534 replies to this topic

[Hammer Hand]

Oils, on 05 January 2019 - 05:00 PM, said:

Stop spawn camping night and some of us might come back (EFRT as well)

Spawn camping can be defeated. If a player will take command he can move people to different lance and (I believe) they will drop in different DZ. Once a group of mechs get in the open DZ then they can push. There are 2 obvious problems. taking the time in a fight to shift mechs to different lances and then there are pugs doing what pugs do.

Possibly the above process could be made easier by adding a players ability to choose which DZ he will land in. Maybe we could add a 4th choice to land in too, as an option.

[Alreech]

Monkey Lover, on 03 January 2019 - 01:45 PM, said:

Scouting is the only mode my unit will play. I know this might be a crazyyyyyyyyy idea,,,,,,, but maybe they could improve scouting?

Why does your unit only play Scouting ?
And how do you suggest it can be improved ?
I don't get it...

So my ideas:
Why Scouting ?
Scouting is basically 4 vs 4 and for smaller units a better alternative to the 12 vs 12 mess of other gamemodes.

Improving:
Keep the 4 vs 4 thing, but add respawns to the Scouting Deck (2 or 3 Mechs ?) to make the matches longer.
Maybe move away from the "collecting the intel" stuff and go for a game mode like Domination or Conquest.
If you need a fluff for that: "Seize the objectives to collect the Intel"

[Alreech]

Nightbird, on 05 January 2019 - 07:56 AM, said:

I support all the ideas that improve QoL for existing players. I just want to point out (for the nth time) that unless the difficulty curve is lowered for the less than seasoned players, 99% of people that try FP will quit after being ground into dust a few times.

(QoL improvements or not)

IMHO is Faction Warfare (except Invasion mode) less difficult than quickplay.
1st: You can select your dropdeck according to the map / mode.
2nd: You can respwan.
Both things drastically reduce the difficulty of the game.

The main point keeping me and my buddies away from Faction warfare:
Longer waiting times for the matches - and this is connected to the splitted player base.

Speaking of "Quality of Life" improvements for MWO:
Adding a 13 player acting as Commander would make leading a Drop much easier and less chaotic.
In the beginning access to the battlegrid & tools and normal specator mode would be enough, if you want to add meta gameplay elements like spending C-Bills to improve a planetary defense / assault commander consumables like stronger UAVs/ Strategic Strikes may be easier and faster to realize than turrets / walls / ect...
Maybe those consumables could be payed with C-Bills from the units coffer...

[Alreech]

Reno Blade, on 07 January 2019 - 06:50 AM, said:

- Matches are worth the time, no matter the stomp/balance
This could be easier to achieve with the previously mentioned bonus credits for underdogs (recieving a stomp should not net you 0 LP and low CB) and more ingame events (e.g. higher team bonus, savior bonus ...)

- Metagame for Planets and factions (investments, defending and conquering with meaning)
This might be a bigger task, but is one of the core pillars needed to feel some kind of progress.
It could start with using LP as currency to add some buffs (to base/turrets/mechs) or some other multipliers (LP/CB, countdowns...) and go as far as giving each Faction specific buffs or Faction specific Mechs some buffs...
Some ideas from last year: https://mwomercs.com...p-and-gp-united

Better rewards for faction playing would be nice, and C-Bill Bonus would be nice.

How about adding a second kind of score to faction play:
Fame: Fame increase strongly from wins. Fame gives a reduction of C-Bill prices for Mechts typical to your faction.
Loyality: rises slowly with each game, increase strongly from wins and if you can fight the enemy to a phyric victory (those epic battle with only one or two mechs left on the victors side).


The same goes for the loyality rewards:
How about giving units the ability to select certain things like colors, decals and patterns as "Unit Uniform" ?
Those things may become aviable for a reduced price, and climbing up the faction ranks gives access to more ?
For example:
1st rank: 1st decal 50% off
2nd rank: 1st color 50% off
3rd rank: 2nd color 50% off
4th rank: 3rd color 50% off
5th rank: 2nd decal 50% off
6th rank: all "Raider" one shots 50% off
...

[Spheroid]

Paul Inouye, on 02 January 2019 - 03:38 PM, said:

For example, an event could be 5 days long... or it could be 1 hr long, it's scaleable depending on the story being told.

