Jump to content

Not A Single Siege Game In Weeks.


70 replies to this topic

#1 theUgly

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 109 posts

Posted 04 June 2019 - 06:31 AM

What is it... only the Americans get to play siege mode now ?
Did Trump made an under the table deal with PGI
to keep his countrymen happy that we didnt hear about ?

Can we get some siege games at a reasonable Euro evening time?

#2 Grus

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Little Devil
  • Little Devil
  • 3,975 posts

Posted 04 June 2019 - 06:33 AM

Well PGI is Canadian so...

Had a run a few days ago where it was just skirmish. *balanced* roughnecks for days.

#3 theUgly

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 109 posts

Posted 04 June 2019 - 06:55 AM

View PostGrus, on 04 June 2019 - 06:33 AM, said:

Well PGI is Canadian so...

Had a run a few days ago where it was just skirmish. *balanced* roughnecks for days.


To be honest i dont know many Canadians playing this game .. only USA Americanos
who ... obviously support Trump to get a deal with PGI for Siege mode exclusivity.

At least ... my little trains of thoughts on the matter..

#4 Marquis De Lafayette

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Blazing
  • The Blazing
  • 1,166 posts
  • LocationIn Valley Forge with General Washington

Posted 04 June 2019 - 07:17 AM

View PosttheUgly, on 04 June 2019 - 06:55 AM, said:


To be honest i dont know many Canadians playing this game .. only USA Americanos
who ... obviously support Trump to get a deal with PGI for Siege mode exclusivity.

At least ... my little trains of thoughts on the matter..


Sorry world....but we told Trump there was a big wall (the gates) involved in this mode, that’s all it took for him to get involved! Plus, more Siege is one of the only things that the democrat, independent and republican playerbase can actually agree on. Lol

#makesiegegreatagain

#5 Charles Sennet

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Predator
  • The Predator
  • 230 posts
  • LocationCurrently obscured by ECM

Posted 04 June 2019 - 09:58 AM

Siege needs to be the dominant mode in Invasion. Not Conquest. Not Domination. Certainly not Scouting.

#6 theUgly

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 109 posts

Posted 04 June 2019 - 10:38 AM

View PostCharles Sennet, on 04 June 2019 - 09:58 AM, said:

Siege needs to be the dominant mode in Invasion. Not Conquest. Not Domination. Certainly not Scouting.


What is up with the PGI guys man ?
Veterans of CW want more siege games , no invisible walls
and a new map every few decades..

however the only thing they are thinking of is how to serve them
some more mech packs & promote their new game ?

My next lines will be redacted by the guy with the green shrift
somewhere in Guatemala that likes to tell how grown men should speak
or express themself couse it is not constructive..

#7 TWIAFU

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Pest
  • The Pest
  • 4,004 posts
  • LocationBell's Brewery, MI

Posted 04 June 2019 - 11:54 AM

View PosttheUgly, on 04 June 2019 - 06:55 AM, said:


To be honest i dont know many Canadians playing this game .. only USA Americanos
who ... obviously support Trump to get a deal with PGI for Siege mode exclusivity.

At least ... my little trains of thoughts on the matter..


Ugly, your ugly for bringing up the Ugly in Chief.

#8 Chris Lowrey

    Design Consultant

  • Developer
  • Developer
  • 311 posts

Posted 04 June 2019 - 11:59 AM

So I can speak on this to a limited degree.

First off, the stories / game mode structures are written in advance and do have branching paths that ends up dictating the next "mode" that is played in the conflict dependent on who the victor of the sub phase is. (At least under the current system presently on live. I am unaware of how much this will change with some of the new features that Paul is working on currently.) So to get a Siege mission, it would not only have to be written into the conflict, but you would have to get the branching path that leads to that mission type. Which it often is. It simply hasn't come up as much as it could have because of how various conflicts have played out so far.

For example, while the last instance of Siege mode being played was in the Davion / Liao conflict, it is a mode that has been possible to get in a large number of the conflicts present depending on the outcome of the various missions. In the previous conflict with House Steiner vs. Clan Steel Viper, had Steiner been successful in their Scouting operation to find their target, the second mission would have been a Siege Mission with the following story point text:

"Successfully scouting the region, Steiner forces have isolated the stronghold the Lyran Intelligence Corps have identified as housing Rene. The Lyrans must break through the base's defenses to give their commandos a window to find and extract Rene. "

For this opening release of the feature, we have kept a fairly even distribution, of game modes over the entirety of the conflicts, but as with anything, we can take feedback and attempt to structure Seige more frequently into earlier branches of the stories if that is what people would like to see. So feel free to voice that opinion here if you do want to have more paths lead to those kinds of engagements. We will be sure to work that into future conflicts.

