100 replies to this topic

[Paul Inouye]

So, the podcast delay didn't help out here but I'm not going to wait for it to update you all on what we're planning for FP post patch. First I'm going to copy and paste my comment from the hotfix thread about rolling back:

Quote

We cannot roll back a patch like this. A rollback of this magnitude would impose a workload that would be in a similar scope of rewriting the entire update. The database and backend services only move forward. There were significant changes in this patch in relation to these services. Rolling back would cause a massive desync in data which could result in a corruption of the entire backend structure essentially bringing the entire game to a halt. Rolling back code in a revision control environment isn't the issue... when things go live, the data in the backend has already taken on the new properties which would break under the previous codebase. On top of that, we cannot rollback 'just a section' of a patch, the entire patch would rollback including the new 'Mech and fixes that were also part of it.

As I mentioned in the latest FP Update post, there is a plan for changes/updates based on feedback and I'm waiting for a few more information sources to get back to me before I draft up the complete plan for moving forward. I will post this information tomorrow and will open it up for more feedback.

Now... on to the next steps...

Terminology:

Conflict – Considered as a campaign
Phase – The missions that make up the campaign

Pressure Points in the Community:

• Cannot select Loyalist and never have to play anything other than a Loyalist.
  
• Do not like having to play a singular game mode for the duration of a Phase
  
• Do not like Scouting to be a dedicated Phase. This is actually split because there are people who love Scouting and people who hate it. One point raised by the community on this is that Scouting would force a large group to break apart to meet the 4v4 requirement of the mode.
  
• Do not like being locked to a Faction for an entire Conflict. Requesting every match, but that is not possible as it would completely mess up the Match Maker and swapping frequently like that will lead to chaos in between matches as overbalancing becomes an issue. We can however, allow a switch every Phase.
  
• RP is not being earned. This is a bug and is being addressed as of this post and is scheduled for a hotfix early next week.
  
• MC Coffers not working for distribution purposes. This too is a bug and has been fixed and will be included in the hotfix early next week.

Can and Cannot Do’s



Cannot:

• Have multiple conflicts running simultaneously
  
• Split the MM queue
  
• Completely eliminate Scouting

Can:

• Reduce the length of Phases within a Conflict
  
• Reduce the usage of Scouting to only be a very short starter Phase if and only if the story needs it.
  
• Allow multiple game modes to be part of a Phase
  
• Allow switching Factions between Phases (Currently only available between Conflicts)
  
• Show a graphical representation of current Phase Faction balance (How many players are currently in each of the Phase’s Factions. This will allow players to balance the Factions prior to making their selections)

Roadmap for FP Fixes and Updates (In priority order):


1) Phases will be shortened drastically so a singular game mode won’t be played for 24hrs or longer. This is an immediate fix after this second conflict has run its course.

2) IF Scouting is a Phase, it will be reduced to a very short Phase window and only occur at the very start of a Conflict. This is an immediate fix after this second conflict has run its course (although Scouting is not part of this second Conflict).

3) The very first thing to be implemented but requires development time, will be the ability to switch Factions between Phases. This will help alleviate Faction imbalance if it happens during the first Phase. Engineering is working on this as of this post and there is a possibility that this can be patched prior to the June patch dependent on testing.

4) The next thing will be multiple game modes per Phase. The plan for this is when a conflict is created, a subset of game modes will be included in each Phase. The game will randomly pick from these modes during the Phase. Scouting will only be used in a dedicated Phase and as mentioned above as long as the story requires it and it will only be a short Phase. Scouting will not be included in subsequent subset Phase game modes. For example, a Phase will never have a subset of modes like Assault, Skirmish and Scouting. This update will be approximately a week in development and then followed by testing. This puts it in the realm of being part of the June patch and not earlier.

5) The third thing is getting a visual indicator as to the current population of each Faction during a Phase/Conflict. This will allow players to visually see the current population balance before making their selection as to which Faction to align to. Ideally this would go out with the ability to switch Factions, but we are also wanting to make sure the ABILITY to switch takes top priority right now with a potential to be released before anything else. This update is also targeted to be part of June’s patch.

Note: There are a few smaller stretch goals that will be targeted for June's patch as well but will not be worked on until points 3-5 above are completed. If they get included, I'll update on what they are and their status.

Note 2: This is not an all encompassing list and once done we wash our hands... as development moves forward, we will be addressing other items such as the leaderboards and other items that come up in discussion threads.

The Big Issue

Playing as a Loyalist means you cannot earn LP unless your Faction is part of the current Conflict. This in turn also means the grind up the Loyalist ranks is going to be significantly longer.

There is a solution to this but it’s very robust and will need development time. It goes back to the old matrix of playing for Faction X will still earn you LP (at a reduced level) for your Faction as long as the Faction X is part of your ‘alliance’. (Davion,Steiner,FRR vs Kurita,Liao,Marik for example).

