357 replies to this topic

[Davegt27]

Eisenhorne, on 04 September 2018 - 06:23 AM, said:

I'd rather see the game die than be forced to play with 8 morons on my team each time. "Solos" are generally bad players who cannot find a team because they are either unwilling or unable, which in either case means I don't want them on my team.

Had a decent game vs KCOM yesterday... we ended up tying because one of our solo players wouldn't get with the program, and thought he'd try to take on 12 guys at once because "his LBX20 wasn't going to work at the ranges we were asking him to fight at".... Just back up with us, and wait for the push... but no, he didn't listen, he assumed he knew better than us. So we tied. Good game, but we could have won. If not for a dumb solo player.

The fewer of them I have to suffer on my team the better.

I like Vellron2005 ideas but thinking outside of the box it would be for a unit campaign mode,
"mode" might not be the right word but my thoughts would be all units start with 4 players or one lance
yes in this pipe line mode you would enter the pipeline and as you travel through it you gain the right to add to your unit
the campaign would be some what regimented and restrictive but fun

anyways you start off as a 4 man unit and build from there at different points your unit size increases
of course a better economy would be needed
economy is basically you need a way to get things and a way to spend things

spend on drop ship rental until you can buy your own drop ship

HBS battle tech has a campaign aspect to it so we know it can be done

[50 50]

Davegt27, on 05 September 2018 - 02:00 PM, said:

I like Vellron2005 ideas but thinking outside of the box it would be for a unit campaign mode,
"mode" might not be the right word but my thoughts would be all units start with 4 players or one lance
yes in this pipe line mode you would enter the pipeline and as you travel through it you gain the right to add to your unit
the campaign would be some what regimented and restrictive but fun

anyways you start off as a 4 man unit and build from there at different points your unit size increases
of course a better economy would be needed
economy is basically you need a way to get things and a way to spend things

spend on drop ship rental until you can buy your own drop ship

HBS battle tech has a campaign aspect to it so we know it can be done

That's an interesting idea.
Probably can't reset the units to have them recreate again though. That's a bit of a kick in the teeth and not really a good angle with the unit coffers holding all that loot.

However, the concept of having a campaign that players embark on is a great angle.
Probably better to look at it at a group level instead of unit.

[slide]

Paul Inouye, on 05 September 2018 - 09:27 AM, said:

e.g. There's a refresh button on the friends list!

Don't sit on that too long please.

[Tier5ForLife]

For the record, I was only saying that some turrets should not so much be hidden, but cannot be killed easily by long-range weapons.

But to do this, the matchmaker would have to figure out the odds. And that would be hard to do and very hard to do quickly.

I admit I do like some of the ideas coming down the pipeline.

(and really, I just want to see some tanks and other cool stuff we are missing)

[Tier5ForLife]

50 50, on 05 September 2018 - 04:41 PM, said:

That's an interesting idea.
Probably can't reset the units to have them recreate again though. That's a bit of a kick in the teeth and not really a good angle with the unit coffers holding all that loot.

However, the concept of having a campaign that players embark on is a great angle.
Probably better to look at it at a group level instead of unit.

Very interesting. You would not HAVE to do this but you could. And it would bring a "storyline" and a "direction" to the game.

It would be great for Loyalist. And there could be a number of campaigns with different difficulty levels and/or storylines.

This one is for Mercs, this one for this faction etc.

Edited by LikeUntoBuddha, 05 September 2018 - 05:35 PM.

[Cato Zilks]

Paul Inouye, on 05 September 2018 - 09:27 AM, said:

There's a refresh button on the friends list!

Dude, october patch. Then we can trouble shoot before you release 12 other things.

[Sjorpha]

Tamerlin, on 03 September 2018 - 11:25 AM, said:

• "But what if the team just camps within their spawn?" For Assault and Conquest this is a non-issue - just cap them out. But for Skirmish and Siege modes this is harder; I suggest adding a "mech in the battlefield" timer. If a team does not have a mech outside of their drop zone after # minutes, a Domination mode-style countdown starts. However, you don't want this timer to be completely reset by a sneaky light mech putting one foot outside of the zone and then dashing back into the protected drop zone. So, the rate of the countdown depends on the number of camping mechs and the total length of time they have not left their drop zone. This timer could be started by an AFK mech(s), but so long as active players continue to exit the drop zone there should not be an issue.

