2
This thread will explain the discussion that has been happening at http://www.reddit.co...x/attrition_cw/ and will include a summary and a frequently asked questions section, based on the feedback in the reddit thread. I do not plan to visit this particular venue to reply as much as I did on reddit.
Scope:
Community Warfare in its current state caters to large numbers and little planetary strategy, with little to no penalty for taking planets with forfeit wins (which has happened to us a number of times, no less than 5 since CW started) or losses in general.
I want to talk about implementing a hard counter to losing your match especially, so that a certain realism takes place where if you die, you die. You can't just spawn again like you didn't die in the first place. This is explained more in the sequence section.
The answer could be complex, but I want to make it relatively simple, so it is not hard to understand, and makes the in game play more complex/costly to implement, not the numberse you use against something. Those will still matter, as an "elite" unit only has so many elite players.
Sequence:
1. If you expend all your mechs (READ: all 4 of your drop deck) on a planet, you are completely locked out of that planet until the reset.
2. You may still use that SAME drop deck (or whatever drop deck you wish) on another planet.
3. This is reset daily.
That's about as simple as I can make it, but let me explain before you ask the questions.
"FAQs" / Concerns:
1.
Q: This pushes the needle from quantity WAY TOO FAR into the quality side.
A: I disagree. Most* units at the top two tiers are maybe 50 players big, and rarely have more than 1 or 2 twelve-mans running at the same time. This means that they can run interference on one or two planets out of the 5-ish that are available to their faction, and none at all for the other IS vs Clan planets. More planets, or specific planets with benefits, would negate this even more.
*Follow Up: Only one unit has a superpower of above average skill and above average numbers. They would benefit from their overall skill, but would finally have a penalty if they lost, instead of being able to throw their numbers at it again.
2.
Q: Logistics need to have more of a role.
A: This idea provides that. You see 60+/60+ on most "active" planets currently. With people losing and being forced to play on more and more planets, including those not of their specific faction, but their overreaching (IS vs Clan) faction, it is much more costly to use up people when a planet may be taken later. Since the cost is higher, you will have to decide whether your priority is to keep the planet you have been working on, or go help some other planet and possibly leave the planet you are working on undefended. The gravity is that more things will be happening, more plates spinning in the air. More planets might change hands every period.
3.
Q: There aren't enough planets/players for this idea!
A: Incorrect. There aren't enough planets/players for the way things are currently run, actually. Numbers matter way too much, and losing doesn't deter the numbers at all. There is no attrition, no penalty, and so their numbers mean a lot more. This negates part of the numbers when faced with a situation where they are outmatched enough by skill.
4.
Q: The penalty is too steep! What about a 30 min cooldown, cbill cost, lower forfeit win, chip system, etc?
A: The problem is these penalties aren't steep enough if you have enough numbers/stable size (number of mechs you own)/general resources to outlast them. If your resources get destroyed, it should cost a LOT to get back in the fight. So, if a cbill or LP cost was imposed to be able to re-attack/defend a planet, I would argue it needs to be extremely steep.
5.
Q: There aren't enough planets to play, if I lose all 5 of my faction planets, what then!
A: You still play on other factions planets. If you are Clan Wolf and lose on all your current planets, you will be forced to play on another Clan faction's planets. This puts more emphasis on the entire Clan vs IS war, forces more players to play on planets they wouldn't normally play on, furthering the logistics involved for taking a planet, etc.
6.
Q: Okay, so there's 11ish planets for my "overall" faction (Clan vs IS), what if I lose on all of them?
A: Then you are out for the day! I'm sorry, but because of the set up I have, if you have spent the last 4 hours of play time losing all your matches (which I personally think is a ridiculous amount of time to play, *especially* without a win), then there should be a penalty against you from throwing a number into the mix that could potentially win by forfeit. You still have the option of playing on Assault, Conquest, and Skirmish modes. I feel that this makes the mode more "hardcore", or worth it. Owning a planet means something more than it does now!
7.
Q: Doesn't this hurt the pug/solo player queue?
