Jump to content

Faction Play Update - Post Mechcon 2018


534 replies to this topic

#41 justcallme A S H

    Member

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

Posted 06 December 2018 - 04:29 PM

View PostNightbird, on 06 December 2018 - 04:22 PM, said:


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


Well by running a 12man of top players that will always happen and is a concious choice to do so.

#42 Nightbird

    Member

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

Posted 06 December 2018 - 04:31 PM

View Postjustcallme A S H, on 06 December 2018 - 04:29 PM, said:

Well by running a 12man of top players that will always happen and is a concious choice to do so.


Denying a 175 ton penalty on such a team is also a conscious decision, which you have made.

#43 Appogee

    Member

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

Posted 06 December 2018 - 04:31 PM

View PostPeter2k, on 06 December 2018 - 03:44 PM, said:

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?


"Nothing else"...? What we're learning is that not even these paltry band-aids are actually 'in the works'.

Having been successfully strung along til Meh Con - where it became clear there was nothing to announce - we're now being strung along til "March - April". That will conveniently be three months before MW5 is supposed to launch... about the time the pre-orders will probably start.

If PGI actually cared in the slightest about FP, they'd have done something - ANYTHING - by now. Instead they are dangling the most meagre fixes another FIVE MONTHS AWAY!

So see this for what it is... Just more smoke and mirrors, trying to string us along further in case we might buy more Mech Packs, while PGI continues to do nothing - not even paltry 'low effort fixes' - to improve the game.

In any case, how many of you can sustain your enthusiasm to keep mostly ghost dropping til "April May"?

#44 DarklightCA

    Member

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

Posted 06 December 2018 - 04:32 PM

View PostNightbird, on 06 December 2018 - 04:22 PM, said:


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.


I don't know why you are taking this so personal just because I diddn't agree with your balance topic. We both agree that some balance needs to happen between organized groups and unorganized solo players. I may be completely wrong and you could be completely right.

Just in my experience playing with a skilled group who's gone back and forth between IS and Clan, actively looked for skilled teams to fight. Played with a varied degree of lower tonnage compared to other teams, played with stupid stupid builds, actively looked for ways to make it harder on ourselves and still found ways to stomp the other teams I find it hard to agree with that point of view. That is all, no offense meant.

#45 justcallme A S H

    Member

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

Posted 06 December 2018 - 04:34 PM

And not having a go at you, we can all only work in the confines of what we have etc.

View PostNightbird, on 06 December 2018 - 04:31 PM, said:


Denying a 175 ton penalty on such a team is also a conscious decision, which you have made.


Not denying, it is a ridiculous suggestion that I cannot see PGI ever allowing to happen/give a feature to drop THAT much.

It's about being realistic.

#46 Nightbird

    Member

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

Posted 06 December 2018 - 04:36 PM

View Postjustcallme A S H, on 06 December 2018 - 04:32 PM, said:

And not having a go at you, we can all only work in the confines of what we have etc.


No problem, between the two of us, I'm just surprised you're not on my side. I always saw you as an advocate for the new pugs. But here I am, asking for teams that win more often to accept a handicap, and you're saying no way.

View Postjustcallme A S H, on 06 December 2018 - 04:34 PM, said:

Not denying, it is a ridiculous suggestion that I cannot see PGI ever allowing to happen/give a feature to drop THAT much.

It's about being realistic.


175 I only brought up because you're saying a skilled team will STOMP no matter what and tonnage restrictions will NEVER WORK. I'm saying, there is a point it'll work. I think 100 is enough, but 175 was for the sake of argument.

Edited by Nightbird, 06 December 2018 - 04:38 PM.


#47 Paul Inouye

    Lead Designer

  • Developer
  • Developer
  • 2,815 posts
  • LocationVancouver, BC

Posted 06 December 2018 - 04:43 PM

View PostAppogee, on 06 December 2018 - 04:31 PM, said:

So see this for what it is... Just more smoke and mirrors, trying to string us along further in case we might buy more Mech Packs, while PGI continues to do nothing - not even paltry 'low effort fixes' - to improve the game. In any case, how many of you can sustain your enthusiasm to keep mostly ghost dropping til "April May"?


Going to have to call you out on this Appogee. As in the last post I made in the previous FP thread, this is a matter of scheduling and resources. Our push for MechCon was an all hands on deck making sure everything was in line for the show. Now that MechCon is done, we now have the opportunity and resources we need to start hitting the bigger ticket items on the list. The items in Orange have a very high probability of appearing in patches leading up to the March/April timeline and when they do, other items take their place in priority.

