Jump to content

Faction Play Update - Post Mechcon 2018


534 replies to this topic

#21 Peter2k

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 2,026 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 06 December 2018 - 03:24 PM

View Postjustcallme A S H, on 06 December 2018 - 02:23 PM, said:

Paul, Thank you SOOOO much for doing this mate (and for buying us lunch on Wed).

Definitely helps out things into perspective to see what is coming up and what not. If you ever wanna do a podcast about it with NGNG, hit me up!

CUinBC next year!


I hope he does, hell I hope he hits you up for some ideas or organizing stuff.

At least you got something rolling.

Because that's been tried before

Kudos

#22 Weagles

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Field Marshal
  • Field Marshal
  • 100 posts

Posted 06 December 2018 - 03:25 PM

The features in green are most welcome. Anything to get groups organized a little quicker and avoid looking at the spinning wheel for long periods of time.

For the drop deck expansion could there be a toggle between displaying IS drop decks and Clan drop decks?

Seems to me that Blue is the kiss of death color in this priority scheme. Not light blue but the blue that makes it hard to read what is essentially not going to work. Drop zones was one of the few items that had a chance of changing in game tactics. Was it differences in player views or tech that made Drop zones blue?

Edited by Weagles, 06 December 2018 - 03:27 PM.


#23 Appogee

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 10,966 posts
  • LocationOn planet Tukayyid, celebrating victory

Posted 06 December 2018 - 03:27 PM

So you're planning that it will take cumulatively SEVEN TO EIGHT MONTHS to implement fixes, from the time the "easy, low effort ideas" thread that was created three months ago...?!

We already spend more time ghost dropping than fighting. The game will be dead long before you're ready to patch it.

#24 Peter2k

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 2,026 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 06 December 2018 - 03:28 PM

View PostNightbird, on 06 December 2018 - 02:15 PM, said:

I don't see anything to allow teams of unequal skill to have a fun match. Everything else IMHO is tweaks on the icing without addressing the core experience.

It doesn't have to be what is suggested in the link below, hoping helps get my meaning across.

https://mwomercs.com...n-in-one-month/


I think it's a good idea, me thinks PGI could use some of the data they collect to come up with degrees of boni and penalties (what those boni are is obviously up for discussion).

Incentivizing big groups to face big groups, or to split up for the MM to do its magic.

#25 DarklightCA

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Heavy Lifter
  • Heavy Lifter
  • 774 posts
  • LocationToronto, Ontario

Posted 06 December 2018 - 03:33 PM

View PostNightbird, on 06 December 2018 - 03:23 PM, said:


What do you think of my suggestion?


Don't know what to think about it without spending some time actually thinking about it but I don't think successful teams should be handicapped just because they are successful or lose out on potential rewards just because things are uneven because that's not their fault.

I would prefer giving teams/players fighting successful and organized teams a big incentive to fight them by rewarding them for winning games against them or something along those lines or something that lessens the blow of losing games against successful teams like bounty prizes for getting kills off of members of that Unit in a FP match.

*EDIT*

At one point the games could be more fair by giving the unorganized teams a bigger tonnage pool but I know from experience that it rarely matters in terms of game balance. You could give some of the skilled teams nothing but mediums and the other team nothing but assaults and they will still find a way to win the match.

At some point as well if the organized teams feel too penalized for just being a organized team they could just leave because they are being penalized for doing nothing wrong.

Edited by DarklightCA, 06 December 2018 - 03:44 PM.


#26 justcallme A S H

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • CS 2020 Referee
  • CS 2020 Referee
  • 8,130 posts
  • LocationMelbourne, AU

Posted 06 December 2018 - 03:41 PM

View PostDarklightCA, on 06 December 2018 - 03:33 PM, said:


Don't know what to think about it without spending some time actually thinking about it but I don't think successful teams should be handicapped just because they are successful or lose out on potential rewards just because things are uneven because that's not their fault.

I would prefer giving teams/players fighting successful and organized teams a big incentive to fight them by rewarding them for winning games against them or something along those lines or something that lessens the blow of losing games against successful teams like bounty prizes for getting kills off of members of that Unit in a FP match.


