1169 replies to this topic

[50 50]

Bishop Six, on 09 August 2018 - 03:19 AM, said:

The point is for me (and other teammates): We reached General rank and after that time i'm just collecting other stuff than cbills, because i have so many cbills, i could use it as ammo for racs to shoot you dead with cbill coins.

What i desire as Level 20 loyalist is some special stuff which i can put on my favourite mech to show the rest of the world that i am a FP badass xD
Something like special camo, (General) Warhorn or a special mech variant only achieving over the rank tree. And MCs. MCs always are good!

Two different things though.

One relates to the success of the faction and gives planets some meaning.
The other is about the career paths and the limitation of a level/rank system.

For the careers, we should unlock the ability to convert loyalty points to MC (if we can't think of anything better) as it would let us buy into the faction orientated items we want for the mechs.
This becomes self fulfilling. Earn loyalty points to convert them.

[Peter2k]

Bishop Six, on 09 August 2018 - 03:19 AM, said:

The point is for me (and other teammates): We reached General rank and after that time i'm just collecting other stuff than cbills, because i have so many cbills, i could use it as ammo for racs to shoot you dead with cbill coins.

What i desire as Level 20 loyalist is some special stuff which i can put on my favourite mech to show the rest of the world that i am a FP badass xD
Something like special camo, (General) Warhorn or a special mech variant only achieving over the rank tree. And MCs. MCs always are good!

Absolutely agree that there should be good rewards in the tree, but also that it goes higher than 20 for loyalists (keeping 10 for merc as switching around is kinda a luxury normally)
Hoping for special boni, custom camo and mechs
I'd still would love the gold color (and different flavors, silver, rust so on) or metallic, TRON like glow to be available
That should be easyliy implemented and might draw in some
At least it would be unique



On the other hand people have to keep in mind that Mercs liked to switch so much because the free Mechbay was so low in the tree and thus was good for many players
So I'm sure a quick n easy fix to make FP worth investing a lot more time and having the risk of getting your a** handed to you would be appreciated by many

[xX PUG Xx]

Paul Inouye, on 08 August 2018 - 05:16 PM, said:

One other thing I need to ask here. Thoughts on a 'Mech spawning into the match without dropship animations? Kinda like Battlefield/CoD/et al. I know it's not the greatest for immersion but it will help address some other issues on the table.

Can you explain the reasons behind this question?

Here's a suggestion.

Siege attack and QP modes:

• Animation: Players arrive in a Union class DropShp, which lands and remains static for the remainder of the game. (Utilise current spawn/startup animation from players POV).

The Union can then remain grounded as a static "building" for the remainder of the game and players spawn inside or outside of it. IF the resources were available you could add an external animation for the attacker to see the Union arrive and land, then they switch to the startup sequence.


Siege defence:

• Animation: Defenders arrive in elevators from an underground 'Mech hanger. (Utilise current spawn/startup animation from players POV)

Again if the resources are available add the Solrais 7 elevator animation at the beginning of the game and then switch to the standard startup animation. The players then spawn in front of the elevator doors and subsequent waves appear in the same fashion, however it may be necessary to have some blocking terrain or raised area similar to the attacker zone to "hide" the spawning 'Mechs.


Would the spawn area need to made OOB to allow the 'Mechs to spawn and how would this influence players behaviour? For example, would this promote "sandbagging" in the spawn?

Edited by xX PUG Xx, 09 August 2018 - 03:48 AM.

[Abaddun]

I'm seeing a lot of calls for discounts on equipment for controlling certain worlds, and whilst others have already highlighted the issue with this I would like to make my contribution.

I should clarify that FP should never influence QP and FP. That means any equipment, weapons or mechs that might be acquired from FP, or the acquisition facilitated by FP should not be permitted into Comp or QP. That being said, it would be interesting to see certain sysms highlighted as manufacturing systems that, when controlled by a faction, add items to a FP store, which offers tweaked equipment and mechs for purchase with C-bills or LP.

The range of tweaked items shouldn't be so drastic as to provide one option as strictly superior to another, but instead flesh out the distinctions between factions.

[Katrina Steiner]

Paul Inouye, on 08 August 2018 - 05:16 PM, said:

One other thing I need to ask here. Thoughts on a 'Mech spawning into the match without dropship animations? Kinda like Battlefield/CoD/et al. I know it's not the greatest for immersion but it will help address some other issues on the table.

I would not care in seeing the dropship animations. Just have mechs spawn from a static mobile field base since they are used to repair/rearm mechs in the field or as others have mentioned a landed dropship.

[Cato Zilks]

xX PUG Xx, on 09 August 2018 - 03:47 AM, said:

Siege attack and QP modes:

• Animation: Players arrive in a Union class DropShp, which lands and remains static for the remainder of the game. (Utilise current spawn/startup animation from players POV).

