77 replies to this topic

[CarnageINC]

Easy solution for long term strategic CW health for all factions. Using the Keep It Simple Stupid method.

Use tonnage changes for a balancing mechanism. This is not for specifically addressing current planetary tactical conditions. It is for long term community stability.

This is the idea in its simplistic form. It is a self balancing system that allows all player types access to CW. Every factions starts with a 240 ton drop deck. As factions, be it IS or Clan (i.e. Ghost Bears or Davion or whoever), gain control of planets from specific enemy factions, that opposing faction's drop deck gets an incremental tonnage change for either attack or defense. Tonnage increases/decreases are done gradually over time. Tonnage for factions that are successful against specific enemies do not change. Those struggling factions tonnage do change to allow more leeway in drop deck selection.

For example a clan faction starts out with X many planets. As they take control of Y amount of planets from each opposing faction they face, there is an increase of 5 tons to each specific opposing faction drop decks. For every additional Y amount over X, there is a 5 ton increase. (In my mind Y should be 8-10, meaning for every 8-10 planets your side takes your against a specific enemy, that factions get a 5 ton increase to their drop deck only against your faction.)

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

*I'm adding in a more clear example using hypothetical numbers for simplicity sake, these are example numbers not the real values!

I will use House Davion for the example. They start with 4 assault fronts, LIao, Marik, Steiner and Kurtia and have 5 defensive fronts because they can defend against the clans.

DAY 0: Every IS house is starting with *100 planets, this is the X value. The Y value is 10. 10 planets for a 5 ton change. Every faction can use only 240 tons at the start.

Day 10: House Davion has taken 10 planets from both Liao and Kurita (10), but only 5 planets from Marik (5). Davion has lost 10 planets from Steiner attacks. Liao and Kurita can now use 245 tons for both offense and defense only against House Davion's 240 tons. Marik is still stuck at 240 tons, as is House Davion. House Davion itself can now use 245 tons against only House Steiner's 240 tons.

Against the clans, Steiner loses 10 from CJF, FRR loses 10 total, 5 from Wolf, and 5 from CGB and Kurita lose 10 planets from CSJ, all IS pilots can now use 245 tons defending from CJF and CSJ, but only 240 tons when defending FRR from any clan.

Day 20: House Davion has now taken 10 more planets from Liao and Kurita for a total of 20 each. That increases their tonnage to 250 only against House Davion. Marik has stalled any Davion assault and have lost 0 planets and each side can still only use 240 tons against each other. Steiner has gained 10 more against Davion, (20 total). Steiner's still only attack and defend with 240 tons against House Davion's 250 tons.

Against the clans, Steiner lose 10 more planets from CJF (20 total). FRR lose 5 only against Wolf (15 total, 10 to Wolf, 5 to CGB ), Kurita only lose 5 against CGB (15 total: 10 to CSJ, 5 to CGB). Davion and all other IS House's now can use 250 tons defending against CJF. Defending FRR any IS pilot can use 245 tons only against Wolf attacks, CGB attacks are still at 240 tons for IS. IS pilots defend Kurtia with 240 tons against CGB still, while they can use 245 tons against CSJ. Clans fighting against the IS are still using 240 tons.

Day 30: House Davion has taken 10 more from Liao (30 total) and 5 from Kurita (25 still). Liao now can use 255 tons against Davion's 240 tons, but Kurita still stuck at 250 tons. Marik has now taken 10 planets from House Davion, now in the hole against Marik for 5. Both House are still stuck at 240 tons each against each other. House Steiner has been thrown back and House Davion won 10 planets back. House Davion's tonnage decreases to 245 tons once again, against Steiner's 240 tons.

Against the clans, Steiner lose 10 more (30) from CJF, making all IS tonnage now to 255 tons against CJF. FRR lose 5 more from Wolf (20 total, 15 to Wolf, 5 to CGB), tonnage for FRR stay the same as it was on Day 20. Kurita gain 5 back from CGB but lose 10 more to CSJ (20 total, 10 20 to CSJ, now 0 for CGB). All IS defend Kurtia from CSJ at 250 but only 240 against CGB.

