Jump to content

Fix Fp Population In One Month


270 replies to this topic

#1 Nightbird

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Soviet
  • The Soviet
  • 4,511 posts

Posted 23 October 2018 - 07:03 AM

Give unbalanced teams handicaps. Call it something different of course, like resource allocation or tonnage allocation for battle.

Analyze each team for it's average win-loss ratio across all members, if teams are very different skill wise, give the stronger team a dynamic cbill adjustment for deck tonnage, just as an example:
250 tons: -50% Cbill & LP & XP penalty
200 tons: 0% Cbill adjustment
150 tons: 25% Cbill & LP & XP bonus.

Give the weaker team a flat bonus: +25% Cbills & LP & XP for fighting a stronger team.

The percentages are just an example, adjust it based on the magnitude of the difference between the average win-loss ratio of the two teams. For example:

Team A WLR: 0.5 & Team B WLR: 1.5 then Team B gives up 25 tons or gets 50% Cbill & LP & XP penalty, team A gets 10% Cbill & LP & XP bonus
Team A WLR: 0.5 & Team B WLR: 3.0 then Team B gives up 50 tons or gets 50% Cbill & LP & XP penalty, team A gets 25% Cbill & LP & XP bonus
Team A WLR: 0.5 & Team B WLR: 10.0 then Team B gives up 100 tons or gets 50% Cbill & LP & XP penalty, team A gets 50% Cbill & LP & XP bonus


With this, people will come back because they know if the teams aren't fair, they'll get a tonnage and cbill handicap against stronger teams. Display the average drop deck tonnage during the drop screen, so both sides know something was done to make the match more even.

The penalty can also be scaled linearly. If you need to give up 20 tons and you give up 10, your penalty is 25%. If you need to give up 50 tons and you give up 40, your penalty is just 10%. Call it something different of course, like cost of additional supplies.

Oh yes, give more drop decks purtty please

Edit: Cbill & LP & XP bonuses and penalties instead of just Cbill

Edited by Nightbird, 04 December 2018 - 03:42 PM.


#2 Nightbird

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Soviet
  • The Soviet
  • 4,511 posts

Posted 23 October 2018 - 07:07 AM

I should note again, that the maximum drop deck limit doesn't change under any scenarios, only the cbill earning if you choose not to reduce your tonnage.

This was a condition PGI gave: No dynamic tonnage limits.

#3 Eisenhorne

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Liquid Metal
  • Liquid Metal
  • 2,111 posts
  • LocationUpstate NY

Posted 23 October 2018 - 07:32 AM

I would support this. I'd support it even more if it gave a warning after a match has been found, and is counting down the last 1:00 till drop, of the relative strength of your opponent. That way, if it's an expected easy match, I can drop in mediums and lighter mechs, and if it's an expected hard match, I bring my try hard deck. I don't want to get stuck using nothing but lights against a full 12 man.

#4 Marquis De Lafayette

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Blazing
  • The Blazing
  • 1,166 posts
  • LocationIn Valley Forge with General Washington

Posted 23 October 2018 - 07:58 AM

I like the general concept of “bonuses for handicaps”, I have doubts that they would do the amount of work to code such a system for FW. But...that’s up to PGI I guess. Plus, while it would benefit newer players who need c-bills, veteran players are often sitting on hundreds of millions of c-bills already (with nothing to spend it on), so making 500k vs. 1 million a drop isn’t really much of an incentive to drop lower tonnages. If vets don’t really need c-bills anyway...well it might need to be something else for it to really work.

#5 Eisenhorne

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Liquid Metal
  • Liquid Metal
  • 2,111 posts
  • LocationUpstate NY

Posted 23 October 2018 - 08:07 AM

View PostMarquis De Lafayette, on 23 October 2018 - 07:58 AM, said:

I like the general concept of “bonuses for handicaps”, I have doubts that they would do the amount of work to code such a system for FW. But...that’s up to PGI I guess. Plus, while it would benefit newer players who need c-bills, veteran players are often sitting on hundreds of millions of c-bills already (with nothing to spend it on), so making 500k vs. 1 million a drop isn’t really much of an incentive to drop lower tonnages. If vets don’t really need c-bills anyway...well it might need to be something else for it to really work.


Make the +% reward apply to LP gained as well.

Edited by Eisenhorne, 23 October 2018 - 08:07 AM.