#9 Jaybles-The-PegLeg-PotatoCaptain

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Raider
  • The Raider
  • 380 posts

Posted 04 June 2019 - 12:28 PM

View PostChris Lowrey, on 04 June 2019 - 11:59 AM, said:

So I can speak on this to a limited degree.

First off, the stories / game mode structures are written in advance and do have branching paths that ends up dictating the next "mode" that is played in the conflict dependent on who the victor of the sub phase is. (At least under the current system presently on live. I am unaware of how much this will change with some of the new features that Paul is working on currently.) So to get a Siege mission, it would not only have to be written into the conflict, but you would have to get the branching path that leads to that mission type. Which it often is. It simply hasn't come up as much as it could have because of how various conflicts have played out so far.

For example, while the last instance of Siege mode being played was in the Davion / Liao conflict, it is a mode that has been possible to get in a large number of the conflicts present depending on the outcome of the various missions. In the previous conflict with House Steiner vs. Clan Steel Viper, had Steiner been successful in their Scouting operation to find their target, the second mission would have been a Siege Mission with the following story point text:

"Successfully scouting the region, Steiner forces have isolated the stronghold the Lyran Intelligence Corps have identified as housing Rene. The Lyrans must break through the base's defenses to give their commandos a window to find and extract Rene. "

For this opening release of the feature, we have kept a fairly even distribution, of game modes over the entirety of the conflicts, but as with anything, we can take feedback and attempt to structure Seige more frequently into earlier branches of the stories if that is what people would like to see. So feel free to voice that opinion here if you do want to have more paths lead to those kinds of engagements. We will be sure to work that into future conflicts.


Always more siege always. Every time a change is made that makes siege happen less often, PGI has gone back and made adjustment to increase the frequency of siege. Please learn from this. Siege is considered by many to be the main game mode of FP and should be included in all events, storylines and conflicts.

Immersion as a storyline is great. But Immersion is pointless if it keeps people from playing the game modes they want to play.

#10 Captain Caveman DE

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Carnivore
  • The Carnivore
  • 291 posts

Posted 04 June 2019 - 12:56 PM

View PostChris Lowrey, on 04 June 2019 - 11:59 AM, said:

So I can speak on this to a limited degree.

First off, the stories / game mode structures are written in advance and do have branching paths that ends up dictating the next "mode" that is played in the conflict dependent on who the victor of the sub phase is. (At least under the current system presently on live. I am unaware of how much this will change with some of the new features that Paul is working on currently.) So to get a Siege mission, it would not only have to be written into the conflict, but you would have to get the branching path that leads to that mission type. Which it often is. It simply hasn't come up as much as it could have because of how various conflicts have played out so far.

For example, while the last instance of Siege mode being played was in the Davion / Liao conflict, it is a mode that has been possible to get in a large number of the conflicts present depending on the outcome of the various missions. In the previous conflict with House Steiner vs. Clan Steel Viper, had Steiner been successful in their Scouting operation to find their target, the second mission would have been a Siege Mission with the following story point text:

"Successfully scouting the region, Steiner forces have isolated the stronghold the Lyran Intelligence Corps have identified as housing Rene. The Lyrans must break through the base's defenses to give their commandos a window to find and extract Rene. "

For this opening release of the feature, we have kept a fairly even distribution, of game modes over the entirety of the conflicts, but as with anything, we can take feedback and attempt to structure Seige more frequently into earlier branches of the stories if that is what people would like to see. So feel free to voice that opinion here if you do want to have more paths lead to those kinds of engagements. We will be sure to work that into future conflicts.



thx for that, chris (and paul I guess). I think this clears up quite a bit.
I really do like your story-driven-conflicts -in concept- but:
yo gotta do something about durations / missions.
example to help understanding the situation:
you drive around the "arc de triomphe" and go "wow.. Posted Image "
then, your wife suggests you drive that circle for the next 8 hours.

https://images-cdn.9...z94NPq_460s.jpg

Posted Image ...Posted Image




we really need some more random games/maps/fun. I love conquest in fw, but I can't bear to do it for 8hours. hell, not even for 3 games in a row. same goes for any other mode.
maybe you could randomise maps&modes a bit, and still be faithful to the story that unfolds. just keep it a bit vague here and there, and you can shake things up.



