522 replies to this topic

[Armando]

MerryIguana, on 05 January 2016 - 09:30 AM, said:

Entitled whales are the #1 problem with this game (and many others.) Wrap your little brain around this. Season X you play IS, then season Y you play clan. Whew, that was tough.

Allowing Houses / Clans to 100% dictate where mercs fight is a problem for ALL mercs. Doesn't matter if the merc has spent $0 dollars or is an 'entitled whale' who spent $5,000+ dollars..... forcing the player base into ONLY being able to use 1/2 the mechs in their inventory is a HORRIBLE IDEA. Telling a group of friend that they can't drop together anymore is even worse!

PGI does either, and they won't have to worry about catering to 'entitled whales' anymore, or anyone else either, because they will all be playing other games. It will solve the issue of mercs controlling the map, but with no money coming in good luck with the continued development of the game.

Edited by Armando, 05 January 2016 - 11:38 AM.

[NextGame]

sycocys, on 05 January 2016 - 08:23 AM, said:

And none of that is meant to stop friends from dropping with their friends, nor would it do anything to prevent that. It simply reduces the effect of merc units flopping around the map with huge amounts of players unless they want to have a bunch of smaller units coordinating timed movements.

Want to have a large unit? Be a loyal one and have the additional support base (going into lore) of taxes and government that would allow you to have a large unit. Merc units simply would never be able to sustain the huge numbers that these units are moving around.

This allows CW and sides to start to see some balance play out rather than the wild shifts of groups chasing free mechbays.

It doesnt stop ****.

You just make multiple smaller units and move them all at the same time.

[Tesunie]

Armando, on 05 January 2016 - 11:29 AM, said:

The Clans / Houses create the contracts (Give incentives to mercs to fight for THEM).
The Mercs choose which contracts they will or will not take.

So I have to ask, since when can I House force a Merc Unit to take a contract????

Via the voting for attack lane, that is the contract provided. Mercs don't sign up for one battle, and then free range for the next contract. They typically contract for a house/employer, and then stick with them for X given time to perform Y duties. Be it an attack, garrison, etc. The voting actually would support this cause, producing very much similar results.

Your second point is.. confusing. But, if I understand it correctly, we have it so that Merc groups can just take contracts from any house/clan freely for game play sake. It might not be realistic, but it helps ease game play mechanics, so that players can have choice. Otherwise, who would be the one to determine contracts and stuff?


Of course, did you see the proposed option/change for Lone Wolves? They would be only able to go to Planetary Alerts from the sounds of it. They would have no faction, and would go as a solo player into any queue, any house/clan, any faction. Where ever the fighting may happen to be, and more players are needed. (Of course, if I understood their small glimpse of the plan in that one spoiler video.)

[JaxRiot]

Apologies for going a tad off topic here, but does anyone have any idea when Phase 3 is coming?

I ask because we have been in Phase 2 for something like a Year I think, and Phase 3 was supposedly being finalized last February or March. 9 or 10 months ago and still no Phase 3.

If Phase 3 is going to be anything like Phase 2s development cycle, we wont see a finished non Beta CW until what?... Mid to late 2017?

It just seems like a very long Beta for a Game Mode.

[Armando]

Tesunie, on 05 January 2016 - 11:36 AM, said:

Via the voting for attack lane, that is the contract provided. Mercs don't sign up for one battle, and then free range for the next contract. They typically contract for a house/employer, and then stick with them for X given time to perform Y duties. Be it an attack, garrison, etc. The voting actually would support this cause, producing very much similar results.

Your second point is.. confusing. But, if I understand it correctly, we have it so that Merc groups can just take contracts from any house/clan freely for game play sake. It might not be realistic, but it helps ease game play mechanics, so that players can have choice. Otherwise, who would be the one to determine contracts and stuff?


Of course, did you see the proposed option/change for Lone Wolves? They would be only able to go to Planetary Alerts from the sounds of it. They would have no faction, and would go as a solo player into any queue, any house/clan, any faction. Where ever the fighting may happen to be, and more players are needed. (Of course, if I understood their small glimpse of the plan in that one spoiler video.)

The whole "Via the voting for attack lane" only affects merc units AFTER they have accepted a contract with a House / Clan, and does nothing to take away the choice of IF the merc unit takes the contract offer, or choose move on in search of greener pastures instead.

In a system like this , the Houses / Clans that offer the 'best' contracts will attract the 'best' merc units to fight for them....however, it does NOT give Houses / Clans the ability to FORCE a merc unit into taking a contract.

