429 replies to this topic

[-Spectre]

shaytalis, on 28 May 2019 - 05:00 PM, said:

<snip>

I don't think anyone really wants people to not be able to switch loyalty at all, just some people want it to be a stiffer penalty than others. I want it to be stiff enough to keep people from using it as a merc contract, but not so steep that it will punish a mistake. The thing some people have suggested about free switching to rank 5 and then a super stiff penalty could be the solution to that

[slide]

The only purpose for being a loyalist is choice. There is no in game reason/benefit for doing so. All the advantages for getting games lie with being a merc, being able to switch sides being a primary example until this last patch. Loyalists no longer drive the conflict, the event system does that now and sizeable merc units have been doing it for a while now anyway. The only in game value to being loyalist is the ability to grind out 1 LP tree to completion, something that also become redundant upon reaching rank 20.

I think at this point we have 2 choices.

1. We continue to dream up ways to make the irrelevant, relevant. Something which is only going to become more complicated given time. This is the thread we have until now. So carry on.

2. We simplify things greatly.

I Propose this.

1. Get rid of individual faction LP trees. Consolidate all LP earnings (so it doesn't matter who you play for in an event) into 1 tree that offers more levels and awards and recycles when maxed out*.

2. Give loyalists a bonus to LP earnings (+25%) and later develop the mode so they have more relevance. (Ie the faction winning the event gets to vote on what the next event will be**). Allow changes of faction but it costs 1 level in loyalty (so rank 10 goes back to rank 9, this prevents people just flip flopping factions).

3. Give Mercs a bonus to Cbills earnings (+25%) and allow them to choose a side on a match by match basis (to balance queues)

4. Allow mixed tech drops (not builds) so Clanners can come to an all IS fight and use their Clan mechs (which could spice up the tactics too). However this only applies when no option to play exists. Extend the alliances to suit the circumstances (ie FedComm+Wardens v Kapteyn Al. +Crusaders)

I think this would address every ones concerns with regard to LP progression, loyalty and being able to get matches.

*A note on the LP Tree. If we have one tree I think it would need a lot more levels. With more rewards at each level to allow for the fact that you can currently go on a mech bay tour. Also ranks would be faction appropriate. I would think 40 or 50 levels capping out at the 1million LP mark would be good, spaced appropriately as they are now, with every 4th level having a mechbay or MC.

**Event voting is slightly complicated, but here goes
1. A faction wins the event, let Say Davion wins v Liao
2. The next event (already voted ) Launches. Whilst this is running Davion Loyalist get to vote
3. PGI puts up two possible events. Votes are cast. the winning vote Launchers the Losing event get recycled at another time.
Pgi Offers Steiner V Jade Falcon or Kurita V Ghost Bear. Davion Players vote S v JF so that is the next event launched. Go back to 2.
Why do this, it gives Loyalty a purpose and clever people could use it to push an agenda where an alliance could push out it's borders. FedComm could keep voting for their own alliance events and if they keep winning they could keep taking worlds from their enemies, if they lose then the other side gets a chance to do the same.

Edited by slide, 28 May 2019 - 07:09 PM.

[Cato Zilks]

-Spectre, on 28 May 2019 - 08:10 AM, said:

I have read the OP very thoroughly, and wrote 5,000 words on a point-by-point basis on page 2, if you want to read that. If you read a little further, he says, with color emphasis I might add, "[color=orange]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.)[/color]" He also says, at another point, "The Faction Selection for Loyalist is currently permanent in this proposed system."I believe he makes it fairly clear that you pledge loyalty to a set faction, and then when your allies are fighting, you can fight to assist them (specifically assisting your allies, not being allowed to fight for just anyone), without changing which faction you are pledged to. As a Ghost Bear, if I fight to help Clan Wolf on the IS front, I will still show up as a Ghost Bear, I will still gain loyalty points as a Ghost Bear, and I will still be a Ghost Bear. I will simply be assisting my fellow Clan in their battle, while maintaining my own identity.

Yes, I read your large posts on page 2, stop asking people to go back to your large posts on page 2. We understand that you wrote a lot there.

Also, I fully understand that Paul said you only earn LP for the faction you are loyal to. My point is that in opening up a loyalist's ability to join in any fight and gain LP for their faction in most fights, Paul is creating a system where loyalists are free to pick anyside of any fight while maintaining their loyalty.

