30 replies to this topic

[AeusDeif]

Based on what I've read and personal experience playing the CW Beta I've seen a few major issues;

1. 12 mans often stomp Pugs or divided groups. This is mitigated in normal game but not CW.

2. The 'deadline effect' of Ceasefire gives player bases that play around that deadline the bulk of the advantage as far as taking planets.

3. There is nothing in place to prevent one faction from becoming overpopulated, giving them further advantage in taking planets.

4. Therefore the fight for a planet is vulnerable to exploit, and as the only representation of faction success or failure, it makes loyalty to a faction not fun (unless you are in a faction exploiting these advantages). Really, think of how much fun it is to play for Liao now. There is no incentive. If one faction WINS all of CW, there is no more CW. There must be a balance to keep the tension and the fun going... to keep the game 'world' diverse and alive.

5. There is a slight range advantage for clans defending on boreal; not enough to win the match, but when combined with #1 it's noticeable because coordinated forces will exploit that range advantage, and uncoordinated players probably won't know the counter to it.


I will make some suggestions, and invite others to do the same regardless of their 'alignment', with one request: be constructive, let's build a better CW experience for everyone.

edit: moved my suggestions here for clarity

Spoiler

To fix #1 - 12mans vs. pugs: Create tiered community warfare via two queues -- Raid and Invasion.

'Raid' or 'Border' queue is where solo/small groups push borders, winning loyalty points and affecting the war indirectly via a supply stat on each border (explained later). They do not take planets.

'Invasion' queue is where larger groups fight over planets. If there is a gap in their 12 person team they draw reinforcements from the Raid queue to fill it.

details

Spoiler

Raid queue in RP terms: the players in groups of up to 4 (a lance) are sabotaging, raiding, skirmishing, and patrolling to intercept these activities... so you could use every existing game mode for this queue. You win loyalty points with faction, but the main difference is that wins/losses strengthen or weaken that border, which affects invasions on that border.

Invasion queue is for large groups of 8+ (all in same unit) and is only accessed through a Unit which is contracted to that faction.

If a unit attacks its assigned Invasion target, and there is no opposing unit queue'd to defend that planet, after some time it draws opponents from the enemy's Raid queue. I will call these Raid queue defenders 'Militia'. These militia should get a loyalty bonus even if they lose (but more if they win). There could also be a chance the invading force hits an assault map vs. the militia with similar results (extra loyalty for militia, and counts as an invasion). But there should be no empty bases, it seems pointless, please do away with it.

To motivate units to be active in defending against invading units, a lost invasion against militia should count against the attacker's supply, not against their invasion score. This means it is in a sense twice as effective when no defending unit is present

To fix #2 - the deadline dilemma: Do away with the 6/11 point criteria. It looks cool & dynamic but it limits the flexibility of the system. As suggested elsewhere (props), the easiest way to make every win count is to base the planetary conquest on total attacker wins vs. total defender wins.

details

Spoiler

If you want to keep the 11 point bar, it can be used for something else, like slowing down the entire process; at the end of ceasefire a bar is awarded based on which faction won more invasions. This makes more sense because planetary campaigns are protracted events in other BT games, not 7 planets a week on each front... The majority holder of the bars could get the bonus effects of the planets when that is implemented. When all bars are taken the border moves forward. Capital planets could get more bars and periphery planets could get less bars. It'd be nice to see some use for the bar.

So actual daily wins would be based on total invasion victories. This would also be affected by the supply stat mentioned earlier. Here's how: each faction has a stat on each border representing how well their forces on that front are supplied. Simplest is a raw percentage of won/lost raids, but it could also take win/loss of invasions into account, in which case if a faction is invading 2 planets on one front there would be somewhat different supply on each.

Example:

Spoiler

Liao borders 2 factions, so that's 2 fronts. If overall supply on one front is 50% due to 50/50 raid wins, and the targeted planet has 0% invader wins, then the supply on that planet would be 25% (75%for opposing). Another planet on that front with 20% invader wins would be at 35%. However if Liao organizes all its raiders to hit that front, and has its units organize better defense, the supply would rise. If it rises to 45% (55% for opposing) on that planet, neither side gains ground at ceasefire. Wins must be decisive (beyond a 10% margin) and cannot completely ignore the rest of the front.

