536 replies to this topic

[J a y]

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

[NocturnalBeast]

I have been out of the loop for a while, but this looks awesome, it is really what should have been focused on since the launch of MWO.

[MischiefSC]

I'm not really even sure how to respond.

I'm going to go with 'Holy S***!!!!'

That's pretty much a years long shopping list of goodies I've wanted in my FW basket.

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

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

If all this stuff ends up in FW I'll get you both a pony and a red plastic rocket.

[MischiefSC]

In fact, if all this stuff ends up in FW and it's as awesome as we hope it is -

[NocturnalBeast]

It is nice to see something that I have suggested many times over the years is going to be implemented

• Faction specific rewards (Colors/boltons/cockpit items/skins/etc)

[Oor Wullie]

First off i happy that we got the info... better late than never i suppose.

Anyway about the tonnage reduction that been pooping up in this thread. What about players that don't have that many mechs? We have 1 in our unit that has just enough mechs for 1 IS deck and 1 clan deck. So if we on a win streak he is going to get buggered in trying to get the cbills, i don't see how this is fair on him. Also if I start getting restricted cause I on a roll then I just wont play more than 2 games (yes i solo alot)
(Before anyone goes looking at stats and that no we arnt a top unit and usualy only 6 of us in a group at a time. Some nights we do get lucky and get 6 other players we work well with.)


But i looking forward to the updates

Oh i also forgot i think if i remember right that FP SSR is based on your FP experience, in others words how much/long you been playing that mode. Think it was mentioned in the podcast.

Edited by Nr1Noob, 07 December 2018 - 12:54 PM.

[Spheroid]

Nr1Noob, on 07 December 2018 - 12:47 PM, said:

First off i happy that we got the info... better late than never i suppose.

Anyway about the tonnage reduction that been pooping up in this thread. What about players that don't have that many mechs?

I don't see it as an issue. Since there are currently two trial mechs for each weight class the number of valid combinations between trial and wholly owned mechs is quite large. Even limiting myself artificially to one of each weight class I can go low as 220 tons for I.S. If I take the Locust and the Panther that's only 55 tons total. Weight can be as reasonably low or high as needed.

Lack of mechs should serve as motivation to grind more.

[Nightbird]

Nr1Noob, on 07 December 2018 - 12:47 PM, said:

Anyway about the tonnage reduction that been pooping up in this thread. What about players that don't have that many mechs?

Spheroid, on 07 December 2018 - 01:40 PM, said:

Even limiting myself artificially to one of each weight class I can go low as 220 tons for I.S. If I take the Locust and the Panther that's only 55 tons total. Weight can be as reasonably low or high as needed.

Lack of mechs should serve as motivation to grind more.

I don't think most groups need to worry about any sort of tonnage penalty. As suggested, only teams with more than 3 times the W/L of the other team will see any restrictions.

For example, if your team on average has 1 W/L ratio, it's only if the other team has 0.3 W/L ratio that you have to worry about a meager 25 ton decrease.

The idea is more for teams with >10 W/L ratio against teams with <1 W/L ratio, to make things better.

[Jables McBarty]

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.

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?

I think Nightbird's suggestion overcomes pretty much all of these stumbling blocks you mention. It's voluntary with optional tradeoffs.

And there are a bunch of 'mechs I can't play b/c they are nonviable in X or Y mode, so I don't see "you can't play X or Y 'mech" as being a problem.

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

Faction Play Update - Post MechCon

Game Mode/Hooks

Objective play reward increase.

Really hope this includes Scouting - Intel Gathered.

Quote

Reward group play at a higher level than solo

Isn't this already in-game? As in - winning?

Quote

Scouting mode end condition investigation (diving)

Just saw some of the threads on this. Had no idea it generated such salt.

I am an unrepentant diver. I love the thrill of the stealth game and I sincerely hope you don't completely nerf the utility of lights in Scouting.

If you implement a quick-fix (e.g., you have to sit for 5 seconds), Scouting will be entirely 50 and 55 tonners brawling it out.

Edited by Jables McBarty, 07 December 2018 - 02:14 PM.

[Jables McBarty]

El Ares, on 07 December 2018 - 12:01 AM, said:

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

> Bring back queue count.

I think this is a very good idea, because nothing is more frustrating not to know if you are alone in the queue and a match will "never" start or there are already 20 ppl waiting.

I want to add that you should also add the number of people currently in the lobby but not queued.

Example: I might be glancing at the queues, and only see that 4 people are queued up. At the same time, 19 other people are doing the exact same thing. Each of us thinks "shoot, we'll need 19 more people to get a game."

With a "Lobby count" you can see there are 24 people in the lobby - 4 in queue, plus 20 waiting around.

