484 replies to this topic

[Horseman]

Shortpower, on 24 November 2020 - 07:28 PM, said:

No, I played faction play on release. It felt more alive yes, but it lacked many features that would've made it feel as alive. It was still just glorified matchmaking, no force disparity/ moving resources/ deciding what was worth holding and losing.

... and if you think it has the population to support an expansion back to what you propose then I have a bridge to sell you.

[Shortpower]

Horseman, on 24 November 2020 - 11:31 PM, said:

... and if you think it has the population to support an expansion back to what you propose then I have a bridge to sell you.

I mean, actually I do think so. Taking for example heroes and generals if steam charts is to be trusted it averages 2000-3000 people online on a much larger frontline with 400-500 battles "active" at once obviously populating those with a mere 2000 people would be impossible (16v16) and yet it feels populated and dynamic and people still play this game despite there being 100 other FPS's in the same setting with better mechanics - gamers love the dynamic war. MWO with the simple act of announcing active development again went from 480 to 560 average people on steam. Even if we assume this number doesn't increase at all for "The faction play revamp" update it wouldn't take more than 100 people to make the map look alive which would pull in more attention (assuming frontlines are as is) - and pointing back to my post I suggested auto resolving battles that sat for too long. Making the map look dynamic will make people want to join the battles and those kinds of players have good retention and high returning numbers. It's basically self creating content if the initial investment can be done.

The short of it, yes if you look at the example games I suggested they already do just that. I've no idea what the game engine is like or how difficult it would be to implement, but if it can be afforded I feel very confident in saying it would both do fine with current population and likely expand the population + population retention.

The games using this dynamic logic are also allowed for longer development cycles (going months without updates and still retaining most players) than one that relies on normal matchmaking (since it's just about trying out a new toy and then stopping). Releasing a mechpack every now and then injects money and helps keep people around for a short period, but a dynamic game mode will keep people coming back.

Edited by Shortpower, 25 November 2020 - 03:00 AM.

[War Steiner]

1. Bring back the chassis leaderboard events. (The one with prizes for top 75 or whatever it was).
2. Make quickplay a part of faction play. Make it worth 1/4th the win/loss value.
3. Make multiple house/clan wars happen at the same time.
[redacted]

War.

Edited by Ekson Valdez, 25 November 2020 - 03:42 AM.

[MW Waldorf Statler]

EVe and the Old dead "Battlestar Galactica onlene " has a dynamic FP ...chatcommunication like...Sector XYZ has heavy enemy Contacts,need Help ...
Here nothing, only Quickplay with Dropdecks without each strategical or Tactical Sense
Fights for Ressorces, Special chassies Versions ,
special Items like Bolts ons (thats not ugly like hell), or against Limitations.-
When we not hold the Factory , the next Weak we not have more as 2 t LRM ammunition per Mech/, we only have 1 or 2 Mech/Player by Drop, we not can use Timberwolf or have Arti.
No Jumproutes(thats can Blocked), no Jumptime, nothing Tactical or Strategical Features ,nothing from the Heavy Strategical Features for example in the MW4 leagues thats more or a little Empire at war

Edited by MW Waldorf Statler, 25 November 2020 - 02:47 AM.

[DAEDALOS513]

Horseman, on 24 November 2020 - 11:31 PM, said:

... and if you think it has the population to support an expansion back to what you propose then I have a bridge to sell you.

Don't you have to build it first before they come?

Edited by DAEDALOS513, 25 November 2020 - 11:28 AM.

[Mercu]

I love the fact that the group and solo queues are mixed an I can now drop with my friends - it's simple and robust. I enjoy the game much more since the queues were mixed. And well seasoned players instintively know how to play the game, a group who communicates is not guranteed to win.

[Horseman]

Shortpower, on 25 November 2020 - 02:26 AM, said:

I mean, actually I do think so. Taking for example heroes and generals if steam charts is to be trusted it averages 2000-3000 people online

Who are all pushed into that as the default mode, as I understand. That is not the case in MWO, where most of the players stick to QP instead.

