1169 replies to this topic

[r0b0tc0rpse]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another thing to consider, is that faction populations don't correlate to players playing faction actively for each faction. A unit that has 300 members might change faction, but maybe 100 of those members are alts, and then of the other 200 unique players, only 100 sign on once a month or more. Of those 100, maybe 30 play faction, and then only 15 of them are very good at it. And while they certainly dominate their own matches when playing in large groups, and contribute to the overall tug of war, many more matches are comprised solo/small groups against other solo/small groups. Each faction probably has hundreds or thousands of people on them that are simply derelict accounts, but they are counted in the population, are they not? Accounts from before some factions even existed. I'm not sure why this idea got so far as being purposed to the community.

Edited by r0b0tc0rpse, 10 August 2018 - 10:41 AM.

[Marquis De Lafayette]

Perception: Two big (100+ member) units join the same side in order to avoid fighting each other and thus conquer the planet easier.
Today’s FW Reality: Two big (100+ member) unit’s join the same side in order to combine forces so they can maybe get enough players to form a single 12 man in primetime.

[Paul Inouye]

Finnnnne.

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

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

[Paul Inouye]

UPDATE: Podcast is going to be recorded on Monday. Takes a little while for Daeron to edit out the dead air/rambling etc. I'm guessing a release mid-day Wednesday'ish. Up to Daeron's schedule. Just wanted to let you know the timeline as it sits right now.

[Kurbeks]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not only that, but current rules punishes loyalists and allows mercs freely switch factions. Once there will be mechanism in place for units to stay loyal to one side/house then you can start thinking about other factors to make units play against each other. Unit size doesn't mean anything, bigger units will just split into two and nothing will change. Only new recruit cost will go down.

[Warchild Corsair]

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

Finnnnne.

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

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

Why not have a unit rating like the MRBC and reward units going against the odds. A unit could gain a reputation which translates into more rewards. Actually any positive system encouraging the right behaviour and giving incentives works much better then dreaded penalties.
You mentioned unit objectives also. Why not use these to balance sizes? Have objectives for units that read "max company size" or "regiment" or even Clan style "Galaxy" size to accept them. I know possibly out of scope in terms of dev time but all I really want is a positive incentive for acting in the "right" way.

[Jaybles-The-PegLeg-PotatoCaptain]

@ Paul

Have rewards be for participation through small 'quests' like the current event and last weekend, where there is no 'winning side prize'?

Or are you talking about tagging planets and MC?

[Marquis De Lafayette]

@paul

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

Edited by Marquis De Lafayette, 10 August 2018 - 11:08 AM.

[r0b0tc0rpse]

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

Finnnnne.

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

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

You can't solve the problem that teamwork, communication, and coordination defeats random groups of players who neither communicate nor follow directions, further, you shouldn't try.


Sorry.


Stomps are fun for a laugh once in a while, but the matches that give the best thrill are the close ones. I don't think any units are specifically changing faction to avoid each other and prey on groups of random solo players. Instead of trying to punish/squash teamwork, expertise, and skill, why not try to compel players of pug groups to use teamwork and increase their level of play? Is there a way to stop people from re-enforcing when it's not appropriate and feeding the enemy kills without curtailing a teams ability to re-enforce when it is needed? I literally saw a person do 18 damage across four 'mechs during this last event, there is no way to balance that.

Edited by r0b0tc0rpse, 10 August 2018 - 11:02 AM.

[xX PUG Xx]

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

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

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

You said it yourself, a size restriction will doing nothing to limit players from a particular group/community creating sub-Units and all of these sub-units moving to one faction. The faction will still have the ability to swamp their opponent, however it will dilute the individual units ability to tag planets.

I think you need to tell us what you are trying to achieve with the cap.

Sorry, started writing that ages ago and you've already answered.

Edited by xX PUG Xx, 10 August 2018 - 11:04 AM.

[Eisenhorne]

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

@paul

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

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

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

Edit - Of course, that would just encourage sync dropping though, which would be annoying to do and would likely have the same outcome.

Edited by Eisenhorne, 10 August 2018 - 12:41 PM.

[Peter2k]

For me it's an issue directly at the heart of why would anyone be a loyalist.

Loyalist obviously can't just swap (well they can now, I know I know), but why be a loyalist?
There's only so many players who will do it for lore/nerdy reasons.

Your typical mechwarrior is/was more keen on farming the free mechbay then anything else in the tree.

I get where the problem is, but from my perspective I already gave some answers to big units not wanting to fight each other.

- make being loyalist A LOT more rewarding then being a merc
My numbers here might very well be over the top and not so helpful for old time vets who could buy jumpships, but expanding the loyalist tree to lvl 100 and each lvl gives 1% bonus to (all; QP included) C-Bill and MC earnings (hell maybe even a bonus to bought and event MC)
Every 10 lvl a reusable premium day (like gets refreshed every month)
Something seriously worthwhile

While leaving mercs more or less stranded

On the other hand you could all make that happen with LP points being used to purchase such stuff
At least something like that would attract new (to FP) players

- make it worth fighting other big/good units
Again fighting 12vs12 can be fun, but for many it seems they prefer an easy victory and a good payday
At least with the big groups in the past
But it's also not getting recognized that it's a harder fight

I'd just pull data from ingame statistics to make a percentage for an income bonus for fighting good/big groups
Again I'm sure it's a bit over the top, but killing a member of EVIL from a 12 man EVIL group should reward me the same amount of c-bills a really good QP match would net me

Edited by Peter2k, 10 August 2018 - 11:29 AM.