Bud Crue, on 07 December 2018 - 05:17 AM, said:

I see some of what has been mentioned above being a step in the right direction, but I also see on the list that rewards to encourage team play listed as a not likely. I hope that changes. In any case, good luck Paul. I hope whatever you do is enough to get folks playing again no matter what.

Exactly. Rewarding team play without making it dramatically easier to form teams in-game and without resorting to 3rd-party software will do nothing to actually improve the numbers of grouped players.

Unless by this he means "increase support rewards" like AMS missile destroyed and Protection Proximity

[50 50]

There's some good stuff in that list.

However, the biggest concern I would still have is around addressing a way to reduce wait times and get matches faster and more reliably.
This is the biggest thing stopping me from playing the game in any of the modes at the moment.

Therefore I would like to ask if it would be possible to look at adding dynamic team sizes into the match maker as it would benefit Faction Play and Quick Play.

• Have the match maker try to initially for a match as 12v12.
  
• If it cannot create the larger match, try and create a match of 8v8.
  
• If that can't be done, then try 4v4.
  
• Repeat.

There are numerous benefits from allowing smaller matches as it not only allows flexibility for when the population is low, but it also provides:

• It should directly speak to wait times and volume of games/hour.
  
• Variety in matches due to the different way the games would play out.
  
• It may address some concerns of solo vs group due to the prioritization of groups in the queue.
  
• It may open the door to looking at more of a free for all bucket (like quick play) by then limiting teams to a single faction which would then allow having IS vs IS, Clan vs Clan and Is vs Clan matches all in the one queue.
  
• It may allow integrating scouting into invasion and reducing the number of queues.

The easier and quicker it is to get a game, the more a mode will thrive and the more other enhancements will have an impact further serving to grow the player base.

[Grus]

justcallme 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!

Could make some off color comments about the motivation behind this...

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

&lt;p&gt;[color=orange]Faction Play Update - Post MechCon[/color]&lt;/p&gt;
Discussion and Planning
&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;
As announced at MechCon, the Faction Play Update has been discussed and has a target of early 2019 (March/April). During this time I'd like to continue the discussion that was underway previously and in the same casual manner.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;
Below is the list of items covered from the main discussion with community members and now has color coded priority assigned.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;
[color=yellow]Yellow[/color] - This is a primary feature and will be included in the update but it's a major undertaking and will take the longest.&lt;br&gt;
[color=orange]Orange[/color] - Under immediate investigation and has a higher action priority/capability than other items currently open.&lt;br&gt;
[color=blue]Blue[/color] - Needs serious re-consideration as it has a split acceptance from the community or has severe technological issues behind it.&lt;br&gt;
[color=green]Green[/color] - Complete and in a future patch.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;
I will be updating the color coding and priorities as development moves along to make sure you are all aware of the states of specific items on the list. Please keep in mind, if an item is not color coded, it does not mean that item has no value, it means that in order for certain sub systems to come on line, the prioritized stuff has to come first.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Make faction alignment meaningful and rewarding&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ul class=&quot;bbc&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Faction specific rewards (Colors/boltons/cockpit items/skins/etc)&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;LP used as a currency&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;[color=yellow]Story/Lore/Faction driven choices to cement a desire to stay loyal[/color]&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;[color=yellow]Expand on the Loyalist path drastically[/color]&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;[color=yellow]Expand on lore in global descriptions in FP[/color]&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Map Alterations&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ul class=&quot;bbc&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Revisit sightlines&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Revisit pathing&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Look at generator positioning&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Game Mode/Hooks&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ul class=&quot;bbc&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Tug-of-War adjustment for less punitive win condition flips.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Removal of Tug-of-War mechanic for smaller events with different win scenarios.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Incursion base building health adjustments.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;[color=blue]Drop Zone wall angle adjustments.[/color]&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;More reward kickers based on player behavior.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;[color=green]Bring back queue count.[/color]&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Planet/event specific map selection.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;[color=orange]Objective play reward increase.[/color]&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Conquest score adjustment.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;[color=orange]Adjust launch countdown.[/color]&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Earlier win conditions based on team destruction (stomps)&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;[color=orange]CalltoArms timer change.[/color]&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Unit based objectives.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Queuing integrated into LFG&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Reward group play at a higher level than solo&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Scouting mode end condition investigation (diving)&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;[color=orange]Rewards for CalltoArms participation[/color]&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Battlefield based tonnage restriction (e.g. only 4 assaults at a time)&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Systems Update&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ul class=&quot;bbc&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;[color=orange]More than 4 drop decks[/color]&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;[color=blue]VoIP prior to drop[/color]&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;p&gt;UI&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ul class=&quot;bbc&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;[color=green]Refresh on friends list[/color]&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;[color=green]Favorites on friends list[/color]&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Status indicator (drop type/game area)&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Coffers&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ul class=&quot;bbc&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Unit management taxation removal/change.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;C-bill transfer between players.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Misc&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ul class=&quot;bbc&quot;&gt;
&lt;li&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color: green&quot;&gt;Tool for players to enter planetary data&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;

Lots of good changes comming. I like it.

