Jump to content

Fp Podcast - Followup Discussion Aug 20-2018


357 replies to this topic

#1 Paul Inouye

    Lead Designer

  • Developer
  • Developer
  • 2,796 posts
  • LocationVancouver, BC

Posted 20 August 2018 - 02:54 PM

Podcast is up and I hope you take a listen. It's pretty long but there was a lot to cover between the doc I have for the development update as well as the community notes I had at the time of recording.

Again, I want to thank everyone for the constructive conversation had over here in Justcallme A S H's post and will continue the conversation here. No need to copy and paste from that thread to here as the old thread will be maintained for reference.


----------------- Start of Doc Snippet ----------------
1Global Feature Set

1.1Adding Lore/Story to Conflicts
  • One of the biggest complaints still lingering in the community in relation to Faction Play is the lack of lore/story.
  • We can achieve this using the new event system with a few tweaks to the interface and event descriptions in MWOM.
  • Present the player with a reason why a given planet is in conflict based on the factions involved.
1.2 Creating a singular queue system
  • Faction Play queues will be merged into one single queue.
  • Matches will kick off every [2] minutes.
  • All Solo/Group players will be placed into this new singular queue.
  • When the 2 minute launch timer runs out, the Match Maker uses a priority algorithm to create teams.
1.2.1 Prioritization Algorithm
  • The Match Maker should sort the queue by group size and temporarily ignore Solo players.
  • First priority is filling teams based on group size.
    • Biggest groups should be placed on opposing teams in sequential order.
    • If a group doesn’t fit in a group match, a new match will be created.
    • This will continue until no more groups are in a free state in the queue.
  • Filling matches with Solo players
    • The Match Maker should now sort all Solo players by their SSR rating.
    • The Match Maker starts filling slots from the biggest group match to the smallest.
    • The Match Maker should alternate placing Solo players from top to bottom in terms of SSR rating.
    • If there are no further group matches available, a match will be created using the remaining solo players.
    • If there are not enough solo players remaining for a match, they will be queued for the next match kick off in [2] minutes with priority placement above all other solo players entering the queue.
1.3 Adding Participation Choice to Conflicts
  • With the action of removing penalties from player faction/participation decisions, this update will look into making the choices more relevant while maintaining player freedom.
  • Players choose their method of participation on a per match basis.
  • It will be possible for a player to play both sides of a conflict between matches.
1.3.1 Participating as a Freelancer
  • Freelancers are deposited into the general queue.
  • Freelancers CANNOT enter the queue in a group.
  • Priority for Solo players will be to fill gaps in the group queue if needed.
  • Freelancers will be matched based on SSR/Elo.
  • Freelancers receive a slight [5%] XP boost for every match they play.
1.3.2 Participating as a Merc Unit
  • Merc Units are deposited into the general queue.
  • Merc Unit participation requires a group of [2] or more.
  • Merc Unit participation gains a small [5%] CB boost for every match they play
1.3.3 Participating as a Loyalist
  • Loyalists are deposited into the general queue.
  • Loyalists can join the general queue as a solo player or a group.
  • Loyalists earn LP for loyalist titles and rewards.
  • Solo Loyalists will be matched based on SSR/Elo
  • The reward structure for loyalists needs to be expanded.
2 Event System




2.1 Faction Play will be driven using the event system.

2.1.1 Event length

· Events can last from 1 day to multiple weeks.

· Events should be planned based on the scale of the battle being presented.





2.1.2 Events should be able to set IS Map states

· A set of pre-determined map states will be created.

o 3050 Invasion

o 3052 Tukayyid

o 3057

o 3062

· The event planner should be able to select which map state to display while the event is active.





2.1.3 Event descriptions

· Every FP event should have a lore based description of the battle.

· The lore can come from the BattleTech timeline or can be created using a viable and believable theme from the time/place in which the battle takes place.





2.1.4 Event choices presented to the player

· The player should always be presented with 2 choices as to how they will participate based on the event description.

· The player choice should be presented in a first person narrative manner.

o “I will aid in breaking the chains of the Clan occupation”

o “I will crush this uprising with my Clan brethren.”







