795 replies to this topic

[Joseph Mallan]

Lord I have had those games!

[Magna Canus]

Craig Steele, on 08 April 2014 - 05:47 AM, said:

...stuff...

Hey Craig,
I think I am starting to gain some insight into your mindset now... I am in your head!!! LOL

LOL, I thought everyone was one the other side to me? jk.
>>That may just be clever positioning on your part.

>>So firstly, the problem with relying on anecdotal evidence is while it is relevant to the owner, its not representative.

Yes, true when one party relies on anecdotal evidence, but with each increasing iteration from different sources (e.g. not of the same unit/faction/etc.) the anecdotal evidence gains precedence. So were Roadbeer the only one saying this in the name of House Marik it may be situational, but when a variety of people from across the spectrum confirm what he says then it becomes more and more reliable. That being said, if it were so then there would be more posts here saying "Roadbeer, you are high, my unit is growing". I have not read one such so far.

>>But thats just not always the case. Some teams die because they have rubbish leaders (We've all seen it several times) some die because they follow a charismatic member to another team. Some die because life gets in the way.

Yes, all true. I am not sure how many posts there are out there to that effect, but here as well I have yet to see one (besides your listed example). Life getting in the way or leadership/unit changes all constitute "standard" reasons, but what can't be ignored is the number of confirmed cases where the reason for leaving actually is the lack of fulfilled vision/promise/whatever for team play.

>>Want a MW:O example, theres a thread over in Clan Wolf I chipped in on where a guy basically left a Guild and posted he was looking for another one. It looks like he never told his old guild why he was leaving, and so when they came across the thread they chipped in.

Anecdotal evidence...

>>The problem is the vast majority of people don't have that ability (it's actually a marketable skill, Investment firms pay big bucks for interprative abilities) and so simply releasing data creates more problems than it solves.

I debated with myself about mentioning this, but I will. This is actually part of my current job, data analysis, interpretation, and creating mediation strategies. Which is why "from a professional standpoint" the numbers presented by PGI do more harm than good and have little "real value".

>>If I spend $100 a year on MWO over 5 years it's $500-, if they get 200 people joining the game every year spending $10 each (assuming no cost per player) you're financially much better off. Whether they stay for 6 months or 12, as long as they pay their 10 dollars the financial aspect is covered.

Which is why I mentioned emotional investment as being a major factor in evoking financial investment. One will often lead to the other which presents a higher probability of getting more $$ out of an emotionally invested player. Those not invested in that way can, by sheer mass, surpass an individual investment, but the question is really how many of those 200 are actually spending ANY $$ on MWO? Having 200 and only having 20 pay 10$ does not look that attractive compared to the above single person paying $500. This is where conjecture meets probability and one has to make an "educated guess" vs. numeric speculation (200x10=more).

>>The company is registered and has to meet certain regulatory requirements including ethics. It also commercial suicide to deceive markets and investors.

I would not place too much trust in registration and regulation being a guarantee. There are enough examples world wide that prove differently. The one thing about commercial deception is that it is only really deception if you are caught and your lies proven. This is usually the result of a law suit or similar. There is of course that funny little thing called "reputation" which is based on "perception" which means that, even if you have not in some way actually lied, if you are viewed as one by a large enough community you actually become one in the eyes of the populace.

>>This is (imo) cause its damn hard to co ordinate bigger teams as a physical presence.
I keep picking out pieces, I know. Here I disagree. My unit is still 200+ active players and we coordinate just fine. Actually, the bigger you get the easier it is to coordinate a sufficient physical presence. HHoD also still has 500+ active players and they manage themselves just fine. I think you are not giving people sufficient credit in the organization department.

>>Also, the factor I touched on above. There are more players in the game now than there were 12 months ago, and those players have different needs. They are not the dedicated BT Lore purists that want a canon experience.

And this is actually the saddest thing to happen to this game. Warhammer would not dilute its IP for the sake of a few extra players. Warcraft would not either. Most "Iconic" IPs would never think of it. Yet MWO has somehow "sold its soul" by allowing lore to be forsaken in the hopes of reaping $ from the masses. Don't get me wrong, I am not in the camp that says the game has to be a 1 to 1 copy of TT, but at least the spirit, the core idea, the epic story behind it all should be the significant driving factor behind the games development. There are other games for those that feel the desire to "muddy the waters", where you an run around and stomp for an hour and be on your merry way. It brings to my mind the picture of a bunch of kids gathering together to pi$$ in some old guys garden that he has tended lovingly for years, just to have fun killing the flowers and PGI is selling drinks and unzipping pants for free.

