Jump to content

Not A Single Siege Game In Weeks.


70 replies to this topic

#21 Jaybles-The-PegLeg-PotatoCaptain

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Raider
  • The Raider
  • 380 posts

Posted 04 June 2019 - 03:53 PM

View PostChris Lowrey, on 04 June 2019 - 03:42 PM, said:


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 it is designed to be the only mode that Scouting drops in, and it is the only stage that we can guarantee designer control over 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.


So.... only for tonight and maybe tomorrow I would be in Phase2/3 prime for siege mode, and then I wouldn't see it again for a couple days or so? Which brings me back to my previous post of only seeing siege once or twice a week in my playtime. I know you have stated that you are not involved in that part of production. But you are at least acknowledging the problem from a player's perspective of being unable to play the particular modes that they favor. Thank you for that.

#22 Nathan White

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Deadly
  • The Deadly
  • 349 posts

Posted 04 June 2019 - 03:53 PM

View PostNightbird, on 04 June 2019 - 03:44 PM, said:

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

Opinion of Ash against opinions Vorteex or Serial Number or other FP fun - zero. Yeah, he sometimes play FP. But Vorteex - live in this game mode.

#23 Chris Lowrey

    Design Consultant

  • Developer
  • Developer
  • 311 posts

Posted 04 June 2019 - 03:54 PM

View PostWing 0, on 04 June 2019 - 03:36 PM, said:

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.


I would not be speaking up in this forum if I wasn't trying to take in feedback from those that enjoy the mode.

I cannot speak to how these features got implemented as I was not involved with their production, nor am I involved with the production on any of the new features that Paul has mentioned in other threads. As you have said, my primary focus has not up to this point been Faction Play. Those kinds of conversations would have to go in their respective threads to reach the people actually involved with their production. As I simply wouldn't be the one that would be able to speak on those points.

I can only speak to the things that I do have direct control over. Which in this case is using the system I have to craft the conflicts themselves. So while I am not the ideal guy to take in feedback on larger point macro systems that govern everything in Faction play, I can say that I'm more then willing to take in feedback on the things that I do have direct control over, which in this case is using the system I have available to me to craft the story points, and the general flow of the different phases of conflicts.

#24 Nightbird

    Member

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

Posted 04 June 2019 - 03:56 PM

View PostNathan White, on 04 June 2019 - 03:53 PM, said:

Opinion of Ash against opinions Vorteex or Serial Number or other FP fun - zero. Yeah, he sometimes play FP. But Vorteex - live in this game mode.


Correct me if I'm wrong, didn't Ash have dinner with Paul/Russ during Mechcon December last year where he advocated for this MM idea ultimately leading to it being implemented?

He does play it quite a lot, enough to know all of its problems. Then again, he was also against tonnage handicaps to weaken strong teams and reduce stomps so I'm not quite sure where he stands.

Edited by Nightbird, 04 June 2019 - 03:57 PM.


#25 Wing 0

    Member

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

Posted 04 June 2019 - 04:55 PM

View PostNightbird, on 04 June 2019 - 03:44 PM, said:

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


True. But Ash didn't ask to implement the things we had to deal with after phase 3. That was the fault of those who never play the mode.

I understand what Ash was trying to do. I get it. But when this mode has been played for so long, Matchmaker and Faction Play just simply does not work. He failed to realize that there are too many variables in place of Faction Play that it has to take into account where in terms of Quick Play, there is very little and matches there are faster to get. I respect the guy for trying to make it great again and hes one of the only few that can get their attention in getting Faction Play fixed again.

#26 Grus

    Member

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

Posted 04 June 2019 - 06:44 PM

@chris

Not to take anything away from ASH but there are people that drop WAY more in FW than he does...