I understand the stale state of FP, I truely do and expressed this to people at MechCon as well. Now is the time we can start addressing things in a lot more streamlined manner and in a way that incorporates as much community feedback as possible. When you start throwing things around like 'doing nothing but low effort fixes taking 5 months' is very short sighted and completely off target. The reason I'm going to be updating the list as items move through development is so you the community will see the efforts and development time required for each of them. Don't take a defeatist outlook on this because if you do, you will never be satisfied with anything we do and there's nothing I'm going to be able to do to change that.

#48 Ridingwolf1

    Member

  • PipPip
  • The Wolf
  • The Wolf
  • 27 posts

Posted 06 December 2018 - 04:44 PM

It doesn't matter if there is a tonnage restriction or not. The skilled players and skilled teams are still almost always going to win. Even if you give them only 1 mech each.

Group queue 4 mans of EmP, 228, EON, etc etc almost always win 12- or 12-2. Extrapolated out, that leaves a 48-8ish win. 6 mans, 8, 10, or 12 will be even worse.

Finally, THEY DON'T HAVE TO KILL EVERY ONE TO WIN. This is a really simple concept. The good players in this game are good because they put in the work daily to improve in every aspect of it, from aim to trading, from cutting the pie to mech lab time. They are good because they work for it. You can't penalize someone because they play a game better than you, no matter how justified you feel about the situation. Nearly all of the skill players have already quit and no longer play because of this.

Ash is not on your side because you are beyond wrong in your thought process and ideology here. Punishing people because your feelings are hurt playing FP is not and will never be the correct answer.

#49 justcallme A S H

    Member

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

Posted 06 December 2018 - 04:45 PM

Paul - Side Q as I see a LOT of people are asking on reddit/discords etc etc...

The Faction Play Match Maker that you made a video about a few months back. It is not listed in your roadmap.

Any update on that one? It was definately something that I believe the majority were well behind implementing.

#50 Nightbird

    Member

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

Posted 06 December 2018 - 04:48 PM

View PostRidingwolf1, on 06 December 2018 - 04:44 PM, said:

It doesn't matter if there is a tonnage restriction or not. The skilled players and skilled teams are still almost always going to win. Even if you give them only 1 mech each.

Group queue 4 mans of EmP, 228, EON, etc etc almost always win 12- or 12-2. Extrapolated out, that leaves a 48-8ish win. 6 mans, 8, 10, or 12 will be even worse.


Wouldn't that be fun though? 12 EMP with 1 mech, a locust, versus 12 pugs with a 255 ton group deck. Would you prefer 12 EMP with a 265 ton drop deck?


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Due to the timing of my posts, I'm sure Paul has read it. The idea has been passed on. I'm not saying my suggestion is perfect, I'm saying there's nothing on the list addresses uneven teams. Team skill difference is here to stay, the proposed MM assumes group size = skill but obviously that isn't true and if anything, the MM will discourage newer players from grouping. If no change is made to improve the core game play experience then attrition will continue at the current rate. I've done all I can. Peace out.

Edited by Nightbird, 06 December 2018 - 05:12 PM.


#51 Paul Inouye

    Lead Designer

  • Developer
  • Developer
  • 2,815 posts
  • LocationVancouver, BC

Posted 06 December 2018 - 04:50 PM

View Postjustcallme A S H, on 06 December 2018 - 04:45 PM, said:

Paul - Side Q as I see a LOT of people are asking on reddit/discords etc etc...

The Faction Play Match Maker that you made a video about a few months back. It is not listed in your roadmap.

Any update on that one? It was definately something that I believe the majority were well behind implementing.


My bad.. that is part of the internally written design doc that governs the update. And yes, that MM update is critical to the overall FP update.

2.2	CREATING A SINGULAR QUEUE SYSTEM
•	Faction Play queues will be merged into one single queue.
•	Matches will kick off every [2] minutes.
•	All Solo/Group players will be placed into this new singular queue.
•	When the 2 minute launch timer runs out, the Match Maker uses a priority algorithm to create teams.
2.2.1	PRIORITIZATION ALGORITHM
•	The Match Maker should sort the queue by group size and temporarily ignore Solo players.
•	First priority is filling teams based on group size.
o	Biggest groups should be placed on opposing teams in sequential order.
o	If a group doesn’t fit in a group match, a new match will be created.
o	This will continue until no more groups are in a free state in the queue.
•	Filling matches with Solo players
o	The Match Maker should now sort all Solo players by their SSR rating.
o	The Match Maker starts filling slots from the biggest group match to the smallest.
o	The Match Maker should alternate placing Solo players from top to bottom in terms of SSR rating.
o	If there are no further group matches available, a match will be created using the remaining solo players.
o	If there are not enough solo players remaining for a match, they will be queued for the next match kick off in [2] minutes with priority placement above all other solo players entering the queue.


