11 replies to this topic

[Clownwarlord]

First reset the map when CW phase 3 comes out. That way we can see how the changes would affect the map and progression from a clean map like CW Phase 2 and CW Phase 1 each had a clean map to see how it progressed.

Secondly, if you leave a faction to go to another faction you should lose the planet tags you had in the previous faction territory. This is an idea to help anchor some units to a faction. Now why is that a good thing? It weighs the option of people hopping to other factions for any CW event for easy wins. It helps in also doing the same thing when units faction hop to easier matchs away from other competitive units in a faction next to them. Now this only works if the planets are worth something which has been mentioned that in CW Phase 3 they might have the planets be worth something.

Russ B brought up the point of competitive units hiding in corners of the map away from each other hence why I thought of an idea that might help resolve the issue if one of the units wants a competitive matches and the other runs away, now they can be hunted at a cost to both (you lose your planets tags to go after them and they lose their planet tags if they run away). Just a thought on what will help CW immediately or near future.

As for the first idea is more to see the differences in how each phase changes CW progression which would be nice to sit down and watch the comparison from each reset and introduction of CW phase.

[sycocys]

Or just get rid of the map entirely as it serves absolutely no purpose until there's a population that's actually interested in the mode.

Then groups can't hide from each other. And the pugs will have a far better chance at not fighting the 12 mans that make them cry themselves to sleep.

Really only needs to be 3 planet options - IS v Clan, IS v IS, Clan v Clan -- Less buckets = more games. Heck if you really wanted to get crazy you have a Merc v Merc mixed deck planet so the standard queue CoD players could have their beloved respawns.

Edited by sycocys, 18 November 2015 - 08:41 AM.

[Khereg]

clownwarlord, on 18 November 2015 - 07:06 AM, said:

Secondly, if you leave a faction to go to another faction you should lose the planet tags you had in the previous faction territory. This is an idea to help anchor some units to a faction.

If this is done in combination with planets having value (for example, by giving c-bill income to units for each planet tagged) it will do more than anchor the larger units to a faction, it will cement them in place. The unintended consequence will be when populations become unbalanced there will be strong incentives for units (especially large units) to stay put, exacerbating the problem.

I'm concerned about this because Russ pounced on this idea during the last town hall. Even dropped the f-bomb as he said it, which makes me think it's inevitable in Phase 3.

If this happens, there will need to be another mechanic introduced to give PGI a knob to turn to balance populations in CW across factions. In the past they've done this by varying rewards across factions, but lately they've evened these out, albeit at an elevated level to encourage additional participation in CW.

[Scifi Toughguy]

In the last town hall Russ also mentioned loyalist units being able to offer large incentives for mercs to defend or attack a certain world. This sounds to me like the balancing factor against the cementing of which you speak.

[Khereg]

Scifi Toughguy, on 18 November 2015 - 09:01 AM, said:

In the last town hall Russ also mentioned loyalist units being able to offer large incentives for mercs to defend or attack a certain world. This sounds to me like the balancing factor against the cementing of which you speak.

PGI would first have define to a difference between loyalist and merc units/players. I see a lot of talk about units currently being one or the other, but in game, we are all technically mercs. That's why we all sign "contracts" with factions when we play CW, even if those contracts are "permanent" (but breakable).

I'm not saying PGI can't change that, but that's an area they've been completely silent on. So silent, in fact, that most players don't seem to understand the reality of the current situation. I stifle laughter every time I see one group of players or another talk about whether they are the true "leaders" of a particular faction here on the forums. I love both of these groups, but Wolf and the FRR are prime examples. To paraphrase a line from Slapshot, "Who own da faction?".

There is currently no in-game sanctioned leader of any faction and I have a hard time seeing PGI giving real, in-game authority to players which could be abused to the detriment of other players. How they would implement something like this remains pure conjecture.

Edited by Khereg, 18 November 2015 - 09:32 AM.

[Tarl Cabot]

Quote

There is currently no in-game sanctioned leader of any faction and I have a hard time seeing PGI giving real, in-game authority to players which could be abused to the detriment of other players. How they would implement something like this remains pure conjecture.

It would likely follow the same route that Kesmai followed for the MPBT series. The House Leaders/XOs were voted in, signed NDA contracts, thus becoming staff as Community Leaders/Liaison between the community as a whole and the company. The initial leaders could be initially setup by PGI while "constitutions" are developed and approved by PGI on how the Leadership would be selected/removed. PGI would have the final approval on said representatives though.

It is then that said leadership would work for their Houses but foremost would be the community at large. Running it like that well for the three MPBT, ranging from 1991 to 2001 when EA closed up shop on MPBT 3025 (and a ton of other games not created in-house). GEnie MPBT 3025 (EGA) there had been times when units would move from one House to another to strengthen said House for a time, until things smoothed out. Having been in both positions during the AOL/Gamestorm/EA, it was no picnic, being very demanding but still rewarding in its own way.

So there would definitely accountability and PGI, if they follow a similar route, would have the ability to step in at a moment notice and lock things down, remove said player and temp promote the next person in the COC until said person's position could be finalized. If both HL/HXO were canned, PGI would hold the reins, allowing the steps outline in the constitution to be completed.

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 18 November 2015 - 08:14 PM.

[XphR]

sycocys, on 18 November 2015 - 08:40 AM, said:

Really only needs to be 3 planet options - IS v Clan, IS v IS, Clan v Clan -- Less buckets = more games. Heck if you really wanted to get crazy you have a Merc v Merc mixed deck planet so the standard queue CoD players could have their beloved respawns.

This is such a good idea as the game currently stands. As much as I like the map, it just is not ready.

[WVAnonymous]

Khereg, on 18 November 2015 - 09:31 AM, said:

...
I stifle laughter every time I see one group of players or another talk about whether they are the true "leaders" of a particular faction here on the forums. I love both of these groups, but Wolf and the FRR are prime examples. To paraphrase a line from Slapshot, "Who own da faction?".
...

I can't speak for Wolf, but I think several groups each claiming to be the true leader of the FRR is not too far from canon... As long as we all drink and we all fight, it's all good.

[Clownwarlord]

Well do we all agree when phase 3 comes in the map should be reset? Since no one has argued against it I figure I should ask.

As for the second idea I think the consensus is PGI needs to better define the Merc Unit, Loyalist Unit, and Lone Wolf. But cementing some units in as loyalist units wouldn't be bad now would it?

[Khereg]

Tarl Cabot, on 18 November 2015 - 08:10 PM, said:

It would likely follow the same route that Kesmai followed for the MPBT series.

(a bunch of detail)

Goog god, that sounds onerous to deal with. I doubt PGI has those kinds of resources available. They have "one" Community Manager currently and a few support staff...

[Rushin Roulette]

Actuially I seriously hope PGI never add in incentive for units to take and keep a tag on a planet. Leave it as it is and have them represent pragging rights or whatever to those that actually care about it. The 331 is currently holding 4 planets, but I dont see a reason why we should get any more money or discounts because of this.

Give the whole faction small incentives for taking planets in the last 24 hours. 5% more Cbills per after match win reward for example and state that is the players share of the looting/additional tax income/whatever.

Organised units already have massive advantages of being able to field teams on coms who have practice in playing together and depending on which unit is it, they are able to maybe even field multiple such groups at the same time. Dont give them/us even more reason to alienate solo players (especially the rare good ones who dont want to personally commit, but honestly play well together with others if given the chance).

[Seal Farmer]

Reason many don't play CW currently is because taking planets means nothing if they add it so holding a planet while in that faction gives your unit a benefit and to a smaller degree anyone in the same Faction, then many more would play the CW game mode.