Quote

on a much larger frontline with 400-500 battles "active" at once obviously populating those with a mere 2000 people would be impossible (16v16)

Which means that either a) the numbers are misreported or that game is filling up matches with bots. Which according to multiple statements from PGI aren't an option in MWO.

Quote

Even if we assume this number doesn't increase at all for "The faction play revamp" update it wouldn't take more than 100 people to make the map look alive which would pull in more attention (assuming frontlines are as is)

You're making an assumption that there are 100 concurrent players active in FP. Usually it takes ~30 minutes for 24 people to queue at the same timer for a 12v12 match.

Quote

Making the map look dynamic will make people want to join the battles and those kinds of players have good retention and high returning numbers. It's basically self creating content if the initial investment can be done.

If that was all it took, then why did FP numbers fell below a level where it was sustainable, forcing PGI to reduce the buckets multiple times? And how would you prevent that from happening again?

Additionally, given the implications of what Matt just communicated regarding Solaris it seems despite Daeron's promises to the contrary, PGI's plan for both FP and Solaris is to either ignore or scale down both modes, not invest into them.

DAEDALOS513, on 25 November 2020 - 08:07 AM, said:

Don't you have to build it first before they will come?

Except it was built before, so why didn't they come then?

[DAEDALOS513]

Horseman, on 25 November 2020 - 10:11 AM, said:

Except it was built before, so why didn't they come then?

Despite never having finished developing it, CW was pretty kickin for a while.. but started dying out once players realized they stopped working on it.. hopefully they can continue where they left off.

Edited by DAEDALOS513, 25 November 2020 - 11:57 AM.

[MW Waldorf Statler]

The FW/FP died with...
Waiting times
Ghost drops (30 minutes waiting for nothing)
Maps thats give good Teams (RJF) a unbreakable Advance as Defender against uncoordinated Teams
Events thats many Players outclosed from Play
No realy Goals to play the FP with all the Problems

Edited by MW Waldorf Statler, 25 November 2020 - 07:14 PM.

[Alreech]

MW Waldorf Statler, on 25 November 2020 - 12:41 PM, said:

The FW/FP died with...
Waiting times
Ghost drops (30 minutes waiting for nothing)
Maps thats give good Teams (RJF) a unbreakable Advance uncoordinated Teams as Defender against uncoordinated Teams
Events thats many Players outclosed from Play
No realy Goals to play the FP with all the Problems

So basically the same that killed Group play:

• long waiting times due hard to match group sizes and later dying player base
  
• lack of balancing (12 player premade vs 6x 2 random players)

...and the same that plagues Solo Quickplay

• uncoordinated teams
  
• no goals except climbing tiers (that never ment to be a goal) & grinding XPs or farming events for MCs

Maybe PGI should focus on:

• improving matchmaking in Group & Factionplay (waiting time & balance)
  
• improving coordination in all modes by making group up with strangers easier (VOIP in group)
  
• improving long time motivation by giving better rewards / goals (like earning faction content in faction play instead generic stuff like Gazelle Dropship statues & Hamster Hueys)

[Shortpower]

Horseman, on 25 November 2020 - 10:11 AM, said:

Who are all pushed into that as the default mode, as I understand. That is not the case in MWO, where most of the players stick to QP instead.
Which means that either a) the numbers are misreported or that game is filling up matches with bots. Which according to multiple statements from PGI aren't an option in MWO.
You're making an assumption that there are 100 concurrent players active in FP. Usually it takes ~30 minutes for 24 people to queue at the same timer for a 12v12 match.
If that was all it took, then why did FP numbers fell below a level where it was sustainable, forcing PGI to reduce the buckets multiple times? And how would you prevent that from happening again?

Additionally, given the implications of what Matt just communicated regarding Solaris it seems despite Daeron's promises to the contrary, PGI's plan for both FP and Solaris is to either ignore or scale down both modes, not invest into them.
Except it was built before, so why didn't they come then?

