111 replies to this topic

[Frankenst3in]

I think a lot of the issues with CW stem from the way the queues are set up. A 12 man (or any size group, or even solo player with an aggressive mindset) will trend towards attacking a planet, whereas I feel like the defense for any given planet is, more often than not, random casual players who responded to the call to arms. With no malice intended, referred to as skittles. (All the faction colors of the rainbow.) That sets up a systemic imbalance I feel. All I can see fixing that issue is incentives for groups to play defense as well as offense. They would have to be some heavy incentives though, cause it would personally take a bit to pull me away from the "JADE FALCON STRONK! EAT PUNY GALAXY!!!" mindset that taking planets facilitates.

On a separate note, while the new superquirked dropships have not changed a whole lot about how we play, or our final numbers at game end, or our W/L ratio, they are beginning to be just ******* annoying. Nobody likes being aimbotted, and while I sympathize with not wanting to be spawncamped, I think putting (invulnerable)super aimbots in a PvP game is a ****** thing to do. Its just a bad mechanic, serving only to irritate. I have all found myself all week just being done with the game many hours earlier than I would have previously, because "goddamnit dropship dan, just **** off."

[Mahnmut]

Allowing new players with trial mechs to play CW is not helping anyone. Only mastered mechs should be allowed in CW.

[Kin3ticX]

Kiboelt, on 20 June 2015 - 05:27 PM, said:

I think a lot of the issues with CW stem from the way the queues are set up. A 12 man (or any size group, or even solo player with an aggressive mindset) will trend towards attacking a planet, whereas I feel like the defense for any given planet is, more often than not, random casual players who responded to the call to arms. With no malice intended, referred to as skittles. (All the faction colors of the rainbow.) That sets up a systemic imbalance I feel. All I can see fixing that issue is incentives for groups to play defense as well as offense. They would have to be some heavy incentives though, cause it would personally take a bit to pull me away from the "JADE FALCON STRONK! EAT PUNY GALAXY!!!" mindset that taking planets facilitates.

On a separate note, while the new superquirked dropships have not changed a whole lot about how we play, or our final numbers at game end, or our W/L ratio, they are beginning to be just ******* annoying. Nobody likes being aimbotted, and while I sympathize with not wanting to be spawncamped, I think putting (invulnerable)super aimbots in a PvP game is a ****** thing to do. Its just a bad mechanic, serving only to irritate. I have all found myself all week just being done with the game many hours earlier than I would have previously, because "goddamnit dropship dan, just **** off."

Getting dropship farmed on Sulfurous Rift was really bad and infuriating. Resolving getting dropship camped on defense during normal play was the main benefit from all the changes. If the game snowballs hard enough, nothing short of an invulnerability timer will 100% kill spawn camping.

[Dirk Le Daring]

Kin3ticX, on 20 June 2015 - 02:24 AM, said:

Just like to start this off with the community puts community in Community Warfare. It's not all on PGI but there is always room for constructive feedback/criticism.

I am calling on everyone to make themselves heard.

These are just some community warfare issues that I have heard or thought about but you may have others to discuss which I missed here.



Low population, wait times, pools, empty planets, shortage of IS players
Seems like CW is slowing down bigtime and people are quitting for various reasons. Could be burnout, frustration, or just waiting for new features. Empty queues and wait times are a big one I suppose.

I have some ideas on this part. The rest is as you will read, not for me to speculate much on. (though I have read a few rants and ideas)

The link is in my sig, have a read, leave some ideas, more fleshed out it can be the better.

And I'll link it here... http://mwomercs.com/...r-corps-and-cw/

Edited by Dirk Le Daring, 20 June 2015 - 06:04 PM.

[FunkyLilElf]

My 2 cents on a couple ways to better CW:

The map is a big problem in the game. Everyone like their lore, but why do we need 1,200 planets? We have basically 3 factions that can almost never influence anything at all because of where they are on the map, and faction loyalists are important to the game. Not everyone should be forced to go clan or merc to just get drops. I would be pretty pissed if I were a Marik or Liao member knowing that I had no options other than defense drops because nobody was defending on the other side. Reduce the map to either be a zoomed in section of the IS or fight over areas of the map or something similar.