----------------- End of Doc Snippet ----------------



----------------- Start of Community Notes ----------------

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
----------------- End of Community Notes ----------------




All of the above were the talking points covered. That being said, I know there is not a lot of coverage of what is and isn't able to be addressed in terms of resource allocation, but I want to let you know that these items are being discussed internally still and I will update you on what has traction and what has fallen off the table.

I look forward to continuing this line of communication with you all as we move forward to updating Faction Play to a more satisfactory level in both quality of life improvements to feature upgrades/improvements.

-Paul


--------------- Proposed changes to the FP Match Maker ----------------



Edited by Paul Inouye, 31 August 2018 - 09:40 AM.
Video to clarify the MM update.


#2 Marius Evander

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 1,113 posts

Posted 20 August 2018 - 04:02 PM

Why isn't this pinned

#3 Paul Inouye

    Lead Designer

  • Developer
  • Developer
  • 2,796 posts
  • LocationVancouver, BC

Posted 20 August 2018 - 04:39 PM

View PostCadoazreal, on 20 August 2018 - 04:02 PM, said:

Why isn't this pinned


Dunno what you're talking about.

Posted Image

#4 Marius Evander

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 1,113 posts

Posted 20 August 2018 - 05:47 PM

1:25:28 Paul : "Right now FP CONQUEST IS 1500" ..............................................................................no correction from the others ....................................................................................................................................................... im gonna go cry

Edited by Cadoazreal, 20 August 2018 - 05:52 PM.


#5 Peter2k

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 1,970 posts
  • Twitter: Link
  • LocationWuppertal - Germany

Posted 20 August 2018 - 06:17 PM

View PostCadoazreal, on 20 August 2018 - 05:47 PM, said:

1:25:28 Paul : "Right now FP CONQUEST IS 1500" ..............................................................................no correction from the others ....................................................................................................................................................... im gonna go cry


Mmm
Made me think they don't know :D
But adding 250 points from 1250 to get to 1500 would probably be worth it and a good middle ground

On trial mechs, why not ask the community to build some FP drop decks that can be chosen pre build by new players

Lots of nice stuff in the list that would make me already a lot more happy

Love the removal of taxation, hope groups become more a thing again

Loving the focus on making loyalist be worth it
Looking forward to some more discussions

Edited by Peter2k, 20 August 2018 - 06:20 PM.


#6 Nightbird

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Slayer
  • The Slayer
  • 4,713 posts

Posted 20 August 2018 - 06:26 PM

Will be very interested which of these features can be promised and the timeline projection. Looks great!

View PostPaul Inouye, on 20 August 2018 - 02:54 PM, said:


1.2 Creating a singular queue system
  • Drop Zone wall angle adjustments.
  • Earlier win conditions based on team destruction (stomps)


Some items I wanted to discuss, not necessary the only important items but I can't contribute to the lore immersion parts.

1. The singular queue system will discourage weaker teams from forming 12 mans. A pick up 12 group will always lose to a 12 man that play together etc, so they will be pressured into 6 mans etc. One good team at the top will eventually force every other team to disband.

I don't think there is any way past using measurements of skill to ensure good matches. The simplest I can come up with is record a player's W/L for even the last 10 FP games, add it up across the group, that is the group's strength. Make matches using that.

Please recognize that size of teams is not equivalent to skill. The idea as suggested will only create a tyrant at the top and kill FP. Please reconsider and avoid this.

2. Change dropship zones to this format to greatly reduce farming. No Trump walls needed. Make sure the drop zone is at an elevated location, with slopes that give no cover to attackers within dropship range. The mechs are dropped into a slight depression (bombed out crater using earth moving ordinance), protecting them from all incoming fire due to elevated position. Make change on one-two maps at a time to fit within scope of 1 month improvements.

Posted Image

3. Yes, if the score is ever 24 to <=6, then auto end match, 36 to <=12. Please implement this today without waiting for the other ideas that will take 1/2 year. Please don't punish the teams for winning though, give a sufficient cbill/LP reward for ending early. Otherwise people will just eject to prevent any early end conditions, to earn more cbills/LP. In other words, give a 100% cbill/LP bonus for ending at 24, 33% bonus for ending at 36.