If FRR is fighting Wolf you can back either FRR or Wolf all while staying loyal to Ghost Bear. The only difference is that if you support Wolf, you earn LP at the 60% rate. Like they are doing with units where as Ash notes (below) that units are not being placed on a side as a group, Paul is looking to give players full autonomy to pick a side in every battle, but then says he is throwing loyalists a bone by giving us LP generation in most battles. It sounds like his plans allows a Loyalist to fight against their own faction in an event, so long as the player is willing to forgo earning any LP.

Paul is equating Loyalist with LP generation but otherwise loyalists get to pick a side of each fight like a Merc/Freelancer. When I talk about being a loyalist to a Faction, I mean more than that. Like a soldier in an Army, Loyalists don't get to pick who their allies are or how they will side in each storyline, PGI Politicians do that (by making these alliances). A Steiner Loyalist should be forced to fight for Steiner against CJF or DC. Likewise, they should be forced to take the side of Davion against Liao. There should be no 0 LP option, because as a loyalist I give up my right to choose how I align in a given conflict (unlike a merc).

justcallme A S H, on 27 May 2019 - 11:07 PM, said:

This also assumes - that when a Unit Leader picks a side, the entire unit goes with it. Which IMO it should. It used to work that way but current patch changed that entire functionality. Kinda defeats the point of a 'Unit' and the discussion that a Unit has around what to do, play and so on in the game. I feel that is an important part of the story for some units.

EDIT: Marik loyalists should be able to choose to fight against Marik, in case the loyalist is a Regulan.

Edited by Cato Zilks, 28 May 2019 - 09:34 PM.

[shaytalis]

slide, on 28 May 2019 - 07:06 PM, said:

The only purpose for being a loyalist is choice. There is no in game reason/benefit for doing so. All the advantages for getting games lie with being a merc, being able to switch sides being a primary example until this last patch. Loyalists no longer drive the conflict, the event system does that now and sizeable merc units have been doing it for a while now anyway. The only in game value to being loyalist is the ability to grind out 1 LP tree to completion, something that also become redundant upon reaching rank 20.

Cato Zilks, on 28 May 2019 - 07:17 PM, said:

Paul is equating Loyalist with LP generation but otherwise loyalists get to pick a side of each fight like a Merc/Freelancer. When I talk about being a loyalist to a Faction, I mean more than that. Like a soldier in an Army, Loyalists don't get to pick who their allies are or how they will side in each storyline, PGI Politicians do that (by making these alliances). A Steiner Loyalist should be forced to fight for Steiner against CJF or DC. Likewise, they should be forced to take the side of Davion against Liao. There should be no 0 LP option, because as a loyalist I give up my right to choose how I align in a given conflict (unlike a merc).

I just want to put these two side-by-side so you can look at each other and understand that not everyone wants to be a Merc, not everyone wants to be a Loyalist. We're trying to make the game work for both rather than excluding one for the benefit of the other. You wont make a Loyalist play this game as a Merc in order to improve your queue times. You wont make a Merc play this game as a Loyalist in order to improve your immersion. We need solutions that don't alienate half the population.

Edited by shaytalis, 28 May 2019 - 07:22 PM.

[50 50]

Navid A1, on 28 May 2019 - 06:30 PM, said:

Just wanted to point out the number 1 issue with FP that is being completely ignored

THIS is a problem when people can't switch factions when they want:



THIS is what happens:

But sure... we should talk about LP and rewards... sure, right... while FP is dying!

I agree.
Talking about how much LP or what sort of rewards to get as a loyalist before making sure that the underlying system to get games is reliable is counting the chickens before they have hatched.

I do not see this improving with the ideas outlined in the OP as it is using a rotating system.

What I am seeing in the proposal in this thread is indicating is that when there is a conflict, it is going to be announced as being between two specific factions and it allows players from factions who are part of the allied sides to earn Loyalty Points for participating.

EDIT:
Fixing because I keep ignoring the Clan vs IS match up as being phase 4 with two factions at the center.

3 different scenarios to rotate through.
IS vs IS
Clan vs Clan
Clan vs IS.

