Jump to content

Faction Play Update - Post Mechcon 2018


534 replies to this topic

#61 justcallme A S H

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • CS 2020 Referee
  • CS 2020 Referee
  • 8,349 posts
  • LocationMelbourne, AU

Posted 06 December 2018 - 05:19 PM

View PostGeewiz 27, on 06 December 2018 - 05:06 PM, said:

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


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).

Edited by justcallme A S H, 06 December 2018 - 05:19 PM.


#62 DarklightCA

    Member

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

Posted 06 December 2018 - 05:23 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.

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.



I love this. I've been saying for a long time that something like this should be added. The fact me playing as a group will have higher chances of getting matched against another group rather than a team of solo players would honestly make me want to play Faction Play again.

#63 Paul Inouye

    Lead Designer

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

Posted 06 December 2018 - 05:29 PM

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.

The MM doesn't know of a team's reputation from previous wins. Does the 8392th Deuces always drop 12 man? What if there are 2 players from 8392th Deuces on a team with a bunch of random pugs? Do the rest of the pugs get hit with the tonnage restriction because of those 2? Take an average W/L? An average is not going to work because there are so many permutations to a player's success rating that an average will favor high skilled players because averages pull top players down and bottom players up. 4 high skilled players far outweighs the 4 lower skilled players on the team in terms of battlefield success.

Does the tonnage restriction change based on the team ranking? That's going to be a logistical nightmare for teams having to change drop decks on the fly (even after we increase the number of drop decks you can have). If you're on the lower 'ranking' team, who gets the extra tonnage? Who's allowed to take heavier 'Mechs now that the team you're facing is 'better' than yours?

#64 giggitygiggitygoo

    Member

  • Pip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 10 posts

Posted 06 December 2018 - 05:30 PM

Is there any chance of making the faction play leaderboard sortable? Like the quick play leaderboard is. So that it's not just "who has the most kmdd's"

#65 Paul Inouye

    Lead Designer

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

Posted 06 December 2018 - 05:33 PM

View Postgiggitygiggitygoo, on 06 December 2018 - 05:30 PM, said:

Is there any chance of making the faction play leaderboard sortable? Like the quick play leaderboard is. So that it's not just "who has the most kmdd's"


Possible yes.. let's throw it into the hat.

#66 Nightbird

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The God of Death
  • The God of Death
  • 6,695 posts

Posted 06 December 2018 - 05:39 PM

View PostPaul 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.

The MM doesn't know of a team's reputation from previous wins. Does the 8392th Deuces always drop 12 man? What if there are 2 players from 8392th Deuces on a team with a bunch of random pugs? Do the rest of the pugs get hit with the tonnage restriction because of those 2? Take an average W/L? An average is not going to work because there are so many permutations to a player's success rating that an average will favor high skilled players because averages pull top players down and bottom players up. 4 high skilled players far outweighs the 4 lower skilled players on the team in terms of battlefield success.

Does the tonnage restriction change based on the team ranking? That's going to be a logistical nightmare for teams having to change drop decks on the fly (even after we increase the number of drop decks you can have). If you're on the lower 'ranking' team, who gets the extra tonnage? Who's allowed to take heavier 'Mechs now that the team you're facing is 'better' than yours?


Thank you for the reply (even if indirect) Paul.

I respect that people should be able to bring any mechs they've purchased. If the number of mechs you must take wasn't restricted to 4, I believe that would solve it. I realize that change has a technical hurdle, but it can be done.

For the MM, I believe it's not necessary to know players' strength when making teams. FP doesn't have the pop for that anyways. The tonnage adjustment calculation can take place in the lobby and your tonnage capability displayed there (2min timer to allow sufficient planning).

If there is no tonnage handicap, the suggested MM will always place a strong team of 12 against a team of 12 beginners. Without a tonnage adjustment, this will continuously force weaker teams to reduce in size or disband.

As for how much of a tonnage handicap to give, I believe that can be tuned easily once the mechanic is in place. (1. form lobby, 2, calculate tonnage handicap, 3 display tonnage handicap in drop screen. As for the formula, I suggested W/L but you can use anything available that seem fair and works)

Edited by Nightbird, 06 December 2018 - 05:42 PM.


