429 replies to this topic

[Paul Inouye]

Thing 1: Interesting data pull...

Conflict 1 population numbers:
Rasalhague: 50.69%
Wolf: 49.31%

Conflict 2 (the one running right now) population numbers:
Smoke Jaguar: 50.21%
Nova Cat: 49.79%

This is NOT indicative of what it would be like all the time, just interesting how it worked.

Thing 2: Just want to clarify about picking a loyalist and it being permanent.

Choosing to be a Loyalist for Jade Falcon would mean all forms of LP gain would go to your Jade Falcon LP count. So you join a fight that's between Smoke Jaguar and Kurita and you are with Smoke Jaguar, you'd earn 60% (according to original tables) Jade Falcon LP rewards. If you join a fight that is between Wolf and Nova Cat and you are with Wolf, you will earn 60% of your Jade Falcon LP rewards.

That being said, there's a couple of interesting ideas around the permanency and what happens if a new player accidentally picks the wrong Faction etc. I want to write up a thought behind these suggestions that kinda blends the ideas together into something that would probably more fit the roleplay/story driven aspect of Faction Selection. Gimme a bit to get that done and I'll post it up in here.

Note: Also, the fact that loyalty would be bound to your account profile means that if you're Jade Falcon and play a conflict on behalf of Wolf, your flag/icons/profile will still display Jade Falcon and not switch to Wolf.

Thing 3: I'm going to use the 2nd post in the thread to track updates
As we move along I'll update that post so we don't have to scroll through pages to see what's been hit on from our side of things.

[Nightbird]

Paul Inouye, on 27 May 2019 - 01:34 PM, said:

Thing 1: Interesting data pull...

Conflict 1 population numbers:
Rasalhague: 50.69%
Wolf: 49.31%

Conflict 2 (the one running right now) population numbers:
Smoke Jaguar: 50.21%
Nova Cat: 49.79%

This is NOT indicative of what it would be like all the time, just interesting how it worked.

Yet the wait times were terrible. (worse than before the patch)

Edited by Nightbird, 27 May 2019 - 01:38 PM.

[Paul Inouye]

Nightbird, on 27 May 2019 - 01:36 PM, said:

Yet the wait times were terrible. (worse than before the patch)

Yeah I sat through quite a few of those. However, the numbers I listed are population balance... not queue numbers.

[shaytalis]

Paul Inouye, on 27 May 2019 - 01:39 PM, said:

Yeah I sat through quite a few of those. However, the numbers I listed are population balance... not queue numbers.

This is more of a bug report, but I found that "you are next in line" was not accurate. I waited through 3 cycles today while apparently being next in line the whole time, with other people getting put into matches etc. I was just solo dropping so I'm not sure how that happened.

EDIT: Apparently this is by design. I guess I would say update the output message so that it does not report "you are next in line!" unless that's actually true.

Edited by shaytalis, 27 May 2019 - 02:01 PM.

[Nightbird]

shaytalis, on 27 May 2019 - 01:49 PM, said:

This is more of a bug report, but I found that "you are next in line" was not accurate. I waited through 3 cycles today while apparently being next in line the whole time, with other people getting put into matches etc. I was just solo dropping so I'm not sure how that happened.

This is how the FP MM is designed, larger groups get priority over small groups and solo players

[Navid A1]

Thanks for the update Paul.

Appreciate the effort you've put into this.

If only this could have been matched by proper maps and bases in the actual gameplay itself.

Because no matter how well matchmaking and faction loyalties are designed, the actual gameplay which is the core of MWO experience is again zombie horde mode on terrain-locked chokepoints.

If only an open series of maps could be designed with walled bases in the center with multiple open approaches and multiple drop-zones scattered around it... if only bases had tracked defense vehicles instead of turrets that could shift positions towards incoming enemy mechs, with re-spawn timers after they are destroyed.


So so so many things could have been put into the actual game. at the end of the day, that is the real MWO experience... mech combat.