If supply stat on a border falls below 25%, that faction cannot launch invasions across the border, it can only fight in the Invasion queue on its defending planet. This does not apply if the supply stat is only that low on the defending planet. This means, in the above example, if Liao's border is weaker than 25%, they are pinned on that defending planet even if they are winning there, as if they are embargoed. They must dominate the planet in win percentages in order to 'break through' the enemy's constriction of their supply lines to that planet, or, win more in the raiding queue.

The point of this 'supply' stat is to tie the solo/smaller grouped players in with community warfare in a dynamic way, without causing them to be an obstacle or an exploit for more coordinated Unit groups in community warfare. Because the limit for Raid is 4 or less, a unit cannot exploit raiding by forming large groups, and because it is fought on the entire 'border' and not a single planet, sync dropping will not be as easy. Perhaps Raid matches should be formed swiftly with varying numbers of players, provided the teams are even.

To fix #3 - 'one faction to rule them all': to balance the effects of faction population, limit the amount of unit contracts given out, and limit the amount or the effect of inter-faction raids.

details

Spoiler

In this concept, Unit contracts are the only way players get access to the Invasion queue in which they take and hold planets. It makes sense that units would represent a sort of ante on a border; the more one faction hires, the more the faction on the other side of the border would hire to keep up. Therefore a faction should not hire more than 1 unit than the opposing faction has on its border, because overkill is not profitable and funds are limited.

The effect this would have is in preventing any faction from becoming OP by popularity. As it stands now there's nothing preventing everyone from joining one faction and steamrolling the entire map. This is a crucial balance issue that no one can really be objective about until there's hard limits in place.

The proposed raid queue shouldn't have so much issues with this because there is no match in the raid queue without opposing players. However if one side becomes overpopulated it may have difficulty finding matches... in that case it can switch to another front, even a border which is fighting the clans. Incomplete premades queuing for invasion should still be able to draw 'militia' from these other border queues.

Now, what's the simplest, most immersive way to represent all this in the UI? The supply status of a border can be represented simply as win and loss #'s on the selected border. Players would know more wins than losses means more supply. The state of supply on a planet can be represented the same way, looking at wins to losses there and comparing it to raid wins/raid losses on that border. Lastly there could be a text approximating the general state of supply lines to that planet, such as 'supplies: excellent (top 10%), acceptable, limited (middle 10%), depleted, and dangerously low (bottom 10%)'...

For the Raid queue,the calls for defending/attacking a planet now would be replaced with '(Faction) needs attackers/defenders' and this would apply for a militia call to supplement an invading unit, as well. Players in units would still get '(planet) needs attackers/defenders' so that units could keep tabs on the Invasion queue.

To fix #5 - clan defense on boreal: make more invasion maps with less bottleneck, lower the central hills inside the base in boreal so that 'center map' is not so strong and snipers must split. Really though, the map isn't designed to be a fair skirmish map, it's supposed to be one side PvE and the other side PvP. When you build a base you make it a bad environment for the enemy.

Edited by AeusDeif, 07 January 2015 - 10:54 AM.

[JimboFBX]

- economic model favors defense and clans heavily
- median clan mech is significantly better than median IS mech. Arguably, top end with intangibles is also better.
- trial clan mechs arguably better than IS counter-parts (especially the timberwolf)
- new players really shouldn't be allowed into factions until they get experience. They don't really know what they are doing or what the faction tab even is, and its not fun getting spanked for 30 minutes. This would also help reduce the incentive for smurf accounts created for the purpose of playing both sides simultaneously.
- Turrets inside base too powerful and defeat ability for light mechs to recon, auto-aim CT or legs and almost 20 damage each shot.

Edited by JimboFBX, 23 December 2014 - 01:28 AM.

[NextGame]

1) Pugs should consider queing on a different planet if they are getting stomped, or even better - join a unit or form their own unit. They should also put on their big boy pants and not expect free wins. This is the game mode where we are playing to win, not accommodate the special snowflake with the fragile ego.

2) Change the battle window to either be longer than a day in order that the ceasefire moves around the globe, or else shorten it so that there are multiple ceasefires per day.

3) Units wanting to play against each other will tacitly moderate this through their faction associations and movement thereof, and all the rambos who think they can be carried will generally move around to factions where they see the best prospects. The variable faction reward system (i.e. underpopulated factions will reward more for participation) will balance this well enough.

4) wut?

5) Its fine.

Edited by NextGame, 23 December 2014 - 09:01 AM.

