357 replies to this topic

[Navid A1]

I'd like to say that resurrecting faction play requires more than just reward/UI/lore polish.

1- there is a need for dynamic battlefronts... in the match. With multiple bases that "open up" for capture one after another... an actual real time tug of war in the match itself... with suitable maps to support it of course.

2- This may be currently impossible with the way game is working right now... but I'll just say it. You will need ongoing battle sessions (like... a 30-45 minute fight) where people can join to or disconnect from anytime. It immediately eliminates the wait time for any player that just want to play... while on the other hand, solves a lot of the problems in the actual match where losing your first wave is an auto-loss that is being dragged for 20 minutes. As people with exhausted drop decks can leave the match to give their spot to other people waiting for a match (same logic applies to both teams). Then the win condition comes down the objectives and the team that can maintain pressure over time. Not just a loss because the first wave is wiped by a bad call.

[Danjo San]

GATING FACTION PLAY

I agree that FP should be gated, however the gate needs to make sense.
the task is to keep unexperienced players out of the "end-game-content"
Any experienced player can create a new account, drop full trial, and end up performing above average.
I have seen Players around that have been playing for years and still perform below average.
I have taken in new players into my unit and they began to outperform veterans within a week.
I have taken in veterans who still do sub 1k DMG, and generally don't enjoy the mode due to that.

Hence, a gate that opens after X matches or once you own a full dropdeck is not the solution.
Players at this stage still have not understood what it means to work as a team, listen to a caller, share armor, push through enemy fire, open gates, where to shoot the generators, etc. etc.

The only gate that makes sense is a mandatory Tutorial Mission in the Academy.
Captain Adams will guide the Cadet through each step necessary, from the initial grouping up in location X, to opening a gate, pushing on command, moving to position Y, taking out turrets, where to fire at the gens, regrouping for wave 2 and so on.
The same for a defensive setup, creating firing lines, tactical retreats, tactical counter pushes, holding position Z. etc.
How to build and choose an effective scouting mech, where are the beacons, when does the dropship arrive, when does it leave.
This Tutorial Mission needs to be hard enough to gate out the players that are not ready yet.

You educate players on the mechanics of Faction Play, You gate out unfit players, but leave enough room for a player with an alt account to play undercover as he pleases. And you would be making use of the Academy. A place most players only visit once or twice and forget about it quite quickly. Isn't that what it's been created for?

[Geg]

FEEDBACK FROM THE PODCAST

Faction Conquest Score: Leave it where it is, or make it just a tiny bit higher. Currently the game is decided on the 3rd or early 4th drop and is one of the few game modes where objectives matter.

Stomp Condition: This shouldn't exist, but if it does it needs to look at mechs and tonnage remaining.

Gating Faction Play: Faction Play should be gated to people who own and have skilled up 4x Mechs. However once unlocked it should be more flexible.


WISH LIST:

More 4v4 Modes, or a Heavy and Assault 4v4 Mode: Built off of the Dom (or Con) game mode. You could have each side fight for a specific resource point. Adjust spawns so that even a DWF can get their in time to contest.

Edited by Geg, 21 August 2018 - 11:26 AM.

[Kell Aset]

Eh, I was waiting for this FP podcast & FP updates in general, I was really hoping to hear something good, finished listening to the podcast while ago and sad to say but I am disappointed.
FP matchmaker is the biggest thing to be introduced here, plus some quality of life improvements, that's it. Even tho this will make FP more bearable especially for new & solo players, this wave of updates won't make Faction Play any less shallow, meaningless and pointless, that makes me sad.

Just like I said before here;
https://mwomercs.com...03#entry6148503

To me one of the bigger problems of FP is that winning or losing planets doesn't matter(all planets we have in FP are the same and are equally unimportant). We can't do anything with those planets that our factions already control anyway, can't upgrade them, build anything on them. Map resets that we have from time to time make any sort of conquest even more meaningless.
Honestly we don't really have "factions" in MWO, just bunch of ppl with same faction logos, we dont have faction leaders nor even faction leader representatives, we have fancy faction ranks in FP that are so very meaningless, all those generals, galaxy commanders etc. cant do ****, have no "real power".

