53 replies to this topic

[John Wolf]

That might be viable Trev, but then how do you weigh who goes where? And you'd have to queue up for a 'global' drop.. so, that will eliminate some factions because you can't have davion loyalists defending a liao planet. And you may have players who drop in defense of another faction's world and not give their all. (I would hope not, but the chance is there)

I like having every battle through the day mean something at the end. Not just who wins the last lap of the race so to speak.

If we can't make sweeping changes to how CW works, how do we tweak the current system to make it more effective? For example, currently we have a 15 win territory system.. where the defender is already 'winning' at 0. But we can't push that any further for the attackers so they always have the same target window to hit at the end of the day.

If defenders were able to 'defend' the world through the day and make it tougher to capture at the end of the day.. (this clearly wouldn't help with balance or pop issues, since a high pop could bury the defending planet in an amount of wins very tough for the low pop faction to overcome) but, just providing a tweak example.

Anyone else have thoughts?

[CeeKay Boques]

Maybe if you engaged the community, let them know the plight of your planet, employed mercenaries and allies, you could use the community part of community warfare to help you win, including engaging groups that are very active during your lull time frame to help. I would think that would be part of the attrition warfare.

While this is a game, if your opponent lines up with with your twice your firepower during certain hours, it would be wise to swallow your pride and ask for help.

I hope this comes across with all the gentleness I imagine.

[John Wolf]

Techno,

What pool of players are you referring to? We can't just pick up players to defend like the clan worlds. And its not like everyone is eager to cancel their contracts and sign on with Liao.

The forums are used to try and get people online and queuing, but how do we draw more players to a faction that is having population issues already?

[HARDKOR]

I like the mercs idea best. Stop making mercs and pirates join factions and instead use us as filler for all the cues. We truly do not care who we fight for, as long as there is profit. Frankly, all the houses are pretty despicable wen you look into them.

[Dawnstealer]

InspectorG, on 23 December 2014 - 10:08 PM, said:

Weigh ghost drops differently than battles. 10 to 1? Could be scaled to game population participating in CW/pugs.

That sounds like a winner. It should count, but not like a full battle.

Or maybe have an unaffiliated "Merc Pool" that can hop in without a contract? An "emergency hire?" I haven't seen too many ghost drops, and sure they're an easy win, but if I wanted an easy win, I wouldn't be playing CW.

[John Wolf]

The ghost drop weight thing is a problem.. then you defend planets by not defending them. It doesn't seem like a fix. People avoid planets through the day, forcing players to ghost drop 10 times more.. making those contributions mean less. Then again, at the end game you show up with the larger populations and roll a planet.

We want to encourage full drops whenever possible.

[Big Tin Man]

The issue is it is possible to get enough games in during the last 2 hours to swing a planet completely (i.e. 6 victories for whichever side).

To solve this without lengthening the queue for a ghost drop (which russ has stated that is a small percentage of drops), the number of territories required for capture would need to be increased. IMHO, I think we'd learn more by dialing it up to 40 instead of 15.

I've also thrown out the idea of planets with different attack windows working at the same time, but I don't know if that is possible with CW as is. It would be quite interesting to see planets with 18, 24, 30 and 36 hour windows open all at the same time.

[Kell Commander]

If PGI has data to see ghost drops, even though they are a small percentage, then there should be a way to filter them out of the equation when calculating control of a planet. Similar to when they run a challenge that only counts wins.

If that can be implemented, then a total win number on a planet would be a viable system. This c still have problems in that, let's say a planet is not seeing much action at all to where only 3 battles take place. A 12 man sweeps 3 pugs groups. Can a planet justifiably flip with 3 battles? I guess a minimum number of battles could also be implemented.

That being said, from what I've seen on the forums and reactions I've seen in game to the few ghost drops I've gotten, no one wants them. I can't see any faction purposefully zerging a planet to just kill turrets and make a light change color. No fun for no reward. Just wasted time.

EDIT: Having thought about it for a bit, a filter for ghost drops would make the current system viable as well. If PGI just focuses on a way to just have ghost drops not count, it should fix the problem almost completely.

Edited by Kell Commander, 24 December 2014 - 09:46 AM.

[Kirkland Langue]

Eventually Logistics will be part of CW. And supposedly Units will have to pay for the drops to cover the Dropship fuel or something.

