What I Think Should Be Improved In Fp - A Prominent Pilot's Perspective
#1
Posted 18 September 2019 - 12:39 AM
Let's face it, I am currently probably one of the, if not the most prominent FP player that streams FP regularly and attract many like-minded enthusiasts to the stream. Over the course of hundreds of FP streams I have a pretty solid idea of what the majority of the FP population wants, or at least a better idea than what PGI has judging from the changes over this year. So I think in the vested interest of the community, I should use this platform I currently have to let PGI know what people want for FP.
More SIEGE. Make every phase in a conflict have siege in it (A conflict has 3 phases). There is a significant number of players that log into the game wanting to play FP but get turned off when they see siege not being one of the available modes in current conflict phase. So yea, honestly this is common sense, many people who play FP enjoy siege, not having it available is just... why would you (PGI/Paul) think it is a good idea?
Weighted frequency for modes. Do a poll, real simple, maybe every 3 months. Ask people which is their favourite mode, or state their decreasing preference of modes. After concluding the poll, translate the % of popularity of a mode into the % of it appearing in FP. E.g. 90% of people voted Siege as their favourite mode, then make 90% of the games be Siege. Pretty easy way to satisfy people and stop us from bitching how it is always ****** modes like conquest, domination or incursion and not playing. To ensure that the right demographic are participating in the poll, make the poll only available to people who have played a certain number of matches in the season. This poll can also be extended towards maps because players also have preference towards certain maps (preferring Emerald Taiga over Boreal Vault).
Conquest tickets. Mentioned multiple times across multiple threads and replies. QP ticket cap is 750, one mech only. FP ticket cap is 1250, but four times the mechs. Illogical right? Why have almost every conquest game be settled by a square sitting contest? Minimally increase it to 1500, or even 1750.
Attack only/defend only for one side for Siege. Results in players accumulating towards the defending side because attack is GENERALLY harder than defending. It also gets boring attacking/defending all the time (mostly for the attacking side). Make it such that both sides have an equal chance of attacking or defending.
Incursion. OUT. Why have incursion when you can have siege? Leave incursion to QP only.
These are the ideas I have on the top of my head that are SIMPLE TO IMPLEMENT. MWO is in maintenance mode and regardless of my feelings towards that I understand that minimal changes will happen. Perhaps we could move towards more specific ideas should some/all of the above ideas are implemented. Thank you for reading this.
#2
Posted 18 September 2019 - 12:44 AM
#3
Posted 18 September 2019 - 04:46 AM
Conquest worked out ok but as you say, some more tickets would be good. It was talked about... what... year ago?
Incursion looked like it was a good fit for Faction but has proved to be otherwise. Shame it's not setup differently.
Would voting for the mission help?
Is using the phases an approach that works or is it creating limitations for the mode? (Wasn't this the setup in the initial tug of war?)
#4
Posted 18 September 2019 - 06:38 AM
Yondu Udonta, on 18 September 2019 - 12:39 AM, said:
At least incursion allows for different attack/defend vectors. Unlike, Siege which always ends up in "funnelwarrior online" with "you gotta wait 5 minutes and do nothing" until your team regroups.
#5
Posted 18 September 2019 - 06:39 AM
#6
Posted 18 September 2019 - 06:53 AM
1) change turrets to quad SSRM6 (+ flamers, if possible). We had a model for missile turret, and it worked with LRMs, should work wih SSRMs too.
2) add some sort of indestructible wall near the objectives to protect them from being sniped from afar. The same treatment as with Siege generators.
3) change win conditions - count only who have more destroyed objectives, and not if one base have 1 less hitpoints total.
#7
Posted 18 September 2019 - 07:42 AM
Toha Heavy Industries, on 18 September 2019 - 06:38 AM, said:
At least incursion allows for different attack/defend vectors. Unlike, Siege which always ends up in "funnelwarrior online" with "you gotta wait 5 minutes and do nothing" until your team regroups.
Siege has multiple gates, its just that everyone likes to all go into one gate.
Coyote_, on 18 September 2019 - 06:39 AM, said:
pad KDR? what? out of point but your idea requires too much work. read MAINTENANCE MODE.
Sigmar Sich, on 18 September 2019 - 06:53 AM, said:
1) change turrets to quad SSRM6 (+ flamers, if possible). We had a model for missile turret, and it worked with LRMs, should work wih SSRMs too.
2) add some sort of indestructible wall near the objectives to protect them from being sniped from afar. The same treatment as with Siege generators.
3) change win conditions - count only who have more destroyed objectives, and not if one base have 1 less hitpoints total.
likewise too much work
#8
Posted 18 September 2019 - 08:19 AM
#9
Posted 18 September 2019 - 09:06 AM
Toha Heavy Industries, on 18 September 2019 - 06:38 AM, said:
At least incursion allows for different attack/defend vectors. Unlike, Siege which always ends up in "funnelwarrior online" with "you gotta wait 5 minutes and do nothing" until your team regroups.