The inability for new players to affect the game. Communication for new members is not great, or at least not digestible. As much as we can all sit back and arrogantly say 'Civil War is for hardcore players not pugs', without players we will be going to play another game because it will collapse. This is a problem and needs to be solved before the Steam launch. New players need to be able to actually play and absolutely horrid trial mechs and no real tutorials isnt helping.

Community - we need more players like Kin3ticX that are trying to better the experience. We cant just complain and drop everything in PGIs lap when we have organized 12 mans cocking off to pug groups, or constant spawn camping, or ignoring opportunities to maybe help some people.

[Frankenst3in]

Kin3ticX, on 20 June 2015 - 05:40 PM, said:

Getting dropship farmed on Sulfurous Rift was really bad and infuriating. Resolving getting dropship camped on defense during normal play was the main benefit from all the changes. If the game snowballs hard enough, nothing short of an invulnerability timer will 100% kill spawn camping.

I agree, a few of the spawns were pretty bad, I guess i am talking specifically about the dropships in my mini-rant. I still don't think any map other than sulpherous, possibly taiga, really needed actual geometry changes. Most of the dropship camping stuff still comes down to skill/organization disparity touched on in the first half of my post.

[madhermit]

Kin3ticX, on 20 June 2015 - 04:03 PM, said:

Some evenings the hot planet has 50-50 players or less. If PGI puts any kinds of constraints on that....the wait times will totally kill CW. The solos are really a love hate thing. They do a wonderful job of filling in 2-4 guys for a 8-10 man. There are too few units actively playing now so they also wind up being 12 solos or making up the rest for small groups of 2-4.

The group sizes need to be equally matched. I don't understand how people can rationalize/justify/argue that 10man organized group vs 12 total randoms is fair. If the game doesn't have the population to support a fair matching that aren't completely disheartening the moment you drop in then maybe PGI shouldve thought twice before attempting to put such content in a game.

I can't enjoy a game where I face the concentrated firepower of surgical precision by organized 10 man team the moment I take a peek over any obstacle and get subsequently annihilated and stomped by them. It'd be fair if my team was like that but it isn't. It can't be without organization. And I'm not looking forward to herding bunch of people I don't know who won't listen anyway. At this point people advice me to join a unit. Well I'm not looking for a 2nd job with mandatory activity even when I don't feel like it. After this, people just tell me not to play CW. Well, that's exactly what I'm doing. I'm not playing a gamemode that is borderline unplayable to a solo dropper. Apparently there are many like me and consequently CW remains rather unpopular and unpopulated.

[Kin3ticX]

madhermit, on 21 June 2015 - 08:45 AM, said:

The group sizes need to be equally matched. I don't understand how people can rationalize/justify/argue that 10man organized group vs 12 total randoms is fair. If the game doesn't have the population to support a fair matching that aren't completely disheartening the moment you drop in then maybe PGI shouldve thought twice before attempting to put such content in a game.

I can't enjoy a game where I face the concentrated firepower of surgical precision by organized 10 man team the moment I take a peek over any obstacle and get subsequently annihilated and stomped by them. It'd be fair if my team was like that but it isn't. It can't be without organization. And I'm not looking forward to herding bunch of people I don't know who won't listen anyway. At this point people advice me to join a unit. Well I'm not looking for a 2nd job with mandatory activity even when I don't feel like it. After this, people just tell me not to play CW. Well, that's exactly what I'm doing. I'm not playing a gamemode that is borderline unplayable to a solo dropper. Apparently there are many like me and consequently CW remains rather unpopular and unpopulated.

These are valid concerns but what is also in the mix here is a drop in unit participation. Not sure what PGI can do to both bring unit interest back and also reduce the number of roflstomps pugs deal with. Don't forget, units get roflstompt too depending on who it is. Its not just as simple as joining a unit and now the stomps go away.