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

Tonnage balance system creates a natural balancing force for different mech types, solo players and for large organized groups. As your faction becomes more enlarged, it will have to face more and more tonnage to slow down your advances. If your faction loses territory gained, your opponents will lose the bonus tonnage. If your faction goes below the X start value, your tonnage should increase while your opponents stay at or even drop below the 240 tonnage mark in extreme cases.

In addition, this challenges players to use a wider variety of mechs because the drop deck weights will fluctuate. It will also give PUG's and mercenary groups of all skill levels a chance to play in their comfort/profit zone.

Some examples, if a certain player like a drop deck around 250 tons, they can just relocate to a different front for their current faction or switch to another faction that currently has conditions for that tonnage. This has potential to bring in a small flux of players to a struggling faction. Another example is what if a competitive merc group wants a challenge? They can go to the most difficult front for the faction they currently are contracted for or relocate to a more successful faction and face heavier opposition.

Another more simplified variant of the tonnage balance system would be to take in account a factions total system they control. That value determines a universal tonnage all opposing factions use. This variation however eliminates the multiple drop deck choices each faction would of had with the standard setup.

Its simple, no mech/weapon nerfing, less constant or complex tweaking of contract system, no breaking up large groups, more solo player friendly (for weight classes), easy adjustment by changing only a single number in a formula. Its a completely self balancing system.

*constantly edited for better detail and clarity
*new example provided for finer detail.
*topic renamed to clarify its purpose.

Edited by CarnageINC, 27 December 2014 - 05:50 AM.

[CHH Badkarma]

Way to logical and simple,thus PGI will never use it and will utterly ignore it.

Edited by CHH Badkarma, 24 December 2014 - 01:55 AM.

[RazarG]

Maybe i miss the point man, but what does that balance? To me, it sounds like it will stop a dominant faction from winning drops they deserve to win by giving them a handicap the more successful they become?.

i just cant see how it will help with ghost drops , which from my understanding is tipping CW in the favor of population. Fact is us Smoke Jags can't take a planet at this hour, as there are way more kuritan's on, scoring wins when we have no attackers.

Maybe im wrong, but i'd say thats the issue with CW at the moment. Im actually loving the game play, both in attack and defense.

[Mordin Ashe]

There is nothing logical about punishing the successful.

[CarnageINC]

RazarG, on 24 December 2014 - 02:14 AM, said:

Maybe i miss the point man, but what does that balance? To me, it sounds like it will stop a dominant faction from winning drops they deserve to win by giving them a handicap the more successful they become?.

i just cant see how it will help with ghost drops , which from my understanding is tipping CW in the favor of population. Fact is us Smoke Jags can't take a planet at this hour, as there are way more kuritan's on, scoring wins when we have no attackers.

Maybe im wrong, but i'd say thats the issue with CW at the moment. Im actually loving the game play, both in attack and defense.

This idea doesn't fix something PGI knows it has to fix. Currently planetary control only matters in the last 2-3 hours before ceasefire. All the other time is for not. You know it, I know it, everyone knows that.

This addresses the potential problem of one group dominating and possibly ruining CW for most players. Do you really think PGI will let one group/faction completely control/dominate the whole IS without trying to find some sorta of balance? Do you think the people crying for clan mech nerfs or limiting group sizes is the correct solution for PGI to use?

For all you guys out there who think every thing is perfect and there will be no changes to CW, your dreaming. Some form of balance will happen. I would rather it some sort of map control change than a mech quirk/weapon overhaul or group size limitation.

[happy mech]

this would just propose the rushes and make people not wanna play the game

[CarnageINC]

Mordin Ashe, on 24 December 2014 - 02:19 AM, said:

There is nothing logical about punishing the successful.

There is nothing logical for one faction to unrealistically allow a major threat to completely destroy its sovereignty without a fight. View it as a faction relocating reinforcements to the front to stop the Juggernaut. This is what happened in canon is it not? Oh this isn't a canon game...your correct but my point about reinforcement is still realistic and valid.

Just because you want to live high on the hog and be complacent and face no challenge to your current dominance, doesn't mean others want to continue to be abused by it.

Face it, there will be...there has to be.... a balance mechanism put in place sooner or later if the current course of events continue with the Clan advance and the Davion domination.

[CarnageINC]

happy mech, on 24 December 2014 - 02:43 AM, said:

this would just propose the rushes and make people not wanna play the game

So you think if your faction being destroyed to one planet wants to make people play the game? What happens if Liao goes under? What about if CGB and Kurtia go after CSJ? What if Clanners and the Steiner-Davion alliance destroy Kurita? You think those faction loyal players will want to keep playing the game?

