357 replies to this topic

[Kell Aset]

I just wonder how exactly we will be getting that lore added to FP because if it will be just a little description on planets & some fluff on FP event page heh well that ofc won't make me care, I will just play FP during events for rewards, only good ones like MC, colours, camos, mechs, mech bays.

Maybe I would play Faction Play more, outisde of events, if Factions and controlling planets would mean anything, if controlling planet "X" will give me and ppl from my so called "Faction" something (preferably not a one time thing kind of reward). Yes I know units get a little bit of MC for controlling planets but meh.
If we could have all planets on our big FP map "produce" cbills, cbills or some kind of resource points that can be used only in FP mode just to upgrade planets, add fortifications, turrets, buildings of some sort that will also appear on maps that we will be playing on during our matches, buildings that can be destroyed and buildings that can influence the battle, like buildings spawning vehicles that go thru predetermined route like VIP Atlas, vehicles that fire at anything they see. Ofc presence of buildings (or lack of such) on the map we would be playing on would also depend on game mode we would be getting in FP.
We would have a reason to raid planets just to destroy the $$$$ producing buildings. Different planets could have different set of buildings on them, perhaps, some could have more unique buildings? High ranking faction players would probably be deciding what to build on the planets.

Edited by Kell Aset, 27 August 2018 - 12:19 PM.

[Peter2k]

Chados, on 26 August 2018 - 08:09 AM, said:

. All this discussion looks to me like slapping bandaids on a sucking chest wound.

With all respect to PGI, but that is exactly what they excelled at
Sorry bro


Yes the skill would be averaged in the group

Still usually PUGs would hopefully not have to face an Evil 8-12 man or something like that

I get what your saying, I've played a lot of solo FP drops too, and lost many miserably
Usually firing lines crumble, people chase still a single light and bring terrible builds, among some problems
How can you make FP fun for players like that, while having FP be fun for better/more experienced players?

But here is the thing, even if you loose it can be fun, it's not fun when the enemy just wipes the floor with you
A hard fought loss can be great too, in fact hard thought matches that can go either way are also the best in QP


Now if you bump the rewards for new players and less good players that at least it was worth playing compared to dropping 4 times in QP, even on a loss, it might be enough to get at least some more players into FP

Again, would love PvE, especially if otherwise I get a ghost drop, or if I would have to face insurmountable odds

Horseman, on 26 August 2018 - 07:47 AM, said:

Even then. If someone isn't doing 100, then they should start practicing hitting the fire button.

That's why we want gating I guess, it's just that some will cry foul over it as well.
Ehh, I'm fine with gating.
But groups still need to be able to find new players and vice versa, and we all started somewhere.

But MM would probably take care of that, when you drop with a smaller group you'll run into solos.

Chados, on 26 August 2018 - 12:38 PM, said:

Precisely, Imperius.

Unit-approved trial builds won’t solve the problem. If you put lesser skilled pilots who don’t know how to meta in zero-skill-point meta builds they’ll do just as poorly against skilled units running 91-point meta builds in coordinated decks backed by hours of practice. I’ve seen it time and time again in the QP queue. And I’ve seen skill players excel in trash builds too. It’s not the mech, it’s the pilot. And some aren’t going to be top tier no matter how good the build.

.

Doesn't that basically boil down to gating then?
I just wanted a way for less good or new players to have some kind of chance, but if people agree we should not let them in I'm not fighting for plebs doing sub 100 damage.
I hate having those on my team as much as anyone else.

Even LT didnt help them, teams just used sacrifices to make LT go off in the middle of friendlies.

I already said pugs can't beat a 12 man, especially a good one
Was just saying maybe it would be fun playing builds that don't just su** while MM tries to do it's part

Imperius, on 26 August 2018 - 06:52 PM, said:

Snip

You and me have agreed on a lot of stuff in the past

But please know that this discussion is about things that can be done in a timely fashion

If you have nothing more constructive to add then please refrain on spamming

Would love PvE, it's off the table
Have to move on

slide, on 27 August 2018 - 01:28 AM, said:

I am going to reserve judgement on the effectiveness of a match maker until Paul presents us with more info about it.

What you say is true

Solos against groups is as much fun for solos as it was way back in QP when we didnt have a split que.

If the playerbase would be there I'm sure we could do it, until then I'm hopeful that that the MM can do something about it.
That being said, MM in QP isnt up to snuff many times, because it's being fed based on tier which is skewed to level up.
Its neigh impossible to go down.
So I'm hoping a MM for FP would roll some more meaningful stats into it.

