522 replies to this topic

[Alex Reed]

Armando,

I am not going to quote you ... I am just curious about the ranting, raving, and downright bullying of other players just to extol the virtues of your unit's W/L record.

When I look at your posts in response to those of others that are offered on this subject, I can only think of one response.

As we say here in the South, "When you throw a rock into a pack of dogs, the one that yelps the loudest probably got hit."

It's just a game and everyone still has a right to an opinion. PGI will do what they feel is in the best interest of the game and, like it or not, we will play this game because we love the lore and franchise.

No one is attacking you, The Forsaken Few, or your megaunit ... simply stating opinions. If a debate of ideas gets you that upset, perhaps you should get out more.

Sincerely,

Alex..

[Armando]

Alex Reed, on 08 January 2016 - 01:34 PM, said:

Armando,

I am not going to quote you ... I am just curious about the ranting, raving, and downright bullying of other players just to extol the virtues of your unit's W/L record.

When I look at your posts in response to those of others that are offered on this subject, I can only think of one response.

As we say here in the South, "When you throw a rock into a pack of dogs, the one that yelps the loudest probably got hit."

It's just a game and everyone still has a right to an opinion. PGI will do what they feel is in the best interest of the game and, like it or not, we will play this game because we love the lore and franchise.

No one is attacking you, The Forsaken Few, or your megaunit ... simply stating opinions. If a debate of ideas gets you that upset, perhaps you should get out more.

Sincerely,

Alex..

I can understand and respect this post, and to be clear I am not upset by anything, anyone has posted. The point that I have been trying to make is that REAL issue is 'teamwork'. Some pilots play as a team, others don't. The ones that do win far more often than the ones who don't...for this reason the best way to 'balance' the game is by 'balancing' the teams.

Problem with this is....many, Many, MANY players don't want to play a team based game with teammates which makes 'balancing' teams almost impossible.

Of course PGI 'could' go the 'other' way....NO MORE TEAMS ALLOWED, PERIOD, END OF STORY. Problem with THIS is even if people can no longer share a unit tag, it will do nothing to stop them from working together and the cycle continues.
________________________________________

At some point PGI is going to have to make a choice....either the choose to promote team work, OR, they choose to eliminate it. Until that happens the pilots that choose to play as a team will ALWAYS beat up on people who are to lazy to be bothered.

Of course PGI could give Factions / Mercs / Loan Wolves different In-game 'goals'. It is for this reason that I have suggested multiple times that the 'goals' of factions, mercenaries, and lone wolves SHOULD BE different (Factions goal is planets, Mercenaries goal is C-Bills, Loan Wolves goal is Wins).

Edited by Armando, 08 January 2016 - 02:00 PM.

[Alex Reed]

OK, I am happy to hear that. After seeing all those capital letters, I was getting worried about your blood pressure.

You are correct ... this is a team-based game and teams should not be punished. But, it is the megaunits (not simple teams) that concern people.

The Seraphim Regiment is not a "mega unit" ... we have 200 active MechWarriors. The problem is, we cannot field half that many on any given night due to schedules and real-life priorities.

If Russ went with his last Town Hall idea, I would have to split my team four ways to make it work. My problem is not that I could not get all four subfaction groups to play together ... it is the fact that players who have carried the [SRPH] TAG for three years would get upset at having to give it up.

To me, that is the question ... should a unit be forced to alter its identity and the identity/esprit de corps of the players due to a new game restriction?

Also, a megaunit can attack a Marik planet and get significant ghost drops by overwhelming the queue and, if a battalion of my men show up, it is game over before it started. Ghost drops are the one thing that irritate me more than megaunits. I do not understand why ghost drops are never allowed on Tukayyid events but are acceptable at all other times. The banning of ghost drops is the only reason the Clans won Tuk I and Tuk II.

But, yes, team building needs to be rewarded and shown as the path to success in the game. That would encourage more Lone Wolves to join and give them a more satisfying MWO experience.

Edited by Alex Reed, 08 January 2016 - 02:21 PM.

[Alex Reed]

Also, if a someone is so worried about a megaunit ... do your homework, find out who is employing them, and then pick a faction that does not have an adjacent border, right?

[Haakon Magnusson]

Silhouette Shadows, on 07 January 2016 - 09:10 AM, said:

I'm not really understanding what do you mean when you say upside down? Are you saying that there is something wrong with the way the map is currently painted? If so, why? If a team who was losing is now gaining ground - what's inherently wrong with that?