[xX PUG Xx]

I've already posted this elsewhere, I'm just going to copy/paste it here. Be warned it is a WALL of text but the TL:DR more or less summarises it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The TL:DR version (apologies it's late and I haven't figured out how to do "spoilers" on this forum)

· All game modes should be incorporated into “Community Warfare”
· Solo / Group players should be able to choose which queue they play in:

o 4 vs. 4 solo only with a separate Cadet only queue.

o 4 vs. 4 mixed solo/group (1 – 4 players in a group)

o 12 vs. 12 with a max group size of 8 (1 – 8 players in a group)

o “Standard” Community Warfare drop with any combination of group size, dropdeck mechanic included. (1 – 12 players in a group)

· Game mode – assault, conquest, skirmish, counter attack, attack – should be determined by the game as is necessary for the stage of the planetary conflict.
· Loyalist players and Units should have an emphasis placed on increased Loyalty Point rewards, perhaps with a separate Loyalty Reward Tree.
· Mercenary Units / Lone Wolf players should have an emphasis placed on CBill earnings on a match per match basis, with bonuses paid for longer contracts.
· Loyalist players and Units should earn a territorial reward, by means of a “pot” determined by the amount of planets or planetary value held by their chosen House.
· Military High Command (PGI controlled) for each House designates Attack / Defend lanes for Loyalist players and Units.
· MRBC Contract Board generates individual contracts based on planets under attack; these can have increased / decreased rewards depending on population of given Factions in contest of the planet.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I replied to a thread on the which I initially wrote off as another solo player whining that he had been stomped by a large premade group in CW and that he should either accept that CW is engineered for just such premade groups or he should find a way to up his game to be able to compete in the “big kids pool” environment of CW if he chose to play solo there.

However it then got me thinking, what could be done to “include” as much of the player base (the Community) into the Community Warfare section of the game? In turn providing a good amount of depth to the whole game and hopefully a more involving aspect to the MechWarrior experience.

At present the solo and group queues are simply meaningless beyond grinding for CBills and XP, they have no real impact on the “Meta” game that I feel should be the REAL reason for playing with gigantic walking avatars of war. The Battletech universe has as much depth and character as anything JRR Tolkien envisioned and has the potential to give us a hugely diverse and rewarding background to immerse ourselves into.

I touched on my belief that EVERY game played in the online lobbies (with the exception of Private lobbies) should affect the Universe we are fighting in, each game should contribute to the overall Community Warfare map and each player should feel engaged and essential to the success of their chosen Faction. Therefore there would be no Solo/Public queues, only Community Warfare and the combat missions attached to the various planets, how this would affect the overall conquest or defence of the planet I have not worked out and would require a programmer/developer to figure out the technical aspects.

Each game mode and map has the potential to be used for niches in the CW experience; for example the Conquest mechanic has many possible applications, while the full game mode could easily be “tweaked” to accommodate a scouting role in Community Warfare. To expand further on this it could be possible to allocate certain team size caps to certain mission types, giving solo players (and new players) somewhere to get their feet wet and learn the ropes.

Contracts (game modes) available to Solo players, this could encompass Lone Wolves also

· Solo only - 4 ‘Mech small scale combat and scouting missions, Skirmish and Conquest on the smaller maps such as River City, Forest Colony and Canyon Network.
Lower flat rates for LP and CBill payments, with higher modifiers for team based in-game actions to emphasis the lower risk involved but encourage engagement and teamwork.
· Small group and Solo – same as above but with slightly better rewards, encourages Lance sized groups to play and co- ordinate. Possibly with the DropShip reinforcements added and min/max tonnage limit.
Use current rates for LP and CBill payments for game win/loss and in-game actions, this is the introduction to the “Big Leagues”; overall the payments should be slightly higher [5%] than the solo only queue.
· Up to Demi-Company sized groups (max group size 8) in Company (12 ‘Mechs) combat operations – Assault, Skirmish, Counter Attack/Defend and Attack (current CW modes).
LP/CBill payments set higher again [5%] with high modifiers for combat based in-game actions to reward combat and co- ordinated gameplay.

Contracts (game modes) available to groups
2 - 4 players

· Skirmish and Conquest in the Small Group/Solo queue
LP/CBill rewards for completion of the contract should be [5-10%] higher than the Solo player rewards, reflecting the higher risk/reward factor for Groups entering into battle with an unknown players alongside them. Modifiers for in-game actions set at current levels.

