228 replies to this topic

[Khobai]

Quote

No? The limitation will be for units, not players. This way, large units with many casual members will not be affected by arbitrary size curbs.

Again. thats stupid. youre going to punish units for being more active than other units?

A better solution is to give credit to EVERYONE who contributed to capping the planet. Not just the top unit.

Every player/unit that contributes towards taking a planet should get partial ownership. Then larger units cant dominate everything.

Edited by Khobai, 12 July 2015 - 08:13 AM.

[Koshirou]

See, this is why I don't even bother with posting suggestions anymore, for the most part. Because somebody will rip them out of context (in this case: As an alternative to the arguably more "punishing" forced unit break-ups), drag unrelated issues (credit for taking planets) into them or not understand them, and even after having explained it to them, will continue to whine about them because Internet.

[TWIAFU]

Khobai, on 12 July 2015 - 08:09 AM, said:

Again. thats stupid. youre going to punish units for being more active than other units?

A better solution is to give credit to EVERYONE who contributed to capping the planet. Not just the top unit.

Every player/unit that contributes towards taking a planet should get partial ownership. Then larger units cant dominate everything.

And that is a dumb idea.

That is just a trophy for participation.

[Kin3ticX]

Khobai, on 12 July 2015 - 08:09 AM, said:

Again. thats stupid. youre going to punish units for being more active than other units?

A better solution is to give credit to EVERYONE who contributed to capping the planet. Not just the top unit.

Every player/unit that contributes towards taking a planet should get partial ownership. Then larger units cant dominate everything.

Yeah, I think if planets had perks the top 5 units that contributed should get those perks for two weeks. These perks could be anything like MC(on special planets), LP bonuses, Mech Discounts. Most planets would just have LP, XP, or CB bonuses and these bonuses have a limit on how much they can stack.

It also is a nice bone to throw to the lore buffs. A well known industrial planet in could give discounts to the chassis they MFG.

Edited by Kin3ticX, 12 July 2015 - 01:48 PM.

[Kin3ticX]

Koshirou, on 12 July 2015 - 01:30 AM, said:

To the imagined problem, this is not a solution. We don't even need to talk about units splitting into "...1", "...2", "...3" and so on. I doubt even MS has >100 active CW players at any given time, so all they'd need is some external organizational work to remove inactive players from the in-game "unit" roster, and re-invite them as needed. So in the end, this measure will merely be an annoyance, and won't fix any problems.

The marginally better solution: To limit the number of drops a unit can perform per ceasefire.

A drop limit probably isn't the way to go. It is a zero sum game and there has to be winners and losers. Drop limit would actually hurt the underdog unit as they might have a .4 or .50 win loss rather than 70+

Koshirou, on 12 July 2015 - 07:57 AM, said:

No? The limitation will be for units, not players. This way, large units with many casual members will not be affected by arbitrary size curbs.

I don't see how something like this would be compatible with a unit centric game mode.

[Khobai]

Quote

And that is a dumb idea.

That is just a trophy for participation.

Except its not a trophy for participation, because participation alone isnt enough. You still have to contribute wins to capture the planet. Anyone who contributes a certain number of wins to help turnover a planet should benefit from the rewards. not just the top units.

Quote

I don't see how something like this would be compatible with a unit centric game mode.

exactly. its a TERRIBLE idea to limit how much units can play in a unit based gamemode. even worse is the guy who suggested cant see how terrible his idea is.

but its also equally dumb to snuff out the contributions of solo players just because theyre not part of bigger units. Even if youre a solo player, if you contribute a certain number of wins you should benefit from the perks of capturing the planet.

CW should be just as rewarding for solo players/small units as it is for large units. its dumb to cater to one group and not both.

Edited by Khobai, 12 July 2015 - 09:01 PM.

[Clownwarlord]

I believe when phase three is done CW will be better for it. Sadly till then we have to deal with power blocks that can jump from faction to faction.

(Supposedly when phase three comes out only loyalists will get to do a vote thing to help decide who to attack not just who is dropping like the current field is to drop anywhere you want so long as you have the faction tag. This should prevent mercenary units come into a faction and then pushing where they want right off the bat ... that only solves a political view of an issue in CW.)

