536 replies to this topic

[Nightbird]

Suggestion: HAZARD PAY

After a lobby is formed, take the average W/L across all players for both teams. The weaker team gets Hazard Pay as the difference in W/L ratios *100.

For example, if Team A has a W/L of 1, Team B has a W/L of 2, Team A gets a 100% Hazard Pay bonus to C-Bills, XP, and LP/RP.

For example, if Team A has a W/L of 1, Team B has a W/L of 10, Team A gets a 900% Hazard Pay bonus to C-Bills, XP, and LP/RP.

Effects:
1. The weaker team will still lose badly, but if they try their best, it's easy to earn as much or even more than the winning team. This allows them to purchase mechs, skill them up etc.
2. In stomp situations, such as a 12-48 match score, getting even 1 kill or KMDD against an overwhelming team will help you secure a big payday.
3. Seals will start to see themselves as Bounty Hunters. It is MORE REWARDING to play against a stronger team even if you lose!
4. Skilled teams are not disadvantaged in any way, though they may choose to drop solo or in pairs to have a chance to earn nice Hazard Pay.

(This is an alternative to my tonnage handicap suggestion)

Edited by Nightbird, 08 December 2018 - 11:54 AM.

[Javin]

More maps please.

Or better yet let us make maps for you!

[Warning incoming Humble Dexterer]

Paul Inouye, on 06 December 2018 - 05:29 PM, said:

Just want to throw this out there. There's talk here about the tonnage restrictions for high level teams.

Earning 'Mechs and buying 'Mechs is an invested part of MWO. Limiting an entire team by a significant tonnage difference is a rather steep wall of saying "you can't play those 'Mechs because you're too good in them". Also, as others have pointed out... a team of well organized, high-level players is still going to win even with a big tonnage restriction in-place.

But there's so many other ways to do it :
- Increase/decrease rewards
- Increase/decrease mission difficulty (domination, conquest, invasion, assault, siege)
- Increase/decrease damage done
- Increase/decrease damage received
- Increase/decrease heat dissipation, cooldown, mobility...
- Increase/decrease minimap size
- Add/remove Combat ID, Satellite Sweeps, Jammer
- Keep FP groups with 1+ Tier1 players away from Tier2 and lower solo players (ghost drop them instead, you're doing them a favor)

Edited by Humble Dexter, 08 December 2018 - 01:00 PM.

[Firewired]

My two cents do not count for much around here, but I will offer them anyway.

1. Ash actually touched on an important game play fact in his post #81 that I have long supported. He rarely, if ever, drops into FW in large groups anymore because it is not fun.

It is not fun to be in an 8-man or-higher drop and stomp the opponent.

It is not fun to be in a random drop and be stomped by an 8-man or-higher opponent.

2. Why not limit the maximum group size per-side per-drop to 6, while also limiting those who join each side to be no more than 2-man groups?

This might ensure a greater dispersion of skilled and organized units per-side while also serving to encourage solo or random players to actually play FW matches.

If one of the goals to improve or save FW is to have a higher participation count, allowing higher-than-6-man units to play (or worse, pair-up on the same side) would seem counter-productive to that goal. It is simple math after all. If the only experience is no fun, people will not play.

3. More variability in game modes. This is mostly brain-storming here, but why not combine a Conquest style match with Invasion? Gates for Invasion could be removed entirely, and holding or capturing Conquest bases would hinder or benefit structure on the Ogens and Omega.

This is something that just occurred to me, not suggesting it would be an easy thing to do. But, hey, it might add some variety and unpredictability to FW matches at least. There is a benefit to thinking creatively to solve some challenges.

4. Increase the match-ready drop timer (already in the queue, thanks). Nothing frustrates me more than not having enough time to make drop deck changes and commit them before the clock runs out.

5. Events. I suspect the FW participation rate spikes during FW specific events. If the we had a limit on group sizes (as per point #1 above) the new players, the solos, and the randoms would join more FW matches during Events. They would see teammates in up-to-6-man groups work well together, they could contribute themselves, and have an enjoyable game experience. That might encourage them to play more, and maybe join a unit or create one.

Again, the game will die if we do not encourage players to play it. This should not, and never should be, about appeasing 12-man units, unless the goal is to have a player participation rate of 24 and everyone else quits. Have fun paying the data center bills.

