27 replies to this topic

[Shimmering Sword]

(TLDR stuff in spoilers)

Spoiler

First let me open up by saying that the previous matchup system did have an issue, you could almost guarantee taking or defending a planet by overpopulating it. That should be fixed.

From the first time I heard it I thought this new system would have issues. It was clearly in response to clans having a hard time, while the IS having a hard time for the 3 months prior to that didn't seem to be a problem for PGI. When the Clans have great advantages, what advantages will the IS be left with when our numerical superiority and fast lights are taken away?

However, seeing the full implementation today raises even bigger problems, and I'll be focusing on this problem: The new time required to take a planet and defenseless defense.

Lets quickly get the non issue case out of the way. When two sides show up to fight in great numbers (36 players or more on both sides) the new system kind of works. Though again no reward is given to the side that dedicates more forces.

What happens when only 12 show up on each side, or worse yet, when one side decides not to defend at all?

When a company of players take the initiative to attack a planet and no enemy shows up, they're forced into ghost drops. Previously the long waits and boring matches were punishment enough for those dedicated to taking an objective.
Today's change has made it, at best, take twice as long to take a planet when your opponent refuses to defend. A planet should not be defend-able simply by not participating. This is the result.
You are now punished for taking initiative, rather than gravitating to the 1-3 planets that all the pug players are playing on.

What about 12v12? (this is also common) Say an attacker wins their first match, they are now required to fight on that same map again, leading to potentially over an hour spent on a single map for a single win "pip". Should an IS team be good at winning attack mode, but be weak against the pure attrition nature of counter attacking Clans, there's a high chance of both teams repeatedly fighting over specific maps twice.

Lets go over the math on that ghost drop planet take (ideal times):
Time to ready up a group - 20 seconds
Locked in wait - 10 minutes
Match loading and ghost readying up - 40 seconds
Time to kill all generators - 2 minutes (likely more since gen buffs)
Very ideal environment time to complete one ghost drop = 13 minutes
8 planet "pips" required to take a planet
Old matching setup = 1 hour 44 minutes at best
New matching setup = 3 hours 28 minutes at best

Spoiler

It was hard enough already to get an objective based group to grind a planet for almost 2 hours. No group of players is going to regularly put up with near 4 hours of zero true gameplay, and almost no pay.
It's also extremely insulting to force players to make that 13 minute match investment on a locked in defense that gives them absolutely nothing.

I've already said it a lot, but again: Planets may now be defended simply by not defending them!

A less critical point, but still something to raise. Even when a planet is properly populated and ideal, this new system still slows down progress.
The surface intent of this attack/counter attack turn system was sound at best, "stop zerging", but it's quite clear that very little thought was put into the true implications of the mechanic.
If you'd told me this is how it would work I could have told you this would happen without needing to see it in game.

If the system remains at it is, we're looking at a dead CW mode very quickly. It will be serviceable for the Tukayyid event, but not under normal population numbers and planet counts.

For a rapid fix there are two options: rollback or removing ghost defense matches.
I doubt PGI will want to rollback on this, so as a stopgap until a better solution is developed, all ghost drops should count as proper attacks or counter attacks, not defense of any sort. This way factions will be punished as they were previously for leaving a planet undefended, while still leaving alternating modes in place for real fights.

In my opinion there should remain a feature that rewards the side that dedicates larger forces to a planet. If one side drops 50% more forces on a planet than their enemy, they should be 50% more likely to secure an attack / counter attack.
Being forced into an even split punishes coordinated play.

For the first time since the launch of CW, my merc unit is taking a break from CW (though we'll show up for the event). The current system is designed to punish us for taking initiative or playing objectives.

Edited by Shimmering Sword, 21 April 2015 - 11:50 PM.

[slide]

I have to agree with everything you have said and pointed it out several times when it was first suggested, weeks ago.

The one thing I disagree with is that it will be serviceable during this weekends event. I think it will be more of a deterrent for the clans, because taking Tukayyid just became twice as hard as it was.

Requiring a group to spend upwards of 2 hours to ghost a planet is the main reason why almost nobody plays in the oceanic timezone. It is simply to boring for most players who have limited time to invest and want it to be as fun as possible.

