77 replies to this topic

[CHH Badkarma]

Mystere, on 24 December 2014 - 09:38 PM, said:

Translation: Clueless.



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

Ahh more constructive feedback with a direct personal attack.

[Caustic Canid]

CarnageINC, on 24 December 2014 - 10:13 PM, said:

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.

I was more responding to someone else in saying that the tonnage increase wouldn't start to take effect until a very specific point, very far into a factions territory. rather than ramping up slowly over time.

[Mystere]

CHH Badkarma, on 24 December 2014 - 10:17 PM, said:

Ahh more constructive feedback with a direct personal attack.

Wow! That's most certainly rich, especially given the fact that you have even less constructive feedback on this thread, much less suggestions.

[CarnageINC]

Mystere, on 24 December 2014 - 10:29 PM, said:

Wow! That's most certainly rich, especially given the fact that you have even less constructive feedback on this thread, much less suggestions.

My apologies, BK is my clan's bulldog and gets off his leash from time to time. I'll swat him on the butt for derailing this thread.

With that said, I wish you all a Happy Holidays and thank you for taking time out of your day to read and partake in this thread. I am stepping away for a bit to spend some time with friends and family. I will come back at a later time to read community input and to clarify or counter any notable postings.

[Mystere]

CarnageINC, on 24 December 2014 - 10:07 PM, said:

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.

Pardon me, but I am not really seeing how balance can be achieved. You yourself said there is a big unknown. Could you elaborate more?

(Or the bubbly is starting to take effect )

CarnageINC, on 24 December 2014 - 10:07 PM, said:

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.

That "minority" thing is throwing me off. Did you in fact mean "majority", as in the stronger teams are in the "minority" and the PUGs are in the "majority"? Please clarify.

(Or the bubbly is really starting to take its toll)

CarnageINC, on 24 December 2014 - 10:07 PM, said:

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.

Let men then list the cons while I let you list the pros:

• It seems to be the general observation that gamers these days very much prefer "winning" over "challenging". As such, I expect player populations to shift from the faction considered "losing" to the one "winning".
  
• Bragging rights for defeating a superior force is probably much lower on the totem pole than crushing a faction.
  
• There is a hard upper limit to what can be used for tonnage allowance. Once that is reached, then what? Start reducing the "good" players' tonnage limits? Start increasing/decreasing the number of waves allowed?
  
• Finally, there is a point in which handicaps start becoming "unfair" to the better players. You don't ever want to get even remotely close to that one.

And as for other alternatives to your suggestion ...

PGI can expand the use of the planet "attack" and "defend" selections as a balancing solution. It will be crude (and not to mention really rude), but it will get the job done in giving a crippled faction some respite. It can also be "justified" as a logistics issue for the invading force.

Another idea is to completely decouple Mercenary units from factions (especially from the Clans), enabling them to become true free agents, and at the same time give them huge reward incentives for joining the weaker factions. This might work because I've actually seen some Merc units state that they care more about c-bills than winning matches. Of course, this idea might just leave a bad taste in the mouth because it is a huge deviation from lore.

Finally, CW still has a few missing pieces:

• logistics and supply lines
  
• economy
  
• planet "values" relative to each other

All of these can be made part of game balancing. As such, a rush to find "balance" right now just might translate into wasted time, resources, and effort (i.e. withdraw previous balance mechanisms) once the other missing pieces come into place. That is the price to pay when releasing an obviously unfinished game. Can PGI afford such potential waste?

[Mystere]

CarnageINC, on 24 December 2014 - 10:39 PM, said:

My apologies, BK is my clan's bulldog and gets off his leash from time to time. I'll swat him on the butt for derailing this thread.

Frankly, I'd prefer you put him to sleep.

CarnageINC, on 24 December 2014 - 10:39 PM, said:

With that said, I wish you all a Happy Holidays and thank you for taking time out of your day to read and partake in this thread. I am stepping away for a bit to spend some time with friends and family. I will come back at a later time to read community input and to clarify or counter any notable postings.