2-12 players (inclusive of group sizes 2 – 4)

· Assault, Skirmish, Counter Attack/Defend and Attack (current CW modes)
LP/CBill rewards [10-15%] for completion of contract/mission higher than Solo player, modifiers for in-game actions set at current levels.

I believe this would make only 8 queues, 4 for attacking a planet and 4 for defending, multiplied by how ever many planets are up for contention. Therefore wait times should be much lower since every player is included in the Community Warfare experience but still has the choice of what level they wish to play at;

· The soloist can stick to the smaller scale engagements but still feel as though they are contributing and will likely be earning slightly more CBills than they presently do in the Solo queues, while earning LP to go toward the Faction based rewards.

NB – as a side note this particular queue could be broken down further to allow for new players to the game, perhaps having a separate queue mechanic to keep the “Cadets” from facing seasoned Veterans until they have their 25 battles under their Neurohelmets. As well as giving them the flexibility to venture into Company (12 ‘Mech) group queues if they so desire.

· The smaller Units have the choice of where and how they commit their time and energy; while either giving themselves an opportunity of fighting on equal terms with an opponent or taking the chance of going into a Company drop against a possibly larger grouped enemy team. CBill and LP earnings will be on par with current levels, perhaps slightly higher.
· Likewise the larger Units can choose how to use their forces, engage in the smaller scale fights and perhaps help to tip the balance on the planet or fully commit to Company sized engagements in the hope of overwhelming their opponents attack/defence.

One thing that was mentioned was the ability for players to simply jump in and play a random game without worrying about the tactical consequences, a “throw away” game mode not unlike what unfortunately makes up the majority of the gameplay at present.

Further down the road of development it may be good to have something like a Solaris, 1 vs.1 up to 8 vs.8 game mode; something there has been a large calling for over the years. This could provide the side show games for some stress relief if required but I think the layout above would provide enough variety to cater for everyone’s taste.

The remaining question would be; what percentage does each game mode attribute to the overall defence/conquest of a planet? This I would leave to the developers, as it would undoubtedly require many tweaks to get the right ratio.

It may even be that, given the possible implementation of logistics and economy in the long run, different game modes (missions) could have different consequences on different planets. This would have to be something for future discussion and exploration but I do feel the above layout provides some flexibility to the developers to explore this option.

The next question would be; how does which Faction a player chooses affect Contracts and what rewards are available from them?

The easiest answer for the developers at this stage would be to scrap the Mercenary / Lone Wolf Factions and simply have players choose between Clan and House. This may cause a bit on an upset but it would eliminate a whole quagmire of programming issues.

However…..

I believe there could be some difference in how a Loyalist is rewarded versus a Mercenary or Lone Wolf and below I have outlined an idea I came up with. Essentially it revolves around boosts to either LP or CBill rewards, the Loyalists (House/Clan players) are rewarded for their loyalty by increased LP rewards (or perhaps even have a separate LP rewards tree with shorter gaps or higher rewards per level/more levels). Mercs/Lone Wolves are rewarded through increased CBill income but lower LP rewards or it might even be regulated by having a separate LP “tree” for the Mercs/Lone Wolves with slightly longer LP gaps between rewards or lower rewards per level.

Loyalists are essentially the line Units of the main Factions, honour and loyalty bound to the chosen House or Clan. As such they do not have the freedom to attack planets at will and are subject to the desires and strategic whims of their Liege Lord or Khan. However their emphasis would be in the ability to take planets in stewardship for their Houses, gaining rewards based on ownership and therefore boosting CBill earnings by implementation of bonuses per planet owned. This could be given as a Faction wide payment, the more planets a Faction holds the larger the “pot” and therefore the larger a share goes to the individual players, therefore making it fairer on the smaller units that stand less of a chance in “tagging” planets.

However Mercenaries and Lone Wolves would “survive” financially by taking salvage and contract completion bonuses, therefore the emphasis for this group would be on completion of missions and ‘Mech kills.

How would Contracts (games) be generated and how would it be possible to differentiate between the types available to players.