#27 Marquis De Lafayette

    Member

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

Posted 04 June 2019 - 09:18 PM

Chris...Like many here I liked the system we had before the patch ....it gave you a decent chance of seeing siege everyday at least once. Now it’s all or nothing. If that can’t be fixed to where it was, at minimum we need to see Siege way more often and for longer periods of time. Heck, if you took out every instance of incursion (which has been messed up in FW since day 1, nobody would miss it!) and just substituted Siege in its place you would get a lot of goodwill from the playbase here. Other modes can be fine (and a nice diversion) in small to modest doses, but Siege is the crown jewel of FW.

#28 justcallme A S H

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 6,726 posts
  • LocationMelbourne, AU

Posted 04 June 2019 - 09:33 PM

View PostNightbird, on 04 June 2019 - 03:44 PM, said:

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


Absolutely I did. And it will work if:
  • Priority queue actually means something.
  • Mercs can actually swap
  • Freelancers can swap
  • FP Events are actually run
Is any of that happening right now I wonder?

We all know the answer is that none of the above is currently happening because what was delivered was not what was discussed/shown.

If what was meant to happen actually does and the features work as they should - the MM would work (well enough) in peaks times as discussed many times and also supported with Events for the mode. The issues with Faction Play are not just about the MM. To try and pin all this on MM and myself... lol. OK.

Further to that the 2min timer isn't really helping either which is another discussion.

View PostNightbird, on 04 June 2019 - 03:56 PM, said:


Correct me if I'm wrong, didn't Ash have dinner with Paul/Russ during Mechcon December last year where he advocated for this MM idea ultimately leading to it being implemented?

He does play it quite a lot, enough to know all of its problems. Then again, he was also against tonnage handicaps to weaken strong teams and reduce stomps so I'm not quite sure where he stands.


Where did you pull all that from? I did not have dinner with Paul/Russ. I spoke with Russ for a total of aobut 2mins to thank him for putting on MechCon because it was a great event.

A bunch of us (Oceanic / mostly 228 guys) went to lunch with Paul and a few other PGI staff members too (~45mins it was). FP wasn't really discussed at all there, it was mostly just social chatting. There was a part discussed around Faction Play not being about solos, in a team-oriented mode - and that was it from what I recall.

Over the entire MechCon weekend not much of FP was covered at all from my end. There was a balance discussion (2.5hrs?) between Chris and a few guys from EmP/JGx/EON - That's an entirely unrelated.

Edited by justcallme A S H, 04 June 2019 - 09:53 PM.


#29 justcallme A S H

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 6,726 posts
  • LocationMelbourne, AU

Posted 04 June 2019 - 10:14 PM

So attempted scapegoating clarified - lets look at the core issue here shall we? It's really not that hard to work out what the problem is:
  • QUEUE is 5/50 (seen plenty of S/S like that now).
  • People cannot swap
  • No one can get a match.
Merc/Freelance need to be able to swap.

So lets now pretend you can swap. LLets say, I dunno, 22 people swap over. A 12man, few groups & some YOLOSolo's.
  • QUEUE is now 27/28 in the queue
  • 24/24 is enough to kick off 2 matches.
  • MM suddenly is able to do its thing to best of its abilites.
Tell me again how the MM is causing the issues here... Posted Image

The issue is swapping sides. Being unable to do that mid-phase/on demand is the real issue here. Priority Queue is also another big one.

#30 shaytalis

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 270 posts

Posted 04 June 2019 - 10:17 PM

View Postjustcallme A S H, on 04 June 2019 - 09:33 PM, said:


Absolutely I did. And it will work if:
  • Priority queue actually means something.
  • Mercs can actually swap
  • Freelancers can swap
  • FP Events are actually run


None of that solves the issue of Loyalists wanting to play for their chosen faction and not playing otherwise. But we've got a whole thread dedicated to that. Point I would make here is that we need to not oversimplify the problem to say "solving my specific issue will make it work for everyone."

#31 justcallme A S H

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 6,726 posts
  • LocationMelbourne, AU

Posted 04 June 2019 - 10:25 PM

View Postshaytalis, on 04 June 2019 - 10:17 PM, said:

None of that solves the issue of Loyalists wanting to play for their chosen faction and not playing otherwise. But we've got a whole thread dedicated to that. Point I would make here is that we need to not oversimplify the problem to say "solving my specific issue will make it work for everyone."


Of course. Agree there. As there is a dedicated thread pertaining to all things Loyalist - I left that out of my post on purpose.

And yes I know peoples loyalty will mean they won't play but that is a personal limitation not a in-game physical one.

#32 BROARL

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 148 posts
  • Locationinvasion

Posted 05 June 2019 - 12:02 AM

i saw siege about a week ago, it's real, it's not a unicorn.
perhaps counter attack could be included again some day?

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


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. "



as for scouting... Steiner scout lance is not part of the story, thus none of us scout.

#33 Charles Sennet

    Member

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

Posted 05 June 2019 - 12:17 AM

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


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.


Another thought that's related to seeing more Siege in the event system... we used to have Counter Attack and Hold Territory modes that utilized the Siege maps. Part of the appeal of Siege is the asymmetrical engagements. To me this is what FP should be about. Its the main thing that makes it different from QP. What do you think about bringing back these modes in certain spots in the event? The net would we would see Siege maps more often but number of times a side has to do Siege attack would not necessarily increase.

As for my own unit's preferences on how often we see Siege maps in FP we would love it 75% or more take place on Siege maps. We'd be happy with 50% and could accept as little as 33%. I realize the event system is dynamic and results drive frequency but this is at least some guidance.

#34 Nightbird

    Member

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

Posted 05 June 2019 - 12:18 AM

View Postjustcallme A S H, on 04 June 2019 - 09:33 PM, said:

Where did you pull all that from? I did not have dinner with Paul/Russ. I spoke with Russ for a total of aobut 2mins to thank him for putting on MechCon because it was a great event.

A bunch of us (Oceanic / mostly 228 guys) went to lunch with Paul and a few other PGI staff members too (~45mins it was). FP wasn't really discussed at all there, it was mostly just social chatting. There was a part discussed around Faction Play not being about solos, in a team-oriented mode - and that was it from what I recall.

Over the entire MechCon weekend not much of FP was covered at all from my end. There was a balance discussion (2.5hrs?) between Chris and a few guys from EmP/JGx/EON - That's an entirely unrelated.


Thanks for clarifying that up, I must have misheard. Not trying to scapegoat, just saying that FP players are not exactly demanding changes with one voice and PGI can always choose who to hear.

#35 Nightbird

    Member

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

Posted 05 June 2019 - 12:24 AM

View Postjustcallme A S H, on 04 June 2019 - 10:14 PM, said:

So attempted scapegoating clarified - lets look at the core issue here shall we? It's really not that hard to work out what the problem is:
  • QUEUE is 5/50 (seen plenty of S/S like that now).
  • People cannot swap
  • No one can get a match.
Merc/Freelance need to be able to swap.

So lets now pretend you can swap. LLets say, I dunno, 22 people swap over. A 12man, few groups & some YOLOSolo's.
  • QUEUE is now 27/28 in the queue
  • 24/24 is enough to kick off 2 matches.
  • MM suddenly is able to do its thing to best of its abilites.
Tell me again how the MM is causing the issues here... Posted Image

The issue is swapping sides. Being unable to do that mid-phase/on demand is the real issue here. Priority Queue is also another big one.


Swapping sides won't help because some teams will choose to stack regardless of wait. NA nights before went like this, BCMC/EVIL goes clan, after 1 hour, 4-5 units have all switched to clan, BCMC/EVIL switches to IS, 1 hour later, same 4-5 units have gone IS, etc etc.

The pugs in the middle not doing this cat and mouse meta-game get r***d, they either get stomped by units really badly, or they get skipped in the queue and can't get a match at all.

So no, the MM will not fix anything even when we can switch sides.

Dynamic tonnage adjustments is the only way to get new people into FP that doesn't take much dev time, and it focuses on improve actual match quality. The new MM 99% of the time launches 1 match at a time, therefore it cannot physically build any better match-ups than the previous MM. It can easily create worse matches when the queues are unbalanced, when it is 48-12, the MM will take the 12-man out of the 48 100% of the time and face them against the 12 solo pugs that took 15 minutes to accumulate.

The new MM is ABSOLUTE S H I T

The FP pop was not high enough for the pipe dream of constantly launching multiple matches even before this ridiculous patch. Over the past year, NA prime time is 3-4 minute per match launched. Do the math. I've seen the MM launch more than one FP match only twice since the patch. Even with faction switching at will, it will still be 1 match launched at a time, no team balancing possible. All that dev time for nothing.

Edited by Nightbird, 05 June 2019 - 12:42 AM.


#36 justcallme A S H

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 6,726 posts
  • LocationMelbourne, AU

Posted 05 June 2019 - 02:24 AM

View PostNightbird, on 05 June 2019 - 12:24 AM, said:

The FP pop was not high enough


When PGI actually runs events in FP - It is plenty high, we all know that. Any time there is an event there are games going off like firecrackers.

It is at this time a lot of casuals come into the mode during events and get rickrolled senseless and then never come back to the mode.

Run events on alternating weeks in QP vs FP, queues will be full. That is what has always been needed. That also then shows the quality of games can actually be at least half decent and not constant 48-12 cause of skillgap. People might actually keep playing if it's not constant face-slapping - it's not even a stretch to think people will join units, continue to play etc etc.

I can't even recall the last time there was an event for FP...

#37 Appogee

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 10,682 posts
  • LocationOn planet Tukayyid, celebrating victory

Posted 05 June 2019 - 03:26 AM

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.

I like the branching story idea, and would like to see more made of it.

Eg.
  • Make a splash screen featuring the conflict, as you do with events. Create interstitial style graphics that depict the outcome of the last Mission and the new Mission resulting from it.
  • Don't bury the story in that tiny tab to the right. Embiggen it.
  • Create unique rewards for the victorious side. They could be as simple as cockpit flags ("Defender of Dune", "Pillager of Plscopidus") or some kind of salvage that relates to the Conflict. (Eg. capture a Steiner planet, get half price Atlases for a day.)
The story is a step towards the kind of immersion FP has always needed.




(Special note to the 'special' folks no doubt reaching for their pitchforks... I'm not saying FP doesn't have a lot of other more important fixes it needs more urgently - especially solving the 'imbalanced locked queue' issue. I'm just saying the story part is cool and could be capitalised on, raising participation in the same way that events raise participation.)

Edited by Appogee, 05 June 2019 - 03:29 AM.


#38 Marquis De Lafayette

    Member

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

Posted 05 June 2019 - 06:12 AM

View PostNightbird, on 05 June 2019 - 12:24 AM, said:


Swapping sides won't help because some teams will choose to stack regardless of wait. NA nights before went like this, BCMC/EVIL goes clan, after 1 hour, 4-5 units have all switched to clan, BCMC/EVIL switches to IS, 1 hour later, same 4-5 units have gone IS, etc etc.

The pugs in the middle not doing this cat and mouse meta-game get r***d, they either get stomped by units really badly, or they get skipped in the queue and can't get a match at all.

So no, the MM will not fix anything even when we can switch sides.

Dynamic tonnage adjustments is the only way to get new people into FP that doesn't take much dev time, and it focuses on improve actual match quality. The new MM 99% of the time launches 1 match at a time, therefore it cannot physically build any better match-ups than the previous MM. It can easily create worse matches when the queues are unbalanced, when it is 48-12, the MM will take the 12-man out of the 48 100% of the time and face them against the 12 solo pugs that took 15 minutes to accumulate.

The new MM is ABSOLUTE S H I T

The FP pop was not high enough for the pipe dream of constantly launching multiple matches even before this ridiculous patch. Over the past year, NA prime time is 3-4 minute per match launched. Do the math. I've seen the MM launch more than one FP match only twice since the patch. Even with faction switching at will, it will still be 1 match launched at a time, no team balancing possible. All that dev time for nothing.


I think MM could have worked really well if it had launched with Phase 3 (and long tom hadn’t entered the game)....But in today’s game (now) I share your feelings about the matchmaker. I think that especially outside of events (I think Ash is right that it might work ok during events) it’s either creating even more 12 man v pug stomps or ensuring a perpetual wait (for many solos or small groups). The old system saw a decent bit of pug v pug drops (I did a decent bit of pugging the last 6 months) as 12 unorganized pilots could lock a lobby for 10 mins while the underpopulated side worked up to 12 pugs. Now, it’s pretty much 12 man or bust for getting a lobby on the populated side. With solos and small groups getting continuously boxed out of lobby’s (by 12 mans) they have waited a long time for. I tried to get a lobby a few days ago with a couple of friends and we ended up literally having to ask everyone on our friends list to group and then pull in several random new players from LFG just to get a lobby. Anything less than 12 meant waiting forever. And in four matches we faced 3 total pug groups and 1 group that looked 1/2 organized (as we were).

Allowing switching with low population might well turn out much as you think it will. So, Assuming they keep the matchmaker...which seems to be the case....The only thing I could think of that could alter that is pretty much “the unthinkable” in terms of FW matchmaking. Reverse the prioritzarion. Solo, small groups, 12 mans. Solos and small groups would get matches on both sides and 12 mans would wait on the overpopulated side and be forced to either keep waiting (like solos do now) or move to the underpopulated side (and face whoever they have to face). That might get you guys more matches. Idk...There would still be plenty of pug stomps with this...but less than right now. So, as stupid as it is to prioritize solos and small groups (which is heresy as this IS a team-based mode) in the MM it might be the way to ensure a few more pug v pug and 12 v 12 matchups (as it would motivate 12 mans to balance sides or maybe not get to play). Just wondering if it might be a practical workable solution, that they could more easily do. Dynamic tonnage might work, but would take a lot more work on PGI’s part.

Edited by Marquis De Lafayette, 05 June 2019 - 06:22 AM.


#39 Nightbird

    Member

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

Posted 05 June 2019 - 06:38 AM

View Postjustcallme A S H, on 05 June 2019 - 02:24 AM, said:


When PGI actually runs events in FP - It is plenty high, we all know that. Any time there is an event there are games going off like firecrackers.

It is at this time a lot of casuals come into the mode during events and get rickrolled senseless and then never come back to the mode.

Run events on alternating weeks in QP vs FP, queues will be full. That is what has always been needed. That also then shows the quality of games can actually be at least half decent and not constant 48-12 cause of skillgap. People might actually keep playing if it's not constant face-slapping - it's not even a stretch to think people will join units, continue to play etc etc.

I can't even recall the last time there was an event for FP...


So when 12 man regular FP players come up against 12 man tier 4 groups pick-up groups that don't play FP, we'll somehow see better matches? No, we won't. Number not equal strength, past performance = strength.

#40 MiZia

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • 88 posts

Posted 05 June 2019 - 06:51 AM

View PostNightbird, on 05 June 2019 - 12:24 AM, said:


Swapping sides won't help because some teams will choose to stack regardless of wait. NA nights before went like this, BCMC/EVIL goes clan, after 1 hour, 4-5 units have all switched to clan, BCMC/EVIL switches to IS, 1 hour later, same 4-5 units have gone IS, etc etc.

The pugs in the middle not doing this cat and mouse meta-game get r***d, they either get stomped by units really badly, or they get skipped in the queue and can't get a match at all.

So no, the MM will not fix anything even when we can switch sides.




Ye pretty much what im also thinking.
To fix MM firstoff fix the Player. Everyone wants to win (at least normal thinking) but sometimes u have to Choose the weaker end.

Also on Charles Post, Attacking sometimes is fun...but entire Phases... well bettter have Conterattacks too :P





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users