Happy Holidays to you too and everyone else.

Edited by Mystere, 24 December 2014 - 11:35 PM.

[AeusDeif]

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

Easy solution for long term strategic CW health for all factions. Keep It Simple Stupid. Use tonnage increases for balance. This is not for addressing current planetary tactical conditions.

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). Its a completely self balancing system.

I like the elegant simplicity of this idea, which I think lends to being effective. You could also dynamically tack on better c-bill rewards for shrinking factions and costs for advancing ones. This makes economic sense, an aggressive campaign with a huge army costs lots of money and supplies and there's less to go around. Furthermore you could increase the amount of drops one side gets or decrease the amount of drops the other side gets. Also it could be calculated more heavily based on the losing front... so if the faction loses only 2 planets on one front, it gets 10 ton bonus on that front, but only a 5 ton bonus on every other front (although would stack with bonus on that front and vice versa). Also you could have these bonuses soften a little bit over time to reflect the boon of rebuilt industry on conquered worlds. Although perhaps the planetary bonuses would have this effect when implemented.

The concern is that this will further encourage the light mech tactics, which in itself isn't bad, but we want to keep variety of play open. However there is also the potential that when we know the enemy is forced to use lights we can easily prepare for that, so perhaps it does provide an easier counter.

I agree with the concern about factions being overpopulated. I was working on less simple concept that would fix not only this but other issues with CW (http://mwomercs.com/...ions-as-of-now/)

I will try to put in simplest terms some of my concept from that thread.

1. Tier CW into two queues 'raiding' and 'invading.' In the raiding queue, groups of up to 4 fight in matches that do not take planets, but have an effect on border 'health' (simulates raiding of supply lines versus border patrol). This 'health' is just a win percentage, which is averaged with the win percentage of Invasion matches to determine whether a planet is taken/held.

2. In the invading queue, Groups of 8+ may take planets but must be formed by a member of a unit contracted with that house to Invade on that border. They can group with faction members, and fill leftover spots from the raiding queue above.

3. Limit unit contracts so that they pertain to invading on one front of a faction. Then limit the number of unit contracts -- make each faction only able to hire one unit more than is posted on that border by the opposing faction; no hard limit but always proportional. Consider opening up more planets to invade on each front to keep the Invasion queue active and more places for Raiding to have an effect.

4. Also, raiding should be more profitable on a border that has a greater amount of factioned players on the far side, and less profitable on a border that has less factioned players on the far side. This simulates the home faction paying a higher 'bounty' and raiders capturing more 'resources' from factions that would have to be 'richer' to employ so much activity. Incentivizes mercs to act like mercs rather than like gamers looking for exploit or easymode.

As someone else said this will not effect the deadline issue, which I think is easily solved, in this concept, by having it decided by a total win/loss ratio with a margin of 10% in the middle that just means stalemate. (must win by 56% or lose by 44%, otherwise planet is no-man's-land with no bonus to anyone)

I don't like ghost drops but if they are eliminated, there is potential for abuse. Unopposed Invasions should be filled from the raid queue whom get a 'militia bonus' even if they lose.

proportional Invasion contracts + flexible win criteria should = one side doesn't get a huge advantage just by having more players that play around Primetime EST.

Edited by AeusDeif, 25 December 2014 - 02:33 PM.

[happy mech]

CarnageINC, on 24 December 2014 - 04:36 PM, said:

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.

man, name the problem, then we can talk
is the problem CSJ suck in battles? no
is the problem CSJ have low pop to counter when planets flip? yes
(replace CSJ with any low pop faction, but what it matters really is a low pop just before cycle end)

so, any advantage in match will have absolutely no impact on how the big map plays out, as the planet will just get zerged just before end of cycle, when you have no pop

[CarnageINC]

Okay Mystere, I’m going to throw a long post at ya, buckle up compadre!

Mystere, on 24 December 2014 - 11:26 PM, said:

Pardon me, but I am not really seeing how balance can be achieved. You yourself said there is a big unknown. Could you elaborate more?

