283 replies to this topic

[Kurt the Merc]

Dynamic Domination Points???

could a few spots on the maps be picked as equal distance to spawn points. rather than just center every time.

[Reno Blade]

Coming from MPBT:Solaris7 and MPBT:3025 where you had 4vs4 matches, a big map with borders and had to earn your LP and rank to get access to bigger mechs.

I would change Factionplay and Solaris in this way:

Faction Play and Quick Play
- All Quick Play games are automatically Faction Play (4 respawns, with your selected mech), does only include QP game modes and is mixed IS and Clan on both sides
- All Faction Play games stay as they are with all modes and has IS vs IS, Clan vs Clan and IS vs Clan pure-tech teams
- Faction Play IS-Map meta includes scouting planets which decide which planet would be attacked next
- Faction Play matches would give more planetary % than QP games
- New: Most Valued Player bonus + bounty: the "best" player (could be different "mission parameters" such as dmg done/taken, defense, longest live...) would get bonus while he is the "VIP" and anyone that attacks/kills this player gets bonus.
- New: Faction Play Units can "buy" their own planet (after helping to defend/conquer it) and upgrade defenses with unit coffer or LP.


Solaris7
- All players are in 1 queue/bucket all the time
- Divisions are only used for caluclating risk and reward
- Reward of division difference increases by each division gap to your opponent (e.g. div2 vs div4 could be already 3x multiplier if you beat the better player, or 1/3 for the higher div player to beat the "lower" one)
- New: Challenge other players to a duel. This could also be broadcasted (as notification, or flagging the players in the queue for others to see and spectate)
- New: Betting on outcome. Spectators (or players for their own victory) could bet some CB/MC on the outcome of the match. Either victor, damage done/taken or time to kill. the closer you are to the outcome (e.g. 300dmg to 320dmg bet) the better is your reward
- Solaris Season events: Double bonus or multiplier increase on special day of the month.

[Tarteso]

Daeron Katz, on 16 November 2020 - 01:00 PM, said:

• Solo / Group Queues

If PGI is not going to separate queues soon/at all, treat groups in QP the same as solos in FP

[Hawk819]

I would love to see Capture the Flag make a return. As well as Tickets and a means of respawning like we did in MW4.

Such as Total Annihilation whereas each team took way the a number of tickets for kill made.

Also, a Base capture mode would be nice, where one team defends a base and the other captures it. And I'd like to see incursion removed. No one plays, or even votes for it. It's either Domination or Assault, and often rarely, Conquest. That's all. Nothing else.

[Alreech]

Reno Blade, on 05 May 2021 - 12:26 PM, said:

Coming from MPBT:Solaris7 and MPBT:3025 where you had 4vs4 matches, a big map with borders and had to earn your LP and rank to get access to bigger mechs.

I would change Factionplay and Solaris in this way:

Faction Play and Quick Play
- All Quick Play games are automatically Faction Play (4 respawns, with your selected mech), does only include QP game modes and is mixed IS and Clan on both sides

So you suggest to combine the things that Quick Play players hate (respawns = long matches = spawn killing) and left out the things that Faction Play players love (drop decks and faction pure teams)?

Not using drop decks for respawns is also a bad idea for tonnage balancing and will create a more toxic community:
One player has a Locust and four respawns with that mech (100 tons), other players have a Mad Cat IIC and four respawns (450 tons).

• Who will get flamed in the chat for their choice of Mechs?
  
• And how do the Matchmaker balance the 100 tons to the 450 tons?
  
• And how will 5 spawns work on popular small maps like Canyon Network, Mining Collective, Frozen City classic in the most popular skirmish match type?

Using smaller dropdecks for quickplay (3 Mechs, 155 - 165 tons) and creating smaller matches (8 vs 8, 4 vs 4) if not enough players are aviable for a balanced 12 vs 12 match would be easier to do and would work better.
And still most MWO players would hate it because they don't care about stuff like factions and they hate long matches with respawns.

[zaid]

Kurt the Merc, on 16 April 2021 - 01:54 PM, said:

Dynamic Domination Points???

could a few spots on the maps be picked as equal distance to spawn points. rather than just center every time.

So much this. Why place the damn circle in the center of the map where everyone fights every time anyway? There are areas on maps that no one has ever seen. Place the circles in those remote areas to force new fights. That was the best feature of the old escort missions, forcing fights in new areas.