In any one of these scenarios, unless there is a significant increase in population, there will be one side with enough players to form one or more teams and no one on the other side to create the match.
Assuming that the side with enough players are not able or willing to jump the fence but may belong to different individual factions within the alliance. Then what?

Edited by 50 50, 29 May 2019 - 01:29 AM.

[shaytalis]

Something for the dev meeting, Paul.

Edited by shaytalis, 28 May 2019 - 08:03 PM.

[BROARL]

thankyou Paul and PGI for this conversation, it inspires hope and is appreciated.
my user experience in three points.

1) i was a Steiner Loyalist before this game was created. i would have appreciated a discount on Steiner skins after whatever rank, or at least a horn. the weekend prizes for frivolous antics grant better rewards than a year as a Loyalist.
2) i like my redlines and scorches and i like playing instead of waiting, and for these reasons i need a measure of freedom please. sometimes i just have to drop with/as clan scum.
3) please may we play invasion in more of the maps?

*please could we see damage taken at the end of a match just as we see damage done?
*perhaps there could be a frivolous Cbill reward for first blood in a match similar to an extra KMDD?
*i am loyal to my unit because they are my unit, the guys have my back. may i spend unit coffers to put mechs in a unit hangar for new guys to use instead of trial mechs?
*can Steiner Loyalists use atlas if we are forced into scouting?
*i like the idea of an LP leaderboard.

Edited by BROARL, 28 May 2019 - 08:38 PM.

[Cato Zilks]

@Paul, there have been a number of requests and comments (examples below) that are in favor of the alliance system but want to see it expanded into a more dynamic system where you all change the alliances. Can we get a dynamic system?

Triaxx2, on 26 May 2019 - 02:40 AM, said:

Within Lore, some of the clans ended up with IS Allies, might be a useful thing for faction equivalence. Say Wolf and Steiner are allied, so they get FP the same as a Steiner ally would in an IS conflict. That way clan loyalists can still earn LP, but at a reduced rate.

-Spectre, on 26 May 2019 - 02:19 PM, said:

I saw someone suggest using future lore alliances between Clan and Inner Sphere to fix that problem. For example, Ghost Bear merges with Rasalhague in 3103, becoming the Rasalhague Dominion, with calculated efforts in that direction beginning as early as the Jihad era. Thus, in an IS vs IS conflict, Ghost Bear would be allied with the FRR/Steiner/Davion alliance. This would provide the added benefit of potentially letting Clanners fight their erstwhile allies during IS vs IS conflicts, and Spheroids fight their erstwhile allies during Clan vs Clan conflicts, depending on how the IS/Clan alliances play out (though I have a feeling that if you really looked at it, the people that would make sense to be allied with each other on each specific side would still end up allied to each other in cross-alliances—of course, you could always pick alliances arbitrarily to achieve this effect, even on a conflict-by-conflict basis, and it wouldn’t be any worse than the system you have already suggested, which is already functional and not [very] offensive).

shaytalis, on 26 May 2019 - 05:35 PM, said:

Alliances could change over time based upon storyline. Your Loyalty remains the same, but who you are allied with may vary from conflict to conflict.

evilelrond, on 27 May 2019 - 10:10 PM, said:

If permanent loyalists got some lp for fighting with their allies itd be cool. Like a steiner loyalist fighting for frr would get .6 stenier lp and .4 frr lp. Then just mix up the factions so every faction is allied with a different faction as often as possible. For sametech conflicts that are on the opposite tech divide from you, let the players choose their side the way a merc would, so clanners can get is trees done while still loyal to clan (insert dumb clan name) during a davion/kurita conflict, and vice versa.

slide, on 28 May 2019 - 07:06 PM, said:

4. Allow mixed tech drops (not builds) so Clanners can come to an all IS fight and use their Clan mechs (which could spice up the tactics too). However this only applies when no option to play exists. Extend the alliances to suit the circumstances (ie FedComm+Wardens v Kapteyn Al. +Crusaders).

Playing on some of these later ideas, yall could plan a dope St. Ives war event with [Davion + all-non-Liao-IS-factions + Nova Cats] against [Liao + the Clans (minus Nova Cats)].

• If the Liao coalition wins by 80% or more Liao gains all St. Ives territory and the Clans take many border worlds from the IS.
  