Now as for competitive factions there seems to be dominate force in Jade Falcon, Wolf, Kurita, Steiner, and then Davion. What I mean is that seems to be where the majority of players are; leaving Smoke Jags, FRR, Liao, Marik, and Ghost Bear with smaller populations. This causes there to be few planets to get matches because if you choose to attack or defend you have to attack or defend one of the majority planets because those are where the players are. Unless you like to get ghost drops (turret walks ... what ever you want to call them). Now the idea of breaking up the units to form more smaller units is a good idea in theory because if there are more equal units then a few big units they can more easily be spread through out the factions; allowing for more even competition numbers wise between factions. Although that is true it is still not likely to work because each unit has its own choice to choose which faction to join and thus still allowing units to group up together into a single faction. Ultimately it would make no difference unless PGI broke up the units and then assigned them themselves to each faction to level the player base in CW, which even I agree no one would want that to happen even PGI because it would hurt the player base.

[TWIAFU]

Khobai, on 12 July 2015 - 08:50 PM, said:

Except its not a trophy for participation, because participation alone isnt enough. You still have to contribute wins to capture the planet. Anyone who contributes a certain number of wins to help turnover a planet should benefit from the rewards. not just the top units.



exactly. its a TERRIBLE idea to limit how much units can play in a unit based gamemode. even worse is the guy who suggested cant see how terrible his idea is.

but its also equally dumb to snuff out the contributions of solo players just because theyre not part of bigger units. Even if youre a solo player, if you contribute a certain number of wins you should benefit from the perks of capturing the planet.

CW should be just as rewarding for solo players/small units as it is for large units. its dumb to cater to one group and not both.

If you mean catering by giving people with a certain playstyle an area to enjoy that playstyle, then yes, they are catering just like they are catering to solo players with a solo queue.

You should not get, IMO, rewards if you do not participate.

Rewards for planet ownership should go to the Units involved with its capture. How are you going to share planet tags with a solo player? Solo without a Unit? Planet owned by: {Unit} and Bob, Furrynutz?

[Khereg]

NGRT, on 11 July 2015 - 12:02 PM, said:

KCom. I'd love for ms to field an A team consistently and battle it out with us. Even outnumbered, it would only be by 70, so with out higher activity rate, I think we would still be competitive.

Tony tried to set up a comp league that plays in a CW environment, but got limited interest and I think it stalled out.

Personally, I wouldn't make the MS A-team roster, but have played on our B-team in other tournaments. I would love to see a solid matchup between KCom (and others) and our top folks in MS. Meeting up randomly in CW drops is never going to produce a MS A-team. There's just too many of us, many top level people don't play a lot of CW, and the remaining talent gets spread across multiple groups when we have that many people actively dropping.

[MischiefSC]

I'm generallypretty wordy but I don't have a good answer on this one. I'm against teeing to break up units, however poor design in mwo for challenges and events regularly rewards quantity way over quality. Not sure what a fair and equitable solution is. You can break rankings in contests up by Elo ranges by unit but people would just try to game that.

As we often see the big issues are not just design but that our community is largely full of selfish, insecure ********. We seem to take ruining the game for everyone else like a personal challenge. The blowback on that is that we have proven that we can't be trusted with any system that involves counting on players not doing the most exploitive thing possible.

I dislike the idea of breaking groups up but we may literally be so bad we can't be trusted with basic math.

That is an 'US' issue, not just a pgi issue.

[Necromantion]

MischiefSC, on 13 July 2015 - 08:21 AM, said:

I'm generallypretty wordy but I don't have a good answer on this one. I'm against teeing to break up units, however poor design in mwo for challenges and events regularly rewards quantity way over quality. Not sure what a fair and equitable solution is. You can break rankings in contests up by Elo ranges by unit but people would just try to game that.

As we often see the big issues are not just design but that our community is largely full of selfish, insecure ********. We seem to take ruining the game for everyone else like a personal challenge. The blowback on that is that we have proven that we can't be trusted with any system that involves counting on players not doing the most exploitive thing possible.

I dislike the idea of breaking groups up but we may literally be so bad we can't be trusted with basic math.

That is an 'US' issue, not just a pgi issue.

Heres the funny thing, from what Ive read on this post and another is that smaller teams during the recent event were fielding 1-3 groups when in MS we had 1-6 typically during peak hours yet we managed to more than double their score, as a matter of fact quadruple it.

Edited by Necromantion, 13 July 2015 - 09:34 AM.

[MischiefSC]

I have no issues, at all, with the size of ms. None. I am fundamentally against a mechanic trying to force players to not play in big groups. I think it's a bad solution doomed to failure and will just be something new to game, like sync dropping used to be.