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

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

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

This could really help keep people playing. Less of a loss for the losing side means you didnt waste 20_30 min waiting for a game befor a stomp.

Edited by Grus, 07 December 2018 - 04:49 PM.

[Appogee]

Peter2k, on 07 December 2018 - 06:35 AM, said:

You know what's funny and bitter at the same time?


Look at that list and look at what actually happened.

You have to stretch the timetable a bit, but, the FP changes and more balance does feel like maintenance mode, cuz for me balance and fixing things is maintenance.
And there is nothing else in the works

Ha! Thanks for digging that up But I couldn't be more sad to have been right

[JadePanther]

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

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

C-bill transfer between players.

tonnage restriction could result in 8 players watching 4 people try to fight 12.. Repeatedly.. drop 4,, fail.. drop 4... fail.. drop 4 fail.. do you see how this could only amplify stomping when over half a team is locked out of even being elgible to drop in one of thier many available mechs... I only see a field tonnage restriciton working if there were no reinforcements (ie 12 men only drop 1 mech, or if tonnage were only restricted on the first drop so as to not lock out teams from dropping thier reinforcements..

Cbill tranferrance would only encourage account hacking, botting, and gold farmers.. having no currency transferral is actually the major reason this game doesnt have a problem with botting and gold farmers like every other F2p MMO out there.. I severely hope you guys really tread extremely lightly near that slippery slope.. Think long and hard about the abuses of currency or goods changing hands... If anything in an MMO can change hands you can bet your life someone is plotting nefariously on how to abuse that for personal gains.. I would reccomend you seek advice from MMO's experienced with currency exchanges before you decide to open those gates of the damned...

PS.
perhaps limiting assualts is something best done on the drop deck level where you can only have 1 assault mech to a drop deck

Oh and in the future after having an idea you should immediately ask the question "How bad can this go or be abused" Then take your answer and imagine its waaaay worse because players will find a way to surprise you..

Edited by JadePanther, 07 December 2018 - 07:18 PM.

[Nightbird]

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

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

Edited by Nightbird, 07 December 2018 - 08:18 PM.

[BROARL]

Nightbird, 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.

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

[MischiefSC]

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

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

Everything you put in a game trains the players. Not realizing this has driven a lot of issues for MWO in the earliest days.

Players will do what they feel motivated and rewarded for doing.

Make the DZ stronger? You've just encouraged spawn camping because you've motivated players to stay in and around their spawn to take advantage of the firepower.

Buff a particular faction or weapon group? You just encouraged use of it and discouraged use of what it best counters. For example, poptart/sniping vs brawling or vice versa.

No real perks to being a loyalist, being a merc pays better and gives more flexibility? Most competitive players become mercs, loyalist population suffers skill gap and gets burned.

Encouraging and rewarding players for self-limiting performance and playing with less skilled teammates rewards - being more attentive to skill differences, self-motivation in finding challenges (like seeing just how much you can give up to still be successful and honing your skills in the process). It encourages lower skilled and pug players to see playing vs teams as still potentially rewarding if they put in the effort.

That's the trick to it, the best part. You're doing two key things: you're encouraging and rewarding mediocre and pug players for putting in more effort (they get more pay losing but having a good showing vs a good team than they do scraping by a low performance win vs other pugs) and in turn challenging themselves to do better and you're encouraging good players to, in essence, give them the opportunity.

The psychology that drives people to GIT GUD is really subtle and situational. Mostly it's motivation and opportunity driven. This helps with both of those and that, in turn, increases the odds that pugs and bads will put some more effort into GIT GUD, which gives a longer term solution everyone will be happy with.

[Nightbird]

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

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

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

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

[Valdorel]

Paul 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.

With this proposed system, one thing you could also do to dramatically speed up the rate of matches is if we get into a situation where there are say, 4 I.S. teams full up and waiting, and no Clan teams in the queue, that the Matchmaker could then just place those teams into I.S. vs I.S. matches, rather than waiting 10-20 minutes or something.

Gives people a regular chance for IS vs IS/Clan vs Clan matches that many of us miss, speeds up time to matches, and adds all of the variety of Old-CW without the multiple buckets.

Edited by Valdorel, 08 December 2018 - 01:52 PM.

[Phoenix 72]

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.