[Ashan An]

Something i would like to see is a Drop Deck option for quickplay.

Specifically the option to queue up with a deck of mechs (something like 1/2 mechs per weight class) and then have the matchmaker pick the best one to fill up the team.

Ideally that would mean shorter queue times and more balanced team.

[Matmoesa]

-Review / Update Game Modes
Incursion could be one team pushing a base like a smaller-scale version of a faction game. Maybe extend the base out more and offset the attackers with a bonus match score for doing the more challenging job. it currently is skirmish with a base shuffle at the end.

Domination is a suitable game mode for forcing a fight in a specific area of the map, but as it stands, it's just planted in the centre.
You could have different domination configurations that have altered spawn points and Domination circles on your larger maps. Would force fights in areas that don't see much gameplay. EG terra therma, polar highlands, alpine peaks all have interesting areas of the map that we rarely fight in.

-Solo / Group Queues
In the oceanic region the game died until they changed the solo Que to SoupQue if you split the ques, a hybrid system would need to be designed to blend the ques after a certain wait or to just auto-adjust with the online population.

Examine Match Scoring (AMS)
Im in the camp that defensive decisions should be rewarded as it shapes the overall game. AMS should be rewarded so many times iv taken a LRM boat/MRM poptart and been shut down by AMS mechs. so they made a good decision made the tonnage and slot sacrifice for a system that helps themselves and their team. might need the numbers tweaked but its still worth giving some reward.

I would like to see damage taken numbers in the post-match screen and mechs who are able to twist down to 12% and eat 700 damage get some recognition for their contribution to the team.
Games like Rainbow 6 and overwatch all reward the classes that are built to be a wall on legs but in mechwarrior online, a game with classes weights and roles, you only reward aggression and mechs that punch on harder are the stars.
As it stands, the post-match screen is more like quake or counterstrike, where most players are on a similar footing.
In Mechwarrior online some mechs are set up to have more hitpoints than others due to bad or lacking hardpoints. like the Atlas vs Direwolf both are 100tonners but have different Roles and you only ever get an overview of the mechs offensive achievements you have no idea how either did on the tanking role.

Private Lobby Updates (More Options, Maps, Host Assignment, More Spectators)
yes please! open up faction maps/game modes to lobbies, open up Solaris maps with more spawn points for more mechs. There is a lot that can be done to expand the lobby system.

Edited by Matmoesa, 10 May 2021 - 01:25 AM.

[ComodoKing]

OK, everyone hates LRMS and I'm one of them. The LRMS are extremely overpowered and flat out annoying. We haven't been given any real means of countering this one sided weapon system. No Mech in this game can move fast enough to get close to a LRM FOBBIT before getting fried and swamped with enemy direct fire and that is just ridiculous.

Your excuse as the developers is that, its part of the game so suck it up, you have LRMs in real life and we have AMS systems to counter that in game. The reality is that the AMS systems take up more space and few mechs in the game can have more than one AMS equipped. Missile systems do not have any of these drawbacks and the AMS absorb very little of the incoming missiles from Mechs equipped with multiple LRMS ( or group of Mechs).

I have discussed it with other members and they agree that we need something better to counter the OP missile systems in this game. The LRMS have a unfair advantage over all other mech types. If you could add a UAV style consumable that instead of spotting enemy mechs, carries 4 AMS attachments and can be deployed to shoot down enemy missile fire, that would be absolutely amazing and would fix the LRM problem. Just like any other consumable, it can be attached to the mech and popped when needed during heavy LRMs barrages and shot down by enemy units so that it isnt completely over powered. The system would act like a quick fix for ally mechs against missiles and provide AMS coverage/ umbrella. It is not unreasonable considering the LRMs infestation we have been plagued with in this game and has caused many players to abandon the game.

This is not a unrealistic request and should be very easy to implement to the game. Please for the love of God, consider adding this so we can stop getting LRM swarmed on all the open terrain, on every single map, excluding a few.. Seriously... Please and thank you.

[MW Waldorf Statler]

Alreech, on 09 May 2021 - 03:25 AM, said:

So you suggest to combine the things that Quick Play players hate (respawns = long matches = spawn killing) and left out the things that Faction Play players love (drop decks and faction pure teams)?