Just remember... wherever you go... there you are.

Edited by Firewired, 08 December 2018 - 01:03 PM.

[Warning incoming Humble Dexterer]

Paul Inouye, on 06 December 2018 - 05:29 PM, said:

a team of well organized, high-level players is still going to win even with a big tonnage restriction in-place.

Here's a simple balance feature that would take minutes to code :
- If a group has more then 2 players, it loses access to the Command Wheel
- If a group has more then 6 players, it also reduces the range of their BattleMap
- If a group has more then 10 players, it also reduces the range of their MiniMap

So it's a trade off between gaining group cohesion, manual team selection, matching drop decks, competent audio leadership... and reducing teamplay enhancing game features.

It's the same kind of balance mechanic, as losing access to the MiniMap when switching to 3rd person view in Quick Play.

Edited by Humble Dexter, 08 December 2018 - 01:31 PM.

[B L O O D W I T C H]

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

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

I hope this is meant figurative and not literally.
Promoting teamplay, even encourage it with additional rewards is good.
I just don't want to see someone in a group performing worse then a solo but still gets better rewards (as in payout).
Ya already perform better in a group (or at least ya should be) i don't see a reason to get better paid just for being in a group.

Edited by Toha Heavy Industries, 08 December 2018 - 01:16 PM.

[Bad_Wolf]

What if there was just no IS vs clan. First two full teams in the bucket be it IS or clan drop against each other. You could drop against a IS group one match then the next one could be clan. I am sure someone can come up with a way for teams to take a planet out of it.

[Z Paradox]

Paul Inouye, on 06 December 2018 - 05:42 PM, said:

Can't guarantee this.. but will look into it. If you've alt-tabbed out of our game, you'll notice that the task bar icon flashes when you get matched up. Could tie into this in terms of logic. But as I said.. I'll have to investigate. Added to the list.

Systems Update

• [color=orange]More than 4 drop decks[/color]
  
• [color=blue]VoIP prior to drop[/color]

Can you add VoIP in Group/Lobby, not just prior to drop. sometimes ppl go AltTab-ing and we cant get them to get redy. and you get sound from VoIP when you altTab so it helps...

[Spheroid]

Bad_Wolf, on 08 December 2018 - 01:59 PM, said:

What if there was just no IS vs clan. First two full teams in the bucket be it IS or clan drop against each other. You could drop against a IS group one match then the next one could be clan. I am sure someone can come up with a way for teams to take a planet out of it.

Largest faction within that group of 12 determines contested planet. Winning group initiates attack against neighboring power that it is at war with. Each planet has its own slider. (That is somewhat simplistic, you still need a mechanism to avoid faction stacking, but that is quite easy really).

Edited by Spheroid, 08 December 2018 - 04:30 PM.

[slide]

Nightbird, on 08 December 2018 - 11:01 AM, said:

Suggestion: HAZARD PAY

After a lobby is formed, take the average W/L across all players for both teams. The weaker team gets Hazard Pay as the difference in W/L ratios *100.

For example, if Team A has a W/L of 1, Team B has a W/L of 2, Team A gets a 100% Hazard Pay bonus to C-Bills, XP, and LP/RP.

For example, if Team A has a W/L of 1, Team B has a W/L of 10, Team A gets a 900% Hazard Pay bonus to C-Bills, XP, and LP/RP.

Effects:
1. The weaker team will still lose badly, but if they try their best, it's easy to earn as much or even more than the winning team. This allows them to purchase mechs, skill them up etc.
2. In stomp situations, such as a 12-48 match score, getting even 1 kill or KMDD against an overwhelming team will help you secure a big payday.
3. Seals will start to see themselves as Bounty Hunters. It is MORE REWARDING to play against a stronger team even if you lose!
4. Skilled teams are not disadvantaged in any way, though they may choose to drop solo or in pairs to have a chance to earn nice Hazard Pay.

(This is an alternative to my tonnage handicap suggestion)

That's a better suggestion than a tonnage handicap that may not actually be a handicap at all. The solution may actually be a combination.

In either case we need to quantify how good or bad a team (or players) are, which is probably the biggest challenge to solve. It is not a simple as win/loss either.

