357 replies to this topic

[Paul Inouye]

Sedmeister, on 12 September 2018 - 03:58 AM, said:

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.

Touching on this. Yes, in lore this type of thing happens. Heck, even in the real world stuff like this would happen. However, in a videogame environment, things like this take a weird turn. My PERSONAL take is that there should always be consequences for any action a player does when it comes to a persistent environment. The problem however is that there's a general notion that players want to do whatever they want to do and hindering them in any manner is 'wrong!'. What I mean by this is, everytime we've tried to limit solo or merc unit players, we run into a feedback loop of "I've put hundreds of hours into the game and I've payed for items and limiting me in any way is wrong!". Don't get me wrong here, it isn't just MWO players, it's gamers in general.

In the scenario you've mentioned, rewarding players for being loyal to a faction is just that... a reward right? Yes. But in the eyes of people not getting those rewards because they jump around 'doing what they want' see it as completely unfair. It becomes one of those weird juggling acts when it comes to game design and trying to keep scope of the overall playerbase and not just focusing on a specific special interest group.

On a side note, when we first started looking into Community Warfare (Faction Play predecessor), Russ was always saying that Merc Units don't jump around freely and contracts were long term activities. It was easy enough to see this perspective, but look at what happened with the contract and penalty system that was in place just prior to the relatively recent removal of them.

I've always personally believed FP should be a more 'hardcore' mode that is for those who a) like to roleplay in the BT universe, and b ) be an area for dedicated large groups of tactically minded battlefield MechWarriors. This is why I'm truly pushing the notion of the gating mechanic for new players but at the same time, I need to keep in mind the comments made here in these feedback threads about new player involvement. As mentioned a few times, we already have a warning to new players that FP is not for the un-initiated. Get a few games under your belt so you know basic 'Mech control/firing sytems before dropping into these bigger/more epic minded matches that affect the IS map/environment.

For now, I'd like to take the route of getting the core suggestions and designs into the new FP Update and revisit what needs/should be addressed at a later date.

[Nightbird]

Contract penalties that prevent people from moving also prevent people from resolving population imbalances. Before, whenever a strong unit is on one side, the pugs will start moving over to join that side, turning the wait time for a match from 3-4 minutes to 30 min waiting exercises. What's the point of loyalty when you can't even play?

At least now, if you're tired of waiting in line, jump to the other side and get an instant match.

[Monkey Lover]

Paul Inouye, on 12 September 2018 - 10:08 AM, said:

In the scenario you've mentioned, rewarding players for being loyal to a faction is just that... a reward right? Yes. But in the eyes of people not getting those rewards because they jump around 'doing what they want' see it as completely unfair. It becomes one of those weird juggling acts when it comes to game design and trying to keep scope of the overall playerbase and not just focusing on a specific special interest group.

I think you have missed the difference between being a loyalist and a merc over the years. The mercs have been rewarded and they loyalist have been punished. The loyalist never ask for rewards;If we did we would be mercs. We asked not to be be punished for being a loyalist.


Few examples,

• You punished loyalists when we had events and 100+ player merc groups moved into you factions for the easy top spots. When all the loyalist wanted was banners for the factions they worked hard for.
  
• You punished loyalists when clan v IS balance was awful (better now but too late)
  
• You punished loyalist by allowing most the mercs to jump onto one side.
  
• You punished loyalist by allowing the biggest merc groups to own all the planets.
  
• Recently
  
• You punished loyalist with 1 bucket.(This is when i stopped playing)
  
• You are punishing the few loyalist left and told them "You can't play FP because you need to become a merc and switch sides due to an event"

Edited by Monkey Lover, 12 September 2018 - 12:51 PM.

[Tarl Cabot]

Change the You to PGI, then we are good for the most part since it is not Chris but PGI as a whole. But then the examples are based on a perspectives because PGI storyboard that was originally presented never came to fruition with the canon units, supply lines, etc.

Hell, the tax for a pilot to join a unit, be it merc or loyalist unit, did not have desired effect. It more or less had a negative effect because PGI forgot that this is a unit-based game, and units help keep people who might be on the fringes involved, more willing to log in because they will have an INSTANT comrade list, people willing to drop together without having to hunt down players on just the friend's list which entails sending IM instead of just typing into the unit chat. Lines of communication.

Truthfully, I wonder if we had the one bucket much earlier than presented, how it would have changed things. Seriously. From my perspective after the first year or so it was almost always the Clans who were on the offensive in the Clan vs IS. As for the far south, the Mariks, Fedrats and Cappies were doing their own thing most of the time, sometimes venturing into the Clan/IS conflict.