Blatantly wrong sairr .
Where is your creativity, brother Toha ?
#10
Posted 18 September 2019 - 12:15 PM
#11
Posted 18 September 2019 - 01:22 PM
#12
Posted 18 September 2019 - 01:43 PM
#13
Posted 18 September 2019 - 01:53 PM
the website was fixed though, last month when they had spare time they went directly for the critical issues!
never give up
#14
Posted 18 September 2019 - 04:48 PM
#15
Posted 18 September 2019 - 06:52 PM
#16
Posted 19 September 2019 - 12:53 AM
Toha Heavy Industries, on 18 September 2019 - 06:38 AM, said:
At least incursion allows for different attack/defend vectors. Unlike, Siege which always ends up in "funnelwarrior online" with "you gotta wait 5 minutes and do nothing" until your team regroups.
It allows mindless, no skill rushing and is the same exact health as in quick play. That is all kinds of stupid right there.
Funnelwarrior is something someone who has no idea how to play the mode would say as well.
Edited by Kol Koontz, 19 September 2019 - 01:11 AM.
#17
Posted 19 September 2019 - 02:22 AM
Most fun i have IS vs. IS
Average fun IS vs. Clan
0 % fun Clan vs. Clan
I know its not completely the player's fault, but Clans are very much focusing on PPC / ERLL builds and because of that, these matches become very repetitive.
You can see it by kill count: Clan vs. Clan barely goes to 48 kills, mostly around 25-30 on both sides. There is not much activity in these matches (Alpine Peaks for example).
Solution? Idk, maybe buff Clanner's close range weapons or give some chassis more Armour quirks. But the trend is to have Clanners spread all over the map on the best sniper spots and thats it. Barely communication or a strategy seen there.
For me the most fun killing factor. I wish MWo never had introduced Clanners, it destroyed everything in retroperspektive.
#18
Posted 19 September 2019 - 04:34 AM
Bishop Six, on 19 September 2019 - 02:22 AM, said:
Most fun i have IS vs. IS
Average fun IS vs. Clan
0 % fun Clan vs. Clan
I know its not completely the player's fault, but Clans are very much focusing on PPC / ERLL builds and because of that, these matches become very repetitive.
You can see it by kill count: Clan vs. Clan barely goes to 48 kills, mostly around 25-30 on both sides. There is not much activity in these matches (Alpine Peaks for example).
Solution? Idk, maybe buff Clanner's close range weapons or give some chassis more Armour quirks. But the trend is to have Clanners spread all over the map on the best sniper spots and thats it. Barely communication or a strategy seen there.
For me the most fun killing factor. I wish MWo never had introduced Clanners, it destroyed everything in retroperspektive.
The most borring game i have had is IS Vs IS Alpine .
I think it was 24 battlemasters and everybody was trading prob 1200 -1300 mtrs out .
We lost that 12 - 8..
However i do agree that IS vs IS brawl is the best.
Clan can play close range ,, try a maddog 6srms + arti.
I give my word you will like it.
#19
Posted 19 September 2019 - 08:43 AM
theUgly, on 19 September 2019 - 04:34 AM, said:
The most borring game i have had is IS Vs IS Alpine .
I think it was 24 battlemasters and everybody was trading prob 1200 -1300 mtrs out .
We lost that 12 - 8..
However i do agree that IS vs IS brawl is the best.
Clan can play close range ,, try a maddog 6srms + arti.
I give my word you will like it.
You have a good point. Maybe the problem is long range, ******* boring imo.
#20
Posted 19 September 2019 - 09:08 AM
Speaking for our unit. We usually go all the way to complete kill counts whenever we play. And for myself whenever I pug it, my team generally tries to finish the full kill amount if we're winning unless a potato player takes out the final objective first if there is an option. Or on the flip side if we're getting stomped, the IS does the same to us. There's always two sides to a story bud. Not just this anti-Clan "I wish MWo had never introduced Clanners" lense you see everything through.
But I'll agree with you Bishop on the low kill count for maps like Alpine and Polar when both sides bring long range builds. Which I blame more on the maps and not the players as the player adapts to what they know is going to be brought and the terrain they have to fight on. But again, both sides do that. Not just Clans. But like the majority of replies to the OP, I don't see PGI doing anything to remedy our complaints till after MW5.
Try Ugly's Maddog though when you get the chance Bishop. He loves it and it can put out some serious hurt. Little squishy with those big side torsos though so watch those.
Edited by Bjorn Bekker, 19 September 2019 - 09:10 AM.
2 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users