You man not have noticed, the "im dreaming solution" dropzone is an out of bounds zone with a 3 minute countdown, 4 exit paths, 2 of which should probably be clear of concentrated enemy forces should allow people to exit the spawn safely without being penalized for going through a choke.

"- bad because the walls protect the enemy if he gets close enough to hug them"

The Towers are above all 6 walls, each tower being Directly above the wall can shoot enemies on 2 of the 6 sides against the wall.

"- bad because the "defensive" structure acts as a chokepoint, leaving cover forced-single file "
12 enemies can not cover 4 exits efficiently, 2 sides should be clear enough to exit and form up clear of chokepoints.



Dropships coming every 30 seconds whether there are people to drop off or not could be a possible solution to helping stop spawn camping with the additional defensive firepower that brings, although my PC would probably hate it.

[Marius Evander]

ill concede wall being SLIGHTLY tilted would probably help