#67 Robertson Taylor

    Rookie

  • Survivor
  • 9 posts

Posted 06 December 2018 - 05:40 PM

Can we get beeps or something audible both when we find a lobby and again when a matching team is found, like when qp map vote pops up? When doing long searches I tend to read and have missed lobby time not noticing the changes on screen.

#68 Paul Inouye

    Lead Designer

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

Posted 06 December 2018 - 05:42 PM

View PostRobertson Taylor, on 06 December 2018 - 05:40 PM, said:

Can we get beeps or something audible both when we find a lobby and again when a matching team is found, like when qp map vote pops up? When doing long searches I tend to read and have missed lobby time not noticing the changes on screen.


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.

#69 Tarl Cabot

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Tai-sho
  • Tai-sho
  • 7,212 posts
  • LocationImperial City, Luthien - Draconis Combine

Posted 06 December 2018 - 05:46 PM

Quote

Tug-of-War adjustment for less punitive win condition flips.


I would be opposed to dropping the win percentage to low numbers setup for the single faction encounters. Keeping the 30 marks per side I could see it at 50 or 60% but none of this 10-20 %

And the following would also need to be rectified, and that is the tech equivalency issue, especially since FP is primarily Clan vs IS. And to help pull in those players who have left AND keep them the perception that PGI are Clanners bias need to go. And really just one right now and that is the lack of tech equivalency between the IS vs Clan engines and how they are handled after a Side Torso is destroyed.


Quote

PGI can make changes to FW but when the fight is primarily IS vs Clan, other considerations need to be taken into account.

Part of that fun would be to not continue with the lethality of the isXL engines when 1st ST is lost. It is one of the reasons IS players do not want to drop in this one bucket atmosphere where it is primarily Clan vs IS. Many may be fine with that lethality when it is primarily IS vs IS because the each side has access to the SAME equipment and mechs, where as when it is IS vs Clan that can come into play big time because then there is no engine equivalency between those factions. Each XL engine provides the same weight savings but it is only with the isXL engine that when the 1st ST is destroyed that mech is out. And IS tech overall is HEAVIER and bulkier than Clan tech.

And for those against it, ahh, it is Lore. Again, MWO is NOT utilizing the full engine crit system and this is a FPS, not a dice game where each weapon is rolled for hit/miss then location. And others are against it because it represents a "challenge" to run isXL when going IS instead of Clan. But that does not help the perception with the general population.

Of course, since Chris is not actually in the office, that would mean time/appointments would have to be made/sync up to discuss potential changes. Now the lack of bandwidth make sense now, but it is also sad.

Example of what it would look like.

And for those who say LFE is enough, it is not at times.

Example

LFE 15% movement penalty - 15% engine heat dissipation penalty
cXL 20% movement penalty - 30% engine heat dissipation penalty
isXL 30% movement penalty - 45% engine heat dissipation penalty


#70 Gully D

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • The Venom
  • The Venom
  • 84 posts

Posted 06 December 2018 - 05:55 PM

at Navid

This is the most important part.

Realistically looking at things, no matter how many UI/meta game improvements are put in place, at the end when you launch into a match, it is a corridor map, with a couple gates and same old choke points. 100% same thing that we have now.

A team gets rolled 3 times, they quit FP queue, and there goes FP for the night.

Totally agree with this
IF a team gets rolled regularly cue is gone, if a pug group gets rolled once they are gone too - no more matches for the night, sad.

I and others have literally had to change sides more than once in a night to "seed" two groups to get a game, which is kinda fun cause we re all shooting friends !

#71 Gully D

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • The Venom
  • The Venom
  • 84 posts

Posted 06 December 2018 - 06:02 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.