Edited by Armando, 05 January 2016 - 11:48 AM.

[Tesunie]

Armando, on 05 January 2016 - 11:34 AM, said:

Allowing Houses / Clans to 100% dictate where mercs fight is a problem for ALL mercs. Doesn't matter if the merc has spent $0 dollars or is an 'entitled whale' who spent $5,000+ dollars..... forcing the player base into ONLY being able to use 1/2 the mechs in their inventory is a HORRIBLE IDEA. Telling a group of friend that they can't drop together anymore is even worse!

There are other modes of play besides CW, for the record. And, if you have friends playing, you can compromise and flip between the IS and Clans from time to time, like every 2 weeks. Keeps the whole inventory available, and changes things up a bit from time to time for your group.

Or, you can do what other players have done, create two accounts. One is IS mechs only, and allies with the IS. The other is Clan mechs only, and allied with the Clans. Then, depending upon what your group of friends wish to play, you all just log into the appropriate allied account and play together.


I'll even say, I am primarily IS. My unit is Marik Loyalist. However, I do own clan mechs, and I have left my unit for a couple weeks to play Clan CW from time to time. Beyond that, I just play my Clan mechs in Quick Play Pugs (or occasional group queue with my unit).

What you want is basically everything goes. But that would be like having an Aliens vs Confederates of Earth game, and everyone being able to use the same exact gear. There would be no flavor, no lore, no story. This type of game play is not what many players want. We typically want Clans to be Clans, and IS to be IS. I wouldn't mind salvage type rules, and could maybe get on board with one out of the four mech drop slots in a CW deck being able to be of the other faction, but I don't think it would be overly good, for faction nor in appearance prospects.

[sycocys]

Go throw a fit and leave then Armando, I can pretty well bet that 90%+ of the rest of your unit will just act like adults and adjust to being loyalists for longer stretches of time.

Then after a while when you realize your "friends" didn't have a meltdown like a little child and run off you'll come back, or not really doesn't matter at that point.

[Khobai]

Quote

Capping unit's size and/or it's ability does nothing other then remove player choice, which is terrible for design of any game.

actually capping unit sizes does a lot more than just remove player choice. itll create more units and help get units distributed more evenly across factions. itll also prevent singular units from dominating factions as much as they do now. and lastly itll make a bunch of crybabies quit the game which is the biggest plus of all.

i for one cant wait to see these big units of like 500 players get hit with a 50-100 player unit cap. its gonna be hilarious.

Quote

Noone's Fun is more important then anyone else's

false. if youre one of those idiots thats hopping around factions gaming the system for rewards then your fun is definitely less important than mine.

if you didnt want your huge factions getting capped at 50-100 players you shouldnt have abused the system. you brought it on yourselves. now stop being crybabies. man up and take responsibility for your actions.

Edited by Khobai, 05 January 2016 - 12:05 PM.

[Armando]

sycocys, on 05 January 2016 - 11:54 AM, said:

Go throw a fit and leave then Armando, I can pretty well bet that 90%+ of the rest of your unit will just act like adults and adjust to being loyalists for longer stretches of time.

Then after a while when you realize your "friends" didn't have a meltdown like a little child and run off you'll come back, or not really doesn't matter at that point.

I'll let you go first. (because I'm a nice guy like that). /wink

Edited by Armando, 05 January 2016 - 12:05 PM.

[Armando]

Khobai, on 05 January 2016 - 11:59 AM, said:

actually capping unit sizes does a lot more than just remove player choice. itll create more units and help get units distributed more evenly across factions. itll also prevent singular units from dominating factions as much as they do now. and lastly itll make a bunch of crybabies quit the game which is the biggest plus of all.

i for one cant wait to see these big units of like 500 players get hit with a 50-100 player unit cap. its gonna be hilarious.

<sarcasm> Pissing off the 300+ / 400+ / 500+ member units will in no way shape or from come back to hunt PGI. I am sure they can tell all those units to piss off without any consequences or repercussions to game development (and no WAY it will affect PGI's bottom line). </sarcasm>

Edited by Armando, 05 January 2016 - 12:09 PM.

[Khobai]

so quit the game

nobody cares if you do

[Tesunie]

Khobai, on 05 January 2016 - 11:59 AM, said:

actually capping unit sizes does a lot more than just remove player choice. itll create more units and help get units distributed more evenly across factions. itll also prevent singular units from dominating factions as much as they do now. and lastly itll make a bunch of crybabies quit the game which is the biggest plus of all.

i for one cant wait to see these big units of like 500 players get hit with a 50-100 player unit cap. its gonna be hilarious.