(Or the bubbly is starting to take effect )

This question borders on trollish behavior. Prior posting’s and further down, seem to indicate you have a grasp of what this system does. Yes I did say it was unknown, but that is irrelevant. At this point every idea put out by the player base is unknown and therefore irrelevant. If you fail to comprehend how this self-balances I suggest you take some time and reread some of the postings detailing it with the examples provided. If you still cannot comprehend the idea, come back with precise questions about any specific posting I made and I will then clarify it for you.

Will I elaborate more? I will not. The tonnage balance system is stated as plainly and clearly as I can make it in the first 3 paragraphs of my original posting. In my mind there is no other way to explain this differently than the few ways I’ve attempted throughout the thread.

Mystere, on 24 December 2014 - 11:26 PM, said:

That "minority" thing is throwing me off. Did you in fact mean "majority", as in the stronger teams are in the "minority" and the PUGs are in the "majority"? Please clarify.

(Or the bubbly is really starting to take its toll)

I see you failed to answer my question. It would have been impressive if you could have given an answer for both minority and majority, but instead you deflected and posed a counter question. When I state minority, it means exactly that, the minority. In this case I will clarify what the minority is for me in MWO CW. Any faction with a handicapped by a smaller player base than another faction is considered a minority. Any faction that has a less skilled player base is a minority. To me, PUG’s are a minority. Majority of games I’ve participated in, there are more players with tags and in 2+ man groups than there are of individuals. We will probably disagree on the PUG issue but it is only a minor point overall for me. Now that I clarified that, I await your answer to the original question.

Mystere, on 24 December 2014 - 11:26 PM, said:

Let men then list the cons while I let you list the pros:

• It seems to be the general observation that gamers these days very much prefer "winning" over "challenging". As such, I expect player populations to shift from the faction considered "losing" to the one "winning".
  
• Bragging rights for defeating a superior force is probably much lower on the totem pole than crushing a faction.
  
• There is a hard upper limit to what can be used for tonnage allowance. Once that is reached, then what? Start reducing the "good" players' tonnage limits? Start increasing/decreasing the number of waves allowed?
  
• Finally, there is a point in which handicaps start becoming "unfair" to the better players. You don't ever want to get even remotely close to that one.

This is good attempt on your part. Here is my list of the major pros in my opinion.

• It’s a simple system that require no nerf/buff to any mech/weapon.
  
• It self-balances dominance through gradual small weight increases/decreases for each faction separately based off how many planets they control.
  
• It’s easy to adjust the tonnage rate changes in game by only adjusting 1 number in a formula.
  
• It adds more variety options to the drop deck than what is now available.
  
• It prevents any overall map reset.
  
• No one faction can have complete domination over their neighbors or the map.
  
• It serves as a simple but realistic proxy for factions reinforcing endangered fronts.
  
• It provides a more stable ‘universe’ than the current system, similar to canon lore.

I would like to comment on your list.


Winning is what most people want. As it now stands, what you described could eventually happen. I’m glad you pointed this out, because it highlights the current situation in game. Players might start to migrate to Davion, CGB, CJF or CW. As more players leave Liao, Marik, Kurita, FRR, CSJ the remaining players will have more difficulty due to a shrinking player base. In the tonnage balance system, I’m counting on some players to move like you described. They will go to who is winning, then winning becomes more of a challenge and the pace slows, they then move on to the next winning side. Every faction sooner or later will rise and fall at some point. Very similar to canon lore I might add.

Again you are probably correct. I personally would love to see Liao crushed and utterly destroyed because I have never taken a liking to them due to lore storylines. Now ask yourself this, now that the loyal Liao player base is demoralized, what would keep them playing in CW? Eh…who cares right? Now that Liao is out the way, it would be cool to see FRR crushed, after all they are the noobs of IS Houses right? Those guys are now disheartened and many may move on or quit playing CW, but again…who cares it not your faction right? Next on the list is Clan Smoke Jaguar, after all, CSJ die off in lore and are the bad guys in canon lore so no loss there if those guys relocate or quit. Can you see where this is going? It’s going exactly where MW4 NBT league went. Down the drain because of dwindling player base. What is to stop it from happening as of now?

