429 replies to this topic

[Roland09]

Yep, it does.

(Virtual guarantee that your suggestion will never be taken up, though.)

[TWIAFU]

Roland09, on 05 June 2019 - 08:42 AM, said:

Yep, it does.

(Virtual guarantee that your suggestion will never be taken up, though.)

Here that pal! Just happy I was able to put into words AND make sense on some level.

o7

[shaytalis]

One complaint on the video I didn't see any barn door transitions.

[Chuckie]

Im at a loss... I cant get my unit to be loyalist at all.. I can't even figure out what this "ROLE" is supposed to be for my unit.

All I see is a choice between two currently fighting sides ( both Clan) who I have to be loyal to.. and I am a IS unit.. so.... Paul help me out here.

What is going on ?

Have you nerfed units so they no longer matter ?

Is this all temporary as you work on the backend ?

How come there isnt a chat anymore to talk to other players ? outside of the short window when we launch ?

It really seems like the game has removed a lot, added a few not quite finished parts back in its place and removed all community from the community warfare.

Also If you guys are not going to update the forums with new content in Devs Corner.. Delete it. Its all over a year old.

The Faction section of the forum is also voer a year or more old.. most the posts here are.. really makes it look like PGI is abandoning the game.

But thats just me.. or is it.. ?

[Deathshade]

Woohoo. You can switch factions between missions types. cheers!

[BenMillard]

@Paul the user interface to change sides is broken.

Role ¦ Faction [Submit]

It starts with "Role" selected and there's a [Submit] button. I choose "Loyalist" and click "Submit" so I can move to the next step. Click through some confirmation box, dunno why that is needed.

Oh.

It already had selected a Faction for me, unseen, on the "Faction" screen.

Huh?

There shouldn't be anything selected on the "Faction" tab before I have even looked at it. The whole point of this interface is for players to choose their faction, not for the game to choose for them, hidden from view.

Don't show an active [Submit] button until the player has chosen for themselves. The form is not complete and is not ready to be submitted until the player selected the faction for themselves. This button could be shown on both tabs but should only be enabled when the player has actually chose both parts.

If anything, the [Submit] button should be on the second tab, the one for "Faction", not the first one for "Role".

On the Public Test Server (PTS) this interface was broken in a different way: selecting the "Role" would automatically move the player to the "Faction" tab but there was no way to go back on this afterwards. There was also a default selection which would 'stick' or the interface would kind of get locked up, so you couldn't choose anything.

It simply wasn't ready for release. All you've given us is a broken FP with the prospect of months of regressions as hurried hotfixes get rolled out without adequate testing.

EDIT: And this is after we already waited months and months in the hope of PGI finally doing something good.

EDIT2: Increasing FP lobby time from 1 minute to 1 minute 30 seconds is nice!

Edited by BenMillard, 06 June 2019 - 03:51 PM.

[-Spectre]

0_o Paul likes Dracos, I guess (first time able to get on here since the video--been covered up)

I actually really like the idea of a permanent faction loyalty break costing MC. It does make sense to be addressed the same way as a name change. Both are "permanent" things that define your account and "character," so it makes sense for them to have similar change processes. For the non-permanent loyalty, I think 5 million is a very reasonable amount. It discourages hopping around, but is not bank breaking for once or twice, even for a new player. Perhaps add something like a Cadet Bonus for Faction Play, to fund experimentation or something, until people figure out what they want to do?

Another thing to further encourage permanent loyalty: rather than simply having a boost to conflicts involving your specific faction, why not have a permanent loyalist earn 100% LP when fighting for allies? Basically, it would be explained as, since you are permanent, the faction can rely on you to be loyal, and would have confidence in you no matter who you are fighting for.
It could also be done as a universal boost to LP gains universally from all sources. So something like mercs earn x(low)% LP for their contracted faction, trial loyalists earn LP as in the video, and permanent loyalists earn a level ~30% increase to LP gains from all sources.

