74 replies to this topic

[Nathan White]

50 50, on 02 October 2018 - 01:46 AM, said:

Yep.
Did all of them yesterday.
Never played the game in my life.

https://leaderboard..../search?u=50+50

[MechWpnsTech]

for all game modes, all maps and contest modes should be available in all cities/terrains and battle grounds. more variety is needed in all zones. day time maps need night time darkness, dark zones need more extreme weather conditions, snow or ice covered cities, raining,foggy, conditions, all the worlds in the faction play universe map should be able to provide more variety of battle ground conditions for all contest zones

[50 50]

Nathan White, on 05 October 2018 - 07:30 AM, said:

https://leaderboard..../search?u=50+50

Really?
Thought my tier would have given away that I have played the game.

It's like people have lost their sense of humour unless it includes some emoji or a made up abbreviation of an expression.

All that aside though, the most upsetting thing about seeing the information on Jarl's List is how pretty much everyone I look up has a declining number of games per season.

Oh well.

I doubt we will see anything added to Faction Play that will actually improve the depth of the mode and there is absolutely no point adding a feature that introduces some sort of micro management for players to click through before doing exactly what they are doing right now.
Any new feature needs to create some sort of risk vs reward for the players.
Faction Play, despite how much it needs this sort of thing, currently doesn't have the necessary components to make it anything more than what it currently is and has very little chance of any significant development done in the mode that would be required to add those components, despite how much we might want them.

[Nimnul]

50 50
The wrong actions of the developers made people go away. And now you say that you do not need to change anything.

Edited by Nimnul, 09 October 2018 - 02:41 PM.

[50 50]

Nimnul, on 09 October 2018 - 02:40 PM, said:

50 50
The wrong actions of the developers made people go away. And now you say that you do not need to change anything.

Hi Nimnul,

Won't disagree with you re the decline in player base but I am not saying we do not need to change anything. The mode desperately needs significant and meaningful changes.

What I meant about the addition of new features to the mode is that they should build depth into it by creating interactions with other aspects of the game and adding some element of risk vs reward.
I understand the reason for wanting to add a vote option to provide some choice and using the combined map+mode is a different way to do it, but like quick play, the feature more often prevents players from getting a map+mode and functions more like a delaying action than an actual significant choice. ie. It's more of a lottery. Click to play but you may not get your choice anyway.
If there was no vote and it returned to the random map and mode selection it would be faster and achieve the same result.

The point I am making is that there should be a reason, a need, behind selecting a particular mission other than it just being a favourite (a want).
I will state that I don't believe we need a map selection and it may even work better if for each attack phase the maps are all based on a particular biome. (Desert, Forest, Snow etc)
This would create another point of difference compared to Quick Play and adds more to the planning aspect of the mode in preparing drop decks. It would also be worth considering extending the attack phase duration to reduce needing to edit the drop decks every day and in creating more of a campaign feel to the mode which can also be marketed. ie. This week it's an arctic environment: Sale on snow colours and camo.

However, to give the voting a real purpose we have to ask:
What is the reason to take on a Siege mission?
What is the reason to take on a Conquestion mission?
Currently there is no reward specific to that mission and no risk to us should we fail that mission or not be able to select it.
This is because there is no depth in the mode at the player level beyond earning c-bills and reputation/loyalty points.

I'll try and use a repair feature as an example:

Say for Faction Play we had a set number of 'Supply Points' which are recorded on our drop deck.
These points are added at the start of an attack phase and removed at the end of it, they are provided by our faction.
Whenever a mech is damaged or destroyed in battle we can spend supply points to repair it and drop again with that mech, or pick a different mech in the drop deck for the next drop.
At some point we are going to run out of supply points.
Now if a Conquest mission provided supply points back to the drop deck you were using when you were successful in that mission, you create a purpose, a need to select that mission so you can keep using that drop deck.