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.

Edited by justcallme A S H, 06 December 2018 - 03:42 PM.


#27 Nightbird

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The God of Death
  • The God of Death
  • 6,579 posts

Posted 06 December 2018 - 03:43 PM

View Postjustcallme 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.


Aright, then how about a 80 ton drop deck? What will the game end at?

#28 Peter2k

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 2,026 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 06 December 2018 - 03:44 PM

View PostAppogee, on 06 December 2018 - 03:27 PM, said:

So you're planning that it will take cumulatively SEVEN TO EIGHT MONTHS to implement fixes, from the time the "easy, low effort ideas" thread that was created three months ago...?!

We already spend more time ghost dropping than fighting. The game will be dead long before you're ready to patch it.


You know what worries me the most?
Russ said on stage PGI focuses on one thing before moving to the next, when he was asked about a new map coming.
And this list is the next "big" thing.

And those changes which were supposed to be fast n easy, took so long and still will take long, with no other thing in the works besides them (and balancing I'm sure)?

There is nothing else in the works?

Sigh.

#29 El Bandito

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Big Daddy
  • Big Daddy
  • 26,736 posts
  • LocationStill doing ungodly amount of damage, but with more accuracy.

Posted 06 December 2018 - 03:45 PM

I eagerly await these changes WITH ABSOLUTELY ZERO EXPECTATIONS.

Cause that's the amount of faith I have left for FP improvements.

#30 DarklightCA

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Heavy Lifter
  • Heavy Lifter
  • 774 posts
  • LocationToronto, Ontario

Posted 06 December 2018 - 03:54 PM

View PostNightbird, on 06 December 2018 - 03:43 PM, said:


Aright, then how about a 80 ton drop deck? What will the game end at?


Skill will almost always win out. I've been apart of drops many times where we dropped in severely low tonnage even when faction play had tonnage restrictions for IS vs Clan against teams with a lot more tonnage on the table, assaults for days and the end result made no difference. Regardless if they are playing Clan or IS mechs.

It's way too hard to calculate at which tonnage point would it be fair and that's not just overall. Some teams would still stomp regardless of losing 50 tons or 80 tons off their decks while others would struggle too much and would feel too penalized just because they were organized.

If PGI could come up with a way to restrict it in a way that Skilled teams that could live with those restrictions would get the harsh tonnage penalty while teams who are winning because they are grouping up could be restricted less harshly I would be all for your idea.

Edited by DarklightCA, 06 December 2018 - 03:59 PM.


#31 Nightbird

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The God of Death
  • The God of Death
  • 6,579 posts

Posted 06 December 2018 - 03:58 PM

View PostDarklightCA, on 06 December 2018 - 03:54 PM, said:


Skill will almost always win out. I've been apart of drops many times where we dropped in severely low tonnage even when faction play had tonnage restrictions for IS vs Clan against teams with a lot more tonnage on the table, assaults for days and the end result made no difference. Regardless if they are playing Clan or IS mechs.

It's way too hard to calculate at which tonnage point would it be fair and that's not just overall. Some teams would still stomp regardless of losing 50 tons or 80 tons off their decks while others would struggle too much and would feel too penalized just because they were organized.



Looking for a number. You have 4 piranhas/locusts/fleas. What will be final score of 12 skilled pilots in a group versus 12 pugs with a 255/265 ton drop deck be? Entertain me

#32 Weagles

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Field Marshal
  • Field Marshal
  • 100 posts

Posted 06 December 2018 - 03:59 PM

View PostNema Nabojiv, on 06 December 2018 - 02:54 PM, said:

No-invasion solo Q or dont bother.


Totally wrong thinking. There are times of the day where teams and units have few if any members to drop with but there are call to arms and answering them results in decent matches.

Organized does not automatically mean good or that they will win. During certain times the solos stomp the organized more often then not. These weak organized groups play at these times because they want to avoid good organized groups, so too do the solos.The matches play differently and the outcomes are not predetermined.