I'm saying: I'm hoping , not that I know it will or the usefulness of the stats being integrated

Kell Aset, on 27 August 2018 - 12:09 PM, said:

snip.

Well Paul mentioned that Loyalty Points might be used as a currency.

So planets you own could produce LP, maybe?

That still does not address lore though.
Maybe you could throw something in on that front?

I think Paul already said that planets that have lore wise manufacturing plants for certain weapons or mechs, giving cost reduction for purchasing or something like that, is a no go.

Edited by Peter2k, 27 August 2018 - 12:54 PM.

[Imperius]

Nightbird, on 27 August 2018 - 11:50 AM, said:

I don't see how you interpreted my answer as anything other than a rewording of what PGI is implicitly saying with the proposed changes. They don't do anything for stomps.

My bad I thought that was directed at me.

@Peter2k I know man, I did move on until I read people dismissing that persons post before mine. Like their complaint wasn’t legitimate. Both of us knew it was off the table but the way that person responded to them irked me a bit. I just get a little hot under the collar when it’s a problem since 2015 and could have been fixed by now. 2018 after failed Solaris we get a bandaid fix. It feels like saying sorry but not meaning it.

Edited by Imperius, 27 August 2018 - 12:58 PM.

[Paul Inouye]

I swear it's coming... still keyframing the clarification for the match maker.

[Eisenhorne]

Matchmaking of any sort would be a huge improvement. Maybe coincide the launch of the matchmaker with another huge event, they seem to drive lots of newbies into the FP mode. If they were funneled to play against other newbies, they'd have a better time and hopefully stick around.

[Nightbird]

Eisenhorne, on 27 August 2018 - 01:35 PM, said:

Matchmaking of any sort would be a huge improvement. Maybe coincide the launch of the matchmaker with another huge event, they seem to drive lots of newbies into the FP mode. If they were funneled to play against other newbies, they'd have a better time and hopefully stick around.

Not enough pop for match making. At best, you're going to see 20 people in queue for each 2 min interval. During events, maybe there will be enough.

Dynamic tonnage for teams is a better way to ensure a closer fight. For example, if one team has a 10WLR average, and another team has 0.5 WLR average, then the stronger team only gets 75% of max tonnage. To avoid drop complications, just give a -50% earning modifier for using 100% of max tonnage and 0% modifier when using 75% of max tonnage.

Better closer matches even when the teams have different skill levels.

Include the new team making system, sure, but without a handicap for unbalanced teams it's either going to split teams apart to avoid being matched with stronger big teams, or make no difference altogether because the pop is low so that 12 mans will mostly be put against small teams and solos because that's all that in queue.

Edited by Nightbird, 27 August 2018 - 01:47 PM.

[Eisenhorne]

That would be great too, but I'm not sure if they're even discussing variable tonnage limits based on skill. And even if they are.... would it matter? A good team running 48 ASN-21's would still obliterate most PUG teams. Hell, we've had games where 12 urbanmechs will take out 20+ enemy assaults.

Maybe lengthen the window then from 2 minutes to 5-10 minutes depending on population, since we already wait that long waiting for a lobby then waiting for an enemy team to form anyway.

[Nightbird]

Eisenhorne, on 27 August 2018 - 01:52 PM, said:

That would be great too, but I'm not sure if they're even discussing variable tonnage limits based on skill. And even if they are.... would it matter? A good team running 48 ASN-21's would still obliterate most PUG teams. Hell, we've had games where 12 urbanmechs will take out 20+ enemy assaults.

Maybe lengthen the window then from 2 minutes to 5-10 minutes depending on population, since we already wait that long waiting for a lobby then waiting for an enemy team to form anyway.

Lengthening the window would still require a match that looks at skill, none of the proposals do that. We've faced plenty of 12mans that (without mentioning names) perform worse than 12 random pugs. The proposed matcher views group size = skill, and will kill all such groups learning to play the game.

As for 12 assassins, yes, I don't expect 25% less tonnage to be much of a handicap, which is why we should give it. Giving 50% less tonnage requires reworking the drop system to allow less than 4 mechs, this probably isn't in the cards. More than anything, it says to beginners, the other team is playing with a maximum handicap, and still winning, so get better.