4. Please consider giving a (% cbill bonus for mercs) (% LP bonus for loyalists) for dropping with less than a full tonnage deck. Maybe for Tier 1 players only. Reward good players for handicapping themselves voluntarily. I know many people that would drop with a lighter deck if there is a reward for it, and it would make FP interesting for older players.

Edited by Nightbird, 21 August 2018 - 02:01 PM.


#7 slide

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 1,758 posts
  • LocationKersbrook South Australia

Posted 20 August 2018 - 06:51 PM

I'll listen to the podcast when I get home, apologies if this is covered in there but I have to ask.

3.2 Participating as a Merc Unit
  • Merc Units are deposited into the general queue.

I gather from this section that that mercs (and freelancers) will be used to fill what ever side of a match needs players. So in a IS v Clan conflict players will need to have both Clan and IS drop decks. Correct?

This is problematic for both new players and the few like me that have no corresponding "other deck". ie this account is IS only, I have another account that is Clan only .

In my case I have no clan mechs (well only the three I have received as give away's). New players are going to struggle to build a Deck out of both sides. Does this mean Mixed teams are going to be possible?

I have no problem being forced to go loyalist as long as we can still change at will (ie between Davion and Steiner) but it could cause problems for some people who belong to Merc units and only have one kind of tech.

#8 Marius Evander

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 1,113 posts

Posted 20 August 2018 - 07:06 PM

This is my summary notes.

The TLDR summary of the 2 hour podcast.
"More LORE storyline/reason behind why fighting & Group up and git gud or get out"

The Long summary.
Spoiler

Edited by Cadoazreal, 20 August 2018 - 09:19 PM.


#9 R5D4

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 181 posts
  • LocationAlberta

Posted 20 August 2018 - 07:48 PM

View PostPaul Inouye said:

Earlier win conditions based on team destruction (stomps)


Heard you mention this on the podcast and was thinking that for Quick Play and FP, and given the chat limitations you mention, why not have some set values that if reached enable the ability for pilots on the losing team to "Eject"?

This plus side is that this leaves it up to the individual pilot (lets that person still feel somewhat in control unlike the current uncontrollable stomps) to decide if she/he wants to fight or quit BUT the ability to Eject isn't available UNLESS conditions are meet e.g. Enemy team has 11 Mechs your team has 3 Mechs in QP.

Not sure what the condition would be in FP I haven't played it since it came out as I lost interest quickly but I would say pressing Eject should already be a registered event in FP code so maybe if the condition is met and all living players press the Eject key in a window of time could be the trigger to "surrender" vs. the game chat issue you mention in the podcast.

I would also give the "kill" for the ejected mech to the mech that did the most damage and in cases where the mech ejecting has 0 damage I would make it a random allocation (rather than have the kill lost which would create more animosity).

Just my thought on this.

Edited by R5D4, 20 August 2018 - 07:55 PM.


#10 Bowelhacker

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 418 posts

Posted 20 August 2018 - 09:15 PM

View PostPaul Inouye, on 20 August 2018 - 02:54 PM, said:

Misc
  • Tool for players to enter planetary data


Can I do Kooken's Pleasure Pit?

