37 replies to this topic

[Sandpit]

Lily from animove, on 19 December 2014 - 09:45 AM, said:

even those co-leaders could be temprarly not online. the system has the gap that the contract runs off and someone has to come online at the moment. This is not really a good system, unless you give everyone the right to do that, but then hope the newbies don't accidently permanently pledge to the wrong faction.

Maybe a better system is that contract do never run out but have a minimum term.

So when you make a 7 day contract, and 7 days are over, the contract stays but quitting the contract after the minimum term does not cost anything. This would be a safe system where no one traps in a hole of factionlessness ever.

This is where players who want to form player driven units need to take a little ownership though IMO

I understand what your'e saying, I just don't agree that PGI needs to constantly micro-manage player driven aspects of the game. That would also place units into a position where they can just take a very short-term contract, never renew it, and essentially take a permanent contract without having to worry about the penalties of breaking that contract.

So lets say Unit A takes a 7 Day contract and then just lets it run out. Now they have a permanent contract with that faction until they get bored with it and can move on to another Faction without having to worry about penalties ever. The entire point of the penalty system is to help mitigate Faction hopping in the first place. Putting in a system like what you described completely nullifies that mechanic rendering it completely pointless.

Yes, you get bonuses based on the length of your contract but, there's a couple of reasons that's not going to matter. Once a unit has "maxed out" there LP achievements, that becomes a pointless enticement. There are also casual units out there that aren't going to care about the LP bonuses.

Again, it just sets up a system that completely circumvents the mechanics put in place to prevent faction hopping and such.

[Lily from animove]

Sandpit, on 19 December 2014 - 09:56 AM, said:

This is where players who want to form player driven units need to take a little ownership though IMO

I understand what your'e saying, I just don't agree that PGI needs to constantly micro-manage player driven aspects of the game. That would also place units into a position where they can just take a very short-term contract, never renew it, and essentially take a permanent contract without having to worry about the penalties of breaking that contract.

So lets say Unit A takes a 7 Day contract and then just lets it run out. Now they have a permanent contract with that faction until they get bored with it and can move on to another Faction without having to worry about penalties ever. The entire point of the penalty system is to help mitigate Faction hopping in the first place. Putting in a system like what you described completely nullifies that mechanic rendering it completely pointless.

how does that differ from constantly pledging for 7 days? And you also miss the benefits of higher LP rewards, which makes aboslutely no sense at all to choose that 7 day contract and keep it endless. Yet the issue of the penalty is preventing faction hopping as you said, but how is letting the contract stay increasing the faction hopping? it does not.

Sandpit, on 19 December 2014 - 09:56 AM, said:

Yes, you get bonuses based on the length of your contract but, there's a couple of reasons that's not going to matter. Once a unit has "maxed out" there LP achievements, that becomes a pointless enticement. There are also casual units out there that aren't going to care about the LP bonuses.

Again, it just sets up a system that completely circumvents the mechanics put in place to prevent faction hopping and such.

explain me in which way said system by me would be able to abuse that? or create any issues? you cna not hop faster than every 7 days anways so why is it an iissue also being able to end a contract at 10 days? it will at leats inheret a 7 day contract.
This does not in ANY WAY increase or help faction hopping, because the minimum allowed faction hopping time of 7 days still stays.
Your logic of argumentation here is just wrong.

[Sandpit]

Lily from animove, on 19 December 2014 - 10:06 AM, said:

how does that differ from constantly pledging for 7 days? And you also miss the benefits of higher LP rewards, which makes aboslutely no sense at all to choose that 7 day contract and keep it endless. Yet the issue of the penalty is preventing faction hopping as you said, but how is letting the contract stay increasing the faction hopping? it does not.

I just explained to you why. I also explained where those benefits become negligible at a certain point, I also explained that some units simply don't care about them. Simply because you choose to ignore them does not make them "nonsensical"

Lily from animove, on 19 December 2014 - 10:06 AM, said:

explain me in which way said system by me would be able to abuse that?

I did
You're just not reading or understanding it apparently.

Reread where I talked about not having penalties and being able to take contracts and then just leaving any time you want without the detriment of penalties.

Just because you don't agree that it's a big deal to you personally doesn't magically negate the reality of it.

