270 replies to this topic

[Daurock]

Nightbird, on 20 November 2018 - 11:36 AM, said:

How would the rush teams be rewarded for it? They'll get penalized like any other winning team.

The dedicated rushers get rewarded by simply using medium mechs that lend themselves well to a rush for their first couple drops. (That means something like a crab, crab, assassin, commando deck.) Since they're already planning to rush their first couple of mechs, and planning on winning in 5-10 minutes, there's no penalty to making the second half of the deck light too. Thus, no penalty on them when facing a group of Pugs/Bads, etc, and no better game is created.

Should they find themselves up against an evenly matched, or "Truly Good" team, they don't even really have to change their deck - They can simply rush anyway, and just do their thing as before, and let the chips fall where they may. They probably still lose, just like they did before when facing an evenly-or-better skilled team. Only now, it's a little faster, allowing them to go back to rushing and/or farming pugs more quickly. Plus, they get paid 25% more to lose that 1 match. Therefore, they aren't really hurt here either, nor has this particular matchup changed. (Possible Exception - If the "good" team ALSO decides to under-ton, and rush, you get something like a Rush-On-Rush, which is somewhat more interesting, but could easily get boring fast, since neither team would be particularly interested in engaging the enemy.)

Either way, they come out ahead, especially when compared to a 'Truly Good' group, that now has to think about what to drop, and actually strategize, lest they eat a significant penalty every game. Even a "Pug" player is going to have to occasionally mix up his drop deck, lest he get penalized, something he may not even have the mechs to actually do, making him fall behind the dedicated rusher also.

Bottom line - Incentivizing smaller drop decks (on anyone) is going to incentivize more rushing, due to the fact that the lighter decks fit themselves to that tactic. The groups that dedicate themselves to that style of tactics will be rewarded due to that.

Edited by Daurock, 20 November 2018 - 01:11 PM.

[Nightbird]

Daurock, on 20 November 2018 - 12:35 PM, said:

snip

Dedicated rushers use 4 heavies, going down to 4 mediums will make it harder, not easier. Also, they get rewarded for winning today, the goal of my suggestion was never to make winners into losers, but to make the final score closer. Your defending team will be able to get more kills from mediums than heavies.

[justcallme A S H]

Daurock, on 20 November 2018 - 12:35 PM, said:

The dedicated rushers get rewarded by simply using medium mechs that lend themselves well to a rush for their first couple drops. (That means something like a crab, crab, assassin, commando deck.) Since they're already planning to rush their first couple of mechs, and planning on winning in 5-10 minutes, there's no penalty to making the second half of the deck light too. Thus, no penalty on them when facing a group of Pugs/Bads, etc, and no better game is created.

Yep, exactly what I said a few pages back.

Coordinated team just brawl rushes first wave. Trades 40-50T for enemy 80-100T mechs and in a single wave the tonnage disparity is basically balanced out. It just means that instead of 48-12, it's 48-24.

Does it make it feel like any less of a steamroll because a few more mechs died? Nope.

Edited by justcallme A S H, 20 November 2018 - 02:51 PM.

[Nightbird]

justcallme A S H, on 20 November 2018 - 02:50 PM, said:

It just means that instead of 48-12, it's 48-24.

An idea that turns 48-12 matches into 48-24 matches is bad/in the wrong direction?

Are there any better alternative ideas available?

The perfect is the enemy of the good.


edit
Honestly if what was originally 48-12s turned into 48-24s, and what was originally 48-24s turned into 48-36s, I'd think a huge improvement was made to FP, but that's just me.

Edited by Nightbird, 20 November 2018 - 03:06 PM.

[Tarteso]

Eisenhorne, on 24 October 2018 - 07:09 AM, said:

No.... you can't split it into two queues, the game has too many queues at it is, and not enough players ...

"Not enough players for different queues (FP)" is an argument that past events faction vs faction have proved false: there were several premades each side at any moment to allow premade vs premade and pugs vs pugs separated queues. A different story is why most people dont give a damn about FP when PGI dont run mc-rewarding events.
Split queues may not be the better or the only solution, but is the logical and simpliest way to go in order to balance teams (or prevent serious imbalance) and avoid player frustration. This is a game and I'm playing for fun. Won or lost, a match can be fun if it was more or less balanced, and being stomped by premades is not funny.

[Nightbird]

Tarteso, on 20 November 2018 - 04:00 PM, said:

"Not enough players for different queues (FP)" is an argument that past events faction vs faction have proved false: there were several premades each side at any moment to allow premade vs premade and pugs vs pugs separated queues. A different story is why most people dont give a damn about FP when PGI dont run mc-rewarding events.
Split queues may not be the better or the only solution, but is the logical and simpliest way to go in order to balance teams (or prevent serious imbalance) and avoid player frustration. This is a game and I'm playing for fun. Won or lost, a match can be fun if it was more or less balanced, and being stomped by premades is not funny.

But 9/10 days in faction play is not an event day? On a good day, there's 50-75 people in total.

[Spheroid]

@Tarteso: I don't understand how you can have been playing since 2011 and not recall when they did the very thing you suggest.

The split queue was an abject failure. It doesn't matter anyway, with only two factions its trivial to sync drop. The end result will be identical absent changes to the sorting logic while the game is assembling twelve players for each side. Dropping solo uses the FIFO slotting method.

Edited by Spheroid, 20 November 2018 - 04:27 PM.

[justcallme A S H]

Nightbird, on 20 November 2018 - 03:00 PM, said:

An idea that turns 48-12 matches into 48-24 matches is bad/in the wrong direction?

When you continually ignore the fun factor / element which is the core issue most have?

A steamroll of a game from an organised 12man lasting an extra wave for the PUGs getting rolled. Not really much more fun in that from that perspective whether they drop 50T light or not - the result is the same.

End of the day FP and 12mans really are a thing of the past it seems. Any time I drop I so rarely see organised 12 on the other side and when I do, well, it's not really a challenge anyway.

To the best of my recollection the largest I've been in of late is a 8-man, any bigger and I just won't play as it's not even a challenge anymore. Rewind to 6 months ago there was still plenty of 12-mans getting around but most units seem to have dried up even further again and this proposal will do absolutely zero to solve that. If you can't get your head around thatt then I dunno what else to say.

[Nightbird]

justcallme A S H, on 20 November 2018 - 04:30 PM, said:

When you continually ignore the fun factor / element which is the core issue most have?

A steamroll of a game from an organised 12man lasting an extra wave for the PUGs getting rolled. Not really much more fun in that from that perspective whether they drop 50T light or not - the result is the same.

What metric would you use for the fun factor, if going from 48-12 to 48-24 is not an improvement?

I'm also not sure how you can blame me or this idea for what happened in the past 6 months?

[HARDKOR]

Put a score multiplier on kills, based on the win loss ratio * kd

Give weak teams a union drop ship.

[Nightbird]

HARDKOR, on 20 November 2018 - 04:49 PM, said:

Put a score multiplier on kills, based on the win loss ratio * kd

Give weak teams a union drop ship.

Change the formula however *shrug*

No new art assets, was a rule.

[justcallme A S H]

Nightbird, on 20 November 2018 - 04:40 PM, said:

What metric would you use for the fun factor, if going from 48-12 to 48-24 is not an improvement?

I'm also not sure how you can blame me or this idea for what happened in the past 6 months?

Well that's the thing. If you just look at numbers you will never know what fun is because fun is not determined by a number.

I never blamed you or this idea for the further population drop off. I said that this would not solve the drop off (ie, make them return). Therefore what is the point of implementing if it in the real world, it won't really change anything.

That is wasted development time for no real world gain - and I'm telling you - this won't achieve a thing.

[ccrider]

justcallme A S H, on 20 November 2018 - 04:59 PM, said:

Well that's the thing. If you just look at numbers you will never know what fun is because fun is not determined by a number.

I never blamed you or this idea for the further population drop off. I said that this would not solve the drop off (ie, make them return). Therefore what is the point of implementing if it in the real world, it won't really change anything.

That is wasted development time for no real world gain - and I'm telling you - this won't achieve a thing.

personally, I think closer matches might encourage players to take the time to learn the mode and get better. If that happened, more units return for an actual challenge and FP begins the healing process. It's worth a shot even if only 1-10 players who solo drop get better. Right now, 0 do and that's why un8ts are drying up. Why group drop to just roll people? Unit drops are fun when the other team can compete.

[Nightbird]

justcallme A S H, on 20 November 2018 - 04:59 PM, said:

That is wasted development time for no real world gain - and I'm telling you - this won't achieve a thing.

Currently, skilled team meets potato team, skilled team plows through potatoes with a group of assaults and gets to their dropships before drop farming. Ejects first wave, mostly due to running out of ammo, comes back in lights and finishes match. Pug reaction "woah we got r*ped, that was a sh*tty experience, we're not coming back!"

With this idea, and lets increase the penalty a bit just for you Ash, so 120 tons minimum, you have a team of 12 urbies or 12 kit foxs. First wave hits pugs, but due to much lower DPS and alpha, it's impossible to kill the first potato wave before the reinforcements steam in (stream because potatoes). The fight gets close to the spawn but due to reduced armor of lights, people either don't make it to spawn farming or avoid dropships due to fear of instant death. Final score 48-24. Pug reaction "Holy sh*t, did we just get beaten by only urbies/kit foxes? That was amazing, sh*tty but amazing!"

Edited by Nightbird, 20 November 2018 - 05:11 PM.

[MischiefSC]

It will do a lot - not simply for FW. First, any change gets a population bump in a similar form to having an event. People want to try the new thing.

More to the point it adds a mechanic for trying to drive good behavior, essentially rewarding pug teams for trying harder vs good teams (by paying them more) and/or rewarding teams of good players for voluntarily dropping tonnage or intentionally dropping as less than 12 to carry pugs.

The concept has been around a good long while and it's always been a good one. You want to give good/experienced/veteran players a reason and reward for not going big and strong 24x7 and giving pug/inexperienced/bad players a reason and reward for trying to improve and play to their team especially when playing against a coordinated opponent.

As stated before it's also got potential outside of just FW. As a concept it helps balance the games inherently broken balance for tonnage (in QP bigger = better, pretty much always) and team vs pug/goods vs bads situations.

[Spheroid]

MischiefSC, on 20 November 2018 - 10:33 PM, said:

and/or rewarding teams of good players for voluntarily dropping tonnage or intentionally dropping as less than 12 to carry pugs.

The problem is this game is so long in the tooth that the very concept of "carrot" is meaningless. C-bills are only useful for purchasing mechs and equipment. What about long term players? I damn near have every c-bill mech in the game with numerous duplicates. Mechs are permanent acquisitions that require no upkeep. What use are more c-bills to me? This game desperately need additional c-bill sinks or incentives will not work. Perhaps if I was forced to buy faction specific duplicate mechs, I would be influenced, but not as is. If they give out too much MC they likewise break the F2P model.

How do you influence the man who has everything?

[S t P a u l y]

I like some of your ideas, NIghtbird. Obviously nothing comes even close to having an influx of more skilled players to FP, but since that doesn't happen very often... I would vote for some kind of dynamic handicapping system.

[Daurock]

Nightbird, on 20 November 2018 - 04:40 PM, said:

What metric would you use for the fun factor, if going from 48-12 to 48-24 is not an improvement?

One of those metrics on defining how bad a beatdown is is how LONG it takes. Lengthening out the game via a bunch of good players using lighter mechs, when the outcome is just as obvious after wave 1, is arguably an even worse outcome than the 48-12 roll.

This proposal doesn't really do anything to Change that outcome. Not only that, but it's complicated, would take a lot of developer time, and because it incentivizes changing the amount of tonnage in the deck, it incentivizes changing the strategies employed, leading to more rushes and the like. You might as well make a simpler, probably more easily programmed in change and add in "Noob armor," based on skill difference that literally lowers the damage that a team of bads takes. (No, that's not a serious proposal, as it is also a ridiculous thing to do.)

What's interesting if you go back and listen to that developer FP podcast was some of the discussion on an "early win condition" either via vote, or via automatic early win. Either of those options would have far greater impact on lessening the pain of a beatdown, since it literally could finish out the game when its something like 18-4, and is probably far more easily implemented than what's being discussed here, since.. well.. they already have talked about it being a possibility. It would be a more valuable discussion to be having than this one.

Edited by Daurock, 21 November 2018 - 06:13 AM.

[Nightbird]

Daurock, on 21 November 2018 - 06:11 AM, said:

One of those metrics on defining how bad a beatdown is is how LONG it takes.

Then by your logic, a 48-0 score is much better than a 48-47 score, since the latter means a long long beatdown. Excellent logic.

Daurock, on 21 November 2018 - 06:11 AM, said:

What's interesting if you go back and listen to that developer FP podcast was some of the discussion on an "early win condition" either via vote, or via automatic early win. Either of those options would have far greater impact on lessening the pain of a beatdown, since it literally could finish out the game when its something like 18-4, and is probably far more easily implemented than what's being discussed here, since.. well.. they already have talked about it being a possibility. It would be a more valuable discussion to be having than this one.

A mechanic like that can easily be circumvented by ejecting the right number of mechs.

Edited by Nightbird, 21 November 2018 - 06:29 AM.

[Nightbird]

Spheroid, on 21 November 2018 - 12:39 AM, said:

How do you influence the man who has everything?

You offer him a challenge. Recommending tonning down due to a gap in relative team strengths means a bored player will accept the challenge for entertainment.