If you're making a system of that kind just give each mech 1 minute to leave the dropzone or explode, that's generous cause it really only takes 20 seconds to leave the drop even in a slow mech.

Personally I don't consider spawn farming an issue though, it only really happens when matches are extremely lopsided anyways and the only difference a system like that would make is players get "farmed" at the dropzone exits or wherever. It's like you're trying to make extremely bad matches slightly better at the expense of more time wasted more instead of making good matches.

Any system that makes the lopsided matches last longer is time wasted for everyone involved when they could have finished the match faster and queued up again.

A much better way to reduce farming IMO would be to make it unrewarding to prolong the match. For example if you got a bonus for finishing the match quickly and the bonus per second saved is larger than you could realistically earn from farming out the remaining mechs, teams would have no real reason to farm and would just finish the objective when the fight is won.

Another idea, and maybe the best one! What if kills and damage done inside dropzones just didn't count towards your score and rewards? Most strong units are statwhores so that would probably make the wait for mechs to leave the drops.

[Eisenhorne]

Sjorpha, on 06 September 2018 - 02:14 AM, said:

If you're making a system of that kind just give each mech 1 minute to leave the dropzone or explode, that's generous cause it really only takes 20 seconds to leave the drop even in a slow mech.

Personally I don't consider spawn farming an issue though, it only really happens when matches are extremely lopsided anyways and the only difference a system like that would make is players get "farmed" at the dropzone exits or wherever. It's like you're trying to make extremely bad matches slightly better at the expense of more time wasted more instead of making good matches.

Any system that makes the lopsided matches last longer is time wasted for everyone involved when they could have finished the match faster and queued up again.

A much better way to reduce farming IMO would be to make it unrewarding to prolong the match. For example if you got a bonus for finishing the match quickly and the bonus per second saved is larger than you could realistically earn from farming out the remaining mechs, teams would have no real reason to farm and would just finish the objective when the fight is won.

Another idea, and maybe the best one! What if kills and damage done inside dropzones just didn't count towards your score and rewards? Most strong units are statwhores so that would probably make the wait for mechs to leave the drops.

Consider that drop zone farming is also a legit strategy if you have two teams that are equally matched, too. I've played more than one game where the teams are relatively even (or at least both sides have 1 6+ man group) where one team rushes to an easily defended position to camp it (like the old caldera on Terra Therma) and a single straggler gets picked off. Well, now the team that got the kill can choose to engage a heavily fortified enemy in a very easily defensible position, or they can go spawn camp the straggler they got. It generally forces the team trying to turtle to rush back to defend the spawn so they don't lose a pilot to perma-death.

I've also seen strategies where teams will rush into the enemy drop zone as fast as possible trying to spawn camp players they know are serious threats, to eliminate them before they can rack up thousands of points of damage. It maybe worth losing your first fight by a bit to kill some second or third wave mechs from a very good player.

It does most often happen during stomps, but it can be a legit strategy, and the threat of it is something all players should keep in mind.

[Sjorpha]

Eisenhorne, on 06 September 2018 - 09:57 AM, said:

Consider that drop zone farming is also a legit strategy if you have two teams that are equally matched, too. I've played more than one game where the teams are relatively even (or at least both sides have 1 6+ man group) where one team rushes to an easily defended position to camp it (like the old caldera on Terra Therma) and a single straggler gets picked off. Well, now the team that got the kill can choose to engage a heavily fortified enemy in a very easily defensible position, or they can go spawn camp the straggler they got. It generally forces the team trying to turtle to rush back to defend the spawn so they don't lose a pilot to perma-death.

I've also seen strategies where teams will rush into the enemy drop zone as fast as possible trying to spawn camp players they know are serious threats, to eliminate them before they can rack up thousands of points of damage. It maybe worth losing your first fight by a bit to kill some second or third wave mechs from a very good player.

It does most often happen during stomps, but it can be a legit strategy, and the threat of it is something all players should keep in mind.

Sure, but that kind of strategic dropzone farming in even matches isn't a problem.

