534 replies to this topic

[Dee Eight]

Peter2k, on 06 December 2018 - 03:12 PM, said:

I think with the FP population we have had since long tom, and the maybe dwindling playerbase as is, all we can do is try and MM both sides as good as can be (with an incentive for 12 man teams wanting to face 12 man teams)

Yep, otherwise it'll just be like solo QP where units attempt to sync drop.

[ConquerorClass]

justcallme A S H, on 06 December 2018 - 03:41 PM, said:

Agreed.

Simply letting good teams drop 50T light for better rewards won't stop the stomps... Ever.

Just means such teams will so a fast/organised brawl over trade for a simple tonnage exchange on the first wave of mechs. So a 12-1 first wave might end up being a 12-12... However 40-50T traded for 100T. Game then ends 48-24 or less...

Does it make it anymore enjoyable for the losers dragging out the match longer because of tonnage? No. And that is what'll happen, dragging out the inevitable.

Double assassin rush is OP

[LordNothing]

is there anything planned to help reduce or mitigate dogpiling scenarios. you know where the majority of the 12 mans (or players in general) stack on one side or the other chasing a perceived advantage or going with whatever side is winning at the time. possibly with some kind of bonus for going with the underdog. or perhaps dynamically creating civil war type scenarios when such things happen. i can see it both improving match quality for everybody and greatly reducing wait times.

Edited by LordNothing, 08 December 2018 - 03:30 AM.

[Nema Nabojiv]

Paul Inouye, on 06 December 2018 - 11:18 AM, said:

• Story/Lore/Faction driven choices to cement a desire to stay loyal
  
• Expand on the Loyalist path drastically
  
• Expand on lore in global descriptions in FP

• Bring back queue count

• Refresh on friends list
  
• Favorites on friends list

• Tool for players to enter planetary data

So, taking just the green and yellow stuff as the minimum of what we could expect. That's all basically rewards and interface QoL things.

Rewards and interface is not why FP is dead. It is dead because of bad experience with waittimes, and siege gameplay, and unit on pug stomps, and even less build diversity than QP has.
You wont resurrect it by fixing interface and not touching the root causes of why people dont play it.

I mean I'm kinda glad FP is getting attention, but with current plan it will be the same story as solaris. People will give it a shot, it might even be fun for a week or two, but then we'll be back to normal.

That's why I'd rather have a new map or two.

Edited by Nema Nabojiv, 08 December 2018 - 03:33 AM.

[ConquerorClass]

Sounds Very IP pirate.... but some awesome multiplayer games have been around for a while.... COPY, I mean, imitate, their mechanics.

Battlefield ticket system.
where elite side gets 40 tickets
potatos get 90 tickets.

or objective based.
and as tickets are used, Pilots spawn in on their next lowest ton mech. sometimes a double up.

this free's up other problems where people Disconnect.... as soon as they DC, the system pops them out, and in comes a freshy from the queue on a new ticket.
or DONT bring them in 1 at a time, THEY MUST wait till 4 are dead/spawning before a full dropship brings in a new lance to the battlefield.

it ups the situational awareness the team will need to complete objectives.

or maybe as people queue, instead of creating lobbies, it takes the 12 oldest in queue fresh from the start. NO groups can exist. and INSTA drops them.
even without enemies, so they can set up in the environment, then the enemy when formed can come from a RNG spot.
maybe behind them at the gens or a deploy zone they hold.

you HAVE soo many options from LORE points of view and without it.

imagine a TEAM garrisoning a planet, for uber rewards, is the ONLY group allowed to defend it.

also I like the idea of.
SNOW planet
desert planet
swamp planet

so many maps can be flooded.... get POLAR HIGHLANDS, plaint it green. flood the low areas.
River delta map

[kapusta11]

What about the ability to actually play the game mode you want? I know, crazy talk for 2018 (almost 2019).

