UndeadKingofPopMichaelJackson, on 26 May 2019 - 10:14 PM, said:
If my contracted faction is not giving me any increased payouts when I fight in their conflicts, then I'm contacting the MRBC.
In the proposal I have here, you get an increased payout when you fight in their conflict. 100% LP.
UndeadKingofPopMichaelJackson, on 26 May 2019 - 10:14 PM, said:
Option 5 is never going to happen so I'm going to ignore that.
Correct, you will never have a case where you are forced to fight on an Enemy's side (unless you decide to because your friend is a loyalist to an Enemy faction). Being forced to fight for an Enemy will never happen.
UndeadKingofPopMichaelJackson, on 26 May 2019 - 10:14 PM, said:
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.
What is it about the proposal which is not fun for Loyalists? Could you be more specific? What do you think would be fun for Loyalists?
UndeadKingofPopMichaelJackson, on 26 May 2019 - 10:14 PM, said:
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.
What do you believe should be happening in Faction Play instead? Is it a case of "I don't know what I want, but I don't like this?" Or do you have something specific you're trying to propose as an alternative?
In the proposal I have here, you get an increased payout when you fight in their conflict. 100% LP.
Correct, you will never have a case where you are forced to fight on an Enemy's side (unless you decide to because your friend is a loyalist to an Enemy faction). Being forced to fight for an Enemy will never happen.
What is it about the proposal which is not fun for Loyalists? Could you be more specific? What do you think would be fun for Loyalists?
What do you believe should be happening in Faction Play instead? Is it a case of "I don't know what I want, but I don't like this?" Or do you have something specific you're trying to propose as an alternative?
Loyalists need better rewards in general. For rewards, I suggest rewarding the loyalists with mechs at certain levels which we will call them 'mech caches'. Once you reach the required level for a mech cache, you'll get to choose a chassis and variant. Each cache has a certain designation to it: Light mech cache, medium mech cache, etc (an extra cherry on top would be having the player's respectful faction camo come with it as well). Mercs get space dosh, while loyalists get mechs. If PGI wants to, they can determine the cache type by RNG.
What should be happening in Faction Play instead is making the game mode fun to play first. That includes maps that aren't designed to be choke-point warfare and giving planets more value besides MC. Have some planets be more manufacturing focus and allow you to have more tonnage for drop decks, allow you to bring mobile repair bases like in MechWarrior 3 and 4. These planets need to serve the war effort in some way in order for people to care and have interest in again outside of RP reasons. New players and vets are not going to play/come back because of story. This game mode is inherently flawed and needs an overhaul.
Out of these two proposals, only the former has any chance of happening.
Edited by UndeadKingofPopMichaelJackson, 26 May 2019 - 10:42 PM.
Thanks for the update and consolation process. Being able to play as your chosen faction again and earn loyalty points for them does bring back a lot of the immersion. Thank you
Paul Inouye, on 25 May 2019 - 05:54 PM, said:
4) The Big Problem Areas
The reason this section exists is because the fundamental design is missing the mark. Don’t over think it. A simple loyalty system makes these questions mute. This is also an opportunity to address the “Level 20, what’s next” issue that keeps being raised by the community.
Faction Rank: The current system of levels gives us a rank which is simply a grind. Swap this over to the Faction’s Leader board. For example, If I’m number 1 on the Ghost Bear leader board then I should be given the rank of Khan. Number 2 = SaKhan, Top 10% = Galaxy Commander, Top 20% Star Colonel and so forth all the way down to Bottom 50% = MechWarrior.
No ceiling because even if you make it to Khan you got to keep it.
People are free to leave the faction at any time because once they are no longer a Ghost Bear they drop off the Ghost Bear Leader board and lose their rank. Penalty paid.
People are free to join at any time because they start again at Mech Warrior and only gain ranks they earn.
Long term loyalist are much happier and far more immersed because their rank in their faction actually means something.
Loyalty Points: The current system gives us some reward when we reach a certain level. After 20 levels you max out and earning loyalty points for your faction is pointless. Make loyalty points a currency to buy camo, decals, Mechs and other items that are related to your chosen faction.
No ceiling because there is always stuff to buy.
People are free to leave the faction at any time because if they do then they lose their unspent loyalty points. Penalty paid.
People are free to join at any time because earning currency to spend in the store doesn’t hurt long term loyalists.
Long term loyalist are much happier because there is no ceiling and disloyal faction hoppers don’t get some advantage over them.
Faction Rank: The current system of levels gives us a rank which is simply a grind. Swap this over to the Faction’s Leader board. For example, If I’m number 1 on the Ghost Bear leader board then I should be given the rank of Khan. Number 2 = SaKhan, Top 10% = Galaxy Commander, Top 20% Star Colonel and so forth all the way down to Bottom 50% = MechWarrior.