The enemy of faction play is the spinning wheel and dry drops. Good organized teams act as sharks. The solos and weaker units stop dropping FW until the shark goes away. Sharks get drops against only those that don't look or no one at all.

Events counter the shark effect by filling the water with so many fish only a few will get stomped and the rest get to play matches that the outcome is not predetermined.

#33 DarklightCA

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Heavy Lifter
  • Heavy Lifter
  • 774 posts
  • LocationToronto, Ontario

Posted 06 December 2018 - 04:10 PM

View PostNightbird, on 06 December 2018 - 03:58 PM, said:



Looking for a number. You have 4 piranhas/locusts/fleas. What will be final score of 12 skilled pilots in a group versus 12 pugs with a 255/265 ton drop deck be? Entertain me


The skilled team rushes objectives with fast mechs, focuses fire and burns them down because unorganized teams have a hard time focusing down targets attacking objectives. It's honestly not that difficult to do unless the other team is running a ton of streaks or ATM's which I doubt.

At the same time teams who win games because they are organized but aren't necessarily more skillful compared to the other team but are just more on point with their decks, loudouts and are communicating would have a lot more harder time doing something like that and would feel completely penalized and stop playing.

I can't give you a number because I don't know. You would have to come up with some way to know the difference between teams that are winning because they are skilled and teams that are winning because they are grouped up because regardless of which number you come up with some of those teams can still find a way to stomp and the other team would be way too penalized.

Edited by DarklightCA, 06 December 2018 - 04:13 PM.


#34 Nightbird

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The God of Death
  • The God of Death
  • 6,579 posts

Posted 06 December 2018 - 04:11 PM

View PostNightbird, on 06 December 2018 - 03:58 PM, said:

Looking for a number. You have 4 piranhas/locusts/fleas. What will be final score of 12 skilled pilots in a group versus 12 pugs with a 255/265 ton drop deck be? Entertain me


Looks like ASH disappeared. I hope its obvious that a 175 ton penalty is too harsh and would cause even a skilled team to lose. On the other hand, no penalty would lead to a game-quitting stomp by the skilled team. Somewhere in between, there is a fun match to be found. This is true for any two unequally skilled teams. Agree or disagree?

#35 Nightbird

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The God of Death
  • The God of Death
  • 6,579 posts

Posted 06 December 2018 - 04:14 PM

View PostDarklightCA, on 06 December 2018 - 04:10 PM, said:


The skilled team rushes objectives with fast mechs, focuses fire and burns them down because unorganized teams have a hard time focusing down targets attacking objectives. It's honestly not that difficult to do unless the other team is running a ton of streaks or ATM's which I doubt.

At the same time teams who win games because they are organized but aren't necessarily more skillful compared to the other team but are just more on point with their decks, loudouts and are communicating would have a lot more harder time doing something like that and would feel completely penalized and stop playing.


Are you saying that a skilled team would win all the time even with a 80 ton drop deck? What about if we go down further, a 20 ton drop deck, just 1 mech, are you still confident? My only point is that with the right adjustment, a good match is possible, whereas today you know how match ends on the loading screen. Is this an improvement in the core gameplay experience or not?

Edited by Nightbird, 06 December 2018 - 04:14 PM.


#36 DarklightCA

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Heavy Lifter
  • Heavy Lifter
  • 774 posts
  • LocationToronto, Ontario

Posted 06 December 2018 - 04:15 PM

View PostNightbird, on 06 December 2018 - 04:11 PM, said:


Looks like ASH disappeared. I hope its obvious that a 175 ton penalty is too harsh and would cause even a skilled team to lose. On the other hand, no penalty would lead to a game-quitting stomp by the skilled team. Somewhere in between, there is a fun match to be found. This is true for any two unequally skilled teams. Agree or disagree?




#37 Nightbird

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The God of Death
  • The God of Death
  • 6,579 posts

Posted 06 December 2018 - 04:18 PM

View PostDarklightCA, on 06 December 2018 - 04:15 PM, said:





There's no firestarters in a 80 ton drop deck?


