60 replies to this topic

[Jman5]

I noticed a lot of people who saw the news that CW matches will now alternate between Invasion and Counter-attack seemed to be confused or treat it like it was no big deal.

Well it is a big deal.

To illustrate my point I just went through my faction tab with about an hour until cease fire checking out all the clan planets where action was happening and this is what I saw.




The pips with the white bars indicate where games are being played. Red = pips attackers (IS) have won territory. Blue = pips that Clans still hold. So if there is a fight on blue it means defense, fight on red means a counter-attack. Defenders can only flip pips back to blue if they can fight a counterattack on one of those red pips.

Notice how every single fight on every single planet is an invasion on a clan held pip? Notice how there isn't a single opportunity on a single planet for clans to take back territory?

This is why that first-in-queue system is such a disaster for the side that has fewer teams queuing up. This is probably why PGI is considering a complete map reset. Because as long as an opposing faction has +1 12 man sitting in queue triggering the attack, it prevents you from getting a counter attack.

[Codeine Radick]

I think the system is working just fine. If a 400 man team wants a planet from a faction that has 24 people, they should overrun that planet like a plague. CW should represent not only the relative skill of the communities in warfare, but the size of the communities attatched to that faction. If no one plays Liao, they should not have a giant presence on the map until people do. 24 people should not be able to hold a gigantic empire.

Take the Lyran Commonwealth for example, they have a vast empire, but share many a border with 5 factions. They should have appropriate numbers to represent this territorial claim. If not, they will be reduced in size until they only share a border with one or two factions, who will in turn become the large target with multiple borders to defend.

This is demonstrated with rassalhague. Once the Ghost bears encompassed them, taking wolves and kurita and steiner out of the attack lane to them, they became the sole opponent for the empire. From this stance their community players were able to focus all their assets on one faction and that an appropriate amount of land BACK from the single opponent they had. Now they have a properly represented empire based on their community support.

This is just how I see it, and i feel it is right.

[Xeraphale]

Colonel, The system would work fine if all factions had equal numbers, but they don't. Whilever PGI gives people the ability to freely choose over-populated factions then we would always have the issue.

Giving people the ability to switch sides at the drop of a hat makes the situation worse.

[Jman5]

Colonel Codeine, on 31 March 2015 - 10:13 PM, said:

I think the system is working just fine. If a 400 man team wants a planet from a faction that has 24 people, they should overrun that planet like a plague. CW should represent not only the relative skill of the communities in warfare, but the size of the communities attatched to that faction. If no one plays Liao, they should not have a giant presence on the map until people do. 24 people should not be able to hold a gigantic empire.

Take the Lyran Commonwealth for example, they have a vast empire, but share many a border with 5 factions. They should have appropriate numbers to represent this territorial claim. If not, they will be reduced in size until they only share a border with one or two factions, who will in turn become the large target with multiple borders to defend.

This is demonstrated with rassalhague. Once the Ghost bears encompassed them, taking wolves and kurita and steiner out of the attack lane to them, they became the sole opponent for the empire. From this stance their community players were able to focus all their assets on one faction and that an appropriate amount of land BACK from the single opponent they had. Now they have a properly represented empire based on their community support.

This is just how I see it, and i feel it is right.

The problem is that the attackers who can always beat you to the queue through slightly greater numbers can force it to attack mode over and over and over and over. The only way to hold the planet is to simply never lose more than 7 times all night. The larger invading force could attack 50 times and your faction could win 42 times, but because they forced you into attack all 50 times they win the planet with just 8 wins vs your 42 wins.

Think about that. Should a faction that went 8-42 win? Or should the faction that went 42-8 win?

Edited by Jman5, 31 March 2015 - 10:23 PM.

[Philadelphia Collins]

OP is exactly correct, it is unfortunate that it has gone on for as long as it has. It makes for really stressful comms too when your trying to get everyone to ready up as fast as possible so you don't lose the attack advantage. I am looking forward to this change and seeing how things play out.

[Codeine Radick]

Jman5, on 31 March 2015 - 10:23 PM, said:

The problem is that the attackers who can always beat you to the queue through slightly greater numbers can force it to attack mode over and over and over and over. The only way to hold the planet is to simply never lose more than 7 times all night. The larger invading force could attack 50 times and your faction could win 42 times, but because they forced you into attack all 50 times they win the planet with just 8 wins vs your 42 wins.