Correct, there must be a hard upper limit emplaced. I personally think that limit should be 340 tons. If a faction could ever reach this point they now control approximately 200 more planets then they did at the start. That equates to all of House Liao and the FRR combined with a few to spare. One could also just change the Y value to adjust accordingly. Instead of 340 tons equating to 200 planets, it could equate to 400 planets. It’s only a single number change in a formula for adjustments.

This point of upper limits are for the worst case scenarios, so if you were to suggest 240 tons could consistently win on both defense and offense against an increasing drop deck size to reach 340 tons, you would be dreaming. If this could happen with tonnage balance system then MWO is already broken beyond repair as it is now. CW will just soon boil down to 2 factions if left unchecked.

I can twist your statement around and say, there is a point in which certain faction loyalists, less fortunate and/or less skilled players start leaving CW because they feel it is “unfair” because clan mechs are OP or larger organized groups are OP or a larger player base for other factions are OP or whatever. You don’t ever want that to get even remotely close to that one.

“Good” players got to where they are at for a reason. What is that reason? Because they are more adaptable and/or better coordinated than others. Good players will find ways to adapt and succeed or else they would not have gotten to where their at. No one solution is perfect for everyone, this one is obviously not a good one for you. Everyone will have to adjust to any changes made by PGI, its best if those adjustments are spread evenly through the community.

Mystere, on 24 December 2014 - 11:26 PM, said:

And as for other alternatives to your suggestion ...

PGI can expand the use of the planet "attack" and "defend" selections as a balancing solution. It will be crude (and not to mention really rude), but it will get the job done in giving a crippled faction some respite. It can also be "justified" as a logistics issue for the invading force.

Another idea is to completely decouple Mercenary units from factions (especially from the Clans), enabling them to become true free agents, and at the same time give them huge reward incentives for joining the weaker factions. This might work because I've actually seen some Merc units state that they care more about c-bills than winning matches. Of course, this idea might just leave a bad taste in the mouth because it is a huge deviation from lore.

Now on to your suggestions.

Your Bubbly must be kicking in, I’m a bit confused by your first suggestion. By expand, do you refer to what you mentioned prior. Giving struggling factions more choices? Doesn’t that only dilutes the player base even more? If they could not succeed with 1 choice of attack and defend on each front, how are they going to succeed with more fronts? I’m not too clear on what your trying to say will work and I’m not quite sure what you mean by respite? More options to attack and defend gives your respite?

The Mercenary idea is a good one and PGI is trying to use now by increasing XP and C bills contracts for struggling factions. I also agree with you about the bad taste. It seems to becoming more prevalent for some players just to farm C bills with total disregards to victory. A good fix for this would be to entice greater payouts for victories. You have to make winning way more profitable than complacent farming. PGI would have to constantly monitor and change contract conditions to even out the overall map. I would be happy if this were possible to entice players to do it.

Mystere, on 24 December 2014 - 11:26 PM, said:

Finally, CW still has a few missing pieces:

• logistics and supply lines
  
• economy
  
• planet "values" relative to each other

All of these can be made part of game balancing. As such, a rush to find "balance" right now just might translate into wasted time, resources, and effort (i.e. withdraw previous balance mechanisms) once the other missing pieces come into place. That is the price to pay when releasing an obviously unfinished game. Can PGI afford such potential waste?

As far as adding more depth to CW, that would be great if it worked. As stated before, how many years is it going to take PGI to create and balance new ideas? What do we do in the mean time?

Answer me this Mystere, what do logistics do in CW? Supply lines do what and where do they come from? Who runs the economy of a faction and what does it do? What are planetary values and in what way do they relate to each other? You specifically mentioned “the other missing pieces”, what are they and what would they do? What punishes good players, what punishes bad players? How do all these things interact with each other and how does that affect balancing? How do you adjust balance ‘on the fly’ if needed while CW is underway? Better yet Mystere, start your thread on these ideas and answer them there.

