26 replies to this topic

[50 50]

General musings on what I thought might be a possible direction for Faction Play broken up into 2 parts.
If nothing else I hope it provokes some discussion and thought for the mode.

EDIT:
Summary:

Spoiler

• Divide the Factions up into more than 2 sides so we can have Clan vs IS, IS vs IS and Clan vs Clan battles and restore some faction identity.
  
• Use the single bucket queue to pit any team from one side against another so we don't need to split the population.
  
• Ease up on the team 12 player restriction to allow for smaller battles (4v4, 8v8 and 12v12) because there are more sides. MODULAR GROUPING
  
• Integrate scouting into the main invasion queue so we condense the population.
  
• Allow voting who to attack. (which side)
  
• Change the tug of war to a tally system that compares the victories of your side vs the enemy you are attacking to determine the result.
  
• Change the scouting drop deck to an 'offensive' drop deck and expand to 4 mechs
  
• Identify matches as needing to use the offensive drop deck when matched against your enemy (as voted for)
  
• Look at a supply line tonnage feature to represent advancing into enemy territory with the offensive drop deck.
  
• Restructure the map and simplify it so we can introduce faction values relating to the planets.

EDIT 2:
TL:DR Summary of the Summary:

• Make the mode autonomous (ie. let the war wage back and forth)
  
• Make the battle a mixing pot of factions/sides so we can fight anyone
  
• Make it easier to get a game by limiting groups to 4 and enabling modular grouping for the teams. (ie. 4v4, 8v8 or 12v12 depending on who is available in the other factions/sides)

Part 1


Part 2


Mission outcomes
This ties back to the idea of allowing players to embark on a campaign in faction play.
In the end it is about:
-Changing the way we use the drop deck
-Changing how we join the mode
-Creating a before and after mission effect for players.
Links into this idea:
https://mwomercs.com...-it-a-campaign/
Trying to make the mode more of a story told by the players and how our decisions and outcomes affect us on each campaign.
If you look at the idea in this thread about having the attack lanes for the planets, then you might see how it could begin to link up where we assign a drop deck to one of those lanes to try an manage over the course of the week/month.

Seems to difficult to implement?
Many ideas that pop up seem impossible to implement given the extent of the changes asked for.
I am certainly guilty of wanting features added to the game that would be completely impractical.
However, in regards to some of the points in this thread I wonder how hard it actually would be?
To make an example:
Look at the Quick Play Group Queue.
If the Groups and Teams were restricted to only contain players from a single faction.
If the match maker were changed to then only match different factions against each other.
We would then have Faction Warfare with one faction dropping against another in random battles of IS vs IS, Clan vs Clan and Clan vs IS.
Add drop decks and Siege and what's left?
If groups are limited to a max of 4 and the system allows matches of 4v4, 8v8 and 12v12 then scouting can also be added to the mix and we have a way to cater for varying levels of active players which should help wait times.
What's left after that?
Just the map? The tug of war? The war log?
Those areas could all be improved but it doesn't seem like such an impossible task to make the other changes and we effectively have more faction warfare than we've ever had.

Edited by 50 50, 13 September 2019 - 01:50 AM.

[Appogee]

I'm sorry, but watching your videos would require more spectator resources than I can commit at this time, as my spectating focus is being devoted to other projects.

I would however be receptive to spectating small videos that don't require much spectating effort, which will give the appearance that I am mildly receptive to some minor spectating.

If you and your fellow MWO video creators could please contain your small, easily spectated moments to this one thread, your small videos may be among those to which I devote some minimal amount to spectating.

Edited by Appogee, 08 September 2018 - 02:47 AM.

[50 50]

I was going to write a TLDR, but I couldn't be bothered

[Bloodwitch]

Appogee, on 08 September 2018 - 02:05 AM, said:

I'm sorry, but...

If you've nothing to say.. then maybe don't say anything?

OT: You've put some thought into it!

I do very much like the idea of the 4x4 blocks and the Clan VS Clan and IS VS IS matchmaking.

The penalty of dropdeck limitation however, on this account it would screw me over on a weekly basis. I'm set on 1 deck and it's on the limit of the dropdeck. I build it that way. With currently 11 mechs i don't have that many option.
I can see this limitation scaring away newer players with limited mech lineups.

