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.
...
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.
...
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.
So a lot of people have already repeatedly said that breaking up units won't do anything because they will just congregate together anyways. I think this is false. Yes, at first, they may very well try to stick together but overtime, if they are active in FP they will prioritize getting drops over group unity. They still think of the unit as their home spot, but the goal is really to play more good matches. You can see this bear out with Evil, BCMC, and Cobra. I have dropped with Evil against other Evil, I have dropped with BCMC against other BCMC, and cc has set up a loyalist Cobra unit in every faction so you almost always fight with and against a CbR-something. These units drop tags and what we see is not players always sticking together and stacking one side, we see players seeking faster drops and more fun.
That being said, I don't think the size of the units is the problem, especially for loyalist units. The problem is that rapid population fluxes cripple any hopes PGI could ever have for improving balance in FP. We need a more stable population so that PGI can step in to even things out. I cannot disagree with r0b0tc0rpse more, and I think what he is looking for is like super QP where we just get to pick a side as we fight. That would mark the ultimate failure of this game mode. This is supposed to be about a fight for the inner sphere. What we need are changes that prioritize population stability. Paul, we also need the game to view factions as their own teams which can be treated differently than Clan or IS. I have mentioned it in this thread before as a way of keeping the game fresh, but it also represents the best way to start bringing about balance in FP. No matter how many faction resets we get, god-awful-potatoes are going to sign up Clan Wolf and at the end of the day factions loaded with potatoes need some extra weight to be competitive (and Ash, before you tell me we need more accurate numbers, I 1000% agree that we need better indicator for active FP pop). We have the data to see which faction's loyalists are terrible and which ones are decent. If we can settle most of the mercs down as loyalists for a season, we can really do a lot to help even out the playing field in the game.
Instead of announcing an event and letting the masses try to pick the winning side and jumping from one side to another, you just set the sides based on active population and winning percentages. Don't let people hope sides to catch all the events. In that you may still want to allow mercs to move during a season, make merc units small and make very stiff penalties for more mercs to join a faction that has a lot of mercs (like Ash said https://mwomercs.com...ost__p__6147170 ). Paul, your team needs to have the ability to balance to the game and the biggest hurdle is the hardcoded clan or IS teams.
I would like to reiterate our appreciation of your communications in this thread. As an indication of it's positive effects I actually updated my client and have started playing again in the event (on my alt Clan account). If it wasn't for this thread I wouldn't have bothered.
On the issue of Faction balance and unit size. These issues are intertwined and more or less inseparable, but they all boil down to one thing eventually.
ACTIVE POPULATION.
You can define active any way you want. But I would suggest <2 matches in the last 30 days and you are out.
Once you have established this figure then you can figure out actives per unit.
Those figures can then be used to impose rules that will balance populations and stop units stacking one side or band waggonning.
Such rules could be:
-Faction bonuses to get individuals and small groups to move to smaller factions.
-Activity Cap (as opposed to a unit cap) to prevent larger groups moving. ie if unit [ABC] has enough players to tip one faction over 20% of the other then they can't move. This doesn't prevent movement but it prevents everyone going at once.
Note: this is harder in the 1 bucket system but it should work for all situations.
I know resources are limited but this has been an issue pointed out for at least 3 years. These are numbers you just have to invest the time into calculating, other wise anything you do will be gamed or become pointless (out dated)very quickly. You just can't make decisions based on unit affiliation and Faction tags alone.
LocationTo Nova or not to Nova. That is the question.
Posted 10 August 2018 - 08:24 PM
Paul Inouye, on 10 August 2018 - 01:24 PM, said:
Prior to a match. How much time would you want to have to talk tactics?
Eg. you queue up as group or pug... right now the system backs everyone up into their perspective queues and at the end of launch timer, it quickly assembles teams and kicks off the match to the dedicated servers. IF (no promises) we could add a pause between team building and match kick off, to give you the chance to talk (limited to text chat) strats, how long should that be. Remember, this adds to the overall time you're not IN the actual match.
60 seconds? 90 seconds? 2 mins?
I'll go with 2 min at max but have it cut that time with everyone ready.
You know, combine that with having a view of the map in battlegrid would be brilliant.
Really don't need to see the other team at all and having more of a feel of being in the ready room planning tactics would go a long way.
Pretty sure on the lance and company commanders are the only ones that have the options to do anything on the battlegrid.
That would be beneficial in many ways.