Here is an example that I thought up;

The House Liao CCAF High Command (controlled by PGI’s in-game algorithm) generates an “Attack” combat action against a planet on the House Davion border, which shows in the normal way on the Faction screen for the Loyalist units. In turn it also generates a series of Solo, Small Group, Demi-Company and Company (as listed above) “attack” and “defence” contracts for this planet on an “MRBC Contracts Board” for use by all Lone Wolf players and Mercenary Units. These would not be based on the game “mode” (attack, counter attack, etc.) but as a broad based contract for combat operations in support of one House or the other; thus adding a little “unknown” element to the drops and hopefully forcing a little diversity into players’ drop decks.

This would be where Lone Wolves and Mercenary Units would be able to choose the length of their contracts;
· Single drop – [0%] LP boost – [1%] CBill boost
· 1 day defence/attack – [1%] LP boost – [2%] CBill boost
· 3 day defence/attack – [2%] LP boost – [4%] CBill boost
· 7 day defence/attack – [5%] LP boost – [7.5%] CBill boost
· 14 day defence/attack – [7.5%] LP boost – [15%] CBill boost

Loyalist Units are already receiving a 15% boost on LP rewards, the above incremental increase in LP rewards will not allow the Lone Wolves / Mercenary Units to earn as much LP as the Loyalists but the CBill rewards would plateau at 15%, therefore giving an emphasis to the “soldier-for-hire” choice of Lone Wolves and Mercenaries.

Now obviously the Lone Wolves and Mercenaries are unable to hold (or “tag”) the planet, this would be done by the most successful Loyalist unit; so their “reward” for fighting for Liao will come from the drop by drop bonuses. The Loyalist units will earn less in the short term but the rewards will even out or possibly be higher with successfully capturing a world; the emphasis for them being taking territory for their chosen House.

I am not mathematically minded, therefore it would take someone else to fully work out the figures but I think by now you get my idea (hopefully).

[TWIAFU]

xX PUG Xx, on 21 June 2015 - 10:49 AM, said:

I've already posted this elsewhere, I'm just going to copy/paste it here. Be warned it is a WALL of text but the TL:DR more or less summarises it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The TL:DR version (apologies it's late and I haven't figured out how to do "spoilers" on this forum)

· All game modes should be incorporated into “Community Warfare”
· Solo / Group players should be able to choose which queue they play in:

o 4 vs. 4 solo only with a separate Cadet only queue.

o 4 vs. 4 mixed solo/group (1 – 4 players in a group)

o 12 vs. 12 with a max group size of 8 (1 – 8 players in a group)

o “Standard” Community Warfare drop with any combination of group size, dropdeck mechanic included. (1 – 12 players in a group)

YEA!

Then we can read how those evil 8mans are stomping the poor 4mans and solo players!

Then we can have people post how group size should only be 4, again, and how those evil 4man teams stomp solo players.

[WANTED]

Really comes down to the fact that the hardcore players love CW and unlike other games, CW does not use elo or any matchmaking to assure new players they are ready for CW. I myself am still new to CW in relative terms ( I have I think 10-15 game ). All of them losses except for 1 so far. That was playing in groups of 12 man and also puggin in CW.

A tutorial would be a huge step in the right direction as I don't even know how to play CW and where all the turrets and targets are. The game moves so fast especially with well organized hardcore teams, it's expected that less experienced teams and players will get rolled easily. Like taking a minor league A level baseball team and telling them to play the Yankees in their prime ( insert any other sports analogy here of your own ) Regardless, everyone will suffer as long as the player base is low. I do think a minimum amount of regular queue time should be initiated to keep very green players from entering CW.

Summary...

• Minimum amount of regular public matches necessary before CW
  
• Tutorial critical in teaching players the rules of CW and objectives
  
• Give new players a trial drop deck that is considered viable for CW ( community created or poll based )
  
• Command rose options or something to direct players to targets on their maps ( hit this turret, take down this generator ) ( Note: the seperate map control is too much time and effort to direct players. On screen command rose like BF is best option )

[xX PUG Xx]

Perhaps it isn't as clear as I thought, the intention is to allow solo players (as well as small groups) to choose where to play.

Everyone can still jump into the fully open "anything can happen regarding who I might be fighting" world of the current CW matchmaker without ELO. OR they can choose one of the ELO based queues that are a little less "hardcore".

Regardless of how it is done "someone" will always lose, thats the nature of playing games.

