285 replies to this topic

[Tahawus]

Russ is conducting an exercise to demonstrate why "super units" are bad for game balance. Unfortunately, it's being done in such a way to piss off those that would agree with him and reward those in big units.

If he's going to try to conduct sociological studies, he should recruit some grad students from UBC to help him with his experimental design.

[Speedy Plysitkos]

66th 2200
2nd place 1200

they are not cheaters.....

[GI Journalist]

Ghost drops continue to be the failure condition of the community warfare beta.

Even during an event such as this one, there does not seem to be enough incentive for defenders to protect their planets. On the Davion/Liao border, an hour or more of invested time can pass on unopposed drops before defenders fill their queue. The Clan/Inner Sphere border is better, but every time I drop and find no opponents, it is a black mark against the game mode.

CW can't leave beta without fixing this empty drop placeholder. It isn't healthy for the game.

[Anastasiuss]

1 hour waiting for a clan game @23:50 UTC/GMT +2 hours thats more than hardcore.

Edited by Anastasiuss, 02 July 2015 - 02:51 AM.

[quantaca]

Spectre195, on 01 July 2015 - 08:36 AM, said:

Let me put into perspective how dumb this event in for people in smaller units or no unit. I'm in Swol, we had >4< 12 man units dropping for 3 hours, 3 12 men dropping for about 5, 2 dropping for like 6 and a 12 man dropping for the entire attack phase over and over again yesterday......and we are be obliterated on the leader board by the units above us. MS over doubles us. We one of the few units capable of running that much and even we dont have a chance of getting the top spot. There is no competition here.

So ehm spectre do those SWOL 12 mans actually win matches then ? Because with those numbers i feel you should be at least near MS on the leaderboard if not past us. I dont have a lot of time to play this week so i dont really know how many 12 mans are on in US primetime and i only get home from work at the start of EU/US ceasefire, but i can say for sure that for the first 3 hours in US prime MS had "only" about 2.5 teams running and that was with a few CWI guys mixed in.
At the hight of BoT (which was far more challenging and popular) we did hit our TS server limit of 90 a few times but that was also with visiting players we were kind of the wolf hub at that time and with people that use our TS for other games some never played mwo some still do and others have quit (yesterday we had more people in the ARK rooms then in our dropships)

[ThatGuy539]

This will be the first event in a long time that I didn't compete in.

It's made for the big units. Mine is pretty tiny, so no chance there. I could join one of the bigger ones, but I don't want to right now. And with the personal prize being the Hula girl (which I have a bunch already), well....there really isn't any incentive for me. Other than the Loyalty stuff, but I can get that any time in CW.

On the plus side, there seem to be a few less high-ELO players in the normal games. It's been helpful with leveling up my new mechs.

[BattleHymn]

McHoshi, on 01 July 2015 - 03:38 AM, said:

Problem with this Event: It´s all about quantity instead of quality!

The big units got so many real bad players but got the most points in the end!

You may not have noticed the scoring was modified this time around to reward quantity and quality:

Quote

• Achieve a Match Score of 80 or above in Invasion or Counter Attack = 1 Event Point
  
• Achieve a Victory in Invasion or Counter Attack = 1 Event Point

A unit that is winning will DOUBLE the score of a unit that is playing well enough to get 80-points individually but lose the match, not to mention units that lose the match without making the 80-point minimum.

This means units that have above average participation AND win rate will absolutely outscale teams with just above average participation OR win rate.

It's possible those "big units with real bad players", might not be as terrible collectively as popularly imagined.

Edit: Do note that there are medium sized units doing very well, outscoring much larger units as well.

Edited by BattleHymn, 02 July 2015 - 07:55 AM.

[C E Dwyer]

It seems rather poorly thought out

Teams will go for damage for personal score providing one side defends and then blind drops for planets

there seems little incentive to defend, once you have your toys, so this is hardly going to be hard core

[QueenBlade]

Well Planetary Conquest leaderboard is a HUGE BUST.