No ceiling because even if you make it to Khan you got to keep it.
People are free to leave the faction at any time because once they are no longer a Ghost Bear they drop off the Ghost Bear Leader board and lose their rank. Penalty paid.
People are free to join at any time because they start again at Mech Warrior and only gain ranks they earn.
Long term loyalist are much happier and far more immersed because their rank in their faction actually means something.
So my issue with this is that new players can "never" catch up. I've seen this happen in RP games where there old guard is so far ahead that new players feel like they don't have any reason to try to climb the ladder. The last thing this game needs right now is something that would turn off new players. Otherwise I do like the idea that there's incentive to keep playing.
Perhaps an alternative:
Lvl 20 is a requirement to be Khan
Khan changes year-by-year based upon activity among the lvl 20s for that time period.
Replace "Khan" and "Lvl 20" with whatever rank(s) we want to talk about.
I like the idea of loyalists being loyal, but I think they should still be able to switch with a time or seasonal cool down. To perminantly deny players from using half the mechs in the game is a tad harsh. Ideally mechanics and rewards would be good enough to encourage sticking with loyalty for the loyalists. Faction lootboxes like solaris ones with various decals/skins/colors/cockpit items on a similar system along with wide stretching campaign rewards might be enough to outweigh not having access to half their mechs or not gaining full LP. I agree with other suggestions here that alliance members should gain a small amount of something to make up for the short comings of less lp. Maybe it needs to be cbills or something weird like general lp you can assign to any faction of your choice. It's also important groups can switch to balance out any population imbalances, because I don't think purely mercs/freelancers will be enough to offset them. Ideally pugs, solo, and comp level groups can all be able to participate without being limited mechanically yet also be matched evenly.
So my issue with this is that new players can "never" catch up. I've seen this happen in RP games where there old guard is so far ahead that new players feel like they don't have any reason to try to climb the ladder. The last thing this game needs right now is something that would turn off new players. Otherwise I do like the idea that there's incentive to keep playing.
Perhaps an alternative:
Lvl 20 is a requirement to be Khan
Khan changes year-by-year based upon activity among the lvl 20s for that time period.
Replace "Khan" and "Lvl 20" with whatever rank(s) we want to talk about.
Yep I agree. New players would need to be able to rise through the ranks. Also, inactive players should probably degrade over time. If the concept was worth serious thought then it should be opened up to the community for comment and refinement.
Really I was just trying to show that their proposed changes, while better then the current incarnation, has issues due to the poor loyalty reward system. I was also trying to show that you can allow people to jump factions at will and also make true loyalists happy. We can have our cake and eat and with a much simpler system then proposed.
Um, guys, I have mentioned solutions for all of these in my post on page 2. I know it's big and scary, but I made it so that all of the different solutions work with each other, instead of being a big patchwork, and I think they are really good suggestions. I also arranged it according to Paul's post, so you can find the topics in it if you don't want to read the whole thing. Maybe I should make a separate thread for it so people will read it?
But either way, keep up the discussions! It is good to see productive, civil discussions on this topic, so we can get real things done.
Previous FP incarnations have had the Unit leadership select the faction and contract duration - players then joined Loyalist units already aware of what faction they would be representing. Merc units could then fulfill their own choices of following Cbill bonuses for joining under-populated factions in conflicts, or having the option to terminate their contract and switch sides. Why was this removed? For the large part, this worked fine as far as I was aware - most of the gripes seemed to be about map design, spawn camping, large groups stomping over singles, etc. There were no issues around what contract people chose, just as long as they could represent their faction they wanted to at any given moment.
Responding conceptually and in regards to individual perception. Sorry for length.
This quote above is very well articulated and has been my perspective. PGI introduced secondary clan groups to give more options for the general population. Also, many people playing do not want to be Loyalists and can't handle that type of commitment. MERC and FREELANCER options helped this queue balance immensely in light of many not wanting to commit permanently to anything and if queue waits are too long, it is not because there are not enough "options" it is because of a game population in general. Striking down pure Loyalty is not the correct reaction to getting more players and battles and shorter queue times. Two wrongs don't make a right. I just haven't seen that as a reason at all, though I have heard it said. If you have the data to prove that, please post because I know this community is passionate about keeping this game going and we will all help. And, there is Loyalty on BOTH the IS and Clan sides!
