357 replies to this topic

[Nightbird]

Cato Zilks, on 13 September 2018 - 09:18 PM, said:

snip

This is your goal, but how do we get there? We're not going to be locking people into a faction, stacking will happen and the imbalance will lead to dead queues.

I suggested a pop count based on people queuing into invasion, and cbill incentives to even up the population. The strong teams will do the merry-go-round with the weak teams, but over a longer time period the lore loyalists will get to play with the stronger side half the time rather than be lucky or scr*wed with inflexible faction switching. Doesn't everyone get what they want?

Loyalists always get decent queue times and skill will be even on average. The people that don't care about lore will also get games, albeit by moving.

(the strong running away from the weak)

[Warning incoming Humble Dexterer]

Give solo players the option to opt out of group matches in exchange for a match reward penalty, and reward solo players who choose to opt in group matches with a match reward bonus.

Example :
- Grouped players : 100% match reward
- Solo players who opt out of group matches : 50% match reward
- Solo players who opt in group matches : 150% match reward

This gives strong solo players the option to boost their score, by opting to participate in group matches.

And gives all solo players the option to opt out of group matches, in exchange for a huge penalty to their match rewards.

Because the proposed Match Maker update only changes which solo players are forced into group matches, while doing nothing to address the issue of solo players who do not want to be forced into group matches.

[Horseman]

God, no. This will just lead to clueless newbies opting in and getting rolled... then we'd be back where we started because they think they have a "right" to play against groups.

[Cato Zilks]

Nightbird, on 13 September 2018 - 09:42 PM, said:

This is your goal, but how do we get there? We're not going to be locking people into a faction, stacking will happen and the imbalance will lead to dead queues.
snip

I don't claim to have the simplest solution, just the one that does the job right. My longer post details out mechanics but the short version is that a talent stacked faction gets reduced drop weight and gets paired with weaker factions on its "team." Players can stack away, but PGI has balancing options that can target the stack (which they don't have right now).

Unless cbill incentives are set at 200%, picking the losing side is not a real incentive at all. Losing pays half as much as a win. The games payout structure encourages people to pick always pick winning (and that's before you deal with human psychology and the desire to win).

With the merry-go-round we will end up with matches, but it undercuts Paul's goals for lore. We might as well not pick sides at all and just let the matchmaker assign sides based on who all is willing to join FP. This undercuts the need to jump anywhere ever. (For the record, I am incredibly opposed to such an idea.)

[Warning incoming Humble Dexterer]

Horseman, on 13 September 2018 - 11:26 PM, said:

God, no. This will just lead to clueless newbies opting in and getting rolled... then we'd be back where we started because they think they have a "right" to play against groups.

Well the idea is that everyone IS opted in by default, and as an advanced feature players can opt out of the group queue, but at the cost of a lower priority in the FP MM queue and a huge penalty in match rewards.

Which is about as far away as possible to telling those solo players who don't want to be included in the group queue to suck it up.

Yes I totally agree the main 12-man groups will continue to stomp solo players either way (because the MM update isn't going to change that)... but those solo players will be voluntary ones who signed up for their hard mode and that's a huge difference with now.

[Horseman]

Humble Dexter, on 14 September 2018 - 04:52 AM, said:

Yes I totally agree the main 12-man groups will continue to stomp solo players either way (because the MM update isn't going to change that)... but those solo players will be voluntary ones who signed up for their hard mode and that's a huge difference with now.

Or ones who have no clue they can go into a solo-only queue.

Still, it's kind of moot - Paul's description of the new matchmaker indicates it will aim to set low-level solos against other low-level solos when possible.

[BumbaCLot]

Humble Dexter, on 09 September 2018 - 02:42 PM, said:

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.

Maybe the best players play faction play more when good players and 12 man teams are playing, even when there are no events! Most of the top faction players have each other on their friends list and know the big units and even base their faction off of who they are most likely to get games allying with. Some good units will want to play other good units and hope they get queued for rematches etc. by watching the list to see who is in lobby on both sides.

Another Teams OP post.
Does your unit not have 12 people? If so I advise finding one.

[Warning incoming Humble Dexterer]

Horseman, on 14 September 2018 - 05:11 AM, said:

Or ones who have no clue they can go into a solo-only queue.

Those ones will be chosen last by the MM, if they perform badly...
And when they come complain about the MM on the forums, instead of only being able to tell them to suck it up, you can answer them that they can switch off the hard mode, if only at the cost of a huge match reward penalty.