>>In my world, thats about 90% of my freinds and I guarantee you, that demographic is woefully un represented in forums. This is the last place they are coming.

Granted, if you only have 1 hour to spend on playing then you have no time to write in the forums and represent yourself. That also means that, fair or not, those that do not represent themselves may have to deal with ending up with the short end of the stick.

>>I just cannot see that MW:O is going to be so different from any other MMO player population. For example, arguably the most well known and regarded fantasy universe is D&D, Forgotten Realms.

I never was a fan of taking P&P RPGs online. I prefer to play at the table with my friends. Funny how a group of people can organize to meet on a regular basis for a game of D&D despite job/kids/etc. and so many people online can't. THAT is the power of being social, and THAT is the reason why teams need to be retained. The guys that can only play 1 hour now and then will come and go, but those that care enough to meet on a regular basis with their friends will be there for a long time to come. They are not just here to play this game, they are here to play this game with their friends. Being with your friends means being with your team.

Crap, this post is too long. Handing over to you. LOL

[Roadbeer]

@ Craig
Sorry, busy day today, so I don't have time to digest and reply to your post as it deserves. So I'm just going to put this here



This is a screen grab from 2 weeks ago.
This is my empirical evidence, not only that, it's raw and unfiltered data.
The criteria is set by an automated process on the House Marik website, where if a user hasn't logged in in 90 days, it flags them as Inactive. These numbers are representative of the sites activity since October of 2013 when I revamped the website.

I'll get back to you on this and other things as I have time today.

EDIT:
Before the argument of "Well, the leadership then..."
As such, House Marik doesn't have a "leadership" we're a collection of over a dozen units, unified under the UCC (Unified Company Command) where each unit has it's representatives and the only purpose of the UCC is to set policy regarding the CoC, Website and TS server and administer/moderate those aspects. Units are free to set up their command structure as they see fit, but outside their unit, they have no more control or power than any other player.

Members are free to explore units to find their "best fit" and if you find yourself in a unit that is not to your liking, you are free to join another unit or be part of none at all and remain "FWLM" with no hard feelings.

We decided on this course of action over a "House Leadership" as it has been said several times by PGI that THEY will be controlling the flow of CW, and not leave it up to players or organizations (outside of Merc units attacking/defending planets). Since there won't be a player moving pieces on the chessboard that is the Inner Sphere, there was no need for a centralized "Command".

Edited by Roadbeer, 08 April 2014 - 08:02 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Wow...1,834 Members??? That is a great start for manning the FWL militia!

[Jody Von Jedi]

TLDR, so this point may have been brought up.

Even if "Groups of 7" can manage to sync drop together, and they have team speak and are on comms together, 3/3/3/3 will still prevent them from bringing 7 assaults to the match. So at the very least, 3/3/3/3 will prevent the assault stomp.That is what it's meant to do.

Roadbeer has a valid point about being able to sync drop easier, but 3/3/3/3 is not meant to prevent sync dropping. It's meant to balance the mech classes. Limiting 1 premade group of 4 max to each team is another balancing aspect that's being implemented at the same time, but it's not the reason for the 3/3/3/3 implementation.

Jody

[Roadbeer]

Jody Von Jedi, on 08 April 2014 - 08:34 AM, said:

TLDR, so this point may have been brought up.

Even if "Groups of 7" can manage to sync drop together, and they have team speak and are on comms together, 3/3/3/3 will still prevent them from bringing 7 assaults to the match. So at the very least, 3/3/3/3 will prevent the assault stomp.That is what it's meant to do.

Roadbeer has a valid point about being able to sync drop easier, but 3/3/3/3 is not meant to prevent sync dropping. It's meant to balance the mech classes. Limiting 1 premade group of 4 max to each team is another balancing aspect that's being implemented at the same time, but it's not the reason for the 3/3/3/3 implementation.

Jody

Jody, you are correct in that there will no longer be 7 Assaults in a match.

The intent of the thread was to show that with that layer is exposed in the Match Maker, it makes it easier to game.
The 3/3/3/3 format is about more than just limiting weights for balancing (though that is the aspect that most people are focusing on), but it's also a method of how the Match Maker will work.

[Mystere]

Jody Von Jedi, on 08 April 2014 - 08:34 AM, said:

TLDR, so this point may have been brought up.