#6 Nightbird

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Soviet
  • The Soviet
  • 4,511 posts

Posted 23 October 2018 - 08:09 AM

View PostMarquis De Lafayette, on 23 October 2018 - 07:58 AM, said:

veteran players are often sitting on hundreds of millions of c-bills already (with nothing to spend it on), so making 500k vs. 1 million a drop isn’t really much of an incentive to drop lower tonnages.


If people want to spend 30 minutes to earn 500k, then why not. You can earn that in 1.5 QP matches which are 7 minutes each.

View PostEisenhorne, on 23 October 2018 - 08:07 AM, said:


Make the +% reward apply to LP gained as well.


Good idea

#7 Grus

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Little Devil
  • Little Devil
  • 3,975 posts

Posted 23 October 2018 - 08:23 AM

View PostNightbird, on 23 October 2018 - 07:03 AM, said:

Give unbalanced teams handicaps.

Analyze each team for it's average win-loss ratio across all members, if teams are very different skill wise, give the stronger team a dynamic cbill adjustment for deck tonnage, for example:
250 tons: -50% cbill penalty
200 tons: 0% cbill adjustment
150 tons: 25% cbill bonus.

Give the weaker team a flat cbill bonus: +25% cbills for fighting a stronger team.

Percentages are just an example, set it based on the magnitude of the difference between the average win-loss ratio of the two teams. For example:

Team A WLR: 0.5 & Team B WLR: 1.5 then Team B gives up 25 tons or gets cbill penalty, team A gets 10% cbill bonus
Team A WLR: 0.5 & Team B WLR: 3.0 then Team B gives up 50 tons or gets cbill penalty, team A gets 25% cbill bonus
Team A WLR: 0.5 & Team B WLR: 10.0 then Team B gives up 100 tons or gets cbill penalty, team A gets 50% cbill bonus


With this, people will come back because they know if the teams aren't fair, they'll get a tonnage and cbill handicap against stronger teams.

Oh yes, give more drop decks purtty please


But... but... my farm?

What will i do with my seal club?

These are need to know questions here Nightbird...

#8 Bud Crue

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Rage
  • Rage
  • 9,024 posts
  • LocationOn the farm in central Minnesota

Posted 23 October 2018 - 08:25 AM

Just to clarify, I think it would be necessary to give the teams with the lower average W/L ratio a bigger incentive in case of a loss as well (which is already perhaps part of your proposal).

So, like in your example, give the lower rated team a +25% c-bills for wining or losing. But perhaps we need a greater impetus for the low ranked team to play win or lose (in light of the inherent lower rewards on a loss). Maybe a +50% on a loss? See where I am going here? Not trying to incentivize bad teams losing, but just to incentivize playing even if you are a perpetual loser at the mode.

I’m trying to think how your proposal can be tailored to better address the age old complaint we always have heard over the years from the casual CW crowd of “no one likes to lose to a pre-made and that’s all CW is most nights”. Maybe only make the loss bonus available to teams whose average W/L ratio is below 1 (regardless of opponent’s ratio)?

Anyway, I like the idea on its face in the OP.

#9 Nightbird

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Soviet
  • The Soviet
  • 4,511 posts

Posted 23 October 2018 - 08:34 AM

View PostBud Crue, on 23 October 2018 - 08:25 AM, said:

So, like in your example, give the lower rated team a +25% c-bills for wining or losing. But perhaps we need a greater impetus for the low ranked team to play win or lose (in light of the inherent lower rewards on a loss).


It's because I'm tackling this from both sides. If the stronger team is taking 50 less tons, it means a lot more kills, component destruction, etc for the weaker team. Pure damage is actually a very tiny portion of cbill earnings.

Also, imagine what drop deck you'll bring for -100 tons. That's an average of 38-41 tons per mech.

Edited by Nightbird, 23 October 2018 - 08:34 AM.


#10 Marquis De Lafayette

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Blazing
  • The Blazing
  • 1,166 posts
  • LocationIn Valley Forge with General Washington

Posted 23 October 2018 - 08:43 AM

View PostEisenhorne, on 23 October 2018 - 08:07 AM, said:


Make the +% reward apply to LP gained as well.


Solid idea

#11 Hazeclaw

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 1,465 posts
  • LocationTrue North Strong and Free

Posted 23 October 2018 - 08:55 AM

View PostNightbird, on 23 October 2018 - 08:34 AM, said:

Also, imagine what drop deck you'll bring for -100 tons. That's an average of 38-41 tons per mech.