HHoD when they were at full swing were bringing dozens of new players into FW every month, on their own. Sometimes every week. A segment of those new players then went on to join other units. MS was the same way in its heyday - they brought in new players, trained them and then sometimes those players split off. If both HHoD and MS hadn't been able to do that the result would NOT have been those players just magically getting into FW on their own. The great majority just.... never would have been here. Unit caps or any real limit or restriction on units getting people into FW is a bad idea. We need less pugs and more units, not smaller units.
We certainly need more units that train pugs, but a core part of that is getting more units that have a reason to invest in pugs and not just harvest the trained players from other units. I personally think having large units only be tied to factions and having more clear faction goals (and rewards for post lvl-20) can help with this. HHoD (for example) used try to make terribad Davion puggles a bit better because Davion wanted them to suck less when they played with out the HHoD guys. Their losses count as much as the good unit's win. In Marik, many of our best pilots spent half of their time trying to make our pugs better for that very reason.
Also we need to give pugs more of a reason to drop in FP in the first place. Some of that is better rewards and events, but the bigger thing is to allow them a more of a chance and this is where I again look back to being able to balance drop weight by faction pop and win %. If faction X is very puggy and has a .397 winning%, PGI may allow them to have a drop weight of 280 while faction Y (which has a winning% of .721) gets their weight reduced to 210. The goal is not to drive everyone to a .500 win%, but to give weaker groups some extra little boost and make the game a bit more challenging for the better groups.
This is a long thread and ton of people have great suggestions. Just a little info about me, I've been playing online games for over 20 years. I have spent a lot of hours on MechWarrior and MechCommander titles over the years and picked up Battletech as well.
I think that we have to look at this realistically. FP is just a fraction of MWO at this point. Quick play matches are short and typically allow you to make decent C-Bills and XP quickly so you can skill out and build out your mech. This is still a major grind since Clan mechs cost an *** load of C-Bills compared to IS counterparts. You wont waste 45+ minutes on queuing and playing an FP match just to lose for the same thing.
Solaris offers something unique compared to QP and FP matches and you have to have Solaris specific builds to win those matches. Once again, Short quick battles that get money / xp / etc in your hands quickly and offer a game mode that you cant get in FP or QP.
FP has always been about playing as an organized unit. The way you have it set up regarding attacking a planet and then gaining control is fine. I also thing that the planet should be sticking to one map type so it makes sense. We shouldn't be playing terra therma on a Ice planet. or Caustic on a normal planet. This creates a strategy and allows players to use that temperature difference to their advantage and adjust their builds.
Also, pull the QP maps from FP. Create some new maps or outsource that to the steam workshop community. That way QP, Solaris, and FP maps are unique to the game mode. As far as the maps themselves, you need to get someone over there to crank out a few algorithms to calculate safe drop zones. We lost a FP match simply because the drop ship for Charlie Lance was dropping 1 or 2 players on their whole enemy team. Ask any Warrant Officer if they would drop into a hot LZ and they will give you some good insight on that topic. Also, you could bring in MFBs for faction play. Allow the commander to choose where to deploy the MFBs on the map so people can repair and rearm. This would change things up drastically.
Coffers should be able to be dispersed to unit members. If someone wants to donate C-Bills, MC, or even XP/GXP (think inter unit training) then the Unit leader should be able to disperse them to new members and can be used as an incentive to get players to join units. Players in the same unit should be able to give other players the same thing directly. Think Ace pilot training new recruits. Their knowledge of how a mech operates on the battlefield is priceless information (XP/GXP) and new equipment / repairs (C-Bills / MC).
Also mechs should be allowed to be transferred to a depot. Essentially a warehouse of mechs that can be distributed as well. Don't like a particular mech? Maybe trade or sell it to a fellow unit member instead of just general selling back to the game. This can save time and money to get a unit operational in a short amount of time. So the whole unit can grind to help a fellow member.
FP rewards need to be reworked. C-Bills / XP / GXP should be based on individual mech performance regardless of winning or losing. Think QP rewards but per mech dropped. Players bust their *** for upwards of an hour just to get one match and then lose? Players lose multiple FP matches because they were thrown in with randoms vs organized groups? It puts a bad taste in their mouth.
Simple, reasonable changes that wouldn't take a lot of effort and wouldn't require you to gut FP and rebuild it. Video games are about having fun. If a player cant have fun then they at least have to feel it was worth their time and effort to do it again. “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results”. This is why a lot of people hate FP right now.
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.
it will not change any thing.
so now they just make another unit, till it's filled, and make a 3rd. they all use the same Voice coms, the only change will be the unit TAG. Basically, they still have the other 101+ pilots to group up with, they just will have a different unit name/tag
if you want to spread players out across the factions, give the highest scoring loyalist unit of each faction more power over the fw narrative. high skill teams will want the power, and they go to a faction without other high end teams to get that power so they wont have the competition.