#11 Marius Evander

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 1,113 posts

Posted 20 August 2018 - 09:17 PM

1.1 Yay.
1.2 - We already only have only one FP queue except for a few hours when Clan vs IS and same side conflicts swap over ? (Do you mean 1 queue where both IS and Clan are on the same side of the queue so 12 mans in queue on the same side will be dropped against each other ? )
- Every 2 Minutes seems Low for peak time, and definately too low for quiet hours.
1.2.1 - This system equates group size as the biggest factor to chance of winning ignoring individual ability. Yes it is Probably better than our current system however by implementing groups average or total SSR as a factor when matching different groups together it would be an easy improvement. This currently says to me "If your great group up, if your casual dont play with your friends (queue solo)."
Do the people who get left out have to stay queued or can it remember to prioritize them the next time they queue ? (would be an improvement for Solaris aswell)
1.3 - Isn't that what we have now ? and the cause of the "side stacking" issue. I thought the poodcast said locked into contracts for duration of event
1.3.1, 1.3.2, 1.3.3 - In the current system, freelancer is basically terrible, and probably shouldn't have existed as it had no benefits / no LP, all it does is get trial mech players into the queue to fill it out with no idea whats going on. Mercenaries as a portion of the galaxies mech pilot population is smaller than loyalist mech pilots is it not ? why would the more Selfish, less social, pilots who have more freedom and choice in where they fight have to group up, removing them from filling out the groups queues and loyalists be the solo queue fillers? it seems the complete opposite to LORE , yes there are exceptions, large Merc units like the wolfs dragoons, On the whole Mercenaries are the lone stalkers, while loyalist battalions would be the larger groups. making mercenaries size restricted the other way (solo only) would help alliviate your "stomps problem" you ask for help for in your podcast. In relation to asking for help with that issue, you may not have read it because I put it in spolier tags, what i proposed in https://mwomercs.com...ost__p__6147410 helps cover / alleviate the Stomps issue along with your above SSR addition..

2. Yay & is there a way to let Liao fight in kurita/davion conflict without breaking liao loyalist contract ?

Community notes: -

Sightlines on Boreal https://mwomercs.com...eal-vault-poll/
https://mwomercs.com...ost__p__6144123 Boreal Vault issues, I thought I saw a Boreal Vault thread, now I cant find it, was it other people in the new hope thread ?

Imho don't change Vitric gens, The defenders have better Jump jet access to the roof and the tightest ground level chokepoints of all the maps, the attackers having a roof option to contest helps balance out the more difficult ground level options.

Crimson Straight Charlie line dropzone walls are terrible, the non Charlie line dropzone is too isolated from the other 2, on the cityside spawns.

New River city Dropzones terrible, they were ok before ....... https://mwomercs.com...er-city-dom-dz/

Tug of war - removal of bar MAXIMUM in one direction would be the easiest way to fix the last hour being the only hour that matters in an event, allowing the conflict to swing for every win / loss not be capped out after a certain number of wins.

Rewards kickers, I took this as being the desire of the community for a post game screen where you have to give 2 players a most teamwork orientated player and least helpful most troll player selection to encourage good player behaviour / teamwork with rewards. Not more protected medium in game style achievements.....

Seeing queue counts can hurt more than spinning wheel. Ie solaris. Ppl look for games but dont queue. (in FP eg, "oh only 6 other people are queuing for each team, ill wait till theres 10 other people alreay waiting in Queue and go drop in other game modes till i see that"

Conquest score adjustment....... when the 3 of you dont even know the current cap is 1250.... a lot more research needs to be done before increasing the ending score.
Can you draw data from FP conquest matches of how many mechs are usually remaining on each side at the end of a match with the current 1250 max ?
In my humble opinion there should be no more than 4 permadeads across the 2 teams and the majority on their last mech, I believe 1400 or 1500 would achieve this. However when/if you change the queueing system to have better matches one sided stomps would happen less, therefore games will take longer to reach the score cap and the cap will need lowering back down.
Can you make a voting in game screen when people push the Faction Play tab that gets EVERYONE who queues for FP to vote on important issues instead of just the forum few ?


Adjusting launch countdown,
2 minutes with more dropdecks seems the popular opinion, I say 3 minutes for multiple reasons,
this would make the need for more dropdecks far less and even remove the issue for many, so it would remove the programming work.
A ready button like comp queue currently has would allow games to still launch in 2 minutes or even less.
Its better to spend a little extra time making sure everyone has what they want before a 20+ minute commitment rather than having people frustrated they have the wrong mechs/hinder their team because of it.

Early wins to avoid stomps, im not a fan as it just means more load screens, I would prefer less stomps to occur through better matchmaking and better spawn point defences / requirement to leave your spawn after an amount of time. If I had to have a number it would be between 17 and 19 destroyed mech difference.

Call to arms Timer change, Will call to arms still exist if matches are kicking off every 2 minutes ?, people also were asking if we could decrease time before a ghost drop is called, new system would remove ghost drops from the game?, people who miss out on matches could be rewarded for sitting in queue (if queue wait time was more than 2 mins which I believe it needs to be).