[Appogee]

Kunato Developments, on 08 September 2018 - 05:26 AM, said:

If you've nothing to say.. then maybe don't say anything?

Hopefully the OP got the joke.

Edited by Appogee, 08 September 2018 - 08:38 AM.

[50 50]

Appogee, on 08 September 2018 - 08:37 AM, said:

Hopefully the OP got the joke.

I did.

Couldn't think up as witty a reply other than it was going to take too long and too much effort to write up too long didn't read summary.

[50 50]

Kunato Developments, on 08 September 2018 - 05:26 AM, said:

I do very much like the idea of the 4x4 blocks and the Clan VS Clan and IS VS IS matchmaking.

If we want to have that inter-faction conflict going 24/7, that is, the Clan vs IS, IS vs IS and Clan vs Clan battles then trying to get 13 teams of 12 players going regularly (because there are 13 individual factions at the moment) is just a bit more difficult.
Hence suggesting combining some factions so there are less sides but also using the lance as the building block so there is flexibility.

Kunato Developments, on 08 September 2018 - 05:26 AM, said:

The penalty of dropdeck limitation however, on this account it would screw me over on a weekly basis. I'm set on 1 deck and it's on the limit of the dropdeck. I build it that way. With currently 11 mechs i don't have that many option.
I can see this limitation scaring away newer players with limited mech lineups.

I didn't get to it in the second vid but was going to talk about default faction decks that could be used and looking at things like a logistics system. But as that starting to delve into the 'what if we had this' speculation on possible features I left it.

The basis of the idea behind the drop deck penalty is to try and simulate the difficulty in advancing into enemy territory towards the objective. The tonnage of the drop decks is something that we do see get changed back and forth at the moment so tying that in with the progression of a campaign seemed like an interesting way to simulate the supply lines.
Exenting the duration of each phase to a week means we don't hav to change the drop decks willy nilly every 8 hours and if the planets have themed biomes to determine the maps we are going to drop on it also reduces the amount of change needed.
If the drop decks are split into offensive and defensive then you could have 4 setup on the offensive side already prepared for the tonnage penalties.
It would be something that we would have to adapt to, for sure, but it's one drop deck once a week that might need changing.

[50 50]

I've now taken the time to write up a 'don't have time to read summary'...... and a summary of the summary.... just in case.

[Blockwart]

Do you think, PGI will read your summary?

Do you really think, PGI will care about it?

[Bishop Six]

Blockwart, on 18 October 2018 - 01:14 AM, said:

Do you think, PGI will read your summary?

Do you really think, PGI will care about it?

Counter question:

Should PGI care about every random dude who opened a Thread with his personal wishes?

Why should his opinion be representative for all?

And you.

I just read "Oh a random dude opened a Thread and i will comment randomly something about bad bad PGI"
Or did i overread your constructive proposal?

I just read in this Thread that a random dude wants to restrict unit play without asking other people, like...unit players.

So you just want to restrict me and my teammates to play together. How about...NO?!

Edited by Bishop Six, 18 October 2018 - 02:47 AM.

[TWIAFU]

Bishop Six, on 18 October 2018 - 02:47 AM, said:

I just read in this Thread that a random dude wants to restrict unit play without asking other people, like...unit players.

So you just want to restrict me and my teammates to play together. How about...NO?!

QFT.

I would add a HELL NO!

[50 50]

Blockwart, on 18 October 2018 - 01:14 AM, said:

Do you think, PGI will read your summary?

Probably not.
I don't care.

Blockwart, on 18 October 2018 - 01:14 AM, said:

Do you really think, PGI will care about it?

Probably not. They have their own agenda and we are just along for the ride.
I don't care.

EDIT: I'm just puzzled by it.

Note that the agenda being pushed (Edit: from the community btw) is to have combat between two single factions of PGI's chosing on some sort of semi irregular basis setup and controlled by someone at PGI.
ie. without further information it looks like it's all a manual process requiring actual staff hours to setup.
It's detrimental to the idea of being in a unit and belonging to a faction and suggests that to play on either side we should just be randomly assigned to A or B for the 'event' and effectively just make everyone freelancers in a solo queue only system. Take that groups.
That would save having to do any development work on the loyalty system and pretty much anything else.