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.
Dear Paul,
I don't know what exactly happend that made you so biased towards parts of your customers base. The fact that some people choose to switch sides whenever they are loosing is not exclusive to UNITs but to every single player. Alienating UNITs will not solve the problem.
Please remember it has been PGI and your game design decisions that lead to the current situation. A possible solution to minimize the problem would be to freeze faction change during events. To make this work it would be crucial from my persepctive, that PGI would inform its customers at least one week prior to upcoming events (e.g. CJF-CW but not like the instant starting event Kurita-Davion).
This will not solve the issue that players with bigger networks inside the community will be able to foresee upcoming imbalances in factions and trying to use them for their own purpose but it will minimize it.
Edited by Fuerchtenichts, 10 August 2018 - 11:19 PM.
While there are a lot great ideas here, ideas that might even bring me back, we're repeating history and skipping the pile of elephant stuff in the room. And where's that elephant? We've seen this again and again in Town Halls and Round Tables. Discussion veers and spends inordinate time on minutae. The elephant is...
game play, player experience and the elephant stuff is...
population
This sub-forum likes to forget that 90% try FW and leave. This is a serious problem, the most serious. Rewards will have very short effect if game experience is not improved/mitigated. You can only bribe someone for so long to play a game mode they don't like. Help the BIG problem, then add some of the good stuff. I would venture that game play should get 50% of any FW update. Where to put that effort?
Earlier in this thread I offered Automatic Victory as a means of mitigating blowouts by match truncation. Not the first time posting on it. https://mwomercs.com...ost__p__6145636
Another way is to implement a matchmaker. Now...I'm just about blue in the font pointing out that a matchmaker does NOT require a player pool to work. Player pool would certainly be preferred, but what it NEEDS is a balancing mechanism.
I'll show two ways a matchmaker can radically alter game play and/or impression of game play.
Eisenhorne, on 10 August 2018 - 12:56 PM, said:
Maybe... dynamic tonnage limits based on team skill? "Team skill" could be measured by averaging the W/L ratio of everyone on the team. If you've got a team who has an average W/L ratio between them of 1, and your opposition has an average W/L ratio of 4, then you're obviously going up against a group who usually wins. If their W/L ratio is higher than yours by say a factor of 2, then when the game enters the "Live Drop" phase when the counter normally resets to 1:00, it resets to 2:00, pops up a red warning message flashing on the side of the screen saying something like, "Elite opposition detected, additional forces authorized for deployment", and your tonnage limit per deck gets increased by 30-40 tons.
There ya go. I presented a similar mechanism quite a ways back that was automatic and would avoid fiddling with drop decks while a timer nags. Since I'm too lazy to look it up, I'll rehash it here and update.
A matchmaker would assess the arrayed teams and do some weight class bumping based on the perceived spread. Source mechs for bumping would be quartered in a FW "Reserve Deck" (c.230 tons) consisting of one each light, medium, heavy and assault mech. Experienced players would, no doubt, put a good, general purpose FW mech in each class(1). In a close match up, only a few or no mechs would get bumped. In the extreme case where a 12-man faces 12 pugs (not solos but really puggy pugs) one or two mechs on every player might get bumped.
Rewards are somewhat self-adjusting here inasmuch as a lightened strong team would have to inflict higher damage to win against a weight-buffed weak team. Conversely, if the buffed weak team pulls off a victory, they will have done so by inflicting less total damage. If this is a significant rewards balancer, then bumping should be symmetric - each bump down mirrored by a bump up on the other team.
For a strong team, the potential for even great rewards is there. But the weak team, with buffed weapons and armor, has a better chance, if not to win, then at least to make an impression. I think this creates a higher ~challenge~ level for both.
--
Another way to use a matchmaker is to have it create per-match victory conditions based on its assessment. FW uses a simple binary victory system which does not take into account game start conditions. Win-lose has no refinement relative to skills or even magnitude. This can be changed. For an OP team vs. pugs, your commander (the matchmaker) may inform you that victory is not good enough.
"The enemy force is green. We expect easy victory. Casualties in excees of 20 will see your pay docked."
The pugs would see...
"The opposing force is hardened veterans. Do your best. Kills in excess of 20 will be considered a tactical win and pay adjusted for it."
See how this changes the nature of a "blowout"? See how it can improve the player experience?
Victory and defeat are foregone conclusions in the extreme case. But with an intermediate goal both sides have an additional objective to aim for.