This PGI is NOT a solution to the low pop numbers in CW.

Tukayyid just became a big grindfest for units who will farm pugs for cbills and whatever prizes PGI decides to offer.

[War Dogz]

Quote

Old matching setup = 1 hour 44 minutes at best
New matching setup = 3 hours 28 minutes at best

So before the only time that matter was the last 2 hours before ceasefire to get a free planet. Now over have the cycle matters.

Prefect working at intended.

[Shimmering Sword]

slide, on 21 April 2015 - 10:24 PM, said:

The one thing I disagree with is that it will be serviceable during this weekends event.

Right, by serviceable I mean it wont completely break the map, because populations will be high and everyone will be on a single planet.
Also, if PGI has really not thought about it. If Tukkayyid still has the "one company locked in at a time" rule. IS could drop 500 players against 100 and those 400 extra players would be able to do NOTHING to sway the planet.

There are several true fixes to the population zerging issue that I can think of:
- Define the attack/defend ratio by monitoring average planet population over time. If one side consistently queues up 30% more players, they will be 30% more likely to secure attacks/counters.
- During the 10minute countdown, have an initial time period, say 4 minutes, where if both sides show up it will adhere to the new 50/50 system. But if the responding team doesn't show up quickly, the first/initiative team will be locked into an attack/counter.
Both of these setups reward population in some way.
PGI could also lower the ghost drop timer down from 10 minutes, so that dedicated objective teams can still take a planet in a timely manner (and get paid a little more), but I'd rather they just give us back the old ghost drop system.

Edited by Shimmering Sword, 21 April 2015 - 10:44 PM.

[Shimmering Sword]

War Dogz, on 21 April 2015 - 10:33 PM, said:

So before the only time that matter was the last 2 hours before ceasefire to get a free planet. Now over have the cycle matters.

Prefect working at intended.

I don't think you understand how dedicated ghost dropping works. If an opponent shows up to defend a planet it takes much longer. The repeated and overarching point here is that if you're not going to defend your planet you should lose it. The best way to defend your faction now is to not play at all.

Also in my experience most planets are taken by teams that show up to start an attack and stay there until the planet is taken. If one group dedicates itself to a planet but cannot stay on it for 4+ hours, it is unlikely another team will take over for them after.

The success of factions has been measured IMO by how many teams one would have willing to take initiative on a new target rather than just drop into the biggest meatgrinder defense planet available. Why play when you're punished for not going to the meatgrinder?

Edited by Shimmering Sword, 21 April 2015 - 10:52 PM.

[Kinski Orlawisch]

Ghost Drops against you own base? Realy? There was Counterattack possibel...We waited 15min for an Opponent .....not Ghostdropping in Counterattack...We droped in defence....YES hard to say for me..but NKVA is right. It is broken.

[ShinVector]

Well.... Now PGI has to think long and had.
Game... CW... Fair or Significantly less Fun ?

Honestly... I think one possibility is PGI might reduce the auto cool down timer from 10mins to 5mins to compensate.

[Modo44]

Shimmering Sword, on 21 April 2015 - 10:44 PM, said:

The repeated and overarching point here is that if you're not going to defend your planet you should lose it.

I honestly doubt anyone at PGI understands the deeper ramifications of this.

Since day one, we get this: PGI is trying to force some kind of balance and equality, and a lore-ish setup, which means a lot of manual meddling, and less and less player involvement over time. Once you are done with loyalty rewards, you are done with CW from a gameplay standpoint. What I think they should do, is building a robust open system, in which factions and units have reason and means to fight for and hold actual, specific territory. And no, it will not follow BattleTech lore, deal with it.

Edited by Modo44, 22 April 2015 - 12:43 AM.

[Kinski Orlawisch]

Most of the Problem is the Balance issue atm. The Player will Play the strongest Mechs possibel. So they all went to.....

[gloowa]

Solution is simple, and i proposed it before.