Voting for a mission then has a deeper purpose but can incorporate other elements in it's design to further integrate with the missions.
This is where I see Scouting and the collection of 'Intel Points' to provide something to the players personally.
As above:
Say for Faction Play we can accumulate 'Intel Points' on our drop deck.
We collect these points by completing scouting missions and then use the Intel Points to 'vote' for missions. Voting isn't quite the right term, it's more like 'Bid' for a mission. Bid more Intel Points to assure you get the mission you want at the risk of spending too many and having to scout sooner, or not enough and be out bid by the enemy who may want to intercept your force in a skirmish in an attempt to burn through supply points.

We start to get this purpose and integration of different features in the mode.

The problem is that to build in even some pretty simple features that could add a bit more depth to the mode it needs PGI to devote resources to the development of them. Unfortunately, despite how much you or I might feel it would help or how much the mode actually needs significant enhancement, the chance of getting new features is slim to none.

Anyway, I hope that helps explain my line of thought as I truely would like to see Faction Play evolve towards the original goals outlined years ago in some shape or form.

Edited by 50 50, 11 October 2018 - 07:59 PM.

[Appogee]

The opinions of those who actually play FP daily are just getting lost amidst the mashed potato.

[50 50]

Appogee, on 11 October 2018 - 09:22 PM, said:

The opinions of those who actually play FP daily are just getting lost amidst the mashed potato.

Like peas in mash.
What we really need is gravy.

EDIT: Better put in an emoji....

Oh and according to this, you're not but are trying.
I hope it (the mode) works out well (or better) though.

Edited by 50 50, 11 October 2018 - 11:14 PM.

[Appogee]

50 50, on 11 October 2018 - 11:02 PM, said:

Oh and according to this, you're not but are trying.
I hope it (the mode) works out well (or better) though.

2 ghost drops and 2 actual drops so far today. Definitely better than earlier this week!

[justcallme A S H]

Well it is the weekend...

[Nimnul]

50 50

Voting removes a sense of injustice. Now when I get into the conquest on Polar. I ask myself, really someone wanted to this map? But in the game of enemies and allies, I see a sad zombie s**t.
I would be happy to get to a map that I don’t like, but which others have chosen. To punish them. It would cause my rage in the game .... And so now I feel that I play something that no one wants to play.

Edited by Nimnul, 15 October 2018 - 07:40 AM.

[Surge ON]

Is it still possible to get a planet in CW? Clans won many times in a row 2 hours ago and got about 99% of indicator line in 5 minutes to ceasefire. But after ceasefire no one unit conquered any planet. Is it a new bug or so? Could you check it?

[Nimnul]

FP is dead. The lack of map selection killed this mode! Today when a couple of friends from the past still play (not in FP...), they talk with great irritation about FP. So after a few years we see what QP modes have led to in FP and lack of map choice. When I created this thread we had a clan that had 12+ players every day. We played 10+ games per evening! I was expressing the opinion of the whole clan, and other clans that we often played with. Now the clan is gone and these people are gone. We liked the classic Siege mode, partly because there are 4 mechs, partly because unlike QP there is a choice of mechs. I hope the developers will see this post and understand that they should listen to the opinions of the players.

Edited by Nimnul, 12 August 2024 - 09:02 PM.

[tee5]

Nimnul, on 12 August 2024 - 08:56 PM, said:

...We liked the classic Siege mode, partly because there are 4 mechs, partly because unlike QP there is a choice of mechs.

When there is a Quick Play Map in FP, lets say New Terra Therma - Conquest, you still have 4 Mechs and you still have the choice of which mechs you put into your dropdeck.

[Nimnul]

The thing is, no one wants to play Conquest, everyone wants Siege.

[Kotis77]

Nimnul, on 12 August 2024 - 08:56 PM, said:

FP is dead. The lack of map selection killed this mode! Today when a couple of friends from the past still play (not in FP...), they talk with great irritation about FP. So after a few years we see what QP modes have led to in FP and lack of map choice. When I created this thread we had a clan that had 12+ players every day. We played 10+ games per evening! I was expressing the opinion of the whole clan, and other clans that we often played with. Now the clan is gone and these people are gone. We liked the classic Siege mode, partly because there are 4 mechs, partly because unlike QP there is a choice of mechs. I hope the developers will see this post and understand that they should listen to the opinions of the players.

Nah, it was bunch of a-holes that killed the mode. Def stack is still real.