That's too slow. At a minimum one planet per cycle needs to change hands. Your proposed system is of inadequate tempo. The reason faction is such a wreck is there is no longer any sense of agency. The "golden age" of phase 1/2 was based around meaningful territorial change for an evening of play. With the slider system you are lucky to win a planet every 90 days.

I am not on board with any custom event system unless the pace is much, much quicker. However as what you are proposing is a human engineered and not an automatic system you may feel that all the work expended would not be justified unless it is granted a sufficiently long exhibition time.

It must be brief though to return the game to a mode about planet capture and the not the toxic wasteland of competitive stat farming. Perhaps you can have numerous ongoing events for each of the thirteen factions operating one at a time in an alternating fashion. Some or all of those planet captures must resolve in a period shorter than a day or it is too boring.

Edited by Spheroid, 08 January 2019 - 12:39 PM.

[Danjo San]

Paul Inouye, on 02 January 2019 - 03:38 PM, said:

Please consider this the first out of many communications as to the progress of the FP update.

can we get the Siege maps added to the private lobby? just the blank map, no need for closed gates, and active turrets and generators. It will help mentoring new players regarding movement patterns, positioning and general training.
I know this is not a faction play update per se, but it will greatly improve a units ability to perform in the live situation.

What we have now. A player comes up with a strategy that he thinks might work better on any Siege map. Days can go by without ever seeing said map. by the time the map comes up a week later, we are on the defending side, but the strategy was meant as an alternative attack strategy. By the time the "perfect alignment" occurs, people already forgot they were supposed to switch their dropdecks to fit the strategy. the chance to test run a new strategy passes once again...

I remember that it was much easier to testdrive new strats when it only used to be Invasion and Counter Attack, as the frequency of a "perfect alignment" used to be more common.

thanks

[Reno Blade]

I've just watched the NGNG170 with Ash talking about the thug-of-war and so on...
I agree on some points and would like to touch on that.

I think a battle should not depend on any kind of fixed time window (e.g. 12h) or win count, but to actually have important objectives conquered and defended.

Without any kind of additional changes for showing objectives (e.g. Factory location or Capital City...) lets just use the current percentages on the tug-of-war bar:
1. Defenders start with 100%
2. Attackers need to reach 90%
3. Attackers need to "hold" 90-80% for the next 30min/3games
-> here the win/loss count comes into play instead of waiting for the end of the window
A "emergency" state could be added to make this visible to everyone that now each game can decide the outcome.
This is the most important part.
Once this is achieved, the planet switches directly and can not be contested for x days and the next planet comes into play.

This would even allow many planets to change owner in a single night and turn the whole IS border around in different timezones.

Then to build on top, for the future:
- Different maps/objectives/zones with different points/percentages for this could be added.
- Selection on a Planetary Map to attack/defend different POI could be then a way to decide how much you want to risk/gain for each match (e.g. fighting in the Capital will give 10% while a forest will give you 4%)

-> for the "meantime" it would be even enough to have random % points for the match to show when you launch.
It could also come from different game modes...
e.g. using the current match screen one game could be 3% and another game might be 10%
e.g. Assault would give 2-5% while Incursion would give always 8-12%
This could allow for more strategic and action packed planetary conquest metagame.

Edited by Reno Blade, 10 January 2019 - 03:10 AM.

[Weagles]

Building on Reno Blade's defender starts with 100% and attacker needs to hold 90% for thirty minutes idea.

This would work well for an event. [color=#222222]The event determines the sides, IS vs IS, Clan vs Clan or IS vs Clan.[/color]

During the current fighting period those attacking get to vote for next planet in case the attack wins while those that are defending get to choose where to counter attack next. [color=#222222][font=&amp]

One planet wins each vote and it depends on the outcome of the attack. There needs to be a max time for an attack which can still be the 8 hours currently. If the time runs out the attack failed and the defender's votes determine where the counter attack planet. The event has an end time which will be the cutoff for the current attack if the attack is not successful.

[/font][/color]

[color=#222222][font=&amp]

A five day campaign may see many planets fall and a redrawing of the borders.

[/font][/color]
[color=#222222][font=&amp][/font][/color]

[Nightbird]

To trade planets more aggressively, I would just set it so that every 100 (or X) wins for a side results in 4 planets being captured. So, if over a week, IS wins 235 times and Clan 310 times, then IS won 8 planets and Clan won 12 planets over that period. This way, there's no stagnation as long as anyone is playing.