--
Game play in FW must improve. Without that we end here again in a year. It can be done ... without hampering its team orientation. Population cannot be improved through gimicks. The experience must be improved. Population follows.
(1) Newbs, or players with an empty Reserve Deck, might intitially be populated by some not-stupid trial mech.
Pay units more to play vs other units. Pay them the most to play vs other units as good as they are. Make it more profitable to play vs each other instead of alongside each other.
Here's an idea I'd like to toss in: a "notoriety rating" for pilots based on their FP performance that is indicated visually on their target box and player list (so that pugs know which targets are the biggest threat) and adds a bonus LP / C-Bills payout for kills / KMDDs / assists against them (which could be pretty substantial compared to normal payouts).
Should motivate high skilled players to go up against other high skilled players rather than pugs (and consequently switch sides so that they get more equal matches), and would compensate pugs for putting up a fight against a superior enemy (as long as they can avoid a 48-0 roll).
To give extra motivation... is it possible to increase the value of a planet's MC generation based on how many high-ranked players participated on opposing sides or in some way increased by the number of victories the losing side scored during the phase?
That would make a world that was conquered by units just stacking one side and rolling pugs worth less than one where the fight was stacked more evenly.
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.
Well that's not good. Nothing in this list other than maybe "Expand on lore in global descriptions in FP" would get people to come back to cw. This list would only keep people from leaving an almost dead mode.
Start to design something with a few rules.
CW is a community game not group q. My faction, My unit,My friends. (people will grind for these)
Never give a reason to the player not to play.
Never make playing not worth doing. (even a loss should matter to the mode)
Then add in reasons to grind. Cbills are not a reason.
Edited by Monkey Lover, 11 August 2018 - 12:42 AM.
I love Cato Zilks last 2 posts and Horsemans "notoriety rating" idea.
My replying to previous posts is really long which is why ive put it in spoiler tags, I believe the conversation may have moved on from SOME of this too, if you want to continue these discussion points, please addess it to me in spoilers and I will read.
Quotes from / comments to Horseman, McGoat, Boon, Wing 0 , ASH, Paul, mecha battler, geewiz 27, Marquis De Lafayette, r0b0tc0rpse, Eisenhorne. Some more than once
Spoiler
Horseman, on 06 August 2018 - 10:56 PM, said:
Spoiler
Units are the one thing that still keeps FP going, and are Even if you turned FP into a solo pug mode, newbies and casuals would still get rolled by better players. It's not a question of if, but how badly.
That is how PGI envisions FP - as an endgame mode. Remove all endgame raids from WOW, what are you left with?
You've got your priorities reversed. FP population isn't high enough for separate queues unless you enjoy only being able to play FP every other Sunday. The population in FP would need to increase substantially FIRST before any matchmaking restrictions can be introduced.
Less badly, Skill based matchmaking SSR is a vast improvement on Tiers.
As I already explained in this thread, WoW has 2 tiers of endgame raids casual and Heroic, one of the many reasons the game went from stagnating in Vanilla to exploding in its expansions.
The only way to bring back substantial numbers in, is to have a large event with a new skill based matchmaking system launch simultaneously so Players know fights will get closer in outcome, all events do without a stomp avoiding system it get more frustrated and stoic in their stance to only tolerate FP when rewards are significat enough for them to do so, rewards which are unsustainable when a company has to pay salaries and bills.
Horseman, on 07 August 2018 - 12:59 AM, said:
High personal skill does not equal competence at drop calling.
This is a niche game, and FP's current queue situation (before current event) could take 20-30 minutes to find a match on some days.
There's no real difficulty control in a PVP environment with population so low that you have to toss all players together into one queue just to get any matches going.
Queue separation would just accelerate the downward spiral because nobody would be able to get a match outside of peak hours. Why are you refusing to process this?
FP is approachable to around 50% of MWO's player base - if they're willing to take the step of actually preparing for the mode. Been there, done that.
Horseman %20https://i.imgur.com/F4uNBsZ.jpg%20
Please stop being the modern media and ignoring what I said/concluding something different from what I said to make an argument, refer immediately below and "asumption much".
"High personal skill does not equal competence at drop calling."
"-Make the highest SSR person in the drop the drop caller, they can tick they dont want to and next highest is selected onwards" is a starting point, I gave option for players to realise they are not a good drop caller and pass the role to someone else, no where did it state "the best players are the best drop callers" Trying to keep the programming required down by not asking for a "rate the last drop caller" postgame popup is not the same as best player is the best drop caller.
The Clouds Dream would be a Mechcommander / Natural Selection (half life mod) style 13th player on each team drop commander you could rate.