Also, should PGI have kept everyone a merc instead of actually adding loyalist, based on how PGI had designed FP? In hindsight, based on what PGI has or has not done with FP, PGI would have been better off with no actual loyalist distinction because they never actually built up on it. There is no actual CoC beyond the unit, no Prefecture, no District, no Warlord, no Gunji-no-Kanrei, no Coordinator (Long Live the Coordinator!! ). No supply lines, no "important" planets to protect, etc...

Alright.. /hiccups...I am definitely on the wrong thread...stop mixing Chris and Paul up!!

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 12 September 2018 - 03:13 PM.

[Tier5ForLife]

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

I feel the generosity might go unappreciated without a significant ad campaign. 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.

Advertise to raise the game population. I wish I had thought of that.....Someone might think that Ads are a "gimmick"? I'm pretty sure that is why we buy or do most of the things we do.

Edited by LikeUntoBuddha, 12 September 2018 - 07:42 PM.

[slide]

Paul Inouye, on 12 September 2018 - 10:08 AM, said:

snip..

Paul,

I get that balancing between peoples wants and needs is a tough thing, but I can't help but wonder if that is a large part of the problem between being a merc or a loyalist.

As it stands there is are basically only 2 reasons not to be a merc.
-some kind of long term RP reason
-have completed the Merc LP tree.

Neither of those really outweigh the advantages that being merc provides, not least of which is the ability to change sides to get games (quicker). By continually placating those that feel disadvantaged you have basically created a boring mish- mash of every faction being exactly the same as the next whether it be Mercs, IS or Clan. Hence no reason to be loyal to any of them.

So perhaps we need to redefine what it is to be a member of a faction (note I include mercs as a faction for this discussion), what the rewards for doing so are and the ways in which you will go about achieving those rewards in game. These are my suggestions.

Loyalist - house troops that fight where the action is for their house or an ally of their house for match rewards and house LP.

Contracted Mercs -players fight for a house for the period of a contract (event). Rewards +10% cbills and xp. -20% LP which is divided 50/50 between Merc LP tree and Loyalist LP tree. LP bonus increases over time served with a specific faction (ie +5%/month, capped at some point)

Mercs (formally Free Lancers)- players fight where they are needed as determined by the Match Maker, must have drop decks composed of both Techs. Rewards +20% Cbills, XP. Standard Merc tree LP only.

Free Lancers - delete this as I don't really see any point in it.

The above on it's own though won't change anything. However coupled with unique LP trees that give rewards that can only be earned by playing and making the LP needed, I feel would give many players the purpose to align them selves with a faction or even just to play the mode.

The LP rewards are currently giving out mech bays, Cbills, GXP and some MC. Most people play just enough to get the early mech bays. Everything else is readily available through normal play and events. Also I would think that most people who are deep down one of the trees probably doesn't need much of any of the above which kind of kills the incentive to play.

For Loyalist I would add faction specific mechs at levels 5, 10, 15, 20, corresponding to a light, medium, heavy and assault mech respectively. These mechs would have specific hard points ONLY available from the tree as well as the hero bonus. For example the Davion tree would reward a Commando, Enforcer, Jagermech and Battlemaster all with faction camo. The Battlemaster might have a Ballistic point on each arm and come fitted standard with 2 GR and 4 ML (I haven't worked out if that would fit just an example).

The Merc tree would have at levels 3, 5, 8, 10 special cockpit items that allow one to convert an existing mech (L, M, H, A respectively) to a hero + a mechs worth of Cbills.

The above is just an example but is designed to encourage people to play for unique rewards or Cbills or maybe a bit of both. This is a choice so as not to be diluted by the "ill have what she's having" crowd whilst also having what I have got too.

In any event I just don't see how making anything more bland can encourage people to play. Give them a goal and I am sure they will play more (and maybe just spend a bit more money too). People will also strive harder to get truly unique items, look at how many Gold mechs were sold, even though they were functionally no different to the base mech and likely made them juicier targets to boot.

[Cato Zilks]

Paul Inouye, on 12 September 2018 - 10:08 AM, said:

Touching on this. Yes, in lore this type of thing happens. Heck, even in the real world stuff like this would happen. However, in a videogame environment, things like this take a weird turn. My PERSONAL take is that there should always be consequences for any action a player does when it comes to a persistent environment. The problem however is that there's a general notion that players want to do whatever they want to do and hindering them in any manner is 'wrong!'. What I mean by this is, everytime we've tried to limit solo or merc unit players, we run into a feedback loop of "I've put hundreds of hours into the game and I've payed for items and limiting me in any way is wrong!". Don't get me wrong here, it isn't just MWO players, it's gamers in general.

