Jump to content

Loyalists In Faction Play - Design Discussion


429 replies to this topic

#41 UndeadKingofPopMichaelJackson

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • The Wrath
  • The Wrath
  • 98 posts

Posted 26 May 2019 - 07:52 PM

Paul, please do not lock player loyalty to one faction or alliance. Active FP players change factions to balance the queue, enabling ourselves (and 23 other players) to get a match.

A better way of achieving your design goal of rewarding loyalists would be to provide extra rewards when a player fights for their faction or alliance. Or perhaps you could scale rewards up over time to reflect consistent faction loyalty.

Edited by UndeadKingofPopMichaelJackson, 26 May 2019 - 07:52 PM.


#42 shaytalis

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 271 posts

Posted 26 May 2019 - 08:01 PM

View PostUndeadKingofPopMichaelJackson, on 26 May 2019 - 07:52 PM, said:

Paul, please do not lock player loyalty to one faction or alliance. Active FP players change factions to balance the queue, enabling ourselves (and 23 other players) to get a match.

A better way of achieving your design goal of rewarding loyalists would be to provide extra rewards when a player fights for their faction or alliance. Or perhaps you could scale rewards up over time to reflect consistent faction loyalty.


I feel like it's important to distinguish between "locking loyalty" and "locking ability to play matches." Would you be okay with locked loyalty so long as it didn't prevent you from playing FP whenever you wanted?

#43 slide

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 1,763 posts
  • LocationKersbrook South Australia

Posted 26 May 2019 - 08:37 PM

Permanent Loyalty should have value (other wise there is no point) but it shouldn't be so limiting that it prevents people from playing the game. I should point out here that there is no system that will please everyone 100% of the time, so if an event prevents an individual from playing (IE Clanner in an IS only event) that individual should have the choice about what to do about it.

Loyalty is permanent but may be broken in the following 2 ways.
I propose we create 2 hanging items: (or just items (tickets) linked to our accounts)

1. "Break Oath Medallion". This allows the player to purchase a break of loyalty for Cbill/MC. It can be purchased any time but is surrendered upon use. (need a break fealty button for this)

2. "Oath of Fealty Medallion" This operates similarly to the Break Oath Medallion but can only be earned through the loyalty tree
at ranks 5, 10, 15 and 20 (more if we ever expand the trees or every 500k LP there after). This also grants a 5% (cumulative with each medallion) LP bonus when mounted in a mech. It is also faction specific so if you have 4 you can't use one to change and another to change back again. Note you will also lose the 5% bonus(s) when it is surrendered and change faction.

(note most of this is already in the game with the cockpit items and loyalty medallions already in existence, the only thing missing is the surrendering it bit).

The Oath of Fealty medallion gives loyalists a way out whilst also giving them a bonus for being loyal this would resolve most issues for loyalists whilst costing them nothing. If they really must change then and there, there is always the Break Oath option, everyone could possibly get one Break Oath for free, after that they have to pay.

On the issue of the Blocker in the case of being unable to play (ie Clanner in IS only event). For any event that offers this the players that can't play need to be automatically made into Mercs for the duration of the event and then revert back automatically at the end. (That might be hard)

Mercs - I feel the current power of mercs and merc units to control queues in unnecessarily strong and diminishes the value of the loyalist. It is simply better to be merc ATM than play any other way. So I think Mercs should have to take a contract for the duration of an event that grants LP to the contracted faction (perhaps split 50/50 between the Merc tree and the contracted faction), much as it did back in Phases 1 and 2.

OR

Un-contracted Mercs should be used by the MM to fill spaces on the side required to get a game. So to fill matches the MM would choose in the following order (as well as using the already established priorities for groups etc)
1. Loyalists (and their allies)
2. Contracted Mercs (Note this could be for people with no mechs of the opposite tech)
3. Un-contracted mercs (for either team) (Note you will need drop decks for both techs at times)
4. Free Lancers (for either team)


This would help with the un-balanced queues issue as it reduces it to Loyalists driving the conflict and there will be no solution to one faction having more player than another. In the event that there are only unaffiliated mercs in the queue then MM makes 2 random teams and launches them.

All of this would work well with Paul's suggestions.

Edited by slide, 26 May 2019 - 08:41 PM.


