Jump to content

Loyalists In Faction Play - Design Spec V2


107 replies to this topic

#41 -Spectre

    Member

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

Posted 11 July 2019 - 05:07 AM

View PostRustyhammer, on 09 July 2019 - 03:18 PM, said:

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?

I was making that suggestion with the assumption that scouting will be returned as a separate entity in the relatively near future, but no concessions have been made regarding that and it is not part of this particular problem. From what I can see, both those who do and do not want scouting can agree on wanting scouting to be its own queue again, so that would be the best choice for PGI to make, but again, that is outside of the current discussion. If scouting remains integrated as it is, one fix for scouting probation abuse would be to lock switching until scouting is over

I have not played it since then (my computer has been overheating when I play games, and I am working on getting a new one), but I have gotten on and observed the damage from the UI.

View PostNightbird, on 09 July 2019 - 02:18 PM, said:

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.

That is the whole point. Discouraging breaking loyalty like that will ensure that the only people who will pledge loyalty will be the people who actually meant it. Hearing you say that is encouraging to me for that route, because it means that it will work, in your opinion.

#42 Nightbird

    Member

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

Posted 11 July 2019 - 07:11 AM

View Post-Spectre, on 11 July 2019 - 05:07 AM, said:

That is the whole point. Discouraging breaking loyalty like that will ensure that the only people who will pledge loyalty will be the people who actually meant it. Hearing you say that is encouraging to me for that route, because it means that it will work, in your opinion.


Not really, only 50 people in the game has reached rank 20, for everyone else there's 0 penalty

#43 BaronDeath

    Member

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

Posted 12 July 2019 - 08:12 AM

View PostWishmast3r, on 11 July 2019 - 02:15 AM, said:

[redacted]


Wish, I like your metaphor. Spot on. Paul is just the Lead Developer and represents what the PGI owners and stakeholders wants. I do appreciate his efforts to do what he can as a middleman, so to speak.

In addition to these changes, if they can fix everything else - leaderboards, getting Unit tags on Planets, etc. then we might have a nice electric car after all this is completed. The population will stabilize again, Loyalists will reengage with their efforts to build their Units again which retains players longer. But we have a ways to go, no doubt.

Edited by Tina Benoit, 12 July 2019 - 10:10 AM.
quote clean up


#44 Jon Gotham

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Death Wish
  • The Death Wish
  • 2,610 posts

Posted 12 July 2019 - 08:34 AM

View PostBowelhacker, on 04 July 2019 - 05:38 PM, said:


Because they are the ones who make the most noise?

Rightly so as team based multiplayer online game has been reduced to a solo pretend multiplayer online game by people crying about other people using their voices to make friends and groups.
Because they refuse to because: "why should I/I don't have time/i hate groups/my cat is a despot etc type of excuses.

#45 BaronDeath

    Member

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

Posted 12 July 2019 - 08:36 AM

View PostBowelhacker, on 04 July 2019 - 05:38 PM, said:


Because they are the ones who make the most noise?


Actually, Loyalists made no noise at all, is why this all happened. In a conquest mode the other day, a newer pilot sheepishly said in-game, "Hey, don't we need to get some more caps?" At that point in the match, it was obvious that is what we needed to do, but a more experienced, influential pilot who was simply calling targets around him and bluntly telling everyone to shoot at what he was seeing (while in his light mech), bluntly said, "No, don't get any caps at all. I am just here for these brawls, to just immediately fight. Just shoot these targets." The match was over a few minutes later with 3 dead on either side. This wasn't Drop Commanding, this was self-preservation in the guise of leading a team to victory. We could have done both - shoot targets AND get caps. This was conquest, after all.