[AeusDeif]

edit: moved to top post

Edited by AeusDeif, 07 January 2015 - 10:55 AM.

[Conduitx]

AeusDeif, on 22 December 2014 - 11:50 PM, said:

5. There is a slight range advantage for clans defending on boreal; not enough to win the match, but when combined with #1 it's noticeable because coordinated forces will exploit that range advantage, and uncoordinated players probably won't know the counter to it.

I've really noticed this. Because of the way CW maps are designed with large, wide open gaps and spaces around each gate Clan ER lasers have a distinct advantage, especially when half the team is boating them. Typically you cannot "out poke" a Clan team and get forced into zerg rushing.

Another thing is SSRM6 boats vs light mechs. On objective maps with such little cover it can be very hard for light mechs to survive multiple 5xSSRM6 boats on defense. That's 60 damage per salvo... it's too much.

AeusDeif, on 23 December 2014 - 06:49 AM, said:

To fix #1 - 12mans vs. pugs: Create tiered community warfare via two queues -- Raid and Invasion.

'Raid' or 'Border' queue is where solo/small groups push borders, winning loyalty points and affecting the war indirectly via a supply stat on each border (explained later). They do not take planets.

I agree with this. There should be a Skirmish mode for CW where 2 opposing groups fight for territory and honor in a straight up death match scenario that adds to the war effort. I'd also like a full days effort to count towards victory, not just the last 2 hours of zerg rushing.

Edited by Conduitx, 23 December 2014 - 08:24 AM.

[Kirkland Langue]

AeusDeif, on 22 December 2014 - 11:50 PM, said:

Based on what I've read and personal experience playing the CW Beta I've seen a few major issues;

1. 12 mans often stomp Pugs or divided groups.
2. The 'deadline effect' of Ceasefire gives player bases that play around that deadline the bulk of the advantage as far as taking planets.
3-4. There is nothing in place to prevent one faction from becoming overpopulated, giving them further advantage in taking planets.
5. There is a slight range advantage for clans defending on boreal;

1. I'd support the future development of game modes where players could only enter them as solo players or restricted to lances. These game modes might be event type which pop up at the bottom right and players opt into them if they wish. The events wouldn't be a constant queue - just something available a few times per day. The events would contribute to the CW experience - maybe capturing a resource cache on some planet, which gives your entire House/Clan some kind of temporary boost elsewhere.

2. There have been a few answers tossed around. I think having multiple shorter attack windows would improve the situation.

3-4. PGI has the right idea, but they need to invest a little bit of time into that idea to really flesh it out. Instead of just bonuses to the contract - it needs to be %'s to the game performance payout.. and then these bonus %'s need to be dynamic based on Clan/House populations.

5. On Sulfer, you are able to shoot the gate generators from relative safety. On Boreal you place yourself directly into the line of fire of snipers. ERLL boats and Dual Gauss are extremely deadly. The issue is map design, more than the snipers.

[NextGame]

AeusDeif, on 23 December 2014 - 06:49 AM, said:

To fix #1 - 12mans vs. pugs: Create tiered community warfare via two queues -- Raid and Invasion.

Nope, play hard or go home. We've waited 3 years for this game mode, and the exclusively solo's have no business trying to ruin it. If you cant take the heat get outta the kitchen, etc.

Quote

To fix #2 - the deadline dilemma: Do away with the 6/11 point criteria. It looks cool & dynamic but it limits the flexibility of the system. As suggested elsewhere (props), the easiest way to make every win count is to base the planetary conquest on total attacker wins vs. total defender wins.

Could accept it, but it would remove an element of strategy from community warfare, best to retain the original spirit of the CW battle window/planetary control/ceasefire mechanism than dilute it which can be accomplished with minimal development by increasing or decreasing the battle window timer.

Quote

To fix #3 - 'one faction to rule them all': to balance the effects of faction population, limit the amount of unit contracts given out, and limit the amount or the effect of inter-faction raids.

You're poking at an issue that doesn't actually exist. 4 & 5 are also non-issues.

[AeusDeif]

NextGame, on 23 December 2014 - 09:10 AM, said:

Nope, play hard or go home. We've waited 3 years for this game mode, and the exclusively solo's have no business trying to ruin it. If you cant take the heat get outta the kitchen, etc.

