522 replies to this topic

[Threat Doc]

Were it up to me and I were able to cap it IN the game, I would cap units within the game at a Lance at a time. I wouldn't call for the larger units to necessarily reduce, but I would stop them from adding new people until other units can match their size. If all active units have a full Lance (4), that moves up to a Company (12). Once the lower unit size makes a Company, a second Company (12 more) is added, and so on. However, as long as the largest units are still above the current cap, they are not allowed to increase.

This would do a few of things... it would cause units to be proactive in recruitment, it would encourage players within the unit to try and get friends and family involved, and it might encourage the larger units to ask their people to try helping to fill out these other units. I would also freeze the maximum number of units in place, based on current population. Now, there are those units who don't want to be any larger than a Lance, two Lances, a Company, a Battalion, etc., and they would be able to opt out, but would still be encouraged to grow their number, and they would continue to provide limiting factors to unit size benchmarks, and total units available to play. If all of the opt-in units are filled out, then growth, in both individual unit size and number of units available, could continue with the same benchmarks.

PGI would have to determine how those would run, though I would recommend they divide the total number of active players by 108 -a standard regiment for Inner Sphere- or 135 -for a nominal Clan Galaxy- for the total number of units available. Obviously, the standard Inner Sphere Lance would remain 4 'Mechs, while a Star, of course, would be 5. This would help even the units out and, guess what, it might actually seem like PGI gives a damn about the Lore at that point, as well.

[hybrid black]

El Bandito, on 29 December 2015 - 01:15 PM, said:

On CW phase three. Doesn't know what yet, but he confirmed it on Twitter. Oh, and he accused the big merc units such as -MS- and 228 for intentionally hopping over the fence together so they would not fight each other.

IMO, the amount of influence the Mercs wield is pretty detrimental to CW's development. House units really need to be made more attractive. Hope the phase three will include new faction specific rewards and meaningful penalty for changing factions.

sadly 228th moved two days after we did so we did fight them for two days, as we would like to take credit for getting 228th to move and arrange with them, we vote for where we go unless we are paid, we voted to go IS it had nothing to do with 228th

Edited by hybrid black, 29 December 2015 - 08:35 PM.

[Kuritaclan]

Kay Wolf, on 29 December 2015 - 06:04 PM, said:

Were it up to me and I were able to cap it IN the game, I would cap units within the game at a Lance at a time. I wouldn't call for the larger units to necessarily reduce, but I would stop them from adding new people until other units can match their size. If all active units have a full Lance (4), that moves up to a Company (12). Once the lower unit size makes a Company, a second Company (12 more) is added, and so on. However, as long as the largest units are still above the current cap, they are not allowed to increase.

This would do a few of things... it would cause units to be proactive in recruitment, it would encourage players within the unit to try and get friends and family involved, and it might encourage the larger units to ask their people to try helping to fill out these other units. I would also freeze the maximum number of units in place, based on current population. Now, there are those units who don't want to be any larger than a Lance, two Lances, a Company, a Battalion, etc., and they would be able to opt out, but would still be encouraged to grow their number, and they would continue to provide limiting factors to unit size benchmarks, and total units available to play. If all of the opt-in units are filled out, then growth, in both individual unit size and number of units available, could continue with the same benchmarks.

PGI would have to determine how those would run, though I would recommend they divide the total number of active players by 108 -a standard regiment for Inner Sphere- or 135 -for a nominal Clan Galaxy- for the total number of units available. Obviously, the standard Inner Sphere Lance would remain 4 'Mechs, while a Star, of course, would be 5. This would help even the units out and, guess what, it might actually seem like PGI gives a damn about the Lore at that point, as well.

Ofc you know that a star is 3 to 5 mechs. And btw the rest of your idea sounds horrible, because it does not translate to anything helpfull beside splitting big units in regiments/galaxys. So what do you wanna forbid people to come to a unit ts and those from Alpha Galaxy cound not play in a group with the Gamma galaxy. Lulz.