The tug of war would be changed to a progression bar, one for IS attack progression (to X wins) and one for Clan attack progression (to X wins). The game mode can still be based on the progression bar position, having two bars just means a 50/50 chance of using a bar to decide the mode, but a win will still advance the progression bar for the winning side regardless of the bar used for the mode.

Edited by Nightbird, 11 January 2019 - 07:44 AM.

[Grus]

]Loyalists are deposited into the general queue.
[*]Loyalists can join the general queue as a solo player or a group.
[*]Loyalists earn LP for loyalist titles and rewards.

So loyalist make less chills per game... but get LP (at a crazy low amount per match) for titles and rewards.... so yet again we get boned... thanks.

[Dee Eight]

GweNTLeR, on 06 January 2019 - 04:26 AM, said:

[/size]
OK BRO, you want constructive?

I WANT PGI TO GIVE DROPSHIPS LURMS.
https://mwomercs.com...ropships-lurms/
IT WOULD STOP SPAWNCAMPING

In the lore, dropships have missiles, lasers, ppc's, gauss, etc... here... large lasers which miss you half the time even standing still.

[EnErGjAiZeR]

What about giving loyalists unique mechs(different HP layouts or diffirent geometry) of the faction they pledged as a reward?
Or unique faction weapons with different stats or firing patterns
Make it buyable for LP in Faction store(available at certain rank) or as an idea - unique guns in the solaris crates

[GweNTLeR]

EnErGjAiZeR, on 12 January 2019 - 10:44 PM, said:

What about giving loyalists unique mechs(different HP layouts or diffirent geometry) of the faction they pledged as a reward?
Or unique faction weapons with different stats or firing patterns
Make it buyable for LP in Faction store(available at certain rank) or as an idea - unique guns in the solaris crates

Sounds good, does not work. Considering PGI is focused on MW5, they would never give enough human resources to implement something similar. Plus, there would be too much balancing problems .The best they could probably do is faction dependant color of lasers and projectiles, but that is still highly unlikely.

[BARBAR0SSA]

Nightbird, 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 completely agree with this, instead of it being 12 v 12 it should be broken down into the lances being split apart needing to accomplish different objectives and not just a full on 24 man brawl

it really should become Lance vs Lance and then the winners of those engagements would end up meeting towards an objective. Funnel different lances down "lanes" and keep them split apart



Also I would forget the drop deck, quadruple everything armor wise and you're in your role till the end, and because it's 1 mech, you NEED a balanced loadout, no more pure AC builds or PPLFLD etc.


This would then allow say 1 lance to dominate their "lane" and then if their other squad is still engaged, they can try and spend the time to run and help them or go for both objectives possibly etc.

I think that sort of mode would put a lot more pilot skill/ planning into play rather than just calling targets and everyone shooting them like the current mode



Or if you can, way bigger maps with multiple objectives and way more people.


I believe the biggest issue is TTK is way to low, things need to be drawn out and lengthy, you're slowly being ripped apart by enemy fire, alarms going off, maybe some smoke in the cockpit, BETTY flipping out.



Not sure if this is in the tabletop game but, shouldn't less weight alter speed as well, Variance among identical mechs depending on weight has that been considered.

Edited by shad0w4life, 13 January 2019 - 07:12 PM.

[justcallme A S H]

shad0w4life, on 13 January 2019 - 07:05 PM, said:

Also I would forget the drop deck, quadruple everything armor wise and you're in your role till the end, and because it's 1 mech, you NEED a balanced loadout, no more pure AC builds or PPLFLD etc.

You lost me.

[Siegegun]

justcallme A S H, on 07 January 2019 - 03:23 AM, said:

Thanks for the update Paul. Looks like those items are progressing well. The above quote is absolutely the biggest concern I can see. Members of a MERC unit as a contract choice cannot drop unless they are in a a group is going to lock a lot of players out.

Sometimes I want to solo drop. If I'm forced to go through the motions of the following

• Going through my friends list (Which still doesn't sort properly).
  
• Oceanic timezone can be limited.
  
• Then find someone on the same side / contract.
  
• Then wait 10-15mins till they get out of their current QP match to see my message.
  
• Then they have to be willing to drop FP with me.