Additionally, being a Loyalist is not always about "Lore", per the "loretard" comments by some. I have never read a single book about Ghost Bears and yet I founded a Ghost Bear unit because of the ethos represented simply by PGI on the banners; it represented the kind of pilot I wanted to be associated with and I believed that ethos would make a great Unit because everyone would stick with it longer and it is what I relate to. SARNA has been a great resource to introduce some lore concepts to our Unit, but as I have said to my Unit from the beginning; we will do this to only improve our fighting skills as a group - so we introduced Trial of Entry to improve the quality of our pilots and level of commitment to the game, 1v1 practice (Zellbrigen) just before Solaris came out for individual pilot improvement, Blood Name contests to give our best pilots recognition and annual tournies within our group. These are rewards outside of the game managed on our website. These are done in private lobbies and improves our pilots and gives them continuity the game cannot. Leaving permanent Loyalty decisions intact solves problems you cannot possibly program into the game. We use modern English for our ranks but within a simple Ghost Bear ranking system and they parallel the ranks withing MWO. I reached the highest level in FW Ghost Bear well over a year and half ago, and I don't care about LP after that level or getting "trinkets" and those in my unit who have done the same don't care either. That is the prize, and they still keep playing and buying mechs because they get to be Ghost Bears. The thrill I get is seeing pilots: ascend, a nobody becoming someone, getting better, joining in League or go for Comp, rising together, getting planet tags. A Loyalist Unit can provide this out-of-game narrative to keep them in the game LONGER whether they be "lore light" or "lore heavy" or "loretards." That solves queue problems and general population problems. So, please disassociate Loyalty with "lack of fights" and "waiting for long times" or "not buying enough mechs." This just means not enough players are on or playing this game.
It is true the fiction basis of this game would become crazy at times; Clan vs Clan, IS vs IS, IS vs Clan, some clans rolling into IS groups, etc..(and yet so many act like they are a dogmatic authority on who did what exactly) so I commend PGI and you Paul for trying to implement this craziness and take it on. But for Ghost Bear, not all went into the Dominion or Rasalhague, and the jumping around in time thing (to again provide more variability) necessitates keeping permanent Loyalty to a Faction as a main option. "In 3052, that hadn't happened yet." If nothing else for new players coming in expecting to see Loyalty options and still have these options to do so if they so choose.
When PGI runs FW events, they help immensely at building queues in my timezone (North American). When you don't, it is up and down. I think timezone is an issue that creates the perception there are not enough pilots to fill the queues on either side. Again this is a general population issue and not a Loyalty issue. When I drop very late on Oceanic servers, there are lulls but then it picks up. The changes over the last year or so have been especially helpful. Have more events with incentives on both sides to reduce queue times!
When anyone can pick anything and pick any side at any time, this dissolves the ability of a Unit leader and officers to muster efficiently and make the battles meaningful to the Unit as a whole and you take away a massive option that keeps people in the game. There is no one "fix" to solve the general population problem. Having permanent Loyalty as an option is attractive to a % of pilots and keeps them in the game as legitimately as does a player who wants to play both sides so they can buy both IS and CLAN mechs and get "the full experience of the mechcraft", and this itself adds great value to having enough on both sides to fight battles.
If all the game needs to be is a sandbox for people to get a match as quickly as possible and never have to wait and for anyone to use any mech, then get rid of all factions, all groupings, all aggregates, all banners and all flags and just call it MECHWARRIOR and randomly mix up everyone that is dropping. Heck, get rid of the ability of 12 top pilots to group up and drop because that is a type of association they prefer to be Loyal to. And after all, this is the biggest reason a general population gets frustrated and leaves the game and shouts of "cheating" are echoed in the chat creating negative perceptions. But we all know this won't work either, because human beings are associational by nature and "birds of a feather flock together." Now the birds have lost their sense of navigation and are flying every where and many will disappear.
Having permanent Loyalty gives a casual group the incentive to stick with it, stick together and have the time they need to become a formidable challenge to other tough and effective Units, and the variable of Loyalist Unit leaders who can keep people together for many reasons is the best way to build a general population. And if one seems it is "too harsh" to require only CLAN or IS mechs, that individual is certainly not a Loyalist for FW. There is QP and the ability to create two logins! Add the simple feature to let a player move their IS mechs or Clan mechs they win to their secondary account!
There are many good suggestions, so i just stick to some minor points:
1.) Buff LP / Merc rewards ! -> In relation to QP / all mode events the rewards of FP tree are ridiculous.
So i played now for about 3 month FRR (idk about 400 matches) and soon i will be "Kapten". My reward: 3,200,000 cbills....Lol. I own 450,000,000 cbills and i am one of the poorer members of my unit. Thats not rewarding at all. Your Cup Cockpit Item is nice, but thats really no reason to be in party mood.
2.) People said they want to switch factions for better control over population
Thats right and thats important. Still, there are also many people who switch sides because on the other side is a well known good player/unit playing at this moment. Many people switch to the winner side after 1 match. Thats a problem, mostly, good veterans are switching which unbalances both sides even more and the queue is broken after that.