oh, and while we're on it and your still in the concepts - is there a way for you to avoid certain map&mode combinations?
examples:
-skirmish on polar / alpine is a never-ending snipe-fest. many people dislike it. conquest on those map is fine, though.
-same goes for caustic btw



here's one more thought, just hoping anyone is reading/listening:
you have different weapon profiles for solaris and the rest of the game, with flamers especially. was a good thing btw.
can we have something similar for narcs in faction? like lowering the narcs lifetime/speed/health?
same reasoning as above: on many maps, somebody in the group says "I bring narcs" - and the game turns into a lurmfest that NOBODY (well.. a few 'special' people) enjoys.
if we maybe could give the narc a beating here and there, games would be more fun for A LOT of us.

thx Posted Image

Edited by Captain Caveman DE, 04 June 2019 - 01:03 PM.


#11 theUgly

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 109 posts

Posted 04 June 2019 - 01:07 PM

View PostChris Lowrey, on 04 June 2019 - 11:59 AM, said:

So I can speak on this to a limited degree.

First off, the stories / game mode structures are written in advance and do have branching paths that ends up dictating the next "mode" that is played in the conflict dependent on who the victor of the sub phase is. (At least under the current system presently on live. I am unaware of how much this will change with some of the new features that Paul is working on currently.) So to get a Siege mission, it would not only have to be written into the conflict, but you would have to get the branching path that leads to that mission type. Which it often is. It simply hasn't come up as much as it could have because of how various conflicts have played out so far.

For example, while the last instance of Siege mode being played was in the Davion / Liao conflict, it is a mode that has been possible to get in a large number of the conflicts present depending on the outcome of the various missions. In the previous conflict with House Steiner vs. Clan Steel Viper, had Steiner been successful in their Scouting operation to find their target, the second mission would have been a Siege Mission with the following story point text:

"Successfully scouting the region, Steiner forces have isolated the stronghold the Lyran Intelligence Corps have identified as housing Rene. The Lyrans must break through the base's defenses to give their commandos a window to find and extract Rene. "

For this opening release of the feature, we have kept a fairly even distribution, of game modes over the entirety of the conflicts, but as with anything, we can take feedback and attempt to structure Seige more frequently into earlier branches of the stories if that is what people would like to see. So feel free to voice that opinion here if you do want to have more paths lead to those kinds of engagements. We will be sure to work that into future conflicts.


If you are really reading this.. read what Jables has posted .
No point in typing anything else other than what the man has stated already.

Make changes as per the vets' will that have supported the game
for years ,, because the vets are the ones supposed to be guiding
the new players into CW.

#12 Chris Lowrey

    Design Consultant

  • Developer
  • Developer
  • 311 posts

Posted 04 June 2019 - 01:25 PM

View PosttheUgly, on 04 June 2019 - 01:07 PM, said:


If you are really reading this.. read what Jables has posted .
No point in typing anything else other than what the man has stated already.

Make changes as per the vets' will that have supported the game
for years ,, because the vets are the ones supposed to be guiding
the new players into CW.


As I said in the original post, for this opening salvo of stories, all modes are fairly well represented at the top down level, including Siege mode. (Only scouting mode has restrictions on it as it will only appear as the first stage of a conflict, if a Conflict uses the mode at all.) We have nothing against providing more Siege maps as a central feature if it is needed.

While I do not know of any conflicts that open up with Siege mode, I do know that most campaigns are crafted with a path towards it somewhere along the path dependent on the story being told at that time. So they are there, but we will continue to observe how often they come up in the wild and make adjustments where we need to.

#13 Mean Machine Angel x

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • The Icon
  • The Icon
  • 101 posts