Anyways, I've spammed enough messages in this thread. It's PGI's game, they can decide whether the attrition rate is due to the bad match experience or not.

#38 DarklightCA

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Heavy Lifter
  • Heavy Lifter
  • 774 posts
  • LocationToronto, Ontario

Posted 06 December 2018 - 04:18 PM

View PostNightbird, on 06 December 2018 - 04:14 PM, said:


Are you saying that a skilled team would win all the time even with a 80 ton drop deck? What about if we go down further, a 20 ton drop deck, just 1 mech, are you still confident? My only point is that with the right adjustment, a good match is possible, whereas today you know how match ends on the loading screen. Is this an improvement in the core gameplay experience or not?


I am not saying they would win all the time, I am saying that a skilled team could still manage to win or even stomp with harsh tonnage restrictions on a majority basis. I am saying that with skilled teams tonnage restrictions aren't a form of balance while unskilled but organized teams would be way too penalized for losing tonnage because their advantage lies with grouping up and communicating not with outperforming with equal tonnage.


View PostNightbird, on 06 December 2018 - 04:18 PM, said:


There's no firestarters in a 80 ton drop deck?


Anyways, I've spammed enough messages in this thread. It's PGI's game, they can decide whether the attrition rate is due to the bad match experience or not.


Point of the video is that they are bringing nothing but lights which is a extremely harsh tonnage restriction and won the game by rushing objectives with fast speed and focus fire that unorganized teams have a hard team dealing with. Point being that if you restrict tonnage on skilled teams they can and will still find ways to win.

Edited by DarklightCA, 06 December 2018 - 04:21 PM.


#39 justcallme A S H

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • CS 2020 Referee
  • CS 2020 Referee
  • 8,130 posts
  • LocationMelbourne, AU

Posted 06 December 2018 - 04:20 PM

View PostNightbird, on 06 December 2018 - 04:11 PM, said:


Looks like ASH disappeared. I hope its obvious that a 175 ton penalty is too harsh and would cause even a skilled team to lose. On the other hand, no penalty would lead to a game-quitting stomp by the skilled team. Somewhere in between, there is a fun match to be found. This is true for any two unequally skilled teams. Agree or disagree?


I haven't. You're just going for deliberately obtuse examples to try and justify your point while ignoring mine.

You & I have debated it at length as to the whole 'fun' and 'stomp' factor really isn't removed with your suggestion and you disagree with my view. Fair enough.. I see no real need to continue the discussion in this thread given the many pages of debate in the other already.

It's just going to derail this thread into a multi page ***-for-tat that won't ultimately go anywhere are Darklight clearly isn't going to bite either.

#40 Nightbird

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The God of Death
  • The God of Death
  • 6,579 posts

Posted 06 December 2018 - 04:22 PM

View Postjustcallme A S H, on 06 December 2018 - 04:20 PM, said:


I haven't. You're just going for deliberately obtuse examples to try and justify your point while ignoring mine.

You & I have debated it at length as to the whole 'fun' and 'stomp' factor really isn't removed with your suggestion and you disagree with my view. Fair enough.. I see no real need to continue the discussion in this thread given the many pages of debate in the other already.

It's just going to derail this thread into a multi page ***-for-tat that won't ultimately go anywhere are Darklight clearly isn't going to bite either.


Thanks for replying, I guess we have to continue playing the game as designed and driving people out of FP with one-sided stomps.


View PostDarklightCA, on 06 December 2018 - 04:18 PM, said:

point of the video is that they are bringing nothing but lights which is a extremely harsh tonnage restriction and won the game by rushing objectives with fast speed and focus fire that unorganized teams have a hard team dealing with. Point being that if you restrict tonnage on skilled teams they can and will still find ways to win.


My point is they wouldn't be able to go for 48 kills by crushing the first wave and directly going to spawn camp. But I guess your gen rush is a better argument, excuse me while I shoot this atlas dropping right now.

Edited by Nightbird, 06 December 2018 - 04:25 PM.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users