Non-arguments all around
1: Not misreported, read what I said - designed to look dynamic with much less than the population you would assume. It auto resolves battles the community has rated as "unfun" while funneling players towards fights that aren't rated as such. 500 battles are active on the map at once, but MAYBE 20 are being fought in while the rest auto resolve. This creates the illusion of a LARGE dynamic war (again I said basically this in my original post) while also creating battles where players do their best with what they've been given.
2: I don't think there are 100 concurrent players in FP, it's literally just matchmaking with extra steps right now. Why would they. I think if a dynamic feeling FP was implemented people would play.
3: It was not sustainable because it was always glorified matchmaking... I ... are you reading anything I'm saying? It bled players because again it was glorified matchmaking. Once more, it was glorified matchmaking with nothing special. I think I said it in the original post and every response since then but you've apparently still not read it since you haven't addressed it - it's glorified matchmaking and always was. If faction play was more than glorified matchmaking it would easily populate, but it's never been that.

Lastly, since you are being annoyingly hardheaded, what was built was never a bridge. It was a pontoon raft that once the gimmick wore off people decided wasn't worth crossing. I think with that I've worded "FP was never dynamic" in enough ways that you might understand that I'm not asking for early FP back.

Once more for good measure:
Faction Play was never dynamic. It was always a glorified MM game mode. There was no force disparity, no strategic map thought, no cutting losses to ensure victories (or keep off defeat), no need to communicate as a faction (As in Planetside for example, factions will often give up 3-4 territories to get the lattice line to a more favorable spot so they can focus on pushing other lattices). As for Heroes and Generals making war it's big thing, you're right - after it was introduced they realized people liked its implementation and went all in, but that was after they realized people liked it more than their garbage cookie cutter MM.

Actually since you might still miss the point, you keep straw-manning that I'm arguing for old FP. I've played old FP, it's not dynamic now and it wasn't then. Teleporting instantly to every battle with long enough timers that you wouldn't lose a planet while you were in a battle meant 12 people could hold essentially everything, teleporting to every battle in what was already at that point a glorified MM. Forcing people to pick and choose battles is literally half the fight to make FP a good game mode. It doesn't matter if this is implemented in the way I suggest or another but a dynamic feeling war is something people got very excited for when PGI suggested it and only fell flat when it was glorified matchmaking.

FP died because it was always glorified matchmaking and so long as they keep it that way they might as well just cut it entirely. Slap meaningless factions behind quickplay and the one you pledge loyalty to slowly rack in rewards.

Side note, my post got moved to the modes discussion, so roast me there not here if you don't mind.

Edited by Shortpower, 25 November 2020 - 04:16 PM.

[MW Waldorf Statler]

Quote

Once more for good measure:
Faction Play was never dynamic. It was always a glorified MM game mode. There was no force disparity, no strategic map thought, no cutting losses to ensure victories (or keep off defeat), no need to communicate as a faction (As in Planetside for example, factions will often give up 3-4 territories to get the lattice line to a more favorable spot so they can focus on pushing other lattices). As for Heroes and Generals making war it's big thing, you're right - after it was introduced they realized people liked its implementation and went all in, but that was after they realized people liked it more than their garbage cookie cutter MM.

Actually since you might still miss the point, you keep straw-manning that I'm arguing for old FP. I've played old FP, it's not dynamic now and it wasn't then. Teleporting instantly to every battle with long enough timers that you wouldn't lose a planet while you were in a battle meant 12 people could hold essentially everything, teleporting to every battle in what was already at that point a glorified MM. Forcing people to pick and choose battles is literally half the fight to make FP a good game mode. It doesn't matter if this is implemented in the way I suggest or another but a dynamic feeling war is something people got very excited for when PGI suggested it and only fell flat when it was glorified matchmaking.

True Reality ...the mWO FP is not others as a QP with long waiting Times, and Dropdecks...the Assault mode in UT2003 was better designed as the NonFaction Play here

[Elizander]

I'd just like to state my opinion about these features. I personally do not find them compelling or important if it's just another versus queue and advancing the timeline only matters if you want to introduce more tech and mechs.