Not using drop decks for respawns is also a bad idea for tonnage balancing and will create a more toxic community:
One player has a Locust and four respawns with that mech (100 tons), other players have a Mad Cat IIC and four respawns (450 tons).

• Who will get flamed in the chat for their choice of Mechs?
  
• And how do the Matchmaker balance the 100 tons to the 450 tons?
  
• And how will 5 spawns work on popular small maps like Canyon Network, Mining Collective, Frozen City classic in the most popular skirmish match type?

Using smaller dropdecks for quickplay (3 Mechs, 155 - 165 tons) and creating smaller matches (8 vs 8, 4 vs 4) if not enough players are aviable for a balanced 12 vs 12 match would be easier to do and would work better.

Without Respawn the Modes Incursion and Conquest pure nonsense -to kill the enemy team is a faster and more efficience Method.


Without Respawn Mechanics Modes like Incursion or Conquest a pure nonsense ,kill the enemy Team is a faster and more efficience Method to win

And still most MWO players would hate it because they don't care about stuff like factions and they hate long matches with respawns.

thats the problem here ...not only one Chractermodel with different maximal 2 Guns,we have very differnet Chassies tahst alone is a Big factor of imbalance ,so a Respawn Mechanic not can heal the Mainproblem ,without a Group tonnage limit ,and with that so most Fast Action players leave ,while thinking and waoiting and calculation time is a hell for this player ...this is like CoD warzone with 3 Player types
1.The Sniper Guy, most nothing teamplay,sitting a wait to come to a personal high Score Killcount
2.The Allrounder-most focused to teamplay and Teamwin
3.The brawler -Most run in the fastets killaction for personal Highscore and like the Sniper most nothing Teamplay -run-kill-die -respawn

we seeing only one Palyertype is for teamplay,all other specialists for only her own Playstyle and ignored each teamplay Mechanic

Edited by MW Waldorf Statler, 10 May 2021 - 10:44 PM.

[Alreech]

ComodoKing, on 10 May 2021 - 01:20 PM, said:

OK, everyone hates LRMS and I'm one of them. The LRMS are extremely overpowered and flat out annoying.

They become even more OP if players abuse the VOIP to call LRM support on a target or abuse the Group system to drop as fully coordinated Lance with NARC or TAG spotter, one or two LRM boats (often carry also ECM and AMS for the Lance) and one or two brawlers.

[Matmoesa]

ComodoKing, on 10 May 2021 - 01:20 PM, said:

The LRMS are extremely overpowered and flat out annoying. We haven't been given any real means of countering this one-sided weapon system.

while your idea of a deployable anti LRM system isn't the worst idea there are some things you need to address.

you can run AMS and half a ton of ammo for 2 slots and 1 ton. so at the point that you don't drop a heatsink to do so and get LRMed then your not preparing properly and that's why you get rained on.

if your running in a lance of 4 and everyone has an AMS that is the equivalent of a corsair which has been proven to do a lot of work against the most alpha heavy LRM boats.

your team has the potential to have 12+ AMS in play. and that would hard counter any LRMs headed your way.
while not every build can have an AMS the majority can.

some easy ways to counter LRMs
- ECM.
- AMS.
- stand behind a rock.

[Alreech]

Matmoesa, on 12 May 2021 - 01:01 AM, said:

while your idea of a deployable anti LRM system isn't the worst idea there are some things you need to address

Dude, all your suggestions don't work in Solo Quickplay.

Running a lance of 4 Mechs, each Mech with AMS is forcing the players to find other players an form up a group first.
And in a group a players just can't leave the match ASAP after death, they have to stay until the last group member is down. That's boring.
Also they players have to play together as lance, instead of just nascaring around. That doesn't make sense, because Quickplays best feature is that it's a simple game mode without much tactic, and you can leave the match ASAP and don't have to care about other team mates.

Mounting 0,5 tons AMS & 0,5 ton ammo doesn't make sense either, it's better to mount one more ton of ammo instead.
MWO is all about damage or milking match score. 1 ton of ammo gives you more potential damage, while only 1 AMS and only 0,5 tons of ammo don't allow to milk match score.

In a team of 12 solo players it's total sensible to take more ammon instead of an AMS, because the AMS just protects other players.

[Matmoesa]

Alreech, on 12 May 2021 - 01:23 AM, said:

In a team of 12 solo players it's total sensible to take more ammo instead of an AMS, because the AMS just protects other players.

if your not willing to defend yourself then you shouldn't be complaining about being dunked on.

It would be the same story if you are playing a medieval game and cry about archers because you only use 2H weapons and refuse to use a shield.

" AMS just protects other players." YOUR TEAMMATES. IN A TEAM GAME WITH YOUR TEAM FIGHTING ANOTHER TEAM

[Alreech]

Matmoesa, on 12 May 2021 - 01:49 AM, said:

It would be the same story if you are playing a medieval game and cry about archers because you only use 2H weapons and refuse to use a shield.

If the players like it that way then the developer should remove archers.

Remember Battlefield 2?
Released in 2005 if features big maps, tanks, airplanes, helis and a unique commander mode.
The Battlefield fans hated it, and DICE quickly made "inf only" and "no commander" options possible.
Thanks to that small maps like Strike at Karkand or Operation Metro are now typical for Battlefield.

Quote

" AMS just protects other players." YOUR TEAMMATES. IN A TEAM GAME WITH YOUR TEAM FIGHTING ANOTHER TEAM

There are no teams in MWO Quickplay, just 12 random players per side.
After the match those players are gone, there is realy no reason to care about them.

Edited by Alreech, 12 May 2021 - 08:33 AM.

[MW Waldorf Statler]

yes ,and thats was the Time im leave Battlefield the Problem here Narcisstic Players tahts not will learning and flexible ,and will only drives his slow Big assault for minutes in open Field ,ignoring each Tactical Situation ,Team,Torso Twitch, Cover,Radar depriv.AMS ,UAVs form the Reds, Spotters...only drive and kill ...Thats Players better plays Coop in CoD modern warzone or MW5...to stupid for Teamplay ...when LRMs so bad, use itself ...

Quote

[color=#959595]OK, everyone hates LRMS and I'm one of them.[/color]

No , LRMS is the most harmless Weapons for each player thats can more as run foreward and shoot., or runs to a Sniperfight with a shotgun.

[Vlad Ward]

Hi Team,

I'm Vlad and I really miss Faction Play.

I'm a software developer working in an AGILE environment myself, so I understand MVP and SaaS both conceptually and practically. Faction Play still strikes me as an odd duck. The mode was vastly more popular and successful in previous iterations, having been at one time the MetaGame of MWO. Later updates drastically reduced community interest and participation. Rather than reverting to a previous version or making an attempt to turn around a proven product, FP seems to have been abandoned for Solaris VII and MW5. That's a real shame, because at its core it's an excellent product.

Any meaningful updates to Faction Play are going to require some level of engineering investment. There's no real getting around that. With that said, a relatively stable Scope of Work can help cost out the labor and better enable business to make decisions that provide maximum ROI.

Here are a few suggestions for avenues which, at least to an outsider without intimate knowledge of your stack and systems, seem reasonable enough to cost out:

1) Complete reversion of FP to an earlier version (eg Phase 2). This seems the simplest way to bring FP back to a version of the game mode that people enjoyed. Ideally the MWO code base is set up in such a way that this and only this can be reverted without too much hassle or too many knock-on effects.

2) Complete reversion of FP to an earlier version + QoL features that have been added. This is really Option 1++. It involves reverting FP back to its most successful point (probably Phase 2), while taking QoL improvements like the Hero rank and individual allegiances and bringing those forward. Significantly more engineering effort than Option 1, but no new feature development or design. This means fewer demands on teams outside of Engineering and QA.

3) Addition of features to FP. This could be things like:

• Adding LP generation to QP matches and allowing QP matches to contribute to planetary conflicts based on a player's chosen allegiance.
  
• Development of a multi-queue, allowing players to queue for both FP, QP, and Solaris simultaneously with multi-select opt-ins provided they have a valid drop configuration, similar to the server select feature in QP.
  
• Planetary Conquest 2.0 (3.0? 3.1?). Planet Conquest 1.0 had some structural problems which resulted in mega-units being able to flood queues to gain infinite MC. As a result of these issues, planetary conquest and the associated MC rewards were removed. Personally, I think this system was very salvageable. Shifting away from # of wins towards a more Normalized approach could level the playing field for smaller units while not necessarily penalizing mega-units comprised of high level players - eg unit with the highest average match score for among players with >X games, >Y players active in the conflict gets the tag.