How do this different? Idk, but this is my concern.
3.) Give beginners a good feeling / rewards when they are doing their part
I still see the problem, that only damage and kills are the main indicators for getting rewards / cbills / LP. At least you changed it wiht implementing "destroyed missiles" or "capture time".
This is a good start, but we need more indicators besides damage and kills because these 2 things lead to damage farming / meatshielding and so.
For example: Give Matchscore / cbills / LP for taken damage.
If you are leading a push (even a beginner in front line), if you are first pushing around a corner you mostly will die sooner than the rest of your team. You get punished by that because in end screen you may have 1000 damage, but you lead 3 pushes. It is not rewarded and this leads to backstanding, shy behaviour, fearsome pilots. This results mostly in static matches. Reward bravery and also beginners feel useful and rewarded.
There may be other options for beginners as well, like getting important battle information (locked targets, enemy spotted and so on). A beginner who dont feel confident to trade with veteran enemies still can go scouting / take damage in push / lock targets to be useful for the team. This should be displayed in end screen as well as in matchscore / cbills.
I think this will lead into more dynamic matches and in better implementing all kinds of skills in a team. Everybody can feel proud after a victory, everbody can do his part.
Locking players out of things is bad, especially in an underused game mode like this.
The obvious solution is make the faction choice 100% cosmetic, with it only affecting a reward path.
Then players choose which side of a conflict they want to play on with a slider, or a 24-hour-cool-down button, or a this-event button, for who they fight for with that event.
3.1) The Alliances
- The Inner Sphere Factions will be split into two Alliances.
- While alliances are not strictly lore, for game purposes and keeping queue buckets to a minimum, they serve a major role in allowing players to remain loyal to their faction and still gain LP
- There needs to be 2 Alliances in both the IS Factions and the Clan Factions -snip- 4.1) The Faction Selection for Loyalist is currently permanent in this proposed system.
- Should a Loyalist be able to switch Factions? (Remember, the major feedback so far in this area is that a Loyalist would never switch.)
- When would a Loyalist be allowed to switch?
- Would there be penalties of some sort involved in doing so?
Nightbird, on 26 May 2019 - 12:04 AM, said:
2) People want to be able to play matches. Sitting in queue with 4 to 48 for 30 mins is a good way to convince people to do something else. [...] Having games needs to be the highest priority, lore needs to be written around it, since no games = unhappy customers. https://mwomercs.com...fix-current-fp/
3) The MM is extremely biased against the under-pop side. When the queue is 12-48, the MM takes the strongest group in the 48, and put it against the only group it can make from the under-pop side. It also greatly increases the wait time for solo/small groups on the over-pop side who are skipped by the MM and who you prevent from switching to balance queues[...]
Paul, I really like the direction this idea goes in. It is very much in the direction that I have argued for in the past. The issue is that this is a case where a small step in this good direction can be really bad because we need something more akin to a large hop. Moving to static faction loyalty is good when you add dynamic alliances, but using static alliances leads to irreconcilable population imbalances and can drive people from the game for the reasons Nightbird lays out. We need to be able to have matches. That is either going to come from thoughtful management of the faction alliances to distribute talent and active FP population numbers, or it is going to by the chaotic player led re-balancing that we had been operating under for a long time. Static alliances will cause mostly negative results.
BLUF: There are multiple battles simultaneously such that each faction is always involved in a battle. Matchmaker pulls from one queue regardless of loyalty, resulting in teams with mixed loyalty. Each player's match score contributes to their factions battle, not the "win" or "loss". This effectively decouples a player's loyalty from FP matchmaking.
1.1) Agree. Comment: This will also remove the ability of players to level up other factions, removing potential rewards earned from those factions.
1.2) Agree.
2.1) Agree. Comment: The rewards for leveling up with a faction need to be greater as people can't switch factions as readily to gain the rewards available to other factions. This also means the levels should be adjusted to account for there being just one faction to level.
3.1 and 3.2) Disagree. Comment: I think the alliance option with reduced loyalty payout will discourage people from playing when they won't get max payout. It turns FP into more of a grind. I propose that there are multiple fights all over. Everyone, regardless of loyalty is put in the same queue, but a player's loyalty determines what battle their match will contribute to. In the match, loyalty has no affect on what side a person fights on (helps with matchmaking by making it one pool instead of two), but the win contributes to progress in the battle their faction is involved in. Since people will be on opposite factions on the same team in a match, I recommend using each players match score, not the "win" or "loss" as the factor to contribute to the fight's progression. This would minimize the profitability of throwing the match if the majority of the player's team is on the other faction. Effectively, loyalty is ignored for each match, while loyalty is used for determining where to apply the progress from each match.