Edited by Kell Aset, 21 August 2018 - 01:14 PM.

[Sereglach]

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

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.

I haven't gotten to listen to the podcast, yet (won't be able to until this evening). However, these points disturb me; and they leave me with a great deal more questions than answers. Please allow me to explain why.

The biggest reason I left FP was because, as a solo player, I got nothing out of it other than being filler so odd sized groups could have their matches actually kick off. Reputation Points (RP) and Loyalty Points (LP) are the biggest rewards for the average player to get from FP; and they're a BIG deal. These need to be available to a Freelancer for providing that filler for matches to kick off, even if their earned at a reduced rate. Otherwise, compared to others in FP, the Freelancer has zero incentive to provide the filler that others need. I can tell you a 5% XP bonus reward is not even remotely going to encourage me to play FP when everyone else around me is earning RP and LP for mech bays, cockpit items, let alone potentially new rewards like colors, boltons, decals, etc..

Even just 30% of the LP and 30% of the RP (if possible to do mixed rewards) OR 50% of a randomly selected faction their sided with or RP would make all the difference in the world. At the very least, seeing as Freelancers are a type of Merc, just give them RP earnings as if they were a Merc. I can understand earning the rewards at a slower rate, being a Freelancer (especially if it's randomly selected LP/RP), but some tangible FP reward is needed. Otherwise, telling people "We need YOU to fill this match, but you don't get all the sweet rewards those other people get!" isn't going to garner a lot of goodwill from the Freelancer player base. Is this a feasible concept or something that is up for debate/discussion?

Now, MERCs earn RP still, I'd presume, but need to be in a group to participate? Does that mean all 1-person Merc units will be forcibly disbanded? Most made those units to earn RP while playing FP (to get some form of real FP reward). On the other hand, can merc parties come from mixed units? What happens to people in smaller Merc units when friends/unit-members just aren't online at the time? They have no option to drop FP? That seems like you'd unintentionally cut out some of the player base that FP desperately needs.

[Kaeseblock]

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

1.1Adding Lore/Story to Conflicts
and
2 Event System

An event driven campaign where the outcome of the events has an influence on the storyline? That actually sounds awesome.

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

1.2 Creating a singular queue system

Sounds good - this might make the matches a lot more interesting.

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

1.3 Adding Participation Choice to Conflicts
[...]
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

Please make it possible for mercs to drop solo. There are times of the day where you are the only one on Teamspeak who wants to play some FP matches to get your event rewards, level mechs or grind reputation.

Alternative suggestion: Increasing CBill boost with bigger group sizes for mercs, e.g.:

• 0% for solo drops
  
• 2% for 2-3 players
  
• 3% for 4-5 players
  
• 4% for 6-7 players
  
• 5% for 8-9 players
  
• 6% for 10-11 players
  
• 7% for 12 players

This endorses group play while keeping the possibility to drop solo if necessary.
It also stays true to the merc spirit. Fighting for a good payday.


Also:

• I really like the idea of incoming artillery for securing/cleaning the drop zone before the dropship comes in to drop off the mechs
  
• Please increase the timer counts for Conquest and Domination in FP. It feels like the matches end way to early. Only a hand full of players gets to use all their mechs. Most are probably in mech 2-3 (general feeling from the matches I played). So there is some room to increase the match time and improve the fun/waittime ratio

[Marius Evander]

SilentFenris, on 21 August 2018 - 08:37 AM, said:

Spoiler

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
Dropship withheld until an existing teammate in an Assault mech is destroyed

The podcast gave the impression different tonnages was a no go.

[Bowelhacker]

OMG!! Marik got mentioned in the podcast!!! I was sure they didn't even remember we were part of the game...

[Paul Inouye]

Bowelhacker, on 21 August 2018 - 03:30 PM, said:

OMG!! Marik got mentioned in the podcast!!! I was sure they didn't even remember we were part of the game...