New features means looping in Systems Design and other resources. It's the most costly approach, but it has the biggest potential payout. Unfortunately, as with any product update, it also has the potential to be a flop.

At the end of the day, I don't see FP becoming popular again without multi-front Planetary Conquest. Whether that means a reversion to Phase 2 or a whole new design, this was the selling point for a huge chunk of the population. Without the ability to impact the game map in a tangible way, there's very little point. And, let's be honest, sometimes folks like the ability to pick a conflict knowing that JGx and EmP are off fighting somewhere else.

I hope this is useful.

Thanks!
Vlad

[Bowelhacker]

I have an idea for a new mode - a bunch of 12 pugs (let's call them "fish") is gathered up into a circular area (let's call it a "barrel), then a highly coordinated 12 man stands around the outside of it and shoots them until they are all dead.

What do you think??

[Sasuga]

[mod]The 2 following posts have been merged with this thread.[/mod]

Sudden Death Capture The Flag
Run into the enemy base, pick up data/prisoner/flag (similar to collecting power for Radar and stuff) bring it back to your base, drop it off, win! Game over.
- Favors light mechs, except people will (have to) adapt and be ready for them.
- Similar to Assault, except capturing the flag is much quicker, and then you have to get it back to base.
- If your mech falls (you die) it's dropped where you fell (died) and can be picked up by someone else on your team.

Old-School Capture The Flag
Run into enemy base, pick up 'flag' and drop it off on your side to score a point.
Team with most points at end wins, in a tie, most kills win.

Assassination
The heaviest Mech on your team becomes the VIP. If your VIP dies, you lose. Kill the other team's VIP and win.
- On time out, most kills wins.
People don't get to choose to be VIP, it's the heaviest mech, or random if there's two that are tied in weight (so probably a 100 ton assault every time).
- Some players will want to play assaults to try and be VIP, others will choose not to play assaults so they're not VIP.
(With Sudden-Death Capture The Flag in rotation, people will want to play lights and mediums to score quickly.)
(It could suck if your VIP is AFK, but it always sucks when an assault is AFK.)
(In private matches, private lobbies, players could choose which player is their VIP, instead of it being the heaviest or random heaviest. Allowing players in private matches to have their VIP be in any weight class).

Contention
Five captures points are arranged down the middle of the map in a row/column, two of which are 'bases' that begin the match as owned by their own team. Capturing the point closest to one's own base allows your team to be able to capture the middle point, and capturing the middle point allows your team to capture the point closest to the enemy's base. Capturing the point closest to the enemy's base allows your team to capture the enemy's base, and win.
On time out, the team with the most captured points (owning the point closest to the enemy's base) wins. If some how neither team is able to capture the middle point before the timer runs out, then the team who's captured the point closets to their base wins if the enemy hasn't captured the point closest to their own base. In the vent that neither team's captured anything by time out, then the team with the most kills wins. And all things being equal at time out, then it's a draw.


Occupation
Similar to conquest, except there are only three points to occupy, and you can't capture them... Pilots gain points by standing inside the zones, and only while standing inside the zones. Taking damage does not stop point gathering. If multiple teams are standing inside the zone, then neither team gains any points. Play to a point total, on time out, most points wins, on time out with tie in points, then most kills wins. On time out with equal points and equal kills, the team with the heaviest mechs still standing on the field wins, or just do a draw.

Possible variations to try:
Mechs gain points based on their weight class, with heavier mechs gaining points more quickly. (So, if a light mech's standing in a zone, and an assault mech manages to get it's fat butt into a different zone, the assault mech will gain points more quickly than the light, forcing the light to have to engage the assault mech and kill it to win, instead of the light dancing around and forcing the assault mech to try and chase after it.

In line with the heavier mechs gaining more points, the points cancel out by weight-class, so an assault standing in a zone with an enemy light, the assault would gain points while the light does not, again forcing the light to have to kill the assault in some/many cases to win.

Edited by Ekson Valdez, 10 July 2021 - 10:05 AM.
post merge

[FupDup]

We don't need more skirmish variations. And it's not like the development team of like 4 people can even spare the resources for it anyways.