[BearFlag]

Darakor Stormwind, on 07 December 2018 - 11:12 PM, said:

I have never played faction warfare. And none of these changes - aside from a decent matchmaker, allowing me to drop with people of my own skill level and not have long wait times- will motivate me to try it.

I am beginning to think people in the faction bubble have lost sight of what can attract new people to the feature, instead concentrating on what would improve the experience of the people already in it. And there are so few people still playing this feature, that I wonder whether this is the approach to take.

This is probably as good as any summary of the 90%. You'll find hundreds of similar examples just in the forums since CW went public. For each, many more left without a word.

Since others have addressed other topics, I'll stick to my original talking points and suggestions.

Game play and player experience are paramount. For many, it's the difference between fun and not-fun. And in a game, fun is the ultimate, penultimate and ante-penultimate goal. When the competive stage of a match has effectively ended, then END IT actually.

Automatic Victory

"Game over, man, game over!"

Borrowed from wargame design, AV is not a solution to stomps. It's a mitigation.

We've all seen QP go south and end 12-1. But it's one game, one match, one mech. Over. Queue again. FP takes the absolute worst phase of a game (obvious victory/defeat) and protracts it into a soul-draining, ignominious massacre stretching across 48 mechs. It's like capturing Berlin on D-Day and deciding to kill a million German soldiers any way.

With no MM to fix it, AV can soften it. AV is also one of the easiest to implement mechanisms to truncate stomps. It simply ends the game at some kill spread. Suicides don't count. Numbers from the teens into the twenties have been suggested. Because it's automatic, AV avoids the problems inherent in "Surrender" buttons and the like.

End game screens would reflect what happened. The winner sees something like "Victory - Enemy Withdraws", while the loser gets "Defeat - Mission Aborted." The victorious side gets a nice perk for having achieved AV. The defeated get what they earned and are spared the full "defeat in detail."

A possible objection is the abruptness of the end. The condition is met and, boom!, the game ends in the middle of your ERL blast. Programming an in-game transition (like trying to make an extraction point) would need significant effort. Cheap and easy would be adding a voice message warning the number is close. "You're taking too many casualties, we may pull you out" or "The enemy is collapsing, keep up the pressure."

Details aside, AV is pretty easy to do ... periodic or event-driven checks for the condition, an altered end game screen, and maybe a couple of DB fields for AV stats.

Of course, a matchmaker would be ideal....

Nightbird, on 07 December 2018 - 08:17 PM, said:

Relative team skill tonnage handicap is where it is at, if the more skilled team give up enough tonnage, the match can become better and much less a stomp

Lots of ideas have been offered for match balance or compensating for match imbalance. Some good, some not so good. Some easy to implement, some with steep code walls.

I agree with Nightbird that tonnage is the way to go. It's available and done cleverly can integrate with a MM.

However, it needs to be automatic and needs to be involuntary. This a where a MM comes in.

As I've said before a matchmaker doesn't require a player pool to work. That is preferred. What it needs is a balancing mechanism. It could be anything. One poster suggested super armor for the weak team. This would technically work, but probably isn't the most elegant solution. Weight class bumping by the MM is the better way to go, IMO.

In other words, and in the absence of a player pool, the MM would resort to a mech pool. This pool is formed by a new "Reserve Deck" for each player consisting of one each light, medium, heavy and assault.

In the event of a mismatch, the MM would do weight class bumping in proportion to the perceived skill difference. The exact details of the Reserve Deck and bumping would have to be worked out. But in the end, this allows a MM to make per-match adjustments.

The hope here is to create a bigger challenge for strong teams and a better chance for weak teams. Improving game play for both pug and OP would make FW more appealing (and addictive) for both.

The hypothetical matchmaker is pretty run-of-the-mill.

1) Player/group joins queue and is rated
2) If population permits, players/groups assigned during team building
3) With player pool options exhausted, teams are forcibly built
4) Teams are assessed
5) Weight class bumping occurs
6) Launch

This proposal represents a much heavier committment of time than Automatic Victory, though the two concepts are compatible. Push come to shove, I'd urge Paul to press AV into service. It's easy and cuts deeply into the frustration of FW.

Of course, a matchmaker would be ideal...

Edited by BearFlag, 08 December 2018 - 10:23 PM.