Your response completely ignores the fact that people can intentionally sabotage other factions by pugging for them. units could conceivably pay players to sabotage other factions. every facet of CW that can be abused, will be abused. and, even unintentionally, solo players weaken their faction. so, it is not a question of whether they will ruin it, it is a natural result of 'everyone in one queue for one game mode'

NextGame, on 23 December 2014 - 09:10 AM, said:

Could accept it, but it would remove an element of strategy from community warfare, best to retain the original spirit of the CW battle window/planetary control/ceasefire mechanism than dilute it which can be accomplished with minimal development by increasing or decreasing the battle window timer.

Unfortunately that would just increase the rate of planet flipping and sniping. Everyone waiting for a few hours and then mobbing a planet at once is 'an element of strategy' that the game does not need, whether it happens once a day or several times a day.

Quote

You're poking at an issue that doesn't actually exist. 4 & 5 are also non-issues.

I have seen planets that were staying at 9 points, moved to 5 during the ceasefire.. I have seen quick, continual wins and yet the points continually move backwards on the planet. These things can only be accomplished, with this regularity, by a population imbalance.

I have also seen the people exploiting this continually assert that it isn't there, so at this point I am going to assume you are trolling and ask you to stop. 'Issue does not exist' is not a contribution to the conversation.

In the BT universe, the inner sphere has existed for some hundreds of years, with some degree of balance, and yet here in a few days of CW certain factions have lost a planet or more a day. No BT game has ever simulated such ridiculous gains/losses. Any reasonable person can see the imbalance and the effect it will have on the game long term.

Edited by AeusDeif, 23 December 2014 - 08:16 PM.

[NextGame]

Quote

Your response completely ignores the fact that people can intentionally sabotage other factions by pugging for them. units could conceivably pay players to sabotage other factions. every facet of CW that can be abused, will be abused. and, even unintentionally, solo players weaken their faction. so, it is not a question of whether they will ruin it, it is a natural result of 'everyone in one queue for one game mode'

Pay them with what exactly? We cant transfer assets between accounts. Mail them complimentary packets of peanuts or something?

Incompetent Solo players are indeed the bane of CW, what with their rampant losing and whining about getting rolled. But excluding them would prevent genuinely good solo players from being able to play this game mode, and would limit the bad's ability to improve, which wouldn't really be fair.

I made an off the cuff remark in another thread that users should be required to be in a unit to drop in CW, I think that is the route to go as even if they just create a one man unit and drop in, the expectation for the player is clearly set that it is a unit based game mode.

[focuspark]

Fix seems seems simple to me. Offer N queues where is the number of factions. Each queue should offer awards adjusted based on relative strength. Failing factions sounded offer more incentive. This also allowed the MM to select where combat is happening to reduce the impact of time of day as well as the over focus on single combat zones.

4x3 rules sound apply at the group level such that 12 mans are more restricted than smaller groups. Example a 12 drops, they must have 12 lights, 12 mediums, 12 heavies, and 12 assults. Smaller groups can flight no more than 12 of a weight class. Thus, if heavies after the class of the day, a 6 man, a 4 man, and two pugs could have up to 30 heavies vs the 12 man's 12 heavies. This should offset the coordination bonus.

[focuspark]

NextGame, on 24 December 2014 - 12:07 AM, said:

Pay them with what exactly? We cant transfer assets between accounts. Mail them complimentary packets of peanuts or something?

Incompetent Solo players are indeed the bane of CW, what with their rampant losing and whining about getting rolled. But excluding them would prevent genuinely good solo players from being able to play this game mode, and would limit the bad's ability to improve, which wouldn't really be fair.

I made an off the cuff remark in another thread that users should be required to be in a unit to drop in CW, I think that is the route to go as even if they just create a one man unit and drop in, the expectation for the player is clearly set that it is a unit based game mode.

Sorry to be the one to break it to you but CW cannot survive without your hated PUGgers. They are simply too large a portion of the MWO population. Without them the servers feel empty.

[AeusDeif]

NextGame, on 24 December 2014 - 12:07 AM, said:

Pay them with what exactly? We cant transfer assets between accounts. Mail them complimentary packets of peanuts or something?

you can send MC and mech packages to other players in game. really the compensation doesn't matter though, as people will abuse the game for free. that is the nature of internet and therefore the nature of MMO's. There are some people that just enjoy ruining others fun, maybe it's a power thing.