Other solution :
- First match all 12vs12 groups
- Second match all 12-solo vs 12 solo-matches (from lowest to highest, instead of highest to lowest)
- Third match all groups with less then 12 players, and add solo player where needed (from highest to lowest)

That means the MM has the following priority :
- Favor group play first, but only for players in a full 12-man group.
- Favor low level solo players second.
- Favor remaining groups and top solo players last.

Then you are favoring both high end dual 12-man group matches and new solo-player matches, instead of only fully favoring grouped players over solo players.

Although truth is, I can see players limiting their group to a maximum of 11 players on purpose to prevent the MM from matching them against another group of 12 players...

[Nightbird]

Cato Zilks, on 14 September 2018 - 12:17 AM, said:

I don't claim to have the simplest solution, just the one that does the job right. My longer post details out mechanics but the short version is that a talent stacked faction gets reduced drop weight and gets paired with weaker factions on its "team."

Paul already said variable tonnage decks will NEVER happen, any other ideas? Plus, keep in mind if you're an average pilot, you will be punished if a good team joins your faction and maybe forced to leave.

Cato Zilks, on 14 September 2018 - 12:17 AM, said:

With the merry-go-round we will end up with matches, but it undercuts Paul's goals for lore. We might as well not pick sides at all and just let the matchmaker assign sides based on who all is willing to join FP. This undercuts the need to jump anywhere ever. (For the record, I am incredibly opposed to such an idea.)

If the loyalists can get matches without waiting, i.e. YOU don't have to move, isn't it good enough? You want to force other players to play how you want them to as well? This would not end well.

Humble Dexter, on 14 September 2018 - 08:41 AM, said:

Solo queue

Queue time is driven by groups, I'm ok with a Solo queue if you're ok with waiting 45 mins per drop on average

Edited by Nightbird, 14 September 2018 - 09:07 AM.

[Tier5ForLife]

It seems like we are changing every 2 days. No real idea why....

[Starwulfe]

Accurate pop numbers/percentages would be a good start and have been a huge issue in the past.
There are plenty of units that have and would move to get the larger rewards.
Until we have that, any thoughts on what units/people would do is simple speculation.

[JRcam4643]

The discussed changes to the match maker in FP sound like a solid improvement. The idea of adding stories to increase lore feeling to the game sounds good in theory but I don't have a clear image of what that will look like. I hated the system in the recent FP events that required you to be part of one of two factions and every other faction wasn't even allowed to play.

A change to FP I would like to see tried is adding up the match score each player earns and players could allocate the points to planets that are contested and which ever side ends with more points wins the planet. I would like to see all planets on border regions to be in play instead of just the four planets each side can attack currently. This would add a much bigger strategic element to the game that I think would be much more interesting than FP currently is.

[BumbaCLot]

Humble Dexter, on 14 September 2018 - 08:41 AM, said:

Those ones will be chosen last by the MM, if they perform badly...
And when they come complain about the MM on the forums, instead of only being able to tell them to suck it up, you can answer them that they can switch off the hard mode, if only at the cost of a huge match reward penalty.

Other solution :
- First match all 12vs12 groups
- Second match all 12-solo vs 12 solo-matches (from lowest to highest, instead of highest to lowest)
- Third match all groups with less then 12 players, and add solo player where needed (from highest to lowest)

That means the MM has the following priority :
- Favor group play first, but only for players in a full 12-man group.
- Favor low level solo players second.
- Favor remaining groups and top solo players last.

Then you are favoring both high end dual 12-man group matches and new solo-player matches, instead of only fully favoring grouped players over solo players.

Although truth is, I can see players limiting their group to a maximum of 11 players on purpose to prevent the MM from matching them against another group of 12 players...

You think way too hard to make up scenarios you are convinced aren't happening.
If unit 1 plays a 10 man with 2 awful pugs, they are most likely going to to be resentful of those bad players, and it's going to hurt them vs another 12 man. The 10 man is going to lose, bad mouth the 2 bad pugs, and make up excuses why they lost. No GG.
Case CLOSED.
Give the 10 man a high SSR player or two, and it's most likely going to be even, as that good solo is going to have good drop decks, know how to play the game, and 24 players are going to enjoy it and say GG at the end, win or lose.
And the 10 man is going to send a friend request to the 2 good players, try to recruit them, and the level of the game raises and 24 people keep coming back.
In your "use the worst" scenario, the 10 aren't going to recruit the 2 (remember these are the 2 worst available) and only the full 12 who won will keep playing, the 10 will be pissed, and people will break up the group, go to bed, go solo play, etc.