4 assassins, what do I win? Lol

It's a great idea, hopefully people wouldnt be too salty from the waves of lights/fast mediums this will certainly bring

#12 Eisenhorne

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Liquid Metal
  • Liquid Metal
  • 2,111 posts
  • LocationUpstate NY

Posted 23 October 2018 - 09:03 AM

View PostHazeclaw, on 23 October 2018 - 08:55 AM, said:

4 assassins, what do I win? Lol

It's a great idea, hopefully people wouldnt be too salty from the waves of lights/fast mediums this will certainly bring


2 hellbringers, 2 piranhas. Sounds fun to me :)

#13 Hazeclaw

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 1,465 posts
  • LocationTrue North Strong and Free

Posted 23 October 2018 - 09:13 AM

View PostEisenhorne, on 23 October 2018 - 09:03 AM, said:


2 hellbringers, 2 piranhas. Sounds fun to me Posted Image


that's like what we play now as most drops are decided in the first 2 waves

......there should be more money for bringing full tonnage to conquest, given now it's meta to underton

#14 MischiefSC

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Benefactor
  • The Benefactor
  • 16,453 posts

Posted 23 October 2018 - 09:21 AM

The concept I really like.

The issue is that you're adding wait time to the lobby AFTER teams are created.

However that's not to terrible of a thing. If it increases the population I'm fine with adding another, say, 60 seconds to give people time to adjust decks.

By making it an opt in you allow for issues with people not having enough mechs. For example I have an alt I play in FW sometimes so that I can play with teams on either side - I only have a few mechs for it though. I couldn't adjust my tonnage so I'd eat the penalty. However this is such a niche situation I'd happily still back this concept.

Yeah. So I chewed it over and the math for a bit, it could work. The reality is that the teams that skew W/L in FW constitute less than 40 players total between all of them. All the rest are in a relatively close bundle, then you've got this 3rd band of absolute terribads. If it helps motivate the terribads to suck even a bit less I'm game.

In the end I think the real solution is fixing the stuff that drove the thousands and thousands of unit players out but PGI has made it clear they are absolutely unwilling and unable to do that, so cannibalizing a bit more from QP isn't a terrible option.

#15 Nightbird

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Soviet
  • The Soviet
  • 4,511 posts

Posted 23 October 2018 - 01:17 PM

View PostMischiefSC, on 23 October 2018 - 09:21 AM, said:

The concept I really like.

The issue is that you're adding wait time to the lobby AFTER teams are created.

However that's not to terrible of a thing. If it increases the population I'm fine with adding another, say, 60 seconds to give people time to adjust decks.

By making it an opt in you allow for issues with people not having enough mechs. For example I have an alt I play in FW sometimes so that I can play with teams on either side - I only have a few mechs for it though. I couldn't adjust my tonnage so I'd eat the penalty. However this is such a niche situation I'd happily still back this concept.

Yeah. So I chewed it over and the math for a bit, it could work. The reality is that the teams that skew W/L in FW constitute less than 40 players total between all of them. All the rest are in a relatively close bundle, then you've got this 3rd band of absolute terribads. If it helps motivate the terribads to suck even a bit less I'm game.

In the end I think the real solution is fixing the stuff that drove the thousands and thousands of unit players out but PGI has made it clear they are absolutely unwilling and unable to do that, so cannibalizing a bit more from QP isn't a terrible option.


Making it 2 mins to prepare drop decks for invasion wouldn't be bad, especially if the new queue system does away with the 10 min countdown.

Players that don't have enough mechs to adjust (like your alt) could eat the penalty, or play QP for a bit longer to get more mechs. The latter would honestly be good for newer players.

If a strong 10 man picks up 2 pugs, yes, the 2 pugs are going to share the penalty, but today they usually don't get more than 500 damage as the large group steamrolls the other team.

I do think that imbalanced teams is largest reason people left FP. Yes, objectives and other FP specific features are lacking, but good satisfying gameplay is central to whatever star map or supply line or any other larger objective there is to accomplish. For most players, today's gameplay would never allow them to accomplish those objectives anyways.

#16 ccrider

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 1,194 posts

Posted 23 October 2018 - 02:36 PM

I love this idea. I PUG so often I'd never see a tonnage penalty. I could drop with 11 top players and skew the win percentage so hard we would each get a 10 robot 1000 ton deck. Mmmmm..... 10 Atlas'.

#17 MischiefSC

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Benefactor
  • The Benefactor
  • 16,453 posts

Posted 23 October 2018 - 02:59 PM

View PostNightbird, on 23 October 2018 - 01:17 PM, said:


Making it 2 mins to prepare drop decks for invasion wouldn't be bad, especially if the new queue system does away with the 10 min countdown.