1) Match type selection should be delayed until match is "locked" - 60s before drop (whether it be ghost drop or normal match)
2) Match type is selected based on the result of last non-ghost-drop match that finished on the planet - if the forces attacking the planet won the gametype becomes invasion. If the defenders won, gametype becomes counter attack.
3) Obviously, if there is no territory to play given gametype, the other is selected (i.e. all territories are owned by attacker - match will be a counter attack)
4) Ghost drops do not affect match selection for subsequent matches, but they do allow to take territory.

This achieves several things. First, it creates a dynamic where how quickly planet can be captured is dictated by how well you perform - 100% win ratio for attackers? You only get invasions and blitz a planet. Fifty-fifty? Half the attacker force will be tied in counter attacks slowing the progress. Very low win ratio for the attackers? You get almost only counter attacks, effectivly stalling the capture.

It avoids the issue with super long planet taking when no defenders show up (invasions until defenders win a match)
It avoids the issue with overpopulating the planet by not taking ghost drops into account when selecting gametype, while still giving defenders some bonus for having big force by allowing those drops to gain territory.

I thought about it and do not see any glaring issues with it, thoughts?

Edited by gloowa, 22 April 2015 - 02:51 AM.

[Shimmering Sword]

gloowa, on 22 April 2015 - 02:49 AM, said:

Solution is simple, and i proposed it before.

1) Match type selection should be delayed until match is "locked" - 60s before drop (whether it be ghost drop or normal match)
2) Match type is selected based on the result of last non-ghost-drop match that finished on the planet - if the forces attacking the planet won the gametype becomes invasion. If the defenders won, gametype becomes counter attack.
3) Obviously, if there is no territory to play given gametype, the other is selected (i.e. all territories are owned by attacker - match will be a counter attack)
4) Ghost drops do not affect match selection for subsequent matches, but they do allow to take territory.

I thought about it and do not see any glaring issues with it, thoughts?

Good basis, though one flaw I see: With the next match mode decided by the previous completed match, there can be a large window where matchups are launched before another active match can end. This would allow coordinated exploitation of the system, not as easy as the previous "put more players on than the enemy" tactic, but possible none the less.
All a side would need to do is drop an elite company into a match, wait for them to report their win, then flood as many teams as possible into the favorable mode.

This is why I proposed having a predetermined switch over similar to what they've just implemented, but weight the odds of a switch over based on populations. This leaves the population advantage in there, but prevents hard lockouts.

I really like your idea as far as rewarding momentum. At the same time I also fear the results that yields when an elite company drops onto a planet. Groups like 228 and MS are capable of fielding 2 companies, and many mid tier units perform effective light rush tactics. It wouldn't be hard for them to near hard lock the match types on a planet.

Maybe solve the exploitation and match completion timing issue by limiting it to just one more match.
-Win match
-Next group to launch gets favorable mode
-Group after that resumes switching
Somehow make it result in a 2-1-2-1etc ordering favoring the more successful side?
I'll again switch back to concern though. Considering the higher Clan win rate average, they would more easily secure favorable modes with their mechs rather than skill.

I think I'll just stand by population weighting idea for now, but a mixture of attributes would be nice so long as it doesn't get convoluted.

[Banditman]

The solution is actually even simpler. Match type should be weighted depending on the current state of the planet.

When there are few squares taken by an attacker, the match maker should heavily weight towards allowing attackers to take squares, and forcing defenders to, duh, defend. As the planet swings more towards the middle, the match maker should swing more towards a 50 / 50 split. As the planet approaches fully taken, the match maker should weight even more heavily toward counter attack.

The current solution is inelegant and inefficient. It's made a mess of things.

[TygerLily]

Shimmering Sword, on 21 April 2015 - 10:09 PM, said:

When a company of players take the initiative to attack a planet and no enemy shows up, they're forced into ghost drops. ..
You are now punished for taking initiative, rather than gravitating to the 1-3 planets that all the pug players are playing on.

It was hard enough already to get an objective based group to grind a planet for almost 2 hours. No group of players is going to regularly put up with near 4 hours of zero true gameplay, and almost no pay.
It's also extremely insulting to force players to make that 13 minute match investment on a locked in defense that gives them absolutely nothing.