Even if "Groups of 7" can manage to sync drop together, and they have team speak and are on comms together, 3/3/3/3 will still prevent them from bringing 7 assaults to the match. So at the very least, 3/3/3/3 will prevent the assault stomp.That is what it's meant to do.

Roadbeer has a valid point about being able to sync drop easier, but 3/3/3/3 is not meant to prevent sync dropping. It's meant to balance the mech classes. Limiting 1 premade group of 4 max to each team is another balancing aspect that's being implemented at the same time, but it's not the reason for the 3/3/3/3 implementation.

Jody

And my beef with the new 3/3/3/3 system is that I like not knowing what I will be facing against. If strict 3/3/3/3 is adhered to, then I already have an idea on what I will be facing. 3/3/3/3 will also bring back the practice of people selecting only the heaviest mechs in each class.

If you still haven't, then read this post. As you will notice, some of us like the thought of not knowing. I don't mind facing a 6A/4H/1M/1L enemy team while being teamed up in a 0A/2H/5M/5L. Sure, chances are we will get stomped. But when we win, the victory is so much sweeter.

3/3/3/3 will put and end to all of that.

Edited by Mystere, 08 April 2014 - 09:01 AM.

[Jody Von Jedi]

Mystere, on 08 April 2014 - 09:00 AM, said:

And my beef with the new 3/3/3/3 system is that I like not knowing what I will be facing against. If strict 3/3/3/3 is adhered to, then I already have an idea on what I will be facing. 3/3/3/3 will also bring back the practice of people selecting only the heaviest mechs in each class.

If you still haven't, then read this post. As you will notice, some of us like the thought of not knowing. I don't mind facing a 6A/4H/1M/1L enemy team while being teamed up in a 0A/2H/5M/5L. Sure, chances are we will get stomped. But when we win, the victory is so much sweeter.

3/3/3/3 will put and end to all of that.

Talking about the post from Koniving? It's a good read. I like to talk about the good old days too. Unfortunately, they ain't coming back.

I like winning against a heavier team too. But how often does the lighter team win? Sure, it's sweet when you do, but for most players (the solo pugs that seem to be the majority of the player base now), going up against teams consisting of 7 assaults gets old real quick. I think PGI sees this as a way to encourage new players by trying to level the teams. Right, wrong, indifferent, it all revolves around the almighty dollar and attracting new players is what makes dollars.

Personally, I do pretty good as a solo pug player (I do drop in 2 man groups occasionally), but I've played MW titles for over 15 years. I really feel for the noobie that doesn't have a clue. Is 3/3/3/3 the answer? IDK. But IMHO, PGI has proved that they are willing to change if it doesn't work. Look at all of the Nerf/Buff, Buff/Nerf they've done to try to balance weapons. LRMS from 120 to 175 and back to 160. Maybe 3/3/3/3 won't work as they expect and they'll change to something else (more like a guarantee).

I won't condemn it until it's implemented and proven not to change anything for the masses. We still have the Private matches where everything and anything goes.

Jody

[wintersborn]

The title should read "Easier to Abuse" since we all know the current system is abused and we all know what that abuse is (Pre made/Sync drops vs solo).

I am happy to see that some people acknowledge it as a issue now rather than poison a forum and further cause harm to this company.

I honestly don't understand why PGI will not give the proper tools for those who want to play in competitive groups/teams etc.? All it has done is loose customers from both player bases.

[Mystere]

Jody Von Jedi, on 08 April 2014 - 09:47 AM, said:

Talking about the post from Koniving? It's a good read. I like to talk about the good old days too. Unfortunately, they ain't coming back.

I like winning against a heavier team too. But how often does the lighter team win? Sure, it's sweet when you do, but for most players (the solo pugs that seem to be the majority of the player base now), going up against teams consisting of 7 assaults gets old real quick. I think PGI sees this as a way to encourage new players by trying to level the teams. Right, wrong, indifferent, it all revolves around the almighty dollar and attracting new players is what makes dollars.

Personally, I do pretty good as a solo pug player (I do drop in 2 man groups occasionally), but I've played MW titles for over 15 years. I really feel for the noobie that doesn't have a clue. Is 3/3/3/3 the answer? IDK. But IMHO, PGI has proved that they are willing to change if it doesn't work. Look at all of the Nerf/Buff, Buff/Nerf they've done to try to balance weapons. LRMS from 120 to 175 and back to 160. Maybe 3/3/3/3 won't work as they expect and they'll change to something else (more like a guarantee).