3.2.1 Removal of Marik from the game
- Numerous reports that purple is OP.

[Cato Zilks]

Paul, I made a thread just for map adjustments like you asked for in the podcast (well, I remember that you thought we could use some more focused threads, I don't recall if maps was one in particular that you requested... but here you go anyways).
https://mwomercs.com...hread-for-paul/

[SoulRcannon]

Thinking about more even queue populations and perhaps better match-ups, would it be possible for mercs to drop without a contract? Maybe even drop for factions other than who they're contracted with, to "black-drop", as in to illicitly and/or covertly work outside of their contract for some side-cash. The reason why I ask is that if the option were to be made available, anyone opting to queue in such a manner could represent a flexible part of the queue, one that's able to drop on either side dependent on which side needed it.

Employers looking to raise troops quickly would be desperate enough to fork over more for it; so potentially, incentives could be provided to encourage the notion, to queue flexibly. I guess if it ended up being popular it might not need to be incentivised - so the incentives would be as stated for staying loyal with loyalty points, or a dash more C-bills if a merc under contract.

Would it ruffle too many feathers to suggest this for all factions? To adapt the "black-drop" concept into a "I just wanna play the mode, don't care who I'm working for" button, allowing anyone to queue and drop together if chosen. Perhaps more time could be allocated for such groups to ensure valid drop decks can be selected in time. To give it some in-universe flavour, maybe even temporarily designate such groups in-game as pirates - you know, unscrupulous types drafted with quickly raised cash? So I guess perhaps the in-game board could be cleaned for immersion's sakes to show such groups as being mercs (even if that's not the case outside of the match) or even display a pirate icon.

Either way, just a thought.

[Cato Zilks]

So just to start, I think there are a lot of positives in the podcast/doc. I am walking through problems here, but that does not mean that I am overall negative to the coherent whole picture you are painting.

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

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.

I get the intent here, but this is not a very good solution. Nightbird is correct, the 12 man seeding will naturally lead to the shellacking of large mediocre groups. If we are going through the effort of putting a prioritization algorithm into an FP matchmaker, the skill of the team needs to be considered and their needs to be a sorting bias against repeat matches. Nothing will dissolve mid-level 12-mans than 3 matches in a row against top level 12 mans that wreck them. I am not saying prevent them from ever matching up again, but 1-2 matches apart can help a lot to keep people from giving up.

As for the Solo players... first, I need a bit of clarification. Lets pretend there are a few incomplete teams in the queue (2-11 man teams) and 23 solo puggers. When you say, "The Match Maker should alternate placing Solo players from top to bottom in terms of SSR rating" do you mean that solo #1 and solo #23 are added to a 10-man? Or do you mean during this 2 minute cycle, we will go top down and solo #1 and solo #2 will be added to a ten man and next in the next 2 minute cycle we will go bottom up and #23 and #22 would be added to the 10-man?

The idea of pulling vets out of the mass of pugs to fill gaps is (I think) not a good idea. It means the puggles are devoid of leadership and do not learn to improve. When I go pugging, it is either because I did not see any groups of people that I know already going or because I intentionally wanted to be on a team of weaker players to try and sway them towards a victory. In the former case, I don't care how you sort me, but I care very much in the latter. Having somebody on the field who can call when to push, where to hold, who to target, etc. can do a lot to sway a battle. This latter form of pugging is something I used to do a lot more back when the map meant something, but even now I do it from time to time (more on this later). Instead of isolating puggles, we want them to be in matches with some good players (just not against highly competent 12-man teams).

Now, the common push back to this is that top players go pugging to inflate their stats. This is actually far less true than one might think. I am not a top player in FP, but certainly much better than most and I have played with most of the better merc units that float around in the game. If I want good stats (damage, kills, KMDDs, W/L ratio, and KDR) I will join a mediocre team that likes to brawl and I will normally get 2000-2800 damage, 8+ KMDDs, etc. We win most of our matches, lose some, but importantly that is where I would maximize my stats (which personally I don't give a crap about). When on a good team, I will routinely do around 1500 damage with 4 KMDDs; W/L ratio is great but the other stats are meh. When I pug, the stats take a hit: W/L rate is maybe 40/60 (hard to lead puggles over a competent 12-man), damage is normally 1800-2400, and the KMDD average around 4 (because you don't have teammates reliably finishing mechs off). This may seem tangential, but my whole point here is that going solo is not really a good or viable way for better players to inflate stats or increase payout. Thus, if we don't view good players pugging it as some kind of "gaming of the system" or "stat inflation" and we think that puggles can be very much benefited by being on and against teams with a few good players, then it seems biasing the algorithm to leave bad puggles in super puggy matches is a poor decision with very little justifying it.

