228 replies to this topic

[TWIAFU]

Kin3ticX, on 27 June 2015 - 09:27 AM, said:

Just need to consider how many of these players are inactive. If breaking up units is what PGI wants to go with, I will go with it, but it may not produce any jolt at all. Like you said, they could just be blobs of players that haven't played and are just padding their roster.

I know the the Unit I belong to has many, many, inactive members. Not that we padded anything, just they moved on to something else.

I just cannot believe that PGI will make Units smaller to appease non Unit players, soloists, when actual REAL Unit totals, read: ACTIVE, are far lower. Not to mention the source data is pulled from a CW event where people are bribed to play in a Unit.

If PGI is going to make players choose between the Unit and friends, PGI is going to lose out on that choice.

[DeathlyEyes]

SLR had aproximately 50-60 members active before joining mercstar. We have roughly 6-10 on a night. The issue is getting all 12 guys on without having some sort of mandatory time. By having a big unit it allows people to be more casual in that they can just show up and play without worrying if there are going to be people or not.

Penalizing units to the point that they are forced into small groups is dumb. Incentives should be given to make big name groups that have their own government structures should help stabilize the game and the community. If we get 1 big name unit in each CW faction (possibly reduce the number of factions, merge Davion and Steiner to form FedCom etc) and then go from there we should see some results.

Right now having restrictions on what mechs can and can't be used in CW means that many people who have bought both packs are having to switch between factions. Not to mention the fact that people in units have friendships so they aren't going to just leave to play their specific mechs.

[Ihasa]

Absolutely not, don't break them up. Some big units were built for the express purpose of being hot in community warfare, but except for 2 or 3 with 200+ people, they don't do much anymore.

For example, CI, the 4th largest group by PGI's own stats, has a hard time fielding regular 12 mans. If that ratio were to be extended to smaller units, they might have 1 person on regularly. SRoT, and others in the 300+ range don't play CW hardly at all. One can tell by the lack of tags on planets.

Then there's another problem this could create, a bunch of really dedicated, very small units that gives the algorithm fits trying to decide who gets the planet tag because there were 12 12-mans on the planet and say 4 had the same amount of wins.

No, making big units break up is not the answer. The answer is to make CW and the game in general more appealing to the masses, so that small units of say 100 have 50-60 active members, with about half that playing CW. And releasing on steam isn't appealing to the masses, it's simply exploiting them. Dedication, big or small, should not be punished nor diminished. Units that strategically built themselves to be a force majeure should not be punished for foresight.

Great post Kin3tiX.

[Telmasa]

On the one hand...yeah, forcing 100 player limits is an annoyance.

On the other hand, it really feels like groups like -MS- singlehandedly determine the activeness of a faction on the CW map. And WoT has had 100 player limits on clans since their "Clan Wars" first started, so many players are just...used to it by now.

Plus, this lets the 'supergroups' just fight against each other if there's nobody else to play against...I know THAT is an issue you all have been familiar with at one time or another.

I honestly am not too sure what's right or wrong after reading this thread, but, at least I will say it won't be all that bad or all doom & gloom if it does become a 100 player limit.

Edited by Telmasa, 27 June 2015 - 06:20 PM.

[Hawk819]

I can say for sure that my unit, the Federated Suns Armored Cavalry, is 72 mems strong, and at best we have maybe on a good day. . . 12-23 members on at one time.

[Telmasa]

Hawk819, on 27 June 2015 - 06:23 PM, said:

I can say for sure that my unit, the Federated Suns Armored Cavalry, is 72 mems strong, and at best we have maybe on a good day. . . 12-23 members on at one time.

As do most WoT clans A-B-C teams have been a thing there for years now.

[Star Wolves Admin Account]

Star Wolves has 450+ members, we can field up to 4 12 mans on a weekend. Rule of thumb, takes 100-150 players to even begin to consistently fill out a 12 man. People need to work, jobs come up, real life activities pull people away for months.

The reason we are so large is because we have a friendly environment and can field teams consistently. This is due to our numbers not in spite of them.

[TWIAFU]

Telmasa, on 27 June 2015 - 06:19 PM, said:

On the one hand...yeah, forcing 100 player limits is an annoyance.