Unit Missions sounds good to me, are we talking along the lines of "As a unit destroy (unit active player count X 100 enemy mechs) in FP in the next 7 days ? kinda thing ? (math is probably off) for ?? xp/cbills for the unit leader to hand out ???
  • CalltoArms timer change - wont exist if 2 min launch window ?
  • Queuing integrated into LFG - this is LFG showing what people are in LFG for ????
  • Reward group play at a higher level than solo - Podcast gave impression this is a definate no ?
  • Scouting mode end condition investigation (diving) - Agree its a problem, I dont have the solution.
  • Rewards for CalltoArms participation - wont exist if 2 min launch window ?
  • Battlefield based tonnage restriction (e.g. only 4 assaults at a time) - Podcast gave impression this is a definate no ?
Systems Update
  • More than 4 drop decks - As stated above, Longer launch drop deck timer will reduce the need for this you stated along the lines of larger than desirable programming task?
  • VoIP prior to drop - Podcast said no, maybe during map load screen after decks locked in ?
Thats me covered everything I think, If i didnt put it here its in the "post that I had in spoiler tags" - linked above, oh on the walls / ramps , we want dropships to be able to shoot the people on the outside of the dropzone walls more easily, thats why we want them angled (but imo not to 45 degrees) , Can dropships be higher up without legs getting fall damage I illustrated it in a picture in other thread...?

Edited by Cadoazreal, 22 August 2018 - 04:41 AM.


#12 Panthros

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 64 posts

Posted 20 August 2018 - 11:17 PM

I think to drive home the more story mode Faction Play, perhaps a bonus if certain mechs played for your faction.

For example Davion against Kurita. Let's be honest and say the Kurita should be running Jenners, Panthers, Dragons, Battlemasters, etc. That is why many mechs have the K designation, because they are Kurita mechs. For Davion, Blackjack, Centurion, Jager and Victor. So perhaps more bonus for running those mechs, perhaps more payout. This can also drive people to use those mechs which will give more flavor.

#13 vonJerg

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Tip of the Spear
  • The Tip of the Spear
  • 225 posts

Posted 21 August 2018 - 02:09 AM

View PostCadoazreal, on 20 August 2018 - 05:47 PM, said:

1:25:28 Paul : "Right now FP CONQUEST IS 1500" ..............................................................................no correction from the others ....................................................................................................................................................... im gonna go cry


Paul the Troll strikes again, two flies with one strike! :D

#14 Bishop Six

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Pharaoh
  • The Pharaoh
  • 806 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 21 August 2018 - 02:32 AM

Thank you Paul for your work (so far Posted Image) and the improved communication!

I feel heard and i think many others too.

You know, it is always a hard way to reach a meaningful and worthwhile goal and FP is such a goal.

MWO is unique among all the Online PVP Games because of this huge universe and the awesome mechs!

Mechs will never die and a good working FP would be a big step towards a gaming experience which is exciting and lore based.

Also this universe is still protected by its niche and not sold out by capitalists like Star Wars.

Because of this i love BT and MWO! And FP should be the main part of this unique game.

You did the right steps by creating FP, now you have to go the full road until the end!

Edit:
As a sign of gratitude (so far :P) i will buy the Champion mech now. It will be my first purchase this year and i will tell my friends and unitmates about your good work (so far :P)

Edited by Bishop Six, 21 August 2018 - 02:41 AM.


#15 vonJerg

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Tip of the Spear
  • The Tip of the Spear
  • 225 posts

Posted 21 August 2018 - 02:48 AM

I agree with Cadoazreal that by increasing launch/dropdeck selection time to 2-3 min will not only help the teams get enough time to get organized, but also will remove the need for additional dropdecks. And if you get VoIP available there, wow

IF-THEN mechanics would be the thing for creating kind of campaign events, with LOGISTICKS if you could tie outcome of one event to dropdeck tonnage available for the next event that is part of a campaign.
Example: if team 1 win event 1, they now unlock event 2, attack on the planet B, but as they have to leave some forces on planet A to pacify remaining pockets of resistance, they have 5t less for their dropdecks during event 2. Also, if team 2 gave a good fight during event 1 but lost, perhaps they bought enough time for their side to increase defence force for event 2, so they got +5 tons. Perhaps, there is factory on planet B, so if team 1 wins they will be able to resupply quicker so they get full tonnage available for event 3, etc, etc...