Think about that. Should a faction that went 8-42 win? Or should the faction that went 42-8 win?

Well conventional logic would say 42>8 so yes they should win. But in a realistic ish warfare scenario, if i am holding you in place sending (que zap brannigan voice) wave after wave of men at you, and the rest of my forces are taking the rest of your planet while you are held in place, we would still own most of that planet until you could muster the forces to break free and mount a counter attack with proper force. Yes you could waste every warrior i sent at you, but a magic hand wouldnt just lift you where you needed to go at that moment on that planet.

It would just feel less like "warfare" and more like some community organized tournament or something like that where we all shake hands and wait for the buzzer.

Agree or not, just how i think of it.

But it is a solid arguement to say 42 wins should beat 8. I however do not see that as a proper representation of warfare. It is possible to win every battle and still lose a war (See: Robb Stark)

Xeraphale, on 31 March 2015 - 10:23 PM, said:

Colonel, The system would work fine if all factions had equal numbers, but they don't. Whilever PGI gives people the ability to freely choose over-populated factions then we would always have the issue.

Giving people the ability to switch sides at the drop of a hat makes the situation worse.

As a loyalist to the Wolf Clan, i fully agree whole heartedly with switching sides worseining the problem. Have a little pride people.

Edited by Colonel Codeine, 31 March 2015 - 10:51 PM.

[Tarogato]

Colonel Codeine, on 31 March 2015 - 10:47 PM, said:

Well conventional logic would say 42>8 so yes they should win. But in a realistic ish warfare scenario, if i am holding you in place sending (que zap brannigan voice) wave after wave of men at you, and the rest of my forces are taking the rest of your planet while you are held in place, we would still own most of that planet until you could muster the forces to break free and mount a counter attack with proper force. Yes you could waste every warrior i sent at you, but a magic hand wouldnt just lift you where you needed to go at that moment on that planet.

It would just feel less like "warfare" and more like some community organized tournament or something like that where we all shake hands and wait for the buzzer.

Agree or not, just how i think of it.

But it is a solid arguement to say 42 wins should beat 8. I however do not see that as a proper representation of warfare. It is possible to win every battle and still lose a war (See: Robb Stark)



As a loyalist to the Wolf Clan, i fully agree whole heartedly with switching sides worseining the problem. Have a little pride people.

Colonel Codeine, on 31 March 2015 - 10:13 PM, said:

I think the system is working just fine. If a 400 man team wants a planet from a faction that has 24 people, they should overrun that planet like a plague. CW should represent not only the relative skill of the communities in warfare, but the size of the communities attatched to that faction. If no one plays Liao, they should not have a giant presence on the map until people do. 24 people should not be able to hold a gigantic empire.

Take the Lyran Commonwealth for example, they have a vast empire, but share many a border with 5 factions. They should have appropriate numbers to represent this territorial claim. If not, they will be reduced in size until they only share a border with one or two factions, who will in turn become the large target with multiple borders to defend.

This is demonstrated with rassalhague. Once the Ghost bears encompassed them, taking wolves and kurita and steiner out of the attack lane to them, they became the sole opponent for the empire. From this stance their community players were able to focus all their assets on one faction and that an appropriate amount of land BACK from the single opponent they had. Now they have a properly represented empire based on their community support.

This is just how I see it, and i feel it is right.

Keep in mind that if you have dreams of a huge organised numbers-over-value overrun of one faction by another, it will still be possible under the new system. If you can put 72 people onto a planet where the defenses can only muster 36, then your other 36 forces can be getting ghost drops while the three defending teams are tied up. It's still possible. It's just now it will be more fair to whoever wins more battles, instead of "whoever gets their twelfth person to click Ready first."

[Deathlike]

Although, it's only going to make it slower to cap the planet, it won't speed cap it the way as currently constituted.

I think a new issue will arrive in the initial stages though, where if you mass queue, you'll still get Invasion drops UNTIL the first match has been completed (assuming success) and then forcing the initial counter attack, regardless of the state of other matches.

Edited by Deathlike, 01 April 2015 - 12:06 AM.