Found out last night that ANY planet tagged with your unit (including planets before the event started) are being counted against your total score.

We took the planet Nox before the event started, but was not given a point for it. For obvious reasons. Lost the planet's tag to KCom last night when they defended it against CSJ. KCom got the tag, and the point (huzzah for KCom), but it also took a point away from 228?! Confused, but it was the only planet we lost a tag on from that attack phase last night.

To confirm our suspicions, we believe that -MS- will lose a point at the end of this current attack phase when the planet Hermagor (FRR controlled) is either lost or defended. This is terrible design since -MS- has no way of defending the planet since they are not FRR (they are Wolf for those under a rock). If Davion was to attack the planet Small World (again tagged by -MS-) owned by Kurita, -MS- would lose another point to the planetary conquest leaderboard.

PGI please? Please correct this before the end of the event, and retro fix the score board.

[Deathlike]

I like how the C-bill rewards are missing two digits. I mean, seriously PGI... noone is worked up for 250k C-bills.

The only good thing for big units is the Unit Cockpit Tags. If it doesn't allow for the winning units to submit their unit pic, then there's something woefully wrong in this design.

In all, the event structurally doesn't do much for smaller units, as it incentivizes players to be absorbed into bigger units for the event, which is counter to what Russ spoke in the previous town hall.


I like how these events are designed.. very thoughtless and ill advised.

QueenBlade, on 02 July 2015 - 12:36 PM, said:

Well Planetary Conquest leaderboard is a HUGE BUST.

Found out last night that ANY planet tagged with your unit (including planets before the event started) are being counted against your total score.

We took the planet Nox before the event started, but was not given a point for it. For obvious reasons. Lost the planet's tag to KCom last night when they defended it against CSJ. KCom got the tag, and the point (huzzah for KCom), but it also took a point away from 228?! Confused, but it was the only planet we lost a tag on from that attack phase last night.

To confirm our suspicions, we believe that -MS- will lose a point at the end of this current attack phase when the planet Hermagor (FRR controlled) is either lost or defended. This is terrible design since -MS- has no way of defending the planet since they are not FRR (they are Wolf for those under a rock). If Davion was to attack the planet Small World (again tagged by -MS-) owned by Kurita, -MS- would lose another point to the planetary conquest leaderboard.

PGI please? Please correct this before the end of the event, and retro fix the score board.

There might be some weird accounting going on, but AFAIK, the counting was for during the event, and not pre-event (whatever planets you gained is not counted against, but redefending a planet that is owned "should" count towards the counter).

I don't think PGI tested this out anyways, as I don't understand the current counting of the planets (someone would have to comb through the data).

Edited by Deathlike, 02 July 2015 - 12:42 PM.

[QueenBlade]

@Deathlike

After a ceasefire planet ownership is assigned based off of victory points.
If the planet is in a capturable state and you have the most victory points as attacker you get a tag.
If the planet is in a defensible state and you have the most victory points as defender you get a tag.
If you do this during the event, your unit gets a planetary conquest point. If you lose a tag on a planet you lose a point.

Currently the system will remove a point regardless of if you tagged the planet before or after the event started.

[Revis Volek]

ThatGuy539, on 02 July 2015 - 05:54 AM, said:

This will be the first event in a long time that I didn't compete in.

It's made for the big units. Mine is pretty tiny, so no chance there. I could join one of the bigger ones, but I don't want to right now. And with the personal prize being the Hula girl (which I have a bunch already), well....there really isn't any incentive for me. Other than the Loyalty stuff, but I can get that any time in CW.

On the plus side, there seem to be a few less high-ELO players in the normal games. It's been helpful with leveling up my new mechs.

MIne is over 100 pilots and we still have no chance....

This event is for the half a dozen Super Units out there to win some stuff, nothing more and nothing less.


