52 replies to this topic

[Nightbird]

Anomalocaris, on 16 November 2020 - 08:12 AM, said:

I respect your contributions to the MM and PSR discussions Nightbird. That said, as a solo queue QP only type of player, I would never play the game you propose. You need to have a simple, single mech, no respawn QP solo mode because that's what most people want. Guys like me don't care about anything else. And given how the playerbase has sorted out over the years in MWO, guys like me are a big plurality, if not majority, of players.

I respect your opinion, but I'd like to point out if what we currently have can be used as proof of what should be, then we can argue 1) people enjoy NASCAR as that's most QP matches today and future game modes should be built to encourage it, 2) people enjoy stomps since depending on your skill level, 20-50% of all your matches are stomps, no need for a good MM, 3) people enjoy searching and loading, since 50%+ of your QP game time is not playing...

Silly right?

As I said in my post, how the playbase changed over the years provides the evidence I cite that players want a good MM (high attrition rates outside of 1 WLR) and at least a portion of players want FP/CW from the steep drop when PGI said no more development. As a member of the player base, do you want a future game that only caters to you (the current, shaven down player base) with no features that cater outside of it? Or do you have a wide set of features that will cater to a wide player base?

[Nightbird]

An additional point on respawns specifically, this feature (along with other features) is proposed as a way to stop the snowball effect that exists in QP today and leads to a stomp. Specifically with the Battle Line mode I proposed, parameters can to be tweaked to get 50% of games to end with resource depletion (players eliminated) and 50% with capture success (no players eliminated), all by adjusting the timer and tonnage allocated to both teams. I do not present this as the only way to achieve removal of the snowball effect, I marked it as optional after all, but it is designed to solve a problem that having only 1 mech per match causes.

[Horseman]

What respawns would lead to is idiots zerging the opposition, dying with two digit damage and dropping again to repeat. We've seen that mentality in FP already. Doing that against a team-wide resource pool would be just ******* terrible.

[Nightbird]

Horseman, on 16 November 2020 - 11:10 AM, said:

What respawns would lead to is idiots zerging the opposition, dying with two digit damage and dropping again to repeat. We've seen that mentality in FP already. Doing that against a team-wide resource pool would be just ******* terrible.

As you say, it's a problem that already exists in MWO. In both FP and if I may add, QP, players that are new play recklessly and hinder the team. My proposal actually tackles this problem from multiple directions.

1. MWO FP today has no Match Maker worth mentioning nor skill gate. MW:EW has only one queue and a proper MM. As an experienced player, you should not see far less skilled players on your team ever.

2. MW:EW War Mode especially has repair costs, so a reckless play style will bankrupt a player quickly if they're not also eliminating enemies while burning through mechs. Both PvP and PvE in War Mode will strongly encourage mech preservation due to said repair costs.

3. No one is expected to drop all mechs from their deck in a MW:EW match. FP today uses 4 mechs in 30 minutes, MW:EW matches only last 10-15 minutes, so only 2 mechs used on average. MW:EW drop decks feature 5 or more mechs.

4. Certain play styles will burn through mechs more quickly, such as brawling versus sniping. However brawling does serve a purpose in helping secure wins. Pooling resources means that a sniping playstyle player that conserves tonnage can "share" it with a brawler, and as a result open up the possibility of pilot roles and greater tactical depth.

Edited by Nightbird, 16 November 2020 - 11:41 AM.

[Anomalocaris]

Nightbird, on 16 November 2020 - 08:25 AM, said:

I respect your opinion, but I'd like to point out if what we currently have can be used as proof of what should be, then we can argue 1) people enjoy NASCAR as that's most QP matches today and future game modes should be built to encourage it, 2) people enjoy stomps since depending on your skill level, 20-50% of all your matches are stomps, no need for a good MM, 3) people enjoy searching and loading, since 50%+ of your QP game time is not playing...

Silly right?

Come now, that argument is beneath you. People NASCAR because it offers the best probability for a solo player on a team of unknown skill to do damage and kills and achieve a high match score. Even with map redesigns to discourage it, we’d still see rotations because getting into a flank works a lot of the time. It’s not the best strategy for winning every or even most games if you can herd cats, but it works in random battles.

And stomps? Stomps are not chosen by the players they are inflicted upon them by bad matchmaking. Just as long wait times are. But solo queue with no respawn has been the most popular game mode for how long? Even when faction and group were far more populated then they are now.