Throughout this entire thread discussion there is one constant from you Mystere. Your point of view is focused solely on what is best for the “good” players in CW (i.e. you). Who cares about players with less skill or fortune than you, after all they just screw up, do stupid things and cost you victory right? I’m I wrong Mystere, because you have yet to specificly address any imbalance issues?

Edited by CarnageINC, 26 December 2014 - 05:27 PM.

[CarnageINC]

AeusDeif, on 25 December 2014 - 02:17 AM, said:

I like the elegant simplicity of this idea, which I think lends to being effective. You could also dynamically tack on better c-bill rewards for shrinking factions and costs for advancing ones. This makes economic sense, an aggressive campaign with a huge army costs lots of money and supplies and there's less to go around. Furthermore you could increase the amount of drops one side gets or decrease the amount of drops the other side gets. Also it could be calculated more heavily based on the losing front... so if the faction loses only 2 planets on one front, it gets 10 ton bonus on that front, but only a 5 ton bonus on every other front (although would stack with bonus on that front and vice versa). Also you could have these bonuses soften a little bit over time to reflect the boon of rebuilt industry on conquered worlds. Although perhaps the planetary bonuses would have this effect when implemented.

The concern is that this will further encourage the light mech tactics, which in itself isn't bad, but we want to keep variety of play open. However there is also the potential that when we know the enemy is forced to use lights we can easily prepare for that, so perhaps it does provide an easier counter.

I agree with the concern about factions being overpopulated. I was working on less simple concept that would fix not only this but other issues with CW (http://mwomercs.com/...ions-as-of-now/)

I will try to put in simplest terms some of my concept from that thread.

1. Tier CW into two queues 'raiding' and 'invading.' In the raiding queue, groups of up to 4 fight in matches that do not take planets, but have an effect on border 'health' (simulates raiding of supply lines versus border patrol). This 'health' is just a win percentage, which is averaged with the win percentage of Invasion matches to determine whether a planet is taken/held.

2. In the invading queue, Groups of 8+ may take planets but must be formed by a member of a unit contracted with that house to Invade on that border. They can group with faction members, and fill leftover spots from the raiding queue above.

3. Limit unit contracts so that they pertain to invading on one front of a faction. Then limit the number of unit contracts -- make each faction only able to hire one unit more than is posted on that border by the opposing faction; no hard limit but always proportional. Consider opening up more planets to invade on each front to keep the Invasion queue active and more places for Raiding to have an effect.

4. Also, raiding should be more profitable on a border that has a greater amount of factioned players on the far side, and less profitable on a border that has less factioned players on the far side. This simulates the home faction paying a higher 'bounty' and raiders capturing more 'resources' from factions that would have to be 'richer' to employ so much activity. Incentivizes mercs to act like mercs rather than like gamers looking for exploit or easymode.

As someone else said this will not effect the deadline issue, which I think is easily solved, in this concept, by having it decided by a total win/loss ratio with a margin of 10% in the middle that just means stalemate. (must win by 56% or lose by 44%, otherwise planet is no-man's-land with no bonus to anyone)

I don't like ghost drops but if they are eliminated, there is potential for abuse. Unopposed Invasions should be filled from the raid queue whom get a 'militia bonus' even if they lose.

proportional Invasion contracts + flexible win criteria should = one side doesn't get a huge advantage just by having more players that play around Primetime EST.

I like what you have said. I'm impressed, it seems more simplified than other idea's I've read. Because your idea can be 'simplified', no offense, it is also more valid for implementation and integration with mine.

In the back of my mind, your thoughts on raiding and invading are rolling around. I think they have merit and could be combined in some form with the tonnage balance system. I'll look more into your link when i have more time to see what concerns or questions have been raised.