On top of that, it is just an adaption of the Tug of War and going back to when it had specific missions in a specific stage of the tug of war.
All under the pretense of adding a few paragraphs of lead in story to create the impression that it is now 'lore' related by letting someone update a webpage.
Seems legit.
Are the people who wanted this the same ones that wanted Solaris?

EDIT: Ok, ok, maybe i do care enough to have wondered what might have been and feel a bit miffed over the direction of it all....

Bishop Six, on 18 October 2018 - 02:47 AM, said:

Counter question:

Should PGI care about every random dude who opened a Thread with his personal wishes?

Why should his opinion be representative for all?

And you.

I just read "Oh a random dude opened a Thread and i will comment randomly something about bad bad PGI"
Or did i overread your constructive proposal?

I just read in this Thread that a random dude wants to restrict unit play without asking other people, like...unit players.

So you just want to restrict me and my teammates to play together. How about...NO?!

Sorry dude, was that directed at me or at some other dude?

EDIT: Ok. So after re-reading your message there it seems like the bit about restricting you and your unit in the unit based mode from playing with each other was aimed at what I've tried to get at in this thread and the videos.
Perhaps I haven't worded it well enough or perhaps something there has been something that hasn't quite clicked in understanding what I thought might be possible and how it all works.
I'll have another go but if you think it's necessary, I'll redo the vids.

The primary idea here is:
Why can't we have multiple factions fighting against each other in a single queue?
There are some secondary bits like the supply line idea but ignore that for the moment as it was aimed at add another layer of depth, immersion and challenge.

I do acknowledge the following issue:
Any division in the player base needs a way to cater for player numbers and therefore make sure we can still get matches. ie. What about the wait times.
I am a little unsure how much of an impact dividing the player base into multiple sides would actually have as the limitation for matches (outside of events) is to have 12 IS and 12 Clan players. There is no allowance for having a match if there are 24 IS players on and only a handful of Clan. No one gets a game.
Should the system suddenly allow IS v IS and Clan v Clan in addition to IS v Clan by forcing teams to only consist of players from a single faction..... maybe it would simply work.

However, I do not wish to take that chance and to cater for a divided population and fluctuating player numbers it would be logical to allow some flexibility in the system with varying team sizes so am therefore querying why we haven't tried:
Limit groups to 4 players to allow modular team building for matches
This is purely to take into consideration that at any given moment in Faction Play, if we have 13 factions fighting each other, that there may not be enough players in two factions to form a 12 v 12 match.
It therefore makes sense to allow smaller matches to occur, but to make sure that players who can get enough players together in their faction are not left out simply because there are not enough opponents in another faction to create a match.
The simplest way to do this is to limit the maximum group size.

Which then brings me to the point that seems to have been lost.
Units cannot belong to more than one faction at a time.
This therefore means that should you have 12 of your unit on to get into some faction play drops with that you are highly likely to still play on the same team even if restricted to groups of 4 if there are enough players to create a 12 v 12 match in an opposing faction.
The modular groups idea is to cater for when there isn't and therefore still allow your unit to drop into battle because they can be matched up against any other group in any other faction.

Would you prefer to still get in some smaller battles on multiple fronts against a variety of opponents (3 matches of 4v4) while waiting for more groups to assemble in an enemy faction and allow the conflict to escalate in the next match?
Or sit there waiting because you are the only group of 12 on in a single faction?

The ideas in this thread are not there to restrict you. They are aimed at enabling you to play and enabling inter faction conflict.

It's particularly relevant for loyalists.
You want to fight for your faction? The get out there and represent. Fight everyone!

Edited by 50 50, 20 November 2018 - 09:41 PM.

[MW Waldorf Statler]

..and PGI has not the Manpower and experience for doing that ..all with Experience must build MW5 to hold PGI a little longer to life

[Nightbird]

What is suggested is more of a side-grade. Dynamic handicaps to allow teams of different skill levels play together is the most important piece to keep people playing. (Team size, tonnage, AI, whatever)

[MischiefSC]

I still like not handicaps but rewards and the option to hold for like teams. So a 12man of a good team get mediocre pay for rolling 12 pugs. The 12 pugs, even getting smashed, make about what they'd make on a win against other pugs. If they manage to pull off a good match (like 30+ kills) they could even make more on a loss. Conversely the good team makes more vs another good team.