#44 UndeadKingofPopMichaelJackson

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • The Wrath
  • The Wrath
  • 98 posts

Posted 26 May 2019 - 08:42 PM

View Postshaytalis, on 26 May 2019 - 08:01 PM, said:

I feel like it's important to distinguish between "locking loyalty" and "locking ability to play matches." Would you be okay with locked loyalty so long as it didn't prevent you from playing FP whenever you wanted?

No. There are people who have friends on both sides and if they want to play with them, then they have to make an ultimatum. Hypothetically speaking, if I'm level 8 Steiner and one of my friends who is clan wants me to play with them, then I wouldn't be able to grind Steiner again if I switch back to play with my other friends. It's a needless punishment. Just let people switch when they want.

#45 The6thMessenger

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary Rank 3
  • 6,280 posts
  • Locationinside a K9, punishing lowlifes

Posted 26 May 2019 - 08:47 PM

Honestly, Role-Playing to me should be something we do personally, than forced upon us by the game.

I think it would be good to make Loyalist be less restricting than it is currently, to just make LP equal across the board regardless if you are in the right Clan, or the wrong Clan during a conflict. It's also good extend to allow Loyal Clans to play as IS, but with reduced LP rewards. This should make getting games a bit easier.

#46 Haydin

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Civil Servant
  • Civil Servant
  • 151 posts

Posted 26 May 2019 - 08:49 PM

There aren't the numbers to make this work. Every faction would need to have enough to contribute to multiple hotspots, all at once.

We know that's just not gonna happen. People need to switch factions to balance queues and make matches happen.

#47 UndeadKingofPopMichaelJackson

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • The Wrath
  • The Wrath
  • 98 posts

Posted 26 May 2019 - 08:53 PM

View PostHaydin, on 26 May 2019 - 08:49 PM, said:

There aren't the numbers to make this work. Every faction would need to have enough to contribute to multiple hotspots, all at once.

We know that's just not gonna happen. People need to switch factions to balance queues and make matches happen.

People aren't going to do that because they want to join the factions they want to play. That's reality.

Edit: Swapped 'the issue' with 'reality'.

Edited by UndeadKingofPopMichaelJackson, 26 May 2019 - 08:57 PM.


#48 William the Conqueror

    Rookie

  • Bad Company
  • 1 posts

Posted 26 May 2019 - 08:54 PM

I am not a fan of this 45min waiting to get into a faction match only to get bumped from the drop three times .
There is no point to do faction matchs ATM.

#49 shaytalis

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 271 posts

Posted 26 May 2019 - 08:59 PM

View PostUndeadKingofPopMichaelJackson, on 26 May 2019 - 08:42 PM, said:

No. There are people who have friends on both sides and if they want to play with them, then they have to make an ultimatum. Hypothetically speaking, if I'm level 8 Steiner and one of my friends who is clan wants me to play with them, then I wouldn't be able to grind Steiner again if I switch back to play with my other friends. It's a needless punishment. Just let people switch when they want.


Re-read my question. "[color=#959595]so long as it didn't prevent you from playing FP whenever you wanted?"[/color]

If your'e saying "my friend would never choose to play for a Faction other than their own," then that's fine, but that is a choice they are making. If your friend refuses to play unless their Faction is directed involved in the conflict, then there is nothing to be done unless we just dismiss the whole idea of there being a story.

What I'm suggesting is that playing one match for a different Faction should not completely remove your Loyalty; it might cause you to lose LP instead, for instance. Then if you *choose* to never play a match that will cause you to lose LP, you can do that. If you're choosing to play Loyalist IS and your friend is choosing to play Loyalist Clan, then no it doesn't make sense for you to both be able to drop together with 0 impact to your Loyalties. But it could be something other than "all or nothing."

You're a Jade Falcon, your friend is a Steiner, but you've got a STRONG BOND. One day Steiner is being attacked by Clan Wolf. You decide to help your friend and fight alongside Steiner. You lose some Loyalty to Jade Falcon in the process (- some LP, not kicked out of Jade Falcon unless you keep doing this over and over instead of actually fighting for Jade Falcon). And if Jade Falcon is currently enemies with Clan Wolf, maybe this conflict doesn't even hurt your LP--enemy of my enemy is my friend sort of situation.

Does this sound fun?

Edited by shaytalis, 26 May 2019 - 09:07 PM.