This elephant is going to have its own discussion thread because there are a couple stall points that happen and we want you the community to help make a decision on what happens in these cases.

The post will happen as soon as I get the documentation done with a few info-graphics to help show exactly what’s being planned. This is going to take a bit, it's a big information/design post that needs a lot of detail. The plan is to make the post today or tomorrow and have a follow up discussion Monday onward.

Please do not post your feedback on this particular point in this thread as it will not help keep feedback focused in one area. Not trying to squash feedback/concerns, just trying to keep things in one area to facilitate discussion and organization as per previous posts regarding the FP Update.

[Paul Inouye]

Update: This Loyalist thing is a definite tomorrow thing. Just too much to cover and I want to make sure all the cards on are on the table before showing our hand.

https://mwomercs.com...ign-discussion/

Edited by Paul Inouye, 25 May 2019 - 07:31 PM.
Added link to Loyalist Post

[J a y]

If there is a system that could be implemented that would give the factions involved in a conflict bonus LP (or something similar) while everybody else earns at a standard rate, that would be ideal. It gives incentive to pledge to the factions involved in a conflict, but still gives us non-involved loyalists room to.. well, stay loyal.

Also, would it be possible for somebody to take you out for a steak dinner as a means of lobbying to make the next event based within Kuritan space? Asking for a friend.

[Chris Lowrey]

J a y, on 24 May 2019 - 06:26 PM, said:

Also, would it be possible for somebody to take you out for a steak dinner as a means of lobbying to make the next event based within Kuritan space? Asking for a friend.

Well.... Define Kuritan space...

While I can't say who is on-deck schedule wise, I will say that this opening series of conflicts will give every faction a crack at the new system before we see one get it's second shot paired with the last faction to get it's first shot. (Unavoidable since we have an odd number of factions in the current game.)

So if your a non-Wolf or FRR player, start preparing now, as it won't be long until your faction gets entangled in some machinations of the denizens of the Inner Sphere. (Or maybe even Clan Space.)

[MischiefSC]

Most people who've played a long time in units can tell you that having your unit not really dropping together for more than a couple of weeks can create some real issues. As in units start falling apart, people drift off to other games, etc.

This is compounded by many units forming around a sort of play time - some units are weekends, some weekdays, most largely play during a narrow set of hours on certain days of the week. If that no longer meshes with when the modes/factions/FW game format that interests them is available or they simply can't get a match in that time frame you run back into issues of keeping units together.

Really appreciate the speed and response in coming back with answers.Please keep in mind that the more open and flexible it is to get matches that interest people (whatever that is) the easier it is to get them playing and the easier it is to self-adjust populations to get matches the more people will do that.

[Navid A1]

I really don't care about anything here...

just fix it so situations like this can not happen:




It's not fun waiting for hours in a 2-28 queue, locked from joining your friends, or to fill up required numbers on an empty side.

[Nightbird]

Add a 5 million c-bill cost to break our current contract so that we can play your game.

[Nathan White]

Stages of development FP:
1st. Before May 2017. Multiple conflicts between the factions, every planet can have the own queue
2nd. Before May 2019. Main conflict Clan vs IS, but you have ability to create special conficts between the faction with own queue
3rd Now. Fuсk all of this. No multiple conficts.

Hahahahahahahahahaha

[Ssamout]

Navid A1, on 24 May 2019 - 07:17 PM, said:

I really don't care about anything here...

just fix it so situations like this can not happen:




It's not fun waiting for hours in a 2-28 queue, locked from joining your friends, or to fill up required numbers on an empty side.

It was something like 5-66 last night eu prime. Wanna queue?

[Pelmeshek]

[Redacted]

Edited by draiocht, 25 May 2019 - 07:53 AM.
unconstructive

[-Mean Machine Angel-]

Thank you very much Paul for your effort.I have now removed you from "The list"

[LordNothing]

what if you allow limited side switching while there is a huge imbalance. this would be in the form of a popup for those waiting in queue where players on the overpopulated side can opt in to switch sides to balance the game. these would only be issued out until the current queue sizes are say less than a 2:1 ratio. the game could even pick and choose players which will destabilize the mm the least or even improve things.

simply showing where the players are and allowing switches between phases may work. but im somewhat concerned it wont be enough in some situations. all the other things i was concerned about were on the can list. and the rp thing.

also to really see what the mm can do i think we need an fp only event after some or most of the bugs have been fixed. might also bring more of the qp population over to the dark side.

Edited by LordNothing, 25 May 2019 - 03:37 AM.

[Eklektikos]

With respect to scouting, is it technically feasible to set up a mixed mode phase in which groups of 4 players or fewer may get a scouting match, while groups larger than four will just get matches in a 12v12 game mode?