It is the amount of the impact. As it now is, FW will be ruled by the whims of mercs.
Which certainly, should have an impact but still there should be encouragement to stick as a loyalist as well, as it currently is there is absolutely no incentive other then own reasons (Actually considering mech bay rewards, faction hopping would be the sensible thing to do)

[Hotthedd]

Armando, on 08 January 2016 - 01:20 PM, said:

Loyalist Units don't consistently agree with each other who should be attacked when, so please do tell who dictates the attack lanes???

Loyalist Faction Loan Wolves ????
Faction Loyalist Units ????

Yes, I would think anyone under (what is now) a "permanent contract" with a Faction would be able to vote.

Armando, on 08 January 2016 - 01:20 PM, said:

Are you going to vote? How does that even work? How often does a Faction get to vote during the day? When does the vote take place (is it ALWAYS at 21:00 EST???).

No. My unit does not have a permanent contract with any faction, so I would not get to vote.
How does it work? Majority rule I suppose.
How often does a Faction get to vote? When? PGI would have to make some changes to CW rounds to make this work, but a sensible solution would be Every day, 24 hour cycle. Vote ends at the same time every day. Of course the battle cycle would have to change to 24 hours as well, but IMHO it SHOULD be that long.

Armando, on 08 January 2016 - 01:20 PM, said:

And NONE of this stops those 'Big Bad Mercenary" units from winning game, after game, after game, after game. Winners are going to WIN. Losers are going to cry, none of this changes any of that.

Yeah, okay.
I am not arguing that point at all, so I'm not sure why that was in your reply.

[Armando]

Hotthedd, on 08 January 2016 - 03:38 PM, said:

How often does a Faction get to vote? When? PGI would have to make some changes to CW rounds to make this work, but a sensible solution would be Every day, 24 hour cycle. Vote ends at the same time every day. Of course the battle cycle would

Let's follow this this through....Faction vote is every 24 hours, so either NA, or EU, or Oceanic gets to vote, while the other two parts of the world are working / sleeping? How is that equality?

[Hotthedd]

Armando, on 08 January 2016 - 04:19 PM, said:

Let's follow this this through....Faction vote is every 24 hours, so either NA, or EU, or Oceanic gets to vote, while the other two parts of the world are working / sleeping? How is that equality?

I'm sorry I was not clear.
the voting would be OPEN for 24 hours, so everybody would have a chance to vote on the next open attack lane(s).

[Thumper3]

TL;DR

Actually, read about half the thread, LOL

Anyway, some people have hit the nail on the head while others still keep suggesting small, minor changes that will give some short term advantage but ultimately are just a waste of resources and a delay for what really needs to happen.


The only thing that needs to be done to fix these issues is to implement a true economy and a reason to hold planets. When Mercenaries (and I am one BTW) have to pay their own R&R, and have to relay on contracts and maintain relationships with factions for facilities these issues will work themselves out. When faction hopping is not only discouraged (instead of encouraged and designed to be the norm) but downright painful....these issues will work themselves out.

We need to stop pestering PGI for small fixs and then complaining they didn't work so do THIS fix instead, etc.....and just keep demanding and letting them work on getting a real CW economy developed and out.

[Armando]

Hotthedd, on 08 January 2016 - 04:21 PM, said:

I'm sorry I was not clear.
the voting would be OPEN for 24 hours, so everybody would have a chance to vote on the next open attack lane(s).

This is a solid recommendation IMO. two thumbs up!!!

Next question: How many votes per day?

One vote per cycle, on which faction to attack? (only one planet attack available at a time, vote determines which faction get attacked)?

Multiple votes per cycle? (choose one planet for each 'boarder' the faction has with each Houses/Clans)?
_________________________________________________

What about attacking other Houses, or other Clans? (Can Inner Spear ONLY attack Clan? Can Clan ONLY attack IS?).
_________________________________________________

Does this move the developers away from the KISS principle that is the hallmark of a well designed application / game???

Edited by Armando, 08 January 2016 - 04:41 PM.

[Hotthedd]

Armando, on 08 January 2016 - 04:35 PM, said:

This is a solid recommendation IMO. two thumbs up!!!

Next question: How many votes per day?

One vote per cycle, on which faction to attack? (only one planet attack available at a time, vote determines which faction get attacked)?

Multiple votes per cycle? (choose one planet for each 'boarder' the faction has with each Houses/Clans)?
_________________________________________________

What about attacking other Houses, or other Clans? (Can Inner Spear ONLY attack Clan? Can Clan ONLY attack IS?).
_________________________________________________

Does this move the developers away from the KISS principle that is the hallmark of a well designed application / game???

I guess it would be up to PGI, but as for me I would say one vote per territorial border per cycle, and make each cycle 24 hrs.

Again, if it were up to me, any faction that shares a border could have a planet attacked (although with the option to vote 'no planet' on a selected border, in the case of an agreed alliance or treaty)

I believe this would be very simple to do.

