77 replies to this topic

[happy mech]

again, is the problem of small factions fighting the matches (which are always 12v12) ? or having the population to prevent autowins?
you need player skill for the matches (no artificial advantage)
you need player population to keep planets on big map (which is absolutely ok, but there are ways to make it so that even a low pop faction can stand its ground (if they have successful matches))

CarnageINC, on 24 December 2014 - 04:43 AM, said:

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.

i would like to add to this example
the 300 ton steiners will not find any matches, leaving them to ghost win for several days until they are at 240, the map would never change, it is "balanced" in a way, but what is the point then? instead of territory control, it would all boil down to fighting on the same planets over and over (non-cw queue now)

[CarnageINC]

happy mech, on 24 December 2014 - 08:08 AM, said:

again, is the problem of small factions fighting the matches (which are always 12v12) ? or having the population to prevent autowins?
you need player skill for the matches (no artificial advantage)
you need player population to keep planets on big map (which is absolutely ok, but there are ways to make it so that even a low pop faction can stand its ground (if they have successful matches))



i would like to add to this example
the 300 ton steiners will not find any matches, leaving them to ghost win for several days until they are at 240, the map would never change, it is "balanced" in a way, but what is the point then? instead of territory control, it would all boil down to fighting on the same planets over and over (non-cw queue now)

Let me address the smaller factions first. You are quite correct in your analysis about population and group versus pug match ups. This, I believe, will address those issues.

Skilled, organized groups are taken into account of this plan. They will have to go against heavier and heavier drop decks both on the assault and defense phases. The question remains is this, at what point does tonnage start countering skill? This plan answers that question, and it will answer it for each particular set of faction based groups and pug players.

With this idea, there is the potential to draw more players and groups into the smaller faction gradually, as that factions drop deck weight starts to increase. 5 ton increments will increase slowly. In the current situation it would take possibly 8 to 10 days for just 5 tons advantage to be gained or lost per faction on your borders. Over time, as the weights increase, hopefully players or groups who like certain mech tonnages will migrate to that faction because of its tonnage conditions. For example; (based off of average public drop percentages already available for all to see) Joe Snuffy likes to pilot a lot of heavy and assault class mechs. He now has the chance to play more of those mechs in a smaller faction so long as it current conditions remain stable.

Now on to your 300 ton Steiner comment. You just arbitrarily jumped to 300 tons, then said no one wants to face that. This plan doesn't just jump you to 300 tons. It takes months to slowly reach higher weights due to months of losses. Long before it gets to a point no one wants to fight 300 tons, it will find it's own balance point.

*For example let say that balance point starts to become 265 tons. *265 tons becomes the magic number for Stieners to win more battles on average in both attack and defense. With that *265 tons they start winning planets back. Then it start to drop to *260 or even maybe *255 tons. And they start stalling out because of the weight factor and it will start back up towards *265 tons again. See, the system will find balance before it ever reaches a point no one wants to play at or against, each faction will have wax and wane around a certain weight due to a variety of different factors.

Edited by CarnageINC, 24 December 2014 - 02:00 PM.

[Mystere]

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

There is nothing logical about punishing the successful.

It is very logical to the people who keep on losing.

[CarnageINC]

Mystere, on 24 December 2014 - 02:03 PM, said:

It is very logical to the people who keep on losing.

So your saying its currently good for your game to continue, unchallenged, without any factors in preventing your faction from total control of the game? I see your a founders too, so you have been waiting for CW for a long time like most of us. You wanted to wait all that time to have a relatively short or unhealthy CW lifespan? That seems self centered and egotistical in my book. *I have it easy now and want it to stay that way at the cost of having relatively few to play against or having insane wait times in the future!

This is Community Warfare, something everyone who plays MWO should want and be able to play in. This is not a PGI sponsored competitive league of the type that already exists and you can easily go back to if you so desired. Competitive players have already setup what they want, this should be set for what the masses of non competitive players want by way of balancing factors put into place.

[ztac]

Yeah insta nerf all the really big IS houses .. sounds fine to me. so we in the clans should be initially dropping with 4 assaults .. except for CS our assaults are kinda not very good

[Rebas Kradd]

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

There is nothing logical about punishing the successful.

Quite the contrary. Conquering a world means you have to occupy it. In lore, clan invaders had to land garrisons, establish supply lines, and put down guerrilla resistance on the worlds they took over, and in all but one case, these demands ended up slowing their advance into the Inner Sphere. The clan that swallowed its pride (Wolf) and used pragmatism and negotiation rather than brute force, ended up with the most territory.

I'd like to see this element wind up involving players actively instead of passively, i.e. involving real gameplay instead of just instituting a coffer tax or a tonnage limit boost/decrease to represent maintenance demands. It would be nice if "Counterinsurgency" could be a new game mode.

But it would never be done by March, which is when Wave 1 starts.

Edited by Rebas Kradd, 24 December 2014 - 02:37 PM.