I won't condemn it until it's implemented and proven not to change anything for the masses. We still have the Private matches where everything and anything goes.

Jody

As someone who's been playing solo since closed beta, I am really astounded by many of my fellow puggers and their endless calls for "balance" and "fairness" in a game set in a dystopian universe waging brutal warfare that has slaughtered billions via giant walking machines of death.

As for PGI, I think they are too willing to make changes, I say this because, and I quote myself:

Mystere, on 02 April 2014 - 10:48 PM, said:

They've already separated full teams from partials and solos. That consumed precious time and limited resources that would have been better spent on CW. And yet, that did not stop the whining.

They've already implemented class balancing. That too consumed precious time and limited resources that would have been better spent on CW. And yet, that too did not stop the whining.

They've already implemented an Elo-based system. That too consumed precious time and limited resources that would have been better spent on CW. And yet, that too did not stop the whining.

And now they are implementing 3/3/3/3. That too consumed precious time and limited resources that would have been better spent on CW. But, what if that too does not quell the whining? What then? Implement weapon/ammo/module/whatever limits next?

Maybe the problem is not really the matchmaker. Maybe the matchmaker is just being used as an excuse, a scapegoat, a bogeyman. Maybe something else is the problem. Maybe, just maybe, the problem is with ...

Edited by Mystere, 08 April 2014 - 09:57 AM.

[Jody Von Jedi]

Mystere, on 08 April 2014 - 09:55 AM, said:

As someone who's been playing solo since closed beta, I am really astounded by many of my fellow puggers and their endless calls for "balance" and "fairness" in a game set in a dystopian universe waging brutal warfare that has slaughtered billions via giant walking machines of death.

I agree, It's called IRONY.

[Kaldor]

Koniving, on 07 April 2014 - 05:49 PM, said:

You mean these damage textures on my Founder's Catapult pre-colorable retexture when it had the original high resolution textures that caused low-end specs to slow to a crawl with visual lag from its awesomeness as shot by Lordred?

Specifically images 3 and 5.

Also shot when "inverse kinetics" were in MWO, where feet adjusted properly to elevation so that when walking if there was a rock you stepped on the rock rather than flew floaty in the air? Those days? I cry then too.

Great graphics back then! What I wonder is how the same PC I played on back then would pull 75fps, is now getting about 35-40. Great job with the "optimizations'!

Joseph Mallan, on 08 April 2014 - 07:45 AM, said:

Wow...1,834 Members??? That is a great start for manning the FWL militia!

Joe, thats probably not all of them. Roadbeer can chime in, but I think we lost alot of players when the new site was setup as people had already moved on.

[Roadbeer]

Kaldor, on 08 April 2014 - 10:10 AM, said:

Joe, thats probably not all of them. Roadbeer can chime in, but I think we lost alot of players when the new site was setup as people had already moved on.

This is true, those numbers reflect sign-ups since the revamp of the site.

Side note, I did a search on Enjin for orgs that list MWO as a game they support, the FWLM is listed as the 3rd largest, with the two in front of it being multi-gaming orgs. Since our numbers are for MWO exclusively (as of yet, we do not support multiple games on the list) that makes us the largest MWO org on the Enjin network.
http://www.enjin.com/communities
Use the filter on the left for "Specific Game" and select Mechwarrior Online

Edited by Roadbeer, 08 April 2014 - 10:21 AM.

[RussianWolf]

Go ahead and sync drop. You'll likely still see my ugly mug, Roadbeer.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I've been doing well since the stat wipe. And I've been running a bunch of non-optimized builds and chassis. I'd hate to see my win/loss if I ran "the good stuff" all the time.

As long as the matches I'm in are sporting (no forgone conclusions one way or the other) then I could care less if I see 12 Mariks on the other side. I'll just do my best to take a few of you with me.

[Roadbeer]

RussianWolf, on 08 April 2014 - 11:01 AM, said:

Go ahead and sync drop. You'll likely still see my ugly mug, Roadbeer.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I've been doing well since the stat wipe. And I've been running a bunch of non-optimized builds and chassis. I'd hate to see my win/loss if I ran "the good stuff" all the time.

As long as the matches I'm in are sporting (no forgone conclusions one way or the other) then I could care less if I see 12 Mariks on the other side. I'll just do my best to take a few of you with me.