And if we want to look at the broader market look at the makeup of most games in world of tanks and warships (12v12 or 15v15 battles, customizable vehicles, not really twitch shooters. Much like MWO). Most players and battles fall into the solo, single drop category. It’s just what people want in the life entertainment. You can add all the extras you like but if you don’t have the foundation of solo QP you’re building on sand.

[Nightbird]

Anomalocaris, on 16 November 2020 - 11:55 AM, said:

Come now, that argument is beneath you. People NASCAR because it offers the best probability for a solo player on a team of unknown skill to do damage and kills and achieve a high match score. Even with map redesigns to discourage it, we’d still see rotations because getting into a flank works a lot of the time. It’s not the best strategy for winning every or even most games if you can herd cats, but it works in random battles.

And stomps? Stomps are not chosen by the players they are inflicted upon them by bad matchmaking. Just as long wait times are. But solo queue with no respawn has been the most popular game mode for how long? Even when faction and group were far more populated then they are now.

And if we want to look at the broader market look at the makeup of most games in world of tanks and warships (12v12 or 15v15 battles, customizable vehicles, not really twitch shooters. Much like MWO). Most players and battles fall into the solo, single drop category. It’s just what people want in the life entertainment. You can add all the extras you like but if you don’t have the foundation of solo QP you’re building on sand.

Well, I'm glad you agree that using that type of argument is silly. That was my point right?

So, if you had a choice to remove nascar, remove stomps, yes or no?

At the very least, you have not tried to argue that my suggestion doesn't reduce both.

[Capt Deadpool]

Whether it ends up being so much pissing into the wind or if something actually comes out of threads such as these, the effort put forth by Nightbird, Ash paying constructive devil's advocate, Navid with his mechpack and scaling suggestions, Clusterfox with his matchmaker contributions, and other dedicated players is both admirable and appreciated.

In all honestly, I would have far greater faith in a crowd-funded project developed by a collaborative team of passionate people such as these than trusting PGI, or any other developer really, to produce the next generation mech-based game. My introduction to such games was actually Earthseige in 1994 before moving onto MW2 in 1995, so the actual lore/IP for me is meaningless compared to gameplay. The success or demise of any FPS game is GAMEPLAY and gameplay alone, and if you nail that, players will come flocking regardless if whether it has a known IP or not. SQUAD is a recent example of a FPS created by a small team of passionate Battlefield players where gameplay was the sole focus and fancy visuals and IP are nonexistent, yet it is developling a passionate following and converting many Battlefield player as word spreads.

Thanks to all and carry on.

[Anomalocaris]

Nightbird, on 16 November 2020 - 12:07 PM, said:

Well, I'm glad you agree that using that type of argument is silly. That was my point right?

So, if you had a choice to remove nascar, remove stomps, yes or no?

At the very least, you have not tried to argue that my suggestion doesn't reduce both.

You made an attempt to compare problematic game play with a mode people want to participate in. A mode which, across multiple game platforms, is usually the most popular way to play, regardless of matchmakers and such. I don’t mind nascar, I’ll play the way that gives me the most wins and best performance. I’d like less stomps but that requires a god matchmaker. It doesn’t require groups, respawns, etc. I’ve got no problem with your proposal except that it attempts to eliminate the most popular game mode out there. And the only one I’d care to play. The only one that managed to survive with any semblance of a player base in this game. I think you’re whistling past the graveyard if you think you could structure a successful mwo sequel without it.

[Nightbird]

Anomalocaris, on 16 November 2020 - 01:09 PM, said:

You made an attempt to compare problematic game play with a mode people want to participate in. A mode which, across multiple game platforms, is usually the most popular way to play, regardless of matchmakers and such. I don’t mind nascar, I’ll play the way that gives me the most wins and best performance. I’d like less stomps but that requires a god matchmaker. It doesn’t require groups, respawns, etc. I’ve got no problem with your proposal except that it attempts to eliminate the most popular game mode out there. And the only one I’d care to play. The only one that managed to survive with any semblance of a player base in this game. I think you’re whistling past the graveyard if you think you could structure a successful mwo sequel without it.

Well, we both have our preconceptions right? I believe that people that like QP today would be happier with a mode that largely removes stomps and death balling (nascar) in exchange for limited respawn, and you believe that people would rather keep stomps and death balling than add respawn. On this point, I if PGI wants they can poll the population and see which people would really prefer. If it falls to 1 mech no respawn winning, I can live with that.