[CarnageINC]

ztac, on 24 December 2014 - 02:32 PM, said:

Yeah insta nerf all the really big IS houses .. sounds fine to me. so we in the clans should be initially dropping with 4 assaults .. except for CS our assaults are kinda not very good

Who said insta nerf? You obviously just popped in here then to post a snarky comment after a brief glance through and not comprehend the idea. Your statement is an oxymoron dude. You say nerf IS houses then say clans have 4 assaults?!? If anything this is a fluid nerf/buff idea that finds stability on its own. If clans ever got to the point to have the ability to use 4 assaults that would mean effectively that we have lost all our territory and are down to our home planet.

Success does not give you tonnage in this system.

[Mystere]

CarnageINC, on 24 December 2014 - 02:19 PM, said:

So your saying its currently good for your game to continue, unchallenged, without any factors in preventing your faction from total control of the game? I see your a founders too, so you have been waiting for CW for a long time like most of us. You wanted to wait all that time to have a relatively short or unhealthy CW lifespan? That seems self centered and egotistical in my book. *I have it easy now and want it to stay that way at the cost of having relatively few to play against or having insane wait times in the future!

This is Community Warfare, something everyone who plays MWO should want and be able to play in. This is not a PGI sponsored competitive league of the type that already exists and you can easily go back to if you so desired. Competitive players have already setup what they want, this should be set for what the masses of non competitive players want by way of balancing factors put into place.

I'd recommend slowing down on the insults and accusations. Mine was a joke meant to rile only the weak of mind. Are you?

Anyway ...

Considering the amount of planets right now, it will take a while to obliterate most factions down to a single planet. And PGI can always reset the map if things go too fast. Also, we have only 1 game mode and 2 maps. More are coming.

Having said those, I have seen really horrible groups. In fact, I have just been in a match in which my team had a 7-man that belonged to an allegedly "competitive" group. Frankly they were useless. It was supposed to be an easy defense but these "competitive" types had no clue where to position themselves and were too proud to listen to a "solo". They had too much hubris. Obviously we lost.

My next match was a purely PUG group and it was for an attack. We won by first killing off everyone before walking to the generators and destroying them. I can thank a member of the <unnamed group> for taking the reigns and leading the way while running solo.


FYI, I am Founder who plays only solo, and I am not afraid of these big, bad, "competitive" types.

[happy mech]

i am saying that the community will never play a 240 vs 245 match if they can choose to play a 240 vs 240

if you want to find a solution, find it in the big map

[CarnageINC]

Mystere, on 24 December 2014 - 03:53 PM, said:

I'd recommend slowing down on the insults and accusations. Mine was a joke meant to rile only the weak of mind. Are you?

Anyway ...

Considering the amount of planets right now, it will take a while to obliterate most factions down to a single planet. And PGI can always reset the map if things go too fast. Also, we have only 1 game mode and 2 maps. More are coming.

Having said those, I have seen really horrible groups. In fact, I have just been in a match in which my team had a 7-man that belonged to an allegedly "competitive" group. Frankly they were useless. It was supposed to be an easy defense but these "competitive" types had no clue where to position themselves and were too proud to listen to a "solo". They had too much hubris. Obviously we lost.

My next match was a purely PUG group and it was for an attack. We won by first killing off everyone before walking to the generators and destroying them. I can thank a member of the <unnamed group> for taking the reigns and leading the way while running solo.


FYI, I am Founder who plays only solo, and I am not afraid of these big, bad, "competitive" types.

My apologies if you thought anything I said was construed as an insult directed at you, my reply was worded only for you take offensive if you agreed it conformed to your way of thought...did it?

You are correct, it will take time for the potential of having CW dissolve into a 2 faction play style. As it stands now, that could be a possibility. Again, you are correct that PGI could just hit reset over and over. That would go against their idea of having a persistence universe and timeline. In that way of thinking, it will be 'groundhog day' 3050 over and over.

This is not an idea to fix a particular issue a particular player may have with CW in its current form. Its an idea to look long term and address future issues and to add variety and challenge to CW without PGI always tweaking mech/weapons and victory conditions.

I would like to say sorry for assuming your a competitive player, that was a poor assumption on my part.

Edited by CarnageINC, 24 December 2014 - 04:40 PM.

[CarnageINC]

happy mech, on 24 December 2014 - 04:19 PM, said:

i am saying that the community will never play a 240 vs 245 match if they can choose to play a 240 vs 240

if you want to find a solution, find it in the big map

Your making an assumption, as am I of course. You may not want to face a 245 ton plus match but others might want more than a standard rinse and repeat drop deck setup.

It is funny you say find the solution in the big map. This whole idea is based off of that big map, it relies on that map completely to determine drop deck sizes.

[Mystere]

CarnageINC, on 24 December 2014 - 04:32 PM, said:

My apologies if you thought anything I said was construed as an insult directed at you, my reply was worded only for you take offensive if you agreed it conformed to your way of thought...did it?

You are correct, it will take time for the potential of having CW dissolve into a 2 faction play style. As it stands now, that could be a possibility. Again, you are correct that PGI could just hit reset over and over. That would go against their idea of having a persistence universe and timeline. In that way of thinking, it will be 'groundhog day' 3050 over and over.