I already made more in 2 CW drops then we (my unit) would placing first on the leader board.

I made 187,000 cbills and 8,000 EXP points.....Once i saw that and it dawned on me i went to go play Skyrim.

I dont think PGI maths very well....

[Deathlike]

QueenBlade, on 02 July 2015 - 12:55 PM, said:

@Deathlike

After a ceasefire planet ownership is assigned based off of victory points.  
If the planet is in a capturable state and you have the most victory points as attacker you get a tag.
If the planet is in a defensible state and you have the most victory points as defender you get a tag.
If you do this during the event, your unit gets a planetary conquest point.  If you lose a tag on a planet you lose a point.

Currently the system will remove a point regardless of if you tagged the planet before or after the event started.

I see.

It's technically messed up in that if a planet is successfully defended, and then not selectable post ceasefire, it would be locked in for that unit who defended it. This aspect works both ways, but it requires expending more people for smaller units... whereas the bigger units can keep doing this until that planet is unattackable, securing it.

In any case, this concept wasn't fully fleshed out, but that's par for the course.

DarthRevis, on 02 July 2015 - 01:20 PM, said:

MIne is over 100 pilots and we still have no chance....

This event is for the half a dozen Super Units out there to win some stuff, nothing more and nothing less.


I already made more in 2 CW drops then we (my unit) would placing first on the leader board.

I made 187,000 cbills and 8,000 EXP points.....Once i saw that and it dawned on me i went to go play Skyrim.

I dont think PGI maths very well....

Math is Lostech. The C-bill+XP rewards are technically worthless in the grand scheme of things.

This is planned out soooo well!

Edited by Deathlike, 02 July 2015 - 01:28 PM.

[Sjorpha]

Russ states in town hall that he wants to discourage pooling into overly large units.

Then makes event that rewards only the super large units.

???

Also, what's "hardcore" about this? It doesn't reward playing well, it just rewards playing a lot.

And don't give me that crap that it doubles points on a win, which unit dropping 12 mans doesn't win most of their matches? You don't need to be particularly good to stomp pugs and smaller groups, the result is that all 12 mans that isn't outright terrible gets the same amount of points per drop. This even is only about which units can spam the most 12 mans, nothing else.

Why not base these events on the best 20 matches or something, like a normal leaderboard. That would allow small good units to compete and make it about playing well instead of just a lot.

Generally speaking, PGI needs to stop rewarding the grind and start rewarding performance, why not have a range of achievements in the event that you can try to win like "assassins guild" for the unit with the best overall k/d, "shield wall" for the unit with highest win rate on defence and so on.

You don't even get anything worth having for winning your factions leaderboard. We are topping the FRR but only the mega units who win the IS ladder gets the dog tag. There's no point to this event even for most large units, it's only for the largest ones. Silly.

Deathlike, on 02 July 2015 - 01:28 PM, said:

I see.

It's technically messed up in that if a planet is successfully defended, and then not selectable post ceasefire, it would be locked in for that unit who defended it. This aspect works both ways, but it requires expending more people for smaller units... whereas the bigger units can keep doing this until that planet is unattackable, securing it.

Quite frankly, why would a unit control a planet after deserting that faction? You should loose any planet tags that isn't in your current faction, reward loyalty over faction hopping.

[Deathlike]

Sjorpha, on 02 July 2015 - 01:32 PM, said:

Quite frankly, why would a unit control a planet after deserting that faction? You should loose any planet tags that isn't in your current faction, reward loyalty over faction hopping.

I don't know, but there are no rewards for owning a planet, which contribute to this problem. I think the unit (usually Merc) that goes on a different contract should "keep it" for a little longer, but it'll have to revert eventually due to allegiance (the whole point of a Merc contract is to take a planet that the Loyalists aren't able to get themselves, but they should be rewarded for a bit for accomplishing it, but not permanently of course).

It doesn't matter as the system/infrastructure for this is broken, so it is what it is.