At that point, PGI could treat Jumpships kinda like Uber rides - where the more rides are needed during a period, the more it costs. Make it more expensive for Units to swarm during the last hour, and far less expensive to spread the attacks out over time or to spread out the locations which are being attacked.

Edited by Kirkland Langue, 24 December 2014 - 09:56 AM.

[Tarogato]

Seems like this issue of "planet sniping" is on many people's minds. Here's my idea, since you asked: http://mwomercs.com/...-brainstorming/

[Chemie]

Tennex, on 23 December 2014 - 10:07 PM, said:

Increase autowin setoff time at the last 2 hours to 15minutes instead of 10 minutes?

These are not open caps. This is zerg. Durf went from 40% to 80% in the last 30 minutes. You can't get more than 3 open caps in that time already. You can throw 20 12-mans at it though.

Clans and Dav seem to have figured this out

This is not skill based, this is the most 12-mans wins

Edited by Chemie, 24 December 2014 - 10:06 AM.

[Deadmeat313]

Early on in the development of CW, PGI said that faction imbalance would be handled by filling out underpopulated teams with Mercs and Lone Wolves. This seems like a great idea so I've no idea why they decided against it.

I would like to see an in-game faction list. A Merc / Lonewolf / DaggerStar player can then tick which of them he will be willing to work for. He could tick all of them to just fight for any IS (or any Clans for DaggerStar players), or he could limit which of the factions he wants to assist.

Merc Unit commanders would select factions for their entire units. That way groups - even full 12-mans - might arrive to defend as necessary.

[Ax2Grind]

Deadmeat313, on 24 December 2014 - 12:19 PM, said:

Early on in the development of CW, PGI said that faction imbalance would be handled by filling out underpopulated teams with Mercs and Lone Wolves. This seems like a great idea so I've no idea why they decided against it.

I would like to see an in-game faction list. A Merc / Lonewolf / DaggerStar player can then tick which of them he will be willing to work for. He could tick all of them to just fight for any IS (or any Clans for DaggerStar players), or he could limit which of the factions he wants to assist.

Merc Unit commanders would select factions for their entire units. That way groups - even full 12-mans - might arrive to defend as necessary.

I think it was out of simplicity that PGI decided to put all House/Clan Loyalists and Mercs in the same bucket for contracts. Trying to build separate systems for the various types of units and houses was just too much for them to want to deal with. Just a guess of course.

[Kjudoon]

I will put in here what I have been saying in other threads.

The problem is that PGI was not able to test this with large unbalanced numbers that basically go along with the tastes of MWO players. The "Stackpole Effect" is a huge problem (popularity of Davion and Steiner due to the novels) behind a large disparity in the popularity of the factions. And size does have it's priviledges. I also wonder if it was not realized early on by playtesters who might have seen the potential for abuse of simple mechanics PGI didn't expect like the small amount of zones, and the cease fire period.

Although I have faith you WILL fix this at PGI because these issues are severely embittering (yeah that's a word? ... meh) embittering the population and will cause players to either quit CW, withhold money or quit the game all together. I mean this is a serious issue that needs addressing.

I would propose the following three things.

1. Eliminate ghost drops counting towards victory goals. Really, this is still a game and a match not picked up should not be counted. Plus if you don't allow us to go into training grounds to practice these maps (something a mechwarrior should be able to do in simulators on their dropship) that's all it's good for. Let you get experience for your wait in REAL skill, but no points.

2. Planet capture should be a 'total body of work' over the entire 24 hr period. If you combine this with #1, then you prevent population overload. No contested match? Doesn't count. If the opponent has only a quarter the number of units you have, sorry, only the number of matches contested matter. So if Liao has the ability to do only 125 matches against Davion in a day, only 125 matches count and 51% wins even if you had Davions to drop for 500 matches.

3. Reset the map. I'm serious, back to day 1. Because of the exploit being used with uncontested victories due to large populations, it's time to return to factory presets. Why? Because any fix is based on 'ill gotten gains'. This is like saying you can keep the money from the bank heist after you are let out of jail.

I'm encouraged you put this thread up John Wolf. Personally I'm angry about the whole situation, but it's not because I believe PGI was deliberately doing anything, but rather got surprised, and people are abusing it then defending their choice to abuse it as 'it's legal'... even though it's not ethical.