To those people saying that having a 5 mil cbill penalty for faction hopping will break queues: if you want to hop factions, go merc. That's all there is to that. Mercs are the queue balancers. We are talking about Loyalists here, and the whole point of Loyalists is to be loyal, not to balance queues. The whole point of mercs is to be able to move around (including balancing queues).

Also, in regards to the level 20 problem, I definitely agree that it is something that needs to be fixed in order to attract more players to loyalty, but perhaps it isn't a problem to fix right now? I would love to see it fixed, and I have seen some great suggestions (MC/mech bays every x LP past level 20, cycling back through the level rewards, etc), but that is not necessarily a new problem. But Paul, if you do want to tackle this now, I (and we) would love to help, and I would love to see it fixed now, if it won't cause problems with getting us back on the road.

Finally, to the people that say it is too complicated. For one thing, I don't think it's all that complicated, but also, the basic gist is that you get the most stuff for fighting for your faction, and you get less for the others, depending on how much your faction likes them. That makes perfect sense, and is all a new player needs to know. The exact numbers don't have to be shoved in a new player's face, just the idea, and the numbers are for us over here trying to tweak the system.

P.S. I still really don't like the idea of my Ghost Bears being allied with the Jade Falcons >: (

Edited by -Spectre, 07 June 2019 - 06:46 AM.

[-Spectre]

One last word about the alliances. I won't complain too much if they go through as planned, but I think who is allied with whom could be seriously reconsidered, at least on the Clan side (IS could potentially be better, but it's about right as proposed). I addressed these before, and I will quote the relevant portions here:

Quote

Um, this means that Wolf is the only territory holder in this alliance. That could cause some serious problems, especially with the idea of SJ ever being included directly in a Clan v Clan conflict

<snip>

One big problem that seems to have been overlooked here (that I touched on briefly earlier) is that three of the Clans currently in the game do not hold any territory on the map. This could be fixed by lumping the Clans without territory into the same position as the Clan whose territory they share (SV/JF, DS/GB, NC/SJ). I would highly recommend that approach to the Clans, outlined more functionally in a couple paragraphs.

Back to the idea of Clan alliance functionality, why not go by the Clans that shared space during the reinforcement wave? JF/SV shared space, GB/DS shared space, and SJ/NC shared space. That would put you with alliances as either JF/SV/Wolf vs BG/DS/SJ/NC, or JF/SV/SJ/NC vs GB/DS/Wolf (my personal preference, and what makes the most sense to me lore-wise), to make sure everyone has a border to fight on during Clan vs Clan conflicts.

I think this is the best solution for Clan vs Clan events, combined with the idea that you can use SJ territory as NC territory, etc. The way that would work is you would announce, say, Nova Cat vs Ghost Bear, and the highlighted zones would be SJ territory and GB territory, since the Nova Cats inhabited the SJ territory. It would still be a Nova Cat event, so 100% of Nova Cat loyalists’ LP go to their Nova Cat loyalty, but it would be in SJ space, since that is where they were in the Inner Sphere. This can be reflected on the map by showing both Clans’ emblems in their region of space on the map. What is currently listed as Jade Falcon territory would now have both the JF emblem and the Steel Viper emblem, what is currently listed as Ghost Bear territory would have both the Ghost Bear emblem and the Diamond Shark emblem, and what is currently listed as Smoke Jaguar territory would have both the SJ emblem and the Nova Cat emblem. To further help this territory layout work functionally it would have to be either the inner two territories against the outer two territories (Wolf/GB/DS vs SV/JF/SJ/NC) or alternate territories vs each other (SV/JF/GB/DS vs Wolf/SJ/NC). I think inner vs outer makes more sense lore wise, but both layouts give everyone a border to fight on.

The other alliance that makes sense to me would be looking at their overall philosophical focuses, which would put it as Wolf/GB/NC vs JF/SV/SJ, with DS more likely belonging to the first group, just because their views could make them more money But this is mostly looking at overall Warden vs Crusader mentalities, which you said you had already addressed.
I mostly just don’t quite understand the thought behind the alliances you propose, either from a lore perspective or a gameplay perspective, since every Clan v Clan engagement under this alliance system would have to be Wolf vs someone else.