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

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.

....
2.1.4 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.”

So, if I understand what you said in the podcast correctly, being a loyalist to faction X means you are bound to play as X whenever X is involved in the current event. But at all times when X is not in an event, I as an individual loyalist get to pick a side in a conflict between factions A and B. So, here are some clarification questions.

• Would I need to break loyalty to X, in order fight for A against B?
  
• Would other X loyalists possibly be fighting on the other side?
  
  • Say I chose to fight for A, could my co-X-loyalist choose to fight for B?
    
  • Say I chose to fight for A, could my unit-mate and co-X-loyalist choose to fight for B?

My read thus far is that a unit would choose as a group but you could very easily be fighting co-X-loyalists. If so, that really bankrupts the notion of factions and makes us something more akin to mercs who have a preferred house. This, like the decision to eliminate penalties for dumping contracts and jumping sides, will further lead to a disparity in talent and routine pug stomping. Right now (like in the current event), I have no vested interest in seeing Liao or Davion win, I have no interest in making anybody better besides the guys I am dropping with. Given that I also fight against them all the time, I don't really have that much to interest me in making them that much better either. I just want to win and have fun, but FP has become a very surface level fun.

What we want from FP is a healthier community where we form "families" of sorts. Within each faction we are bound together in mutual interest to achieve victory for our faction. As a loyalist to X faction, I want to see other members of my faction play better so that they also win when I am not on the field, because their play still effects my desired goal of victory for my faction even when I am not in a match with them. If we want to see things like training programs run by the community, then we need to construct the game in such a way that good players self interest aligns with making bad players better. This necessarily means that we need to make factions relevant to the game mode. It also means your proposed system is going in exactly the opposite direction.

And if you want some evidence that having healthy and meaningful factions is good for the community, let me show you a brief glimpse into the past of one of the players your staff now bans from the forums on a semi-frequent basis and moderates whenever he is not banned. Paul, this is Jonathan Tanner before yall took his ability to take and defend planets for Marik: https://mwomercs.com...ost__p__5185792 Back then, he was was passionate about seeing the purple chicken flag fly on Terra. Now he is salty af and responds to PGI staff with funny Spiderman memes. Making factions meaningless turns nice nerds with some enjoyment of game lore into salty shitposters that you then have to moderate. Make our game more fun and your life easier. Make factions great again.

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

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.

Ok, more clarification questions:

• Are we not sticking to one time period for a season?
  
• Will our past victories be kept on the map? (this question has contingencies on the previous question)
  
  • To clarify, say on the 3057 map, if Marik and Liao go all Operation Guerrero on Fedcom, would that stay relevant? Would we come back to 3057 and the previous victories be gone?
• Do factions have some kind of victory goals?

It kind of sounds like you want to take us on a tour of lore battles and hop around the timeline like Dr. Who. This is not a good idea. It kills any sense of meta goals in the game. Right, I would no longer be playing to see faction X win, as much as I am participating in group fictional-historical reenactment. There are still guys who pop into the Marik TS who will reminisce about taking Terra in phase 2 (well, all the planets around it), despite our doing it with demonstrably subpar players. We like winning on the map. I remember when FRR took clan space. All of it. Now, that should have won the season for them, but that is another story. Staying in one timeline with clear objectives is good. We want to play for something.

Edited by Cato Zilks, 21 August 2018 - 11:58 PM.

[justcallme A S H]

Hey Paul & Co.

I'm yet to go through entire podcast so just scanning the notes thus far... There is one thing that has immediately jumped out at a few of us (I have a bunch of guys on my Discord in a Faction Play specific room chatting).

This is a big one too.



If reading this to the letter - anyone in MERC unit cannot drop solo.

Is this correct?

If answer is yes - I think that is a rather big issue. I drop solo now and again. I know many others in MERC Units do the same simply because there isn't always someone on. If you are in a small Merc outfit. I would think MERCs filling queue's would be critical to this endeavour.