[Davegt27]

50 50, on 05 September 2018 - 04:41 PM, said:

That's an interesting idea.
Probably can't reset the units to have them recreate again though. That's a bit of a kick in the teeth and not really a good angle with the unit coffers holding all that loot.

However, the concept of having a campaign that players embark on is a great angle.
Probably better to look at it at a group level instead of unit.

agreed
the only reason to make something like limiting unit size is to increase the length of the pipe line
and to give sense of progression

you could easily change it to you can only drop in 4 man teams or even eliminate the whole idea
the main point of the idea is to have fun and part of the fun would be to progress along the route/pipe line

[Horseman]

Vellron2005, on 04 September 2018 - 12:21 AM, said:

1) Make specific factions give loyalty rewards in the forms of specific mechs.. Like Clan Wolf loyalists get a fully clan wolf-ed Timberwolf, Smoke jaguars get an ebon jaguar, Kuritans get a Dragon, Steiners get a Highlander and so on..
Mercs get a Marauder.
Higher level rewards can give out Hero or Champion mechs..

That would actually make the grind worthwhile. Current rewards can be pretty unrewarding given the grind it takes to reach them (which may be another factor to players losing interest in the mode)

Quote

HBS battle tech has a campaign aspect to it so we know it can be done

HBS' game is single player.

50 50, on 05 September 2018 - 04:41 PM, said:

However, the concept of having a campaign that players embark on is a great angle.
Probably better to look at it at a group level instead of unit.

Or at a level of incentivizing smaller group sizes in early stages of a conflict. Just saying.

[Eisenhorne]

Sjorpha, on 07 September 2018 - 08:54 AM, said:

Sure, but that kind of strategic dropzone farming in even matches isn't a problem.

It's not, but consider that anything you do that makes dropzones impregnable fortresses where people can drop in complete safety would still remove this as a valid tactic.

[Radkres]

O.o Well A while Back I suggested A Hard Mode That You have to Turn on and What Happens is Your Mechs do not get fixed or Reloaded You have to Pay to rearm and Repair Your Mech But it Comes with Double Cbills and Exp But as You know The Extra Money and Exp gets Used to Repair and Refit Your Stuff And if You Go Broke You can Always Play using Trial Mechs till You get back on Your Feet.

[Disinterest]

@Paul

Kind of off topic;

The events and freebies are much appreciated, however (and I really hate to point this out because of where it CAN go), I feel the generosity might go unappreciated without a significant ad campaign.

Here's the pitch: You've gone from the red line of pay to win, now to the gray line of grind OR pay to win with this game (these giveaways are doable, the faction play grind was gated by players' ability to acquire a good drop deck, and significant time investment). Coming from a returning player, this is a welcome change: to know that I am not forced to pay if I want a hero mech, or if I want to buy a significant amount of mechs to try and run several drop decks (went from 7 mech bays and 2 mechs to 30 bays and 15 mechs). This time period of giveaways is the time to advertise, to bring fresh people in, and potentially start reinforcing your community.

Ideas:

• Run youtube ads; eat the pay to win label you earned and announce that it's also grind to win now, there are simply too many people who still think it would take months to catch up to veteran players' single good drop deck.
  
• Develop some internal stream mechanism to run preferred twitch/youtube channels. It may seem rather ancillary, but Hi-Rez used this feature with a lot of success to direct new players to content which would inform them about the game, and make them better players. You've got a ton of content already out there from Molten Metal, TTB, BlackhawkSC, and others that pops up in google (B33F, I didn't forget you or anyone else I'm just not going to continue to identify EVERY potential community resource streamer).
  
• Hit up the web and magazine journalists; ask them to write a story about a game that is still going for half a decade, whether it be a discussion on the strategies you used to maintain your customer-base (what worked, what didn't) or skill capped players and meta, or the future of MWO; get people talking.
  
• Fear not the nay-sayers: like Donald Trump or McDonalds - a million complaints, means a million sold. There will be people that brush the ads off as a gimmick to bring more people into a pay to win game... and there will be people who come out and tell them that means they're too bad to get 500 match score in a game and earn an easy 5 million cbills off an event. Friction causes heat, and the more people are talking about your game (good or bad), the more it will exist in general fps gamers' everyday.