[madhermit]

Kin3ticX, on 21 June 2015 - 10:19 AM, said:

These are valid concerns but what is also in the mix here is a drop in unit participation. Not sure what PGI can do to both bring unit interest back and also reduce the number of roflstomps pugs deal with. Don't forget, units get roflstompt too depending on who it is. Its not just as simple as joining a unit and now the stomps go away.

PGI can probably do nothing to fix CW in its current state without drastic increase in player numbers. There are too few players and units to go around populating several dozen of queues on 10 different factions.

I never thought about it but you are right. Stomps occur in unit v unit matches too, no doubt. Balancing that would need some sort unit level leaderboard/tournament type of system where units are matched with as equal units as possible. That wouldn't work in the current CW game though. Too many planets, too many queues, too many factions. Everything is more or less disconnected or their own individual thing, club if you will.

Now that I think about it. Would the balance system actually do anything good? I mean would we rather have a universe like in EVE online? Where truly weak factions simply cease to exist by stronger factions rolling over them and capturing their space? Should CW be survival of the fittest where goal is to occupy as much space as possible, gathering the most resources and just being most powerful faction in the universe?

MWO being more or less glorified deathmatch FPS game currently lacks the complexity that it would take to simulate galaxy logistics, resources and all other small things that make game like EVE Online extremely complex and deep. EVE is not balanced in any way. Strongest corporations and alliances rule the galaxy. If a player has problem with that they are welcome to try to dislodge the superpowers. Theres politics involved and with it comes a lot of drama. What MWO is isn't even a shell of that.

If I were at the helm of PGI I would perhaps just scrap current iteration of CW and start over. The galaxy needs a purpose. Right now it's just assortment of different queue lobbies.

Clearly I'm going on a fantasy ride here, hoping that CW would behave like actual factions were fighting for space instead of just units fighting over meaningless planets. Does PGI want to evolve MWO? To become more than just FPS? Does PGI want it to become something far more complex, a wet dream of world simulator enthusiasts where world is determined by the schemes of politicians and rulers who use the pawns, the mechwarriors, as leverage to exploit the riches of the weak in order to further their own status? Meanwhile those lower in rank constantly scheme and plan to improve their own position to rise in ranks within the faction, possibly ursurping the throne.

One can dream. This would take monumental amount of work and reconstructing not to mention it would completely destroy the lore since players would be making their own history.

Tl;dr: PGI can't do anything other than try to attract more players to CW. They can only do that by making CW more fun to play and giving people a reason to play it. Otherwise everyone will just play normal games because it is essentially the same deal.

Edited by madhermit, 21 June 2015 - 12:38 PM.

[Hoffburger]

Also, telling solo players to join a unit isn't a solution. Some of us don't have the time to dedicate to that, but still enjoy the CW aspect of the game and just want to play PUG vs PUG to not get curbstomped constantly.

[TWIAFU]

Hoffburger, on 21 June 2015 - 12:47 PM, said:

Also, telling solo players to join a unit isn't a solution. Some of us don't have the time to dedicate to that, but still enjoy the CW aspect of the game and just want to play PUG vs PUG to not get curbstomped constantly.

If you do not want to join a group for the group part of the game and insist on playing solo, enjoy filling out the odd man 12man Units.

Now, joining a Unit will give you the benefit of NOT being a red shirt in MWO. And how much time do you think you have to dedicate to a Unit? Make it sound you have to play X amount of hours for X amount of days, That is utter and total BS. "Time to dedicate" is just another excuse for not wanting to do anything to enhance your own gameplay, but have someone else do it for you.

Join a Unit, yes there are casual Units, and you will never have to drop alone. Will never have to be a Red Shirt. You will still get stomped but it will not be because you are playing solo in the group centered game.


It is going to be epically funny when we can own planets and rewards from ownership. Reading the PUGs and solos complain that they cannot own planets.

It is going to be HILARIOUS!!!

Edited by TWIAFU, 21 June 2015 - 02:21 PM.

[Gallowglas]

The top problems as I see them:

1) Lack of AI elements to make ghost drops less morale-killing. Frankly, nothing in this game is more disheartening than spending 20 minutes in queue and then getting a ghost drop without any challenge whatsoever.