[r0b0tc0rpse]

There is no balance without a robust matchmaker, regardless if we're talking quick play, faction play, or solaris.


You know how CS:GO solved the problem of match making groups vs pugs? They disallowed people of sufficiently different ELO from dropping together in groups. That way you couldn't have a single Legendary Eagle and a bunch of silvers get a match against gold nova's and have the LE solo the enemy team. Nor could you have a smurf on a fresh silver account queue with a bunch of DMG's or GNII's to bring down the average and farm silver elites or GN1's. It's not perfect, but it's harder to game the system, you could still smurf/boost, but not nearly as effectively as before.

There is no ranking in FW, and I'm not saying there should be or needs to be, but it would be necessary to address the concerns with FW balance with out having to directly tell players that they need to be better at the game before entering FW. Unfortunately the population couldn't support this and it would probably lead to 12 man groups sitting in a searching gulag until another 12 man comes by, or more than likely, a system that is easily circumvented with alt's / pulling in 4 randoms from LFG to skew your group rating.


So yeah, fix QP with better match maker.

Solaris is fine (even if frustrating at times) since ELO is awarded based on ELO gap any way.

FW fix requires players who queue to know what they're doing and have 'mechs equipped for it, or at least take direction from those who do and there is nothing else we can do about it.

Edited by r0b0tc0rpse, 10 August 2018 - 11:33 AM.

[Marquis De Lafayette]

@paul

I think this topic is why it would be good to talk with some unit leaders.....at least leaders of the big units. Faction alignment data just won’t tell you the story here. The big units are more useful now as they are the ones taking on the majority of “new to FW players” as they have enough patient veterans to help orient the new guys. I can’t imagine anyone making a faction alignment decision based on avoiding dropping against a big unit these days.

[Peter2k]

r0b0tc0rpse, on 10 August 2018 - 11:28 AM, said:

There is no balance without a robust matchmaker, regardless if snip

I'm not sure you are posting in the right thread
This is about FP only and quick fixes

Comparing a game that has a handful of active players on at all times to CS:GO might make your position look less serious

FP never actually had a MM, there was only this one time ques were separated (but still no MM) and everyone who knew what they are doing was forming one man groups if they wanted to continue to play solo

Edited by Peter2k, 10 August 2018 - 11:47 AM.

[SuperFunkTron]

Maybe the problem can be addressed by working at it backwards. Maybe require people to build lances (groups) in order to be able to queue up at all in FP. This way the idea of needing to communicate, even if just to make a group, is a fundamental step of just lining up to play FP. Obviously quality control will be an issue, but this will become a player responsibility more so as people will know if they are grouping up with people who communicate or not.

[r0b0tc0rpse]

Peter2k, on 10 August 2018 - 11:32 AM, said:

I'm not sure you are posting in the right thread
This is about FP only and quick fixes

Comparing a game that has a handful of active players on at all times to CS:GO might make your position look less serious

FP never actually had a MM, there was only this one time question were separated (but still no MM) and everyone who knew what they are doing was forming one man groups if they wanted to continue to play solo

No, I'm in the right thread, but maybe you missed the point. I first (in previous posts) addressed why large units are not the problem and why breaking them wouldn't help groups of random players to win against large premade groups, then I was addressing why random groups loose to premade groups and the only implementable way to give them a fair chance. Which is to pit them against their peers. Which would require matchmaking, which, while something that could be *done* would almost certainly break the queue time or result in circumvention. Which leads us to the hard to swallow pill of telling players they are losing because there against significantly better players not because 228 has 374 pilots in it. That the only practical fix is becoming better prepared for the drop with an appropriate drop deck, adhering to winning tactics, and improving their play.

SuperFunkTron, on 10 August 2018 - 11:33 AM, said:

Maybe the problem can be addressed by working at it backwards. Maybe require people to build lances (groups) in order to be able to queue up at all in FP. This way the idea of needing to communicate, even if just to make a group, is a fundamental step of just lining up to play FP. Obviously quality control will be an issue, but this will become a player responsibility more so as people will know if they are grouping up with people who communicate or not.

And then people who know what they're doing can't soloqueue?

Edited by r0b0tc0rpse, 10 August 2018 - 11:47 AM.

[SuperFunkTron]

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

And then people who know what they're doing can't soloqueue?

This is just a quick stab at trying to address team building issues. Indirectly they still could be "solo" by joining a random lance, but the idea needs a lot more fleshing out to make it work i.e. being able to see a pool of players who want to play FP (maybe a filter in LFG could help) or even just a button that randomly assigns people to a lance so that groups to remove the need to search for those who want to streamline the process. Essentially, providing a hub where people can not only see the group they are in at the moment, but also allow them to see the pool of guys who are looking to play could help with a lot of the pre-match organization for those who are interested or that can be easily ignored by those who don't care.

[Tier5ForLife]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lovas]

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

Finnnnne.

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

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

Come on @Paul, you guys never really tried to adjust rewards/incentives. You never used an active population number, you just used total number in that faction - whether they played CW or not (or whether they even logged in the last year or not) and that was a huge mistake. There were certain factions on both the clan and IS slide that never had the good teams come and fight for them because of this.

I'm not saying that rewards and incentives are the only thing that will correct that issue - I'm just saying you can't discredit it (or not use it in the future) because it was never properly implemented in the first place.

Edited by Lovas, 10 August 2018 - 11:56 AM.