<snip>

This system will inherently stiff Davion, Liao, and Marik, as well as all Clans without territory. The problem of the Clans without territory could be fixed by my earlier suggestion in that regard, but that still leaves the problem of the IS houses that don’t border the Clans (incidentally, that is exactly why Marik was very hard to convince to help fight the Clans, and why Liao didn’t help at all—they didn’t have a dog in the fight). One easy solution would be to implement my earlier suggestion of still earning the max LP payout, but in a 60/40 split between the pledged faction and the allied faction. I don’t think this is necessarily the best solution for THIS problem, but is an easy solution, and a functional one. Just might step on a few toes, since it still means that Davion, Liao, and Marik will never get a chance to earn 100% LP for their faction in a Clan vs IS conflict.

Edited by -Spectre, 07 June 2019 - 06:47 AM.

[ThirdWorld]

Just make mercenaries able to join either side as fillers for the match makers.

Make it so people pledge to a faction and if their faction isn't in play, they can switch to one in play or que as a mercenary.

[eddieb]

"- This Alliance (Steiner/Davion/FRR) will always provide LP to their respective partners."

So as stated before this causes a problem because Steiner can't fight Davion in a Civil War scenario.

The answer to this problem is to make the alliances configurable/adjustable, so you could put Davion and Steiner on opposite sides if needed. Just don't hard-code alliances.

[Cato Zilks]

Paul, there are several points that the video did not touch on that really need to be worked on for the discussion to move forward.

1) How do you want to solve the maxed out LP tree problem? None of what you laid out will matter at all without that solution.
2) We have been very clear that Loyalists earning 80% while Mercs always earn 100% is not fair. We want to see a system where Mercs and Loyalist earn roughly similar LP in most matches while Loyalists get a bonus when fighting for their faction. The balancing aspect is the loyalist loses the ability to take the faster side of the queue and may very well be forced to have fewer matches.
3) Are loyalists forced to fight for their faction/alliance or only incentivized via LP earnings? The community is operating with the assumption that it is a forced choice and it is an integral part of how we give feedback.
4) There have been a lot of requests for alliances to shift for different stories/timelines. Are you giving this consideration or are the techs saying that is a pipedream? Again, this is a big one for the longevity of the mode.

[Bad Electric]

Suggestion/request: Bring back scouting, or come up with some other method or game play that allows 4 man teams to go head to head (preferably within faction play). We have a small unit but have many solo players from other units that join us on any given night to participate in scouting matches that run the entire evening. It also allows for faster paced matches (10 minutes or so vs 25) not to mention getting small units steam rolled as they squeeze into a random 12 man faction fight that ends up being more like team quick play, With the exception of running into a 12 man unit that base ***** you for 4 drops. (worst part of faction play). Hence the need for 4 man mode...

Allowing pilots to work on small unit tactics and working as a "lance" vs a 12 man group of 3 lances has been great since scouting was implemented. It's been a great addition to faction play and will be sorely missed if some iteration of 4 man lance play is not incorporated back into the system.

[Gilgamecc]

I'd love to see a system where units can buy and build out mechs, either as a unit-locked Trial mech that certain ranks can modify and the rank-and-file can use as needed, or they could be awarded to specific unit members by leadership for whatever reason the unit has. It would give a purpose to unit coffers beyond invitations, and it would make on-boarding new players to Faction Play much, much faster for an established unit.

Lately we (CSPS) have been meeting and picking up quite a few players who have potential but haven't been playing for terribly long. Having a way for units to reward and encourage their new pilots with Faction-appropriate mechs would be an incredible mechanic for the community of a long-running game like this one.

Maybe it would be beneficial to PGI's side of things to lock unit-awarded mechs to Faction Play, to avoid disrupting the MWO economy too much. That would further differentiate FP from QP, and would give incentive and motivation to players who otherwise might be disinterested in learning the FP ropes.