#52 justcallme A S H

    Member

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

Posted 06 December 2018 - 04:51 PM

View PostPaul Inouye, on 06 December 2018 - 04:50 PM, said:


My bad.. that is part of the internally written design doc that governs the update. And yes, that MM update is critical to the overall FP update.


Brilliant.

Glad to hear it's still in there as I'm sure many others are.

#53 Navid A1

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • CS 2020 Gold Champ
  • CS 2020 Gold Champ
  • 4,672 posts
  • LocationVancouver, BC

Posted 06 December 2018 - 04:52 PM

I'm ready to give up every UI functionality, feature and fix in favor of resources being diverted towards map overhauls.

#54 Paul Inouye

    Lead Designer

  • Developer
  • Developer
  • 2,815 posts
  • LocationVancouver, BC

Posted 06 December 2018 - 04:56 PM

View Postjustcallme A S H, on 06 December 2018 - 04:51 PM, said:

Brilliant. Glad to hear it's still in there as I'm sure many others are.


Added the brief from the doc. Can't post the entire doc because it contains references to in-house dev tools.

View PostNavid A1, on 06 December 2018 - 04:52 PM, said:

I'm ready to give up every UI functionality, feature and fix in favor of resources being diverted towards map overhauls.


So you're saying update the spinner on the load screens?

(yes.. I understand maps are your biggest item)

#55 Geewiz 27

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • The Death Wish
  • The Death Wish
  • 94 posts

Posted 06 December 2018 - 05:00 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

I don't know that this tonnage idea is even feesable. How does the elite group have time in 1 minute to slap together appropriate drop deck for tonnage handicap B on Map A against opponent X? I think the 1 minute window when opponent is found would have to be extended to at least 2mins?

#56 Appogee

    Member

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

Posted 06 December 2018 - 05:01 PM

View PostPaul Inouye, on 06 December 2018 - 04:43 PM, said:


Going to have to call you out on this Appogee. As in the last post I made in the previous FP thread, this is a matter of scheduling and resources. Our push for MechCon was an all hands on deck making sure everything was in line for the show. Now that MechCon is done, we now have the opportunity and resources we need to start hitting the bigger ticket items on the list. The items in Orange have a very high probability of appearing in patches leading up to the March/April timeline and when they do, other items take their place in priority.

I understand the stale state of FP, I truely do and expressed this to people at MechCon as well. Now is the time we can start addressing things in a lot more streamlined manner and in a way that incorporates as much community feedback as possible. When you start throwing things around like 'doing nothing but low effort fixes taking 5 months' is very short sighted and completely off target. The reason I'm going to be updating the list as items move through development is so you the community will see the efforts and development time required for each of them. Don't take a defeatist outlook on this because if you do, you will never be satisfied with anything we do and there's nothing I'm going to be able to do to change that.

Paul, I appreciate that you responded to me because, as a highly-invested and long-time customer of PGI, I am beyond depressed about how little is planned and how slow progress on MWO has been. I'm very glad to hear that some of these changes will occur before "March - April". Anything anytime soon will help.

However, I do not accept that 'scheduling and resource' constraints make you powerless to do more, sooner. These limitations are a self-imposed choice that PGI is making. PGI could just as easily choose to re-balance your resources to better retain, keep the faith with, and grow revenue from existing customers, while continuing to code MW5 at a slightly slower pace.

Again, thank you for your response. It's good news that some fixes will come earlier than April - May. I hope I have explained why I feel PGI could and should be doing more for MWO, sooner.

I make these comments as someone desperate to not see this game - your game - wither and die.

Edited by Appogee, 06 December 2018 - 05:08 PM.


#57 Sigmar Sich

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Veteran Founder
  • Veteran Founder
  • 1,058 posts
  • LocationUkraine, Kyiv

Posted 06 December 2018 - 05:06 PM

First of all, huge thanks for talking about CW.

I'm very excited to see it is about to receive deserved attention. IMO, it's the only way to turn the tide of doom and gloom that surrounds the game for quite some time.
Also you may need a PR activity, similar as it was with Solaris. If you want to return retired players, they should be communicated about coming updates.