"We dont have the population" we won't encourage/increase the population until we show people matches are not always stomps. This is a never ending hell loop argument which I have stated the only way out of, which is to simultaneously make it skill based while an event increases the population, outside events drops are on average ? 1 every 30 minutes ? Currently during peak hours in events we get a drop every 3 minutes? A game launching every 10 minutes during events would threfore launch 3 matches simultaneously which would have better skill matchups and better conflict enjoyment outcomes for both sides.
Then Why aren't 50% of the playerbase playing it ? most people would like to drop 4 mechs and be able to choose their mechs before map without the incessant loading screens, the main reason they dont is 1 sided stomp matches.
Spoiler
McGoat, on 07 August 2018 - 10:18 AM, said:
Thank heavens
Sorry to dissapoint
B0oN, on 07 August 2018 - 10:33 AM, said:
Spoiler
The "casual majority" (your terminology, more to that later), which has shown time and time again, that it is extremely oriented towards short-term ez-mode gratification and not teamworking has lost nothing in FP .
If you really think those people don´t have time for getting informed/joining a TS to get informed (which amounts to an investment of about an hour or so if your not being a plain learning-resilient person), then why the heck are they even wasting their time with a game in the first place ? Seemingly they don´t have enough time to be playing games at all and need to be hard at work in the real world .
No pandering to the anti-teamworkers that you so leisurely call "casuals", which is a gross misnomer per sé .
A casual player is not automatically a bad player . MW:O has taken a step down on my games priority-list just because it got so boring, making me into a casual MW:O player,yet I am still an adequate meatshield and sometimes even a proper damage dealer in FP .
Cado, you really need to learn who to protect, the true "casuals" or the "anti-teamworking crowd", the differences are there and should be easily decipherable, especially for a man of your game-time and experience . Right now it sounds to me as if you were actively defending the "anti-teamworking crowd" which I find absolutely unbearable .
Sadly they form the majority of the gaming population in most games, unless we want to continue to struggle to find ANY matches, most of which will be 1 sided stomps, they must be courted and encouraged to play the FP game mode, I agree some will work better with the team than others.
Majority of gamers want to "jump straight into the action" not watch youtube / read forums to learn, I agree it is a problem, turning them all away will mean we dont get a more populated Faction Play.
I never said the casuals are the 'anti teamworkers' or are "all bad players" just because these groups tend to be the solo queuers does not mean they are identical.
I do not like players who sit in the back farming damage using their team as a meat shield, sorry that wasn't clear.
Wing 0, on 08 August 2018 - 01:21 PM, said:
Cant say anything good about certain units making those gen rush attempts. So many did just that than putting up a fight and we kept putting them down. Sad but there are a lot of players who just don't know how to play siege. Not our fault of course but that's Faction Play in its original mode.
Btw Paul. We did use those LRMs you guys buffed in a inappropriate fashion on boreal a few times and it made some players Rage Quit because of it. Thanks for buffing a weapon that didn't need it *Its Raining LRMs!*
Wing, Siege is 48 mechs vs 48 in a defensive position, with turrets, buildings and a countdown timer on their side. the defenders have an advantage at equal player ability. That is why generators exist to destroy so attackers have a way to achieve victory other than being the MUCH more skilled team, so that skill levels across the 2 sides being closed to balanced has a "fair" way to achieve victory for both sides. destroying base structures "dunking" is a valid acceptable win strategy. I will agree it is less enjoyable in its current format as your games end quicker with less rewards for time spent and you have to go and queue again. But it is a valid more cbills / emotionaly (yay we won) rewarding option for the attackers than trying to clear 48 enemies + deal with the extra defenders advantages in a siege fight.
justcallme A S H, on 08 August 2018 - 04:04 PM, said:
Last round table was Nov '16 I think mate.
Wing 0, on 08 August 2018 - 04:11 PM, said:
Ouch. I remember it now. Pure Disappointment that went.
My memory was also foggy on this, I was thinking, "it cant have been more than 12 months ago, surely FP wouldn't have been ignored for that long"
While not quite Nov 2016 that was a pretty good / close guess , 19 months ago.... closer than when I thought the last FP roundtable was.
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.
So this is the 1st official reply to the main thing we were asking for 19 months ago that Russ said would be priority number 1, thankyou for letting us know Paul that individually selectable dropzones for respawning is too difficult with the current programming / dropships glad someone is communicating with us.
MechaBattler, on 09 August 2018 - 11:38 AM, said:
Could we get the gates replaced with the destructible walls? It seems silly that the gates would open because the generator went offline.