Edited by Navid A1, 27 May 2019 - 02:20 PM.

[justcallme A S H]

Paul Inouye, on 27 May 2019 - 01:39 PM, said:

Yeah I sat through quite a few of those. However, the numbers I listed are population balance... not queue numbers.

That doesn't overly surprise me to be honest. The issue is timezones.

Right now NA players favour IS while EU favours Clan. So when it's NA primetime you've got queues that we're 8/40 Wolf/FRR - as an example of course.

I mean I played a bit during EU last few days and was having no issue getting games as FRR, instant in fact. Yet NA peak I waited ages as I was a solo and kept getting skipped despite having the priority queue message (another issue/bug).

I'll read all the rest later and comment myself. Been letting it sink in for a couple days

Edited by justcallme A S H, 27 May 2019 - 02:30 PM.

[Nightbird]

Current queue:



Normally, our group would switch sides to balance the queues, but nothing to do other than wait right now. Gonna repeat like a broken record, I think the priority should be:
1. Minimize waits
2. Balancing matches (map/mode tweaks, early end criteria, other ideas, etc for unbalanced teams)
3. Lore (writing stories, increase loyalist perks)

Having matches, having fun matches, having a story behind it all, in that order. The last patch basically chose 3. at the expense of 1. and 2.

Edited by Nightbird, 27 May 2019 - 02:56 PM.

[-Spectre]

Nightbird, that may be true, but this thread is dedicated to the integration of loyalists, not the rest of the problems this patch introduced. That is not to say that your concerns are not valid, just that they aren't the point of this thread. People have been having productive discussions for once, because the focus of the thread is tightly focused, and I don't want to see that trend fall apart because off topic things are brought in. Again, I agree with your priorities, just want to keep this place focused, so we can be as productive as possible.

Also, this thread is dedicated to a part of Priority 1 there, in that it is making sure Loyalists can get matches. Patch made it hard for non-loyalists to get matches, but impossible for loyalists to get matches, so we are bringing back possibility, then we can work on probability, then playability, then lore.

[Nightbird]

-Spectre, on 27 May 2019 - 03:04 PM, said:

Nightbird, that may be true, but this thread is dedicated to the integration of loyalists, not the rest of the problems this patch introduced. That is not to say that your concerns are not valid, just that they aren't the point of this thread.

Patch made it hard for non-loyalists to get matches, but impossible for loyalists to get matches, so we are bringing back possibility, then we can work on probability, then playability, then lore.

Ok...

[Feral Clown]

Paul Inouye, on 27 May 2019 - 01:39 PM, said:

Yeah I sat through quite a few of those. However, the numbers I listed are population balance... not queue numbers.

Sitting in a group with some of the best players that play the mode and getting skipped for matches three times really makes me wonder exactly what this match maker is doing. Group size...elo, like we really need some kind of idea of what is going on and how it's functioning so that we can do what we need to, to get matches in a more timely fashion.

[Paul Inouye]

This is not a direction change, it's me offering an idea that came up while reading the feedback so far. This revision would 1) allow limited free swapping and 2) allow new players to get a feel for where they belong before pledging. (They found a unit they want to stick with for example)

Revision 2:

1.2) Selecting Loyalty from Trial to Permanent (Numbering is discussing the point in the OP)

• A player can pledge loyalty to any Faction (Clan or IS) on a trial basis.
  
• A player can change loyalty freely while in the trial state.
  
  • Once a player has hit rank 5 within a Faction, the Faction will invite the player to accept a permanent pledge.
    
  • During this time, the player will not gain LP for this Faction until they decide to take a permanent pledge with said Faction.
    
  • This does not stop LP gains in other Factions if the player decides to do a trial with them.
    
  • The player can, if they want to, switch from Faction to Faction until they've reached rank 5 in all of them. This also allows new players to determine which Faction best suits them or they find a Unit of a specific Faction they are not aligned to.
    