Anyway, those are my strong suggestions to fixing CW before it seriously injures this game... and believe you me, it IS injured.

[Kjudoon]

Ax2Grind, on 24 December 2014 - 04:06 PM, said:

I think it was out of simplicity that PGI decided to put all House/Clan Loyalists and Mercs in the same bucket for contracts. Trying to build separate systems for the various types of units and houses was just too much for them to want to deal with. Just a guess of course.

Mercs should be bid on by the houses, and the higher the victory ratio, the more C-Bills they should make. Loyalty points are different and should remain kinda as is for now. Mercs fight wars for money.

Then again, I believe in the return of R&R which would affect mercs, but not lonewolf faction loyalists or those in a house unit (aka permenant contracts because they're house military while their Cbill rewards would be smaller).

[Ax2Grind]

Kell Commander, on 24 December 2014 - 09:39 AM, said:

If PGI has data to see ghost drops, even though they are a small percentage, then there should be a way to filter them out of the equation when calculating control of a planet. Similar to when they run a challenge that only counts wins.

If that can be implemented, then a total win number on a planet would be a viable system. This c still have problems in that, let's say a planet is not seeing much action at all to where only 3 battles take place. A 12 man sweeps 3 pugs groups. Can a planet justifiably flip with 3 battles? I guess a minimum number of battles could also be implemented.

That being said, from what I've seen on the forums and reactions I've seen in game to the few ghost drops I've gotten, no one wants them. I can't see any faction purposefully zerging a planet to just kill turrets and make a light change color. No fun for no reward. Just wasted time.

EDIT: Having thought about it for a bit, a filter for ghost drops would make the current system viable as well. If PGI just focuses on a way to just have ghost drops not count, it should fix the problem almost completely.

Ghost drops only happen because one side decides to show up and the other does not. If you now completely discount the group of pilots who took the time to show up and place in queue you only discourage taking part in CW, not encourage more players to play the game. If a group of players sits in a queue for long enough I am all about giving them a reward and allowing them victory over the planet.

Here are some other thoughts on the planet battle that this thread is based on. As you can see from the map, ~MS~ had more players winning battles than any other unit for this planet, and since Davion forces got the planet to 8 wins by cease fire it became a Davion world. Here is how this happened...about an hour after ceasefire when this planet was up for grabs a handful of ~MS~ pilots were dropping and wanting to fight in CW. The Kurita border was dead, no action, and we were not interested in trying to get turret wins. However, a Davion group had attacked Maladar and the defense had a full 12, but only a few PUG attackers. Perfect! So we queued and got a few battles against WoL. The battles were fairly easy and the wait was long to get other pugs to join, once even ending up with turrets, so we dropped against Wolf a few times in the north, counter attacking at a FRR world. Then we attacked Maladar again and won twice in a row, with the last win being so good when we attacked that the 12 man group told us we had taken the fun out of the game and they promptly quit from the queue. (I had enjoyed the match) No more defenders. : ( Fast forward to the next morning and some sleep and the counter hasn't moved. However, most borders are still quiet but there are at least folks fighting over Maladar so we queue up and drop some more there. Again, most of the battles were a 4-6 man ~MS~ group and pugs. Once mid-day hits Kurita forces have come on board, as well as some more MS folks, so we switch to the front we wanted...leaving Maladar to be. Later on, again just to get a match, some groups drop and secure the planet as a victory. It is won and we get our tag on it for what amounts to a bakers dozen of battles with an average group size of 6 MS pilots. This planet was never our focus for the days battles.

a. A string of 12 man turrets battles were not part of the victory of this planet from our perspective.
b. It didn't take much from MS to get our tag on it. We have fought much harder for other planets and not gotten our tag on it. That tells me that most of the Davion pilots fighting for the planet were not part of a unit, or the units attacking were losing, and that possibly there were not many people over the 60+ pop cap. If other Davion units had focused on Maladar and had a string of victories, turrets or otherwise they would have easily eclipsed MS and gotten their tag on this plant.
c. Other than the last few hours before ceasefire, when populations went over 60+, the best I saw for this planets population of attackers and defenders was in the range of 12-24.

