111 replies to this topic

[General Solo]

Iron Buccaneer, on 21 December 2020 - 09:23 AM, said:

Personally I don't have a problem with it because I would just as soon have the mode put back in as is but a lot of people have had issues with it even veteran FP players who are good. Get gud isn't the only or best answer to game design especially when we are talking about getting more people to play.

Maybe all queues need match making
except comp queue
That end game

[Ignatius Audene]

Psst. Fp got MM. Just not working because of mini population. Its just sad how many bad ideas are brought up by people never or barely playing the mode. Any form of advantage in a later game if u don't loose or cripple your mech would just make the match rlyyyyyyyy slow. Normally when u whipe the floor with red team u go yolo when the game is safe to grant them some kills and dmg. With such a change the erlarge, ppc, ac2 meta would be even worst. And 9/10 maps can already easily be played as an 1k+ trade festival.

[General Solo]

So its not working
Same as no matchmaker functionally
With a good MM enough yoloes would have their tier place...maybe they already do....ha....ha.....ha

[Rexxxxxxxxx]

I agree with Yondu's proposed changes, but would like to add mixed drop decks and automatic balancing and selection of sides based on the number of players needed.

If you have 24 pugs lined up in the queue you should be able to get a match right away, by clicking launch. Not manually choosing a side and praying for the best.

Mixed drop decks eliminate the need to give a tonnage advantage to either side, and more importantly allows for auto balancing of the attack/defense queues.

[n00biwan]

I'll try to be brief...

In response to Yondu's original post.

Pretty much agree on everything, except the planetary conquest/unit costs aspect. Unit costs were there to stop everyone stacking in just a couple of top units to mc farm, forcing it to spread out a bit. So like, I guess I'm for one of these two things but not at the same time, unless a better 3rd solution can be thought up.

In response to muttering about siege gameplay, it is supposed to be a nasty, get shot in the face kinda mode, it's got a depth to it that just poking at each other in QP doesn't have. Choke points and rock paper scissors, choices teams and leaders make that vastly affect the outcome, morale and calm in the face of fire or whatever. It's different, it's meant to be.

I'd also say no to dropping mixed decks for now.

I mean... having a thought, the FP MC situation could be improved to make MC not tied to unit tagging but actual participation in a conquest. Meaning, we could drop unit costs, allow tagging, and pay pilots small amounts of MC at the end of each cycle based on actual participation. That way people holding on to the tag of their small or dead unit won't have to switch around and can still feel fairly rewarded.

I think it is pretty much down to the community to help bring up players into FP at this point, a willing potato is already 50% there if they will waddle along with the rest of you and only push when you say go. The rest is practice, that as someone may have pointed out, is less likely if said potato is ridiculed.

[Bistrorider]

Kaukas, on 24 December 2020 - 01:46 AM, said:

what new comunity manager Dareon said about making FW event only i dont like that idea at all - and worst thing is pgi still talks about making FW event only when people clearly stated that they dont like that idea on forum . at least if they not doing any development to FW they should leave this mode alive , for new people that come to this game there can be announcement that FW is activ only on special hours because of time diference on planet - evening europe time and early morning europe time - because now i read some posts about people crying that they cant get match in FW because queue is empty and mabe those posts made pgi think about making that mode event only - FW is activ every day but not 24 hours straight because we have real life in the way.

And that is a cr@p from the start. Imagine we have more players in Faction. Let's say I found 24 people to play Faction in a weekend. I wanna launch, doors closed. Good multi games have varied and accessible game modes. Some here play Faction from years, they should be heared. If they aren't what is the cause of all this?

[Bistrorider]

Kaukas, on 30 December 2020 - 07:51 AM, said:

and from last twonhall on ngng pgi said clearly - they not investing if they not making a profit out of it - so with that ammount of people that we have in FW right now there are no bright future on horizont for this mode - simply because pgi see no future profit in it
happy new year all

At least for few years, when MWO starts, PGI had some profit. Where is that profit, I wonder? Also, looks like PGI is still hiring so they have a money for new employees. And there is new owner of PGI.

And that thing: "I will not invest because I see no profit". It's like: I will never walk through the street because a car can hit me. If you see no profit, and now options for profit in your own company... Sigh.

Besides this https://www.enadglob...1645C48E654694/

And, quoting: "For the 12-month period ending on 30 September 2020, Piranha Games generated net sales of approximately CAD 22.7 million".

And: "For the past ten years, Piranha Games has focused on developing games within the MechWarrior franchise. The first title the company launched was MechWarrior Online which has generated over CAD 75 million in revenue with its tens of thousands of daily players and F2P (free-to-play) business model".

And: "The latest title to be launched was MechWarrior 5: Mercenaries which was awarded 81/100 points by IGN and 85/100 by GamingTrend, two game reviewing websites. The title was launched in 2019 and has sold hundreds of thousands of copies on the Epic Games Store alone. In 2021, the title will be launched on other platforms such as Steam and GOG".