A: If all a pug/solo player wants to do is play "Big Stompy Robots", then it only hurts them if they wanted to play CW for more than 4 hours a day. If they wanted to actually influence the map, then I would argue that they needed to be a part of a unit instead. The Community Part of CW needs to be in the form of units organizing things, larger numbers of people playing together to make an impact, and forming bonds that only units provide currently. If your unit doesn't care enough to have an impact beyond numbers and playing "Big Stompy Robots", then control of the map shouldn't matter to them either. This idea makes it matter more, which to me is a good thing.
8.
Q: I only have four mechs, how does this affect me?
A: It doesn't at all in comparison with people who have 100+ mechs. You can still use those four mechs if you lose, you just have to use them on another planet. Stable size does not pose an advantage in this system.
9.
Q: If an elite group holds a planet, they will likely hold it for a long time, right?
A: They might, or they might be taken over by the underdogs one night and turn the tide in a big way. Everything is more costly this way!
Follow Up: You could also limit the number of planets that apply towards "rewards" that might be implemented for a specific team name, making the individual faction matter more than the one planet that unit has.
10.
Q: What about logistics of big groups, wouldn't this make it harder if player #7 lost his mechs, and we have to replace him?
A: Yes, this would make it harder, and it should make it harder! There needs to be more penalties for losing, especially with the huge advantage above average skilled plus large groups provide.
11.
Q: The elephant in the room, what about people with multiple accounts?
A: This would certainly happen, but I think its impact wouldn't be as huge as some people make it out to be. It would have to be tested to see how much it would impact, but: paired with timed lockouts, it would negate this benefit a lot, because your account that was locked out wouldn't have the ability to hit all the other planets.
12.
Q: Wouldn't this make in game matches dull/limit strategic choices?
A: It would certainly make strategic choices like suicide rushing more costly, and it should in my opinion. At the top to mid tier, it would certainly slow the game down some, and time is its own resource that people have used against smaller teams as well, so that adds another level of depth. If you don't want to lose that last mech, you better make it last. It would probably also make the first two waves the riskier moves in many cases. This could be mitigated by actually balancing weapons to a point where they aren't nerfed to the ground when they are nerfed, or buffed to be OP when they are buffed. Lookin' at you, PGI!
13.
Q: What happens if you only lose three mechs out of your drop deck?
A: You are still eligible to change your drop deck as you see fit, and because you won the match with at least one mech left (or escaped, if you lost the match but kept a mech alive), you are able to repair all your mechs on that planet.
14.
Q: If we're playing as a 12-man, and lose 47 out of 48 mechs but still win, can we repair us all?
A: I would say no unless someone can make a compelling argument in the other direction. This is the penalty side that means a lot to winning and losing. Also on this note, picking your drop zone would be a HUGE benefit for keeping your mechs alive/countering spawn camping (rather than being stuck in the same spawn just to be kicked off the planet).
15.
Q: This is reworking CW mechanics too much!
A: Actually, almost every other option expressed is a lot more complicated than what I have suggested, I believe. It puts ONE limit on things, rather than having to code for a multitude of things.
16.
Q: This isn't what the developers meant by CW being a "hardcore" mode.
A: I don't think any of us know what they mean by that. If they mean unit based gameplay, my idea improves on that. If they mean that CW means more than regular drops, my idea improves on that. If they mean that only the people who take things seriously should play CW, my idea improves on that. If they mean people dropping just for fun (which I seriously doubt), then yes, this isn't hardcore.
17.
Q: How do trial mechs fit into all of this?
A: They don't. I'd want to restrict them, but if they are used they count as part of your normal drop deck. PGI still needs to fix the drop deck bugs, as well.
18.
Q: New players are hurt by this, they lose and they're out.
A: In my opinion, they need to be leveling their stuff in open queues and earning C-Bills there as well. As stated before, it takes a long time to lose 11 matches, so they would still be playing a long time before being "forced" to play regular queues.
19.
Q: What's to stop people from focusing on killing people in game rather than taking objectives?