Bad Electric, on 09 June 2019 - 08:59 AM, said:

Suggestion/request: Bring back scouting, or come up with some other method or game play that allows 4 man teams to go head to head (preferably within faction play). We have a small unit but have many solo players from other units that join us on any given night to participate in scouting matches that run the entire evening. It also allows for faster paced matches (10 minutes or so vs 25) not to mention getting small units steam rolled as they squeeze into a random 12 man faction fight that ends up being more like team quick play, With the exception of running into a 12 man unit that base ***** you for 4 drops. (worst part of faction play). Hence the need for 4 man mode...

Allowing pilots to work on small unit tactics and working as a "lance" vs a 12 man group of 3 lances has been great since scouting was implemented. It's been a great addition to faction play and will be sorely missed if some iteration of 4 man lance play is not incorporated back into the system.

HUGE AGREEMENCE

[Gilgamecc]

ThirdWorld, on 08 June 2019 - 05:05 AM, said:

Just make mercenaries able to join either side as fillers for the match makers.

Make it so people pledge to a faction and if their faction isn't in play, they can switch to one in play or que as a mercenary.

It could be called an 'Attache' role, where the pilot is treated in much the same way as modern soldiers may be embedded with both allied and unallied friendly forces to advise and participate in specific missions.

[Lims Cragma]

@Paul, you guys need to roll back the FP-patch ASAP. Not only it made the FP worse and less populated than before, it is also glitchy to a point of unplayability. Last night I tried to play for Jade Falcons and the game did not let me do it - kept sending me back to the Carrier Path screen. I understand MWO is not a priority for PGI at the moment, but you can kill the game sooner than you expect by introducing such drastic and untested changes like this.

[Paul Inouye]

*Looks for can of worms*

*Finds a couple*

*Opens them*

There are some things that are coming up that I find a little surprising, but while they make sense, it seems to go against feedback from long ago.

1) What is your thought on MC to switch factions from being a 'permanent' loyalist? To be 100% honest, I personally think this is a bit heavy handed. I know it has precedence in other faction based games (mostly MMOs).

2) Reduce FP rewards to a single tree to prevent reward chasing and flip flopping Factions. e.g. You earn that small laser you've been grinding for in Smoke Jaguar. You switch your Faction to Steiner (dunno why but let's roll with it), and grind your way up to that small laser reward level but you don't get it cause you already did with Smoke Jaguar. Thoughts?

Some thoughts to think about as well:

3) If we increase Loyalist ranks by another 20 ranks (Hero of Marik I, Hero of Marik II, Hero of Marik III... Legend of Marik X) as well as expand the reward table accordingly, is this something that would be of interest? Remember, these are additional ranks past the current Rank 20 and each rank is higher on the LP requirement curve.

4) Faction LP gains being 100% when playing for an ally instead of being reduced. Thoughts? The 'permanent' loyalist still gets a bonus for playing while their Faction is in a Conflict.

With those questions thrown out there... I'll be summarizing what we have so far in the overall discussion in the next couple of days.

[slide]

Thanks Paul.

1. I agree MC is a bit heavy handed because it might require an actual real money purchase to achieve. Cbills or LP loss in my book would be ok.

2. Mechbay tours as they were known were a staple of the transient population and the prime reason why people (particularly mercs) before the merc tree was introduced swapped factions. Grind level 6, get mech bay and move on. Then repeat to level 10. I personally got about 10-12 mechbays this way just from the IS side. A single tree would eliminate this issue, however the tree would need a lot more branches.

3. By all means expand the tree, but doubling every level would be pointless as you would need approx 1 trillion LP to get to rank 40, which is clearly impossible. IMO redo the tree into 1, with 40-50 levels capping out at around 10 million LP. That should be plenty for most people to grind

4. If you combine into 1 tree this point becomes redundant, introduce loyalist specific rewards like mechs, badges, paints etc

Would you like me to create a sample LP tree?

