35 replies to this topic

[ShinVector]

I believe in the past discussion by Russ, 'Scouting missions' was something that would only allow planets to be opened up for attack. This sounded kinda meh...

This proposal is to expand on the 4v4 idea.
I believe there are players that wish groups could be smaller.
4v4 in CW will remain no Tier or ELO MM. The hope is that there will be enough people to make encounters random.

Essentially what this overcomes is the need a 12MAN wall to become viable in CW.
Revitalise CW by allowing small units and solos the ability to take over a planet but with more effort in the number of victories required.

Discuss:

[Jochi Kondur]

I like this idea, this will play right into his idea of a way to get those Lonewolves involved in CW.

[Dethsphere]

I am all for this idea.

[latinisator]

Anything attracting more people to CW is welcome. However, I still miss the promised road map update regarding some CW stuff.

[Arcanoz]

nice idea man, i ll add a revamp of the rewards..more stuff like mech discounts when you own a planet maybe...tech weapons and so on.
my 2 cents

Edited by Arcanoz, 17 October 2015 - 12:05 PM.

[xX PUG Xx]

This ties in with an idea I had a while back, this is the TL:DR version of it:

All game modes should be incorporated into “Community Warfare”

Solo / Group players should be able to choose which queue they play in:

* 4 vs. 4 solo only

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

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

* “Standard” Community Warfare drop with any combination of group size. (1 – 12 players in a group)

* Game mode – assault, conquest, skirmish, counter attack, attack – could be determined by the game as is necessary for the stage of the planetary conflict.
* Loyalist players and Units could have an emphasis placed on increased Loyalty Point rewards, perhaps with a separate Loyalty Reward Tree.
* Mercenary Units / Lone Wolf players could have an emphasis placed on CBill earnings on a match per match basis, with bonuses paid for longer contracts.
* Loyalist players and Units could 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.

The thread it was in had a huge number of awesome ideas but as per usual was buried by the negative enforcement (snipe) threads, this is a link to my full explanation of my idea and the thread it was in. Worth a read for the other ideas. http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__4420868

[ShinVector]

xX PUG Xx, on 17 October 2015 - 06:51 AM, said:

All game modes should be incorporated into “Community Warfare”

They certainly could do that...

Arggh.. But there is the mixed mechs (Clan and IS techs) problem... Hmmm..
Second problem is ELO/TIER/SKILL MM... PGI might not want to abandon that completely and there are players who want that...

Edited by ShinVector, 17 October 2015 - 07:02 AM.

[xX PUG Xx]

ShinVector, on 17 October 2015 - 06:57 AM, said:

Mixed tech and ELO/TIER/SKILL MM..

This is true, however the MM issue shouldn't be any more of a problem than we have in the current group queues.

The mixed tech is something else however, I'm not sure how this could be worked while keeping inside the timeline Lore. Lone Wolves could be allowed to use whichever tech per Faction they are fighting for on that particular contract and the MM would sort them by skill and tech to suit the conflict.

Units (Loyalist or Merc) could be locked to whichever tech is appropriate for their current contract as per the current system and the MM should operate in the same manner, however if we are looking at the full 12 man group queue ELO/PSR may need to be removed to allow it to function. I'm not sure but I get the feeling the larger groups would struggle a little to match up with Skill incorporated into the mix, as well as tech/Faction.

[ShinVector]

xX PUG Xx, on 17 October 2015 - 07:48 AM, said:

This is true, however the MM issue shouldn't be any more of a problem than we have in the current group queues.

I rather they keep MM out of CW.. Part of me wants the return Closed BETA style random MM so, we don't have to face the same people OVER and OVER...

[wanderer]

ShinVector, on 17 October 2015 - 03:48 AM, said:

Discuss:

Been there, done that months ago at this point. And I agree. Screw ELO, CW is inherently going to be unbalanced but war isn't fair to begin with. If they actually make loyalty worth keeping, more experienced players will stake out different factions vs. all of them loloarolling together through whatever spot takes their fancy.

[UberStuka]

while I haven't read through all of the comments

PGIs version of 4v4 55t and below will be a bust

clan streaks will PWN FTW

[Adamski]

No reason for them to change the dropdeck rules for the 4v4, especially since they already cant let people have multiple saved dropdecks.

Also agreed, Clan streaks would be FAR too powerful if they knew they wouldn't be facing any heavies or assaults.

[Mordin Ashe]

Doubt this will happen. CW population is small enough even without further splitting. If anything, PGI should focus on improving what majority of players want. 4v4 can be easily arranged by dedicated community in private matches. Introduction of general chat would be the best way of doing it.

[Kin3ticX]

Units will probably put their best players on 4v4 tasks so I dont see how this will be any more solo friendly. Just 1 dead weight player and it hurts way more than in 12v12.

CW been on the backburner for months now from what it seems

Edited by Kin3ticX, 20 October 2015 - 10:09 AM.

[ShinVector]

Mordin Ashe, on 20 October 2015 - 05:35 AM, said:

Doubt this will happen. CW population is small enough even without further splitting. If anything, PGI should focus on improving what majority of players want. 4v4 can be easily arranged by dedicated community in private matches. Introduction of general chat would be the best way of doing it.

Or the "Half-Full" perspective is that... There is people would prefer 4v4 over 12v12 and having this work to increasing the population ?

[Kin3ticX]

I just see solos getting shut out of the 4v4 queue by units. It creates more problems than it is purposed to solve. Being the 5th wheel when you have 11 others as backup is much better than sink or swim with 3 others.

[wanderer]

I tend to look at it the other way. The more opponents you get, the harder it is to carry. 4v4 is a much more solo friendly place than 12v12 (or 48v48, even.)

[Adamski]

I supposed they could disable premades in 4v4 (or limit it to groups of 2 or 3), and the organized teams aren't hurt much because they can fall back on running as 12.

Also, should the 4v4 use its own map set (maybe copy the Public Queue Assault maps?) or use the CW maps, but with the turrets / generators removed / nerfed.

Edited by Adamski, 20 October 2015 - 12:25 PM.

[UberStuka]

they have already stated the 4v4 matches will be played on public que maps

[Adamski]

They also stated that 4v4 would be released by August. Now its late October and we haven't heard a peep.

If they do use the public queue maps, I hope they use the Conquest maps, and have the win conditions be:
Attackers must destroy all 5 (Alpha, Beta, Theta, Kappa, Epsilon) drills / outposts AND have the most enemy kills
Defenders must defend at least 1 drill / outpost OR have the most enemy kills