[Lukoi Banacek]

First off limiting unit size will not solve the alleged merc problem. Additionally, there are alot of implied boogiemen on this thread, but Russ is only poking at a handful of teams here. Hell there are loyalist, lore centric units with hundred of members, so how does unit capping help anything in regards to CW?

Given loyalist units a way to impact their faction's "course" while limiting mercs to merely taking contracts, would be hugely helpful (and akin to lore, nicely enough) without forcing larger units to break up when tbh, they will play together regardless if they want to.

[crustydog]

On another note - one of the main reasons why the big units tend not to fight each other is, for the most part, big units tend to attack in CW and seldom defend. This is not because they are unwilling to defend - defense, in many respects, is easier than attacking. This is because of the queue mechanics of CW - if you take a chance on defending planets, you risk potentially sitting around doing nothing for a very long time. The bigger units know this, because they have more CW experience.

The primary factor in choosing a mode is where you can get a game, or if you are going after a specific planet. This usually involves attacking. PGI should be more accommodating of the bigger units, the units who actually attack planets, for without the 12 mans, there is no coordinating attacking in CW ( except mostly FRR, a faction that operates similar to a single large unit.)

Large units cannot be scapegoated for choosing to concentrate on attack, when the mechanics of CW, programmed by PGI, support attacking as the most efficient form of game play. If the larger units are not going at each other, perhaps the fault lies in PGI's CW queue design, and not the fighting will of larger units.

[Crenue]

I don't like the idea of the breakup, but I do see what Russ is pointing at.

CW is a freaking Joke. The Big units dominate it, and if new and lower player get to play in it; they get totally smashed. Then u still got some issues of people (I still think its units doing this) of people DCing or AFKing in CW.

There is NO real punishments for units that switch sides and so on. So it encourages random BS in the system.

PGI needs to make it like Negative GXP and cBills for switching sides, maybe make it long wait times too. Higher the loyalty, worse the punishments. Buttler those hands and go in wrist deep on them. You know?!

Quit allowing lower level players to play against the unit drops. Some kind of Tier system where you are only playing players that at +/- 1 tier from each other. Just to avoid all the BS games. CW royally sucks for them and people play it, and then they quit playing.

[GI Journalist]

Tombstoner, on 29 December 2015 - 02:35 PM, said:

The smart player attacks the weakest position and reaps the resulting rewards. This is supposed to be a simulation of the succession wars and the clan invasion. Anything goes, If some units chose to not attack strong opposition and effectively game the system maximizing their return on time invested. I call that smart game play.

PGI built the wrong kind of match making system for simulating the succession wars. players take advantage go figure...

I agree. I think PGI created an exploitable system in which the players can determine their opponents or deny an opponent a match. A blind matching system in which a mercenary unit accepts a contract for a mission or a loyalist unit recieves a mission assignment would provide more competition and reduce wait times. This game shouldn't be about redrawing lines on a map. It should be about units building up their reputation by growing in size, skill or prestige. It can't work if the game enables the players to limit their opponents.

Even internal House fighting happens all the time in BattleTech. The missions should include this as well. Planets don't have to change hands to impact unit reputation, IE "Dragoon Rating". In the BatttleTech mercenary universe, THAT is what matters to the units, not who controls the worlds.

[Karl Marlow]

Something people don't bring up but I feel is potentially a problem is the call to arms mechanic. All it does is pull PUGs in for the slaughter.

[cSand]

What if R&R was for merc units?
But make it so they have to get paid more for contracts or some balancing hooey like that

Edited by cSand, 29 December 2015 - 09:24 PM.

[Davegt27]

Odins Steed, on 29 December 2015 - 04:13 PM, said:

The problem is these people aren't avoiding each other on purpose, but because they move for the same reasons. I briefly was the Isengrim officer in -MS- and got the opportunity to sit in on the meetings where we discussed contracts. Other units were never brought up as a reason for or against moving. What mechs people wanted to play was the most common reason; whether it be because they'd been Clan or IS too long, new mech packs out, balance changes, whatever.