4.1) Yes, a player should be able to switch, but for a penalty. I believe a C-bill cost and a loss of progression with the faction should be the penalty. But, the player shouldn't lose rewards earned when a tier is lost. The penalty should be steep enough to prevent switching factions for fights, but allows a player to switch factions if they have a change of heart.
4.2) The proposal in 3.1 and 3.2 would remove this problem.
Please DO NOT lock loyalty to one faction permanently. I realise that you are trying to appease the vocal half dozen loretards who have whined incessantly about loyalist rewards for the past three years. However, there are a far greater number of FP players who DO NOT want to play for only one faction, and who actively CHANGE FACTIONS TO BALANCE THE QUEUE.
UndeadKingofPopMichaelJackson, 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.
Regarding the faction switching: yes, some people jump from one side to the other to get matches. Others jump from oneside to the other to avoid getting stomped (or to get all the awards in an event). Events have been plagued by a vicious cat and mouse chase of good teams flipping sides to avoid having to face the same good teams over and over again. And sure we get matches, but nobody gives a good god damn about flipping planets anymore. The larger meta game has been completely lost by following the advice of the very Merc-minded "just let us flip when ever we want to" crowd. A lot of people used to care about the map and making a frantic push to take a planet. There used to be a spike in activity near the end the 8 hr cycle as people rushed to get matches in to decide the conflict. For the last year I have watched as FP just peters out regardless of where the conflict bar is. Don't try to sugarcoat what the swap-factions-all-willy-nilly has helped do to the mode.
And by the way Appogee, Loretardery is not why all of us argue for more rigid loyalty. I see it as the best way to bring about balance and it has the added benefit of drawing many of the loretards back in to fill the queues. We need matches but we also need to draw in the old salty playerbase that pays for Battletech related things. I want better matches and I want the largest playerbase possible because it allows the small developer that makes this game I enjoy have a larger budget to improve this game that I enjoy. That means better accommodating people who really want to talk about which novel is their favorite, and shifting the gamemode back towards something that makes them excited.
LocationTo Nova or not to Nova. That is the question.
Posted 27 May 2019 - 04:36 AM
Intro.....
Spoiler
Paul Inouye, on 25 May 2019 - 05:54 PM, said:
Faction Loyalty
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. This isn't the problem area in Faction Play, the problem stems from the various roleplaying aspects when it comes to lore and the BattleTech Universe. Any number of methodologies and systems can be designed to create battles that integrate into Faction Play but there will always be various blockers that will be discovered when it comes to the mixture of technical implementation and needs/wants of players. The reason I'm bringing this up is, in order to move forward there will have to be give and take on both sides of the equation here. Similar to the discussions that took place previously. There is still a mountain of features that were requested by the community that is still on radar but the need to get the first step of a Faction Play update was to get the key components of a new system in place in order to facilitate the new era of Faction Play.
So let's dive right into this. The writing method used in this post will be a generic design spec and numbered in a manner in which feedback can be directed at key components of the design.
Players can choose to ‘roleplay’ on comms or in chat in this game but there is no roleplaying aspect because we don’t have characters, the pilots that drive mechs.
A whole subsystem for creating, customizing and running about as a pilot that we can then also interact with other pilots first person in a mechbay, barracks or bar.... ok.
Immersion in the game world taken from the lore and imagery of the books however is not in abundance in MWO. Building up more Immersion in the game around missions, around the factions, around the events would give players a far deeper sense of being part of the universe.
1) Choosing a Faction for Loyalty.
Spoiler
Paul Inouye, on 25 May 2019 - 05:54 PM, said:
1.1) If a player chooses to be a Loyalist to a Faction, this selection should be persistent to the player's profile.
- This ensures that no matter which subsequent role a player chooses, it will not affect the overall profile Loyalist selection.
- Essentially this allows a player to always fight under the banner of their selected faction without ever needing to switch or display a 'temporary' faction alignment.
1.2) The selection of Faction will be done on the Faction Details (will need to rename this tab) pages which display information about all the factions available.
- A button will appear on each faction's detailed information page which will allow the player to pledge loyalty to said faction.
- The player must be warned that the selection is permanent.
I don’t see how this helps.
It shifts the faction loyalty to the player account which is bound to cause problems when players don’t recognise or understand their choice.
It also eliminates the reason to have loyalist units and perhaps even freelancers.
This change essentially says I can fight for anyone in the event but I get some LP if it happens to be my chosen faction or an ally.
To compare it to phase 4, we always showed in the regular matches as representing our faction even though it might have been a single mixed IS or clan side. Under phase 4 we also got full LP for the win even though it was mixed sides (allies) and were not permanently locked in.