Another important point is my claim that respawn is necessary to remove death balling. This statement comes from a core mechanic of MWO, high TTK. In other games with 1 life, death balling can be defeated with one opponent hiding and performing a solo flank, defeating multiple clustered players with a well timed spray of an automatic weapon. In MW, this is impossible due to high TTK and such attempts usually results in the cluster of players turning on the one and eliminating him. This means the optimal strategy in most cases is to have a larger ball of players going around and defeating smaller groups of players. Do you agree with this claim, or do you see another way of designing a mode to solve this problem in the MW universe?

[Alreech]

Anomalocaris, on 16 November 2020 - 08:12 AM, said:

That said, as a solo queue QP only type of player, I would never play the game you propose. You need to have a simple, single mech, no respawn QP solo mode because that's what most people want.

Something like Solaris?
One Mech, no respawns, small map, no team to coordinate with.

[Anjian]

Nightbird, on 16 November 2020 - 07:25 AM, said:

I'm afraid I haven't, any specific similarities?

The community warfare being described. In PVE in Chromehounds, you encounter AI squads. But if you jump to a map with real players on it, the game switches to PVP. If your squad invades a hexagon which doesn't have any players on it, it will be defended by AI squads. Whether its PVP or PVE its all by luck as you don't know if a hexagon will have human players or not. You keep playing you are going to find some humans sooner or later.

FromSoftware --- Chromehound's developers --- also uses the same system for their Armored Core V games. Each team has four players with ACV adding a fifth member in the background as a coordinator. If you are lacking members to complete a squad, you can hire a mercenary, which is another player queue.

Wins over the map will eschew that hexagon to the faction's control. PVP wins has more weight than PVE matches in securing the hexagon control. If a hexagon falls to your control, the adjacent hexagons become vulnerable and available for your invasion. This goes on until you reach the capital and the map changes to brutal street fighting.

There are also other things like restricting mech parts and weapons choices to the factions. But after a war ends when a victory is called to a faction, you get a reset and player clans can choose to move to different factions as a new season begins. If you get to tour all the different factions you can collect all the parts from the different factions.

As in all From's games, there are no mechs, just parts which you LEGO into your own unique custom mech, and you can frankenbuild your own mech from different faction parts in Chromehounds. This is where From's mech games differ from all the rest, although you can modify that on a different universe by purchasing complete mechs outright, or allowing for salvage obtained from every match, both PVE and PVP.

Edited by Anjian, 16 November 2020 - 07:21 PM.

[Anomalocaris]

Alreech, on 16 November 2020 - 02:27 PM, said:

Something like Solaris?
One Mech, no respawns, small map, no team to coordinate with.

Lol. A bit disingenuous no? People like to play solo on large teams. Chaos of battle and all that. Go look at WoT, WoW, War Thunder, etc. The latter has respawns but isn’t as popular as the first two. 1v1 isn’t particularly popular in any MMO, or else we’d all be playing mortal combat....

[Anomalocaris]

Nightbird, on 16 November 2020 - 01:25 PM, said:

Well, we both have our preconceptions right? I believe that people that like QP today would be happier with a mode that largely removes stomps and death balling (nascar) in exchange for limited respawn, and you believe that people would rather keep stomps and death balling than add respawn. On this point, I if PGI wants they can poll the population and see which people would really prefer. If it falls to 1 mech no respawn winning, I can live with that.

Another important point is my claim that respawn is necessary to remove death balling. This statement comes from a core mechanic of MWO, high TTK. In other games with 1 life, death balling can be defeated with one opponent hiding and performing a solo flank, defeating multiple clustered players with a well timed spray of an automatic weapon. In MW, this is impossible due to high TTK and such attempts usually results in the cluster of players turning on the one and eliminating him. This means the optimal strategy in most cases is to have a larger ball of players going around and defeating smaller groups of players. Do you agree with this claim, or do you see another way of designing a mode to solve this problem in the MW universe?

Death balling isn’t nascar. And you’re offering a false choice. You don’t have to keep stomps if you want solo qp. I reject your assertion to the contrary. You can improve a solo qp with a better matchmaker. But you don’t need respawns. If you really want to allow a single player to take on larger numbers of opponents and have a shot at winning on occasion(and I don’t assert that is needed even if it would be fun) all you need Is cone of fire mechanics. While going 1v5 in something like WoT is rare it can be done because some randomness exists. The only way it happens in MWO is if you can isolate players and take them one at a time.

[Horseman]

Nightbird, on 16 November 2020 - 11:36 AM, said:

Pooling resources means that a sniping playstyle player that conserves tonnage can "share" it with a brawler, and as a result open up the possibility of pilot roles and greater tactical depth.