So suppose KCom 12man in Clans is in queue and Evil/bcmc et al 12man is in queue for IS. We can both elect to hold for the other, putting us on the same drop cycle. Everyone gets more cbills. This only works when both sides have multiple drops available.

Make it a payout thing. Reward mixed drops and reward pugs for playing in a team.

[Grus]

I like it...

[50 50]

Nightbird, on 20 October 2018 - 05:51 AM, said:

What is suggested is more of a side-grade. Dynamic handicaps to allow teams of different skill levels play together is the most important piece to keep people playing. (Team size, tonnage, AI, whatever)

It's a different point of view. Nothing more.
When I look at the various different parts of MWO I can see so many possibilities and wonder why some of those parts where not brought together to create something bigger and more engaging.

I can only think that with a consolidation of the queues that there could be an implementation of some sort of match maker.
However, if we get fast games because the mode can cater for different numbers of players, particularly when spread over multiple factions, having one mismatch out of 5 (or whatever) is not a bad thing. it's an eye opener and in one or more of those matches your group might be the 'top dog' and on the other side of the coin.
A flexible match maker that could create a team of 4v4, 8v8 or 12v12 based on the number of players queuing for a faction would allow for a lot of mixing and matching of different teams, particularly if the factions are not combined to reduce the possible number of sides from 13 to something smaller.

The dynamic handicap on drop deck tonnage was in regards to creating an offensive and defensive option within the one queue and was just there to give an offensive drop deck a penalty as a way to simulate supply lines and introduce a new feature to work with and build depth around, but also create a point of difference.
It's greater purpose is actually to provide level of balance and protection for a side that might suddenly be the focus of attack from everyone else.

MischiefSC, on 20 October 2018 - 03:57 PM, said:

I still like not handicaps but rewards and the option to hold for like teams. So a 12man of a good team get mediocre pay for rolling 12 pugs. The 12 pugs, even getting smashed, make about what they'd make on a win against other pugs. If they manage to pull off a good match (like 30+ kills) they could even make more on a loss. Conversely the good team makes more vs another good team.

So suppose KCom 12man in Clans is in queue and Evil/bcmc et al 12man is in queue for IS. We can both elect to hold for the other, putting us on the same drop cycle. Everyone gets more cbills. This only works when both sides have multiple drops available.

Make it a payout thing. Reward mixed drops and reward pugs for playing in a team.

Like a match payout multiplier?
I certainly understand the reasoning of using a carrot and not a stick.

Could probably do that at the moment by taking the team average tier and comparing them. Multiply by the difference.
However, need to make sure that tier increases occur in Faction Play... which I believe they currently don't.
Or... basing it on groups somehow? But does that boil down to using tiers again?

MischiefSC, on 20 October 2018 - 03:57 PM, said:

So suppose KCom 12man in Clans is in queue and Evil/bcmc et al 12man is in queue for IS. We can both elect to hold for the other, putting us on the same drop cycle. Everyone gets more cbills. This only works when both sides have multiple drops available.

The advantage here with modular grouping is that units always belong to a single faction.
So if there were 12 players of KCom and Evil/BCMC in 3 groups of 4 each in the queue as well as a bit of a random assortment of groups in the other factions, the bigger teams should naturally face off without having to create separate queues.
A flexible match maker should try and create the bigger teams fist off.
Can it make a 12v12
Yes, there are 3 lances in Steel Viper (Kcom) and there are 3 lances in Faction X.
Game on.
But should it be that Kcom still has 3 lances running but there is only 2 lances under faction X and 1 lance in Faction Y, then everyone still gets to play as the lances can be split up as needed and no one has to wait.
In an ideal scenario there would be multiple lances in each side and you then get variety of opponent but as soon as there are enough players ina single faction, game on.