On the other hand, it really feels like groups like -MS- singlehandedly determine the activeness of a faction on the CW map. And WoT has had 100 player limits on clans since their "Clan Wars" first started, so many players are just...used to it by now.

Plus, this lets the 'supergroups' just fight against each other if there's nobody else to play against...I know THAT is an issue you all have been familiar with at one time or another.

I honestly am not too sure what's right or wrong after reading this thread, but, at least I will say it won't be all that bad or all doom & gloom if it does become a 100 player limit.

It is wrong.

Units played under the rules given, no population cap. This allowed Unit to gather good people of all time zones, skill levels, personalities, and play status (casual, hardcore). This fostered friendships. This fostered feelings of family.

Now, because of some anti-group solo players, PGi is considering population caps. This would have been fine if it started that way, however it did not.

Now, many Units have to face the possibility of removing half to 2/3rds of its members! How would you feel if you had to kick out 200-300 members to make someone that will never join a Unit happy? What do you think is going to happen to those 200-300 members just from that one Unit? Some may stay, some may find a new Unit. Many will just say F this, F PGI, and they will quit. Remember the claims of low population? What do you think this ******* idea will do to population? Sure will not grow when Unit have to kick out so many people.

Is PGI going to kick these people out or are they going to make Unit Leaders make that decision? Now that is an unfair burden for PGI to place on leadership.

This is, by far, the WORSE idea PGI he put out there. Next is limiting our groups. This is a multi player group game, not a multi player up to a point where we say so and you can only have X amount of frineds to play with.

Horrid idea. Bad for the game, bad for players, bad for community, and bad for Units.

Nobody benefits from this but many are harmed by it.

[TWIAFU]

Blueduck, on 27 June 2015 - 08:20 PM, said:

Star Wolves has 450+ members, we can field up to 4 12 mans on a weekend. Rule of thumb, takes 100-150 players to even begin to consistently fill out a 12 man. People need to work, jobs come up, real life activities pull people away for months.

The reason we are so large is because we have a friendly environment and can field teams consistently. This is due to our numbers not in spite of them.

How does Star Wolves feel about the potential of having to kick out 350+ members?

Going to be able to field more groups with less members?

Those 350+ members, are they going to form 4 new Units? Not bother incase 100 to high? Not bother with another Unit? Quit?

[Wildstreak]

I don't normally notice units in the Usual Queue but of this list, I have seen the following tags in PUG Matches recently.
CI
CWI
TCAF
CWDG
HHoD
CGBI
NTEX (why did you list them twice?)

I don't know about PGI but perhaps it is time units here do what clans do in other online games, purge their rosters. Sure, someone may be your friend but if your friend has left CW or even the game for a long period of time, why do you keep them on the roster? Because of friendship? Well, that's all nice and dandy but really, you are also misrepresenting your unit.

I was in a LotRO clan once, they had a number of memebers several whom were shown to have not logged in for months. I asked the leader about it, he said he never got around to purging the list and did not have the time to keep up with clan duties whatever that meant.

Point is, cluttering your unit roster with people is misrepresentation and only adds to your burden down the road. If someone has been inactive for a period of time, drop them. They can still play with MWO, they will still be on your friends list, just not in the unit.

[Kin3ticX]

Telmasa, on 27 June 2015 - 06:19 PM, said:

On the one hand...yeah, forcing 100 player limits is an annoyance.

On the other hand, it really feels like groups like -MS- singlehandedly determine the activeness of a faction on the CW map. And WoT has had 100 player limits on clans since their "Clan Wars" first started, so many players are just...used to it by now.

Plus, this lets the 'supergroups' just fight against each other if there's nobody else to play against...I know THAT is an issue you all have been familiar with at one time or another.

I honestly am not too sure what's right or wrong after reading this thread, but, at least I will say it won't be all that bad or all doom & gloom if it does become a 100 player limit.

I think its doable. It might mean that unit leaders will boot players that are inactive or seldom play to make that 100 cap as efficient as possible. Some units will create regiments, some players will form completely new units. All the inactives just won't be padding the numbers anymore.

One of the other downsides someone mentioned was that established units might be less willing to train new players. The other issue being players which get booted for not playing "enough", do they quit or join a new unit?

Wildstreak, on 28 June 2015 - 03:24 AM, said:

NTEX (why did you list them twice?)