The generators going offline causing gates to open has also always seemed illogical to me, maybe we can replace them EVENTUALLY, IF player numbers / PGI gains from the FP asset go up enough, with the Shielding art we see around the Solaris maps..... but definately in the dreams category.
Geewiz 27, on 09 August 2018 - 01:19 PM, said:
Mate you could be right about MWO being hard for new players in general and also to join units. I started playing this game 15 months ago, I'm in my 30's this is the first PC game I have ever played. I'm now close to top 10% of game on Jarl's list, was able to work out how to join a unit easily within my first 6 weeks, if some one with no previous game expierence can pick it up and get gud so can everyone else.
Congratulations, your better than the average human, should we ignore the less talented / exclude them and therefore isolate ourselves ?
"if some one with no previous game expierence can pick it up and get gud so can everyone else."
In an attempt to help you see the error of your argument, There are a lot of military vets who play this game, many invested heavily to make it possible, some of them are physically disabled, some of them are more skilled at gaming than me, some are not. Those that are not, due to physical impairment don't deserve to play because they physically cant 'git gud'?, something that is a large part of PGI's investment/budget/programming etc that they helped fund ? This game needs to be accessible to the majority not the elitist minority.
Another way to put it is similar to arguing only professional basketball players should be allowed to play basketball, whats going to happen when they retire ?
justcallme A S H, on 09 August 2018 - 01:26 PM, said:
Anyway you split the queue - THIS IS WHAT WILL HAPPEN for at least 12-14hrs of every daily cycle, probably more. Not making it up either, I've a very good grasp of what goes on in MWO/Queues...
This is what will continue to happen if we dont change the way the queue works, and continue to bandaid a bleeding arterial wound.
%20https://i.imgur.com/udXhkBa.jpg%20
Just like Tukayyid 3 and Civil War, events only bring up player numbers temporarily to see what has changed and when they find the core issues have not, they leave again, we are now in that short window of opportunity again started with the launch of the new davion vs kurita IS event last week.
And if all we do again is Gloss over the surface of the problem with how spawn locations work rather than increasing player skill balance. From what has happened previously after previous events, the population will drop to all new lows.
Yes Queue times will be long in Oceanic / less good matches outside the N.A. peak timeframe, that is why you have an expanding tolerance for missmatch in place over time, like we already have in QP.
justcallme A S H, on 09 August 2018 - 03:03 PM, said:
Encouragement on teamwork (imagine that, team work in FP form Solos? file:///C:UsersuserAppDataLocalTempksohtmlwps8E31.tmp.jpg)
I would like to see an encouragement in TEAMWORK too (working with those you dont want to), instead of the current encouragement of TEAMS of mates to Work on benefiting from a bad system. I would rather imagine close exciting games with differen't levels of ability at TEAMWORK than solo's trying to Work against a team.
justcallme A S H, on 09 August 2018 - 04:42 PM, said:
Not that I'm aware of, in game still shows Wolf/Davion as over populated and new factions well under.
Population of each faction within the Clans or within the I.S. has no effect on current matches, the different skill levels of the individuals who actually play within Clan or I.S.which we do not currently track makes far more difference, the only effect total population has on each side is how many ghost drops one side is likely to get, and that, in the current system is very hard to track / balance constantly over a 7 day week and 24 hour cycle.
Horseman, on 10 August 2018 - 04:28 AM, said:
Hyperbole much? Anyone who is willing to make a modest effort to learn, adapt, and overcome will find themselves just fine in the mode. Try it, and you just might see the mode in a different light Like I said... been there, done that. It hasn't taken me six months between being the 400-damage scrub and carrying my own weight just fine. In other words, you're speaking for the players who expect the mode to be "balanced" around their lack of abilities and lack of ambition, who would dearly like the opposition to be handicapped so they have an easy win.
Calvin Coolidge would like a word: %20https://i.imgur.com/xumjdCS.jpg%20
.....................................Do you know what makes the mode worthwhile? Worthy opponents. Enemy teams who make an effort against you and come back despite the odds, clutch situations where the battle is won - or lost - by the skin of your teeth, where the final victory is just barely eked out in the last seconds of the clock... that kind of tension is when the mode is fun. Any player who doesn't run on bully mentality will tell you that there's no satisfaction in crushing an opponent who doesn't put up a fight, it's just going through the motions.
Assumption much ?
"Anyone who is willing" - your assuming all people are created equal, people have different levels of ability and skill, some have impairments which limit that, some have toaster P.C.'s and aren't as well off financially as you...