[Jman5]

Deathlike, on 01 April 2015 - 12:05 AM, said:

Although, it's only going to make it slower to cap the planet, it won't speed cap it the way as currently constituted.

I think a new issue will arrive in the initial stages though, where if you mass queue, you'll still get Invasion drops UNTIL the first match has been completed (assuming success) and then forcing the initial counter attack, regardless of the state of other matches.

I agree that it will slow things down. They might even have to reduce the number of pips needed to take planets. It's still a necessary change though.

Edited by Jman5, 01 April 2015 - 12:15 AM.

[Joey Tankblaster]

I think you should not think planet-wise but more globally. Wining planets means more territory, more borders and more enemies. Losing planets the opposite. Steiner opposed up to 7 factions back in february (Clans+IS) and during that time we lost most of our planets. Simply too many frontlines and the player base was too small to hold the territory. Now steiner faces less factions and the resources can be used to push back CJF. This is kind of a dynamic equilibrium and will likely change. Player base is a huge issue obviously and very naturally the largest player base should hold largest territory. Not speaking of quality of course. Mech balance is a completely independet issue from that.

[Deathlike]

Let me try to illustrate (w/o pictures) two problematic scenarios with the result of the suggested change...

1) When flooding the queue in the initial stages, any time there are people to meet them, they will initiate ONLY Invasion matches until the first match resolves.

Remember that Counter Attacks can ONLY happen when a block is occupied, so if soloing-CW PUGs or organized groups decide to meet the attackers, they unintentionally speed up the capture of the planet... at least towards the middle where things kinda "even out".


2) Forcing ghost drops on the initial wave is better than trying to drop ASAP.

Remember that Ghost Drops force everyone behind them to wait to that match is set up, before the next group in line will get their drop. So, let's say there are many groups dropping behind the initial wave. Well... it may actually just be better "delaying the inevitable" and scramble to get at least 2 12-man going. One of the groups is for the natural Counter-mode.. and the other would stop the Invasion mode.. and force the next attacking group on a Ghost Drop.

While it DOES slow down the invasion... more skilled groups would technically require half as many drops in "holding up" the opposition through forcing ghost drops and having enough groups in reserve to handle the distribution (the minimum usually [# of attacker wins - 1] * 2 = # of groups required)

[Tarogato]

Jman5, on 01 April 2015 - 12:14 AM, said:

I agree that it will slow things down. They might even have to reduce the number of pips needed to take planets. It's still a necessary change though.

Hey, I'm all for playing around with the number of pips/zones as needed. Right now it bothers me that the number of pips isn't divisible by the number of maps - so we have four copies of every map... except Portico. =[

At least with the fifth map next week everything will line up again. 3 • 5 = 15

[Deathlike]

Just saying this now... I haven't thought this through, but I think this may will cause factions to abuse the new mechanics based on some of the existing behavior of the game.

If the slowing-down force attackers to ghost drop mechanics happen, people won't be so keen to bother ghost dropping on the same planet in CW... which may worsen the situation overall.

Edit: The alternating algo works better when you start @ 50% or "closer to the middle". It works terribly if you start @ the extremes.

Edited by Deathlike, 01 April 2015 - 12:33 AM.

[Prof RJ Gumby]

It is some kind of a solution, I only regret that it will add randomness that I hate in games. IMO, a better solution would be to give some % increase for a win to the attackers who win a counterattack or defenders who defended successfully (to represent the casualties you caused to the enemy forces on that planet). Eg. 3% for every successfull defence to attack or to counterattack. This would make you take/hold planet even when outnumbered if you win 2/3 of battles. % May vary.

Still, it will be better than it was.

[BladeXXL]

With this change, what would happen?

Maybe this:
5 teams are attacking a planet. 3 teams are defending. With current system they will take the planet within 2-3 hours - if playing well.
With the new system the counter attacks will happen more often so they need 6 hour to conquer the planet .. or they may have no chance to conquer anything!

Our and one allied unit conquer 2-3 planet for FRR every evening (4-5 hours in the EU timezone) - supported by some other units, small groups and pugs.
It's always a close result if we get a planet. because the most drops at the end are couter attacks and we have to hold the sectors till ceasefire!

The future will show if we still have a chance to expand the territory with this new changes.