This is only true up to a point. Some basic game constraints are widely seen as acceptable. Take WoW, which you have used as an example (podcast), not only did it used to have a hard boundary between the two main factions when they did allow faction changes they made you pay $$ and had built in limitations. Allowing occasional switching is healthy for the game, but this can realistically be reduced down to a tiny amount (like between seasons).

And look, you are already planning to place restrictions on switching sides (by event). Just put the restriction in an intelligent spot. Push for stable faction populations and divide the population by faction. Then you won't be relying on dumb luck to have good teams and pugs evenly divided for each new event.

Nightbird, on 12 September 2018 - 10:46 AM, said:

Contract penalties that prevent people from moving also prevent people from resolving population imbalances. Before, whenever a strong unit is on one side, the pugs will start moving over to join that side, turning the wait time for a match from 3-4 minutes to 30 min waiting exercises. What's the point of loyalty when you can't even play?

At least now, if you're tired of waiting in line, jump to the other side and get an instant match.

While I agree that this happens just as you describe, it doesn't make this state of play any less crappy. Having to jump factions to get good matches necessarily divorces FW from any lore/faction components that could be had. We would be so much better served by having stable populations that PGI could divide, that way we can get good units and pug populations on each side of any conflict.

Edited by Cato Zilks, 13 September 2018 - 12:49 AM.

[Davegt27]

apparently to be able to join the Wolf's dragoons you have to have experience with all the factions (that means jumping around)

that's what I had been doing since day 1 of FP/CW (getting experience with all the factions)
I found out later that other people had the same idea

https://youtu.be/Jpwbt47M6Yw?t=655

Edited by Davegt27, 13 September 2018 - 01:37 AM.

[Nightbird]

Cato Zilks, on 13 September 2018 - 12:42 AM, said:

While I agree that this happens just as you describe, it doesn't make this state of play any less crappy. Having to jump factions to get good matches necessarily divorces FW from any lore/faction components that could be had. We would be so much better served by having stable populations that PGI could divide, that way we can get good units and pug populations on each side of any conflict.

You want PGI to pick which faction you're on?

[Eisenhorne]

Nightbird, on 13 September 2018 - 06:17 AM, said:

You want PGI to pick which faction you're on?

I'd be OK with it as long as it guarantees fast matches.

[Daurock]

Eisenhorne, on 13 September 2018 - 06:43 AM, said:

I'd be OK with it as long as it guarantees fast matches.

I kind of believe the decision of whether to pick a side, or have PGI pick a side for you should be a player decision.

I'd like to see mercs generally be "Unaffiliated" so that PGI could use them to "Fill the gap" between loyalists. Perks of that "Faction" would include being able to bring any mech you wanted, clan or IS, and possibly a monetary boost, with the "downside" if you want to call it that, of having your side chosen so that you're usually on the short-handed side of a conflict. With the upcoming "Bucket" MM, I would think they could figure out a way to weave in a 3rd, "Merc" pile into the games.

[Nightbird]

Eisenhorne, on 13 September 2018 - 06:43 AM, said:

I'd be OK with it as long as it guarantees fast matches.

I think a real population counter would be sufficient, with a live cbill modifier (not just the moment when you sign up).

If Clan-IS is 45 to 55% for example, give clan a 20% dynamic bonus to all clanners and lure people away from IS. Vice versa if Clan is overpop.

Population should be counted as >> number of people who searched for an invasion game in the past hour. This would avoid most problems with other counting methods.

[Monkey Lover]

Nightbird, on 13 September 2018 - 06:17 AM, said:

You want PGI to pick which faction you're on?

REAL loyalist No (not fake loyalist switching factions every week or month)

Mercs should be told where they go. They're paid to fight and nothing more. They should be rewarded for it. I would understand giving more of my cbills per match to mercs because of this.

If the population of mercs decreases you shift rewards until you have the number of mercs you need. Paul often talks about an economy , I wish they would use it more.

Edited by Monkey Lover, 13 September 2018 - 01:12 PM.

[Paul Inouye]

Great discussion going on here.

As for PGI deciding which faction you go into... no way! For example, as per lore and all games past.. I am a Kuritan loyalist. Put me in something other than Kurita? Forget that!

And therein lies the problem with that train of thought.

Also, when it comes to faction balancing, yes, there are things we can do to address this but it's going to rub a lot of people the wrong way. Especially larger units. For example, BobbyWonderBucket plays in his unit of 20 members in Davion. Bobby's best friend joins the game and wants to play in Bobby's unit. But because Davion is overpopulated he can't join Davion. Or in the case of incentivizing through C-Bills... Clan Wolf is getting an extra 20% CB boost. Bobby's friend still isn't going to join Clan Wolf cause he wants to play with Bobby. The same issues apply if Bobby's friend is the leader of a 30 member unit currently not on contract. Should Bobby's friend be locked out of Davion because it's overpopulated and his unit has 30 members in it? Allowing it to happen would further widen the population gap.