#50 Saint Dane Icaza

    Member

  • Pip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 11 posts

Posted 26 May 2019 - 09:06 PM

This is a great way to throw a bone to us LARPing mechdads who want to stay loyal to one faction long-term.

*As long as you make that a separate optional thing, and that newer players are told that they're better off faction-hopping and NOT locking themselves in*, this is a good start.

Edited by Saint Dane Icaza, 26 May 2019 - 09:26 PM.


#51 UndeadKingofPopMichaelJackson

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • The Wrath
  • The Wrath
  • 98 posts

Posted 26 May 2019 - 09:07 PM

View Postshaytalis, on 26 May 2019 - 08:59 PM, said:


Re-read my question. "[color=#959595]so long as it didn't prevent you from playing FP whenever you wanted?"[/color]

So, if I'm understanding this correctly, your proposal would allow a hypothetical Steiner, or any IS Alliance 1 faction, to play in a conflict that was meant for Marik/IS Alliance 2? With the downside of not being able to increase faction rank further? That would screw over any new players that come in to FP that care about getting any of the rewards belonging to each of the factions. My answer is still no.

Edited by UndeadKingofPopMichaelJackson, 26 May 2019 - 09:08 PM.


#52 shaytalis

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 271 posts

Posted 26 May 2019 - 09:08 PM

View PostUndeadKingofPopMichaelJackson, on 26 May 2019 - 09:07 PM, said:

So, if I'm understanding this correctly, your proposal would allow a hypothetical Steiner to play in a conflict that was meant for Marik/IS Alliance 2? With the downside of not being able to increase my faction rank further? That would screw over any new players that come in to FP that care about getting any of the rewards belonged to each of the factions. My answer is still no.


I edited my post to add some more details, please read all of the new stuff? I feel like the problem you're having is something that can be addressed. Reply again and let me know exactly what your problems are with the full proposal there.

Also, no, this is incorrect: "With the downside of not being able to increase my faction rank further?" That is not what I have proposed. The goal is that you would end up losing significant loyalty to your faction is if you consistently keep fighting on the side of your faction's enemies. If you prefer to be a mercenary, then be a mercenary. If you prefer to be a loyalist, then be a loyalist. If you're in a grey area, that's fine too. LP would adjust to your choices.

Edited by shaytalis, 26 May 2019 - 09:14 PM.


#53 UndeadKingofPopMichaelJackson

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • The Wrath
  • The Wrath
  • 98 posts

Posted 26 May 2019 - 09:18 PM

View Postshaytalis, on 26 May 2019 - 08:59 PM, said:


Re-read my question. "[color=#959595]so long as it didn't prevent you from playing FP whenever you wanted?"[/color]

If your'e saying "my friend would never choose to play for a Faction other than their own," then that's fine, but that is a choice they are making. If your friend refuses to play unless their Faction is directed involved in the conflict, then there is nothing to be done unless we just dismiss the whole idea of there being a story.

What I'm suggesting is that playing one match for a different Faction should not completely remove your Loyalty; it might cause you to lose LP instead, for instance. Then if you *choose* to never play a match that will cause you to lose LP, you can do that. If you're choosing to play Loyalist IS and your friend is choosing to play Loyalist Clan, then no it doesn't make sense for you to both be able to drop together with 0 impact to your Loyalties. But it could be something other than "all or nothing."

You're a Jade Falcon, your friend is a Steiner, but you've got a STRONG BOND. One day Steiner is being attacked by Clan Wolf. You decide to help your friend and fight alongside Steiner. You lose some Loyalty to Jade Falcon in the process (- some LP, not kicked out of Jade Falcon unless you keep doing this over and over instead of actually fighting for Jade Falcon). And if Jade Falcon is currently enemies with Clan Wolf, maybe this conflict doesn't even hurt your LP--enemy of my enemy is my friend sort of situation.

Does this sound fun?

Then I would basically be undoing any faction rep grind I have accomplished in the past or during that day. That's not fun. My answer is still no.

Edited by UndeadKingofPopMichaelJackson, 26 May 2019 - 09:20 PM.


#54 shaytalis

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 271 posts

Posted 26 May 2019 - 09:20 PM

View PostUndeadKingofPopMichaelJackson, on 26 May 2019 - 09:18 PM, said:

Then I would basically be undoing any faction rep grind I have accomplished in the past or during that day. My answer is still no.