Many elements of your proposal could integrate very nicely with the tonnage balance system. As the tonnage values change the contracts/XP values change. I'm not mathematical wizard, but from briefly pondering your idea and mine, i would have to think the contract value would be a fixed percentage rate that is based off a factions percentage of control of map. Actually there are several ways to combine the 2 concepts.

I will give this more thought sir, thank you for sharing!

[CarnageINC]

happy mech, on 25 December 2014 - 09:17 AM, said:

man, name the problem, then we can talk
is the problem CSJ suck in battles? no
is the problem CSJ have low pop to counter when planets flip? yes
(replace CSJ with any low pop faction, but what it matters really is a low pop just before cycle end)

so, any advantage in match will have absolutely no impact on how the big map plays out, as the planet will just get zerged just before end of cycle, when you have no pop

Happy Mech, I honestly mean no insult when I say this, but is English your first language? Do you or can you read or completely comprehend what your saying? You have repeated misunderstood what I'm trying to say. So I'm honestly confused if you lack comprehension or just troll that way.

"man, name the problem, then we can talk" you say.

The problem is stated in the first sentence of the original post. And have we not been talking all this time?

You then go on to try and assert that this whole idea has something to do with CJS. You are wrong sir. This idea is an equal opportunity for all factions. It favors no one faction in the long term, it simply can't because of self balance.

"so, any advantage in match will have absolutely no impact on how the big map plays out, as the planet will just get zerged just before end of cycle, when you have no pop"

You, again, are wrong Happy Mech. Weight advantages in match will create conditions at some point, in match, that allow for one side or another to be more dominate through level of difficulty. That domination will then determine who controls the planet. How can that not impact the map long term, planets change hands?

If zerging were OP and it was an auto win button as you make it out to be, don't you think it would be used in every match currently played? In addition, zerging only works for assaulting forces, you cannot defend with light mechs that effectively. Which faction does the zerging work for currently? The Inner Sphere and the IS lights.

So why are clanners taking over IS planets without zerging? It could many numerous factors on why clanners are moving forward. Tonnage balance system address all those factors with one solution that does not require any changes to mechs, weapons or group size limitations.

As stated before, this system does not address the 'magic hour' in the planetary control phase before ceasefire. It is a long term, looking down the road idea. 'Magic hour' is already being looked into by others and PGI, I will leave that for those people to decide how to fix it.

[happy mech]

CarnageINC, on 26 December 2014 - 02:34 PM, said:

Happy Mech, I honestly mean no insult when I say this, but is English your first language? Do you or can you read or completely comprehend what your saying? You have repeated misunderstood what I'm trying to say. So I'm honestly confused if you lack comprehension or just troll that way.

"man, name the problem, then we can talk" you say.

The problem is stated in the first sentence of the original post. And have we not been talking all this time?

You then go on to try and assert that this whole idea has something to do with CJS. You are wrong sir. This idea is an equal opportunity for all factions. It favors no one faction in the long term, it simply can't because of self balance.

"so, any advantage in match will have absolutely no impact on how the big map plays out, as the planet will just get zerged just before end of cycle, when you have no pop"

You, again, are wrong Happy Mech. Weight advantages in match will create conditions at some point, in match, that allow for one side or another to be more dominate through level of difficulty. That domination will then determine who controls the planet. How can that not impact the map long term, planets change hands?

If zerging were OP and it was an auto win button as you make it out to be, don't you think it would be used in every match currently played? In addition, zerging only works for assaulting forces, you cannot defend with light mechs that effectively. Which faction does the zerging work for currently? The Inner Sphere and the IS lights.

So why are clanners taking over IS planets without zerging? It could many numerous factors on why clanners are moving forward. Tonnage balance system address all those factors with one solution that does not require any changes to mechs, weapons or group size limitations.