"Try it,' - approx 4000 hours in the mode, probably averaging about 1900 damage per game, im not great but I usually pull my weight on my toaster P.C.
you're speaking for the players who expect the mode to be "balanced" around their lack of abilities and lack of ambition, who would dearly like the opposition to be handicapped so they have an easy win.
- actually I am speaking for the handicapped to have equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. For the game to be balanced around ALL PLAYERS SKILL instead of being exploited for their handicap and leaving in disgust.
Ice cube would like a word with Calvin.
%20https://i.imgur.com/Qfep47h.jpg%20
He might also want a word about https://en.wikipedia...i_Flood_of_1927 , and Segregation but lets not bring politics into this. Or do we really want to treat others unfairly and segregate this game?
I could not agree anymore strongly with your last paragraph. A close game is the best game.
And how often does that happen these days (before these events) ? , does it happen more during these events ?
Answers : - Rarely and yes it happens more often, because events bring more casual playerbase out and the closest matches are between 2 solo queueing groups of medium skill level
Marquis De Lafayette, on 10 August 2018 - 10:47 AM, said:
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.
Extending on the agreeable reality of the situation, and they then get matched up against 12 solo casuals, a better situation would have been 6 of them on each side with 6 solo casuals on each side.
r0b0tc0rpse, on 10 August 2018 - 11:00 AM, said:
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.
For the beginning of your post, please refer to my replies to 2 quotes above yours, in regards to the end of your post, actually there is a way to balance that, put one of them on each side.
Eisenhorne, on 10 August 2018 - 11:05 AM, said:
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.
Sync dropping with SSR would result in closer games than allowing what currently happens to continue.
Marquis De Lafayette, on 10 August 2018 - 11:29 AM, said:
@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.
We have had many of these big Faction play unit round tables to mixed result, the problem is getting information from the group that doesn't talk.
justcallme A S H, on 10 August 2018 - 02:46 PM, said:
There is one EASY way to fix this... Friends List. Allow people to put themselves 'invisible' 'active' 'away' etc. Similar to any type of chat application/platform. If people can't see a team, they cannot avoid a team.
I like the set yourself to invisible idea, its more of a factor because of the current system / current low pop , especially in off peak hours. It seems like another band aid, and one that would need programming, how much programming compared to importing SSR from Solaris mode is the question.
Fuerchtenichts, on 10 August 2018 - 11:16 PM, said:
Dear Paul,
I don't know what exactly happend that made you so biased towards parts of your customers base. The fact that some people choose to switch sides whenever they are loosing is not exclusive to UNITs but to every single player. Alienating UNITs will not solve the problem.
Please remember it has been PGI and your game design decisions that lead to the current situation. A possible solution to minimize the problem would be to freeze faction change during events. To make this work it would be crucial from my persepctive, that PGI would inform its customers at least one week prior to upcoming events (e.g. CJF-CW but not like the instant starting event Kurita-Davion).
This will not solve the issue that players with bigger networks inside the community will be able to foresee upcoming imbalances in factions and trying to use them for their own purpose but it will minimize it.
Well he is right that big merc groups tended to be on the same side totally by accident in the past
But then again PGI never made it worth anyone's time to actually fight 12vs12
Or to fight higher skilled groups instead of avoiding them
I don't think any restriction to choosing and switching is going to have an effect
Commanders jsur waited to see where the wind blowed before signing again
Incentives work better then restrictions
Monkey Lover, on 11 August 2018 - 12:26 AM, said:
Would get people to come back to cw. This list would only keep people from leaving an almost dead mode.
Cbills are not a reason.
Sure
And all it took to get the ques full was a few extra c-bills and some baubles thrown into the mix
The people that are left are those that don't need more c-bills
You need to lure in new players who then get picked up and trained by groups
Also this is fast n easy fixes
If you think that a single person in this thread or even whole Forum wouldn't love a deeper FP experience your sadly mistaken
We're just talking about things PGI can fix within a single patch that would make things better than they are right now
Leave unit caps at 500
Just make it worth to stick to a side and oppose other big groups
I like a soft cap at 50 or maybe 75.... after the cap is reached, the clan gets a monthly tax based on each player over the cap.
This will make Units cull the inactive members often, and keep rosters at max available players.
This also fixes the ones who want an unlimited Unit size so they can play with all 250 of their 'friends' .....
The tax will still provide a CBill dump for you guys, yet, by eliminating the invite costs, this will make Units want to actually get new members......
Just having Units of Uber size is moronic, and I too come from a 200+ member WoW raid guild......a roster with 50 active players can field FOUR teams..... that should be fine .....