I don't know whether this would be a well-received approach; but it would allow the scouting enthusiasts to get some of their preferred mode more often without forcing absolutely everybody else to play it too.

[Hanky Spam]

Eklektikos, on 25 May 2019 - 01:13 AM, said:

I don't know whether this would be a well-received approach

No, it would be a not well-received approach.

[Fuerchtenichts]

Paul Inouye, on 24 May 2019 - 04:46 PM, said:

5) The third thing is getting a visual indicator as to the current population of each Faction during a Phase/Conflict. This will allow players to visually see the current population balance before making their selection as to which Faction to align to. Ideally this would go out with the ability to switch Factions, but we are also wanting to make sure the ABILITY to switch takes top priority right now with a potential to be released before anything else. This update is also targeted to be part of June’s patch.

It think it would make sense to have two indicators:

1. overall population balance (how many players (or percentages) have joined a specific faction)
2. current online population balance

Reason for that is, that there are differences between the different time zones.

[Bishop Six]

Paul Inouye, on 24 May 2019 - 06:00 PM, said:

Update: This Loyalist thing is a definite tomorrow thing. Just too much to cover and I want to make sure all the cards on are on the table before showing our hand.

Nice to hear!

I copied my comment from other Thread which include some of my lately experiences:[color=#959595]


Well...when im ingame it feels like before. 12 vs. 12 much shooting and stuff.

But yesterday i felt sad for Clanners, 24 hours attack on siege? Uff, thats...not really motivating isnt it?

We need the queue going on IS vs. IS (or Clan vs. Clan) after a certain time when there is no IS vs. Clan possible because lack of players.

We suggested that, several times. Think about it @Paul!

Yesterday we had barely 12 Clanners and about 40 IS players in queue. Unfortunately things happened:

- our group was preferred -> IS pugs had to wait
- the lonely 12 Clanners had to attack all the time
- Matchmaker cant work
- no IS vs. IS (!)
Why???

Are there any doubts that for casual players attack is harder than defense? Then they should be rewarded for that.

[/color]

[Kinski Orlawisch]

My unit is Liao...I m atm Clan Wolf. Do my KMDDs count for the Leaderbord of Clan Wolf or do I just get LPs for it?

When can Units change their faction again? Why do units don t have influence to the afflication of their members?

Why I m Liao in the Leaderbord when Im Wolf atm?

Edited by Kinski Orlawisch, 25 May 2019 - 02:54 AM.

[Surge ON]

Nathan White, on 24 May 2019 - 10:44 PM, said:

Stages of development FP:
1st. Before May 2017. Multiple conflicts between the factions, every planet can have the own queue
2nd. Before May 2019. Main conflict Clan vs IS, but you have ability to create special conficts between the faction with own queue
3rd Now. Fuсk all of this. No multiple conficts.

Hahahahahahahahahaha

...through several stages: we have a supercute CWplatformer where, in the role of a brave mercenary, we along destroy thousands of IS and Clans bots without a reason and without debriefing, collect C-bills and LP in the form of coins and mushrooms

[El Maestro]

Hello Paul and dev team.

First lets talk of positive side of things.
You guys made a serious effort to improve the 'end game' content of MWO : faction play.
And to be completely honest the basic ideas behind your implementation are also very good.
Like:
- create engagement and commitment by participating in conflicts with an actual story line within Battletech storyline
- or improve the Matchmaker to make better skill composition between sides

So what went wrong? (not going in the technical stuff of how it is implemented)
You guys have been designing this update with the perspective that there are a large group of players who play FP for long stretches at one time and every day. If these were still here this patch would be not so bad. But the majority of these players are long gone. they have moved to other games with better 'end game' content for them.

The majority of what is left is are hardcore fans who play a few hours FP and not every day.
For them MWO or any other MMO is a way to play with friends online (in units) and be free to play the stuff they want to play.
And your design philosophy has hit exactly both of these areas: this implementation hits the playing together (4v4, or unit members being on different sides or the MM) and the freedom to play (I have to play this game mode and being 'stuck' on this side of the conflict).

I would recommend you guys to immerse yourself more in the community by playing more hours with the community so you guys would get a better perspective and thereby make better implementation choices of good ideas.

On a personal note as a leader of an unit I see the players drop off an go away as this is a massive anti-climax for them.

I wish you good luck in your efforts.

grtz
El Maestro, Leader of The Phoenix Dominion (PhD)

[LordNothing]

pugs and especially new players are essential for growing the mode so an mm was a good idea in theory. its just several years too late. units and regular pugs managed to keep it going through shear force of will. but that has kind of kept it rather stagnant and as a result people are very resistant to any change that can potentially threaten their preferred mode.

there needs to be more incentives to choose fp over qp. to bring in more players for faster more balanced games that are more fun and a wider variety of players. this would ease a lot of the resistance that these changes cause. things like mc victory pay for conflicts, general participation rewards, would help a lot.