I like FP conquest, You can neither rush the objective nor ignore it. You have to be mindful about the way you reinforce. I know people who like FP conquest. We want to play it. We can't. Because 4/5 times you're stuck playing garbage game modes. Bring back game mode filters.

[Lorginir]

So 4 out of 34 entries are ready. Seems reasonable, it will only take eight and a half years to complete the list.

[Nesutizale]

Quote

Tool for players to enter planetary data

What does that exactly mean? Can I open the map, select a planet and then copy&paste in the Sarna.net informations for that planet?

PS: Can we add to the wishlist a map editor?
Give people the chance to create their own maps for private matches and if you (PGI) find something good you could add it to the game. Maybe have players vote for their favorite maps to become an official map for non-private matches.

I would guess that you would have lots of maps to draw inspiration from or directly work with in a short time.

Edited by Nesutizale, 08 December 2018 - 05:22 AM.

[Flying Fox 333]

Paul Inouye, on 06 December 2018 - 11:18 AM, said:

<li>Reward group play at a higher level than solo</li>

Historically this results in stomp matches, so perhaps you should reward players that don't normally group up only. I suppose you could track past group matches played and base the reward on that.

Also groups shouldn't be any larger than 4, it simply results in unbalanced matches generally. However as a compromise a matchmaker condition could be added that if there are several groups in the queue on either side. It will attempt to match them against one another utilising an averaged group Elo. Mono-unit groups should be matched with other groups which preferably don't have unit members from the same unit as well.

[November Juliet]

justcallme A S H, on 06 December 2018 - 05:19 PM, said:

Not true.

I've barley dropped with those guys in a large group over the past 5 months. All of them will back that up. And not because we've had a falling out or anything I just am at a point where I prefer a challenge more. Once a group gets too big I'll just drop group.

More often than not I'm solo dropping or small groups of no more than 6 and taking new guys along (while I'm streaming).

Can confirm

[Weagles]

Time to generate some hate but I am getting a little tired of the discussion focusing on how to reward the stompers for driving the rest of the population off of FW. If we have a ranking for each player/group based on killing and the drop is heavily lopsided the game choice should be limited to types which rarely result in a 48 stomp. Yes conquest and then shorten the points out to win. Strategy, not killing skill takes over and at least the weaker team has a chance of winning or at least having a decent fun match. This will drive behavior. Stompy groups will get tired of conquest, break up, and take weaker pilots to avoid it. The upside for smaller stompy groups is there is more likelihood of running into other smaller stompy groups.

Edited by Weagles, 08 December 2018 - 10:11 AM.

[Terrorsdawn]

PEOPLE IN THIS FORUM. I BEG YOU TO ALL SAVE YOUR BREATH, YOUR SANITY AND MOST OF ALL YOUR MONEY.

There is no explanation, excuse or lie that Paul can give to you.That will make up for what they have done to Faction Play, are doing with faction play or will do with it in the future. The way they have run it into the ground and neglected it to now claim they are here to save it is complete and utter B. S.. Even this latest attempt to now work with the community, that started 6 months ago (almost) has given us squat. Will only give us minimal QLF changes in another 4 is disgusting.

Oh but we had Mechcon.......... If a man neglects his work to plan and take his family on a vacation. Only to loose his job and result in his family homeless and hungry. Then we would say he has his priorities wrong. By putting all their resources into Mechcon and neglecting this game wouldn't we also say they have their priorities wrong?

To also use the excuse they are dealing with license issue's and having a sit down with the boys down south should be a red flag to all. PGI is not investing in this game really any more. They are milking it of its last few mech pack sales they can squeeze out of it.

This whole "Working with the community!" Is a smoke screen. Don't reward them with you purchases till they deliver in game something worthy of your money.

Just my view and a the views of a small group of people that used to love this game.

Edited by Terrorsdawn, 08 December 2018 - 07:25 AM.

[Grus]

ConquerorClass, on 08 December 2018 - 03:22 AM, said:

Double assassin rush is OP

Sounds like someone hasnt done the doubble huntsman splat deck.