The Union can then remain grounded as a static "building" for the remainder of the game and players spawn inside or outside of it. IF the resources were available you could add an external animation for the attacker to see the Union arrive and land, then they switch to the startup sequence.

So creating a whole new dropship is a lot of work. ***HOWEVER*** this does solve several problems. One dropship, not three. Everybody shares one DZ, so no weak/isolated DZ. Dont need to wait on the good DZ because the dropship to a good DZ can only take 4.

Really having it do multiple flybys (on every 30 seconds like the leopards do now) should not be a major issue. The previous challenge that Russ laid out was coordinating all three and the backlog that selecting dropships can create. The Union could just copy the flight path and drop 12 mechs off like a leopard currently drops 4.

Edited by Cato Zilks, 09 August 2018 - 04:28 AM.

[Will9761]

Paul Inouye, on 08 August 2018 - 05:16 PM, said:

One other thing I need to ask here. Thoughts on a 'Mech spawning into the match without dropship animations? Kinda like Battlefield/CoD/et al. I know it's not the greatest for immersion but it will help address some other issues on the table.

To be honest with you, I am fine without the dropship animation as long as we get a landed dropship to compensate, as I'm all for suspension of disbelief. However, if we get a landed dropship in place of dropping out of a Leopard, let it be a Union or an Overlord-class Dropship. That way if enemy players want to go ahead and "feel lucky" trying to spawn camp, they get met with lethal force. It's a lot better than having a Leopard fly-bly and shoot people for 5 secs.

[xX PUG Xx]

Cato Zilks, on 09 August 2018 - 04:26 AM, said:

So creating a whole new dropship is a lot of work. ***HOWEVER*** this does solve several problems. One dropship, not three. Everybody shares one DZ, so no weak/isolated DZ. Dont need to wait on the good DZ because the dropship to a good DZ can only take 4.

Really having it do multiple flybys (on every 30 seconds like the leopards do now) should not be a major issue. The previous challenge that Russ laid out was coordinating all three and the backlog that selecting dropships can create. The Union could just copy the flight path and drop 12 mechs off like a leopard currently drops 4.

Perhaps I need to clarify and break it into what the players see and the mechanics.

What the spawning pilot sees:

* Standard QP 'Mech startup animation.
* Walks forward into battle from in front of a Union class dropship.

Game engine mechanics:

* Union dropship is simply a skinned building. This could be the same mechanic/building as the defenders spawn point but with the Union "skin" laid over it and then both defenders and attackers 'Mechs are deployed in the same fashion as the S7 elevator.

* Removes necessity for game engine to render and track 6 dropships every 30 seconds, along with upto 24 'Mechs AND the startup animation. I assume this should free up game engine resources and help it to run smoother, while possibly allowing for other additions (turrets on the Union?)

As an alternative the current Leopards could be placed as grounded assets in the same fashion in the current spawn point locations, with the 'Mechs starting in front of or inside them.

[SuperFunkTron]

I'm late to the discussion, but in terms of improving faction distinction, has incentivizing Faction Specific Mechs come up yet?

The implementation would be fairly simple. 1. Determine most common mechs used by a faction. 2. Divide them into tiers based on HOW common those mechs are. 3. Provide better payouts for mechs more common in that faction.

This way players are encouraged to use mechs specific to the faction they join, but are also not prohibited from using mechs they may enjoy more. It can easily be justified as a "logistical cost" for the sake of story and will hopefully start to push players in to developing varied tactics based on the mechs that provide the best pay out specific to their loyalty. If certain factions are over populated while others become underpopulated, (bi)weekly adjustments to payouts or "contract bonuses" could be used to help pull players to the underperforming/populated factions.

I know this is far from enough to to give FP the revamp that it needs, but it would at least be a strong first step in better defining the houses and clans we have to work with.

[MischiefSC]

Will9761, on 09 August 2018 - 06:07 AM, said:

To be honest with you, I am fine without the dropship animation as long as we get a landed dropship to compensate, as I'm all for suspension of disbelief. However, if we get a landed dropship in place of dropping out of a Leopard, let it be a Union or an Overlord-class Dropship. That way if enemy players want to go ahead and "feel lucky" trying to spawn camp, they get met with lethal force. It's a lot better than having a Leopard fly-bly and shoot people for 5 secs.

All this does is get timid players to camp their own DZ.

If you don't want spawn camped you need to move forward. If you're 1km from your DZ when the fighting happens the other team can't get to your DZ before you're all respawned. Teams get camped because they only move up 400-600m... because either nobody wants to be 'in front' or they're just attached to the illusion of safety the existing spawn walls and dropship lasers give them. That's always been an illusion.