• If the Liao coalition wins by 1% to 79% you make a new Faction (St. Ives) who will be allied to Liao in most later stories and clanners take a few border worlds.
  
• If the Davion coalition wins by 1% to 79% you make a new Faction (St. Ives) who will be allied to Davion in most later events and the Clanners lose a few worlds.
  
• If the Davion coalition wins by 80% or more Davion gains all St. Ives territory and the clans lose many border worlds to the IS.

[Warning incoming Humble Dexterer]

What I'd like :
1) The MatchMaker only separates IS players from Clan players, no other limitations then that one.
2) Matchmaker comes up with the best matching it can, doesn't matter if it's IS vs Clan, IS vs IS or Clan vs Clan.
3) Launch the damn match.

Now as a special event :
- REWARD single Faction vs single Faction play. Like as soon as the MatchMaker spots two full single Faction groups in the queue, they bypass the waiting queue and earn an instant launch, and perhaps win a special match bonus too.

If you want to complicate things by adding a story mode to that : Restrict the special event to the two story related Factions.

Edited by Humble Dexter, 28 May 2019 - 08:56 PM.

[slide]

shaytalis, on 28 May 2019 - 07:22 PM, said:

I just want to put these two side-by-side so you can look at each other and understand that not everyone wants to be a Merc, not everyone wants to be a Loyalist. We're trying to make the game work for both rather than excluding one for the benefit of the other. You wont make a Loyalist play this game as a Merc in order to improve your queue times. You wont make a Merc play this game as a Loyalist in order to improve your immersion. We need solutions that don't alienate half the population.

I am well aware of that. That first paragraph was describing the situation as it is right now. People can choose to do what ever they want but the reality is there is no reason, in fact there are plenty of reasons not to be a Loyalist in the recent past and under the current system. Not this least of which in the current event system if you don't change factions you simply can't play, that is alienating way more than half the population because even if you're merc your locked in for the duration and if you picked the wrong side you still can't play.

Now I want to find reasons for people to be Loyalists, other than just because they always have been. None exist in game ATM, your experience as a Davion, a Kuritan or a Ghost Bear is exactly the same. The rewards are the same (except for rank names) your ability to exert influence the map is the same (non-existent basically). FP has been dumbed down to basically Red v Blue with different names in an effort to get games. which have no meaning except to grind out more rewards for the individual.

That's where we are at right now.

So on that basis it makes no sense to have different LP trees if everyone experience is essentially the same, regardless of faction. Why have separate LP trees and then exclude or reduce peoples ability to generate LP on that tree? People earning 60% are going to be just as annoyed as those who can't play or wait for their factions turn only to be thwarted because they have a wedding to go to that weekend.

So my solution is to give everyone the same opportunity to earn LP and apply it to their own personal progression, no matter who or how they play. We then need to give some reasons to play as a loyalist or a merc. My solution was more LP for Loyalists, more Cbills for mercs and to give mercs the option to fill in to make matches (on the assumption that a proper loyalist won't change). This means that you could literally be the lone Loyalist in an entire faction and it won't hamper your ability to either get games or earn LP and apply it accordingly.

Every body wins, no one is shafted, the grind continues.

[Monkey Lover]

Navid A1, on 28 May 2019 - 06:30 PM, said:

Just wanted to point out the number 1 issue with FP that is being completely ignored



THIS is a problem when people can't switch factions when they want:




THIS is what happens:








But sure... we should talk about LP and rewards... sure, right... while FP is dying!

Nope, the issue has always been the game mode. They cut buckets over and over and the pop still decreased. Now you want it to be basically do a 4 spawn group q. When that doesnt work 4 spawn pug q.

What they need to do is give the 12 people waiting something to do. Why are they sitting in q doing nothing?
Why not allow them to do a death match until the other 12 are ready?
Why not give it 25 minutes and drop the teams anyway. Give the team with less or zero players buffs until its balanced. Give them turrents, radar, an great defense or dozens of other ideas to make it balanced and fun.

FIX THE MODE AND PEOPLE WILL PLAY!

Edited by Monkey Lover, 28 May 2019 - 09:30 PM.

[shaytalis]

Monkey Lover, on 28 May 2019 - 09:29 PM, said:

FIX THE MODE AND PEOPLE WILL PLAY!