Now let's see how easy it is for one **** to grief their whole team: EJECT, EJECT, EJECT... until the entire team burns through their tonnage pool and loses the match. Is this good design?
The use of drop decks in FP means that while one player can burn through their entire pool of mechs quickly, they can't take away mechs from other players (other than by attrition from the resulting 12v11).

[Edeljoker]

Great Work Nightbird.

I have only one problem with YOUR posting: Its not pgis posting.

Thats what the community really wants: ambitious plans, a new engine and not this tiny changes, that wont change any of the big problems. This game is too old, lets bury it pgi and revive it muuuuch better. Nightbirds ideas are a good basis for mwo 2.

Edited by Edeljoker, 17 November 2020 - 05:17 AM.

[Nightbird]

Horseman, on 17 November 2020 - 03:48 AM, said:

Now let's see how easy it is for one **** to grief their whole team: EJECT, EJECT, EJECT... until the entire team burns through their tonnage pool and loses the match. Is this good design?
The use of drop decks in FP means that while one player can burn through their entire pool of mechs quickly, they can't take away mechs from other players (other than by attrition from the resulting 12v11).

2 points. 1.) The main cause of said griefing in MWO FP is unfair teams. There is no MM in MWO FP, and people do this when frustrated. This is completely addressed and a non-issue in MW:EW. 2) For griefers that simply want to grief, name one game where it's impossible to grief your team when friendly fire is on? You can't eject all the way to your team losing because you only have your drop deck, and it's easy to add code to penalize ejecting if you neither dealt nor received damage from the enemy team.

Anomalocaris, on 16 November 2020 - 10:36 PM, said:

Death balling isn’t nascar. And you’re offering a false choice. You don’t have to keep stomps if you want solo qp. I reject your assertion to the contrary. You can improve a solo qp with a better matchmaker. But you don’t need respawns. If you really want to allow a single player to take on larger numbers of opponents and have a shot at winning on occasion(and I don’t assert that is needed even if it would be fun) all you need Is cone of fire mechanics. While going 1v5 in something like WoT is rare it can be done because some randomness exists. The only way it happens in MWO is if you can isolate players and take them one at a time.

I asked you to present a way of stopping nascar without respawn. Adding cone of fire won't prevent nascar, since you're increasing TTK even more which is what make nascar the popular tactic. I didn't claim it's impossible, I just don't know of a way so keep thinking of a solution and post it when you get there.

Edited by Nightbird, 17 November 2020 - 08:31 AM.

[Horseman]

Nightbird, on 17 November 2020 - 07:17 AM, said:

2 points. 1.) The main cause of said griefing in MWO FP is unfair teams. There is no MM in MWO FP, and people do this when frustrated. This is completely addressed and a non-issue in MW:EW. 2) For griefers that simply want to grief, name one game where it's impossible to grief your team when friendly fire is on? You can't eject all the way to your team losing because you only have your drop deck, and it's easy to add code to penalize ejecting if you neither dealt nor received damage from the enemy team.

You will find that some people don't care about the penalties. A shared resource pool that allows one bad pilot or troll to cause a loss for his team is not good design.

[Nightbird]

Horseman, on 17 November 2020 - 09:41 AM, said:

You will find that some people don't care about the penalties. A shared resource pool that allows one bad pilot or troll to cause a loss for his team is not good design.

I'll agree with you that intentional griefing is an issue, where we differ is the scale. You see it as a mountain, I see it as a mole hill. I don't understand why it's not a simple issue to fix, for example why wouldn't making ejecting mechs back-to-back an auto-ban like TKing today not fix the problem? 1 minute of coding. Paint me a picture so I understand.

I'll contrast that with match balance, monetization, metagame features, the big picture problems. I expect some criticism on those points from you Horseman, not the little stuff.

Unless you're saying my proposal solves all the big picture problems from MWO and only little detail problems are left?

[Horseman]

No, your proposal is very much out of scope. I'm looking at parts of it that could be salvageable in the context of MWO.

[Nightbird]

Horseman, on 17 November 2020 - 10:52 AM, said:

No, your proposal is very much out of scope. I'm looking at parts of it that could be salvageable in the context of MWO.

Basically you're looking at it as an MWO update without engine change? I think this approach is hopeless for specific reasons, but from this point of view (if this is your view) which parts are out of scope and which parts are salvageable?

I'd rather this process doesn't follow that last MM update track, where after all the community input and the dust settles, Paul triumphantly sharing the stats of how the new MM improved things... does not happen.

What are the important points that MUST be addressed? Is it what I listed? Or something else?