A loyalist wants to always, every time, fight for their chosen faction. Locking the player account to a faction does not help them represent their faction any more on the battlefield than it would to once again prevent units from changing loyalty.
2) Earning Loyalty Points (LP) After Pledging Loyalty
Spoiler
Paul Inouye, on 25 May 2019 - 05:54 PM, said:
2.1) Faction players will earn LP in the same manner as previously with additional bonuses.
- When a player plays a match with their Faction in a Conflict, they will earn maximum LP for their in-game actions.
- Participation in war obligations while the Faction is in Conflict.
War obligations, without knowing what this means, sounds nice.
I suspect it would be things like complete X Siege missions, Kill X light mechs and so on.
Basically different event rewards simply giving loyalists an extra layer.
Nice enough, probably very easy to implement if that is the idea. If it adds some immersion in there, even better.
Could you please elaborate on that particular aspect.
3) Expanding LP Gains Outside of the Player's Faction's Conflicts
Spoiler
Paul Inouye, on 25 May 2019 - 05:54 PM, said:
- Players should be able to gain LP even when their Faction isn't directly related to the current Conflict.
- The broad term "Alliance" will govern these gains using specialized tables of rewards depending on which Factions are part of a given Conflict.
3.1) The Alliances
- The Inner Sphere Factions will be split into two Alliances.
- While alliances are not strictly lore, for game purposes and keeping queue buckets to a minimum, they serve a major role in allowing players to remain loyal to their faction and still gain LP
- There needs to be 2 Alliances in both the IS Factions and the Clan Factions
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.
3.1.2) IS Alliance 2
- While not as strong of a bond between Steiner and Davion, there is a loose affiliation between the Factions of Kurita, Liao and Marik.
- This Alliance (Kurita/Liao/Marik) will always provide LP to their respective partners.
3.1.3) Clan Alliance 1
- While Clan Factions were never really 'friendly' toward each other, there was a slight resemblance of tolerance between some of the key Factions involved.
- Clan Jade Falcon/Clan Ghost Bear/Clan Smoke Jaguar had the strongest sense of tolerance among the main invasion force.
3.1.4) Clan Alliance 2
- Wolf was always the lone wolf (no pun intended) when it came to Clan pride over being a good neighbor and this was shared by the secondary Clans that entered the battle later.
- Clan Wolf/Clan Nova Cat/Clan Steel Viper/Clan Diamond Shark would work best as the second Clan Alliance.
NOTE: Yes, there were the Wardens and Crusaders but the volatility in those alliances was so fragile that using that division would mean Jade Falcon would NEVER fight with Wolf. See section 3.2
3.2) How LP is rewarded when a Conflict is in play that does not include the player's pledged Faction.
- The Alliances outlined above will never be in a Conflict within themselves. (e.g. Steiner will never be in a Conflict with FRR)
- This allows all Factions to have an alliance member involved with all Conflicts.
- In the following tables, all indicated LP gains are for the Faction Player's pledged Faction only. (If you are a Ghost Bear Loyalist, all tables are indicating LP gains from Ghost Bear.)
3.2.1) Case 1 - Steiner vs Marik
- In this scenario, all loyalist players in alliance with Steiner (either Davion or FRR Loyalists) will be able to fight on behalf of Steiner while still earning LP for their pledged Faction.
- The amount of LP would be reduced but still significant enough to participate.
Table 1
In Table 1, you can see how this plays out in terms of which Factions will still generate LP when backed by Allied Faction Loyalists. The green squares represent a Loyalist Player playing for their pledged Faction. That player will earn 100% LP while playing during that time. The yellow squares represent LP gains when fighting during a conflict that an ally is involved in at a 60% rate. The orange squares represent Factions the player would not fight for as they are part of the opposing alliance. (Remember, allied Factions will never war with each other. This means there's never a case in this scenario of not being able to accumulate LP)
Table 2
Table 2 extrapolates this further to show the Clan side of things.
3.2.2) Case 2 - Kurita vs Clan Ghost Bear
- When it comes to a Clan vs IS Conflict, things need to change. The IS knows that an invasion of any type from the Clans is a bad thing. The leaders of all Factions know that a fight on that front is a fight for the greater good.
- Clan vs IS conflicts will treat all Factions on opposing sides as allies. This means Kurita Loyalists will earn 100% LP gains from Kurita. A Davion Loyalist who comes to the aid of Kurita during this Conflict will earn 60% Davion LP.
Table 3
Table 3 shows how the IS side of things change when the Conflict is a Clan vs IS Conflict. And again, the same is reflected on the Clan side as in Table 4 below:
Table 4
This is needlessly complicated and looks like a lot of work for not enough results.
Unfortunately it does not appear to address the existing problem of excluding factions.