NextGame, on 24 December 2014 - 12:07 AM, said:

I made an off the cuff remark in another thread that users should be required to be in a unit to drop in CW, I think that is the route to go as even if they just create a one man unit and drop in, the expectation for the player is clearly set that it is a unit based game mode.

Some similarity to what I suggested for the invasion queue; it is accessed by units, however a unit could get players from faction into their group with the upcoming faction social features. and also spares would be drawn from the raid queue. So basically units would be leading invasions, there wouldn't just be randomized pug groups invading. And the more randomized queue wouldn't be a limitation to the more competitive queue.

focuspark, on 24 December 2014 - 12:45 AM, said:

Sorry to be the one to break it to you but CW cannot survive without your hated PUGgers. They are simply too large a portion of the MWO population. Without them the servers feel empty.

Personally I like playing with Pugs even in CW if they are cooperative teamplayers. There just needs to be a team structure, and VoIP as suggested seems like it would cause more problems than it would solve. Having random people talk **** over mic doesn't necessarily increase teamwork, rather I think the solution is to channel players so that they form non random groups with common goals.

Edited by AeusDeif, 24 December 2014 - 01:20 AM.

[CarnageINC]

I think you have a lot of great ideas that have some validity to them. Some still seem a bit less polished than they could be but there is some potential here. You have given me a lot to ponder upon though, and I may swipe some of your ideas and slightly modify or refine them. I thank you for linking me into your thread and I'll run your reformed ideas by you in a couple of days to see what you think.

If I get your blessing I may create a new post with them integrated within the Tonnage Balance System.

[Sam Slade]

NextGame, on 24 December 2014 - 12:07 AM, said:

Pay them with what exactly? We cant transfer assets between accounts. Mail them complimentary packets of peanuts or something?

Incompetent Solo players are indeed the bane of CW, what with their rampant losing and whining about getting rolled. But excluding them would prevent genuinely good solo players from being able to play this game mode, and would limit the bad's ability to improve, which wouldn't really be fair.

I made an off the cuff remark in another thread that users should be required to be in a unit to drop in CW, I think that is the route to go as even if they just create a one man unit and drop in, the expectation for the player is clearly set that it is a unit based game mode.

I know of a couple of units that are setting out precisely to undo the work people who make posts like this do in CW... what does that tell you about your healthy approach to team work? You're actively creating troll-anti-tryhard groups be telling people they are too useless to play CW... enjoy the stacked CW fails that will follow your success...

This is where the ego in you is saying 'we're way to awesome, that will not work'... but you know as well as everyone else that one troll player can disrupt a half-smart PUG defence more easily then your prepared group can beat another prepared group in an Attack.

Stop acting like an entitled little snowflake(that was the phrase you used, right?) and realise that they didn't make CW to service only your little gaggle of friends... PUG CW is here to stay... adapt and stop trying to force teamwork... it never works... just ask the USSR.

Edited by Sam Slade, 27 December 2014 - 11:31 AM.

[Ax2Grind]

AeusDeif, on 22 December 2014 - 11:50 PM, said:

Based on what I've read and personal experience playing the CW Beta I've seen a few major issues;

1. 12 mans often stomp Pugs or divided groups. This is mitigated in normal game but not CW.

2. The 'deadline effect' of Ceasefire gives player bases that play around that deadline the bulk of the advantage as far as taking planets.

3. There is nothing in place to prevent one faction from becoming overpopulated, giving them further advantage in taking planets.

4. Therefore the fight for a planet is vulnerable to exploit, and as the only representation of faction success or failure, it makes loyalty to a faction not fun (unless you are in a faction exploiting these advantages). Really, think of how much fun it is to play for Liao now. There is no incentive. If one faction WINS all of CW, there is no more CW. There must be a balance to keep the tension and the fun going... to keep the game 'world' diverse and alive.

5. There is a slight range advantage for clans defending on boreal; not enough to win the match, but when combined with #1 it's noticeable because coordinated forces will exploit that range advantage, and uncoordinated players probably won't know the counter to it.


I will make some suggestions, and invite others to do the same regardless of their 'alignment', with one request: be constructive, let's build a better CW experience for everyone.

1. A better player should trump a less skilled player. A group of players who pool their skill together and use teamwork should beat those who choose to not do this. This is not broken, it is working. On the hopeful side of MWO we may have a game mode that actually incentives playing in a group and learning teamwork!