I tried to give you some logical feedback as to why and how the system you're suggesting would be exploited to the detriment of the system as a whole. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make them "illogical".

[Almond Brown]

oldradagast, on 19 December 2014 - 09:07 AM, said:

Except, as stated before, the unit members have zero ability to get their leader to use them.

The ability to delegate authority is useless if the person in charge doesn't know it exists or has no interest in using it.

And how is that PGI's problem? Your Unit needs PGI to hold your hands so you can play CW. Really...

[Lily from animove]

Sandpit, on 19 December 2014 - 10:12 AM, said:

I just explained to you why. I also explained where those benefits become negligible at a certain point, I also explained that some units simply don't care about them. Simply because you choose to ignore them does not make them "nonsensical"


I did
You're just not reading or understanding it apparently.

Reread where I talked about not having penalties and being able to take contracts and then just leaving any time you want without the detriment of penalties.

Just because you don't agree that it's a big deal to you personally doesn't magically negate the reality of it.

I tried to give you some logical feedback as to why and how the system you're suggesting would be exploited to the detriment of the system as a whole. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make them "illogical".

no, just make a logical statement, your point is claimed wrong, a unit that woudl benefit from your said fact would actually never pledge to a contract longer than they want, ither eis still 0 objective logic in your statement.
That has nothign to do with "oopinion"
And a unit which doe snot care about loyality points will hardly care about breaking a contract earlier than days, because they have the money already.

Give me a specific scenario where the hopping is worse, or why being able to "break contract for free" after 10 days doe anyhow work against intended features or such.

Just do it. Only I the game would force you to have specific dates allowing pledging and such would such a system violate any intentions, but otherwise its not, and this is also not the case in MWO.

[oldradagast]

Sandpit, on 19 December 2014 - 09:56 AM, said:

This is where players who want to form player driven units need to take a little ownership though IMO


Again, it just sets up a system that completely circumvents the mechanics put in place to prevent faction hopping and such.

And... the other players you are lambasting for failing to "take ownership" will do that exactly how if their unit leader goes AWOL and has set up nobody else to act in his place? Read the blasted posts instead of looking for something to fight about and simply ascribing motives - now "faction hopping" - to people where none exist.

As for "circumventing faction hopping" - that already exists. Nobody is "locked in" to a faction forever except by choice - the rest can change weekly - and if PGI simply by default had faction contracts roll over and continue if the unit leader is AWOL and the unit's contract expires with no new one taking its place, that would both address your concerns about preventing faction hopping - since it would renew the current contract - and allow people to keep playing CW even if their leader is AWOL.

Almond Brown, on 19 December 2014 - 10:21 AM, said:

And how is that PGI's problem? Your Unit needs PGI to hold your hands so you can play CW. Really...

Because adding a small, simple feature that makes life easier for everyone in case their unit leader goes AWOL for a few days is "hand holding" - really?

Based on that half-arsed logic, we should put the HUD-bug back in the game because having a working HUD display is "hand-holding"

Keep it up guys - your responses are a real look into how some of this community really thinks, and it is laughable.

Edited by oldradagast, 19 December 2014 - 10:30 AM.

[Sandpit]

oldradagast, on 19 December 2014 - 10:26 AM, said:

And... the other players you are lambasting for failing to "take ownership" will do that exactly how if their unit leader goes AWOL and has set up nobody else to act in his place? Read the blasted posts instead of looking for something to fight about and simply ascribing motives - now "faction hopping" - to people where none exist.

Join a different unit and stop expecting PGI to hold your hand in every blasted decision you make regarding what player run unit you join.

or
Even better, start your own blasted unit and then you never have to worry about it again do you?

See how that works? I'm sorry if I don't agree that PGI should have to or be required to hold your hand and micromanage every decision you make regarding the game.

Keep on keeping on though. Your constant attempts to dismiss anyone who disagrees with you is amusing.

[Almond Brown]

oldradagast, on 19 December 2014 - 10:26 AM, said:

And... the other players you are lambasting for failing to "take ownership" will do that exactly how if their unit leader goes AWOL and has set up nobody else to act in his place? Read the blasted posts instead of looking for something to fight about and simply ascribing motives - now "faction hopping" - to people where none exist.