This section is breaking up the factions into 4 sides.
2 factions from one of those 2 sides will be having the story based campaign event.
It will allow players loyal to one of the allied factions in one of those sides to still earn LP at a reduced rate, but all the players in all the factions belonging to the other two sides are still excluded.
This attempts to reduce how many players are excluded in a single event, reduces the LP for allied loyalists and it still means players will have to wait their turn until it is specifically their faction leading the event.
Having the events dictating the mode and who is participating makes it exclusive.
Unless the event can simply enhance what is going on for players in those factions without disrupting the regular fighting, it will not be possible to avoid excluding someone.
The suggestion of voting for allies was asked about in the first round table but unfortunately was not feasible at the time. Creating arbitrary sides does still prevent players in those factions in that side from fighting each other.
This comes back to a player population issue in the mode. At any given time we cannot rely on having enough players in a single side with enough players in the other conflicting side to create matches.
The only way you might be able to address this would be to allow every single faction in the game to fight each other in a single bucket so if there are enough players on from one faction to create a team and enough in any other single faction, we can get a game.
This requires two changes:
1. Teams have to be limited to a single faction.
2. Smaller team sizes must be considered as a way to cater for point 1.
4) The Big Problem Areas
Spoiler
Paul Inouye, on 25 May 2019 - 05:54 PM, said:
- The following are the biggest glaring holes in this system and while there are some heavy handed solutions to them, it's not what's intended to happen here.
- You the community will have the biggest voices here so please share your thoughts.
4.1) The Faction Selection for Loyalist is currently permanent in this proposed system.
- Should a Loyalist be able to switch Factions? (Remember, the major feedback so far in this area is that a Loyalist would never switch.)
- When would a Loyalist be allowed to switch?
- Would there be penalties of some sort involved in doing so?
4.2) When it comes to Section 3 above, there's a big blocker in place.
- If the Conflict is an IS vs IS Conflict, there is NO way that Clan Loyalists can earn LP.
- If the Conflict is Clan vs Clan, the same thing happens on the other side, meaning IS Loyalists cannot earn LP.
- One suggestion made internally was to just provide a base LP payout when these situations arise. For example, if the Conflict is IS vs IS and a Clan Loyalist plays in the Conflict, they will still earn a 25% LP gain from their Faction for doing so even though it contradicts the idea of a hard core Loyalist.
I am going to disagree with the approach because it’s coming from a view of creating a restricted mode to fit in with the event campaigns and then trying to squeeze enough players into it.
The events need to float on top and reward the players in those factions while it is happening with a few immersive elements thrown in when those two factions clash in a match.
5) Let's Do This
Spoiler
Paul Inouye, on 25 May 2019 - 05:54 PM, said:
The main takeaways from this post are as follows:
- We want to make sure that Loyalists do not have to switch Factions to participate in FP
- We want to make LP gains consistent for all Factions.
- This design spec has NOT been through a tech review so there's no guarantees that everything is technically possible.
- This is a big change and will require quite a bit of development time to implement.
- This is not a straight up "this is happening and it's the only way", but it's the strongest candidate that some of you have already touched on in previous comments/suggestions as well. Strongest doesn't mean best/only plan.. it means it fits the majority of criteria with a give/take approach.
This is the FIRST post of a discussion that will be followed just like the other discussions we've had previously. I want to take the same tone as last time and keep it a discussion and not a corporate refined response system.
Looking forward to your thoughts on this spec and trying to finalize something soon so development can start on it ASAP.
-Paul
At this stage, faction play is no longer about trying to expand borders or dominate the galaxy.
The best way I see to address the current situation is to come at the problem from the other direction.
The mode in getting reduced to the single bucket with the single IS vs Clan border needs to go a step further and remove borders all together.
If each faction fought for their own glory in a free for all system you automatically address several points raised by the community:
With every faction fighting for themselves with no borders, loyalists are always represented in the galactic war.
Faction vs faction means a random variety of matches from IS vs IS, Clan vs Clan and IS vs Clan all without the need to create multiple buckets allowing players to experience a much larger pool of opponents.
A free for all system returns the value of being in a unit as units (loyalist or mercenary) always belong to a single faction and have the best chance of pulling a full 12 player team together.
Freelancers and solo players from units would still fill the gaps.
The revised match maker should enhance the process.
The event system should also be able to enhance the player immersion by providing some additional incentive for players in those factions, perhaps through the war objectives? That can float on top of the whole queue/bucket without limiting it.
I see no reason to waste the existing development efforts on the recent features or many of the earlier changes.
But to achieve many of the goals we should look at the problems facing faction play from another direction.
On an aesthetics issue: Folks who want to be Loyalist to a Faction dislike losing their Faction icon on the forums. This is particularly important for Units who want to be associated with a specific Faction.