Players that don't have enough mechs to adjust (like your alt) could eat the penalty, or play QP for a bit longer to get more mechs. The latter would honestly be good for newer players.

If a strong 10 man picks up 2 pugs, yes, the 2 pugs are going to share the penalty, but today they usually don't get more than 500 damage as the large group steamrolls the other team.

I do think that imbalanced teams is largest reason people left FP. Yes, objectives and other FP specific features are lacking, but good satisfying gameplay is central to whatever star map or supply line or any other larger objective there is to accomplish. For most players, today's gameplay would never allow them to accomplish those objectives anyways.


The two pugs will also reduce the total calculated Elo for the team - which is good for everyone. It rewards dropping in mixed groups instead of waiting for a 12man. So, functionally, instead of taking a tonnage cut you're carrying pugs.

The only people who don't 'win' in this scenario are the newbies with only a few mechs who end up dropping with a big, skilled team and getting carried. They were never getting paid much for that match anyway though and all in all this is a very minor negative.

As to why people left, go on a forum walk-about. Go through the forums in the 2015-2017 era. It was bad balance and lack of purpose. The only complaints about groups was mercs being able to flip around and stacking sides. I went through the first 18 months of posts, complaints about pugs vs groups was about 3% of topics.

However, now? Sure, now that everyone has already left and the pugs are a bigger population slice I would agree. We lost literally thousands of loyalists alone. Changes like this won't bring back the teams who left but at least it'll make the mode more fun for some of the QP players and introduce a bit of a sense of change for the rest of us.

#18 50 50

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,899 posts
  • LocationTo Nova or not to Nova. That is the question.

Posted 23 October 2018 - 03:34 PM

I recall during the last round table PGI had that the idea of self imposed handicaps came up but it didn't seem to get any traction even though it was considered 'an interesting' idea.

In someways it would only need to be implemented as a 'positive' effect.
Any player who elects to take less than their maximum tonnage for their drop deck gets a bonus at the end of the match if victorious.
It becomes a bit of a gamble. Do you take less and potentially earn more.

It's a bit like the Clan bidding system really.

A couple of additional question in regards to this handicap:
  • Would it also be worth looking at allowing fewer mechs in the drop deck? ie. Not needing a full dropdeck of 4 mechs.
  • Does the minimum tonnage need to be adjusted.
My concerns here would be how much would it influence players to bring very lopsided dropdecks, particularly with regards to not taking 4 mechs as it would allow bringing fewer mechs but heavier ones. More firepower.... less waves/drops.
Would that force a change to the drop deck tonnage limits overall? or perhaps something similar to the group tonnage limit in QP that changes according to number of players in group..... just in this case, number of mechs in deck.
Or does that seem like a bit of a risky direction.

#19 Nightbird

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Soviet
  • The Soviet
  • 4,511 posts

Posted 23 October 2018 - 03:46 PM

View Post50 50, on 23 October 2018 - 03:34 PM, said:

Would that force a change to the drop deck tonnage limits overall? or perhaps something similar to the group tonnage limit in QP that changes according to number of players in group..... just in this case, number of mechs in deck.
Or does that seem like a bit of a risky direction.


This is a pre-condition: no changes to tonnage limits. Because, what happen if you launch with a drop deck that becomes invalid in the lobby?

Edited by Nightbird, 23 October 2018 - 03:46 PM.


#20 50 50

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,899 posts
  • LocationTo Nova or not to Nova. That is the question.

Posted 23 October 2018 - 04:52 PM

View PostNightbird, on 23 October 2018 - 03:46 PM, said:


This is a pre-condition: no changes to tonnage limits. Because, what happen if you launch with a drop deck that becomes invalid in the lobby?


Yes, so going into the match you get some sort of notification of different skill levels/success rates and so on, and then have the option to swap to another drop deck, or modify the existing one before the match starts so players have a chance to make a change if they want to.
It's a reward based system that other than performing that initial check, would only need a new 'reward' added to the match result.

I think it's a great idea and completely voluntary.

My additional question was aimed at reducing tonnage by using less mechs in the drop deck (ie. removing the must have 4 mechs validation rule on the drop decks.)
However, my concern was: "Would being able to take less mechs create a problem with players taking 'top heavy' decks in normal drops"
ie. with a 250 tonnage limit I could take 2x 100 ton, 1x 50 ton mech.
Having it split the tonnage over the 4 mechs is a way to balance it so it may be a bad approach.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users