Yes...lets eventually eliminate many large groups of players chosen factions until there are only 2. That sounds fun! Will it happen...don't know....can it happen...yes. It has potential to do so if PGI doesn't implement some balance.

[CHH Badkarma]

Personally I think this adds a great layer of challenge and difficulty. The deeper you push into dense systems, the more resources the enemy has to throw at you. Makes people stay at the top of their game instead of this already boring rinse and repeat process we have now.

I would rather PGI let drop weight increase as groups gain ground than PGI put their nerf hammer to use. I like the idea of a target rich environment.

Edited by CHH Badkarma, 24 December 2014 - 03:27 AM.

[happy mech]

CarnageINC, on 24 December 2014 - 02:59 AM, said:

So you think if your faction being destroyed to one planet wants to make people play the game? What happens if Liao goes under? What about if CGB and Kurtia go after CSJ? What if Clanners and the Steiner-Davion alliance destroy Kurita? You think those faction loyal players will want to keep playing the game?

Yes...lets eventually eliminate many large groups of players chosen factions until there are only 2. That sounds fun! Will it happen...don't know....can it happen...yes. It has potential to do so if PGI doesn't implement some balance.

i have been fighting on Butler past few days, 90% wins few hours before cycle, and still did not flip, you should look for a solution how to incorporate the overall progress (like, store every half hour or so and then average) instead of one spike, as this affects all players
simply, if it is a big map thing, do not punish the matches for it
(if my faction is down to 1 planet, should be easy to find a match)

[CarnageINC]

happy mech, on 24 December 2014 - 03:27 AM, said:

i have been fighting on Butler past few days, 90% wins few hours before cycle, and still did not flip, you should look for a solution how to incorporate the overall progress (like, store every half hour or so and then average) instead of one spike, as this affects all players
simply, if it is a big map thing, do not punish the matches for it
(if my faction is down to 1 planet, should be easy to find a match)

Your right, but your focused on the short term game play of single planet conflict. I have faith that will be resolved in time. I'm looking at the long term health of CW. I leave the X and Y numbers for PGI to figure out, it doesn't mean that each planet is worth 5 tons.

My idea does nothing to punish amount of players in the que. If anything, it may increase it. PUGs may feel more empowered and may feel that they can contribute more if they are given more tonnage against a superior foe. This is called community warfare...community should not equate to just competitive groups on coms, it should be for all to partake in.

It forces successful groups to push themselves to be better.

Imagine the bragging rights of your faction to say...yeah you guys can drop 300 tons a player..and we can still can kick your arse with 240! Success against adversity is more rewarding versus a stagnant system.

[happy mech]

CarnageINC, on 24 December 2014 - 03:37 AM, said:

Your right, but your focused on the short term game play of single planet conflict. I have faith that will be resolved in time. I'm looking at the long term health of CW. I leave the X and Y numbers for PGI to figure out, it doesn't mean that each planet is worth 5 tons.

My idea does nothing to punish amount of players in the que. If anything, it may increase it. PUGs may feel more empowered and may feel that they can contribute more if they are given more tonnage against a superior foe. This is called community warfare...community should not equate to just competitive groups on coms, it should be for all to partake in.

It forces successful groups to push themselves to be better.

Imagine the bragging rights of your faction to say...yeah you guys can drop 300 tons a player..and we can still can kick your arse with 240! Success against adversity is more rewarding versus a stagnant system.

currently, the population affects the big map, not the individual matches
balance in matches is a priority, you can derive the big map from how the matches go, but no other way around
i feel the 300 ton faction would not get any matches

the cw has just released, many things are being figured out and worked on

[CarnageINC]

I think you miss understand my intent. A successful faction would stay at 240 tons. For example, Clan Jade Falcons continue to drive deep into Steiner space, they would stay at 240 tons, while Steiner;s tonnage would increase, even to the point of your 300 ton quote or more. (Finally the Steiner recon lance drop deck becomes a reality! ).

