74 replies to this topic

[dario03]

I don't understand why there should be in game reward encouragement to stay on one side. If the queue needs more people on one side why should it be encouraging players to not switch? I can understand not punishing loyalist, but don't see the need for encouraging. I saw the part about call to arms, but will that be enough?

Is there enough incentive for players to choose the merc and freelancer role?
Do mercs get that 2.5-25% bonus for RP if they stay on a side?
Do you only get a cbill boost by accepting through a call to arms?
Is the merc reward tree being expanded too?

Edited by dario03, 24 June 2019 - 06:04 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Do we get our Tug-Of-War back?

[Tarl Cabot]

The6thMessenger, on 24 June 2019 - 08:16 PM, said:

Do we get our Tug-Of-War back?

Tis there, just not obvious and constantly visible. The color adds/subtracts without the marker moving though

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 25 June 2019 - 04:16 PM.

[Paul Inouye]

Well.. good news and bad news.


Good news.. most of the spec is viable.. will take time on some elements but there's stuff we can roll out in stages.

However, there is one problem...

We cannot do the C-Bill reward for entering the queue via Call-To-Arms. There is a complete no go zone between client and server to authenticate weather a player enters the queue via Call-To-Arms. There's also an issue that is essentially an exploit where players in groups could exit the queue... wait for it to starve and send out the CtA... enter the queue and get the bonus. Repeat. This would not only exploit the reward, it would cause havoc in the Match Maker. But with the first point in question, this second part is moot.

I'll be getting some initial estimates on when items can be implemented and will do the same breakdown that I did in the post patch post here in the Faction Play forums.

dario03, on 24 June 2019 - 05:42 PM, said:

I don't understand why there should be in game reward encouragement to stay on one side. If the queue needs more people on one side why should it be encouraging players to not switch? I can understand not punishing loyalist, but don't see the need for encouraging. I saw the part about call to arms, but will that be enough? Is there enough incentive for players to choose the merc and freelancer role? Do mercs get that 2.5-25% bonus for RP if they stay on a side? Do you only get a cbill boost by accepting through a call to arms? Is the merc reward tree being expanded too?

Will be looking into the issue surrounding the lack of Merc contract bonus shortly. Just trying to get the tech review done for the Loyalist stuff and then jump on the Merc issue.

[Novakaine]

The Clans would never hire mercs period.

[tacorodwarrior]

Paul can you please address the problem of Incursion and Conquest. they are coming up way to frequently and Siege is a rarity.

Secondly Can you comment on the fact that Conquest has been an issue since it was introduced and there have been many forum posts regarding the fact that the ticket count is too low. Is there a reason it has not been increased? And when will it be done or removed from the rotation?

[Harper Steel]

so Hopefully we will get an idea of how long this will take.

Edited by Harper Steel, 28 June 2019 - 05:36 PM.

[Nightbird]

FP is actually fine more or less now, since swapping was re-enabled. The hard-core loyalists aren't coming back no matter what PGI does in my estimation.

[50 50]

Nightbird, on 28 June 2019 - 03:32 PM, said:

FP is actually fine more or less now, since swapping was re-enabled. The hard-core loyalists aren't coming back no matter what PGI does in my estimation.

The loyalty reward changes might help with that but in my view the die hard loyalists are/were the ones that only ever wanted to represent their faction and see their faction at the center of any given conflict.
The alliances with the collection of factions in each and the way it's looking to be structured is going to let these players represent their faction but in the majority of conflicts it will not be their faction at the center of it.

Where I see a gap in doing it this way is that while the concept is to support one of your allies as it furthers the cause of your own faction, I haven't seen how it does actually further the cause of your own faction. We get loyalty points, sure, but at the outcome of the conflict what does the faction get?
Sounds a bit selfish but I believe that is the attitude or expectation.

Think it boils down to the space nerd politics we had when we could vote who to attack as that allowed players in different factions form their own alliances by declaring that they would both attack a neighbour that attack phase.

[Paul Inouye]

I'll be back tomorrow with a write up on what the roll out plan will be.

Our UI engineer is off this week but will be back next week so I can get a UI estimate then.

We've had a few more conversations after the Tech Review was complete and we want to add some UI tweaks throughout the FP flow. I'm going to make a flow diagram tomorrow to share with you all.

[Nightbird]

No worries, other than increasing incursion base health and increasing conquest limit, not much else will help FP.

[Alexandra Hekmatyar]

Nightbird, on 02 July 2019 - 07:45 PM, said:

No worries, other than increasing incursion base health and increasing conquest limit, not much else will help FP.

Removing Incursion would be the easiest solution.
Honestly increasing the health of all base structures seems more like a band-aid. Sure they didn't destroy everything in the first or second wave but then there are still 2 more left.
Defending then may not be a problem for the good pre-mades but everyone else will still get slaughtered easily.
It may be better if the base walls are to be indestructible and add a working gate that let friendlies out but they shut for the enemy unless they destroy the turrets or a gen or maybe both.
Then at least the would be defenders then have enough time to respond to a so called base attack.

[Nightbird]

Alexandra Hekmatyar, on 03 July 2019 - 06:16 AM, said:

Honestly increasing the health of all base structures seems more like a band-aid. Sure they didn't destroy everything in the first or second wave but then there are still 2 more left.

Not if you increase them by 5x...
A base rush's only purpose should be to force the other team to attack your base while you defend.

Edited by Nightbird, 03 July 2019 - 06:23 AM.

[Rustyhammer]

Just make the incursion victory condition to be base damage first then # of kills and don't end the game when one of the bases is destroyed.

[Paul Inouye]

Continued on to the new revision of the spec.

https://mwomercs.com...design-spec-v2/