There are two basic solutions to the problem as I see it:

• Add AI mechs, infantry, vehicles, etc., or
  
• Give the win to the faction doing the ghost drop, but divide them in half and have them play against each other with no faction penalties (e.g. each kill counts as if it were an opposing faction).

2) Large groups dominate their matches. And, hey, I get it...if the players aren't there to make a balanced drop, what are you gonna do? The "easy" fix? Again, give some extra advantages to the side with the fewer premades. Give everyone free artillery and air strikes, give them combined arms AI units, ensure that they're the ones defending, etc. Allow a four-man team to drop in to reinforce if one side has a huge premade and point lead skew. In short, make things challenging for the stacked team. You can balance things if it starts to look too skewed.

Another possibility might be to give a ramping penalty to tonnage based on premade size. Maybe you lose 5 tons from your drop deck for each player in your premade. Granted, that solution would require the ability to save dropdecks so you aren't constantly having to tweak on the fly.

3) More "lore" needs to be tied to the results of player matches. You could either have in-staff writers who come up with ongoing ticker-like headlines, but you could also create a system that automates things based on key factors of a match. Any effort though to make things "feel" like real, coherent, connected events going on in a persistent universe would be a good thing.

4) Have some PGI-sponsored CW-themed tournaments that also don't leave out the solo or small unit folks or make them feel sidelined. Give out some prizes that matter and that don't feel trivial. Have the matches streamed and commentated.

5) Give people more "bragging rights" from CW. Give some CW-exclusive achievements that are challenging and multifaceted. Create persistent leaderboards to show things like match victory percentages, average damage done, planets taken, etc. Make those cover enough that even the solo and small unit guys have a chance to be featured and statistically significant enough that folks (like me) who love having measurables to use as a basis for self-improvement will have something they can really dig into.

[Clownwarlord]

Good Things First:

- I like the basic idea, just expand on it to make it more emersive in the battletech universe please.
- There is now a start of multiple mechs being piloted on both sides not just one or two.
- No more light rush.
- Less or harder to farm.

Bad Things Now:

- Community activity seems to be a come and go thing. As in it is only there when there is an event that promotes CW.
- Lack of team work among pugs and even unit to other units working together.
- The maps still need work because some of them still can be farmed (Boreal Vault - the snow map is snipe farm outside drop site ... easy fix would be add more mech cover at the drop sites).
- Emersion just isn't there because it feels like a grind not in C-Bills or Loyalty Points but in just getting matches for CW, which tends to drive people away.
- The same weapon system is constanty being used ... laser vomit and gauss. Some people use lrms but with CW being ECM heavy for clans it isn't worthy. I just wish there was a more balanced between the three weapon types (balistic, missile, and energy).
- No real unit reason to play CW other than a name on a planet.
- No perks for CW for being solo either other than loyalty points and c-bills (like faction loyalty discounts or perks would be nice and increase emersion).
- Mercenary paint schemes or emblems or items (not everyone is faction orianted).
- Unit icons or emblems ...


I could go on but those should do for now.

[masCh]

I have already said my piece:

http://mwomercs.com/...53#entry4461753

[madhermit]

TWIAFU, on 21 June 2015 - 02:18 PM, said:

If you do not want to join a group for the group part of the game and insist on playing solo, enjoy filling out the odd man 12man Units.

Now, joining a Unit will give you the benefit of NOT being a red shirt in MWO. And how much time do you think you have to dedicate to a Unit? Make it sound you have to play X amount of hours for X amount of days, That is utter and total BS. "Time to dedicate" is just another excuse for not wanting to do anything to enhance your own gameplay, but have someone else do it for you.

Join a Unit, yes there are casual Units, and you will never have to drop alone. Will never have to be a Red Shirt. You will still get stomped but it will not be because you are playing solo in the group centered game.


It is going to be epically funny when we can own planets and rewards from ownership. Reading the PUGs and solos complain that they cannot own planets.

It is going to be HILARIOUS!!!

Completely missing the point. I don't know if youre doing it on purpose or are you just so oblivious. I wonder why you think playing a game should be a chore.