As stated before, this system does not address the 'magic hour' in the planetary control phase before ceasefire. It is a long term, looking down the road idea. 'Magic hour' is already being looked into by others and PGI, I will leave that for those people to decide how to fix it.

no problem, english is not my first language, i was trying to make the shortest post possible summing up what i was trying to bring attention to

"(replace CSJ with any low pop faction, but what it matters really is a low pop just before cycle end)"

if you have played starcraft, in short, zerg is a faction that wins by numbers
currently all that matters is having more players just before planets flip, hence i used the term "to zerg"

as you say in the last paragraph, your system does not address the "magic hour", it may be solution to problems that arise up ahead, but currently there is no need for it, as faction skill or overall population throughout the day do not reflect the changing of planets

edit: i will not post again here, gonna start a separate thread with my points on cw

Edited by happy mech, 27 December 2014 - 08:32 AM.

[Navy Sixes]

Hey, everyone. I've been following this thread with some interest, as it seems like a workable idea. There is something I'd like to point out, though, describing what may be a disconnect between points of view.

Mystere, on 24 December 2014 - 11:26 PM, said:

• Bragging rights for defeating a superior force is probably much lower on the totem pole than crushing a faction.

Mechwarrior is a martial dystopian future. It was conceived in the '80's, when there was still a sense among many that war wasn't something you "won;" it was a madness humanity endured. It describes a future in which humanity engages in almost constant warfare, when entire cultures are built around warfare, yet ironically no one ever achieves ultimate victory.

We talk a lot about "lore" and "canon" and the "flavor of Mechwarrior" in these forums, but beyond "this laser should do this" or "this mech should do that," perhaps the most important aspect of lore, the thing that makes Mechwarrior Mechwarrior, is that no faction ever "crushes" another. Someone may win this war, but they lose the next one. Each of these factions has been around for centuries, sometimes they're up, sometimes they're down, sometimes every enemy they have ally and conspire to bring them down. They are occasionally diminished, even fractured. They are never "crushed."

Of all the notions of "lore" or "spirit of the franchise" that must be upheld, I believe this one is key. I believe PGI has an obligation to ensure that none of the factions is ever reduced to just their homeworld. This idea of tonnage bonuses for smaller factions, seems like a good mechanism to accomplish this.

And this is the disconnect: Some will say, "If an enemy can't be crushed, why bother waging war?" Others would respond, "Exactly. Yet here we are." Hence "dystopia." This is not a happy future.

You can hate Liao, or Clan Jade Falcon, or whoever. You can fight them with all your might. All of this is expected of you as a mechwarrior. No offense, but if you expect your hate or your capacity to fight will lead you to some ultimate strategic victory, you don't understand Mechwarrior.

[Mystere]

Tycho von Gagern, on 27 December 2014 - 09:17 AM, said:

Hey, everyone. I've been following this thread with some interest, as it seems like a workable idea. There is something I'd like to point out, though, describing what may be a disconnect between points of view.


...


You can hate Liao, or Clan Jade Falcon, or whoever. You can fight them with all your might. All of this is expected of you as a mechwarrior. No offense, but if you expect your hate or your capacity to fight will lead you to some ultimate strategic victory, you don't understand Mechwarrior.

My line is more a pragmatic realization of what the current gaming population is made of. To many, facing a challenge is secondary to winning. That is why I think a lot of players will flock to a faction perceived as being the "winner". I've seen it happen in other faction-based games, and MWO is not immune from such tendencies.

Edited by Mystere, 27 December 2014 - 10:06 AM.

[Tsig]

I think the best part of this entire thread is that picture in the OP...though tbf, a friend of mine thinks you should have used Butters instead of Stan for Clan Wolf

[CarnageINC]

Tycho von Gagern, on 27 December 2014 - 09:17 AM, said:

Hey, everyone. I've been following this thread with some interest, as it seems like a workable idea. There is something I'd like to point out, though, describing what may be a disconnect between points of view.

Mechwarrior is a martial dystopian future. It was conceived in the '80's, when there was still a sense among many that war wasn't something you "won;" it was a madness humanity endured. It describes a future in which humanity engages in almost constant warfare, when entire cultures are built around warfare, yet ironically no one ever achieves ultimate victory.