However there has to be a way to reward in tournaments performance vs tournament numbers.

In cw though it's irrelevant. Doesn't matter if it's 200 Ms players or 100 ms1 and 100 ms2; same number of players in the same faction.

[Necromantion]

Oh I know I am just saying its funny when people think were running the same proportion of groups to what our score showed like "Oh they scored 8x more points than us, they must have like 8x or more groups running than we did" thats all lol

[Kin3ticX]

There also just isnt enough people to fill all these factions with active players, and this is going off of the most recent event.

In the last event, Ghost Bear and Marik didn't really have a showing and two other addition factions were not much farther ahead of them. Its why I suggest 5 hard alliance pools which still keeps this 10 original subfactions

[50 50]

My thoughts were along the lines that the dominant mercenary units are large enough to really be their own faction... but we don't need another faction in the game and it seems a little backwards that mercenary units are larger than the loyalist factions aka the standing armies for the houses and clans.
It would make sense to me that the largest units in game should be loyalist belonging to the factions with the Mercenary units being smaller and more elite in nature.

Part of this problem is how the contracts are currently structured and the loyalty system.
The pro's and con's of being a loyalist or a mercenary are not as defined as they need to be. At present you would say that the loyalists are hamstrung due to the permanent nature of the contracts.
Indeed, why do loyalists even have a contract?
Why do mercenaries get rewarded for loyalty?

The main point is that everyone seems to want to be involved in CW and enjoy what's going on. But people want to retain their own identity at the same time and like to see their own unit tag, drop with their friends and not necessarily just be absorbed into a much larger group and be part of the crowd. But the chance of being successful as a small group is slim without the larger co-ordinated group effort.
There is difficulty in getting these smaller groups together but I think there are already several features in the game providing the foundation that may get it working better with a couple of adjustments.

I suggest it gets shaken up a bit.

[Kyrie]

This is a symptom of following World of Tanks too closely with their limit of 100 players per clan, IMHO. My experience with WoT's clan wars leads me to believe that this will lead to a lot of problems in consistently (spelled twice or more daily) getting 12 players together due to burnout issues.

[Koshirou]

Kin3ticX, on 12 July 2015 - 01:45 PM, said:

I don't see how something like this would be compatible with a unit centric game mode.

I don't even know what you think you are responding to.

Limiting unit size will break up all large units.
Limiting drops per unit will only force those large units who cannot make do with the drop limit to break up.

Same effect on both, one less disruptive than the other. What on earth makes you think that limiting drops is anny less "compatible with a unit centric game mode" than limiting unit size to begin with?

Edited by Koshirou, 17 July 2015 - 07:53 AM.

[Thumper3]

Wish they would worry more about fixing the game and developing it past Beta than on playing in the sandbox and micromanaging non essential elements.

Here you go PGI,

Institute unit taxes per pilot (do NOT make it scale on unit size, we need a fair flat tax), that will encourage units to trim their rosters of inactives and make unit size data more meaningful. That's easy code, should take less than a day.

THEN FIX THE GAME WITH A REAL ECONOMY, MORE MODES, AND MAPS!!!!

Anyone that doesn't need a drool cup and a helmet to go outside needs less than a second to realize capping unit will do nothing as big units will just breakup on paper and maintain strength in reality as has already been mentioned.

Wasting your time and money with this crap is why people keep quitting. Didn't anyone ever teach them that it costs more money to attract a new customer than it does to keep one you have? It's like they sit around a meeting room and say well, it's ok that we just pissed off half our customer base and they quit....once we finish the game and get on STEAM new customers will just fall into our laps.

CW is bland not because of super units, but because no one is playing because it's frustrating and there's no point.

[Kin3ticX]

Koshirou, on 17 July 2015 - 07:51 AM, said:

I don't even know what you think you are responding to.

Limiting unit size will break up all large units.
Limiting drops per unit will only force those large units who cannot make do with the drop limit to break up.

Same effect on both, one less disruptive than the other. What on earth makes you think that limiting drops is anny less "compatible with a unit centric game mode" than limiting unit size to begin with?

I don't even know what you are responding to.

Edited by Kin3ticX, 17 July 2015 - 09:33 AM.

[Koshirou]

Kin3ticX, on 17 July 2015 - 09:33 AM, said:

I don't even know what you are responding to.

An ignoramus, apparently. Or a parrot.

Edited by Koshirou, 17 July 2015 - 12:32 PM.