Edited by Nightbird, 27 August 2018 - 02:12 PM.

[Cato Zilks]

Nightbird, on 27 August 2018 - 01:44 PM, said:

Dynamic tonnage for teams is a better way to ensure a closer fight. For example, if one team has a 10WLR average, and another team has 0.5 WLR average, then the stronger team only gets 75% of max tonnage. To avoid drop complications, just give a -50% earning modifier for using 100% of max tonnage and 0% modifier when using 75% of max tonnage.

Better closer matches even when the teams have different skill levels.

Include the new team making system, sure, but without a handicap for unbalanced teams it's either going to split teams apart to avoid being matched with stronger big teams, or make no difference altogether because the pop is low so that 12 mans will mostly be put against small teams and solos because that's all that in queue.

But you aren't going to routinely drop underweight because you don't know who you are fighting until after you have already selected your deck. Dropping at 75% of cap may work when you face puggles, but you will want that weight back when you face a competent group. This uncertainty about opponent is going to mean your team is disproportionately likely to drop with full weight or close to it. Also, keep in mind that 50% earnings on a win is not much of a punishment compared to 100% of a loss (should be close to =). You are at best presenting a financial wash. And this is mostly moot anyways because most of the players that stomp and would thereby be interested in dropping weight are also very likely to have more c-bills than they know what to do with.

I do agree that weight is the best way to solve imbalance, but that is why I think they need to re-write how the game views factions and they need to focus on making the FP population stable for the course of a season. That way the faction dominated by a few good teams can have its tonnage forcibly reduced while puggy factions like Wolf or Davion can have a boost. So long as the allegiances of the player base remain fluid, balancing the matches remains an incredibly difficult task.

Edited by Cato Zilks, 27 August 2018 - 02:30 PM.

[Peter2k]

Nightbird, on 27 August 2018 - 02:06 PM, said:

The proposed matcher views group size = skill

having listened to the podcast, the MM considers size and skill rating (details on skill rating still to drop though)
size does not equal skill in the MM

though like you said, if you don't have the pop, that point might be moot


Also Paul already said no to variable drop deck tonnage (according to which planet we fight over), so having the same but variable per match seems even more unlikely

guess doesn't hurt to ask

Edited by Peter2k, 27 August 2018 - 02:34 PM.

[Nightbird]

Cato Zilks, on 27 August 2018 - 02:29 PM, said:

But you aren't going to routinely drop underweight

Only if there is a mechanic to compel you (for example via earnings penalty) and the handicap would need to be displayed in the drop preparation screen for both side = 0 uncertainty that you're facing a weaker team. I personally don't think winning or losing will actually be affected, 90% of my drops end with only 2 mechs, an assault and a light. The handicap is more psychological to let other team know that something was done to make it more fair. It will also let them get more kills/components etc = more earnings even when losing.

Peter2k, on 27 August 2018 - 02:33 PM, said:

having listened to the podcast, the MM considers size and skill rating (details on skill rating still to drop though)
size does not equal skill in the MM

though like you said, if you don't have the pop, that point might be moot


Also Paul already said no to variable drop deck tonnage (according to which planet we fight over), so having the same but variable per match seems even more unlikely

guess doesn't hurt to ask

I thought it said PSR only for the solo droppers, and group size for the groups. Clarification would help but yes, still likely moot. There wouldn't be "Required" variable tonnage, which would make decks invalid and cause complications, but just an earnings penalty to encourage you to reduce. The max deck tonnage remains constant.

Edited by Nightbird, 27 August 2018 - 02:43 PM.

[Cato Zilks]

Peter2k, on 27 August 2018 - 02:33 PM, said:

having listened to the podcast, the MM considers size and skill rating (details on skill rating still to drop though)
size does not equal skill in the MM

So, Paul said that groups are not considered by skill. Groups are filtered by size then soloers are added based on skill. Skill was only used for solo puggers.

[Tarl Cabot]

Quote

Where MWO un-funs itself repeatedly, is when these two versions come into contact. The constant harping by people to split the queues, are the exact same arguments we had back in closed and early beta when there was no MM and groups on comms were ripping through pugs. Sync dropping was so powerful it was actually made a ban able offence in the TOS.

How different would the experiences had been if PGI had incorporated ingame VOIP? Even now, in QP and FP, when used VOIP can be a powerful tool, a force multiplier especially when only one side uses it effectively. But then back then, there were no in game units, nor did PGI put any restrictions on the number of groups to a side, first come first served, kept is simple silly (haha) while not allowing for any flexibility.