2. This mechanic does need some work. Allow for a tally of all victories in a set period of time to count, or through the timed deadline out and just allow planets to switch based on total number of wins over defense.

3. I am not sure we want something in place to keep all the factions evenly populated. If all factions are made equal, and all player skill and group play mitigated, why even have CW or the game for that matter? It makes more sense to do at least twice the current rewards for low populated factions and really incentive folks joining up. Still, if folks all want to gang up then so be it. If everyone goes Liao to troll the Devs and make the IS one green splat on the map, they should be allowed to do so. God help us if this were to ever happen. Hopefully we would have enough taste to go Marik instead.

4. The planet battle only seem open for "exploit" at a fairly low population range. If you can't get enough sets of 12 to play and the other team is overwhelming you I am not sure I would call that an exploit though. Sounds like your being overwhelmed. The mechanics of the Queue do seem to need some work still, specifically in terms of how it can be manipulated in terms of how quickly your group can queue up and force a certain battle type with low pop factions. I hear we may soon have this fix, but this is the closest thing I can think of to what you might be calling an exploit. If any faction sets the max number of teams against the other team, it shouldn't matter how many more folks they have if you can cap the queue out yourself...the queue caps out... If a faction can not get population, and/or can not organize to fight, the opposing faction should not be penalized. If I were playing Liao right now I would be having fun. However I would also expect to lose a number of my planets to Davion's superior forces until I could build a better army.

5. Clans have a range advantage on Sulphar too if your fighting in one of the long stretches leading to the base. That's ok. It's what makes them clan. If your suggesting we nerf Clan range, then one of the core things that make clan weapons different goes away. If you are suggesting we nerf any area where one side has an advantage, why not just make zones that allow for everyone to be invulnerable? LRM's are to OP in open spaces, I want a portable roof. Unorganized players may not torso twist well, give them x2 CT armor! Tight spaces give to much advantage to brawlers so make it so they can only hug in those areas!



Other issues I see -

All players have the same CW mechanics. I think Faction oriented players should have their own rewards and benefits, not just a boost in LP, and that Mercs should be treated differently. What does a Merc care about a faction skin? Give them more c-bills. The old CW concept of different buckets for the different types of player bases was much more interesting to me.

Some planets are currently un-attackable.. Seems silly. If it's a faction's last planet, maybe, but then why not simply allow for a faction that has been wiped to always have a few planets they can "rebel" on and regain control?

[Roadbeer]

AeusDeif, on 22 December 2014 - 11:50 PM, said:

Based on what I've read and personal experience playing the CW Beta I've seen a few major issues;

1. 12 mans often stomp Pugs or divided groups. This is mitigated in normal game but not CW.

A couple solutions are already in the works for this. First being faction grouping (over unit grouping), and the next being a faction chat that you can add people to your group from. The weight restrictions handle the rest. You can't FORCE people to use VoIP, and has been evidenced in 2 years of Forumwarrioring, people are adamantly against joining a group, so there is no solution for that.

AeusDeif, on 22 December 2014 - 11:50 PM, said:

2. The 'deadline effect' of Ceasefire gives player bases that play around that deadline the bulk of the advantage as far as taking planets.

This is actually the result of poor communication of ideas. When CW was being discussed, there was something called "Attack Windows", the common perception (of the playerbase, myself included) was that CW would only operate during certain hours of the day, and shut down during the rest of the time. During recent interactions with Russ, I've discovered that all along, they were referring to multiple Cease Fires throughout the day, so when people started asking for them, Russ stated that a lot of people were against it. Multiple Cease Fires throughout the day would alleviate this.

AeusDeif, on 22 December 2014 - 11:50 PM, said:

3. There is nothing in place to prevent one faction from becoming overpopulated, giving them further advantage in taking planets.

4. Therefore the fight for a planet is vulnerable to exploit, and as the only representation of faction success or failure, it makes loyalty to a faction not fun (unless you are in a faction exploiting these advantages). Really, think of how much fun it is to play for Liao now. There is no incentive. If one faction WINS all of CW, there is no more CW. There must be a balance to keep the tension and the fun going... to keep the game 'world' diverse and alive.