I want this game to thrive, and my friends and I buying mc alone isn't going to do that (we are not a hedge fund). Forge was a really great 3rd person shooter that died because of poor advertisement practices, terrible matchmaking, and random technical issues; I'm not saying if you don't capitalize on your giveaways that something similar would be a result. I am saying it would be a damn shame if you lost out on the maximum potential to revitalize your player population.

Edited by EnzoNETMECH, 07 September 2018 - 12:17 PM.

[Horseman]

Radkres, on 07 September 2018 - 10:58 AM, said:

O.o Well A while Back I suggested A Hard Mode That You have to Turn on and What Happens is Your Mechs do not get fixed or Reloaded You have to Pay to rearm and Repair Your Mech But it Comes with Double Cbills and Exp But as You know The Extra Money and Exp gets Used to Repair and Refit Your Stuff And if You Go Broke You can Always Play using Trial Mechs till You get back on Your Feet.

That used to be in this game. It was universally hated and is not coming back.

EnzoNETMECH, on 07 September 2018 - 12:13 PM, said:

Here's the pitch: You've gone from the red line of pay to win, now to the gray line of grind OR pay to win with this game (these giveaways are doable, the faction play grind was gated by players' ability to acquire a good drop deck, and significant time investment). Coming from a returning player, this is a welcome change: to know that I am not forced to pay if I want a hero mech, or if I want to buy a significant amount of mechs to try and run several drop decks (went from 7 mech bays and 2 mechs to 30 bays and 15 mechs). This time period of giveaways is the time to advertise, to bring fresh people in, and potentially start reinforcing your community.

I would argue that it's not P2W at this point - buying a mech pack gets you mechs, sure, but you still have to outfit them and skill them out, which takes grind. Heroes tend to compete with viable C-Bill chassis but do not substantially outstrip them most of the time.

[Radkres]

Well Hard Mode Was For Those People Who wanted the Whole Immersive Feel of Classic Mechwarrior When You had to minimize Loss vs. Gain Etc.. and this was a Choice made by Each player that only Effected them not the Entire Player Base like the original Rearm. Is My I suggested it to be Selective to that Player.
The Problem is We Have Been Told Over and Over this is what We are getting but that Always gets Sidelined for Easy Fix Like Ghost heat Etc..

[Warning incoming Humble Dexterer]

Here's a simple solution to fix the FP Match Maker :
- Require a minimum of 12 players to launch a FP group.
- Only allow 12-Group vs 12-Group or 12-Solo vs 12-Solo matches.
- Give a BIG bonus reward to 12-Group vs 12-Group matches, over Solo vs Solo matches (or a big penalty to Solo vs Solo matches). Such as a 50% penalty in Loyalty/XP/Credits for Solo vs Solo matches.

If you can't do that, then give players a checkbox to opt out of grouped matches, so they can choose between having more matches or having some fun.

[Warning incoming Humble Dexterer]

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

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.

Even the world's best prioritization algorithm will fall flat on it's face, if a 12-player group is too strong for anything it can throw at it.

Worse, as the algorithm keeps sending the same best available groups/players to go lose against that 12-player group, those group/players will stop playing and the algorithm will start sending the next best available groups/players to go suffer the same fate.

Because there's only one way to go beyond throwing the best players you can against a group of players, and that is to throw the worst players you can into that group players.

For even the best possible Match Maker to not fall flat on it's face : You need to restrict the maximum size of FP groups to less then 12 players, so the Match Maker can throw low SSR players into it. Nothing less will work, and might even backfire.

[Horseman]

Or simply look for other pairings if there's a massive disparity in the skill ratings.

[Sedmeister]

Hey Paul, thanks for your work on this and the podcast. What can I say? I'm excited about space nerd politics!

I was reading the Tactics of Duty novel recently and I found the following paragraph. I was wondering if the system you were exploring regarding reputation with factions could somehow include poor ratings for units that jump around and increased ratings for units that show loyalty. Anyway, here's the paragraph...

In fact, though, things were rarely that simple. While some mercs jumped from employer to employer, the best professionals—and the ones that commanded the highest prices on the military market—were those who’d demonstrated they could be relied upon over the long haul. Few employers were willing to risk their C-bills on a merc unit with a reputation for jumping contracts.