[Grus]

J a y, on 07 December 2018 - 11:22 AM, said:

Suggestion: Paul buys me dinner, I buy Paul dinner, and then MischiefSC buys BOTH of us dinner when he finally shows up on this thread.

And afterwords you all have to brown nose eachother more than ASH did earlier... i know its a tall order but it should be fun

[Spheroid]

Terrorsdawn, on 08 December 2018 - 07:21 AM, said:

To also use the excuse they are dealing with license issue's and having a sit down with the boys down south should be a red flag to all. PGI is not investing in this game really any more. They are milking it of its last few mech pack sales they can squeeze out of it.

Why would any other competitor desire the MechWarrior IP? Who is outbidding PGI? If 2020 is the end of the license is it because Microsoft wants to create a MechAssault 3 for the next gen Xbox? I need to know concretely the server shutdown date so I don't make any foolish purchases a month before the servers go dark. It seems as a Canadian company they would be legally obligated to disclose this set in stone date or face being sued.

Edited by Spheroid, 08 December 2018 - 10:04 AM.

[Sereglach]

Paul Inouye, on 06 December 2018 - 02:00 PM, said:

Won't promise anything along these lines. However it would make for a interesting talking point internally because it uses the same principles as Elo. Elo has a prediction algorithm that says player A or team A has an X% chance of winning. If it's right, it reduces the gains of the winner and reduces the loss of the loser, But if the underdog wins, the gains/losses are bigger.

A concept of technical curiosity: at the end-of-match screen (so people don't throw a match early, against staggering odds), would it be possible to add a reward multiplier for the underdog based on the Elo prediction gap?

For example, Elo says the superior team has an 85% chance of winning . . . vs. an ideal 50-50 split. That's a 35% gap. Therefore, at the end of match screen, the underdog receives a 35% bonus to c-bills and/or loyalty (especially if loyalty becomes a viable currency), win or lose. That encourages underdog players to stick it out in matches, because it makes their payouts a bit more reasonable, even on the likely loss; and if by chance they win, then they can feel great about the gains.

In lore, especially if loyalty points become a viable currency, then it stands as a testament that warriors of a given faction are willing to go out and do battle -against "overwhelming" odds- in the name of their faction.

Edited by Sereglach, 08 December 2018 - 10:08 AM.

[Tarl Cabot]

Nightbird, on 07 December 2018 - 09:19 PM, said:

BROARL, on 07 December 2018 - 09:01 PM, said:

PGI is not entirely responsible for player numbers thinning. i know i will be heckled for saying this again but trolling the enemy as you stomp them is not exactly encouraging them to keep playing...
faction warfare is for everyone i thought? troll people for not being world class if and when amateur players attempt to fight you for prizemoney but don't expect every invasion match to be world championship level.

PGI is the only party present with the power (can change game mechanics at will) and incentive (makes more money if pop is high) to create better game experience for people of all skill levels.

As a player in the game, I can't voluntarily ton down without knowing who is on the other side. I can't split a strong team because then the next strongest team will win against us. So what can I do? I play by the rules PGI set, which is bring the best pilots and mechs I can and if the other side turns out to be pugs... there's nothing I can do. PGI doesn't empower players with mechanics to create challenging rather than stompy matches.

Should a unit voluntarily drop tonnage before a match? I do not believe a team SHOULD do that, unless they are voluntarily running joke builds. PGI has nothing in place to even alert people if units of 5+ or formed up co-ops 5/6+ are even dropping at the time.

imho, BROARL's comment may be more about what happens after the dropping into combat. One side made up of a unit + co-ops does not necessarily have to verbally make fun, take jabs at the other side, especially after the first wave totally owns them, it is what comes afterwards, the rubbing the salt into the wound by not only continuously spawn camping but bringing full wave after full wave, if it gets to that point. EDIT - the drop being a HARD STOMP. It has a more immediate effect when on the receiving end but it can and does infect the other side.