We will continue to discuss this stuff and get back to you with more info in a week or so. Have already picked up on a few issues that are not ideal for everyone (not just good/bad players etc). Addressing maps is a BIG one too as a side point - very keen, will get some information around that also as a 2-part thing whilst driving this discussion.

Edited by justcallme A S H, 22 August 2018 - 12:13 AM.

[Marius Evander]

In regards to the FP scouting mode issue, can programmers easily add a (slightly smaller ? ) domination circle overlaying the extraction point, if any enemy mechs are in that area the last second diving mech cannot escape with a win, game will be a loss ?

I expect thats too much programming.

Edited by Cadoazreal, 22 August 2018 - 04:45 AM.

[Kell Aset]

Cato Zilks, on 21 August 2018 - 10:56 PM, said:

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

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.

Ok, more clarification questions:

• Are we not sticking to one time period for a season?
  
• Will our past victories be kept on the map? (this question has contingencies on the previous question)
  
  • To clarify, say on the 3057 map, if Marik and Liao go all Operation Guerrero on Fedcom, would that stay relevant? Would we come back to 3057 and the previous victories be gone?
• Do factions have some kind of victory goals?

It kind of sounds like you want to take us on a tour of lore battles and hop around the timeline like Dr. Who. This is not a good idea. It kills any sense of meta goals in the game. Right, I would no longer be playing to see faction X win, as much as I am participating in group fictional-historical reenactment. There are still guys who pop into the Marik TS who will reminisce about taking Terra in phase 2 (well, all the planets around it), despite our doing it with demonstrably subpar players. We like winning on the map. I remember when FRR took clan space. All of it. Now, that should have won the season for them, but that is another story. Staying in one timeline with clear objectives is good. We want to play for something.

I was wondering about that myself.

Edited by Kell Aset, 22 August 2018 - 04:59 AM.

[Mochyn Pupur]

From initial look through - the proposed changes to the FW queue suggestion is still favouring the 12 man or large pre-mades, but now you are actively punishing the solo player whether as a single member of an established unit who is online by themselves or the other unit members have already dropped as opposed to simply a one man band by pushing them to the back of multiple queues.

This algorithm sucks big style and is going to do nothing to attract people trying the mode before getting involved with looking for a unit.

Sorting solo players by SSR etc will increase the likelihood of a truly awful pug team of unskilled players using the format of dumping them eventually in to the melting pot of not being "fit" or "skilled" enough to join a decent mix of skilled players.

Go back and think this one out again please, it's not addressing the concerns and suggestions of many posts about possible improvements in how drops are put together.

Other aspects such as building lore and a story line into FW; welcome with open arms! Event design system - yay! Not seeing anything about making drop decks cheaper and more readily available, Boooo. No function the leave a stomp match (some decent ideas on a mechanic to make this option available just in this post btw, never mind previous threads), Shame (perhaps a new decal can be made available for seal clubbing units?).

Over all, it's a start which is a good thing; emphasis on not attracting or supporting the solo or small unit, not so good. Time will tell.

[Eisenhorne]

PeppaPig, on 22 August 2018 - 09:08 AM, said:

Sorting solo players by SSR etc will increase the likelihood of a truly awful pug team of unskilled players using the format of dumping them eventually in to the melting pot of not being "fit" or "skilled" enough to join a decent mix of skilled players.

Wouldn't this increase the likelyhood of truly terrible pugs fighting other truly terrible pugs though? I mean, say you have a 12 man queued up for Davion, 12 pugs queued up for Davion, a 6 man queued up for Liao, 6 good players queued up for Liao, and 12 bad pugs queued up for liao.

the best puggles on the liao side join the 6 man, and fight the 12 man. The worst 12 puggles on the liao side fight the 12 pug guys on the davion side, so its pug v pug, with the worst players having to fight the best players less frequently.

My only concern here is that with current population, 2 minutes launch time may be insufficient to get enough players queued to have a good match. I'd be OK with them having like a 5 minute timer, since unlike Solaris FP matches last a good 20-30 minutes, so waiting a little bit for one to start is fine as long as it's as balanced as possible.