IMO, it is your own fault for fighting at an empty planet. If you're worried about your guys sitting around...then don't! Go to those 1-3 planets that all the pug players are playing on. That's the point of the population indicators...

I get that it is wise to switch your 12-man to a new planet if the current planet your attacking/defending is 50%+ but what's the point of this maximum efficiency for taking planets? Borders will shift all day long, there is no meta-strategy because there's nothing at stake other than Unit Epeen. As a counter example, in Planetside 2 territories are connected in a lattice work of attack lanes. So, sometimes it's more important to stay and secure a base so you can open up attack options on one front and let another base fall because it's good trade of territory.

There's nothing like that in MWO...the only benefit of CW is getting Loyalty Points, and playing a new game mode, new maps. These all come directly from just...playing...the...game...

Do you really want a bunch of planets with your tag and half of them were because you stuck it out and ghost dropped them?? **** that...just play where the combat is happening. Win. Get your tag on it. Move to where the pop goes.

Or if you try to open up a new planet just be patient. People aren't dumb...solo and small groups don't want to jump in to defend a planet that has 12/0 just waiting for them...because they know it's probably a 12-man.

If noone's coming to defend, it's probably not a plan from the enemy...they're probably just finding fights which is more fun.

Shimmering Sword, on 21 April 2015 - 10:09 PM, said:

What about 12v12? (this is also common) Say an attacker wins their first match, they are now required to fight on that same map again, leading to potentially over an hour spent on a single map for a single win "pip". Should an IS team be good at winning attack mode, but be weak against the pure attrition nature of counter attacking Clans, there's a high chance of both teams repeatedly fighting over specific maps twice.

I always liked dropping a map, winning or losing, then dropping the same territory (even vs the same team). I like the "persitent universe" feel to that! It's cool to say you are reclaiming territory or defending your foothold.


TL;DR Sorry for the harsh tone, I don't mean anything as an attack. But I feel like your frustrated that it takes longer to ghost drop a planet. But, to me, that's what happens when attempting to ignore the population centers...just don't ghost drop?

Like Russ said, "your comments are true but based on 2% of matches - 98% of the time this is more fair." We actually have pretty good control over getting or not getting a ghost drop....

Edited by TygerLily, 22 April 2015 - 07:58 AM.

[Repasy Cooper]

JESUS, this is a BIG ISSUE. The Battle of Tukayyid is going to be a total failure unless they fix this problem. They can't remove ghost drops as a fix, because once one side gains more of the planet they'll just stop defending and lock all the nodes. They're going to be forced to rollback, I think. But that's not a great option either because then the exact same thing that happened during the last event is going to happen again! How could they screw things up so badly? I wonder if the whole event is going to be pushed back a week now...

I'm seriously disappointed. I know they were going to address attack queue bias with this update, and I think they did accomplish that. But why the heck did they botch up ghost drops, when they only account for <2% of matches??? It makes no sense! Every ghost drop should be to reclaim a node.

This is really lazy programming. What it looks like to me is that instead of preventing attack queue gamemode flips until a ghost drop is confirmed, they just prevented attack queue flips altogether. Very lazy. Why not just program the attack queue flip to take place after the 10 minute timer runs down to <2 minute? It's only fair for a team that's sat in the queue for 10 minutes to be able to claim a node. Also, if they wait >8 minutes and THEN enemy forces come to defend, I think the attack queue should still be flipped in the first teams favor.

I don't know, I was excited for Tukayyid, but now I'm unsure whether it will even be worth my time. Surely they have enough time to hotfix this issue before the 24th? If they don't, screw ComWar I've got better things to do than sit around for half a day shooting at turrets.

ShinVector, on 22 April 2015 - 12:21 AM, said:

Well.... Now PGI has to think long and had.
Game... CW... Fair or Significantly less Fun ?

Honestly... I think one possibility is PGI might reduce the auto cool down timer from 10mins to 5mins to compensate.

This could also work. I hope they come up with a viable solution and fast! They should be reading these threads. Sometimes I wonder... I like to have more faith, but their track record is pretty inconsistent.