Posted 04 June 2019 - 01:28 PM

A story mode nobody wanted,we stopped giving a **** about that rubbish when the longtom turned up andt ook forever to get rid of.If PGI wanted to do well they would of stopped with the mechpacks were content ******** and should of done what everyone was wanting.. BETTER DAMN MAPS.Screw balance,new maps..fresh gameplay.Kill choke points,maps that where it wasn't really just run straight at the enemy and not use 90% of the map.
PGI killed this by not listening.They can be as thin skninned about it as they like but anyone who has been here for a few years has seen the same pattern.PGI promises,PGI ***** up,PGI says "everything working as intended" Community goes..uugghhh wtf is this happy horse ****?!, PGI goes " you guys are on an island and dont understand the game that you play constantly and we never do" Community has a melt down (fair enough) PGI goes "oohh we do fix in 3 weeks (PGI speak for atleast 6 months), But here buy a mechpack of a mech that is either useless or op and will be nerfed anyway ,more people leave and PGI keeps doing things that there just ISNT the population to do anymore.
The worst thing about it is as far as I am concerned its just a few at he top ruining PGI (the ego is obvious).We all have respect for a lot of the PGI staff.The artists,modlers,support folk are all excellent.And I for one appreciate what they do.So with that in mind I think instead of us ranting about PGI,maybe we should start putting the blame on the few that deserve it and not PGI as a whole,it cant be nice for Matt and co to come in and read "RAAAAA PGI REEEEE" (Ive done it and will do it again :P) when they are no doubt doing the best they can.
SO THANK YOU TOO ALL THE HARD WORKING FOLK AT PGI.PLEASE UNDERSTAND OUR FRUSTRATIONS ARE NOT AIMED AT YOU,JUST THOSE THAT GREEN LIGHT RED LIGHT IDEAS.

#14 theUgly

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 109 posts

Posted 04 June 2019 - 01:45 PM

View PostChris Lowrey, on 04 June 2019 - 01:25 PM, said:


As I said in the original post, for this opening salvo of stories, all modes are fairly well represented at the top down level, including Siege mode. (Only scouting mode has restrictions on it as it will only appear as the first stage of a conflict, if a Conflict uses the mode at all.) We have nothing against providing more Siege maps as a central feature if it is needed.

While I do not know of any conflicts that open up with Siege mode, I do know that most campaigns are crafted with a path towards it somewhere along the path dependent on the story being told at that time. So they are there, but we will continue to observe how often they come up in the wild and make adjustments where we need to.


What words mean means nothing man.
What my headlines states means what 100 pct
of your European CW population experiences during after working hours
and that is for weeks.

#15 Jaybles-The-PegLeg-PotatoCaptain

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Raider
  • The Raider
  • 380 posts

Posted 04 June 2019 - 02:31 PM

View PostChris Lowrey, on 04 June 2019 - 01:25 PM, said:


As I said in the original post, for this opening salvo of stories, all modes are fairly well represented at the top down level, including Siege mode. (Only scouting mode has restrictions on it as it will only appear as the first stage of a conflict, if a Conflict uses the mode at all.) We have nothing against providing more Siege maps as a central feature if it is needed.

While I do not know of any conflicts that open up with Siege mode, I do know that most campaigns are crafted with a path towards it somewhere along the path dependent on the story being told at that time. So they are there, but we will continue to observe how often they come up in the wild and make adjustments where we need to.


This is entirely personal and one-sided, but I work 1PM PST-1AMPST for the next 23 days straight. My only playtime is from about 1AMPST-3AMPST. Assuming I can even get a match, How many of those 23 days would have a siege window during 1AM-3AM? At least with the old system, there was a % chance of a siege map. I've played since 2013 and play almost exclusively Faction play. Mostly because I enjoy siege so much. Why should I keep playing everyday if my chance of playing my favorite mode is what? once every 3rd day? every 5th day? Less?

Thanks for the cool story though.

#16 Chris Lowrey

    Design Consultant

  • Developer
  • Developer
  • 311 posts

Posted 04 June 2019 - 03:11 PM

View PostJaybles-The-PegLeg-PotatoCaptain, on 04 June 2019 - 02:31 PM, said:


This is entirely personal and one-sided, but I work 1PM PST-1AMPST for the next 23 days straight. My only playtime is from about 1AMPST-3AMPST. Assuming I can even get a match, How many of those 23 days would have a siege window during 1AM-3AM? At least with the old system, there was a % chance of a siege map. I've played since 2013 and play almost exclusively Faction play. Mostly because I enjoy siege so much. Why should I keep playing everyday if my chance of playing my favorite mode is what? once every 3rd day? every 5th day? Less?

Thanks for the cool story though.


So a few things to unpack here, the first being multiple modes topic. As Paul has indicated in his other posts, we are aware of that feedback and are moving in that direction. Past what he has said on the subject, I wouldn't be able to add to that discussion as I have no direct involvement with that aspect of production. I would only be able to comment on the system that I am working with currently that is in place right now.

So taking a quick peek at the current conflict, at the time of this writing it has about 10 minutes to go before it is resolved and the next conflict starts. 1AM PST-3AM PST would put you at about the "late Phase 2, Phase 3" sections of the conflicts. Depending on how the time is set up. So there is good and bad news if you are a fan of Siege mode. The good news is that Phase 2 and 3 are the most "common" areas that Siege mode appears in conflicts due to them being a natural fit for meatier story mid-points / climaxes. So for a lot of the stories that have already been written and are on deck to come up, you are in the time zone that would be most likely to get them. But the bad news would be that especially where phase 3 is concerned, its also the most dependent on what happens in the earlier story segments that build up to that point. So even if I say that particular time zone is favorably weighted to get Siege mode, there is little I can do to guarantee that they will show, as it will heavily depend how the result of the earlier conflicts play out.