All that process just so I can play? I simply won't as it's extremelty painful. I appreciate FP is about group play but specifically targeting MERCs here is a bad idea.

justcallme A S H, on 07 January 2019 - 03:28 AM, said:

Second one.. This is another big one. I realise it is an example only in terms of the duration - however being forced to play scouting will mean again a big portion of the active FP community just won't play if locked/forced into a certain mode. I look at scouting in a similar way to Escort.

I can see the reason behind locking the mode/map, such that to create a sense of conflict and so on. I don't think that is the right way to go about it however.

Also 24hrs of just skirmish kinda gets the same reaction. I really love the randomness of the bar currently and the fact Siege maps get thrown in among the QP maps/modes on a weighted percentage. I know some prefer more siege, some more QP - overall the balance there currently feels good.

Further to that being locked onto say Vitric Forge for 24hrs of choke-point warrior? Or Boreal Vault? Which would literally be players worst nightmare

Again I get the idea however the majority of players I've spoken to on this are definately against it.

This.

Now because I am a merc I cannot drop solo into FW? That's stupid Paul. My unit generally does not play FW, I have to drop solo into it because it is my favorite mode. Now you want me to choose between being able to actually play the game in my favorite mode or leave my unit? NO. Everything else game wise has become super stale and boring. This one thing alone will make you bleed out even more players, and as a mode you are now restricting the size of players when that's ALREADY an issue. And this might cause me to just stop playing altogether. And yet a solo with no unit can just play solo? So you are allowing those with no unit (the most likely to not know how to play as a team) and restricting those IN units who do know how to play as a team, in the most "team" mode? It is like you TRY to bleed players off. Just wow.

And 12 hours of scouting? Pass. I dislike scouting, I rarely play it and only when you tempt me with an event. Even with an event I rarely play it. I just do not enjoy it. More restrictions and more forcing people away from this mode and this game.

[Spheroid]

@Siege: I think you may be misunderstanding the requirement. You need to drop as a group of two or more but not necessarily from the same merc unit. Its not clear that the duo even needs to be of the same career type. Joining randoms in the LFG first is functionally no different than forming that twelve as a solo later. As you know most teams are now ad hoc collections of units anyway.

The group requirement is dictated by the math requirements involved in skill sorting, not a purposeful effort to annoy you.

Edited by Spheroid, 17 January 2019 - 12:05 PM.

[Siegegun]

Spheroid, on 17 January 2019 - 11:53 AM, said:

@Siege: I think you may be misunderstanding the requirement. You need to drop as a group of two or more but not necessarily from the same merc unit. Its not clear that the duo even needs to be of the same career type. Joining randoms in the LFG first is functionally no different than forming that twelve as a solo later. As you know most teams are now ad hoc collections of units anyway.

The group requirement is dictated by the math requirements involved in skill sorting, not a purposeful effort to annoy you.

Ok that's not what I thought it was. Thank you for the clarification. It is still not a good idea for the reasons I said. Why cant they use the same formula for a solo merc as for a solo nonmerc? This still forces me to jump through a ton of hoops just to play the mode I WANT to play. I would play FW all the time if I could find matches for it all the time. I sit and wait sometimes as it is just to play it.

Thank you again for the clarification. Perhaps if someone could explain to me technically why this needs to be I would be less upset.

[justcallme A S H]

Spheroid, on 17 January 2019 - 11:53 AM, said:

The group requirement is dictated by the math requirements involved in skill sorting, not a purposeful effort to annoy you.

No it isn't.

If Freelance and Loyalist can drop Solo - it's got absolutely nothing to do with math for skill sorting. The new Match Maker doesn't care WHAT career path you have chosen.

It's just a requirement/change that will not actually benefit anyone.

[Spheroid]

@Ash: When you allow the full set of combinations of twelve using r as low as one you arrive at over four thousand combinations. Those solo players are free to enter and leave the queue in that two minute window and each time that set changes the group match maker needs to recheck the two skill values. Remember its not just the blue side it the blue vs. red side which also potentially has four thousand valid combinations.

That is a lot of changing numbers for the program to crunch. If anything the four thousand number shows why it is vital to include solo players to fill gaps in the group que to reduce wait times and why it is important to limit combinations when solving for matchmaking.

Edited by Spheroid, 17 January 2019 - 01:49 PM.