This is an important sentiment to me. While we do need to be able the manage the queue with a smaller population, if we design around a small population then we're designing around the wrong goal. The system needs to work for a small population, but it shouldn't anticipate one so heavily that it becomes self-defeating.

[-Spectre]

Cato Zilks, on 28 May 2019 - 07:17 PM, said:

Yes, I read your large posts on page 2, stop asking people to go back to your large posts on page 2. We understand that you wrote a lot there.

Also, I fully understand that Paul said you only earn LP for the faction you are loyal to. My point is that in opening up a loyalist's ability to join in any fight and gain LP for their faction in most fights, Paul is creating a system where loyalists are free to pick anyside of any fight while maintaining their loyalty.

If FRR is fighting Wolf you can back either FRR or Wolf all while staying loyal to Ghost Bear. The only difference is that if you support Wolf, you earn LP at the 60% rate. Like they are doing with units where as Ash notes (below) that units are not being placed on a side as a group, Paul is looking to give players full autonomy to pick a side in every battle, but then says he is throwing loyalists a bone by giving us LP generation in most battles. It sounds like his plans allows a Loyalist to fight against their own faction in an event, so long as the player is willing to forgo earning any LP.

Paul is equating Loyalist with LP generation but otherwise loyalists get to pick a side of each fight like a Merc/Freelancer. When I talk about being a loyalist to a Faction, I mean more than that. Like a soldier in an Army, Loyalists don't get to pick who their allies are or how they will side in each storyline, PGI Politicians do that (by making these alliances). A Steiner Loyalist should be forced to fight for Steiner against CJF or DC. Likewise, they should be forced to take the side of Davion against Liao. There should be no 0 LP option, because as a loyalist I give up my right to choose how I align in a given conflict (unlike a merc).



EDIT: Marik loyalists should be able to choose to fight against Marik, in case the loyalist is a Regulan.

I am really not getting that from his post. Which side each loyalist faction fights on in a given conflict is decided by their alliances, and you can't just choose to fight against your conflict. Some people are asking for that, but that is not in Paul's post at all, that I can see. What Paul's system is suggesting is that whenever it is a conflict involving an allied faction instead of your own, you automatically fight for your ally, and get 60% LP for your own faction, since you are not fighting directly for them. No choice, no bouncing around. It is always possible I am misunderstanding, but this seems pretty clear to me, and it does not allow loyalists to fight for whoever they want--you fight either for your own faction or your allied faction, depending on the conflict. In each conflict your side in the conflict is predecided because of your faction's alliances. (which I like, btw. I don't want this to sound like I'm saying it's bad)

[Paul Meyers DEST]

-Spectre, on 28 May 2019 - 11:06 PM, said:

I am really not getting that from his post. Which side each loyalist faction fights on in a given conflict is decided by their alliances, and you can't just choose to fight against your conflict. Some people are asking for that, but that is not in Paul's post at all, that I can see. What Paul's system is suggesting is that whenever it is a conflict involving an allied faction instead of your own, you automatically fight for your ally, and get 60% LP for your own faction, since you are not fighting directly for them. No choice, no bouncing around. It is always possible I am misunderstanding, but this seems pretty clear to me, and it does not allow loyalists to fight for whoever they want--you fight either for your own faction or your allied faction, depending on the conflict. In each conflict your side in the conflict is predecided because of your faction's alliances. (which I like, btw. I don't want this to sound like I'm saying it's bad)

I like it, you fight for your faction or there allies cause you are loyal, if you dont your not loyal.

[shaytalis]

Also to folks saying we should ignore everything but queue time: If we don't get FP to a point where it's fun to play, the problem wont be unbalanced queues but queues like this:

Edited by shaytalis, 29 May 2019 - 12:12 AM.

[Kinski Orlawisch]

Ghostdrops gone...Strong premades will not even get a drop now. Best defence against them is not to drop. After 1 hour of waiting...they disband.

No upgrades for owned planets..wait...we got mini events without any results. Who cares who won that event..It has no impact on anything.

The star map is just a picture now. You want more?

[shaytalis]

This is tangential to the topic at hand on it's face, but it winds up having a relationship with the penalties for changing loyalties.

The general topic is "Factions with a small population should not be as hard to leave."