Could it be that there are tooo many variables to consider? and that any solution should be tried ASAP even just the easiest one.
IMO

#72 Decency

    Member

  • Pip
  • 12 posts

Posted 06 December 2018 - 06:06 PM

Hey there, I'm just going to run through some of the proposals here that I find important with some thoughts based on my experience playing ~1000 FW Invasion matches and ~200 Scouting matches.
  • LP used as a currency
Can you achieve the same goal by simply allowing players who have maxed out their current faction to select an allied faction to begin accumulating rewards in? This seems overcomplicated in a game with many existing currencies.
  • Map Alterations
  • Revisit sightlines
  • Revisit pathing
  • Look at generator positioning
These are in my opinion mostly fine, though the Siege maps could probably use a quick pass (mostly to create alternate attack routes). I think the community could do a good job here identifying key areas where a lot of benefit can be found for a small investment.

Fixing the hitboxes on various terrain and certain props (the corners of Omega come to mind, for example) would be a nice improvement, as well.
  • Incursion base building health adjustments.
Awesome, this is an enormous problem in any coordinated game. They should probably all be doubled, at least (including walls). The durations on the non-Radar unlocks could probably be increased slightly, as well, to balance them better against each other.
  • [color=blue]Drop Zone wall angle adjustments.[/color]
Very important for preventing spawncamping, +1 from me if executed properly. But if the dropship isn't able to hit someone who is standing still behind the wall, that's actually worse than having than no walls at all.
  • Conquest score adjustment.
At 1500 this becomes (to me) the best mode in MWO by far. I think it should be seriously considered for competitive play, but it's not currently possible to host private lobbies that utilize Drop Decks, so we aren't able to see some showmatches between top teams which is unfortunate.

One other thing that's important to mention about the Dropdeck Conquest mode is the location of capture points compared to respawns. Maps where two points are essentially "free" for each team due to their proximity to friendly respawns (think an X shape, with teams respawning on top/bottom) play much worse than maps with more contestable points (a + shape). A quick pass here on the capture points with the main theme of trying to make more capture points equidistant from each teams' nearest spawn would add a lot of value to the gameplay for a small investment.
  • Earlier win conditions based on team destruction (stomps)
A mercy rule that incentivizes teams to complete the objectives would be excellent, but probably hard to devise. A good portion of matches are essentially decided after the second wave of mechs, but teams continue spawncamping for 5-10 minutes more to increase the rewards they earn. It's incredibly dissatisfying.


This an especially bad problem in Skirmish as there is no secondary objective to complete: spawncamping is actually the most efficient way to win the game. While this technically isn't true for Assault, in reality very few FW Assault matches end by point capture and thus unfortunately also often turn into spawncamping.

For this reason and a whole host of others (mostly related to passive play) I strongly believe that Skrimish and Assault modes should be removed from FW. I think having an FW game mode suite that goes Conquest --> Incursion --> Domination --> Siege would be an incredible step up.
  • Queuing integrated into LFG
Allowing players to queue for FW and QP simultaneously would be a big win and help to keep the mode more populated outside of events. I'm not sure if that would work through LFG or not, or how much work it would be, but figured I'd mention it.
  • Reward group play at a higher level than solo
In my experience there are three main types of FW groups. The first are solo players, who often don't do well and might only be showing up for the Event. Then there's small groups of 2-4, who can typically contribute and often can win games for their team. And then there are stacks, usually of 8-12 players and typically in an external VOIP client.


Unless these stacks hit a high skilled group or another big stack, they virtually always win, and usually in quite a stomp. This isn't fun for the people they're stomping and usually isn't even fun for them. I think an FW priority should be finding ways to match these big groups up with each other as much as possible.
  • Scouting mode end condition investigation (diving)
One possible idea here is to reward the defenders for capturing intel, as well. For example, provide them the dropship's pickup location if they capture 10. But a big part of the problem is that for some reason very large maps like Forest Colony were chosen for this mode, which really just don't play well in 4v4.


Also, the LP earned in this mode is very low and that should be looked at, too.
  • Battlefield based tonnage restriction (e.g. only 4 assaults at a time)
I don't think this is necessary. Currently, good players will almost always frontload their heaviest mechs and this is fine- different waves tend to have different flavors, with the first being slow and methodical and the last being more scrappy with lights. I enjoy this and think changes here would simply lead to players bringing mostly heavies.