To me, advance timeline = just more mechs/tech and the queue is just another queue like Solaris or FP. I don't see effort in a new queue providing much benefit or entertainment and new mechs/tech isn't exciting unless PGI can fix the current huge discrepancy of fun factor with the existing mechs. You'll have to go slap a -40% UAC jam chance on the YLW, change the structure quirks to armor quirks on underperforming chassis/variants and don't make me feel like 90% of my mechs are wasted space compared to the good ones I have before I get excited for new mechs.

Edited by Elizander, 25 November 2020 - 07:37 PM.

[Tenchuu]

Lieutenant Hedgehog, on 17 November 2020 - 08:26 AM, said:

I'm just going to chime in and give this a +1
I'm a relatively new player and almost exclusively play Quick Play because FP/Solaris queues are so empty.
There's an entire audience devoted to FP; you don't want to make it any smaller, or you risk alienating a core player segment.
You want to make these modes easier to engage in for new players and for more players.

Same exact experience. I'd love to do Faction Play! The queues are dead. I see requests for players pop up but they're gone by the time I click on them. It's another hidden area of the game not explained in any detail in the tutorial beyond "save it for when you're better".

[valt901]

I think random spawn points would be great. Even have a lance be surrounded kind of a XXYXYY configuration. Each team has a cut off lance. Do you sacrifice it to gain position or do you let them fight it out with the opfor cut off lance and hope you win. Right now everyone knows where the other team spawns so they need to be updated.

[yrrot]

Cloud jokes aside, I feel like the game needs after action reports that show at least the key player performance stats (c-bills, xp, damage, etc). There's really zero notification on the frontend that a mech is available again, and nothing shows how you did if you left the match early.

Even if it isn't a notice that is pushed to the client (like WoT), having the client be able to query recent match performance would be good enough.

[Alreech]

valt901, on 26 November 2020 - 04:54 PM, said:

I think random spawn points would be great. Even have a lance be surrounded kind of a XXYXYY configuration. Each team has a cut off lance. Do you sacrifice it to gain position or do you let them fight it out with the opfor cut off lance and hope you win. Right now everyone knows where the other team spawns so they need to be updated.

Is this some kind of trick question?
Of course we will sacrifice the own cut off lance to kill the enemy cut off lance.

The same as we sacrifice the own slow, left behind assault in Nascar to kill the enemys left behind Assault.
Why should we bother about other players in our own team, if they are gone in 15 minutes anyway and the chances are good that we won't be on my next team?

Going back to support the cut off lance will put me in a disadvantage, preventing me from scoring kills & damage, ruin my K/D and tier level.
Going the the most of the team to kill the enemy cut off lance put's me in numerical advantage, giving me better chances to put out high DMG and score kills.

[Horseman]

Shortpower, on 25 November 2020 - 03:45 PM, said:

2: I don't think there are 100 concurrent players in FP

Except you expressed that assumption in the post I was quoting:

Quote

Even if we assume this number doesn't increase at all for "The faction play revamp" update it wouldn't take more than 100 people to make the map look alive which would pull in more attention

Let me put the dots together for you:
* There aren't 100 concurrent players in FP.
* Most of the time, the mode struggles to get 24 concurrent players.
* If your idea requires a 100 player treshold to meet the target as you described, it would need a 4x or greater increase in the current FP playerbase.
* If the number doesn't increase, then your idea fails to get sufficient players to generate the trappings of "dynamic" "strategic" mode and all that has been accomplished is a waste of resources.

Quote

It bled players because again it was glorified matchmaking.

And what you describe only adds more buckets (hel-lo, FP needs more players BEFORE it can survive adding more buckets)

Quote

Once more, it was glorified matchmaking with nothing special. I think I said it in the original post and every response since then but you've apparently still not read it since you haven't addressed it - it's glorified matchmaking and always was. If faction play was more than glorified matchmaking it would easily populate, but it's never been that.

Weasel words and a non-argument. Again, no matter how much you deny it, FP has been in a position where voting and choosing different planets and queues to drop in did provide a semblance if the "dynamic" gameplay you're requesting. It wasn't enough to keep the playerbase engaged and what is left is not enough to support the mode you're envisioning.