It didn't make sense to me at first but it totally is the best option how Paul designed it.
And thanks to the high population during these events, the solo bads will eventually end up in a clueless 12v12 and maybe some poor shot with some knowledge will try to group them up for another drop.

[BumbaCLot]

Horseman, on 14 September 2018 - 05:11 AM, said:

Or ones who have no clue they can go into a solo-only queue.

Still, it's kind of moot - Paul's description of the new matchmaker indicates it will aim to set low-level solos against other low-level solos when possible.

Why does every loudmouth solo player on here focus on drop 4 in his video and not notice that 1-3 definitely will increase population?
And on top of that, all this variable tonnage stuff doesn't help groups who are recruiting. Most new faction players may have 5-8 non-optimal skilled out mechs, and once they start playing regularly and making money and winning devote all of their resources to buying their unit approved mechs and drop decks. Everyone in the unit I'm in have spent 100M+ to get approved decks and millions more skilling them up.

Until the vets are allowed to buy new recruits mechs/drop decks/etc this idea is a total non-starter.
The people in my unit would give 500M CBills out to new recruits to get them to keep playing.

[BumbaCLot]

Tarl Cabot, on 12 September 2018 - 03:12 PM, said:

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!!

You are just mad you aren't king of Kurita like you were 23 years ago on AOL ;p /s
Not sure if you remember my unit, I can't even, but you probably have names in a text file somewhere.
<bow>

[BumbaCLot]

slide, on 12 September 2018 - 10:48 PM, said:

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 &quot;ill have what she's having&quot; 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.

I've hit level 6 in Wolf, Ghost Bear, Davion, and Smoke Jag in just the past 4 events. Definitely preferred being a loyalist getting 12 free mech bays. Lore and loyalty be damned.
I hope my unit is able to / jump to the remaining factions so I can get to level 6 on them as well.

[Tarl Cabot]

BumbaCLot, on 14 September 2018 - 11:43 AM, said:

You are just mad you aren't king of Kurita like you were 23 years ago on AOL ;p /s

Not sure if you remember my unit, I can't even, but you probably have names in a text file somewhere.

<bow>

(chuckles) I am actually relieved I am not as that was more like a full time job on top of my normal job and college and whatever type of life I had at the time. Just fyi I never sought nor campaigned to be Gunji-no-Kanrei nor the Coordinator (we did have to sign papers...). I would definitely turn down any offers today, as I prefer to drop than have to deal with more paperwork. Though I could make a Grasshopper dance, and iirc I was the most active HL/HXO on the battlefield. Definitely fun times. As for text files, not so much as ledgers/notebooks /shudders!!!

edit - have no loyalty points for the fedrats, I mean Clan Davion...

(bows)

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 14 September 2018 - 12:12 PM.

[Monkey Lover]

BumbaCLot, on 14 September 2018 - 11:48 AM, said:

I've hit level 6 in Wolf, Ghost Bear, Davion, and Smoke Jag in just the past 4 events. Definitely preferred being a loyalist getting 12 free mech bays. Lore and loyalty be damned.
I hope my unit is able to / jump to the remaining factions so I can get to level 6 on them as well.

So you jumped to 4 factions in a few weeks and you have no loyalty but the whole time being a loyalist.

Paul, can you see why most the real loyalist quit this mode?

Truth is at this point I don't know if they would come back anyway.

Edited by Monkey Lover, 14 September 2018 - 12:52 PM.

[Nightbird]

Monkey Lover, on 14 September 2018 - 12:43 PM, said:

So you jumped to 4 factions in a few weeks and you have no loyalty but the whole time being a loyalist.

Paul can you see why all the real loyalist quit this mode?
Truth is at this point I don't know if they would come back anyway.

Yes.. real loyalists play quick play

Seriously, better objective design, spawns, and some tricks to allow imbalanced skill teams to have a closer fight are what is needed for FP today. There's no discussion on that. The proposed MM won't work due to math (probability based on queuing theory, a master's level discussion).

[Davegt27]

if you guys could get 3 things what would it be

and stop worrying about if joe blow pilot is smoking in his cockpit (jumping factions)