77 replies to this topic

[CarnageINC]

Mystere, on 24 December 2014 - 08:53 PM, said:

There is no need for another thread.

The idea behind giving a crippled faction more attack options is to simulate insurrections. The winning faction will be then forced to divert resources to "quell uprisings".

I do not see it as rewarding failure because the weaker faction will also still have to choose how to divert resources -- especially their elite units -- away from defending their last remaining planets.

So a 'crippled' faction, i.e. a small player base faction, is given an opportunity to spread out and dilute its finite player resources when they could not succeed before with the fewer options available to them? Interesting idea sir.

[Mystere]

CarnageINC, on 24 December 2014 - 09:03 PM, said:

So a 'crippled' faction, i.e. a small player base faction, is given an opportunity to spread out and dilute its finite player resources when they could not succeed before with the fewer options available to them? Interesting idea sir.

I actually already hinted on a possible scenario. Each "attack" could actually be a diversion designed to make the stronger faction reassign its better units while the weaker one concentrates its best on the real target (or defend a planet currently under attack).

Note that this is not a suggestion to help a faction that has less playing members. And this is because your OP was not talking about such a situation.

[Roland]

From a game design perspective, the reason to offer advantages to weaker factions is to encourage people to play them.

Otherwise, the player base will just gravitate to the stronger factions, not only creating a snow ball effect and further damaging the experience of players in the weaker factions, but also reducing the available opponents for players in the strong factions, this making the game eventually suck for everyone.

Tonnage or battle value based handicapping is, to me at least, preferable to junk like elo in a team based game, as it is at least a clearly quantifiable handicap. And it conveys additional bragging rights and a sense of achievement to the top players who can overcome it.

[Tarl Cabot]

I would suggest something different. This is how EGA MPBT (early 90s) handled planetary assaults, by starting off with lights only, lights-meds, etc, as the assault House planetary percentage increased.

At the first attack, start off with a lower deck weight, max 130/150 ton range for both sides to illustrate a raiding force as well as the responding forces (defenders). Then as the assaulting faction gains more territory on that planet the overall deck limit increases. This would also allow them to change the victory conditions and maps to include Assault (destroying/securing supply dumps/Conquest (raids/supply dumps)/Skirmishes (destroying patrols/convoys/etc).

[Mystere]

Roland, on 24 December 2014 - 09:14 PM, said:

From a game design perspective, the reason to offer advantages to weaker factions is to encourage people to play them.

Otherwise, the player base will just gravitate to the stronger factions, not only creating a snow ball effect and further damaging the experience of players in the weaker factions, but also reducing the available opponents for players in the strong factions, this making the game eventually suck for everyone.

Tonnage or battle value based handicapping is, to me at least, preferable to junk like elo in a team based game, as it is at least a clearly quantifiable handicap. And it conveys additional bragging rights and a sense of achievement to the top players who can overcome it.

I am more inclined to give weaker factions better opportunities, rather than purposefully stacking the odds in their favor.

As such, let me ask you this: At what point should stacking the odds in favor of the weaker team stop?

[Roland]

If you tired the tonnage directly to wins vs losses, then the system would balance itself.

[Caustic Canid]

Something similar could also be done by making the maps dynamic. The closer to the heart of a faction you get, the more automated defenses you would see. Planets in the middle of nowhere would work like the first release of CW where there is only one generator to hit, whereas a planet halfway through a territory would start looking like it does now.

As far as auto wins... I know its pie in the sky and will probably never happen, but it would be awesome if pgi came up with some basic AI that could pilot enemy mechs, so that you still had to fight, even if the AI wasn't that difficult (it could be if done right).

I like the idea of changing drop weights to some degree, but doing it right would be tricky.

[Mystere]

Caustic Canid, on 24 December 2014 - 09:25 PM, said:

I like the idea of changing drop weights to some degree, but doing it right would be tricky.

And that is why I have a problem with this particular idea. Just when do you stop so as to not make it virtually impossible for the better team to continue winning?

[CHH Badkarma]

Mystere, on 24 December 2014 - 08:57 PM, said:

Here's another one who is too generous with hurling insults, especially on someone who he knows nothing about. Why don't you check my others posts on these forums to give you a clear picture?

And see what I have in mind in a post just above this one.

No need to check your posts, as your intent in this one is clearly to derail it.

and as far as hurling insults, sir I am not even trying to tickle you let alone ruffle your feathers

Edited by CHH Badkarma, 24 December 2014 - 09:38 PM.