[Felbombling]

Vellron2005, on 08 December 2018 - 10:37 AM, said:

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..

Ok... so they start stomping people and their ranking climbs to Elite, based on their 85%+ win rating. I'm not sure I see a problem here. If units want to disband and phone it in for ten games, only to start winning on purpose... well... that's on them and their idiot unit commander. I know I wouldn't put up with that crap. "Ok... so we want to break up this unit and then start another unit, but we gotta lose on purpose so that we're rated Green and reap those sweet rewards!" /shrug

[GweNTLeR]

@PGI
@Paul
Please consider simplifying command wheel for at least lance commanders (or at least adding "simplified command wheel" or customization option). As a player who use it frequently,I think that right now it is too complex and hard to use during heavy action(easy to miss the desired command).
The commands I consider useless are marked red:

Why:

• flank left/right is best suited for battlegrid, not for real time action. It is extremely hard to pinpoint the exact location in movement. No to mention there are also "Move" and "Hold" commands that should in theory give more precise orders;
  
• request Artillery/Airstrike/UAV are also best suited for battlegrid. It is extremely hard to pinpoint the exact location in movement;
  
• capture is useless since we have "Move" and "Hold";
  
• affirmative/negative are way less useful for a commander;
  
• enemy spotted is replaced with attack;
  
• protect is mostly the same as follow.

Battlegrid commands should remain as they are now. Although the way you order them could use some optimization as well (like, adding hotkeys for battlegrid to do it faster).

Edited by GweNTLeR, 09 December 2018 - 12:36 AM.

[Nathan White]

And please add to command wheel "group up on me"

[Will9761]

If entering planetary data becomes a thing, someone should add the history of the "Battle of Wazan" between House Davion and House Marik.

#neverforget

Edited by Will9761, 09 December 2018 - 11:45 AM.

[TinFoilHat]

Remove tonnage limits altogether, make drop decks 1/1/1/1 instead.

[Reno Blade]

Nightbird, on 08 December 2018 - 11:01 AM, said:

Suggestion: HAZARD PAY

After a lobby is formed, take the average W/L across all players for both teams. The weaker team gets Hazard Pay as the difference in W/L ratios *100.

For example, if Team A has a W/L of 1, Team B has a W/L of 2, Team A gets a 100% Hazard Pay bonus to C-Bills, XP, and LP/RP.

For example, if Team A has a W/L of 1, Team B has a W/L of 10, Team A gets a 900% Hazard Pay bonus to C-Bills, XP, and LP/RP.

Effects:
1. The weaker team will still lose badly, but if they try their best, it's easy to earn as much or even more than the winning team. This allows them to purchase mechs, skill them up etc.
2. In stomp situations, such as a 12-48 match score, getting even 1 kill or KMDD against an overwhelming team will help you secure a big payday.
3. Seals will start to see themselves as Bounty Hunters. It is MORE REWARDING to play against a stronger team even if you lose!
4. Skilled teams are not disadvantaged in any way, though they may choose to drop solo or in pairs to have a chance to earn nice Hazard Pay.

(This is an alternative to my tonnage handicap suggestion)

I really like this idea!
And it goes way back to the original presentation before the release, where they talked about Bounty hunting.

For me, I hated the losses mostly because of the 0 loyalty and the frustrating rush/stomp that made it feel like a waste of time.
so for rewards, I would dig some kind of multipliers.

Here are some more ideas considering bounty hunting:
- The top 3 players get bounty starts (1, 2 and 3 starts) and fighting and killing them would give everyone bonus multiplier (counts for all values: dmg dealt, kills, assist...) plus a bounty bonus (e.g. 1 star target gives 100% bonus and a bounty of X and a 3 star target would give 300% bonus and a bounty of XYZ)

- Losing should still reward LP and it should have a multiplier depending on the odds (see above suggestion from Nightbird) aswell as other currencies.
This would prevent stomps from being seen as "waste" when you get stomped.

- Winning as a rush/stomp should get you less the higher the "skill gap" is and the higher the kill-gap is, so that a stomp is less usefull than a 48-40 in regards to money.
Harder to calculate, but it means that a quick rush or one-sided stomp would get you less than a more balanced kill count.
Together with the above points, the losing side might even make more money/LP in a stomp.