I am not likeing the idea of changing sides mid conflict, I am afraid it might trigger avalanche effect, ppl just jumping over to the winning side.

#16 Korz

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • The Hawk
  • The Hawk
  • 172 posts

Posted 21 August 2018 - 02:56 AM

We need a Faction Quick play. Simple Clan vs IS, or Faction vs Faction depending on what is avaliable in que. This is the new player friendly Faction play.

The FQP will not have any effect on the faction map. But will reward a little faction standing based on play.

This is so folks can get started in faction play and skill up mechs for thier drop lists. This could also be a good recruitment pool for groups to use. There will be no break down in the que beyond faction. So yes a totaly new player can play against a very good player. But no groups in this que. It is solo only.

#17 IronEleven

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Mercenary Rank 3
  • Mercenary Rank 3
  • 84 posts

Posted 21 August 2018 - 03:18 AM

View PostKorz, on 21 August 2018 - 02:56 AM, said:

We need a Faction Quick play. Simple Clan vs IS, or Faction vs Faction depending on what is avaliable in que. This is the new player friendly Faction play.

The FQP will not have any effect on the faction map. But will reward a little faction standing based on play.

This is so folks can get started in faction play and skill up mechs for thier drop lists. This could also be a good recruitment pool for groups to use. There will be no break down in the que beyond faction. So yes a totaly new player can play against a very good player. But no groups in this que. It is solo only.

The last time solo and group queues were separated in FP, neither could fill a match reliably.

#18 Marius Evander

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 1,113 posts

Posted 21 August 2018 - 04:19 AM

View PostKorz, on 21 August 2018 - 02:56 AM, said:

Spoiler


Paul stated vehemently in the podcast we no longer have player population for seperate Solo AND grouped queues.
I sadly agree the last time we might of had population to do it was civil war or tukkayid 3.

View PostIronEleven, on 21 August 2018 - 03:18 AM, said:

The last time solo and group queues were separated in FP, neither could fill a match reliably.

Because everyone was playing the brand new game mode for those 2 weeks, Scouting mode, it was new, different, exciting, for the 1st month. Please refer million other posts unit tag vs non unit tag was not a true queue seperation, and at that time we had 40 ??? buckets....... Had Queue seperation of 4 buckets instead of 40 been implemented then, would most likely have worked.

View PostvonJerg, on 21 August 2018 - 02:48 AM, said:

Spoiler


Love the IF-Then idea expansion possible effects vonJerg outlined.

Edited by Cadoazreal, 22 August 2018 - 04:42 AM.


#19 Daurock

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • 529 posts
  • LocationSouth Dakota

Posted 21 August 2018 - 06:28 AM

Love the fact that the developers are attempting to address SO much stuff in that podcast - That 2 hour long podcast was definitely worth the listen.

Some thoughts on the stuff i heard, and the thoughts i was having -

On "More Lore" -
Yes, please! It kind of sounds like the devs are going to be something akin to a Dungeon Master in an old school pen and paper (Or even tabletop Battletech) RPG, and the players being, well, players in it. I gotta say, I love the idea of having an actual person putting together the scenarios, and letting the players play it out. It does, however, sound like a lot of work to not only get implemented, but to maintain (Someone has to write the story every two weeks.) Still, i think the payout here could be massive.

On The New MM system
- I had put a comment or two in the lead-in thread to this, almost exactly along the same lines. Not only do I love the idea of matching opposing groups by size, you went a step even further, and are attempting to put the "Best" pugs in with the "Largest" groups, since it pulls from the "Top" of the pug que first. Love that little addition. The only things I am a little concerned about are the appropriate "Drop Timer," and how just how effective a drop timer is during off-hours, but that's a pretty easy thing to change if the need arises. (Change the timer based on time of day maybe? Don't know how realistic that one is)

Since this sounds like something not only possible, but likely to be implemented, all I can do is give you a huge thank you for it.