For me it will be more usefull to change this:
If we got our Tag on a planet, it is very easy to flip the tag when the planet is on attack mext time. Just drop with a 12 men in defend mode, wait for pugs filling up the attacker queue and win/hold the attack. If you leave the queue now the pugs will also leave and the only thing that will happen: your unit got the most wins on the planet in this timeframe. -.-

And here something about ghost drop: don't waste time, just mark the terrertory as taken and set the team again in the queue!!!

Edited by BladeXXL, 01 April 2015 - 12:47 AM.

[Xeraphale]

I reckon the best solution is to make the capture of a planet based solely on wins/losses. Keep the territiories so that they can dictate attack/defend but hide them from view.

If we make it more abstract and base the flip of a planet on % wins then every match counts. It would be the easiest way to introduce new game modes instead of trying to fit them into an attack/counter attack methodology.

If the planet remains 50/50 at the end of the day, then ghost drops could then be taken into account. This would avoid defenders simply not defending but would ensure that a planet doesn't get taken by simply zerging it with overwhelming numbers. It wouldn't really matter whether factions have greater numbers or not (at least, not to the extent it does now).

Edited by Xeraphale, 01 April 2015 - 01:28 AM.

[Hydrocarbon]

Jman5, on 31 March 2015 - 09:35 PM, said:

This is why that first-in-queue system is such a disaster for the side that has fewer teams queuing up. This is probably why PGI is considering a complete map reset.

What's laughable is what triggered this. Marik doing it to Steiner for 5 months? NEIN! IS doing to to Clans for a weekend? You're g**-damned right, sonny!!!! However - if you can't hold territory, you likely can't take it either. If there's another event like this post-21st, the clan will invariably get another ass-whopin'.

The real irony is how clanners can ignore balance against the IS but jump all up Russ's ass on twitter when there's a balance issue against the CLAN. What do we do when a clan mech has a larger weapon range? NERF the only IS counter-mech! What do we do when the IS has a larger player base? NERF the IS advantage!

[Jman5]

Hydrocarbon, on 01 April 2015 - 10:40 AM, said:

What's laughable is what triggered this. Marik doing it to Steiner for 5 months? NEIN! IS doing to to Clans for a weekend? You're g**-damned right, sonny!!!! However - if you can't hold territory, you likely can't take it either. If there's another event like this post-21st, the clan will invariably get another ass-whopin'.

The real irony is how clanners can ignore balance against the IS but jump all up Russ's ass on twitter when there's a balance issue against the CLAN. What do we do when a clan mech has a larger weapon range? NERF the only IS counter-mech! What do we do when the IS has a larger player base? NERF the IS advantage!

To be honest I don't feel bad that clans are losing ground because they basically pulled this same stunt on IS for months. When I played for FRR, we would win and win and win and win, but it didn't matter because our clan opponents were beating our faction to the queue and forcing us to play defense. Or if we were attacking, they would constantly be rolling Counter-Attack giving them opportunities to flip spots back.

Regardless of who started it and how long it was ignored, I'm just happy this is getting fixed because it was bogus.

[Davers]

Hydrocarbon, on 01 April 2015 - 10:40 AM, said:

What's laughable is what triggered this. Marik doing it to Steiner for 5 months? NEIN! IS doing to to Clans for a weekend? You're g**-damned right, sonny!!!! However - if you can't hold territory, you likely can't take it either. If there's another event like this post-21st, the clan will invariably get another ass-whopin'.

The real irony is how clanners can ignore balance against the IS but jump all up Russ's ass on twitter when there's a balance issue against the CLAN. What do we do when a clan mech has a larger weapon range? NERF the only IS counter-mech! What do we do when the IS has a larger player base? NERF the IS advantage!

Not to mention Kurita and the FRR have dealt with this problem for a long time as well.

Clan players use Twitter to gain in game advantages. IS players use Twitter to remove the LPL buffs on the 6K and force 'stock mech quirks'. Not a surprise really as Clans ask for mechs like the Arctic Cheetah while IS pilots beg for the Flea.

[ZenFool]

I completely agree with Hydro, but I'm still glad they are implementing the change. It was so frustrating to win every one of our drops only to lose the planet because we were "holding territory" ten games in a row. Now both sides, IS and Clans, have felt the sting of this poor implementation. I just hope that PGI can do it without another problem developing.