Looking forward to it, and I wish more Mech"warriors" had that attitude. Not the whole "It's not fair, he has more than 3 buttons on his mouse, that's exploiting" crowd.

[Craig Steele]

Magnakanus, on 08 April 2014 - 07:37 AM, said:

<teams>

<stats>

<player drived economy>

<trust>

<Groups>


>>In my world, thats about 90% of my freinds and I guarantee you, that demographic is woefully un represented in forums. This is the last place they are coming.

Granted, if you only have 1 hour to spend on playing then you have no time to write in the forums and represent yourself. That also means that, fair or not, those that do not represent themselves may have to deal with ending up with the short end of the stick.

<people>

Crap, this post is too long. Handing over to you. LOL

Roadbeer, on 08 April 2014 - 07:41 AM, said:

<similar stuff>

So guys, my post was not meant to imply the leadership of your guilds was lacking (or anything like that) only that there are other reasons why people leave guilds.

The example from Clan Wolf was to demonstrate that even if people are leaving "your Guild" it does not mean they have left the game.

I'm not doubting your personal insights, just doubting that they lead to the "It's all PGI's fault" conclusion. As I said, we can argue the influence, but the fact that players leave a guild is not a default "PGI is against teams"

I'm sorry if my post implied otherwise.

@ Magnakanaus, so with your background, you would understand why raw stats are not posted, even with commentary, Interpetive ability is not common.

On the money side, the companies annual report is probably all we get to see. If it's healthy we all tick the box, if it's not we will know about it pretty shortly.

On the Trust, sure. But you asked me if I trusted them and I answered why. I do take faith in regulatory systems. They are not the same as consumer feedback but they are also stronger in other ways. They take out a lot of the day to day noise and focus on systems and people on a more macro basis.

Groups, well I did say its my experience and that is driving my judgement. I know in another game I played there was one Guild that had a really strong leader and officer group and had a 3 year sustained position. People were queing up to get into that Guild, they even had a waiting list. That was one group though out of literally thousands. Is it your description possible, absolutely, is it the 'norm' or even the 'average', that very unlikely.

"those that do not represent themselves may have to deal with ending up with the short end of the stick.
This I disagree with. Not only are those people a major portion of any F2P game revenue (cause they don't grind stuff, they are the $10 each market) it's also a point of view equally valid to any other minority. For example, that could be rephrased as "Team Players are a minority so they may have to deal with ending up with the short end of the stick".

If one side wants to be treated evenly then they should be willing to treat everyone else evenly.

People are people. I don't know them all obviously. But I do think that the majority of the player population is often filling time, not hard core 8 hour sessions. Team play implies commitment (heck I have seen some guilds require certain "training times" and availability for "missions") to some level, and a lot of people already have that in their lives.

[Roadbeer]

/sigh
You don't loose 1,100 people who joined a team environment because they'd rather be solo.
I know that the empirical evidence is hard to look at, I don't like looking at it either, but the truth is the vast majority of those people are not active because of what PGI has done to grouping.

Also, I'm much more upfront and consistent with my data that PGI has been. So, you asked once what makes me think my data is more reliable than PGIs? Because I'm living in it (many people don't believe that the top 3 even play the game enough to know what they're talking about), and I don't have an agenda to prove that "everything's cool".

Edited by Roadbeer, 08 April 2014 - 04:53 PM.

[Craig Steele]

Roadbeer, on 08 April 2014 - 04:53 PM, said:

/sigh
You don't loose 1,100 people who joined a team environment because they'd rather be solo.
I know that the empirical evidence is hard to look at, I don't like looking at it either, but the truth is the vast majority of those people are not active because of what PGI has done to grouping.

Also, I'm much more upfront and consistent with my data that PGI has been. So, you asked once what makes me think my data is more reliable than PGIs? Because I'm living in it (many people don't believe that the top 3 even play the game enough to know what they're talking about), and I don't have an agenda to prove that "everything's cool".

Yeah, I'm not dismissing your stats Roadbeer (I think once I actually said you should share them more in support of your argument?) nor that you have feedback.

But what you are expressing is equally valid at PGI's HQ too. They are living in their Stats. Their stats are (so we are told) telling a different story, or at the very least a story they are comfortable with. I guess to be clinical, if they loose 1k team players and pick up 50k solo players, it's a fact of business that you will lose customers. F2P game models have big attrition numbers built into them, it's the nature of the beast.