My unit goes where things are tough

when a faction is down on planets when times are hard thats where the Flying Sharks go

[DaFrog]

Mystere, on 29 December 2015 - 02:54 PM, said:

Units are the equivalent of highly-trained soldiers, PUGs are the equivalent of local militia, and the former almost always crush the latter. In a quasi war simulation, that is how things should be.

Having said that, it can be mitigated by more imaginative game modes, maps, and overall game depth. But, the obsessive demand by players for nothing short of 100% symmetrical end-to-end balance works against all that.

Right. and when the local militia resort to guerilla warfare, the big units cry to Russ and the devs to come up with crap rules about wasting their time in match.

[DaFrog]

Zfailboat, on 29 December 2015 - 03:02 PM, said:

And as usual Russ just doesn't get it, he is blaming others for PGI's own release and event scheduling.

Now I am no big wig in 228th. but taking the last 6 weeks our contracts go like this.

F.Y.I. our last 4 faction, Kurita (before last quirk pass). Wolf, for Turkyyid, Jade Falcon, for II-C mechs, FRR - to try new IS Quirks in CW.

1. Clan for Turkyyid. (we were Kurita before this). This was simple. Event on, numbers of players per faction. we picked the smaller side to have less waiting time. If we were IS for this, everyone would have had longer wait times.

2. Changed to Jade Falcon after this. Stayed clans however as II-C mechs where being released. and we wanted to both play them, and science builds in them for CW.

3. changed to IS. We had been clans for 4 weeks, now we changed to IS. First time we are trying new quirks in IS and Russ puts out stoking stuffer event, so of course we will do CW and get grab bags.

I don't know what we will do next. However what will likely come into our thinking is.
1. where will we get most games
2. is there new mechs in next 2 weeks that players want to lvl.
3. is there a group we have not been lately, with attack lines that new members can get easy mech bays from.

Remember, we didn't make the rewards, but CW3 is going to remove LP rewards from mercs. So if we are getting free mech bays, it needs to be now before CW3.

thanks for your forthright comment on merc units agenda. i honestly never thought of that. So whenever there is something issued by PGI, I will stay away from CW, since big time merc units only play CW for the rewards and not for fun ...

You can try IS quirks and level your IIcs in public.... BTW

[Jalthibuster]

Odins Steed, on 29 December 2015 - 04:13 PM, said:

The problem is these people aren't avoiding each other on purpose, but because they move for the same reasons. I briefly was the Isengrim officer in -MS- and got the opportunity to sit in on the meetings where we discussed contracts. Other units were never brought up as a reason for or against moving. What mechs people wanted to play was the most common reason; whether it be because they'd been Clan or IS too long, new mech packs out, balance changes, whatever.

Yep, which unit is playing where doesn't matter one bit. Questions only are, what Mechs are to be played and, more important, where the biggest resistance is to be expected. Playing Liao for example makes no sense because it would take forever to get a game.

[Leggin Ho]

I'll be interested in see what Russ thinks he can do af far as who picks contracts, because if every unit in a faction, that's not a merc, is not allowed to throw contracts (which is what every other CW type of league I've ever played in) then folks are goona QQ about not having the same ability as the "favored" unit's.

Right now the unit's being thrown under the bus are also the unit's that are most active in CW, you sure Russ really want's to drive them away, NBT did that once and it took them almost 2 years to get the same quality and number of unit's to come back because of the heavy handed tactic's used by the admin's.

If you attempt to "limit" the active unit's ability to attack or play CW when and how they want or can with folks all being different time zones then once again your just going to drive away the most active players you have.

Until there is a fully functioning economy then contract's mean nothing in CW anymore than owning planet's or the cost's for transportation to or from a base of operation for the mercs, repairs, ammo, so until PGI actually gives us what they have been promising since the very start, CW will remain exactly what it is, a 4 drop game mode used to gain cbill's, exp, gxp and loyalty rewards period.