If I'm wrong and you do understand what I'm saying, the flip side happens. Eventually the Falcons would have difficulty in taking your territory, then Steiner's could attack with 300 tons against a 240 drop deck. If no one defends and you ghost your victories then your tonnage bonus will fall as you gain planets back. Soon your drop deck starts to fall back toward 240 and people will want to attack you again. You see, it will find its own balance, each faction will find it's own unique drop deck weight that will challenge the players.

Your faction may never get to 300 ton mark because of the small weight increase may slowly stop all advancing factions on your territories. Or if you do reach the 300 ton mark you may need the extra help to keep your faction alive and viable because of lack of player base help.

Over time the map will ebb and flow, it will force factions to make hard choices as a group. For example, House Davion can only expand so much. Do they try and destroy Liao at the cost of letting Kurita off the hook? Lets say they do, and they take more than half of Liao planets. That leaves Davion open to attacks from other factions because of the Davion tonnage penalties.

I hope people do not see this as take a planet get a 5 ton penalty. It should factor more like take 10 planets get a 5 ton penalty. So if your faction has grown by 100 planets you face a 50 penalty (290 tons). The X and Y are ultimately up to what PGI thinks is a good number for each faction.

Edited by CarnageINC, 24 December 2014 - 04:46 AM.

[B L O O D W I T C H]

*edit

wrong thread

Edited by LOADED, 24 December 2014 - 05:28 AM.

[Felix7007]

This is great. The concept that is. We need a form of natural resistance. Dynamic tonnage is a good idea, although I favor light mechs and an advantage for me is not more tons. So this idea doesn't work for everyone but is definitely the path we should be taking.

[Basilisk222]

CarnageINC, on 24 December 2014 - 01:52 AM, said:

Easy fix for long term CW health for all factions. Keep It Simple Stupid. Use tonnage increases for balance.

As any faction, be it IS or Clan (i.e. Ghost Bear or Davion or whoever), gets more planets under their control any opposing force drop deck gets a total tonnage increase for either attack or defense.

For example a clan faction starts out with X many planets. As they take control of Y amount of planets, there is an increase of 5 tons to opposing faction players drop decks. For every additional Y amount over X, there is a 5 ton increase. (In my mind Y should be 8-10, meaning for every 8-10 planets your side takes your enemy factions get a 5 ton increase to their drop deck.)

Makes for a natural balancing force for different mech types and for large organized groups. As your faction becomes more bloated, it will have to face more and more tonnage to slow down your advances. If your faction loses territory gained, your opponents will lose the bonus tonnage. If your faction goes below the X start value your tonnage should start to increase while your opponents stay at 240.

Additional factors could be used too if PGI so desired. If your faction has maxed its penalty tonnage out (i.e. 350 tons or 325 tons or whatever) and your side continues to win, your faction starts losing tonnage steadily. An alternative could be as your faction bloats you lose tonnage while the enemy gains tonnage. Of course their needs to be an absolute base line on bonus and penalty tonnages.

Its simple, no nerfing, no complex increase on contracts, no breaking up large groups. Its a completely self balancing system.

*edited for better clarity.

When mobility and speed are the majority of the match winners, how does allowing like 4 assaults help?

I think it's a much better plan to make the planets themselves dynamic, and make it so certain planets are by nature harder to take. For instance, one really big, earthlike planet can support a big drop weight, while a smaller, more violent planet's atmosphere makes it so dropships can't carry as much to the drop site. Limiting attackers (lets assume defense is already on the planet and just shimmying forces via dropship)
This will make some planets easier by nature to take for clans, and some by nature harder.

Of course, this needs to coincide with more game modes to flesh out the experience, which really, is the problem. Taking the Guns down just lets the ground forces land, I think we need those battles too. This is the first rollout however, so it'll improve over time, the release came out before a big break, so support's sketchy right now, throughout January and February, we know we're getting more maps, and they said more modes are coming (but we don't know when that's coming).

I don't think dynamically changing dropdecks as conquest succeeds or fails is the answer. I think logistics do need to be involved, and I think IS should have an advantage there, but how that gets implemented needs to be carefully set up.

Fielding bigger 'Mechs really doesn't help, especially when a Direwolf can be mutilated by a few well placed shots, and is about as urgent as one of those shopping scooters. The thing needs Stewie Following it around with a tuba. (Bum da bumbada bum ba da badum Bum da bumbada bum)

Edited by Kilgorin Strom, 24 December 2014 - 06:05 AM.