Actually, there is. A factions overpopulation is held in check by the fact that there can only be 15 concurrent battles on a planet, regardless of how many people are in the queue. So, if you take the standard faction that has 4 borders, 2 planets per border and 15 zones per planet, there can only be a maximum of 1,440 pilots fighting at once, everyone else is waiting in a queue. (Adjust that number to tailor fit your faction by adding or subtracting 360 pilots per border). Overpopulated factions actually get less play time, not more.

There are a lot of misconceptions about how the queues work, I suggest
http://mwomercs.com/...45#entry4041845
http://mwomercs.com/...ing-peak-hours/

As further reading on the topic.

[ztac]

You realise IS have the range advantage right? IS ERPPC can outrange their clan counterparts and that includes lasers!

MY IS mechs can get to 1094 mtrs. whilst the clan counterpart reaches around 890 mtrs ....

Edited by ztac, 27 December 2014 - 01:34 PM.

[AssaultPig]

I still think that the actual in-match gameplay is sort of bad.

in a game between relatively uncoordinated teams defenders have a big structural advantage; in games where both sides are organized that's not as much the case, but the dominant attacking strategy (i.e. blob at a gate and rush) is pretty silly and imo antithetical to what mechwarrior ought to be.

They've improved this a little bit, but unfortunately the improvements have mostly been such that the advantages enjoyed by defenders in 'pub' games are even stronger (more, staggered generators require more sustained rushes.) I like the idea of an attack/defend game mode, but with the way the maps are currently constructed it's kind of tough for me to see how they can alleviate these issues.

while I'm somewhat sympathetic to the folks who are saying 'just get a group,' the ingame group forming tools are laughably primitive. Expecting even a large-ish minority of players to use third party sites/voice servers to find pickup groups to even have a chance does not seem realistic or conducive to attracting new players.

[xMEPHISTOx]

AeusDeif, on 22 December 2014 - 11:50 PM, said:

Based on what I've read and personal experience playing the CW Beta I've seen a few major issues;

1. 12 mans often stomp Pugs or divided groups. This is mitigated in normal game but not CW.

Well CW's is more of a team thing in its very nature and name. If solo playing in CW queue there really is no room to complain, be happy that solo players were even thought of in this case. I know in wot if you were not part of a team/clan you were not playing in CW...simple as that. But then theres Planetside where its a free for all, and the same complaint from solo players is there as well.

Quote

2. The 'deadline effect' of Ceasefire gives player bases that play around that deadline the bulk of the advantage as far as taking planets.

Indeed. It basically means log on at 6pm pst us and begin your conquest/defense. It favors the NA crowd for sure.

Quote

3. There is nothing in place to prevent one faction from becoming overpopulated, giving them further advantage in taking planets.

Well the only incentive in place now is that the lower populated houses get the extra (double) cbill/loyalty points earnings which as a csj I like that. Will be interesting to see how they address that in the future.

[CarnageINC]

Kirkland Langue, on 23 December 2014 - 08:54 AM, said:

1. I'd support the future development of game modes where players could only enter them as solo players or restricted to lances. These game modes might be event type which pop up at the bottom right and players opt into them if they wish. The events wouldn't be a constant queue - just something available a few times per day. The events would contribute to the CW experience - maybe capturing a resource cache on some planet, which gives your entire House/Clan some kind of temporary boost elsewhere.

2. There have been a few answers tossed around. I think having multiple shorter attack windows would improve the situation.

3-4. PGI has the right idea, but they need to invest a little bit of time into that idea to really flesh it out. Instead of just bonuses to the contract - it needs to be %'s to the game performance payout.. and then these bonus %'s need to be dynamic based on Clan/House populations.

5. On Sulfer, you are able to shoot the gate generators from relative safety. On Boreal you place yourself directly into the line of fire of snipers. ERLL boats and Dual Gauss are extremely deadly. The issue is map design, more than the snipers.

1. I also would support restricted lances. However there is a problem with that idea. As it currently stands now, sync dropping for large groups who are in different units is easier than it was before. Why? The que for any particular planet are small enough it matches groups up due to lack of options. So in reality, limiting group sized sounds good, it can be worked around most of the time.

3-4. C-bills and XP bonuses will not entirely fix the problem. Only people who desire those things will migrate to those areas. If a faction is losing and needs help, they only help they will get will be farmers coming out to reap the crops. People will go to were they are most satisfied, if that happens to be winning, that is were they will go regardless if they make minimum amount of money. Other incentives are also needed.

Edited by CarnageINC, 27 December 2014 - 03:49 PM.