Guess we will see just what Russ is going to show us in CW3, hopefully that will actually be a priority even if that means less new mechs and things they can sell, since they sold us that bill of goods at the very start of MWO and what CW was supposed to be.

Edited by Leggin Ho, 29 December 2015 - 09:49 PM.

[Deathlike]

It's still unclear what Russ means about fixing Mercs (remember, the system that was created favors faction hopping and planets for no real purpose).

The best way to think about CW action is mostly derived by ALL LARGE Merc units. As a unit decides to attack another faction, PUGs of the same and opposing faction usually follow. Back when Mercstar started with Ghost Bear, growth to Ghost Bear happened AFAIK. Same happened to Clan Wolf in Phase 2.

When Mercstar has been in other factions, such as Kurita, it did benefit Kurita indirectly due to their temporary presence. Whether you agree or not where Mercstar goes or why, they have a direct impact on what happens.

For a "loyalist unit", you have to effectively "grow" your PUGs through CW activity indirectly. The idea is that if you show your own PUGs the definition of success, you'll indirectly feed into having more players (while not necessarily loyal to the faction, but loyal to the group they are playing with).

The problem for loyalists though is that they don't all grow in skill (and ultimately success) and one could argue that the most "successful factions" are the ones that work together... with the people they play with (with or w/o Mercs), through their faction hubs.

Mercs tend to gravitate a lot towards the active faction hubs. It ensures the a healthy population to do CW with.


The inherent problem is ultimately those factions (or specifically, loyalist factions) that aren't willing to "get good". While I'm not saying everyone needs to go meta, but they need to be on the same page... whether it is dropdecks, teamwork, or simply just knowing how to shoot.


Blaming Mercs (or limiting them - especially if its through the roster) isn't really the problem... it's mainly PGI's problem, but the factions themselves (minus the Mercs) dictates how welcoming or unwelcoming a Merc's experience is with that faction.

[Eboli]

Ok, this idea may come in for some criticism...

How about loyalist units get paid an additional CBill % bonus. The longer the contact the higher % bonus. I know that there already is a bonus loyalty point system but CBills are important to a lot of players (especially newish players). Make the bonuses attractive enough to make players to really think about their choice between Merc or House.

The alternative would be that Mercs get something like a 10% R&R deduction because Merc units are paying for their own armaments etc and that all Merc mechwarriors live a harder life at the trade off advantage of flexibility. R&R deduction is being used as an example but all it means is that Mercs earn less per CW game.

I prefer my first option as Mercs cannot complain that they are being penalised actheyvare still earning the same amount as what the formular currently is but it is just that House can afford to pay their mechwarriors more.

Just my 2c worth to this discussion.
Eboli

Edited by Eboli, 29 December 2015 - 10:20 PM.

[sycocys]

Short of a small (less then 50) cap, what does he really think he'll accomplish?

Make it better to be loyal and the merc units will just be loyal in the same faction until they feel like moving to the next faction. Then they'll take the penalty and do it all over again.

[eSeifer]

Some MERC units are made up of several smaller units working as an organization. Making smaller unit sizes will not bring anything to change.

Make being a loyal member to a house worth something.

Please and thank you Russ.

[Mystere]

DaFrog, on 29 December 2015 - 09:30 PM, said:

Right. and when the local militia resort to guerilla warfare, the big units cry to Russ and the devs to come up with crap rules about wasting their time in match.

Well, you will not find me complaining about such tactics. In fact, you're going to find me supporting them.

[Lyoto Machida]

ZenFool, on 29 December 2015 - 05:46 PM, said:

Let me get this straight. They gave incentives for people to jump sides, then got mad because they did?

I say this as a Steiner loyalist who finally bit the bullet two months ago to get my mechbays.

I'm not defending coordinated unit hopping or the seal clubbing that it generates at all, but it seems ridiculous that PGI would get upset. They couldn't have set it up better for unit hopping if they had tried to.

Also, if they had intentionally tried to set it up better for unit hopping, they would have broken something like Clan arm actuators.