It was this mentality I encountered 18 months ago when I heard for the first time in-game by an exceptional MERC pilot, "We need to just get matches and Loyality is going away so we can, and everyone will be switching back and forth however they want." And then I heard it more and more until some in my Unit started parroting it as if they had some divine revelation. I fell out of my seat when I heard that, thinking about all of the Loyalist Units on both sides who provided a 3rd valid reason for retaining many pilots in this game, and thus, keeping the general population healthy for a 1/3rd of the reason needed to do so, and thus so there can be lots of pilots to get plenty of matches. But I never heard Loyalists resist this until it all happened. Most I talked to never could believe the FW that that PGI arrived at over the last 24 months would be so compromised because it was finely tuned and working as a game structure. Lack of fights, again, is a general population issue. And pilots leave, frustrated because of the example given above, but in a team that helps train them, be patient with them, etc. they will stay much much longer - Loyality breeds this.

Yes, the game goes fast and we all ultimately want to destroy mechs, but just like people complain about Conquest or Incursion, if some like who I mention above had it their way because they actually complain the most - there would be no Conquest, no Incursion, no variety for creating different scenarios by which victories could be attained, and it would be "Go to the Center of the Map, swirl like a toilet that won't flush, brawl, change sides any time you want, have no permanency to your team..." and this will most certainly be the nails in the coffin.

MWOMERS if 150% a team game. Any change that is counterproductive to getting people to work together, and to be able to repeat that, and have longevity to tweak that as meta changes, is counterproductive to general population.

#46 Paul Inouye

    Lead Designer

  • Developer
  • Developer
  • 2,797 posts
  • LocationVancouver, BC

Posted 12 July 2019 - 09:52 AM

Well, update for you but it's not great...

Due to illnesses and a scheduling mixup, we cannot get the first set of changes into the July patch. Our Backend Services engineer was the first to go down, but he's back, and now the UI engineer is down as well as our main build engineer.

While this added to the cause of the missed target date, it's the scheduling mixup that happened that is the big one. This is falling directly on my lap. After the tech review and original estimates, I made the assumption that all tasks were broken down and entered into the schedule. While some engineers moved forward on the planned changes, others were finishing up other tasks they were working on without the pressure of the task tracking software letting them know they should be targeting the Faction Play Loyalist update.

What does this mean? It means the tentatively marked schedule in the OP of this thread are off. There is just no way that we can put stuff in July's patch (next Tuesday) without testing and making sure the build is stable. Until the build engineer is back in office, I won't know if we can hot patch the earlier stuff in before August. I'll report back here with his info as soon as he's back.

I deeply apologize for this mishap and am actively working with the project manager to make sure everything is assigned properly.

#47 Bjorn Bekker

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Hammer
  • The Hammer
  • 207 posts

Posted 12 July 2019 - 10:10 AM

Sad news but appreciate the accountability and transparency. Hope everyone starts feeling better!

#48 Nightbird

    Member

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

Posted 12 July 2019 - 10:32 AM

I don't think anyone's expectations were broken.

Everyone is pretty depressed about the near future of MWO

#49 BROARL

    Member

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

Posted 12 July 2019 - 06:28 PM

we will all assume everyone easily fell ill as their immune systems were low due to hyperdosing redbulls and working triple shifts in an earnest attempt to get invasion all fixed up.
in this light we heartily thank everyone at PGI for putting their wellbeing on the line in order to enrich the lives of your fanbase.

#50 Kinski Orlawisch

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Galaxy Commander III
  • Galaxy Commander III
  • 2,279 posts
  • LocationHH

Posted 13 July 2019 - 05:12 AM

View PostPaul Inouye, on 12 July 2019 - 09:52 AM, said:

Well, update for you but it's not great...

Due to illnesses and a scheduling mixup, we cannot get the first set of changes into the July patch. Our Backend Services engineer was the first to go down, but he's back, and now the UI engineer is down as well as our main build engineer.

While this added to the cause of the missed target date, it's the scheduling mixup that happened that is the big one. This is falling directly on my lap. After the tech review and original estimates, I made the assumption that all tasks were broken down and entered into the schedule. While some engineers moved forward on the planned changes, others were finishing up other tasks they were working on without the pressure of the task tracking software letting them know they should be targeting the Faction Play Loyalist update.

What does this mean? It means the tentatively marked schedule in the OP of this thread are off. There is just no way that we can put stuff in July's patch (next Tuesday) without testing and making sure the build is stable. Until the build engineer is back in office, I won't know if we can hot patch the earlier stuff in before August. I'll report back here with his info as soon as he's back.