They switched sides and had two entries. I just left it alone, didn't matter much.

Edited by Kin3ticX, 28 June 2015 - 03:41 AM.

[B0oN]

Oi vey...another "smart" idea by PGI ...
No wonder people are fleeing this game to do something else ...

Longstanding bugs ? Still unfixed, who cares as long as things still explode
Incentives for pugs AND units ? Errrrrmmm, not really
Incentive to role-play factions/bind people to factions ? Not in so far, it´s "BETA tm", outlook gloomy at best
Meaningful integration of pugs into CW ? Nope, nowhere to be seen

I´m not for this splitting up of units, since it´s ABSOLUTELY not the way that EVEY SINGLE PLAYER in the unit plays GROUPED UP ALL DAY EVERY DAY, making them poor pugs, that dare to try CW, simple trainingtargets ...

I´m still of the opinion that CW should be "unit-land" not "solo-rambo-and-still-pwn-land"

Deduce that, PGI .

[Crixus316]

Kin3ticX, on 28 June 2015 - 03:30 AM, said:

I think its doable. It might mean that unit leaders will boot players that are inactive or seldom play to make that 100 cap as efficient as possible. Some units will create regiments, some players will form completely new units. All the inactives just won't be padding the numbers anymore.

PGI's idea of fixing a broken finger, by cutting off the entire arm. SWOL, MS, SROT etc,. Will still have hundreds of players, separated into multiple groups. They will stop drop as 12 man teams, the same way multi-unit teams form now. All it does is create the chance for people to get ******.


I have a family member serving oversees. Before he joined, he was very active in MWO. When he comes home on leave, likes to get in a few hours of play, and catch up with MWO friends. So do you keep him on your 100 person unit? He hasn't been able to play for 6 months, that roster spot could be used for an active player. How would he feel coming home to find out a unit he helped create, kicked him out. Now I understand he could still drop with members of his old unit, but should he get kicked to please some anti-socials that don't want to play as a group.

[TWIAFU]

Mr Bigglesworth, on 28 June 2015 - 05:11 AM, said:

PGI's idea of fixing a broken finger, by cutting off the entire arm. SWOL, MS, SROT etc,. Will still have hundreds of players, separated into multiple groups. They will stop drop as 12 man teams, the same way multi-unit teams form now. All it does is create the chance for people to get ******.


I have a family member serving oversees. Before he joined, he was very active in MWO. When he comes home on leave, likes to get in a few hours of play, and catch up with MWO friends. So do you keep him on your 100 person unit? He hasn't been able to play for 6 months, that roster spot could be used for an active player. How would he feel coming home to find out a unit he helped create, kicked him out. Now I understand he could still drop with members of his old unit, but should he get kicked to please some anti-socials that don't want to play as a group.

He would feel like crap, maybe angry.

Next question, who do you kick out if at cap to get him back? Tell him he has to now go join [Guildname2/3/4] to maybe play with old friends again?

You know what, I would like to see from PGI Active/Inactive Unit numbers from the past 30,60, 90 days. Maybe longer. Let's see how many of the big Units are really active. Are 200,300,400 member Units fielding that many different pilots to make a cap necessary?

If Unit population is a possible issue, then PGI, why not flag Inactive members in Unit lists as Inactive and make it so they do NOT count in the roster. Example, Unit roster of 200. After 30 days of inactivity, 50 are classified Inactive and no longer listed in the Unit Roster making it 150. Unit Roster would fluctuate as members become Active/Inactive.

TBH, I am a member of a decent sized Unit, couple hundred members. Depending on the time of day, what is going on in the world, what's going on in MWO, we have anywhere from 4 (right now, we have 4 online!) to as many as 24-30, maybe a few more. When we are online, we are playing Solo, Group, and CW. We try to self maintain our Active/Inactives - I would assume most larger Units would too.

What I am saying is, let us self maintain OR automatically set Inactives to not count on the Unit Roster for accuracy. Do NOT artificially cap our member numbers, that is the worse thing to do when you are trying to make a community or at least attempt to foster a community.


To bad I cannot give feedback in 140 character or less on this topic - at least meaningful feedback, so not hoping for much of this to get seen by the proper people.

Edited by TWIAFU, 28 June 2015 - 05:55 AM.