[Nightbird]

Population should be counted as >> number of people who searched for an invasion game in the past hour. This would avoid most problems with other counting methods. Calculating population based on people that join a faction is inaccurate if they're not online or only playing quick play.

This means the cbill bonus adjustment would not be fixed at time of contract signing, so people that are not loyal to a faction can be the first to switch to even out population.

[Cato Zilks]

No, as I have outlined in previous posts, I want to pick my faction then have PGI assign my faction a "team" for each conflict (think of team as you would currently think of the set of IS factions, but in this model the composition of each set would change for each event). It allows them to keep the sides roughly equal while also rotating around who faces who by having factions switch teams. Moreover, it is in keeping with the spirit of Battletech Lore (rapidly shifting alliances and backstabbing) without being subservient to it.

Edited by Cato Zilks, 13 September 2018 - 02:26 PM.

[Cato Zilks]

Nightbird, on 13 September 2018 - 01:27 PM, said:

Population should be counted as >> number of people who searched for an invasion game in the past hour. This would avoid most problems with other counting methods. Calculating population based on people that join a faction is inaccurate if they're not online or only playing quick play.

This means the cbill bonus adjustment would not be fixed at time of contract signing, so people that are not loyal to a faction can be the first to switch to even out population.

Winning outpays losing even when you have a cbill bonus. People (middle tier teams and puggles) will flock to the side that they think will win (normally after you kick their booty a few times). These people have done it in each of the FW events in the last month and they will do it in Paul's new system (they will just wait to see where certain teams go before they decide).

Accurate numbers won't do diddly squat. People want to win, and dodging top teams is the easiest way to do that. The only way to stop this dodging is to prevent people from switching.

[Nightbird]

Cato Zilks, on 13 September 2018 - 02:26 PM, said:

Accurate numbers won't do diddly squat. People want to win, and dodging top teams is the easiest way to do that. The only way to stop this dodging is to prevent people from switching.

BCMC/EVIL was actively switching to the losing/underpoped side during the past few FP events, whenever the wait got over 10 mins. Dodging top teams becomes harder if you're never sure where the top teams are, versus when you lock the top teams in one faction.

[Monkey Lover]

Cato Zilks, on 13 September 2018 - 02:26 PM, said:

Winning outpays losing even when you have a cbill bonus. People (middle tier teams and puggles) will flock to the side that they think will win (normally after you kick their booty a few times). These people have done it in each of the FW events in the last month and they will do it in Paul's new system (they will just wait to see where certain teams go before they decide).

Accurate numbers won't do diddly squat. People want to win, and dodging top teams is the easiest way to do that. The only way to stop this dodging is to prevent people from switching.

Numbers might not matter if they allow mercs to do what ever they want. But if they can keep people from cheating the system playing population by number of games played should be much better than what they do now.

Edited by Monkey Lover, 13 September 2018 - 08:58 PM.

[Cato Zilks]

Nightbird, on 13 September 2018 - 04:26 PM, said:

BCMC/EVIL was actively switching to the losing/underpoped side during the past few FP events, whenever the wait got over 10 mins. Dodging top teams becomes harder if you're never sure where the top teams are, versus when you lock the top teams in one faction.

This is just to say what we have now is fine because the top teams will lead the merry-go-round of faction hopping. But faction hopping does undermine whatever semblance of story and "team" character this mode has left. Moreover, Paul has been very clear that one of the underlying goals of the moves forward for FP is to make the mode more about Lore. Making it about Lore and making the story aspect matter means we need to cut down on the faction hopping. There is no way around it.

Paul's solution atm is to make us all pick a side when we start the event. Obviously, this is not going to work very well. There will be stacking and we will need to yell at the devs to let us flip sides to help out the team that is getting crushed. We don't have the numbers to make equitable distribution probable. Lets be honest, it might not even need intentional stacking; if the top 4-5 FP groups happen to go the same direction, they are going to kill other queue and the event will be dead after the first day.

The new matchmaker needs a roughly equal population of competent groups and willing puggles on each side. Otherwise it spits out unbalanced matches like we have now. The only way where we keep picking our side while also ensuring some level of equitable distribution is through us picking factions and PGI assigning teams. Paul, I get that this is not the easy option in terms of coding, but it is the only proposal that meets your stated goals of having player freedom, more balanced matches, and added importance for lore/story.