I shall just agree to disagree.

A unit cap wont really help the situation, and I feel it would only be a detriment to the game. Large units hit by a unit cap would simply create a lot of small allied units, and only mask their overall movements more. Either that, or the extra work would just make those players no longer wish to play CW.

What CW needs, is population. To get that, it needs more to the system. It needs to have a reason to fight for planets. A reason to expand a faction. That's just a start of what CW needs.

Get more population and those large units start to lose influence, as they no longer are the population. Then, in order to make a name for yourself, a unit would have to be skilled (which I'm not implying MS nor 228 are not skilled) to make a name for themselves.

[Texas Merc]

We have a Loyalist Clan (CJF) and a Loyalist Innersphere (Liao) unit so that players who want to use both sets of mechs can come and go between each.

[Khobai]

Quote

What CW needs, is population.

what CW needs is a more evenly distributed population of skilled players

skilled players have a tendency to clump up in units. So those units need to be broken up in the same way that monopolies are broken up and turned into smaller companies.

getting rid of crybabies is just a bonus


whether you agree with it or not doesnt really matter. russ is gonna do it. lololol.

Edited by Khobai, 05 January 2016 - 12:14 PM.

[Armando]

Khobai, on 05 January 2016 - 12:13 PM, said:

what CW needs is a more evenly distributed population of skilled players

skilled players have a tendency to clump up in units. So those units need to be broken up in the same way that monopolies are broken up and turned into smaller companies.

getting rid of crybabies is just a bonus


whether you agree with it or not doesnt really matter. russ is gonna do it. lololol.

The crybabies who rage about "I can't beat a large unit" but insist "I will never join a unit" will never go away.

[Tesunie]

Khobai, on 05 January 2016 - 12:13 PM, said:

what CW needs is a more evenly distributed population of skilled players

skilled players have a tendency to clump up in units. So those units need to be broken up in the same way that monopolies are broken up and turned into smaller companies.

getting rid of crybabies is just a bonus

A higher overall population would probably still help the game out. Right now, we had a decent population spread in the last event. IS I believe had more population? The problem is getting those players to come out when it isn't a CW event running, and giving them a reason to continue to play CW as a whole.

The problem with restricting unit size are:
- It just forces those units to make several proxy units. What would stop MS from making MS-A (Merc Star Alpha), 1MS1 (First Merc Star) and...
- It punishes smaller units as well. For example, my own unit has over 100 members, almost 200. We tend to have around 60 active CW players at a given week, who can cycle between CW and PUG matches. We also have a lot of our unit who just PUG, and never plays CW unless it's an event. We would then have to separate our own unit down, even though we aren't a large population, nor are we overly influential in the CW map.
- Doesn't actually break up the population, as those multi-mini units would still go with the same faction.
- If you limit population per faction, it will lead to frustrated players, who want to ally with "their favorite faction".
- I'm sure there are more...

Overall, unit caps wouldn't really do much. Faction caps would be more beneficial to game play, but harmful for player population and player interest. As I said, I'm going to have to agree to just disagree with you on this one. I don't see the concept as working very well.

[Khobai]

Quote

What would stop MS from making MS-A

Nothing.

but the key difference is those two units can be in DIFFERENT factions.

Where now -MS- can only be in one factoin at a time

[Tesunie]

Khobai, on 05 January 2016 - 12:40 PM, said:

Nothing.

but the key difference is those two units can be in DIFFERENT factions.

Where now -MS- can only be in one factoin at a time

If they are a pseudo unit of a larger unit broken down by unit size restrictions... do you REALLY think they would go different factions? Be honest here...

[Khobai]

Quote

If they are a pseudo unit of a larger unit broken down by unit size restrictions... do you REALLY think they would go different factions? Be honest here...

sure why not? especially if the loyalty reward structure is changed to punish faction hopping and reward loyalists.

[Tesunie]

Khobai, on 05 January 2016 - 12:47 PM, said:

sure why not? especially if the loyalty reward structure is changed to punish faction hopping and reward loyalists.

They still would all go the same faction, use the same TS, and continue to play together. If faction hopping was punished, all that would mean is they would just jump factions less often.

It wouldn't solve anything really, besides to make a lot of players upset needlessly, and then the large units movements would start to become masked in a slew of different named units all acting together.