And you do have an agenda, you want the game to be more of what you want it to be. I don't think you should shy away from that, it's admirable. But it is still an "agenda".

If you want my personal opinion, I don't think its the team factor. I think players would be leaving more due to the lack of immersion in the game. There is no substance to the game and a many players (alledgedly) have very little ability to influence the outcome of their matches, it's stompville often. The "mech stable" means there is very little emotional attachment to your 'toon'.

I don't think the barriers to "team play" helps that though.

But if teamplay was the only driver, wouldn't the same group of players be all playing another game together. The team speak would still be active cause its the common denominator of the group. IDK? Maybe there are rules about the team speak channel.

Anyway, I might put my flame suit on cause USA is coming on line soon.

[Koniving]

For those just joining us... this lovely post from page 6 is a great yet tearful reminder about what we will be losing if the 3/3/3/3 system spreads into community warfare. Please have a handkerchief ready, you'll need something for your manly tears.

Spoiler

Koniving, on 06 April 2014 - 06:51 PM, said:

For shits and giggles, who rememebrs the Community Warfare plan? No, not the first one that got totally thrown out the window. Or the second one. The third one in the Launch party. Anyone?

(Community Warfare Logistics).

Dropships and logistics. Totally gonna be worthless in a 3/3/3/3 system.

To me, here's what dropships meant: A weight limit with a method for expanding that weight limit.

Keep in mind this isn't regular public matches but the merc versus merc or faction versus faction nonsense.
Lets say Team A Zhizhu Mercs hired by Liao and Team B, a faction-unit of Steiner are sent to take PlanetName.
No one owns PlanetName.
Each team has sent one dropship. Let's say a Dropship can carry 660 tons.
Team A Zhizhu Mercs brings 2 Raven 3-Ls backed up by a Raven 2X and Raven 4X (140 tons) for its Alpha lance. Bravo has 2 Centurions and 2 Trebuchets. (200 tons). Charlie lance has 2 Blackjacks and 2 Catapults. (220). That comes out to 560 tons, and the Raven 2X player puts an Atlas on reserve (meaning when he dies, he is deployed as the Atlas). (12 players with 1 reserve mech).
Team B, being typical Steiners, chooses to run 4 Atlases (400), 2 Banshees (190), and 1 Locust, 2 Commandos (70) and poof, they bring 9 players with no reserves.

Now that's some variety, strategy, etc.
Lets assume for prosperity that the Liao's surprise Atlas strategy works and Team B perishes.
Team A now garrisons with what is left and reinforcements are sent for to properly garrison and secure the planet. Lets say they managed to keep the Atlas, a Catapult, a Blackjack, and a Raven alive. That's 245 tons defending the planet. The reinforcements bring forth another 660 tons (for simplicity lets say it's the exact same assortment as Team A used before). Now there's 660+245 tons defending the planet from a future attack, x amount of supplies, and a supply line that comes once every whenever.

Team A now consists of a planetary garrison of:
Atlas, Catapult, Blackjack, Raven. Being repaired. 245 tons.
4 Ravens. 2 Centurions. 2 Trebuchets. 2 Blackjacks. 2 Catapults. Atlas. Fresh reinforcements. 660 tons.
Well Steiner might be licking its wounds, but lets say another faction, Team C Kurita, has its eyes on the Zhizhu-Mercs occupied planet.
They send a dropship of 660 tons and are repelled. Zhizhu lost maybe 135 tons. Of them, the Catapult was salvageable and repaired but drained supplies in doing so. The other two, a pair of Ravens, were not salvageable and lost. Zhizhu now has 835 (or 660 + 175) tons left on the planet. Zhizhu's dropships are tapped out for now, so nothing more can come to reinforce this position. Supplies are drained.

Team A after that fight has lost 2 Ravens. The Catapult was defeated but salvaged and is repaired.
The total mechs now for Team A's garrison are:
3 Ravens (35 *3) , 2 Centurions, 2 Trebuchets (200), 3 Catapults (65 * 3), 3 Blackjacks (45 * 3), 2 Atlases (200) = 835 tons.

A supply shipment is received. Repairs and ammo is available.
All mechs are fully repaired and reloaded before the next assault comes. Some supplies remain.
Team A has established turret defenses.


Steiner has another force (Team D Steiner) in the area that is backed up with two dropships (Teams D and E Steiner). Though it's actually 24 players, both are part of the same group and used their shared wealth to have a dropship each for their unit and intentionally chose to attack at the same time.
The game only permits one attacking team of 24 players at a time; the second dropship of 12 players is forced to wait but will be able to engage before Team A can recover.