We talk a lot about "lore" and "canon" and the "flavor of Mechwarrior" in these forums, but beyond "this laser should do this" or "this mech should do that," perhaps the most important aspect of lore, the thing that makes Mechwarrior Mechwarrior, is that no faction ever "crushes" another. Someone may win this war, but they lose the next one. Each of these factions has been around for centuries, sometimes they're up, sometimes they're down, sometimes every enemy they have ally and conspire to bring them down. They are occasionally diminished, even fractured. They are never "crushed."

Of all the notions of "lore" or "spirit of the franchise" that must be upheld, I believe this one is key. I believe PGI has an obligation to ensure that none of the factions is ever reduced to just their homeworld. This idea of tonnage bonuses for smaller factions, seems like a good mechanism to accomplish this.

And this is the disconnect: Some will say, "If an enemy can't be crushed, why bother waging war?" Others would respond, "Exactly. Yet here we are." Hence "dystopia." This is not a happy future.

You can hate Liao, or Clan Jade Falcon, or whoever. You can fight them with all your might. All of this is expected of you as a mechwarrior. No offense, but if you expect your hate or your capacity to fight will lead you to some ultimate strategic victory, you don't understand Mechwarrior.

That was well said Tycho. CW has to resemble lore to some extent, it has to have long term sustainability as a game to be successful. I could care less if the tonnage balance idea it ignored by PGI. My only concern is that issue of overall balance is addressed now in beta by the community and PGI. Not down the road when majority of short sighted people see that CW has spun out of control. I what what is best for all. Some balance mechanic has to be put in place sometime soon, so as not to turn more people off to CW and a balancing mechanic must be use to make CW sustainable.

Can PGI and the supporting community really afford to have CW constantly tweaked (in relative terms of over years of play). The more layers of complexity people want to throw into the background to add balance will just create more potential for a system to be constantly nerfed and buffed. Don't believe me, look at weapon system balance. You change one thing on a weapon for fix a problem then find out it then conflicts with another. Complex balancing will be very similar to that stage of development.

[CarnageINC]

Mystere, on 27 December 2014 - 10:06 AM, said:

My line is more a pragmatic realization of what the current gaming population is made of. To many, facing a challenge is secondary to winning. That is why I think a lot of players will flock to a faction perceived as being the "winner". I've seen it happen in other faction-based games, and MWO is not immune from such tendencies.

Well put, all of what you have said here Mystere is true. Many people have that mindset of taking the easy road. How do you stop people going to the winner and further unbalance the game? Numbers will matter in CW, they always will, it would be next to impossible for them not to.

You see that part of the problem, player migration to winning factions and that is what I'm addressing. But you don't see for yourself that this idea of tonnage balance will fix that. That is what confounds me about you and why I am specifically engaging in debate with you.

With tonnage balance, many players can or will go to where they feel they can win, to where they feel they can contribute, to where they are comfortable. Lets say Davions are winning and a lot of IS pilots go to Davion because they want to win too. With TBS, soon the flood of players will create overall conditions where winning is hard to do. So people will start migrating to where winning is easier, let say Steiner. As people leave Davion, it will deflate in difficulty and become normal again after a period of time. Steiner will grow in difficulty and many people will move on to the next green pasture.

You personally Mystere want to see some form of a multi-mechanic system put in place. Personally, if such a system could be developed and placed sometime soon I would welcome that. If it worked, I would rejoice. I don't care what system is used so long as it works for everyone who plays not just CW, but MWO. I have yet to see someone lay out something that could work. Many people have great ideas but they have not thoroughly explained them or thought of how to work out the kinks yet.

[CarnageINC]

Tsig, on 27 December 2014 - 10:07 AM, said:

I think the best part of this entire thread is that picture in the OP...though tbf, a friend of mine thinks you should have used Butters instead of Stan for Clan Wolf

Thanks for liking my "South Park goes to Battletech universe", I had fun putting it together. I did actually think about Butters being added but not for Clan Wolf tbh. That kinda would of broken my Timmy metaphor