Edited by Repasy, 22 April 2015 - 08:02 AM.

[gloowa]

Shimmering Sword, on 22 April 2015 - 05:31 AM, said:

Good basis, though one flaw I see: With the next match mode decided by the previous completed match, there can be a large window where matchups are launched before another active match can end. This would allow coordinated exploitation of the system, not as easy as the previous "put more players on than the enemy" tactic, but possible none the less.
All a side would need to do is drop an elite company into a match, wait for them to report their win, then flood as many teams as possible into the favorable mode.

Hmmm. Good point. But... were there not some kind of minimal time between starts of consecutive matches at some point? Or am i confusing/imagining things? Either way, that could be a problem.

Shimmering Sword, on 22 April 2015 - 05:31 AM, said:

This is why I proposed having a predetermined switch over similar to what they've just implemented, but weight the odds of a switch over based on populations. This leaves the population advantage in there, but prevents hard lockouts.

I don't have issue with that except one thing. It's arbitrary. Players can't influence gamemode via their performance with that solution, and that puts me off. Don't get me wrong, it fixes issues (especially if it's tied to the planet capture percentage, as suggested is some other post, maybe not 1:1 but let's say, if you attack, the ratio of invasions is 75% - (capture%/2) ) but i dislike the lack of player interaction there.

Shimmering Sword, on 22 April 2015 - 05:31 AM, said:

I really like your idea as far as rewarding momentum. At the same time I also fear the results that yields when an elite company drops onto a planet. Groups like 228 and MS are capable of fielding 2 companies, and many mid tier units perform effective light rush tactics. It wouldn't be hard for them to near hard lock the match types on a planet.

I don't see a problem here. If an elite unit is winning match after match for a faction, there should be benefits. I also don't see genrushing as a big problem, but that's beside the point of this discussion so i concede that this is an issue to some.

Shimmering Sword, on 22 April 2015 - 05:31 AM, said:

Maybe solve the exploitation and match completion timing issue by limiting it to just one more match.
-Win match
-Next group to launch gets favorable mode
-Group after that resumes switching
Somehow make it result in a 2-1-2-1etc ordering favoring the more successful side?

Could work. Still too much arbitrary for my taste, but definitely better than pure X% is invasion method.

Shimmering Sword, on 22 April 2015 - 05:31 AM, said:

I'll again switch back to concern though. Considering the higher Clan win rate average, they would more easily secure favorable modes with their mechs rather than skill.

6% at the last time i saw official numbers. 6% is not winning with mechs rather than skill. That's just normal. And very close. Someone had to have bit more wins. Could have been IS just as well.

Also, if i could drop my IS deck when my unit goes Clan, i would.

[Banditman]

TygerLily, on 22 April 2015 - 07:53 AM, said:

TL;DR Sorry for the harsh tone, I don't mean anything as an attack. But I feel like your frustrated that it takes longer to ghost drop a planet. But, to me, that's what happens when attempting to ignore the population centers...just don't ghost drop?

Like Russ said, "your comments are true but based on 2% of matches - 98% of the time this is more fair." We actually have pretty good control over getting or not getting a ghost drop....

That's not the issue at all. The issue is that it takes twice as long for a low pop planet to flip. This is especially important in less populated time windows.

Let's say that under the prior system, there was one 12 player drop on each side of a contested planet. One of those teams (the attacker) is winning 75% of the matches. Not cakewalks, but they are winning well.

That particular scenario would then take probably 10 or 11 games to flip the planet. At 30 minutes per game, you're looking at 300 to 330 minutes to flip the planet. Five hours! That's a big commitment of time, and probably ok.

Under the "new" system, that same scenario is a fail for the attacker. Because each territory must be fought for twice, you actually need 20 to 22 games to flip that planet - that's 10 hours! You can't do it! It cannot be done in a single window.

That is a Big Problem ™. You've basically told a unit with a 12 man team that they have no chance to flip a planet unless they are winning 90% or more of their drops. That's not good design.

[Tarogato]

I feel like the solution is simple, actually.