I think that this planet was lost due to the number of actual battle losses that occurred on the planet throughout the day, by the defending units. Essentially, the quality of the matches is what made the difference, not ghost turrets, and not strictly population numbers.

[Kjudoon]

John Wolf, on 24 December 2014 - 09:20 AM, said:

The ghost drop weight thing is a problem.. then you defend planets by not defending them. It doesn't seem like a fix. People avoid planets through the day, forcing players to ghost drop 10 times more.. making those contributions mean less. Then again, at the end game you show up with the larger populations and roll a planet.

We want to encourage full drops whenever possible.

That is a danger the 'no defender defense', and that will be a problem to solve. Ideas that keep flitting through my head and none are very good. The best option so far is you make Ghost Drops count 1% of a regular drop towards victory. That way, if the match is close, it can act as tie breaker. Not many factions can put up 100 victories in an hour, let alone 2. I think Davion would even be hard pressed. So if a defender tried to 'nodefender-defense' a planet, and another faction wanted it, 800 matches later, it flips if no defender comes in in that time and undoes all that hard work. I would never put it higher than 2% per victory because 50 wins is getting too fast.

Or do it with a 1% plus a handicapped fraction of a percent for smaller factions to increase it faster up to 2% so a Liao victory as the smallest faction (or Smoke Jaguar) could get this tiebreaker percentage with FFR getting maybe 1.75% value. Something like that to prevent "NDD" (No Defender-Defense).

So at least I'm workin with ya here and not just kvetching with nothing to consider.

BTW, I just want it known that if you think about the 2-3% ghost drop numbers, it is potentially GIGO data if it does not have full context. Although it looks small, where these are taking place primarily will matter a LOT.

[Ax2Grind]

Kjudoon, on 24 December 2014 - 04:40 PM, said:

1. Eliminate ghost drops counting towards victory goals. Really, this is still a game and a match not picked up should not be counted. Plus if you don't allow us to go into training grounds to practice these maps (something a mechwarrior should be able to do in simulators on their dropship) that's all it's good for. Let you get experience for your wait in REAL skill, but no points.

2. Planet capture should be a 'total body of work' over the entire 24 hr period. If you combine this with #1, then you prevent population overload. No contested match? Doesn't count. If the opponent has only a quarter the number of units you have, sorry, only the number of matches contested matter. So if Liao has the ability to do only 125 matches against Davion in a day, only 125 matches count and 51% wins even if you had Davions to drop for 500 matches.

3. Reset the map. I'm serious, back to day 1. Because of the exploit being used with uncontested victories due to large populations, it's time to return to factory presets. Why? Because any fix is based on 'ill gotten gains'. This is like saying you can keep the money from the bank heist after you are let out of jail.

#1 is a horrible idea unless you have a way of replacing the turret drops with actual matches. Penalizing folks for showing up to play CW is going to result in no one showing up to play CW. I hate turret drops, but a solution needs to be one that rewards more folks to get involved in the game, not slapping the wrist of the poor suckers who show up and sit in queue for a quarter of an hour just to shoot turrets.

#2 is a good idea. I agree, total number of wins and losses should be the decider in a planets victory.

#3 is unlikely to happen and I don't think it's necessary. The map is arbitrary anyway in how the devs have set it up. If they kept it exactly the same as it is today and said it was the starting map, what would be the problem? This is not needed to correct any of the issues with CW.

Edited by Ax2Grind, 24 December 2014 - 05:04 PM.

[Kjudoon]

Well I would expect a Davion to not be so thrilled being the largest beneficiary of both issues. :::shrugs:::

[Ax2Grind]

Kjudoon, on 24 December 2014 - 05:08 PM, said:

Well I would expect a Davion to not be so thrilled being the largest beneficiary of both issues. :::shrugs:::

I am not a Davion. I am a Merc currently under contract with Davion. I may end up working for Marik some time soon, or Liao for that matter. It all depends on who hires me. My points stand. I do not like magical turret wins but I do suffer from long queue times by choosing to take part in CW. Many of the first CW posts were by folks complaining about the wait times to play as the number one reason they won't play any longer. Your suggestion is to not only keep those long queue times for a turret win but to not even count them. That is ridiculous. The problem is low population across the CW. The solution needs to be aimed at getting more folks playing, not penalizing the folks that are actually signing up to play.