Teams lose to teams. There's a losing side every match. Teams that don't get spawn camped avoided that by moving up as far as possible from their DZ to engage the enemy. Win or lose this is always a strong strategy. Adding an OP uber-powered AI turret to any point on the map just changes the game to 'hide behind your OP turret and wait the other team out if they're not willing to suicide into it'.

[Will9761]

MischiefSC, on 09 August 2018 - 08:31 AM, said:

All this does is get timid players to camp their own DZ.

If you don't want spawn camped you need to move forward. If you're 1km from your DZ when the fighting happens the other team can't get to your DZ before you're all respawned. Teams get camped because they only move up 400-600m... because either nobody wants to be 'in front' or they're just attached to the illusion of safety the existing spawn walls and dropship lasers give them. That's always been an illusion.

Teams lose to teams. There's a losing side every match. Teams that don't get spawn camped avoided that by moving up as far as possible from their DZ to engage the enemy. Win or lose this is always a strong strategy. Adding an OP uber-powered AI turret to any point on the map just changes the game to 'hide behind your OP turret and wait the other team out if they're not willing to suicide into it'.

Well on the other hand you have some enemies who flat out jump over the gate or mount heavier mechs to get you. I agree with you that certain players might use dropships to hide, but for those trying to get out, they need better protection than a flyby.

[Paul Inouye]

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.

[Eisenhorne]

I understand nothing on the list is promised Paul, but that said all of them look like good things. I'd be cautious of the tonnage limit on the battlefield at any given time since it would require players to actually coordinate who's bringing what in the 1 minute live drop prep phase sometimes, but other than that, yea they are all unreservedly good things to look into.

[Paul Inouye]

Eisenhorne, on 09 August 2018 - 10:13 AM, said:

I understand nothing on the list is promised Paul, but that said all of them look like good things. I'd be cautious of the tonnage limit on the battlefield at any given time since it would require players to actually coordinate who's bringing what in the 1 minute live drop prep phase sometimes, but other than that, yea they are all unreservedly good things to look into.

Yeah, there are things on the list that I want to get clarified if we can do them. There are still contention point items in there that will still need to be ironed out in the community. For example, the increase to ticket count on Conquest. There are people who support it, there are people who don't.

[Paul Inouye]

Re: My question about insta-popping 'Mechs into existence...

The flight paths that the dropships take when dropping 'Mechs is not a dynamic flight path. It's a hard locked animation. Essentially, it's not a pretty system in the first place but re-engineering them to follow a spline based flight path is not something I can fight for at the moment. However, if the insta-pop is okay, that's one way I can work on getting selectable drop points on the table. Not guaranteed, but at least it can be brought up again.

[Nightbird]

Paul Inouye, on 09 August 2018 - 10:34 AM, said:

Re: My question about insta-popping 'Mechs into existence...

The flight paths that the dropships take when dropping 'Mechs is not a dynamic flight path. It's a hard locked animation. Essentially, it's not a pretty system in the first place but re-engineering them to follow a spline based flight path is not something I can fight for at the moment. However, if the insta-pop is okay, that's one way I can work on getting selectable drop points on the table. Not guaranteed, but at least it can be brought up again.

A least a drop pod? It lands in a big thud and shatters, revealing the mech. Less loss of immersion.

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Drop_Pod

[Paul Inouye]

Nightbird, on 09 August 2018 - 10:41 AM, said:

A least a drop pod? It lands in a big thud and shatters, revealing the mech. Less loss of immersion.

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Drop_Pod

Let me find out if I can get the feature let alone new art assets.

[MechaBattler]

Well it's nice to see you guys are taking loyalists into consideration. I still say we should get faction specific HUDs as top reward. Someone did a video where they'd overlaid some fake HuDs for Kuritans and Steiners. It definitely added to the immersion factor. Though I doubt we'd get it. Probably more work for you guys than it's worth.

Edited by MechaBattler, 09 August 2018 - 10:49 AM.

[Deathshade]

The list looks solid. By making FP meaningful with the differing rewards and adding the ability to see who is playing and gather up for matches either through VOIP or pregame chat. In the old Microsoft Gaming Zone, that made the game huge.

[Nightbird]

Paul Inouye, on 09 August 2018 - 10:42 AM, said:

Let me find out if I can get the feature let alone new art assets.

The feature would be much appreciated. If the dropships will only be used for the first drop, please also consider removing the spawn walls. They break immersion as well and in the opinion of those I play FP with, hurts the defenders far more than the attackers in that it gives a false sense of security. Fighting from the walls is the same as continuing to play chess when in checkmate.