[Peter2k]

PeppaPig, on 22 August 2018 - 09:08 AM, said:

From initial look through - the proposed changes to the FW queue suggestion is still favouring the 12 man or large pre-mades, but now you are actively punishing the solo player whether as a single member of an established unit who is online by themselves or the other unit members have already dropped as opposed to simply a one man band by pushing them to the back of multiple queues.

This algorithm sucks big style and is going to do nothing to attract people trying the mode before getting involved with looking for a unit.

Sorting solo players by SSR etc will increase the likelihood of a truly awful pug team of unskilled players using the format of dumping them eventually in to the melting pot of not being "fit" or "skilled" enough to join a decent mix of skilled players.

Go back and think this one out again please, it's not addressing the concerns and suggestions of many posts about possible improvements in how drops are put together.

on the other hand it reduces the chance for the filler(s) to face a 12 man, while improving the chance of a 12 man to face a 12 man

also FP has been many times called a place for teams and team play in the podcast, reinforcing the general vibe from the FP sub forum that it is a place for groups and not winging it solo


on top of those, there are enough players that want to gate new players (or even ban bad players) from playing FP
if SSR does its job well you can cater to both veterans and new players

frankly I don't really see a downside
there are bad players in FP PLEASE....IF YOU NEED FOUR MECHS TO DO 90 DAMAGE...

Dee Eight, on 10 August 2018 - 06:15 PM, said:

stick to the quick play queue and save the team slots in FP for someone of average capability...

I think there is enough animosity by FP veterans and less good players hating on big groups to warrant a match making

hell a MM by skill would be a dream in QP


and lastly, if someone is looking for a group for FP then they come to the forum, I find it hard to believe that anyone got recruited by the "social tools" available in MWO

justcallme A S H, on 22 August 2018 - 12:03 AM, said:

snip

damn I missed the participation part
was hoping he meant that you can't be a one man Merc group any more or something

especially as long as units are capped its unlikely that there will be enough players on at all times to run an event as a group

Edited by Peter2k, 22 August 2018 - 10:13 AM.

[Daurock]

Eisenhorne, on 22 August 2018 - 10:08 AM, said:

My only concern here is that with current population, 2 minutes launch time may be insufficient to get enough players queued to have a good match. I'd be OK with them having like a 5 minute timer, since unlike Solaris FP matches last a good 20-30 minutes, so waiting a little bit for one to start is fine as long as it's as balanced as possible.

I Share this concern - In order for the MM Algorithm to work properly, You NEED to have enough players in the bucket at the time the MM starts sorting. If there isn't enough people to put together multiple teams when the que pops, we get nearly the same MM we have today. I suspect that it needs at the absolute minimum 2 to 3 teams' worth of players each time the MM fires up, and ideally 4 or 5 games' worth of people.

Judging by the war logs, and how many games an hour are getting played, that time to gather enough players can be anywhere from 3 to 5 minutes (NA Prime time, during FW event, where there's 50+ games being played) to 15 minutes (NA prime time, non-FW event, where there's typically 10 or 15 games an hour), even up to 30+ Minutes (Off hours, non-event, where there's lucky to be more than 1 or two games an hour on the log.)

I too am of the opinion that having a long "countdown timer" is actually OK, even if it stretches out to 10 or 15 minutes - A group, or individual player can grab a sandwitch, let out the dog, take a bio break, etc, much more easily if he knows how long it'll be before the que pops. (I.E. you're not staring at a circle waiting for it to randomly pop.) Additionally, the longer nature of FW games makes it so the "Spamming" of games, like you see in solaris, is not a huge issue. If i were setting a "starting value" for a timer, i'd probably be looking at about a 10 minute one, and going from there.

Edited by Daurock, 22 August 2018 - 11:16 AM.

[fedratsailor]

Was wondering if its possible to allow IS vs IS and Clan vs Clan, to happen without resorting to special events. that would allow more matches. I like playing clan mechs, and I would love the option to raid/fight other clans, on top of being able to fight IS. The recent Falcon/Wolf event was fun. was a nice change from having to only fight IS all the time.