In that case, what you seem to want is:

* to be able to be loyal to Steiner
* for Steiner to always have a conflict, or
* for you to earn LP regardless of whether or not you play for Steiner

In which case you want LP to be meaningless. Can you explain where I'm incorrect on this?


What I want is:

* to be able to be loyal to Steiner
* to gain LP when fighting for Steiner or an ally
* to have no LP change when fighting for a Faction neutral to Steiner
* to lose LP when fighting for an enemy of Steiner
* for alliances to change over time with the storyline

In which case LP means something.


Another possibility:
* to be able to be loyal to Steiner
* to gain LP when fighting for Steiner or an ally
* to have no LP change when fighting for a Faction neutral to Steiner
* to have no LP change when fighting for an enemy of Steiner

In which case LP is sort of strange because you're not hurting your reputation by fighting for the enemy. It means a little more than the first case, but it's sort of diluting it to the point of being meaningless.

Basically it's a question of whether or not LP should be something you "grind" like an XP bar. If you want to be able to "grind LP" in Jade Falcon, then go fight for Clan Wolf without having it impact your Jade Falcon LP, it ceases to represent loyalty. What you want is "Faction XP" and the ability to max out your "Faction Level" in all of the Factions.

Edited by shaytalis, 26 May 2019 - 09:35 PM.


#55 UndeadKingofPopMichaelJackson

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • The Wrath
  • The Wrath
  • 98 posts

Posted 26 May 2019 - 09:39 PM

View Postshaytalis, on 26 May 2019 - 09:20 PM, said:


In that case, what you want is:

* to be able to be loyal to Steiner
* for Steiner to always have a conflict, or
* for you to earn LP regardless of whether or not you play for Steiner

In which case you want LP to be meaningless. Can you explain where I'm incorrect on this?


What I want is:

* to be able to be loyal to Steiner
* to gain LP when fighting for Steiner or an ally
* to have no LP change when fighting for a Faction neutral to Steiner
* to lose LP when fighting for an enemy of Steiner

In which case LP means something.

What I want are changes that don't look like they were designed to limit LP payouts. Because that's what Paul's post seems like to me.

Edit: Added 'LP' to my first sentence.

Edited by UndeadKingofPopMichaelJackson, 26 May 2019 - 09:43 PM.


#56 shaytalis

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 271 posts

Posted 26 May 2019 - 09:42 PM

View PostUndeadKingofPopMichaelJackson, on 26 May 2019 - 09:39 PM, said:

What I want are changes that don't look like they were designed to limit payouts. Because that's what Paul's post seems like to me.



So what I'm suggesting is something like this:

1) If you fight for your Faction, you get 100% LP in your faction and 0% Merc Credits
2) If you fight for an Ally, you get 50% LP in your faction and 50% Merc C-bIlls.
3) If you fight for a non-Enemy, non-Ally, you get 0% LP in your faction and 100% Merc C-bIlls.
4) If you fight for an Enemy, you get -50% LP in your faction and 150% Merc C-bills.
5) There should never be a case where the conflict is between two of your Enemies, so you can always avoid option 4 unless you choose to play on your Enemy's side in the conflict. [Example: You are Steiner, your friend is Jade Falcon, Steiner is fighting Jade Falcon, and you want to fight together anyways.]

Would this be fun for you?

And if you are a merc, you get 100% Merc C-bills no matter who you fight for.

The specific percentages could be adjusted, but as a basic idea is this fun?

Edited by shaytalis, 26 May 2019 - 09:58 PM.


#57 finegamingconnoisseur

    Member

  • Pip
  • 10 posts

Posted 26 May 2019 - 09:42 PM

The current FP system makes no sense to me.

Who determines which planet to contest next? The players, or the game?

Why are two Clans fighting each other on a planet currently occupied by an I.S. House? If it was currently occupied by Clan A and Clan B wants to fight Clan A, then I can understand.

The star map is so big and yet only one planet is being fought over at any one time? Sometimes, it is two Clans or two Houses fighting each other, and no other Conflicts are taking place elsewhere? Why don’t we just go play QP instead, since the only difference between FP and QP is the former has a strict Clan or I.S. ‘Mechs only (totally not fun for those who don’t own Clan Mechs and are forced to fight for a Clan, and vice verse), while the latter doesn’t, and the latter at least gets to vote which map and game mode to play on while the former doesn’t?