Something we should fully expect to happen is players organising nights to show up in force. A good example (and correct me if I'm wrong) was the Wednesday night Davion vs Liao fights. If it happened that that is when those players were on in force, fantastic. Maybe there are a few random smaller conflicts in between with different factions, but that's ok. It's a little border skirmish or raid that you have to attend to.

Getting more battles by providing multiple opponents through a flexible system would surely be a better thing.

[Nightbird]

50 50, on 21 October 2018 - 01:33 AM, said:

It's a different point of view. Nothing more.

Yes. It's the view that as long as most matches are one sided stomps, the FP population will never grow.

[MischiefSC]

Any system based on forcing groups to split up will absolutely fail.

I have more one sided matches in GQ and QP than FW. If matches had no wait time you'd have more FW drops. If there was more reason to play FW it's possible you could get a bunch of players back.

If the idea is that FW failed and you just want to cannibalize GQ and QP then just kill FW as a concept and make it an opt-in but functionally part of both QP and GQ.

If the goal is to actually make FW it's own thing then the goal needs to be bringing lost teams back. That means addressing why they left - not why more AP solo yolos don't drop in FW.

[50 50]

Getting the lost teams back would certainly have an impact on the wait times... you would hope... but there is no incentive at the moment.
I am looking at the system at the moment and thinking that with a single bucket there would be a way to bring back some of that faction identity that we lost and without dividing up the population into multiple queues.
However, because we have 13 factions in the game at the moment and given current player activity, it seems unlikely that we would get enough players to create a full 12 player team in each faction on a regular basis.
At least not without some other enhancements to the mode that would draw players in. To me, that is looking at ways to add depth which would get players to invest in the mode.
However, this is the reason behind suggesting the match maker needs flexibility in allowing smaller teams to fight it out.

Right at the start, Phase 1, it was a very open system and we could simply pick any planet on the border of our faction and queue. That was ok but because the match maker did not allow smaller teams, everyone ended up congregating on a single planet where there were enough players on both sides to get some drops so the move in the development of the mode was to try limiting the number of areas players could queue up. The system became more restrictive until finally we were reduced to a single front and the 'one bucket'.
Imagine for a moment what would it have been like had the match maker allowed smaller teams to drop into battle. We might see some small 4v4 engagements on some planets, 8v8s on another and the full 12v12 on others.
We might have seen small engagements grow up to the 12v12 as more players joined, or a 12v12 scale down to a 4v4 as players left.

Without restoring the mode to an earlier phase, this scaling of the battle is still possible in a single queue with the added advantage that instead of a single opponent you could face someone different each drop.
In a single bucket free for all approach it would be silly to have a situation where a faction has enough players to fill a 12 player team and have them sit their watching the search circle because none of the other sides are fielding that many players.

If we want to bring back some of that faction identity that could entice some units/players back it means breaking up the 2 sides we have at the moment. Get people engaged with their chosen faction by having them represent that faction and fight for it instead of just the IS or Clan blob. Segregating the factions means we can't combine teams though, so there has to be flexibility in the system to allow for smaller conflicts.
The simplest way to do this is to limit groups to 2 or 4 players so we have a very simple modular building block to build teams.
Limiting a group does not stop multiple groups from forming a full 12 player team for their faction.

Not sure I've mentioned it in this thread but sync dropping should be a feature that lets us link groups for a co-ordinated war effort so if there is enough matching players in an opposing side the system can keep your linked groups together.

The purpose behind limiting the groups is to allow a faction that has a large number of players to still get into some drops by having those groups engage in smaller conflicts against multiple opponents as necessary.
If more players are invested in the mode then we should see the scale of the battles escalate up and down and if there are enough players active you would likely just go from one 12v12 to another.

The advantage of limiting the groups also works from the other perspective as it means small units or pugs can make a small group and still be involved. If there are other players online for their faction then they might end up combining groups, or they just get a small conflict against another faction with a small group.

It may even have an impact on the solo vs group argument in the mode given the way the system tries to match groups first.

Not only would this allow the inter faction conflict we have lost (the IS v IS, Clan v Clan and IS v Clan battles), but scaling battles up and down (4v4 to 12v12) creates diversity and makes the mode different.

There are various other features that would be nice to add and add depth which would hopefully entice more players to play the mode.