[CarnageINC]

Mystere, on 24 December 2014 - 09:13 PM, said:

I actually already hinted on a possible scenario. Each "attack" could actually be a diversion designed to make the stronger faction reassign its better units while the weaker one concentrates its best on the real target (or defend a planet currently under attack).

Note that this is not a suggestion to help a faction that has less playing members. And this is because your OP was not talking about such a situation.

Your more than welcome to engage with me in a discussion or a debate about this particular CW system. That is why I posted it in public. But your counter responses with your ideas are vague and non informative, leaving lots of room for interpretation. Your idea could have merit and I would be more than willing to discuss it. I suggest however, if you wish to formulate your idea further that you would please do so on your own thread so as to not be rude and derail my thread with your agenda. Unless you feel that your idea could be implement into this system and we could work productively and brainstorm the idea.

My OP did not raise the small player base issue, however it has been clarified in proceeding postings and then put into a modified OP. As things stand though, consideration for smaller player bases is a major factor that has been brought to light more clearly I hope.

[Caustic Canid]

you could have it be very gradual, rather than immediate... maybe it only takes effect once the losing force is below say... 10% of their original territory. Instead of being a huge jump in tonnage, have it be just enough to give the weaker team an edge in keeping their territory.

[Roland]

Mystere, on 24 December 2014 - 09:30 PM, said:

And that is why I have a problem with this particular idea. Just when do you stop so as to not make it virtually impossible for the better team to continue winning?

Since it would affect a whole faction, it would likely not actually prevent a top team from winning. What it would do would make it such that worse teams, fighting for that same faction, would get more losses and stabilize the faction.

[Mystere]

CHH Badkarma, on 24 December 2014 - 09:34 PM, said:

No need to check your posts, as your intent in this one is clearly to derail it.

Translation: [We don't agree].

CarnageINC, on 24 December 2014 - 09:34 PM, said:

Your more than welcome to engage with me in a discussion or a debate about this particular CW system. That is why I posted it in public. But your counter responses with your ideas are vague and non informative, leaving lots of room for interpretation. Your idea could have merit and I would be more than willing to discuss it. I suggest however, if you wish to formulate your idea further that you would please do so on your own thread so as to not be rude and derail my thread with your agenda. Unless you feel that your idea could be implement into this system and we could work productively and brainstorm the idea.

My OP did not raise the small player base issue, however it has been clarified in proceeding postings and then put into a modified OP. As things stand though, consideration for smaller player bases is a major factor that has been brought to light more clearly I hope.

Ok. I'll start another thread. And no, I have no agenda.

Edited by Marvyn Dodgers, 25 December 2014 - 04:42 AM.

[CarnageINC]

Roland, on 24 December 2014 - 09:14 PM, said:

From a game design perspective, the reason to offer advantages to weaker factions is to encourage people to play them.

Otherwise, the player base will just gravitate to the stronger factions, not only creating a snow ball effect and further damaging the experience of players in the weaker factions, but also reducing the available opponents for players in the strong factions, this making the game eventually suck for everyone.

Tonnage or battle value based handicapping is, to me at least, preferable to junk like elo in a team based game, as it is at least a clearly quantifiable handicap. And it conveys additional bragging rights and a sense of achievement to the top players who can overcome it.

Roland you and I are almost on the same page IMO. Alternative solutions to the health and enjoyment of CW are always welcomed to be discussed. I fear that such a system that you have proposed would be next to impossible to implement for PGI. CW spreads the player pool out to thin for ELO to be effective overall, sure you will have peak time were it could be more effective but it would most like be erratic through the map.

With the tonnage system players have the potential to even bigger bragging rights instead of 'even' matching rights. Imagine the pride and sense of achievement by overcoming bigger tonnage odds. This is literally the case of the 'underdog' using tactics and skill overcoming a heavier foe. That to me is more of an achievement.

[CarnageINC]

Tarl Cabot, on 24 December 2014 - 09:15 PM, said:

I would suggest something different. This is how EGA MPBT (early 90s) handled planetary assaults, by starting off with lights only, lights-meds, etc, as the assault House planetary percentage increased.

At the first attack, start off with a lower deck weight, max 130/150 ton range for both sides to illustrate a raiding force as well as the responding forces (defenders). Then as the assaulting faction gains more territory on that planet the overall deck limit increases. This would also allow them to change the victory conditions and maps to include Assault (destroying/securing supply dumps/Conquest (raids/supply dumps)/Skirmishes (destroying patrols/convoys/etc).

Yep, NBT back in the old days did this. I loved that time and I think the old system was perfect. I was very realistic and challenging IMO. However that system took a lot of player based input and effort into the logistical system. This is something I believe PGI will probably not want to dive into. If they do, i fear that it will take years to code, play test, balance and inject into CW. I believe there are effort to start up the old NBT type system now if I'm not mistaken.