    • If the player has reached rank 5 in all Factions, there will be no further LP gains until they decide to pledge permanently to one of them

Thoughts?

Note: No.. this isn't the only point I'm addressing in feedback... just taking it step by step moving through the OP point and feedback.

[SeventhSL]

Nightbird, on 27 May 2019 - 02:53 PM, said:

Current queue:



Normally, our group would switch sides to balance the queues, but nothing to do other than wait right now. Gonna repeat like a broken record, I think the priority should be:
1. Minimize waits
2. Balancing matches (map/mode tweaks, early end criteria, other ideas, etc for unbalanced teams)
3. Lore (writing stories, increase loyalist perks)

Having matches, having fun matches, having a story behind it all, in that order. The last patch basically chose 3. at the expense of 1. and 2.

Absolutely agree. In a different thread I suggested the match maker be changed to exactly this. So it would see the queue in your picture and say ha I got more than 24 players so I can make a game. Then it matches with the following priority.

Primary:
1. Premade vs Premade
2. Pug vs Pug
3. Pug vs Premade

Secondary:
4. Faction A vs Faction B
5. Faction A vs Faction A OR Faction B vs Faction B

Player won’t need to swap sides to get games and swapping sides won’t let you avoid better teams all the time. The system scales with the queue size. Seal clubbing will only happen as a last resort as any game is better than none.

[Tarogato]

Paul Inouye, on 25 May 2019 - 05:54 PM, said:

Faction Play was always meant to be the playground of dedicated units of experienced MechWarriors who play in organized and communication heavy groups. Internal structure of who does what within a unit is completely in the hands of the players and unit leaders/officers.

Forgive my pessimism, but what dedicated units remain in MWO to this day? Almost all of them have eroded or disbanded, and what is left in Faction Play is mostly a bunch of people who could care less about unit affiliation, let alone lore, and simply want to play 12 vs 12 with respawns. Almost all of the people who cared about Faction Play initially... are gone because the game mode itself, you know the part that you play with the actual mechs shooting each other... was lacking.

Quote

3.1) The Alliances
- The Inner Sphere Factions will be split into two Alliances.


[...]

3.1.1) IS Alliance 1
- There is a somewhat natural alliance between Steiner and Davion. Adding to this, is a more neutral association with FRR.
- This Alliance (Steiner/Davion/FRR) will always provide LP to their respective partners.

So you're unaware that one of the only true emergent player-driven alliances still in the game presently is FRR-Kurita? We share a teamspeak and discord server - at least, what very few players are left. Seems kind of a shame to work directly against that.

[Bowelhacker]

If, as a couple of people have suggested, there be a financial penalty for swapping loyalties it'd have to be pretty large to be effective. Most of the long term loyalists I know (and long term players in general I suspect) have so many C bills that anything under a 100 million wouldn't hurt them.

[dario03]

I think we should just let everybody change to whatever faction they want at any time and not have seperate rewards per faction. Just have FP points earned by playing FP with big rewards when you accumulate a lot of FP points. Combine all currently earned faction loyalty points into the new system. Either set the max FP points to what all the current factions combined is, or just have it set to what one of the factions is but you can start over once you max out.

This way anybody that wants to be a loyalist can be by just never changing factions and they don't get punished once they max out that factions loyalty. And people that do want to change so that they can play with various friends or use both tech sides don't get punished with lower rewards.


Also by doing this we could set up an auto faction for players that just want to play the game on either side. This would help us get more matches because these players would be put on whichever side needs players to make a match. That way we won't have as many issues with un even sides causing the queue to be something like 35v8 like I saw the last time I tried to play. And it could help the MM balance the teams skill level.

[SeventhSL]

Paul Inouye, on 27 May 2019 - 03:35 PM, said:

Thoughts?

This is way better than what we have now so I’d defiantly support it for that reason.

Positive:
1. It does help new players settle in. VERY important.