Quote

I think with that I've worded "FP was never dynamic" in enough ways that you might understand that I'm not asking for early FP back.

I think you fail to grasp that PGI isn't looking to do much if anything to expand FP. It's on the same level as Solaris and they've already expressed an interest in relegating it to an event-only queue.

Quote

There was no force disparity,

Throwing players into lopsided matches is an EXCELLENT idea if you want them to toss their keyboard away in disgust and quit the game.
For a more concrete example when Scouting was a regular queue, controlling Long Tom was most definitely a form of force disparity. And players were quitting the mode over it.

Quote

no strategic map thought,

Most of the playerbase never will. They're in MWO to pew-pew at giant robots and in FP for lore nostalgia.

Quote

no cutting losses to ensure victories (or keep off defeat),

See above. A resource management layer will just cause more players to toss the mode away in disgust.

Quote

no need to communicate as a faction (As in Planetside for example, factions will often give up 3-4 territories to get the lattice line to a more favorable spot so they can focus on pushing other lattices).

Voting for territories to attack was very much it. You don't seem to remember it used to be a thing.

Quote

As for Heroes and Generals making war it's big thing, you're right - after it was introduced they realized people liked its implementation and went all in, but that was after they realized people liked it more than their garbage cookie cutter MM.

And in MWO most players default to Quick Play because they're not looking for a mode with the time and effort investment of FP. To make FP the default mode, it would have to be drastically changed for a lower barrier of entry. Without such a change, most of the playerbase would just GTFO, and with it the remainder of the current FP playerbase would GTFO instead, because FP was touted as the endgame mode.

Quote

Actually since you might still miss the point, you keep straw-manning that I'm arguing for old FP.

No, I'm arguing that parts of your grandiose idea already existed here and didn't pan out. The sad reality is that the mode doesn't have enough players to support your vision.

Quote

Teleporting instantly to every battle with long enough timers that you wouldn't lose a planet while you were in a battle meant 12 people could hold essentially everything, teleporting to every battle in what was already at that point a glorified MM.

So you want players to have a timeout before they can re-queue? Or perhaps some sort of resource management to move their different mechs to different planets? Congratulations... you just killed the mode, because players faced with that kind of feelbad mechanic will quit it.

Quote

Forcing people to pick and choose battles is literally half the fight to make FP a good game mode

Do you understand that there are so few players left that they will take any battles they can get?

Quote

Slap meaningless factions behind quickplay and the one you pledge loyalty to slowly rack in rewards.

That's more likely to happen, unfortunately.

Edited by Horseman, 28 November 2020 - 10:17 AM.

[DAEDALOS513]

valt901, on 26 November 2020 - 04:54 PM, said:

I think random spawn points would be great. Even have a lance be surrounded kind of a XXYXYY configuration. Each team has a cut off lance. Do you sacrifice it to gain position or do you let them fight it out with the opfor cut off lance and hope you win. Right now everyone knows where the other team spawns so they need to be updated.

As long as PGI rearranged lances according to speed, I've always wanted this to be implemented.. Lances would actually have to act AS a lance, relying on each other for their very survival. Another benefit.. parts of the map usually rarely seen would start to be utilized and each match would start to feel different.. just think of it.. mini skirmishes throughout the map.. epic.. unlike what we have now.. very similiar, very forgettable rinse, lather, repeat battles mostly happening in the center of the maps.

Also, PGI/EG7, please implement a lance voip feature..

Edited by DAEDALOS513, 28 November 2020 - 01:37 PM.

[Mycroft000]

Can things like the jump and MASC reticule shake be implemented(on a lesser scale) for mechs running full speed? Sure MWO isn't tabletop, but there are tons of FPS games on the market that make it harder to hit pinpoint when moving faster. I see that as a fantastic thing to use for MWO, it'll add more of a feel of being in walking tanks than it does currently.

Make it so lights have the least reticule shake at full speed, and assaults have the most.