[Caustic Canid]

Tarl Cabot, on 24 December 2014 - 09:15 PM, said:

I would suggest something different. This is how EGA MPBT (early 90s) handled planetary assaults, by starting off with lights only, lights-meds, etc, as the assault House planetary percentage increased.

At the first attack, start off with a lower deck weight, max 130/150 ton range for both sides to illustrate a raiding force as well as the responding forces (defenders). Then as the assaulting faction gains more territory on that planet the overall deck limit increases. This would also allow them to change the victory conditions and maps to include Assault (destroying/securing supply dumps/Conquest (raids/supply dumps)/Skirmishes (destroying patrols/convoys/etc).

The main problem I see with this is the mech buying structure of MWO. Many casual players don't have a huge array of mechs on hand and would be forced to use stock trial variants. This would tip the game very much in favor of those who either have way more time to devote to playing it, or have dumped way more money into the game.

[Mystere]

Roland, on 24 December 2014 - 09:36 PM, said:

Since it would affect a whole faction, it would likely not actually prevent a top team from winning. What it would do would make it such that worse teams, fighting for that same faction, would get more losses and stabilize the faction.

When I mentioned "team", I was actually referring to "faction".

Also, I don't know whether or not it is actually true, but I am seeing claims that certain factions are stacked with the much better units.

Having said those, and considering that players number disparity is apparently now part of the discussion, "stacking the deck" as you are suggesting will potentially face the situation in which the bigger faction just decides to concentrate its best units in the final assaults. And in this situation, my previous question just becomes even more important: Just when do you stop "stacking the deck" so as to not make it virtually impossible for the better faction to continue winning?

(I might be hitting "red herring" territory. But, I'm still going with it anyway. )

[CarnageINC]

Mystere, on 24 December 2014 - 09:21 PM, said:

I am more inclined to give weaker factions better opportunities, rather than purposefully stacking the odds in their favor.

As such, let me ask you this: At what point should stacking the odds in favor of the weaker team stop?

I will answer that question. The stopping point of stacking the tonnage in favor of the weaker faction will be determined by the overall skill of the opposing player base. If this system works, this is the big unknown, balance will be attained through the efforts of the player base skill. Tonnage isn't increase or decreased for no reason.

Let me ask you Mystere a question. At what cost should a stronger teams be allowed to dominate and disfranchise the minority player bases? 1 player? 10? 1000? I'm not going to insult your intelligence, your a founder and you and I have seen the progress of this game. You know that MWO has a relatively small remaining player base after the years of development this game has gone through. I'm am only trying to promote a system that has something to offer all, not just a select few.

Every good game out there worth playing has balance, every game. In the current state, where is this balance for I see little. The only balance mechanism in place is an increase in XP and C bills for smaller factions. That is determined by PGI, the same people who determine where and what direction you can and cannot attack.

Let us say that clan mech are a bit more overpowered versus the IS. No need to nerf them because this system should self balance through weight of firepower and or armor. If its large groups the are OP then this system balances that too. It increase the challenge for better skilled players. This system offers the opportunity for a wider drop deck variety then the same four mechs players may use over and over because they are the only mechs that work as things stand.

There are more pros than cons in tonnage balance.

[Kirkland Langue]

I'm a huge supporter of dynamically self-balancing systems. I've argued for them here, and I've argued for them in many other games.

I don't know if tonnage is the right factor to dynamically balance; or if win/loss is the right statistic to base the balancing upon - but as long as MWO has a population problem, I'm going to support anything that helps the newer/less-experienced/flat-out-bad players in the game. The game NEEDS those players to keep playing, and there is literally nothing that the elitist crowd can say that will make me change my mind on this.

I don't care if you think giving a handicap to new/bad players is "punishing success" - there is a reason that games have given handicaps for centuries: it's because the people who play those games recognize that even less skilled, or newer players, are important for keeping the game healthy.

[CarnageINC]

Caustic Canid, on 24 December 2014 - 09:34 PM, said:

you could have it be very gradual, rather than immediate... maybe it only takes effect once the losing force is below say... 10% of their original territory. Instead of being a huge jump in tonnage, have it be just enough to give the weaker team an edge in keeping their territory.

Sorry, I overlooked this posting. As it currently stands, this is exactly what tonnage balance does. There is no huge jump, none at all. Its all incremental. Please read the first page, that is where the fine points of the tonnage system have been laid out.

Edited by CarnageINC, 24 December 2014 - 10:30 PM.