Best I can say from my position is that I can guarantee a large number of conflicts do have paths to that game mode. In some cases multiple paths. (One branch might see it crop up in phase 2 while the other branch has it as a possibility in Phase 3.) Even the most recent conflict playing now just had a Siege phase wrap up.

If that is still not enough, we have no issues with working in more paths towards Siege in current conflicts under the system we have now. But anything different from that will be dependent on features that are currently not in-play and I would not have much info to speak on.

TLDR: Siege phases are there in the events going on now, but they still need to be pathed into. And we have no issues working them in more frequently into future conflicts if that is what is wanted.

#17 Jaybles-The-PegLeg-PotatoCaptain

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Raider
  • The Raider
  • 380 posts

Posted 04 June 2019 - 03:27 PM

So, that maybe works out in my favor, but for Ugly who is about 12 hours different from me, he would be locked into phase 1 from the sounds of things. In other words, the people who play at the same time every day will see the same phases? Phases and conflicts should at the very least be set to rotate start times over a 24 hour period since you have a global population. Instead of 8 hour conflicts, do 7 hours? That way the different phases at least cycle through the various time zones. This makes it harder for me to catch siege, but gives everyone globally equal access.

#18 Wing 0

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Mercenary
  • The Mercenary
  • 748 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 04 June 2019 - 03:36 PM

No offense Chris but many of us have grown very weary with PGI's ability to provide what was asked for since the day the Quick Play maps were brought in. You need to understand that some of this stuff did seem fine to an extent. However; The majority of the players who generally play Faction Play on a daily basis like me, Jaybles, and many others never had their voices heard and sadly we could've done a better job on this matter then what the clowns you guys brought in did. As many of us all know, you guys never play the mode. Not even once have I ever seen you playing it.

Before this tug of war system came in, you guys were listening to clowns who DONT PLAY FACTION PLAY. The Clowns who brought the Tug of War idea never Played Faction Play when it went live and those ppl were in Bombadil's Unit. Thats right folks. The NGNG Bombadil. Not once have I ever seen them in this mode since their idea feature went live. Even NGNG's SeanLang wouldn't dare to touch this mode since the day he and his Unit got butchered by a 12 man group on Emerald Taiga Counter-Attack mode in Phase 3. Don't like calling certain people out but it was clear that the evidence was needed to be pointed it out on who started this charade.

This is why I have lost faith in PGI. Untill you speak to the ACTUAL players who are actively playing on faction play daily, I will not trust PGI and their word.

Edited by Wing 0, 04 June 2019 - 03:37 PM.


#19 Chris Lowrey

    Design Consultant

  • Developer
  • Developer
  • 311 posts

Posted 04 June 2019 - 03:42 PM

View PostJaybles-The-PegLeg-PotatoCaptain, on 04 June 2019 - 03:27 PM, said:

So, that maybe works out in my favor, but for Ugly who is about 12 hours different from me, he would be locked into phase 1 from the sounds of things. In other words, the people who play at the same time every day will see the same phases? Phases and conflicts should at the very least be set to rotate start times over a 24 hour period since you have a global population. Instead of 8 hour conflicts, do 7 hours? That way the different phases at least cycle through the various time zones. This makes it harder for me to catch siege, but gives everyone globally equal access.


We do cycle the times for this very reason, and Phase 1, while the most predictable on the design side because it is the only thing we have absolute control over, is not eternally trapped in single modes. Just like all of our stories, there is no set template with what mode is in that slot. The most recent Siege mode mentioned in the previous post between the FRR and Wolf was a Phase 1 Siege Mode.

The only difference between Phase 1 and Phase 3 from a game mode standpoint is that Phase 1 is designed to be the only phase that Scouting drops in, and it is the only stage that we can guarantee designer control over the modes before the players influence the campaign. But beyond that, we are not limited, nor have we limited, the types of modes that appear in that phase. Including Siege mode.

#20 Nightbird

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Soviet
  • The Soviet
  • 4,511 posts

Posted 04 June 2019 - 03:44 PM

To be fair Wing 0, Ash plays FP often and he advocated for the new MM in FP. *shrug*





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users