What is the point of being called a Loyalist when (assuming we get to switch factions in an upcoming patch if the queue is uneven) it might be necessary to switch sides to, say, an opposing faction (different alliance or from I.S. to Clan, and vice verse) just to balance out a queue so we can get a game happening? Why not just get rid of the Loyalist role entirely and just have freelance and mercenary, and distribute Loyalist rewards to freelance and mercenary on top of their current rewards?

Edited by finegamingconnoisseur, 26 May 2019 - 10:07 PM.


#58 UndeadKingofPopMichaelJackson

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • The Wrath
  • The Wrath
  • 98 posts

Posted 26 May 2019 - 09:57 PM

View Postshaytalis, on 26 May 2019 - 09:42 PM, said:



So what I'm suggesting is something like this:

1) If you fight for your Faction, you get 100% LP in your faction and 0% Merc Credits
2) If you fight for an Ally, you get 50% LP in your faction and 50% Merc C-bIlls.
3) If you fight for a non-Enemy, non-Ally, you get 0% LP in your faction and 100% Merc C-bIlls.
4) If you fight for an Enemy, you get -50% LP in your faction and 150% Merc C-bills.

Would this be fun for you?

And if you are a merc, you get 100% Merc C-bills no matter who you fight for.

The specific percentages could be adjusted, but as a basic idea is this fun?

Every Merc is just going to fight for the enemy then because they'll make the most money that way.

#59 shaytalis

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 271 posts

Posted 26 May 2019 - 09:59 PM

View PostUndeadKingofPopMichaelJackson, on 26 May 2019 - 09:57 PM, said:

Every Merc is just going to fight for the enemy then because they'll make the most money that way.


Cool, have a fix for you:
1) If you fight for your Faction, you get 100% LP in your faction and 0% Merc Credits
2) If you fight for an Ally, you get 50% LP in your faction and 50% Merc C-bIlls.
3) If you fight for a non-Enemy, non-Ally, you get 0% LP in your faction and 75% Merc C-bIlls.
4) If you fight for an Enemy, you get -50% LP in your faction and 100% Merc C-bills.
5) There should never be a case where the conflict is between two of your Enemies, so you can always avoid option 4 unless you choose to play on your Enemy's side in the conflict. [Example: You are Steiner, your friend is Jade Falcon, Steiner is fighting Jade Falcon, and you want to fight together anyways.]

As a Merc, you always earn 100% Merc C-bills.

Now would this be fun?

#60 UndeadKingofPopMichaelJackson

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • The Wrath
  • The Wrath
  • 98 posts

Posted 26 May 2019 - 10:14 PM

View Postshaytalis, on 26 May 2019 - 09:59 PM, said:

Cool, have a fix for you:
1) If you fight for your Faction, you get 100% LP in your faction and 0% Merc Credits
2) If you fight for an Ally, you get 50% LP in your faction and 50% Merc C-bIlls.
3) If you fight for a non-Enemy, non-Ally, you get 0% LP in your faction and 75% Merc C-bIlls.
4) If you fight for an Enemy, you get -50% LP in your faction and 100% Merc C-bills.
5) There should never be a case where the conflict is between two of your Enemies, so you can always avoid option 4 unless you choose to play on your Enemy's side in the conflict. [Example: You are Steiner, your friend is Jade Falcon, Steiner is fighting Jade Falcon, and you want to fight together anyways.]

As a Merc, you always earn 100% Merc C-bills.

Now would this be fun?

If my contracted faction is not giving me any increased payouts when I fight in their conflicts, then I'm contacting the MRBC.

Option 5 is never going to happen so I'm going to ignore that.

At the end of the day, if this turns out to be fun, then it's only fun for Mercs and not loyalists which is what this whole post is about. I'm not sure why we're discussing Mercs since that's a whole other issue.

With the current resources that have been devoted, Faction Play will not see the great revival that PGI has promised. At this current rate, it crash and burn after takeoff once more unless there's an increase in resources which everyone knows it's not going to happen.

Edited by UndeadKingofPopMichaelJackson, 26 May 2019 - 10:14 PM.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users