Seal clubbing - the Clubbers
- Some people will do it because they like it, it makes them feel supreme
- Do it to make a point of how dare you enter mode unprepared
- For some it may be entertaining at first but it eventually old because the approach being taken, not just by PGI but the CO and rest of the team,, while not challenging, not satisfying.
- Said unit personnel may stick around longer due to friendships made in hte unit but will eventually grow dissatisfied with that type of game play, playing less and less, team ends up fielding fewer and fewer players for each match. Unit and then community suffers.

The Receivers
- Some when join units to lessen the negative experience - but see above
- Others will play the mode less often but between it and Group queue it may be a death spiral when trying to play and keep friends playing. There is always the Solo queue, right?
- etc

It is not simply about who wins or loses, it is about winning is such a way that it is seen as simply stat padding when most drops can be seen as an overkill. ie using an M60 instead of .30-06 or a bow to take out that buck. But hey, this is the way PGI has set the game up is the reasoning used by said players.


An example (hai, have been ridiculed when suggested ) is to manually engage their opponent in 5 waves of 9 instead of 4 waves of 12. I would not expect most defenders in Siege to hold forces in reserve.

How could a team approach a drop that is a definitely an overkill/outclassed their opponents instead of waiting for PGI to do something that may have a negative effect, such as adding fees to join a unit that increases based on unit size. Should have set a flat unit size, ie reinforced regiment and have a flat fee, if there needed to be some sort of C-Bill sink, anyhow...

edit - I get wordy at times Nightbird but hai, it is the hard stomp!!

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 08 December 2018 - 10:38 AM.

[Nightbird]

Tarl Cabot, on 08 December 2018 - 10:27 AM, said:

imho, BROARL's comment may be more about what happens after the dropping into combat. One side made up of a unit + co-ops does not necessarily have to verbally make fun, take jabs at the other side, especially after the first wave totally owns them, it is what comes afterwards, the rubbing the salt into the wound by not only continuously spawn camping but bringing full wave after full wave, if it gets to that point. It has a more immediate effect when on the receiving end but it can and does infect the other side.

Some snarky all chat isn't at the core of the toxicity, it's the stomp.

[Vellron2005]

Felbombling, on 06 December 2018 - 01:54 PM, said:

Paul [Russ], you should think about a ranking system that rewards players according to the difficulty of the engagement. For example, the old BattleTech game had a rating system for units, listing them as Elite, Veteran, Regular or Green. You could rate the units based on win percentage, perhaps. Say Elite units have an 85% + win rate, Veteran units have a win rate between 60% and 84%, etc.

If a collection of players meets an Elite unit and loses, perhaps grant them greater bonus rewards for taking on the challenge. That also has a by-product of producing unit recognition/pride and rivalries, while also promoting good play and advancement up the ranking network.

The idea seems logical, but wouldn't be very practical.. cose' a top-tier veteran unit can simply disband and start up a new green unit, and reap the rewards with their superior skill. Farming pugs would be taken to a hole new level..

[Nightbird]

Consider all the effort PGI made this year in MWO. In the order of most to least investment, Solaris, Comp play, Faction Play (events). All 3 are catered towards seal clubbers. Can you name even one effort directed towards raising new players?

Solaris: Any advantage in piloting or mechlab skill translates into certain loss for the other player. At least in QP a newer player can get lucky from time to time, not so in Solaris, they'll be creamed time after time and earn nothing for this disgrace.

Comp play: Looking at the participation, only 65 teams signed up. That's less than 800 people of what PGI claims to be a 100k+ monthly active players. So a major feature with a <1% participation rate, for skilled people.

FP events: Where seal clubbers roams. The skilled teams reap the largest rewards, getting all the wins and cbills and LP etc. Minimal rewards sends more seals into FP, with no modifications to improve their experience.

Edited by Nightbird, 08 December 2018 - 10:53 AM.