Neutral:
2. It takes us back to the days of the faction hopping world tour.

Negative:
2. It does not solve the “level 20 now what?” issue.

Given the development time such an idea may require, I think I may be worth treating the real cause of loyalty reward and faction swapping issues. The Loyalty Reward Level System as per my initial post in this thread. Just a thought.

Keep up the great work.

[Rustyhammer]

Paul Inouye, on 27 May 2019 - 03:35 PM, said:

- Once a player has hit rank 5 within a Faction, the Faction will invite the player to accept a permanent pledge.
- During this time, the player will not gain LP for this Faction until they decide to take a permanent pledge with said Faction.

I'm really curious why all of your solutions see loyalists being punished for their loyalty, not rewarded. They were punished with probation matches and loss of LP before, they will be punished with no LP earnings in the proposed design.
Why not give something extra for a player staying loyal to faction past Rank 5 and remove the bonus if they switch? Why not give a cumulative 1% cbill(XP, whatever) bonus per i.e every 100 matches for the same faction?

IMO permanently locking account into a single faction is a horrible option. Let players decide if they want to stay loyal and get extra rewards or they break loyalty, lose accumulated loyalty bonuses and be back at mercs level.

[R79TCom1 Night Lanner]

Tarogato, on 27 May 2019 - 04:09 PM, said:

Forgive my pessimism, but what dedicated units remain in MWO to this day? Almost all of them have eroded or disbanded, and what is left in Faction Play is mostly a bunch of people who could care less about unit affiliation, let alone lore, and simply want to play 12 vs 12 with respawns. Almost all of the people who cared about Faction Play initially... are gone because the game mode itself, you know the part that you play with the actual mechs shooting each other... was lacking.

So you're unaware that one of the only true emergent player-driven alliances still in the game presently is FRR-Kurita? We share a teamspeak and discord server - at least, what very few players are left. Seems kind of a shame to work directly against that.

The Raptor Talon Galaxy [RPTG] -- formerly the 79th Raptor Talon Cluster [R79T] -- is an FW active Jade Falcon only Loyalist unit that chose not to participate in the last two events because they are Jade Falcons only and care about Lore. There are about 80 players in that unit last I checked. There's also plenty of individuals who -- such as myself -- who are loyal to one faction and Lore who don't want to play with another faction's insignia next to their name.

Also, isn't the FRR/Kurita TS dead and kicking units out of there? Because I know last time I was there it only had two people on and my friends' unit's channel was gone. And since most of those units, as you said, aren't Loyalists, why do you care what alliances mean for Loyalist players?

[VonBruinwald]

Paul Inouye, on 27 May 2019 - 03:35 PM, said:

This is not a direction change, it's me offering an idea that came up while reading the feedback so far. This revision would 1) allow limited free swapping and 2) allow new players to get a feel for where they belong before pledging. (They found a unit they want to stick with for example)

Revision 2:

1.2) Selecting Loyalty from Trial to Permanent (Numbering is discussing the point in the OP)

• A player can pledge loyalty to any Faction (Clan or IS) on a trial basis.
  
• A player can change loyalty freely while in the trial state.
  
  • Once a player has hit rank 5 within a Faction, the Faction will invite the player to accept a permanent pledge.

Thoughts?

The problem with this is you're again locking Factions. What happens if a players buddies leave the game and they need to find a new unit? Can they un-pledge, will they be further punished becuase their buddies left the game and they wanted to join a new unit?

Thought:
Whatever "restrictions" you apply to Loyalist needs to be reflected on Mercs.

Think about it:
I can accept a Faction not promoting you to a higher rank until you've pledged (they need to know who to trust). But by extension would that Faction accept your pledge if you've been Faction hoping all over the verse and no doubt stabbed them in the back in the process...

This means a Merc who reaches Rank 5 should no longer be eligible for becoming a Loyalist. You can justify it by saying until Rank 5 they lacked the renown to be blacklisted from loyalist units.