This is not an idea to fix a particular issue a particular player may have with CW in its current form. Its an idea to look long term and address future issues and to add variety and challenge to CW without PGI always tweaking mech/weapons and victory conditions.

I would like to say sorry for assuming your a competitive player, that was a poor assumption on my part.

It's BETA, so I expect at least one reset. In the mean time, PGI can make some other adjustments that does not involve punishing success.

One idea I am mulling with is for the crippled faction to have many more attack fronts available to them.

[Kirkland Langue]

Mystere, on 24 December 2014 - 05:48 PM, said:

In the mean time, PGI can make some other adjustments that does not involve punishing success.

In a game where a small playerbase is a real problem, punishing failure is worse than punishing success. If the Playerbase was not only large enough to keep attacks going on every planet, but actually too large for the game, then I'd agree with you that punishing success is worse.

[CarnageINC]

Mystere, on 24 December 2014 - 05:48 PM, said:

It's BETA, so I expect at least one reset. In the mean time, PGI can make some other adjustments that does not involve punishing success.

One idea I am mulling with is for the crippled faction to have many more attack fronts available to them.

Yes, it's BETA and I'm not address any resets in BETA, i could care less how many resets are in BETA. What I care about I have stated repeatedly, the long term health of the community game mode. That sir is precisely why I raised this issue to the community and individuals such as yourself. Now is the time to spread idea's, to hear them out, to raise questions about those idea's. To debate.

I'm glad at least you have made an effort to make a counter proposal instead of attempting to poke holes in someone else's. I would very much like to read your idea's and thought on how to make CW better for everyone. Your brief sentence idea is also one I have thought of. Though one could use reverse analogies at giving a 'crippled' factions more attack options as a form of punishing successful factions because they are limited in their options. Or you could state, why reward failure by give them more opportunity? Of course we could continue this discussion of your idea on a thread of your own if you so chose?

[CarnageINC]

Kirkland Langue, on 24 December 2014 - 07:59 PM, said:

[/size]

In a game where a small playerbase is a real problem, punishing failure is worse than punishing success. If the Playerbase was not only large enough to keep attacks going on every planet, but actually too large for the game, then I'd agree with you that punishing success is worse.

I like how the abusive word of 'punish' has been implemented into the discussion. A type of word replacement any politician could be proud of IMO. I do not see this as punishing any group or player. I see this as balance or a challenge, even better, an opportunity. Not doing anything but hitting reset is only punishing the community as a whole in the long term.

The community had been served one flavor of ice cream so far. Yet so many are afraid to try any other flavors? Look in all the various threads about particular topics concerning this new game mode. Many people are very quick to reject any idea that would change the one flavor they have been introduced to. Two words for you one flavor types: Baskin Robbins. Explore the options out there.

Edited by CarnageINC, 24 December 2014 - 08:43 PM.

[CHH Badkarma]

Mystere, on 24 December 2014 - 05:48 PM, said:

It's BETA, so I expect at least one reset. In the mean time, PGI can make some other adjustments that does not involve punishing success.

You clearly do not like a challenge do you. The more you speak the more it makes me think all you want is your own personal easy button. I would love the chance to cut down heavier units. Then again, maybe thats what keeps us underdogs on top of our game.

Give the IS more tonnage as we push coreward. Less of a reason for them to cry "clans are OP"

Edited by CHH Badkarma, 24 December 2014 - 08:47 PM.

[Roland]

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

There is nothing logical about punishing the successful.

Well, it's the fundamental basis for handicapping mechanisms in gaming.

[CHH Badkarma]

yeah, don't be to good at what you do, PGI will nerf you

[Mystere]

CarnageINC, on 24 December 2014 - 08:31 PM, said:

Yes, it's BETA and I'm not address any resets in BETA, i could care less how many resets are in BETA. What I care about I have stated repeatedly, the long term health of the community game mode. That sir is precisely why I raised this issue to the community and individuals such as yourself. Now is the time to spread idea's, to hear them out, to raise questions about those idea's. To debate.

I'm glad at least you have made an effort to make a counter proposal instead of attempting to poke holes in someone else's. I would very much like to read your idea's and thought on how to make CW better for everyone. Your brief sentence idea is also one I have thought of. Though one could use reverse analogies at giving a 'crippled' factions more attack options as a form of punishing successful factions because they are limited in their options. Or you could state, why reward failure by give them more opportunity? Of course we could continue this discussion of your idea on a thread of your own if you so chose?

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 then be 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.

Edited by Mystere, 24 December 2014 - 09:01 PM.

[Mystere]

CHH Badkarma, on 24 December 2014 - 08:44 PM, said:

[/size]

You clearly do not like a challenge do you. The more you speak the more it makes me think all you want is your own personal easy button. I would love the chance to cut down heavier units. Then again, maybe thats what keeps us underdogs on top of our game.

Give the IS more tonnage as we push coreward. Less of a reason for them to cry "clans are OP"

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.