[Nightbird]

Paul Inouye, on 10 June 2019 - 04:04 PM, said:

*Looks for can of worms*

*Finds a couple*

*Opens them*

There are some things that are coming up that I find a little surprising, but while they make sense, it seems to go against feedback from long ago.

1) What is your thought on MC to switch factions from being a 'permanent' loyalist? To be 100% honest, I personally think this is a bit heavy handed. I know it has precedence in other faction based games (mostly MMOs).

2) Reduce FP rewards to a single tree to prevent reward chasing and flip flopping Factions. e.g. You earn that small laser you've been grinding for in Smoke Jaguar. You switch your Faction to Steiner (dunno why but let's roll with it), and grind your way up to that small laser reward level but you don't get it cause you already did with Smoke Jaguar. Thoughts?

Some thoughts to think about as well:

3) If we increase Loyalist ranks by another 20 ranks (Hero of Marik I, Hero of Marik II, Hero of Marik III... Legend of Marik X) as well as expand the reward table accordingly, is this something that would be of interest? Remember, these are additional ranks past the current Rank 20 and each rank is higher on the LP requirement curve.

4) Faction LP gains being 100% when playing for an ally instead of being reduced. Thoughts? The 'permanent' loyalist still gets a bonus for playing while their Faction is in a Conflict.

With those questions thrown out there... I'll be summarizing what we have so far in the overall discussion in the next couple of days.

1) YES, makes the cost enough to make reward chasing pointless

2) If there is a big MC cost to breaking perm loyalist contracts, it may not be worth the headache consolidating everyone's fragmented trees today without angering anyone. You're welcome to try... but those rank 20 Kurita loyalists are crazies

3) YYYYYYYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

4) If there is a way to limit you to only fighting for an ally when the choice is available, and when neither your own faction nor an ally is available, the player is sent out as an intelligence mission undercover, you can reduce the penalties to participate in every event, which is what you want. Please no lower than 80 or 90% LP earnings for participating.

[Omniseed]

I'm against making the loyalty paths hard-locked. It's a dumb idea even with a buy-out.

I think a probation period to encourage loyalists (not mercs) to keep their faction-swapping to a minimum is a solid approach.

I also think that consolidating all of the loyalist trees into one reward path like the merc tree is a mistake. The current system is a grind to get all the way up a faction's tree, and at the higher levels it is rewarding and feels good to make a new rank. Without the rewards, the ranks are more or less nothing though.

[Cato Zilks]

Paul Inouye, on 10 June 2019 - 04:04 PM, said:

1) What is your thought on MC to switch factions from being a 'permanent' loyalist? To be 100% honest, I personally think this is a bit heavy handed. I know it has precedence in other faction based games (mostly MMOs).

2) Reduce FP rewards to a single tree to prevent reward chasing and flip flopping Factions. e.g. You earn that small laser you've been grinding for in Smoke Jaguar. You switch your Faction to Steiner (dunno why but let's roll with it), and grind your way up to that small laser reward level but you don't get it cause you already did with Smoke Jaguar. Thoughts?

3) If we increase Loyalist ranks by another 20 ranks (Hero of Marik I, Hero of Marik II, Hero of Marik III... Legend of Marik X) as well as expand the reward table accordingly, is this something that would be of interest? Remember, these are additional ranks past the current Rank 20 and each rank is higher on the LP requirement curve.

4) Faction LP gains being 100% when playing for an ally instead of being reduced. Thoughts? The 'permanent' loyalist still gets a bonus for playing while their Faction is in a Conflict.

1) Yes, MC is the right call. 1000 is reasonable.
2) No, this is not a good plan.
3) Yes, give insane amounts of faction gear post 20 (like 50 faction warhorns for lvl 30).
4) Yes.

Paul, we still need answers regarding two things:
a) Are loyalists forced to fight for their faction/alliance or only incentivized via LP earnings?

b ) There have been a lot of requests for alliances to shift for different stories/timelines. Are you giving this consideration?

Edited by Cato Zilks, 10 June 2019 - 05:53 PM.