Currently:

Something I'm running into on the current format is "stomps." And I don't mean a stomp in a match, but a stomp in a conflict. Looking at the current one:



We have another 11 hours to wait before another phase begins. Panthers are already up by 34 matches. The odds of Nova Cats winning are relatively low for this phase, so we're just waiting for another 11 hours for another phase to start. And even then, Panthers are up by 2 phase wins, meaning that that they have already won 2 out of 3. Will we have to fight a 3rd phase even though the Nova Cats can't win this conflict? Or will we move on to a new conflict since this one's already settled?


The relationship to faction loyalty:

If I want to be loyal to Nova Cats, but there are very few players for Nova Cats, my experience in the game is going to be very dismal. Do you have any numbers regarding the distribution of loyalties from before the FP update? How many Nova Cats, how many Steiners, etc? Were there any Factions that were way more populated than others? Any factions that were relatively low population? I'm imagining that the most popular are the ones which played a big roll in MW 2 (Jade Falcon, Wolf, and Ghost Bear), but I'm interested in both what the distribution was and also what could be done to help improve the distribution.

How this all relates to the penalties for leaving factions:

If I join Nova Cats because I find an active Unit, that Unit might disband later. If Nova Cats are rare, then if I want to play in a unit I have to abandon Nova Cats and join a different Faction or become a Mercenary etc.

Due to this dynamic, I might recommend making the penalty for leaving a Faction lower for smaller Factions. This could make sense in-characterly as well, since a larger Faction has more pull to punish defectors. If Jade Falcon is 2000 strong, they punish a defector hard (lose all Jade Falcon LP down to rank 5). If Nova Cats has 20 members, perhaps they're more like "come back any time!" (just pay a small C-Bill processing fee, your LP remains in our systems if you should return one day!). This should even be part of the loyalty pledge you take--spelling out what you will pay if you break loyalty from this Faction before you click "confirm." That way you know what to expect from each Faction. Might even encourage some folks to join smaller Factions that wont ride them so hard if they leave.

Edited by shaytalis, 29 May 2019 - 06:01 AM.

[Bishop Six]

[Redacted]

Edited by draiocht, 29 May 2019 - 07:50 AM.
unconstructive, replies removed

[GoodTry]

I think all of this is basically deck chairs on the titanic, if they don't make it easier to drop and to choose sides to get matches. All these elaborate loyalty systems will amount to nothing if there are no matches.

[shaytalis]

GoodTry, on 29 May 2019 - 04:15 AM, said:

I think all of this is basically deck chairs on the titanic, if they don't make it easier to drop and to choose sides to get matches. All these elaborate loyalty systems will amount to nothing if there are no matches.

So, we've made some suggestions on this. I think that maybe we need another thread for matchmaking suggestions / discussion. I'm not sure if Paul wants to have both running simultaneously, but separating it into two threads would probably be best.

My current suggestion for a hotfix is to change the existing three categories in the following way:

• Freelancer becomes "Mercenary Freelancer": Earn 150% C-bills, or 100% C-bills and 100% Merc Rep. [We can talk about what the reward should actually be, but something competitively attractive.] You fill either side of the conflict automatically as a Freelancer would, but you either get a C-bill boost or are treated like a normal Merc for rewards purposes. This would draw people currently selecting Mercenary and allow queues to fill faster.
  
• Mercenary becomes "Mercenary Contractor": Earn 100% C-Bill and 100% Merc Rep. [Again, we can talk about what these boosts should be.] You choose a side of the conflict that you want to represent. Slower queue time, but you get to pick your favorite faction.
  
• Loyalist remains as-is.

This would make it so that choosing "Freelancer" is no longer penalizing you for helping the queues fill faster. Which I think is a positive change, since "Freelancer" is the most helpful choice you can make while also being the least rewarding. And this change seems relatively minor from a programming standpoint. Lastly it avoids alienating anyone who prefers to be a Loyalist or prefers to be a Merc who is loyal to IS or Clan.



Again, though, this is a different topic and maybe needs a different thread. Case in point, we've been talking about it / proposing solutions for it but you didn't see it. I really want to talk about it too, a lot of us do, but we're trying not to derail the topic of the thread.

Edited by shaytalis, 29 May 2019 - 04:44 AM.