As for "circumventing faction hopping" - that already exists. Nobody is "locked in" to a faction forever except by choice - the rest can change weekly - and if PGI simply by default had faction contracts roll over and continue if the unit leader is AWOL and the unit's contract expires with no new one taking its place, that would both address your concerns about preventing faction hopping - since it would renew the current contract - and allow people to keep playing CW even if their leader is AWOL.

Because adding a small, simple feature that makes life easier for everyone in case their unit leader goes AWOL for a few days is "hand holding" - really?

Based on that half-arsed logic, we should put the HUD-bug back in the game because having a working HUD display is "hand-holding"

Keep it up guys - your responses are a real look into how some of this community really thinks, and it is laughable.

It already exists though. Which part of "already exists" don't you fathom...

The Leader can provide others in the unit, as many as deemed necessary, permission to fill their positional duties, if and when they do go AWOL.

Tell your Boss you want those permissions set to you.

If they say take a hike, you now know where you stand in the rank and file.

Learn to live it with GRUNT.

Edited by Almond Brown, 19 December 2014 - 11:03 AM.

[KraftySOT]

Permanent doesnt have this problem.

[oldradagast]

Almond Brown, on 19 December 2014 - 11:02 AM, said:

It already exists though. Which part of "already exists" don't you fathom...

The Leader can provide others in the unit, as many as deemed necessary, permission to fill their positional duties, if and when they do go AWOL.

Tell your Boss you want those permissions set to you.

If they say take a hike, you now know where you stand in the rank and file.

Learn to live it with GRUNT.

And again, how would adding a simple default contract extension feature if the leader is AWOL and the contract expires in any way hurt the game? Or, as I suggested, require leaders to designate one alternate when forming a unit?

Do you have an answer, other than the usual insults and hilarious attempts to "roleplay" a military unit?

Newsflash: in actual military units, a missing leader doesn't mean the whole unit, army, etc. is forced to say home because their commander is missing, and there is no real military command structure in the world without designated 2nd's in command who will act if the leader is AWOL.

Get a grip on reality, man...

Edited by oldradagast, 19 December 2014 - 11:22 AM.

[Sandpit]

oldradagast, on 19 December 2014 - 11:19 AM, said:

And again, how would adding a simple default contract extension feature if the leader is AWOL in any way hurt the game?

I gave you an example of how it hurts it.
You ignoring it, saying it doesn't matter to you, etc. doesn't negate the reason

oldradagast, on 19 December 2014 - 11:19 AM, said:

Newsflash: in actual military units, a missing leader doesn't mean the whole unit, army, etc. is forced to say home because their commander is missing.

Newsflash: You're playing a video game and you're not required by law to continue on in the unit you joined. You're free to leave any time you want and join a more active unit or start your own.

[oldradagast]

Sandpit, on 19 December 2014 - 11:21 AM, said:

I gave you an example of how it hurts it.
You ignoring it, saying it doesn't matter to you, etc. doesn't negate the reason


Newsflash: You're playing a video game and you're not required by law to continue on in the unit you joined. You're free to leave any time you want and join a more active unit or start your own.

No, you failed completely to give any examples whatsoever. You claimed it "encourages faction hopping."

Really? Contract roll-overs - to the same flippin' faction - encourage "faction hopping?"

Try reading for a change... and once you've mastered that, maybe you'll realize that very, VERY few people care what you have to say, no matter how much of your time you waste cluttering up this forum with posts that can basically be summed up with "If you think differently than me, you're wrong."

Edited by oldradagast, 19 December 2014 - 11:26 AM.

[Sandpit]

oldradagast, on 19 December 2014 - 11:25 AM, said:

I didn't like your example

FTFY

[Lily from animove]

Wow, with people like sandpit, I have pity with the IS, no wonder they are doomed.

Sandpit, on 19 December 2014 - 11:21 AM, said:

I gave you an example of how it hurts it.
You ignoring it, saying it doesn't matter to you, etc. doesn't negate the reason


Newsflash: You're playing a video game and you're not required by law to continue on in the unit you joined. You're free to leave any time you want and join a more active unit or start your own.

that example does hurt nothing in the concept, and no one. if you can't see that, stay bling, becuse the example is not violating any mechanics, nor does it violate anything the mechanics of time requirements the contracts should prevent.

even further the system is flawed, because PGI grants factions boni by size, now lest imagine the guy having to go through the database determining faction balance does this right at the moment a big EU clan with 150mebers is losing contract and the next user online renewing it will does so in the morning. And suddenly his sql requets (or whatever PGI may use) is lacking 150 people in the faction statistics, just because PGI was hitting those database request in the wrong time.