[QueenBlade]

***IF THIS IS BY DESIGN

The planetary conquest leaderboard can by exploited and punishing to units that take on a mercenary role working for other factions.

By removing score points from units on planets the unit can't defend because they are a different faction, PGI you are directly punishing these units for this event. One would think that only planets that change hands during the event will count. But currently the design removes points from units that tagged planets before the event. So there are units that can have a negative score after this event.

Also, units can set up scenarios like hitting a planet and purposely losing to a faction so the tagged planet will change away from another unit of the same faction, making it near impossible for it to change hands again. I seriously ask that PGI quickly review this and correct the issue before leaving for the weekend.

[Antonius Rex]

QueenBlade, on 02 July 2015 - 12:36 PM, said:

Well Planetary Conquest leaderboard is a HUGE BUST.

Found out last night that ANY planet tagged with your unit (including planets before the event started) are being counted against your total score.

We took the planet Nox before the event started, but was not given a point for it. For obvious reasons. Lost the planet's tag to KCom last night when they defended it against CSJ. KCom got the tag, and the point (huzzah for KCom), but it also took a point away from 228?! Confused, but it was the only planet we lost a tag on from that attack phase last night.

To confirm our suspicions, we believe that -MS- will lose a point at the end of this current attack phase when the planet Hermagor (FRR controlled) is either lost or defended. This is terrible design since -MS- has no way of defending the planet since they are not FRR (they are Wolf for those under a rock). If Davion was to attack the planet Small World (again tagged by -MS-) owned by Kurita, -MS- would lose another point to the planetary conquest leaderboard.

PGI please? Please correct this before the end of the event, and retro fix the score board.

Confirmed.

Losing Hermagor (a planet we had tagged weeks ago) cost us a point on the leaderboard.

This is bad for big units for obvious reasons.

It is even worse for any small unit that has a tag on the map close to a warzone. Any unit that loses a tag this way, is now at -1 points, before they even get going.

Much lame for everyone involved.

Edited by Antonius Rex, 02 July 2015 - 03:21 PM.

[Flutterguy]

Antonius Rex, on 02 July 2015 - 03:11 PM, said:

Confirmed.

Losing Hermagor (a planet we had tagged weeks ago) cost us a point on the leaderboard.

This is bad for big units for obvious reasons.

It is even worse for any small unit that has a tag on the map close to a warzone. Any unit that loses a tag this way, is now at -1 points, before they even get going.

Much lame for everyone involved.

Well this forces me to revise my opinion of this event from "bad" to "hilariously bad".

[Tina Benoit]

QueenBlade, on 02 July 2015 - 12:36 PM, said:

Well Planetary Conquest leaderboard is a HUGE BUST.

Found out last night that ANY planet tagged with your unit (including planets before the event started) are being counted against your total score.

We took the planet Nox before the event started, but was not given a point for it. For obvious reasons. Lost the planet's tag to KCom last night when they defended it against CSJ. KCom got the tag, and the point (huzzah for KCom), but it also took a point away from 228?! Confused, but it was the only planet we lost a tag on from that attack phase last night.

To confirm our suspicions, we believe that -MS- will lose a point at the end of this current attack phase when the planet Hermagor (FRR controlled) is either lost or defended. This is terrible design since -MS- has no way of defending the planet since they are not FRR (they are Wolf for those under a rock). If Davion was to attack the planet Small World (again tagged by -MS-) owned by Kurita, -MS- would lose another point to the planetary conquest leaderboard.

PGI please? Please correct this before the end of the event, and retro fix the score board.

This is as designed, large units need to protect their planets.

[Flutterguy]

Tina Benoit, on 02 July 2015 - 03:48 PM, said:

This is as designed, large units need to protect their planets.

Well this gains a lot of respect from me. It's either very naive or awesomely trolly, but it certainly makes the event more interesting. I might actually have to withdraw my concerns about not incentivizing defense.