This will in no way effect the ability of the units to field large numbers of players, it would just remove the ones which are inactive. They would still be able to field multiple 12 mans if a unit had 75 active players. A tax would also depend on the member makeup, HHoD's newer players have a low disposable c-bill income so won't be able to contribute much as they are spending their cash on mechs, builds and the skill tree. Other units with older accounts will already have all the mechs, builds, cbills they need so the tax would have less of an impact, effectively making a standard tax level disproportionately effect the kinds of units you really want to encourage for new players.
Well that's not good. Nothing in this list other than maybe "Expand on lore in global descriptions in FP" would get people to come back to cw. This list would only keep people from leaving an almost dead mode.
Start to design something with a few rules.
CW is a community game not group q. My faction, My unit,My friends. (people will grind for these)
Never give a reason to the player not to play.
Never make playing not worth doing. (even a loss should matter to the mode)
Then add in reasons to grind. Cbills are not a reason.
The whole first section is about exactly that.
Quote
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
I'll go with 2 min at max but have it cut that time with everyone ready.
You know, combine that with having a view of the map in battlegrid would be brilliant.
Really don't need to see the other team at all and having more of a feel of being in the ready room planning tactics would go a long way.
Pretty sure on the lance and company commanders are the only ones that have the options to do anything on the battlegrid.
That would be beneficial in many ways.
PUGS need a place and time to talk. And a place to place links. One of the biggest differences is that a premade has worked out its drops and its combination of mechs.
It's like comparing the Israeli military to the Egyptians. PUGs are like modern Arab armies.
The first is to reinstate at full strength the Long tom. The first is to reinstate at full strength the Long tom. The first is to reinstate at full strength the Long tom. The first is to reinstate at full strength the Long tom.
How about "No".
Here is the reason it helped. Scouting would be an important factor.
Long Tom will not help premades but then they do not need it and the PUGS are going to lose anyway. But Long Tom did give PUGS a chance.
And adding NPCs to lower ranked teams would work. They cannot control them but they would be of some help. The tier 1 team would get a message that the local militia is there to help the defenders etc.
While there are a lot great ideas here, ideas that might even bring me back, we're repeating history and skipping the pile of elephant stuff in the room. And where's that elephant? We've seen this again and again in Town Halls and Round Tables. Discussion veers and spends inordinate time on minutae. The elephant is...
game play, player experience and the elephant stuff is...
population
...
Game play in FW must improve. Without that we end here again in a year. It can be done ... without hampering its team orientation. Population cannot be improved through gimicks. The experience must be improved. Population follows.
(1) Newbs, or players with an empty Reserve Deck, might intitially be populated by some not-stupid trial mech.
Matchmakers - something brought up time and again.
Looking around the FW sub forum you will see constant references to players needing teamwork skills in order to be effective in FP.
W/L ratio will come from groups of players playing together in their own environments, on comms, with their meta builds and their deep seated tactics and strategies. What will happen when those people are not in their groups and not playing with the people that they normal play with?
How will the matchmaker adjust for the fact that some really good players, or team players, go up against that 12 man of EVIL, BCMC, etc. that floats around the US TZ all the time? Their W/L will look awful but they will be good. How will it affect grouping? Will people refuse to drop solo because their W/L ratio locks them in to needing to be with similar players. Will W/L become the new chased stat? Will units do anything for a win so that they climb a leaderboard of badassness or will they throw matches in order to keep it low?
You are also assuming that the lower skilled players will have the chance to use their tonnage effectively - if they already lose because they bring LRM assaults all the time how will increased tonnage help them? Where will the time to adjust decks come from? we have 60 seconds on match making completion, that isn't enough time as it is on an insta drop if you dont have everyone on comms.
Are higher skilled players going to continue to play when their preferred drop decks no longer work?
A better match maker would be one which measures the ability to work as a team member but that would be effectively impossible to achieve.
I like the idea of adjusted victory conditions, that might be something which could motivate people in a badly skewed skill match, both the higher end and the lower end.
To improve the experience of the new player you need to get them in to a team which is going to help them with builds, tactics, skills etc. The best way to do that is with direct links to community resources, communications hubs, guides etc. from WITHIN the MWO client, even if that needs a disclaimer.
Constantly trying to adjust the game based on the ability of people will reinforce the mistakes that they are already making by rewarding them for doing it. This then creates the toxic "you're bad", "git gud", "you got all that advantage and STILL lost" attitude that comes from some players who wee themselves as better people because X value proves it. THIS then causes new players to leave as well as getting rolled.
Law of unintended consequences, nothing is ever simple.
21
Paul Inouye, on 10 August 2018 - 10:00 AM, said:
