270 replies to this topic

[Daurock]

Nightbird, on 21 November 2018 - 06:19 AM, said:

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.

Not quite. Note the part about "when the outcome is obvious." A match where most people on both sides are on their last mechs, and no one knows who will win is a good thing, yes, and something to strive towards, because the outcome is NOT obvious. This change, however, is only a marginal move in that direction, and one with significant side effects on the playstyles employed, and significant developer time and effort required.

If after wave 2, the score is something like 24-8, something that will still very much be the norm when a premade fights a pug, even using lighter mechs, it's still pretty obvious where the rest of the match is gonna go. At that point, the rest of the match is mostly just picking up table scraps, and lengthening the pain. Sometimes, the outcome is obvious even earlier than that, at the matchup screen. Its one of the primary problems with the basic Pug vs. Premade Business. The outcome is often obvious from the get-go, and it's why you have pugs that willingly eject before even engaging the enemy, instead of spend 20 minutes of their time on something that's already decided. An obvious from wave 1 or 2 loss is still a dis-heartening one, regardless of what mechs the opponents are running.

Unless there's a serious threat to the ability of that team of 'good' players to even win the game at all vs. those pugs, nothing really changes. A comfortable win by one side is still gonna be a dis-heartening loss for the other side. And even a large, 100 ton gap doesn't seriously threaten that supremacy, IMO, and adding in the "optional" part of it so that the group of goods can just keep winning anyway by going full tonnage even waters the effect down further than that. If you honestly feel that a group of good players is going to start regularly losing to pugs when running light, and that they'll generally continue to run light and choose to lose just as often as they win, be my guest to make that argument I guess, but unless and until they actually start losing with some regularity, nothing is really going to change by adding in an optional handicap. I just can't see that happening.

It'd be better to simply end the game once the outcome is obvious, and/or create better matchmaking from the get-go. (Both topics the devs are already discussing, per the FP podcast a while back.) Both would have a far stronger, and more meaningful effect than adding in an optional skill-based handicap.

Edited by Daurock, 21 November 2018 - 07:34 AM.

[Nightbird]

Daurock, on 21 November 2018 - 07:32 AM, said:

Not quite. Note the part about "when the outcome is obvious."

You're welcome to create a thread that says, whenever two teams of significant skill differences are made by the matchmaker, the stronger team automatically wins. You don't even need to load into a match. I mean, that's when the outcome is obvious right?

Daurock, on 21 November 2018 - 07:32 AM, said:

If you honestly feel that a group of good players is going to start regularly losing to pugs when running light, and that they'll generally continue to run light and choose to lose just as often as they win, be my guest to make that argument

If you've read the thread, you'd see the idea is to give the losing side more kills and cbill when there is a big difference in skill. The stronger team gets more of a challenge by giving up tonnage. There's nothing in it to make the better team lose. Such an idea would never gain any traction, though you're welcome to suggest it elsewhere.

Edited by Nightbird, 21 November 2018 - 07:44 AM.

[KingCobra]

This game is almost dead and FP is doomed unless the Devs decide to make it fun for everyone involved pugs and premade split permanently plus fix rewards plus MWO has become boring as the day is long Solaris is in ruins because it was implemented so horribly and way to complicated to be fun.

To many ideas in this thread that will just kill MWO faster the old premades just want to keep there basic roll everyone until the end philosophy not even caring that 100,00 + casual and new players have left FP or left the game over the last few years because of the imbalanced and pooh factor in bad matchmaking in solo group and FP.

After playing since 2011 on this account and from day 1 on my founders account there has only been a few ideas from the community that made it to the Devs and they acted on them then 50% of those were total garbage implemented to a point that players left the game permanently that I cant wait to see what carrot they try to dangle to the few thousand players left to get them to spent another dime on MWO.

Edited by KingCobra, 21 November 2018 - 09:24 AM.

[Nightbird]

KingCobra, on 21 November 2018 - 09:23 AM, said:

pugs and premade split permanently

KingCobra, on 21 November 2018 - 09:23 AM, said:

to many ideas in this thread that will just kill MWO faster

There's one right there lol. A bad for wait time and bad for sync drop idea.

[Daurock]

Nightbird, on 21 November 2018 - 07:37 AM, said:

If you've read the thread, you'd see the idea is to give the losing side more kills and cbill when there is a big difference in skill. The stronger team gets more of a challenge by giving up tonnage. There's nothing in it to make the better team lose. Such an idea would never gain any traction, though you're welcome to suggest it elsewhere.

If you believe the C-Bill gesture in the OP will actually make those bads feel better about spending a half hour of time between que, deck, load, and actual gameplay, all to probably still earn less than 300k, i for one think you'd be mistaken. Turning a percentage of little-to-no money into something people will notice will take a LOT more than the noted 25%. To even make FP equal to QP for a bad, you're probably talking more like in the 100-200% increase, rather than 25. To entice people to play a mode they perceive as less fun, (A perception issue, but not one easily shaken) you probably have to go even further than that. That point exists somewhere - or else the bribes they bring in on the events wouldn't work. I'll give it that much at least. However, adding a flat increase big enough to make an appreciable difference in player participation is going to be so high as to be almost ridiculous, and probably exploitable at that point.

As for your suggestion about a thread about recommending changes to make a better team lose - Why would I need to make that, when your post, and arguably the entire thread already alludes to that? When you say "The stronger team gets more of a challenge by giving up tonnage" you're directly implying that they actually will be more challenged to do the basic goal of the match, I.E. win. If they aren't being challenged to win, what ARE they being challenged to do?

I would argue that the "Challenge" of bringing in a lower tonnage deck is not a challenge at all. They will just continue to win just as much as before, with few noticeable changes in outcome, aside from incentivizing more rushes. No risk of losing means no challenge, because it's still easy-mode for them. And because it's still no challenge, it's still gonna result in a lot of butt-hurt on the other side of the equation, because it's still gonna be a roll-over.

[Nightbird]

More of a challenge means using more mechs from your dropdeck and playing more carefully. The cbill gesture is in conjunction with the knowledge the other team is only using half your drop deck tonnage. Most bad players will appreciate the handicap.

[Elad]

I really like this idea. I don't know if it has been mentioned before in this thread, but if this were implemented it would actually encourage me to drop solo more often than I already do for a couple of reasons. The first being that it should give good (I'll acknowledge that I'm taking some liberties by lumping myself in the "good" category) players a better chance of having an even higher impact on the results of a match when they are dropping solo. The second, lesser incentive is that the c-bill "bump" would take the some of the sting out of the loss - as someone that still needs c-bills it stings to lose multiple games in a row where you individually perform well and the skittles throw hard - this also lessens the gap between the cbill earnings between dropping solo and playing quick play.

I also really like the idea of having a reason to run lower tonnage decks - right now the decks are sort of stale since most units run close to maximum weight and usually have the decks fairly optimized/standardized for that unit's style of play.

Edited by Elad, 21 November 2018 - 02:35 PM.

[Grus]

Kinda off subject but... what about some actual advertising? I cant remember ever seeing a MWO add on youtube let alone TV.

[Nightbird]

Grus, on 21 November 2018 - 07:18 PM, said:

Kinda off subject but... what about some actual advertising? I cant remember ever seeing a MWO add on youtube let alone TV.

It's a niche game and advertising costs a certain amount per view. Let be generous, and say for every 100 viewers 1 installs the game. For every 4 that try MWO, 1 pays 20$ for a mech pack.

Do you know how much it costs to show an ad to 400 people to earn that 20$? 120$! You lose 100$. To break even, you need to convert a high percentage of new players into paying customers, and also retain customers for years and years. MWO today isn't worth that investment, it's better to get free publicity from the release of Battletech and MW5, and you can see from the pop count how quickly MWO bleed the pop boost from the Battletech release.

[Grus]

Nightbird, on 21 November 2018 - 07:50 PM, said:

It's a niche game and advertising costs a certain amount per view. Let be generous, and say for every 100 viewers 1 installs the game. For every 4 that try MWO, 1 pays 20$ for a mech pack.

Do you know how much it costs to show an ad to 400 people to earn that 20$? 120$! You lose 100$. To break even, you need to convert a high percentage of new players into paying customers, and also retain customers for years and years. MWO today isn't worth that investment, it's better to get free publicity from the release of Battletech and MW5, and you can see from the pop count how quickly MWO bleed the pop boost from the Battletech release.

Still running at around 34k active players last time i checked.

Never did any sort of advertising so i have no idea, ill take your word for it. Were or do they ever have a booth at games con or something like that? How much do those run?

[S t P a u l y]

Grus, on 21 November 2018 - 07:18 PM, said:

Kinda off subject but... what about some actual advertising? I cant remember ever seeing a MWO add on youtube let alone TV.

I didn't start playing until last November because I had no idea the game existed. I would have been playing as soon as it came out, if I had known. Completely forgot the Battletech universe existed, for a while...

[Spheroid]

S t P a u l y, on 22 November 2018 - 02:49 AM, said:

I didn't start playing until last November because I had no idea the game existed. I would have been playing as soon as it came out, if I had known. Completely forgot the Battletech universe existed, for a while...

The canceled MechWarrior 3015 trailer received many viewings after it released in 2009 followed by MWO coverage from PC Gamer in 2011/12. Additionally the game would have shown up in Steam when it arrived there as a new release.

There certainly was an awareness of the IP during the last decade.

Edited by Spheroid, 22 November 2018 - 08:58 AM.

[Nightbird]

Grus, on 21 November 2018 - 08:28 PM, said:

Never did any sort of advertising so i have no idea, ill take your word for it. Were or do they ever have a booth at games con or something like that? How much do those run?

A lot more $ for a lot fewer views. Those booths depend on review sites giving them free advertising by writing about their content. No one is going to write about a 6yr old game though.

[Grus]

Nightbird, on 22 November 2018 - 11:03 AM, said:

A lot more $ for a lot fewer views. Those booths depend on review sites giving them free advertising by writing about their content. No one is going to write about a 6yr old game though.

Idk, i still see stuff about EvE online now and then. And thats been out for over 16 years now i think

[Nightbird]

A few more days to mechcon, hoping for some good news.

[Rexxxxxxxxx]

I think a C-Bill Bonus and a warning of the strength of the opposing team would be a great benefit to Faction Play.

Most military forces will have intel on the strength of the enemy force ahead of time. Then would adjust their gear/mechs accordingly. Being able to use the mech lab while waiting 10 minutes for a match would also help in this respect, or at least pass the boredom.

Having a C-Bill bonus for facing a 12 man would definitely encourage pugs and new players to face the stronger opponents instead of griping about it the entire game.

Great suggestions.

Rexxxxxxxxx

[Monkey Lover]

Rexxxxxxxxx, on 29 November 2018 - 10:20 AM, said:

I think a C-Bill Bonus and a warning of the strength of the opposing team would be a great benefit to Faction Play.

Most military forces will have intel on the strength of the enemy force ahead of time. Then would adjust their gear/mechs accordingly. Being able to use the mech lab while waiting 10 minutes for a match would also help in this respect, or at least pass the boredom.

Having a C-Bill bonus for facing a 12 man would definitely encourage pugs and new players to face the stronger opponents instead of griping about it the entire game.

Great suggestions.

Rexxxxxxxxx

How many cbills would you need to lose every game you played? Lol

[Nightbird]

Updated first post to reflect Cbill & LP & XP bonuses and penalties

[Warning incoming Humble Dexterer]

To fix the FP population, you just have to put groups in their own separate queue : Tenfold increase in solo queue FP population.

To put groups in their own separate queue, you have to fix the FP population...

To increase the FP population, I suggest banning groups from FP during Competitive play.

[Nightbird]

Humble Dexter, on 30 November 2018 - 05:57 PM, said:

To fix the FP population, you just have to put groups in their own separate queue : Tenfold increase in solo queue FP population.

To put groups in their own separate queue, you have to fix the FP population...

To increase the FP population, I suggest banning groups from FP during Competitive play.

Don't worry, MW5 is coming out for the people who prefer solo play.