The forum icon could be based upon a Unit's loyalty setting if we went with something like this:
shaytalis, on 26 May 2019 - 05:35 PM, said:
What about Units that want to require their members to be True Loyalists?
We could allow a Unit Leader to set additional restrictions on their Unit. Following options:
1) Mercenary (no added restrictions. +15% C-Bill boost.)
2) IS or Clan Loyal (you are restricted by the Unit to only fight for IS or Clan in conflicts. +5% LP when you earn LP. +10% C-Bill boost when you earn C-Bills.)
3) Faction Loyal w/ Allies (you are restricted by the Unit to only fight for your Faction and its Allies. +10% LP when you earn LP. +5% C-Bill boost when you earn C-Bills.)
4) True Loyalist (you are restricted by the Unit to only fight for your Faction. +15% LP when you earn LP.)
Having a restricted unit means that the interface will prevent you from joining a conflict for a disallowed Faction. This way a Unit could require, for instance, that all members only fight for Jade Falcon. If you don't want to be restricted, don't join that Unit (or the Unit needs to lower its restrictions). Being more Merc as a Unit means you earn more C-Bills because your Unit has more negotiating power. Being more Loyal as a Unit means you earn more LP because your Unit is more trusted.
Short answer- please don’t make loyalty permanent.
Long answer, I know that there are many people that enjoy the lore and role playing aspect of the game, but there are many more players (or potential players) that just like to shoot stompy mechs. I prefer to have options, and people are generally happier when they have options. I think it’s a bad idea for the game to take away options when it isn’t required. Rewarding loyalty could be something though. If you were to award planetary rewards based on time loyal or something like that it would be cool. Under the last system 2 or three teams with the top 1% of players got 90% of the planets. There should be ways for the other 99% to get some.
I think locking players to a single faction permanently is a bad idea. Players should be able to switch allegiances at any point, at the cost of losing all faction loyalty progress.
Honestly I just want the ability to say hey, this faction is fighting and willing to pay me. I joined a Merc unit, so I could have merc benefits. While I might approve of Ghost Bear's organization, or Jade Falcon's tenacity, I might want to run my Assaults while Scouting for Steiner. While I might not be loyal to a house, or clan, I am loyal to my Merc roots. Give me a C-bill bonus for fighting someone else's war. Give Loyalists an LP boost, but I'm in it for the money.
I think we can improve on the proposed Clan alliances. We can do a pretty neat Warden/Crusader split by going Wolf/Ghost Bear/Nova Cat as the Warden factions (seeing as it's these three which integrate into the IS post-Tukayyid) versus Jade Falcon/Smoke Jaguar/Diamond Shark as the Crusaders. Steel Vipers, as a relatively neutral Clan, could go into either alliance.
In terms of "Should Loyalty be permanent?" Part of this comes down to the RP of the clans. It's rare for a Freebirth to become a warrior. Someone from the Inner Sphere becoming a Loyalist of a Clan is maybe unheard of (is there even an example from the Lore of this happening once?). So the idea is that when you make an account, you make a character and that character is the Mechwarrior piloting your mechs. That character is the Loyalist, and their birth status determines their clan membership. So the idea that you can't change loyalty stems from the fact that you can't change who this character is.
The reason I think that it's okay to muddy this a bit for sake of game design needs: We already muddy it in other even more important ways. Specifically: If you've ever lost your mech due to a headshot, with your cockpit destroyed in the blink of an eye, your character died that day. If we're being true to the RP, then your mechs just got inherited by whoever you willed them to and they will have to start building up their LP from scratch.
If I can choose to believe my character is immortal and has survived literally thousands of campaigns, then I think it is fair for you to choose to believe that your character is somewhat nebulously defined in terms of their birthright Loyalty status. It's not fair for me to get to use my imagination while restricting yours in this respect.
This is another reason I believe it is best for Loyalty to be dynamically determined based upon which factions you choose to fight for rather than simply determined by a button click at character creation. It would also make Loyalty a more meaningful thing, because you are choosing to be Loyal every time you join a conflict. And, yes, I do think that consistent loyalty to a faction should be rewarded in a way that cannot be replicated through "grinding" various factions one at a time.
Lastly, a new player is not going to make a good decision here that they want to live with forever. A new player is going to declare loyalty to a Faction that happens to be having a conflict the first time they look at FP and think "huh I wonder what this is like," and then find a Unit 3 months later which is not even an ally of that Faction. Or perhaps even worse, the new player will avoid playing FP at all because they are afraid of making the wrong choice (this was me).
17
UndeadKingofPopMichaelJackson, on 26 May 2019 - 10:14 PM, said:
