Jump to content

Loyalists In Faction Play - Design Spec V2


107 replies to this topic

#21 J a y

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Chu-sa
  • Chu-sa
  • 113 posts

Posted 04 July 2019 - 07:28 PM

View PostPrototelis, on 04 July 2019 - 02:43 PM, said:

Why are we focusing on the extreme minority of FP players?


Because ISMO is kurita loyalist and we have a monopoly on steak dinners available in the greater Vancouver area.


(I don't know, but I'm happy.)

#22 tacorodwarrior

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 191 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • LocationWexford, Ireland

Posted 06 July 2019 - 04:43 AM

Hey Paul any thoughts to increasing the Ticket count in Conquest? It is just a number change server side.

#23 Fainting Goat

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Bad Company
  • 24 posts

Posted 07 July 2019 - 09:30 PM

These changes are all positive.

Conquest is fine as it is.

Incursion just needs more HP for the base structures (a lot more).

Siege should come up the most often in FP - that's what FP is all about.

Skirmish should come up the least often in FP.

You'll never please everyone who thinks that loyalty points matter a lot, or that they don't matter at all.

Scouting should be separated again into its own game mode.

8v8 QP would be cool. Some 8v8 FP modes would be nice as well.

#24 Prototelis

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Shredder
  • Shredder
  • 4,629 posts

Posted 07 July 2019 - 09:56 PM

8v8 isn't going to fix anything and has nothing to do with the conversation.

#25 B0oN

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,768 posts

Posted 07 July 2019 - 11:09 PM

View PostPrototelis, on 04 July 2019 - 02:43 PM, said:

Why are we focusing on the extreme minority of FP players?

Pepperidge farm remembers when they weren´t an "extreme minority" .
This is damage control .

#26 Leon Ward

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Gunjin
  • Gunjin
  • 43 posts

Posted 08 July 2019 - 02:12 AM

I finished 20th with the Jade Falcons and then changed the faction with punishment to leave the Falcons. One month later, this punishment did not exist anymore.

My question: what about a refund of LP, because otherwise I would need alone for the recovery of the 250K LP one year?

#27 BROARL

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • @ui_title_%s_Rank_19
  • @ui_title_%s_Rank_19
  • 241 posts
  • Locationinvasion

Posted 08 July 2019 - 07:30 PM

Leon I feel your pain. when I maxed Steiner I left, then rejoined and left again. then the penalty was removed and I have since maxed it out again.
this is the price of Loyalty in a PGI universe. at least there is talk of further incentives lately...

#28 Novakaine

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Veteran Founder
  • Veteran Founder
  • 5,354 posts
  • LocationPourin one for my homies.

Posted 08 July 2019 - 07:40 PM

Well my unit has been destroyed.
And I can imagine quite a few others.
To sad to even point a finger anymore.
Posted Image

#29 Bowelhacker

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 513 posts

Posted 08 July 2019 - 07:51 PM

View PostPaul Inouye, on 03 July 2019 - 05:54 PM, said:

stuffstuffstuff.


Any change to the 5% loyalty medallion things?

#30 -Spectre

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Star Colonel IV
  • Star Colonel IV
  • 120 posts

Posted 09 July 2019 - 02:16 PM

I would request that the loyalty gain increase (the 2.5% per match thing) be capped at the same place (or maybe brought up to a round 150%), but that its rate of gain be decreased. Because people can pound out 10 scouting matches very quickly, and that is what people have been doing up until now. I would like to see it be a greater time investment to get to that bonus percentage. The other option to do the same thing would be to not let scouting count towards that, or have it count as half or a third of a match towards the percentage increase. It could also be tied to performance, but I feel like that would be much more complicated to implement. I think this point is the thing I forgot in my post on the other thread :}

Ooh, one way you could do it is have it not take effect until the next conflict or something like that, to prevent people using it as merc with a LP boost after x matches.

I would also like to see some other form of penalty for leaving a faction, like a cbill/lp/mc cost (currently the only LP you would lose is any past level 20). But if that has been decided against I won't complain. Too much. I'll just gripe and whine a bit when people still use Loyalist as Merc with a bonus.

#31 Nightbird

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The God of Death
  • The God of Death
  • 4,973 posts

Posted 09 July 2019 - 02:18 PM

There shouldn't be a LP penalty for breaking loyalty at all, since it pretty much guarantees the breaker will never want to redo the grind for 0 benefits.

#32 BaronDeath

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Galaxy Commander III
  • Galaxy Commander III
  • 44 posts
  • LocationOzark Highlands

Posted 09 July 2019 - 03:09 PM

Thank you Paul for your continued Loyalty on representing Loyalty. Perception is reality, and it is interesting that those who think Loyalists are a "small" number are simply not Loyalists. The most important thing to remember, as far as an algorithm for overall game success is that the inclusion of Loyalism in this universe is a 3rd variable for why players choose to play. The introduction of Freelancers and MERCS created the invariable option for those who chose to do so that switching back and forth created the dynamic of filling queues and seeking out fights and lesser queue times. These individuals seek fights, quickly. Loyalism is a different motive and a 3rd solid option so that the population is not stuck within an either/or only situation. With three solid positions of perspective, the variableness is greater and hence the dynamics of battles. Again, Loyalism retained does not impact queues or number of battles, but increases it - from a Loyalist's perspective.

#33 Rustyhammer

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 87 posts
  • LocationSydney, AU

Posted 09 July 2019 - 03:18 PM

View Post-Spectre, on 09 July 2019 - 02:16 PM, said:


I would request that the loyalty gain increase (the 2.5% per match thing) be capped at the same place (or maybe brought up to a round 150%), but that its rate of gain be decreased. Because people can pound out 10 scouting matches very quickly, and that is what people have been doing up until now.
...



Scouting does not have a dedicated queue anymore. You can't do '10 scouting matches very quickly' cause you can only play scouting when it's a part of 'the story' and thankfully it happens maybe once per week for a couple of hours.

I'm curious, have you ever played FP since the disaster update?

#34 Sjorpha

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • Philanthropist
  • 4,163 posts
  • LocationSweden

Posted 09 July 2019 - 03:59 PM

Increase conquest ticket count slightly. IMO FP conquest is the most tactically interesting game mode in MWO, you should absolutely not increase the counter so much that matches routinely start going to 48 kills. What you want to do is keep the mode objective centric but prolong the average match length a little bit so that all 4 waves can potentially be used to fight over cap points and change the tide. Try increasing it by 400, if that's too much cut it back a bit.

Buff incursion building health and do something about the "scrape a building once and win" issue. It's fine that the mode is decided by objective, but IMO winning by objective in Incursion should require actually destroying the base, if neither base is destroyed at the end of the match it should be decided by kills IMO. It's fine that you can win by mounting an assault on the base, it's not fine that you can steal a win in the last minute by scraping a building from afar with an ERLL.

Take a little time to consult with the comp scene on improved spawn points, there are still some maps where they dictate the flow of the match too much.

Make the mix of game modes in FP more varied within each phase of the conflict, at least sometimes, not everyone likes being locked into a mode several matches in a row.

Finally, siege mode should be the main game mode in FP, with the others mixed in for variety. There are not enough siege matches now, they should be at least 50% of the matches I think.

The whole entire point of scouting was to have a parallel mission for small groups that would impact the 12v12 matches by earning scouting advantages. If there isn't a way to reimplement scouting to actually fill this role I think it should simply be removed, it doesn't work very well as a separate phase and for a lot of units that's just dead time as they're just waiting around for a phase with "real" games.

The constant requirement to switch factions is incredibly immersion breaking. I understand the intention of narrated conflicts but it ends up feeling like a completely pointless chore to reassign to new factions all the time. If you can't solve this issue within the context of the conflict system just go back to the old Clan vs IS queue, at least then you could stay in your faction and make up your own story within the context of the clan invasion, and then you could have limited IS vs IS and Clan vs Clan from time to time.

Another issue here is that the removal of map progress removes a storytelling device from the game, the players can no longer "change history" as originally pitched. This was undermined already in phase 2 when you started resetting the map periodically, IMO this was a misstake. The dominance of certain factions on the map, like when JF reached Terra through the efforts of Mercstar, should have been embraced and used as a storytelling device to reflect this changed history. Imagine if we had never reset the map, we could have had a completely player driven narrative with clan space reaching all the way down into Davion and Liao space. Now you can't even hold planets anymore. I admit it may be too late to address this though.

#35 Prototelis

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Shredder
  • Shredder
  • 4,629 posts

Posted 09 July 2019 - 04:19 PM

Buffing building health isn't going to fix incursion for FP. Stop suggesting it.

#36 Grus

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Little Devil
  • Little Devil
  • 3,979 posts

Posted 10 July 2019 - 07:55 AM

*heavy sigh *

#37 Nightbird

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The God of Death
  • The God of Death
  • 4,973 posts

Posted 10 July 2019 - 09:29 AM

View PostPrototelis, on 09 July 2019 - 04:19 PM, said:

Buffing building health isn't going to fix incursion for FP. Stop suggesting it.


Buffing it to 10x what we have today would fix it

That been said, MWO is dead, so we can stop beating it

#38 BROARL

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • @ui_title_%s_Rank_19
  • @ui_title_%s_Rank_19
  • 241 posts
  • Locationinvasion

Posted 10 July 2019 - 11:08 PM

View PostNightbird, on 10 July 2019 - 09:29 AM, said:

MWO is dead, so we can stop beating it.


this is why MW5 is vs bots right? so the few of us who turn up will never realise nobody else did ;)

maybe a call to arms in a patch soon could be proof of life...
*slow clap for whoever removed call to arms in the first place, I bet that one has cost PGI a mech pack.

#39 FRAGTAST1C

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Hunter
  • The Hunter
  • 2,342 posts
  • LocationIndia

Posted 11 July 2019 - 12:57 AM

So, is it worth going as a Merc into FW? Since we get LP no matter what (albeit different %) based on whether we change into the faction that's currently involved in the conflict, isn't it better to be a Loyalist? I mean, I could choose to be a Kurita Loyalist but play using my Clan Deck in a Wolf vs Shark conflict and still get some LP....

#40 50 50

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,033 posts
  • LocationTo Nova or not to Nova. That is the question.

Posted 11 July 2019 - 03:52 AM

View PostPrototelis, on 07 July 2019 - 09:56 PM, said:

8v8 isn't going to fix anything and has nothing to do with the conversation.


Not so much to do with the loyalty changes but pretty valid to the state of the game in general.
All this work is a waste if we can't get a game.

Seriously need to look at making team sizes flexible and allow matches to form as 4v4 or 8v8 if that is what is available.
I don't see why this isn't been looked at.
Does it actually matter if the maps and missions are not designed with smaller numbers of players in mind if we can drop into battle and play the game more?
We don't need separate queues for it, just something in the match maker that says:
Can we form a game as 12v12 Yes/No. If No:
Can we form a game as 8v8 Yes/No. If No:
Can we form a game as 4v4 Yes/No. If No:
Wait 2 minutes, try again.

The theory should be that if we get smaller groups into the queue getting drops, then the player numbers should increase which will lead to bigger teams.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users