Again, before this fight the Zhizhu Mercs (Team A) have established base defenses to protect their Garrison.

Steiner's Team D is a balanced assortment of 12 players with 14 mechs, so 12 initially and 2 reserve that they field immediately when the player(s) can take control of them. Team E is really Team B and quite angry at their defeat and are eager to jump in but have to wait.

Team A (Zhizhu Mercs) has 12 players, 15 mechs in full health + turret defenses.
The first battle with Team D is 14 fresh mechs, and the second battle with Team E is not yet known.

Liao has diverted 3 friendly dropships to PlanetName, 2 of them only partially full and 1 loaded to the brim. These are queued to arrive but will not make it for before PlanetName might fall.

Team A (Zhizhu) manages to defeat team D but has lost 3 Ravens (105) all 3 Blackjacks (135), 1 Atlas (100), and all Trebuchets and Centurions (200), thus reducing Zhizhu's garrison by 540 tons and reducing them by 3 turrets.

Team A Zhizhu now has:
835 - 105 (Ravens), 135 (Blackjacks), 100 (Atlas), 200 (Trebs and Centurions) = 540 tons lost = 295 tons remaining.
Zhizhu now has 3 Catapults and 1 Atlas = 295 tons and some turret defenses. That's 4 mechs left. The Garrison's gates are intact, however the South Gate is damaged. Turrets have power and are under Zhizhu control.

Steiner's Team E lands immediately after Team D, giving Team A (Zhizhu) no time to repair. All mechs are fielded exactly as is.

Zhizhu's earlier 835 ton force is now 295. That's an Atlas missing a side torso (100), 3 Catapults (65 *3). Of the Catapults 1 ran out of ammo but has 2 PPCs and 2 lasers, 1 is low on ammo but has backup weapons, and 1 is completely ammunition dependent and about halfway drained. The Catapults are moderately damaged. One has a busted leg. Another is missing an arm but is out of ammo anyway.
Since another fight is coming before repairs can be done, the Atlas pilot is considering paying for a rushed repair and rearm job at the risk of broken equipment and extra expense.

Team E (aka Team B ) which lost a lot of mechs in the earlier fight went pretty dang broke and are now sporting an army of 24 Commandos (600), and 2 Spiders. Why? Because vengeance. That's 12 players, 10 of them with 2 commandos each, and 2 players with 2 commandos and a spider each.

Team A, 4 damaged mechs + Walled Garrison with gates intact and turrets down by 3 (leaving x amount remaining). This leaves 3 combat capable players as 2 of the Catapults belong to the same player.
Team E just landed 26 mechs, and has a German-style blitzkrieg in mind against the South Gate. Since Team A hasn't got the man power needed to properly defend secondary objectives, the power station may also be ripe for attacking too.

Can Zhizhu's 4 remaining garrisoned mechs and turrets deal with Team E? Find out next time when...

......what? PGI cancelled it with 3/3/3/3? Damn it! But dropships! Logistics! C'mon! The hell is wrong with you!?

-------------

Personally I picture lower weights per dropship for obvious reasons. But if you stack 2 dropships and head over to attack here, you'd have more weight at the insane cost it took to get another dropship (at 220 million cbills at last suggestion from Brian, it's definitely not going to be overdone). Takes time to make strikes, repairs and rearm.

Two teams go to a neutral planet, you only have what your dropship(s) could provide.

You invade a garrisoned planet and you are up against what the garrisoning team has chosen to leave on that planet. Now most likely a garrison might consist of a few mechs and defenses (if established at all), and an invading force of one dropship with maybe 440 tons available to it or some other reasonably balance-able number.

I'm figuring many garrisons might just be jump points. But some might contain mining operations. Some might be supply depots. But hey, this is what I pictured when I heard the phrases such as Brian's "economy-based mech pricing", Paul's "Repair and Rearm isn't off the table. It's on the backburner," and Brian's "planets have value."

If 3/3/3/3 is just for random public matches, mkay, sure, whatever. But for Community Warfare (at least the merc stuff), don't take away my dropships and logistics and their relevance by setting up our own weight limits and reinforcements with the supplies we have.

[Ordellus]

Roadbeer, on 07 April 2014 - 01:12 PM, said:

...

Whatever makes you feel better.