[Ductus Hase]

This arbitrary number 100... it´s BS.

In the IS:
A lance consists of 4 Mechs.
A company consists of 12 Mechs.
A battalion consists of 36 Mechs.
A regiment consists of 3-5 battalions - 108-180 Mechs

Let us organize as full regiments at least!

Wildstreak, on 28 June 2015 - 03:24 AM, said:

...
I don't know about PGI but perhaps it is time units here do what clans do in other online games, purge their rosters. Sure, someone may be your friend but if your friend has left CW or even the game for a long period of time, why do you keep them on the roster? Because of friendship? Well, that's all nice and dandy but really, you are also misrepresenting your unit.

I was in a LotRO clan once, they had a number of memebers several whom were shown to have not logged in for months. I asked the leader about it, he said he never got around to purging the list and did not have the time to keep up with clan duties whatever that meant.

Point is, cluttering your unit roster with people is misrepresentation and only adds to your burden down the road. If someone has been inactive for a period of time, drop them. They can still play with MWO, they will still be on your friends list, just not in the unit.

PURGE THE UNCLEAN!
WTF? Those are players - ppl. we might have played with for years.

Such purging out of pretended necessity always kept me and many of my friends from playing these games for long.

What harm is done if a unit keeps members on their roster who are inactive? Worst thing that can happen is that a recruit gets dissapointed and leaves - k and breaking contracts is more expensive... but that´s something the unit might change for themselves.
Best thing that can happen is that those who are less active play a few rounds a month and feel good about being part of a community.

"Do you remember Mr.XYZ - great guy, a founding member, why did he get kicked? He got a Job/got a girlfriend/became a parent/has to take care of his mom/is taking to much vacation... , wasn´t able to play 24/7 anymore."

That´s just crap.

If players are less active for personal reasons... and let it be less interest in the game... their membership in a unit might be the only reason they are still here - trying occasionally. These are the players PGI might and CW certainly will lose due to this nonsense. While they don´t play they also don´t take any influence on CW - no harm done so why make us kick them?
IF one of our casual players is joining a CW match most of the time it is because our active players are playing CW right now. Being in the same unit just makes this easier. Aren´t we looking for more CW Players?


The problem with big units is certainly NOT the inactive players... it might be the active ones - at least those are the ones taking any influence on CW.

This measure is going to hurt friendships, it is creating an elitist athmosphere and achieves... only one thing positive:
Making it possible/easier for small units to tag planets.

Though... the biggest units I got contact with are SROT and 12DG.
The most I have seen them field is 5-7 12man in early beta1 phase. Yes they got the tag.
7x12=84... that´s less than 100
So maybe even this only positive thing I can see won´t be achieved.

Casual Units are going to kick inactive players. But those aren´t part of the problem.
BIG ACTIVE Units - those guys who are taking "ALL" the tags and influence politics are going to split into "Mains" and "Wings"


I am going to pretend being the of such a unit after a change forcing us to decimate to 100.
The new "Main" is going to be a new foundation (thus we don´t have to kick anyone^^)
consisting of the most active and respected of us... maybe 9 officers - 3 for each timezone. Each of them gets the right to invite.
Everyone else joins this unit during their active time.


How many units are there fielding more than 8 companies at the same time? As far as I know there is none.
Those need to split if this measure is taken.


This measure would be a hazard for everyone in order to also be a hazard for the few who might be a problem.

Solve the problem by changing the way planets are tagged and factions are changed (as I suggested on my last post for example).

[Khereg]

One point to be fair to PGI: They didn't say there would be a hard cap on unit size, just that there would be incentives to be under a certain size. If a large unit is ready to deal with whatever penalties come with the territory, I don't think PGI is really forcing anyone to kick active members.

All depends how harsh the penalties, though...

Edited by Khereg, 28 June 2015 - 06:48 AM.

[CyclonerM]

Khereg, on 28 June 2015 - 06:47 AM, said:

All depends how harsh the penalties, though...

My impression was that there would be incentives, but not penalties.

As long as these incentives are not like quirks: "you can use an AC20 on your Grid Iron, but if you use a Gauss, you will fire at double the rate or something like that!" Wow, that is a good choice..

Telmasa, on 27 June 2015 - 06:19 PM, said:

On the one hand...yeah, forcing 100 player limits is an annoyance.