I deeply apologize for this mishap and am actively working with the project manager to make sure everything is assigned properly.


You implanted the may patch..even after ALL Tests failed. Leaderboard is broken..Units are meaningless...and no fix???

Please bee honest and write: Sorry..We don t want CW anymore..Move out of our game.

Edited by Kinski Orlawisch, 13 July 2019 - 05:18 AM.


#51 El Maestro

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • 458 posts
  • LocationVleuten, Netherlands

Posted 13 July 2019 - 10:54 AM

View PostPaul Inouye, on 12 July 2019 - 09:52 AM, said:

Well, update for you but it's not great...

Due to illnesses and a scheduling mixup, we cannot get the first set of changes into the July patch. Our Backend Services engineer was the first to go down, but he's back, and now the UI engineer is down as well as our main build engineer.

While this added to the cause of the missed target date, it's the scheduling mixup that happened that is the big one. This is falling directly on my lap. After the tech review and original estimates, I made the assumption that all tasks were broken down and entered into the schedule. While some engineers moved forward on the planned changes, others were finishing up other tasks they were working on without the pressure of the task tracking software letting them know they should be targeting the Faction Play Loyalist update.

What does this mean? It means the tentatively marked schedule in the OP of this thread are off. There is just no way that we can put stuff in July's patch (next Tuesday) without testing and making sure the build is stable. Until the build engineer is back in office, I won't know if we can hot patch the earlier stuff in before August. I'll report back here with his info as soon as he's back.

I deeply apologize for this mishap and am actively working with the project manager to make sure everything is assigned properly.


No worries Paul, the playerbase is on holiday or left the game after Mechcon fail, FP patch, Russ dev update so nobody is bothered anymore about a missed planning.

I am happy to hear there is still some development going on. Keep it up.

#52 GaelicWolf

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • The Hungry
  • The Hungry
  • 83 posts
  • LocationStuck somewhere between a Fantasy and Reality

Posted 13 July 2019 - 10:11 PM

View PostBaronDeath, on 12 July 2019 - 08:36 AM, said:


"Go to the Center of the Map, swirl like a toilet that won't flush, brawl, change sides any time you want, have no permanency to your team..."



Best discription of the current game play I have ever seen

I really, really, really hate NASCAR, so much so, that I would rather stand and fight than "make another left turn"
Posted Image

#53 Humble Dexter

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Galaxy Commander III
  • Galaxy Commander III
  • 927 posts

Posted 14 July 2019 - 04:54 PM

Posted Image
I just wanted to choose my Faction ^^°°°

#54 tacorodwarrior

    Member

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

Posted 16 July 2019 - 09:44 AM

So how about th3 simple change to the Conquest ticket count? Ah who am I kidding I am not even playing anymore. Do as you like lol

#55 VileKnight

    Member

  • PipPip
  • The Boombox
  • The Boombox
  • 28 posts

Posted 16 July 2019 - 12:23 PM

Paul - Godspeed recovery to your team at the office. Thank you for letting us know about the mix up. Instead of a hotfix, would it be better to wait until August? I would assume that would allow more time for proper smoke testing, and correcting anything that might come up during QA. As much as we want the changes, I am thinking that stability should still be #1 priority.

Pass along RPTG's thanks for everyone's efforts on this. We are very eager to get our CJF badges back.

#56 Harper Steel

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • The Dragoon
  • The Dragoon
  • 192 posts
  • Locationwashington state

Posted 16 July 2019 - 02:03 PM

Very very eager...
:)

#57 Bad Electric

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Heavy Lifter
  • Heavy Lifter
  • 174 posts
  • LocationChantilly Va

Posted 16 July 2019 - 04:01 PM

SCOUTING, DON'T FORGET TO PUT BACK IN SCOUTING GAME MODE!!!!

#58 50 50

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,037 posts
  • LocationTo Nova or not to Nova. That is the question.

Posted 17 July 2019 - 08:05 PM

View PostPaul Inouye, on 12 July 2019 - 09:52 AM, said:

Well, update for you but it's not great...