- Team size bonus could also be considered (might be already part of the mentioned Call-To-Arms bonus) where a solo would get a bonus for joining a match rather than continuing solo QP.
On top of the above multipliers, a Solo underdog losing a quick stomp would be able to make more money than in one (or few) QP matches.
Ofc this could bring a lot more newbs to the game, but on the other hand this could increase the basic number of players playing CW/FP in general already to increase the pool to a better level of balance overall.

- Team weight multiplier - instead of handicap (especially for clans) would be similar to the bidding of Clans where a lower drop force could bring you more honor (LP / CBills).
It could be more difficult to have one side using more mobile and fast mechs (piranhas and huntsmen, eagles...) against long range trading slow assault IS mechs, but it might bring more interesting matches and diversity (builds/drop decks) to make this mode more fun (more asymetrical also).

- Reinforcements (AI?) might be an interesting switch you can use for the underdog (or the defender).
Let's say you get some Tanks, Helicopters (Dropship) or Turrets to spawn or get repaired if you hang too far behind.
One way could be to use LP to repair some structures (turrets/gens) or to call AI (which doesnt look likely).
Or you could automatically get some of this if you get stomped too fast (e.g. already 24-1, then you get a turret refresh for each turret location already destroyed, or additional turrets activated).

- Lobby currency for buffs (LP) could be used to already increase some parameters of you or your base (only works for defence).
e.g. lobby shows you will be 80% likely to lose because of skill difference, you can "buy" a bonus of 8% more damage dealt or something like 80% more health to base structures ... you get the point.
In this regard, this could be used for the other side too, if you feel brave as the top-dog team (e.g. 80% win chance) you have the option to "buy" difficulty bonus such as 8% less damage dealt, but 20% more LP/CB and so on...


PS: All these would be "multipliers" used ingame for re-balancing an unbalanced match to make the game more fun for both sides.
I think these ideas do even give balanced games some flavor (e.g. give Clans a chance for underbidding and reinforcing your base).

[Tarl Cabot]

TinFoilHat, on 09 December 2018 - 04:25 AM, said:

Remove tonnage limits altogether, make drop decks 1/1/1/1 instead.

That would be an interesting way to go with it but IS would still be outmatched, mech-wise. It could sting less but some things would need to be taken care of, and that would be to make the engines equivalent between the faction tech on how they are handled once a Side Torso is destroyed. As this is NOT the boardgame but a FPS, engines should not be destroyed with the loss of the 1st ST but they should have different, non-lethal penalties with the LFE having the lowest penalties, cXL in the middle and the isXL the higher penalties.

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 09 December 2018 - 08:25 AM.

[Joshua McEvedy]

Will9761, on 09 December 2018 - 01:27 AM, said:

If enter planetary data becomes a thing, someone should add the history of the "Battle of Wazan" between House Davion and House Marik.

#neverforget

Indeed so. I still shudder at the pure carnage of early 2015...AT LEAST 12,000 mechs destroyed over the course of those battles by one informed calculation.

#neverforget

[vonJerg]

GweNTLeR, on 09 December 2018 - 12:16 AM, said:

@PGI
@Paul
Please consider simplifying command wheel for at least lance commanders (or at least adding "simplified command wheel" or customization option). As a player who use it frequently,I think that right now it is too complex and hard to use during heavy action(easy to miss the desired command).
The commands I consider useless are marked red:

Why:

• flank left/right is best suited for battlegrid, not for real time action. It is extremely hard to pinpoint the exact location in movement. No to mention there are also "Move" and "Hold" commands that should in theory give more precise orders;
  
• request Artillery/Airstrike/UAV are also best suited for battlegrid. It is extremely hard to pinpoint the exact location in movement;
  
• capture is useless since we have "Move" and "Hold";
  
• affirmative/negative are way less useful for a commander;
  
• enemy spotted is replaced with attack;
  
• protect is mostly the same as follow.

Battlegrid commands should remain as they are now. Although the way you order them could use some optimization as well (like, adding hotkeys for battlegrid to do it faster).

Some very good points you got there, that weel is too cluttered with useless stuff, making it difficult to issue those few vital ones that are there. Some clean up is in order.

Edited by vonJerg, 09 December 2018 - 10:50 AM.