On the other hand, it really feels like groups like -MS- singlehandedly determine the activeness of a faction on the CW map. And WoT has had 100 player limits on clans since their "Clan Wars" first started, so many players are just...used to it by now.

Plus, this lets the 'supergroups' just fight against each other if there's nobody else to play against...I know THAT is an issue you all have been familiar with at one time or another.

I honestly am not too sure what's right or wrong after reading this thread, but, at least I will say it won't be all that bad or all doom & gloom if it does become a 100 player limit.

Anyway, take MS again as example.. As already said, even if MS was split into 5-6 units, they would still all fight togheter for the same faction. Their players would hardly spread in different factions.

I think a single big unit or two influencing too much CW is an issue, but is not one you solve trying to break coalitions and alliances (which, after all, is something that happens in the lore, too, just think of the mercenary alliance led by the Wolf's Dragoons during the Jihad to fight against the Wobbies), but strongly incentivizing loyalist units.

In my ideal CW design, merc units could be small elite forces or bigger with their A and B teams, but they should be a balance mechanic rather than create in-balance. In short, let them have their numbers, but incentivize loyalists units to keep the balance so that MS and similar units are not the bulk of a faction's forces.

Edited by CyclonerM, 28 June 2015 - 07:05 AM.

[Jman5]

Monkey Lover, on 27 June 2015 - 07:13 AM, said:

I don't see how breaking units up even matters .It will end up being ms1 ms2 ms3 and they will all attack the same planet anyway.

But at the end of the day you can only have 1 tag on a planet. If there are tangible benefits for planet capture, you have to split it 2 or 3 ways.

I think ultimately what PGI should do is create benefits for both group sizes. For example upon capturing/holding a planet everyone gets a flat reward. This is good for big units. You then also get a secondary reward that is evenly distributed to every player in your unit that has played a CW match in the last week. This is good for small/active units.

[Crockdaddy]

Kin3ticX, on 27 June 2015 - 05:14 AM, said:

https://youtu.be/aGb0potff-k?t=350

So one of the things mentioned I somehow missed was when Russ explained that some of the phase 3 features will be designed to incentivize units of 200-300 to break up down to 50-100.

This is cool and all but I suspect it makes too many assumptions about what big units are right now and what the average small unit can withstand.

Take a look at this list of unit size during Tukayidd with the # of planets tagged as of recent during season 2.


*Chart is not meant to be proof, units that play only IS right now wont be fairly tagging planets. It's too one sided, especially after the wave 3 shift. If you guys are playing CW until your eyes melt, make your voice heard.

Just need to point out that there are 5 units bigger than Mercstar and only one of them seems to be doing anything. I don't know this for sure, it just seems that way. I don't think I have seen these units play much. In hibernation until phase 3? Are they coming back?

To the point:

Are we assuming even though 300-400 sized units can't form 12 regularly today, all the sudden everyone will magically turn into KComs in phase 3? Singling you guys out because you are the benchmark of the perfect small CW unit .

On the typical night, Mercstar has at least one 12-man going. If that 12-man overflows, the remainders get another group going. MS doesn't have more than 1-2 groups unless there is an event to draw in the less actives.

I just have doubts 50-100 can form their own 12-mans after that initial "wow phase 3 is here". QQ Mercs is about at that 100-125 player threshold but most of them don't play CW regularly.

So, if PGI punishes units that grow beyond 100, will the typical unit even be able to form their own 12-mans?

Discuss

NS,

During Tukyyid had 59 out of 98 members online during the week. Typically we formed 2 to 3 12 man groups during that week. Post Tukyyid its more like 4 to 16 of us online at any given moment ... far more often the lower number lately. I just can't muster enough reason to get more members online consistently. If it wasn't for the Beer Warrior tourney and us have 3 teams of 4 registered I don't think we would be as active as we are. We are experiencing CW burnout I think.

Most -MS- members I have seen online never act like Goons.

[Ductus Hase]

@Jman5
At the end of the day there could be a Spoiler on the Planet including a whole list of tags... alongside with interesting statistics like those we got from Tuk.
Just saying...


Incentives not penalties.
Semantics:
Bribe players to leave or kick others instead of punishing them for not doing so.
And to what end?

Well... let´s see what they got to offer.