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

Battlefield based tonnage restriction (e.g. only 4 assaults at a time)

Do you mean a team is have limited amount of mech of certain class per wave?
Not sure i like this. I had much fun roleplaying a steiner with three Zeus deck.
Besides, can you imagine the chaos in random groups?

1) I think weight diversity is better achieved through different maximum tonnage for each event. For example if we fight for high-gravity planet, the max tonnage will be pretty low. If we fight for its moon, the max tonnage will be higher.
Would be nice change of pace, i believe.

-----------------------
2) About CW events like "saving the princess" and faction flavour.
There been much talk about making factions to feel different. I think this event system allows easy implementation of encouragement for faction-specific mechs. Just add event bonus reward for playing X games with faction specific mechs. I guess you only need to code a check for which team game was played.
For example if event is about Steiner vs Davion, team A (Steiner) have bonus objectives:
- play X games in Atlas;
- play X games in Zeus;
- play X games in Griffin;
- play X games in Commando.
Team B would have bonuses for Victor, Centurion, Enforcer and Blackjack, for example.

Multiple mech in the drop deck do stack. For each objective complete player can receive C-bills or MC or GXP or LP bonuses, for completeing all of them, for some major events, player may choose a faction patternt for on of the featured mechs, or some cockpit item.

Also there can be theme bonuses. If event features a fighting on city maps, there can be bonus to play Y games with Urbanmech.

This system, with bonuses being on per event basis, is more flexible than fixed bonuses, and easier for changes and maitnance.

3) To balance population participating in the event, make bonuses for underpopulated side. From small bonuses for minor underpopulation, to a huge ones when severely outnumbered.

4) I did read some talks about gating new players from accessing CW before they play enough matches in QP.
I personally against this idea as a hard restrition, but if you have to do this, can you make it in a gentle way? For example a separate CW mode without any influence on the star map, locked on couple of invasion maps.
Basically every player will have a condition to qualify for the real CW. If false, player is added to the beginner's mode. If true, player will not ever be allowed in the beginner's mode. Groups are not allowed in the beginner's mode. Groups always go into the "real" CW.
Qualification applied retroactively, based on CW stats. To qualify player have to play X number of CW games, or XX number of QP games, orto have Y number of kills + KMDD, or have Z number of victories in CW.

Edited by Sigmar Sich, 06 December 2018 - 08:12 PM.


#58 Geewiz 27

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • The Death Wish
  • The Death Wish
  • 94 posts

Posted 06 December 2018 - 05:06 PM

View Postjustcallme A S H, on 06 December 2018 - 04:29 PM, said:


Well by running a 12man of top players that will always happen and is a concious choice to do so.

Which Ash you do regularly drop with the EMP, BCMC, EVIL FP killing team soooooooooo?

#59 Geewiz 27

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • The Death Wish
  • The Death Wish
  • 94 posts

Posted 06 December 2018 - 05:13 PM

View PostAppogee, on 06 December 2018 - 05:01 PM, said:

Paul, I appreciate that you responded to me because, as a highly-invested and long-time customer of PGI, I am beyond depressed about how little is planned and how slow progress on MWO has been. I'm very glad to hear that some of these changes will occur before "March - April". Anything anytime soon will help.

However, I do not accept that 'scheduling and resource' constraints make you powerless to do more, sooner. These limitations are a self-imposed choice that PGI is making. PGI could just as easily choose to re-balance your resources to better retain, keep the faith with, and grow revenue from existing customers, while continuing to code MW5 at a slightly slower pace.

Again, thank you for your response. It's good news that some fixes will come earlier than April - May. I hope I have explained why I feel PGI could and should be doing more for MWO, sooner.

I make these comments as someone desperate to not see this game - your game - wither and die.


This^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

#60 Kurlon

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 58 posts

Posted 06 December 2018 - 05:15 PM

Instead of tonnage restrictions, there was mention of asymmetric drops earlier in the thread based on drop spot. Why not extend that a bit, Queue up as an 8 man with high ELOs, congrats, you're facing the horde without a Charlie lance!

I know this isn't feasible for this year, but larger maps with a single initial drop zone, heavily defended by turrets and more highly armed dropships for each side, forcing players to drop in four at a time, but capturable drop zones deeper into the map would be cool.

I'd also like to take advantage of the engine's ability to support 26 connections (24 players plus two others) to allow each team a proper drop commander who can observe from individual mechs, use the map view, and call strikes on the map directly?





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users