And PGI is not going to code to separate units/co-ops from solo pugs. Why? Sync dropping in a limited bucket atmosphere and I do not see PGI coding anything to prevent that. They might be able to do it via unit tags but what of those in different units who are on the same external VOIP? Too many loopholes.

The best hope is to have more units/pre-mades dropping and using solos to fill up the slots. Those solos may gain insights on how teams approach an objective. On the other hand, there is the solo/group queue and while they are active and not part of FP, the question really should be, what incentive could PGI create to encourage players to drop in FP consistently, in a general gaming environment where the mass population have a short attention span. No 3-4 hrs Everquest/WOW raids every day or every other day, etc, no 6hr runs of MPBT Solaris SSW on the weekend...etc...

Edit... dang it.. I forgot to post this morning before leaving for work..

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 27 August 2018 - 02:46 PM.

[Nightbird]

Gonna throw in a request to improve Siege mode even if there is no chance it'll see the light:

Get rid of turret defense, where a group charges in and shoots only gens while defender plays the role of turrets. It's boring for both sides.

Change the gens to mini dom circles, stand in it for 45 secs to cap it. Get damaged and cap stops.

Change the gates to incursion walls, single file in or shoot more gaps in the walls.

Would make for a much better game mode.

[Paul Inouye]

Cato Zilks, on 27 August 2018 - 02:40 PM, said:

So, Paul said that groups are not considered by skill. Groups are filtered by size then soloers are added based on skill. Skill was only used for solo puggers.

Yes.. this is what I said.

If we average Skill Rating on teams, this would actually slow the queue down quite a bit. To compensate we'd have to add a long drop timer (in between matches kicking off) to build SSR based match ups. With population levels as they are, this would be a VERY long timer with no guarantee of a match between drops. For example, a team consisting of all 2750 SSR rated players would be sitting in queue for a very long time as average team builds are around 1700 SSR.

[Chados]

Imperius, on 27 August 2018 - 09:57 AM, said:

How does any of the these changes fix better players or bigger units from farming people? The same issue many others and myself complained about back in 2015.

Clarification 1:

The other poster was giving their feedback and was shut down. Since their view aligned with mine since 2015 I gave some extra weight to their view. As in saying that’s how I have felt.

He said it better than me, Paul. The question is “how to fix FW.” You asked for feedback and I gave it-just because everyone else loves your invisible clothes doesn’t mean you aren’t really waltzing down Main Street with Mr. Johnson and the twins hanging out in the breeze. You want me to put a sock in it? No problem. Done.

Edited by Chados, 27 August 2018 - 03:22 PM.

[Paul Inouye]

Update:

You know that feeling of needing to upload a video and then finding out you don't have access to the YouTube account? yeahhh....

Tracking down the original creator and getting it uploaded asap. Otherwise I may have to transfer it externally to get it uploaded which would take a lonnnnng time.

Chados, on 27 August 2018 - 03:19 PM, said:

He said it better than me, Paul. The question is “how to fix FW.” You asked for feedback and I gave it-just because everyone else loves your invisible clothes doesn’t mean you aren’t really waltzing down Main Street with Mr. Johnson and the twins hanging out in the breeze. You want me to put a sock in it? No problem. Done.

The question was not to 'fix'.. it was to 'improve'. This is what this entire discussion has been about.

[Cato Zilks]

I blame Tina

[Paul Inouye]

Cato Zilks, on 27 August 2018 - 03:51 PM, said:

I blame Tina

+1 Point

[Nightbird]

Paul Inouye, on 27 August 2018 - 03:02 PM, said:

Yes.. this is what I said.

If we average Skill Rating on teams, this would actually slow the queue down quite a bit. To compensate we'd have to add a long drop timer (in between matches kicking off) to build SSR based match ups. With population levels as they are, this would be a VERY long timer with no guarantee of a match between drops. For example, a team consisting of all 2750 SSR rated players would be sitting in queue for a very long time as average team builds are around 1700 SSR.

If we know the skill rating difference between teams, why not give incentives to the stronger team to take less tonnage?

A strong team versus weak team, take full tonnage = 50% earning penalty, take 75% tonnage = 0% income modifier, take 50% tonnage = 50% income bonus?

If fair teams aren't possible, do what is possible without adjusting the tonnage limits.