[CyclonerM]

CarnageINC, on 24 December 2014 - 02:50 AM, said:

There is nothing logical for one faction to unrealistically allow a major threat to completely destroy its sovereignty without a fight. View it as a faction relocating reinforcements to the front to stop the Juggernaut. This is what happened in canon is it not? Oh this isn't a canon game...your correct but my point about reinforcement is still realistic and valid.

Just because you want to live high on the hog and be complacent and face no challenge to your current dominance, doesn't mean others want to continue to be abused by it.

Face it, there will be...there has to be.... a balance mechanism put in place sooner or later if the current course of events continue with the Clan advance and the Davion domination.

Numbers win war. This is logic, is not it?

[CarnageINC]

Kilgorin Strom, on 24 December 2014 - 05:35 AM, said:

When mobility and speed are the majority of the match winners, how does allowing like 4 assaults help?

I think it's a much better plan to make the planets themselves dynamic, and make it so certain planets are by nature harder to take. For instance, one really big, earthlike planet can support a big drop weight, while a smaller, more violent planet's atmosphere makes it so dropships can't carry as much to the drop site. Limiting attackers (lets assume defense is already on the planet and just shimmying forces via dropship)
This will make some planets easier by nature to take for clans, and some by nature harder.

Of course, this needs to coincide with more game modes to flesh out the experience, which really, is the problem. Taking the Guns down just lets the ground forces land, I think we need those battles too. This is the first rollout however, so it'll improve over time, the release came out before a big break, so support's sketchy right now, throughout January and February, we know we're getting more maps, and they said more modes are coming (but we don't know when that's coming).

I don't think dynamically changing dropdecks as conquest succeeds or fails is the answer. I think logistics do need to be involved, and I think IS should have an advantage there, but how that gets implemented needs to be carefully set up.

Fielding bigger 'Mechs really doesn't help, especially when a Direwolf can be mutilated by a few well placed shots, and is about as urgent as on of those shopping scooters. The thing needs Stewie Following it around with a tuba. (Bum da bumbada bum ba da badum Bum da bumbada bum)

Excellent posting. This is the kind of feed back I've been waiting for!

You are correct that mobility and speed work for winning assault matches. But in light of B33f's new meta defense plan, heavier, harder hitting mechs in defense can make a big difference. For assaulting with a heavier drop deck...you have me questioning my idea on that one. I guess in my mind 5 or 10 tons isn't much of a difference maker but I thought if your side had the weight advantage on the offense you might be able to grind your way to victory instead of zerg rushing for it.

It would require more than just one tactic for victory. But i will grant you that you have a valid point. Maybe successful groups should lose tonnage. This will open them up to having a more fragile drop deck?

As far as your other comments, to me they seem like good ideas though they feel rather complicated and difficult to balance out in the end. Your ideas will take a lot of effort and time on PGI's part. Don't get me wrong, in reality I would love for logistics and force limitations to be part of the game. I just don't see PGI being able to implement that level of complexity in a short period of time (i.e. 1-2 years).

[CarnageINC]

CyclonerM, on 24 December 2014 - 05:44 AM, said:

Numbers win war. This is logic, is not it?

This is a vague quote. Can number win wars? Yes. Can a smaller superior force win wars (i.e. Desert Storm)? Yes.

The question that should be asked is: Should a larger player base have the uncontrolled ability to destroy or force a smaller player base out of CW? Here's an additional question: If my first question is answered yes, when does the 'smaller player base' become your 'player base' due to larger and larger group assimilation destroying the 'smaller player bases'?

Why let potentially unbalanced game mechanics force faction loyalist out of the game?

Edited by CarnageINC, 24 December 2014 - 06:31 AM.

[CarnageINC]

Felix7007, on 24 December 2014 - 05:26 AM, said:

This is great. The concept that is. We need a form of natural resistance. Dynamic tonnage is a good idea, although I favor light mechs and an advantage for me is not more tons. So this idea doesn't work for everyone but is definitely the path we should be taking.

Thank you for see the concept for what it is. I can understand your light pilot point of view and your correct, this isn't the magic wonder pill for all people. I do feel it is a good starting point for keeping a long term healthy community as a whole. Sure there are some weak points to it, but that is what debate and idea sharing is for.