Not so bad for dying company without money...

Where is my money, Russ?

New owner of PGI might be our hope, or finall hangman of this game.

Anyway
HAPPY NEW YEAR ALL

Edited by Bistrorider, 31 December 2020 - 12:06 AM.

[Bistrorider]

Ok, get it.

To my amazement I'm also still here. And I'm not a person which not giving a second chance.

[50 50]

There is still a lot to like about MWO.

Where I believe the development has made a rod for itself is in the separation of the modes.
MWO, the structure of it, is what Quick Play is.
We had the Quick Play queue and the Private Lobbies and that was it.
When Faction Play (Community Warfare) came along it was added as it's own mode and we got a lot of really nice features added with it but it was built on the structure of Quick Play and copied into it's own section of MWO.
The same thing then happened with Solaris and to some extent Comp.

For Faction Play, it may have been better to build onto Quick Play with more features in the group, unit management and match maker areas of the game. It needed a little section to display the power struggle between the houses and clans and some features specific to those factions. But the rest of it is really about the groups, units and match maker.

Solaris and Comp may have been far better served being developed within the Private Lobby section of MWO where we had all the features for determining team sizes, match details, maps and so on then developing that further with the sponsorships, competitive team stables, the voice overs and atmosphere.
That's for a different discussion though.

The advantage being that should we get a new map or a new mission added they would immediately be available for all sections of MWO. Any changes or fixes needed for maps and missions benefit all modes.
If any adjustments or new features needed to be added to Faction Play (or Solaris), then it's outside of the above and in the group/unit management areas or private lobby.

The combat is MWO has always been pretty good. There is a lot of fun in building a mech and taking it into battle and watching mech bits getting blown off.
We have seen the additional thought and strategies that players have developed for Faction primarily because of the drop decks which has added some depth, better team co-ordination and planning for the matches.

Would we have that same level of depth, team co-ordination and planning if we had to use and maintain a single drop deck across 4 single drop missions?

[Vlad Ward]

n00biwan, on 27 December 2020 - 08:53 AM, said:

I'll try to be brief...

In response to Yondu's original post.

Pretty much agree on everything, except the planetary conquest/unit costs aspect. Unit costs were there to stop everyone stacking in just a couple of top units to mc farm, forcing it to spread out a bit. So like, I guess I'm for one of these two things but not at the same time, unless a better 3rd solution can be thought up.

In response to muttering about siege gameplay, it is supposed to be a nasty, get shot in the face kinda mode, it's got a depth to it that just poking at each other in QP doesn't have. Choke points and rock paper scissors, choices teams and leaders make that vastly affect the outcome, morale and calm in the face of fire or whatever. It's different, it's meant to be.

I'd also say no to dropping mixed decks for now.

I mean... having a thought, the FP MC situation could be improved to make MC not tied to unit tagging but actual participation in a conquest. Meaning, we could drop unit costs, allow tagging, and pay pilots small amounts of MC at the end of each cycle based on actual participation. That way people holding on to the tag of their small or dead unit won't have to switch around and can still feel fairly rewarded.

I think it is pretty much down to the community to help bring up players into FP at this point, a willing potato is already 50% there if they will waddle along with the rest of you and only push when you say go. The rest is practice, that as someone may have pointed out, is less likely if said potato is ridiculed.

The original Planet Claim system was so transparently exploitable that MegaUnits were being built for FP months before FP even launched.

The simplest way to remove the need for numerical superiority is to render number of games/players irrelevant. Award planet tags to units with the highest average match score from players with a minimum of X matches in the given conflict (10? 15? 25? idc, I'm not a wizard).

If your unit is big and good (eg first gen MercStar which was built from comp teams), nothing changes. If your unit is big for the sake of being big, you can't zerg planets any more. If your unit is small and good, the mode is suddenly worth playing.

[Bodack Horseman]

Vlad Ward, on 27 March 2021 - 10:30 AM, said:

The original Planet Claim system was so transparently exploitable that MegaUnits were being built for FP months before FP even launched.

The simplest way to remove the need for numerical superiority is to render number of games/players irrelevant. Award planet tags to units with the highest average match score from players with a minimum of X matches in the given conflict (10? 15? 25? idc, I'm not a wizard).

If your unit is big and good (eg first gen MercStar which was built from comp teams), nothing changes. If your unit is big for the sake of being big, you can't zerg planets any more. If your unit is small and good, the mode is suddenly worth playing.

This sounds pretty dope honestly, and I'm in a relatively big unit full of players much better than I, meaning I'd probably bring the average down, so it's not like I have any personal benefit from the idea. But it would be interesting to allow smaller units the ability to stand out with overall solid play and be rewarded for it, given they can meet some minimum participation threshold.

[Nightbird]

Nan too complicated, just earn 1% of LP as MC directly and the mode will be revitalized.