On the New Participation types -
Interesting, but i'm not sure just how interesting for me. I'm going to be honest - I will rarely end up dropping with a group for a couple of reasons, not the least of which is that most of the TS and Discord servers are fairly hard to find. (The reddit thread with all the servers posted from time to time isn't particularly helpful folks, as whenever I've gone to that list, I've only found Discords with a zillion people, but none playing MWO, empty TS servers, or a TS servers that block off all the rooms with people in them from non members.). About the only time I DO get into a group is if I get pulled in by someone pulling in random people from the LFG que, and i'm going to be honest, those groups have been.... well, let's say average at best. So, for now, solo-dropping, or small-group dropping when my friends actually get on is what it is for me.
Because of that, the merc que is going to be more or less off-limits to me. A little unfortunate, but I'm actually OK with that for the most part, as the rewards in the loyalty tree look more interesting anyway. Couple that with the fact that you made loyalties easy to switch, and the new MM, and I'll end up being OK i think.


Community suggestions section (Only going to comment on a couple of them)
- Early win condition
I agree, it's a good discussion to have on whether an "Automated" early win condition, (using something like destruction count) or a "Player based" trigger (A Surrender button) is a better path to take. My opinion is (and was on the earlier thread) that an automated one would be better, assuming that the basics of it are something the community can get behind. I Put the framework i would attempt to use in the previous thread, so i won't repeat it here, but it is a good discussion to have.
- Conquest mode timer changes
If i had my druthers, i wouldn't change the mode from where it is right now. As of now, it's close to the only mode that ends on objective more often than on destruction. If anything, i would change OTHER modes such that they end more often on objective instead. This is also is why I'm not huge on having spawn points quite so close to bases, or to the assault caps. In my opinion, it should be almost hard to avoid winning early if your team has an obvious upper hand.
- LP as currency
A good idea. I might add in that you could/should "Lock" Certain rewards from being bought unless you had a specific faction rank (I.E. rank 1 enables you to buy a cockpit item, rank 5 enables you to buy a decal, rank 10 allows the purchase of warhorns etc.) What is interesting about this is that if we start moving in the direction of "Some factions increase, others decrease with each battle," you'll almost never be able to buy the entire store at once (Because by the time you could buy that kurita warhorn, your steiner rep dropped far enough that you can't buy any of the stuff you earned the rank for earlier.)

Other random thoughts and questions-
- You mentioned 'General Que' a lot in the MM discussions - I think it was a little unclear there what exactly you were referring to - I wasn't sure if you were talking about 1 single "Pile" of players, like QP/Group que, and matches were formed from dividing that one pile, or if the 'General que' refers to 1 "Conflict que' with 2 'buckets' (Or 4 i guess, if you count 2 group buckets, and 2 solo buckets) of players, And forming the best teams from that. It would be weird if it mixed players from both sides of the conflict onto a single team. A little clarification here would be appreciated, IMO.

- Lots of stuff on Unit management (i.e. coffers, inventory, size, taxes, max unit size, etc.) I'm almost of the opinion that this could be a little bit of a separate update from the FW update itself. I suspect (But am not 100% sure of) that if FW was to grow from the FW update, the needs of units might change, leading to different changes required.

Edited by Daurock, 21 August 2018 - 08:55 AM.


#20 SilentFenris

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • Bridesmaid
  • 163 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 21 August 2018 - 08:37 AM

View PostPaul Inouye, on 20 August 2018 - 02:54 PM, said:


  • Queuing integrated into LFG


Love this, thank you for including it!

View PostPaul Inouye, on 20 August 2018 - 02:54 PM, said:

  • Battlefield based tonnage restriction (e.g. only 4 assaults at a time)


How would this work if a Player is destroyed, there are already the maximum Assault mech on field and the player in question only has Assaults left in their dropdeck?
a) Player gets to drop anyway, violating the normal cap for Assault mechs on battlefield
b) Dropship withheld until an existing teammate in an Assault mech is destroyed

Edited by SilentFenris, 21 August 2018 - 08:37 AM.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users