Edited by Lily from animove, 19 December 2014 - 11:36 AM.

[Sandpit]

Lily from animove, on 19 December 2014 - 11:31 AM, said:

Wow, with people like sandpit, I have pity with the IS, no wonder they are doomed.




that example does hurt nothing in the concept, and no one. if you can't see that, stay bling, becuse the example is not violating any mechanics, nor does it violate anything the mechanics of time requirements the contracts should prevent.

even further the system is flawed, because PGI grants factions boni by size, now lest imagine the guy having to go through the database determining faction balance does this right at the moment a big EU clan with 150mebers is losing contract and the next user online renewing it will does so in the morning. And suddenly his sql requets (or whatever PGI may use) is lacking 150 people in the faction statistics, just because PGI was hitting those database request in the wrong time.

again, simpyl because you feel the reasons dont' affect you, do not mean they aren't relevant and would be detrimental overall.

I've explained my reasons, gave examples. Your only argument against them is "I don't like them and they wouldn't affect me"

Bottom line is, don't like your unit?
Leave
Join a new one
Start your own

Instead of expecting PGI to be required to micromanage how your player driven unit is run.

[Lily from animove]

further I would like to know whats happening when a contract last 5 minutes, someone steps into a match nd the contract ends before the match ends, do thes epeople then even receive any LP?

Sandpit, on 19 December 2014 - 11:40 AM, said:

again, simpyl because you feel the reasons dont' affect you, do not mean they aren't relevant and would be detrimental overall.

I've explained my reasons, gave examples. Your only argument against them is "I don't like them and they wouldn't affect me"

Bottom line is, don't like your unit?
Leave
Join a new one
Start your own

Instead of expecting PGI to be required to micromanage how your player driven unit is run.

I have my own unit, yet the system has a flaw which people like you can not see. You are nothing than ignorant because you can not see the relevant facts in your "example" reduced to the real mechanics and their cause. And thats why your example does technically not describe any case which is not an extended case of the already existing mechanic. Not a matter of opinion, a matter of facts than you are unable to see by not being able to abstract your scenario to the relevant points, to finally reconise your scenario is a subscenario of what we already have. AND FURTHER you subscenario only happens when someone (a player within that scenario) just made a logical bad choice. But the outcome would not harm any system or mechanic we already have.

further th system we have basically require always someone available at the exact time the contract ends, which is also hardly possible.
In this picture, you are currently the guy trying to explain us the swing can not swing because there is a chair on the swing. But you are the one who put the chair in the scenario.
Yet in truth, the swing does even work with the chair, and the way we suggested to change the swing would not affect the ability of the swing, no matter with or without that chair.

what PGI did is basically what the analysts designed. The swing swings, but this is not the way it's meant to swing.
yet we at least try to make it how the cusomer described it withput the additional boards.




but something tells me you won't understand all of this anyways.

Edited by Lily from animove, 19 December 2014 - 12:18 PM.

[oldradagast]

Sandpit, on 19 December 2014 - 11:40 AM, said:

again, simpyl because you feel the reasons dont' affect you, do not mean they aren't relevant and would be detrimental overall.

I've explained my reasons, gave examples. Your only argument against them is "I don't like them and they wouldn't affect me"

And... we explained our reasons... so, we could leave it at that - a difference of opinion... but you can't, can you? You have to "win" this "argument" - when the thread started as a simple list of suggestions... unreal...

You still haven't offered a shred of evidence that either rolling contracts automatically when they expire and the leader fails to pick a new one would be bad for the game or that requiring leaders to pick at least 1 second in command would be bad for the game.

I get it - you don't like those ideas... which is fine, though why you feel a need to take pot-shots at everyone with whom you disagree is unfathomable...

Edited by oldradagast, 19 December 2014 - 12:39 PM.

[Sandpit]

The two of you feel free to continue patting yourselves on the back. Have fun