-----

Thanks for reading, I'm happy to explain anything in further detail if necessary. Hoping to see this FW update make the mode as fun as I'm sure it can be!

#73 Gully D

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • The Venom
  • The Venom
  • 84 posts

Posted 06 December 2018 - 06:21 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.

THANKS !

#74 Gully D

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • The Venom
  • The Venom
  • 84 posts

Posted 06 December 2018 - 06:27 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.

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.



Sorry if i missed it, can you please clarify if ppl dont have SSR (and i am assuming SSR stands for solaris skill rating?)

#75 justcallme A S H

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • CS 2020 Referee
  • CS 2020 Referee
  • 8,349 posts
  • LocationMelbourne, AU

Posted 06 December 2018 - 06:45 PM

View PostGully D, on 06 December 2018 - 06:27 PM, said:


Sorry if i missed it, can you please clarify if ppl dont have SSR (and i am assuming SSR stands for solaris skill rating?)


SSR in FP.

That is what is being built. It currently does not exist.

I doubt Solaris SSR would play a factor as it's a different game mode etc.

#76 LoneGhostOne

    Rookie

  • Philanthropist
  • 9 posts

Posted 06 December 2018 - 07:20 PM

As a fairly casual player who does like to go into FP occasionally, there are a few things that keep me from playing it particularly often.
  • rewards on losses make it not worth it compared to playing the same amount of time in solo-que and getting all losses -- this will get better if que times can go down
  • Choke points on maps make it particularly painful when getting stomped
  • No way to resupply ballistic mechs -- many of the builds i have use ballistic primary weapons. FP matches take considerably longer than normal ones making me often run out of ammo when using the same builds. Having a resupply mechanic would obviously need a lot of thought to avoid balance issues though.


#77 LordLosh

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Blood-Eye
  • The Blood-Eye
  • 409 posts

Posted 06 December 2018 - 07:22 PM

For me I never felt like taking or capturing a planet was worthwhile as it should be. Nor was it immersive at all. There is a perfect and I do mean almost perfect blueprint to go off of in World of Tanks on having buildings/structures, ELO rewards, currency, etc. It would have to be adjusted a little and not be based around individual units but applied to all the clans/houses as a whole. Loyalist get to vote on the buildings and how to spend the resources. I really think its worth a look if you haven't
https://worldoftanks...ongholds_guide/

#78 Shadowomega1

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • 987 posts

Posted 06 December 2018 - 07:30 PM

I actually see bad things happening with:
  • Battlefield based tonnage restriction (e.g. only 4 assaults at a time)
If someone on you team takes an Assault and sit in spawn with it, or worse 4 or 5 people depending on the restriction. (I saw this in other games of people do this on spite). Having someone who went assault on first drop and hasn't been killed yet (ran out of ammo), and you only have assault mech(s) left in your drop deck. A weaponless, assault mech is left on the field and they refuse to eject and the enemy team ignores the stick.

Edited by Shadowomega1, 06 December 2018 - 07:31 PM.


#79 justcallme A S H

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • CS 2020 Referee
  • CS 2020 Referee
  • 8,349 posts
  • LocationMelbourne, AU

Posted 06 December 2018 - 07:49 PM

View PostLoneGhostOne, on 06 December 2018 - 07:20 PM, said:

[*]No way to resupply ballistic mechs -- many of the builds i have use ballistic primary weapons. FP matches take considerably longer than normal ones making me often run out of ammo when using the same builds. Having a resupply mechanic would obviously need a lot of thought to avoid balance issues though.
[/list]


Many times it has been stated from PGI that resupply won't happen and it should not.

If you are running out of ammo you need to look at your builds. Most of.my ballistic mechs carry approx 1800dmg worth of ammo. Some less depending. So that will be a build issue not a new feature issue.

#80 Elizander

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 7,498 posts
  • LocationPhilippines

Posted 06 December 2018 - 08:38 PM

Will Kanajashi be the one to enter all the planetary data? :D





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users