Due to illnesses and a scheduling mixup, we cannot get the first set of changes into the July patch. Our Backend Services engineer was the first to go down, but he's back, and now the UI engineer is down as well as our main build engineer.

While this added to the cause of the missed target date, it's the scheduling mixup that happened that is the big one. This is falling directly on my lap. After the tech review and original estimates, I made the assumption that all tasks were broken down and entered into the schedule. While some engineers moved forward on the planned changes, others were finishing up other tasks they were working on without the pressure of the task tracking software letting them know they should be targeting the Faction Play Loyalist update.

What does this mean? It means the tentatively marked schedule in the OP of this thread are off. There is just no way that we can put stuff in July's patch (next Tuesday) without testing and making sure the build is stable. Until the build engineer is back in office, I won't know if we can hot patch the earlier stuff in before August. I'll report back here with his info as soon as he's back.

I deeply apologize for this mishap and am actively working with the project manager to make sure everything is assigned properly.


Hi Paul.
Thanks for the info and I know many players are looking to get more involved in Faction Play.
However I wanted to draw your attention to a problem, if you were not already aware of it, to be involved not only in Faction Play as the premier group mode of MWO but also to the regular Quick Play Group queue/s.
That is: The ability to play the game due to the strict 12v12 team limit.
We can see it in Faction Play thanks to the queue count and it can take half an hour or more of messaging people, spamming chats and trying to get even just a couple more players in to meet this team limit and get a drop and enjoy the mode.
Trying to get a drop in the Quick Play Group queue/s is in a worse situation as it is divided over the 3 servers and we have no view on player numbers.

We usually see a new forum post about not being able to get a game in FP or QPG maybe once a week but it seems that has multiplied and I wanted to ask a specific question:

Q: Is it possible to build flexibility into the match maker to allow drops for smaller team sizes to cater for fluctuations in the number of active players in the queue?
Ie. It checks readied player numbers and tries to make a 12v12. Failing that, it aims for 8v8, failing that 4v4. If that doesn't work, it tries again after a period of time.

Thanks in advance.

#59 F Wulf

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Star Colonel
  • 28 posts

Posted 18 July 2019 - 10:20 PM

Thank you for the information, Paul. I was looking forward to playing under my faction again. So I patched the game .......and thought "Were did all the planned stuff go? Is MWO dead now? "
If it just means to wait a bit.....I can do so ...can the game? I don't know.
But thank you lot for trying to correct things here together with us the players, really appreciated!

#60 Paul Inouye

    Lead Designer

  • Developer
  • Developer
  • 2,797 posts
  • LocationVancouver, BC

Posted 19 July 2019 - 04:36 PM

So here's the update on what's going on in terms of implementing the Loyalist path in FP.

First and foremost, the ability to select a Faction to be loyal to and keeping that loyalty flag consistent across all screens will be implemented in the August patch. The screens have been planned and laid out and engineering has already covered a lot of ground getting this ready. This is Section 2 in the OP.

The selection of Faction will be taking place on the usual spot in the Faction Selection flag screen. The warning screen to let players know about what the implication of pledging loyalty will be displayed as per Section 1 in the OP. Again, this is for the August patch.

The trickier part of this whole update is the LP distribution and associated components outlined in Sections 3-5. The CtA feature is on the border of making it for a Sept. patch but the main goal of Sections 3 and 5 are the primary targeted features to go in. While the roadmap in the OP has been updated to show a tentative release of Sept (and the engineers seem to be okay with it) I don't want to set a hard date until we have been developing it all and have a clear understanding of the systems affected/created to get this in. Target IS Sept, but give us some wiggle room on it.

During this time of getting Sections 1 and 2 done, (it's not going to take a full patch worth of work) getting parts 3-5 is no where near possible done for August. But since it's a light patch schedule we are also addressing the Leaderboards for FP. Stay tuned for more on that and I'll be creating a new thread for the Leaderboard discussion that has a need for your input. That thread will be put up on Monday.

Next thing on our discussion plate for what happens after the Loyalty update is complete, is Mercenary Unit roles and their contract bonus return.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users