You really seem to hate players. Oh well. Enjoy your 30-60 minute queues. :^)

[slide]

Instead of being the savior of this game that I thought it would be, CW has gone on to exemplify all the things that have been wrong with this game since the very beginning.

As a unit leader and an advocate of unit queues since the early days of being able to form groups (something that was cried for long and hard) I can honestly say that one of the biggest problems in CW is the total dominance of the big organised groups, even over lesser units. I know some of the successful groups won't like to hear it but you guys are a large part of the problem of why people won't play CW. It is literally the problem that the 12 man queue had, revisited with pugs thrown into the mix. Throw in some over bloated ego's here and there and the problem of player retention gets even worse. Stomps are bad for everyone.

I am pushing on for Lt General in Davion (rewards) so I have played enough to experience most aspects of CW. I have played with my unit, I have grouped up with many, many people on the Davion TS and I have pugged a lot. Of all those games my most enjoyable and the most evenly matched have been when on 2 teams of un-coordinated pugs. The absolute worst is being on a team with obvious new players (all 4 trial mechs dead within 5 minutes) against any one of the well known successful units. It is a bad team when I am the top scorer by a long margin.

Here are some facts.
-Very few people will tolerate losing 48 to <12 over and over. They WILL go and do something else. I have seen this happen repeatedly when on TS. You get on a losing streak or keep getting stomped by the same team then people get discouraged and leave. The despondency I have experienced on TS at times has been palpable, even over comms.

-Fewer people still will see a team, get stomped repeatedly and then say "I want to be like them" and actually do some research on the forums on mech builds and how to play. If they do anything at all, besides quit the game all together, they will come to the forums and complain.

-If a player has the fortitude to get past the last 2 points, a rare person indeed, they then have to find a unit that is, active, competent, will accept them and actually has enough players with a desire to play CW which will allow them to learn some actual skills in CW. There are great many units that can not muster a 12 man despite having hundreds of players on the roster. So again not necessarily an easy thing to do.

Couple the above with the wait times for CW matches, the generally low rewards (in comparison to the pug queue), no reason to either support a faction or own a planet and it is no wonder that 95+% of the MWO population don't want to touch it. Hell I couldn't even pay most of my unit to play at the moment.

Sadly most of the above is on PGI to fix. Unfortunately all of their solutions really rely on a large player base. Tukayyid showed that some of their solutions do work and most people can handle getting stomped occasionally provided the wait times are short and they have a chance to do some stomping themselves or at least have closer matches.

When the Steam release goes ahead, there will be a flood of new players and this game needs all the players it can get. However if the status quo remains (big units stomping pugs) a vast majority of those new players are going to be chased right out of the game the second they either join a group match or answer a call to arms. Long before they have a chance to earn enough Cbills for a descent drop deck or actually learn some skills as a mechwarrior. This situation cannot be allowed to happen.

Clearly ELO won't work in CW, it barely functions as intended in the solo queue and I am certain it plays the poor second cousin to actually piecing together matches in the group queue. Likewise dividing the tiny population we do have in CW into smaller pieces by separating group from solos won't work either.

I suggest that units be rated by their win loss percentage, not unit ELO, just simple numbers. Using the MRBC scale from lore.

Rating Win%
A 90+
B 80-90
C 70-80
D 50-70
E 30-50
F <30
All non tagged players (lone wolves) are rated F irrespective of how good or bad they are. Obviously some sort of formula for rating mixed units/pugs would be required but that wouldn't be hard to work out.

In an ideal world the matchmaker would pitch teams of the same ranking at each other. This would however require teams of the same rank to be present on the same planet. Unlikely even with large player bases.

We can however handicap the better team. I would suggest that the higher ranked team take a tonnage hit at a rate of 10 tonnes (per player drop deck) per difference in rating. A potential drop of 50 tonnes if an A ranked team plays and F rated group of pugs. This should give the lesser team more of a chance provided they can get through the first wave of the better team (which will no doubt stay the same as it is now). Generally the A rated team should relish the challenge. Some time to modify drop decks would be needed but it would shake up the currently stale game play.

The other option is to give the lesser ranked team a percentage boost on their earnings to "lessen the pain" but this might be easily exploited.

Note: numbers for example only.