The issue before the change: the gamemode would swap to attack/counterattack and lock the team in if 10 seconds passed with no opponent. This was bad because more often then not it would take more than 10 seconds for the opposition to show up, so the faction with more population could fill up teams faster and guarantee the attack/counterattack gamemode every single match.

PGI's solution: the gamemode is decided the instant that a team shows up on either side, but is given a 50/50 balance between attack and defense modes. This is bad because if nobody shows up to oppose, you're stuck defending a pip you control even though nobody is threatening it - you're not able to gain control of a new pip with every drop, so why should anybody bother to come to defend? The agony you have to go through to ghost drop a planet to the point where you take it over is unbearable enough that nobody will come to attack you anyways and set things into motion.

A better solution: the gamemode isn't decided until the last 60 seconds before a team drops. If it is a ghost drop, it should ALWAYS be attack or counterattack, if it is a 12v12, then it should be 50/50.

An even better solution: same as above, but instead of a 50/50 gamemode selection, the matchmaker will simply randomly choose any of the 15 pips/zones. This means that if defenders control most of the zones, then there is overwhelming odds that the attackers will get to attack. Similarly, if the attackers control most of the zones, odds are the defenders will get to counterattack. If the balance is close to 50%, there there is closer to 50/50 odds whether the randomly selected pip will be attacker controlled or defender controlled, putting more emphasis on who can win matches rather than who can field more companies.

Edited by Tarogato, 22 April 2015 - 09:12 AM.

[Surn]

The problem is that PGI tried to balance the numerical player advantage of the IS. They never should have done so, it is just a bad idea to nerf your largest player base while trying to get them to play your game.

Last night, almost no one was defending clan planets. We wasted several hours just looking for a match. The resulting ghost drops were so boring, several players were taking naps while on coms.

SEVERAL PLAYERS WERE TAKING NAPS WHILE ON COMS.

The debate became whether to move the entire 12 man team to the public drops and abandon CW for the night.

I have already posted on a solution to this game mode, so I will leave it with the suggestions above.

[TygerLily]

Banditman, on 22 April 2015 - 08:57 AM, said:

That's not the issue at all. The issue is that it takes twice as long for a low pop planet to flip. This is especially important in less populated time windows.

Let's say that under the prior system, there was one 12 player drop on each side of a contested planet. One of those teams (the attacker) is winning 75% of the matches. Not cakewalks, but they are winning well.

That particular scenario would then take probably 10 or 11 games to flip the planet. At 30 minutes per game, you're looking at 300 to 330 minutes to flip the planet. Five hours! That's a big commitment of time, and probably ok.

Under the "new" system, that same scenario is a fail for the attacker. Because each territory must be fought for twice, you actually need 20 to 22 games to flip that planet - that's 10 hours! You can't do it! It cannot be done in a single window.

That is a Big Problem ™. You've basically told a unit with a 12 man team that they have no chance to flip a planet unless they are winning 90% or more of their drops. That's not good design.

Ah, that makes a lot more sense (Sorry OP!)

I still at least stand by my opinion that maybe small groups shouldn't go off to solo capture a planet...? It seems the change requires the 1-3 planets being contested to require more man power. Now that we have the pop indicator that's easy to accommodate.

The OP couched it as "initiative" by the small unit but...in the old system "why stay and fight when you can potentially gain a new planet by beginning another front." In this new system it requires a faction to focus on the planets being most hotly contested because the assault is more protracted. Isn't that good (consolidating the CW pop)???

More than that...should a single unit be able to capture a whole planet in faction based community warfare system?? A single Army division is 10,000 troops. In my 2009 deployment to Iraq, we had three Army division, one Marine Expeditionary Force, and the Multinational Corp (all similar sized elements) just to hold down Iraq. Taking a planet should be and undertaking...and without anything regarding logistics, etc. time spent fighting is really the only way to convey that, IMO.

Edited by TygerLily, 22 April 2015 - 10:20 AM.

[sdsnowbum]

I can appreciate the frustration of organized teams here.

One problem from the beginning has been that CW is meant for teams and is most enjoyable by teams, however there never seemed to be enough teams to go around. So far too often it is teams vs PUGs, or teams vs nobody.