A: Nothing! The fight is the main part of it. Enough people at the mid-high tier ranking are already focusing on kills rather than objectives, but if you want to go for objectives that option is certainly more costly in this situation, but may provide quicker games to move on to counter other people that are attacking the planet.
20.
Q: Given two factions of equally skilled players, the larger faction will eventually win the planet every time because the smaller faction gets knocked out.
A: If the skill level is even, this is true. There is hardly a point where skill level is that even within the factions, though.
21.
Q: How would Mercenary Units fit into this?
A: Have a small faction? Use more of your LP/cbills/resources to hire the bigger dogs to fight for you, with maybe a bonus still from PGI for being on the smaller faction.
22.
Q: This will kill CW!
A: No it won't, it will force people to play on different planets rather than horde one planet unrealistically. People already have a numbers advantage, be smart about when you attack and you still keep that numbers advantage. The 300 Spartans should be able to hold back the 10,000 persians if they are good enough. But yes, it will change things for how CW currently works, for sure.
23.
Q: Gut! What do YOU think about restricting this to units only rather than having pugs still play?
A: Well, I think Solaris would be a great alternative for Units only. But, units only in CW would be a cool thing considering that either you're a part of a faction unit or a mercenary group in lore, so all these people that play pugs should be in a "unit" of sorts anyway. So either way. My idea would be less likely to work if it was restricted to units only, and if it was restricted to that, I would say a World of Tanks style chip system would be the better option.
24.
Q: Wouldn't this discourage small group play?
A: Yes. And overall, in my opinion, it should. Windows of time to play are a great addition to this idea that would make people plan to play in bigger groups on purpose. Also, having cross-faction 12 mans would make this easier as well. (Half of Unit A got destroyed and half of Unit B got destroyed, so then they could come together as Unit A/
.25.
Q: This idea restricts the number of fights on a specific planet.
A: Yes, it does, but it makes the other planets targets as well, so you can at least play the same number of battles until you lose them all. Overall, more planets will get more matches, and a few planets will get fewer matches.
26.
Q: Wouldn't having a better economy or a large number of players help more than this idea would?
A: Yes/possibly. We don't have those nearly close to being implemented though. And the game needs to be a crapton more polished (and more features) before being introduced to steam/advertised on television, etc.
27.
Q: This hurts pug drops. A lot.
A: Maybe, and maybe not. As pugs lose, they will be forced onto other planets, and as more factions pugs lose, they'll be forced onto other planets as well, making the pug vs pug battles on less desirable planets mean a lot more than before. They also wouldn't be forced to lose to the same elite group over and over.
28.
Q: Doesn't this give the advantage to the defenders?
A: Probably. That's not always a bad thing. It should take a lot of effort to take a planet.
29.
Q: Why shouldn't quantity win over quality?
A: It should, except in the case where the quality of the quantity is not greater than the quantity of the quality. If a team has the ability to hold a planet by itself against a horde, it should be able to do so rather than unrealistically being overrun by a horde they didn't even get a chance to fight, or fought and won, but lost the planet anyway.
Last minute notes: Please read the entire thread before posting, including the link to the reddit above.
Creative ideas I've heard that I like:
Kin3ticXFree Rasalhague Republic[/color] 2 points 18 hours ago*[/color]
<p class="usertext-body may-blank-within md-container" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
What about something as simple as you have to switch planets for one round if you lose as a unit group?
Kamikaze_VikingMWO[color=#555555]Isengrim - Suicide Brawler[/color] 1 point 18 hours ago[/color]
How about each Loss reducing your Drop deck by 1 mech, each win increasing it by 1 (max 4)
Hence losing 4 in a row and you're blocked from that planet. But losing 3 and then winning one and you'd still be able to bring 2 mechs to the next round.
http://mwomercs.com/...ce-more-fights/ This idea is pretty okay too, except it actually fragments the queue making 12 man fights less likely to happen, which I'm not as excited for compared to my idea.
This post moved from http://mwomercs.com/...0-attrition-cw/
ding ding ding