[Korrner]

Reading many of the posts here, I can say one thing: DO NOT expect PGI to solve online gaming's problems.

Online gaming involves community. In sooooo many games, the community is so ****** that it ends up ruining the game. That's not the game maker's fault. What is the game maker's fault, sometimes, is the fact there are functionalities that could allow players to build their own, more private, communities to enjoy the game for a long time ... but that's not bringing cash in, so they don't bother. They could implement those ... that's how games USED to be made but most of the time, not anymore ... and that's by design.

They will juice out a game, then let it die and start working on the next one. That's how we consume EVERYTHING in our society (don't repair, buy a new one) so why would gaming be different ?

Now what we can do here ... is try to make the best out of it. There are not so many games who gives us the kind of competitive gameplay that MWO does. Just the fact that we can build our mechs ourselves ... that's a big part where I'm here.

It's hard to grow a good community, when you don't have the tools for it. Hope the developpers will take many ideas from this thread. Have a good night.

[Jman5]

What they should do is give units benefits for owning planets, but you give them up once you leave the faction. This would encourage larger successful units that have the numbers to take planets to stay with one faction while smaller units wouldn't be so burdened jumping around.

The secondary benefit is that units wouldnt want to be part of the faction that has the big units because its harder for them to take planets.

Edited by Jman5, 08 January 2016 - 07:53 PM.

[Kjudoon]

Another economic control that should exist.

[Tesunie]

Armando, on 08 January 2016 - 12:30 PM, said:

Make ANY CHANGE you want, and tell me the difference it makes to a group that wins 95% of their matchs? "Could" you FORCE THEM to stay one faction the entire time....SURE....but they are still going to win 95% of the matches. They are STILL going to take planets at a rate of 4 for every one the next best unit is going to take. The difference now is you have one SUPER FACTION that ALWAYS expands and NEVER loses planets.

How is having EVERY planet on the map belonging to FRR (really insert what ever faction here) going to make the game more fun??? (well, for anyone outside of FRR that is)

The only way to stop them from effecting the map is to STOP them from WINNING.

Force one of the large (WINS match after match after match) groups to break up into smaller groups, that CAN'T be in the same faction at the same time....They are still going to win drop after drop after drop (but now they can attack a faction from MULTIPLE fronts at the same time)....

Q.E.D. - You just made matters WORSE for the the faction getting attacked, because NOW instead of have one faction crushing the front of their skulls in, they get their skills crushed from the front, back, left, AND right side by MULTIPLE factions at the same time.
________________________________________

The problem is NOT with 'Big Units", the problem is NOT with "Units that move" the REAL issue is "Units that WIN".

Q.E.D. - Break a unit like 228 into 4 smaller units and 228 will now take 4x the planets they did before. Beak a unit like MS into 10 smaller units and MS will now take 10x the planets they did before.

Why, because it is NOT the 'size' of the unit, it is NOT the 'faction' the unit plays for...IT IS the '95 win out of 100 matches played' that is the root of the issues.

As already mentioned... Loyalist Voting to determine the attack lane for a "phase". Would give the Loyalists the control on where they are attacking, while leaving mercs (win, lose, large small, whatever) to still change factions and fight as they wish, however it would be at the targets designated by the faction.

Voting would be done by Loyalists (those with a permanent contract with a faction), and would probably be best to not be directed at a specific world, but just a faction. We do have a fairly good attack lane algorithm now. Might as well keep it in and use it. Only difference is, instead of having attack lanes on all boarder factions, it would be a select and voted faction. (Or two if need be even for balance and activity.)

As someone else stated, voting times would probably be open for 24 hours on the next 24 hour phase of attacks. So Loyalists would vote a day in advance for their targets (maintaining the 3 "waves" we have now, with ceasefires included), with the individual worlds selected by the computer.


Personally, I'd rather see one cease fire phase to determine a planet switching per day, but have it be total win percentage on each planetary territory determine if that planet will turn or not, instead of whatever was the last match played on it. Ghost drops could count for a smaller rating on this win percentage. I think this would really go a long ways towards helping CW, but that's just my opinion.

Hotthedd, on 08 January 2016 - 01:16 PM, said:

Is that set in stone?
If so, would voting "none" on one of the borders be an option?

I hope that has not been decided already, because it seems so lazy. Much better to just have 1 or 2 attack lanes that can be ANYWHERE on the border.

I believe it would be to determine what faction your faction is actually attacking, rather than specific planets. If I understand the proposed concept by PGI.

Armando, on 08 January 2016 - 01:20 PM, said:

Loyalist Units don't consistently agree with each other who should be attacked when, so please do tell who dictates the attack lanes???

Loyalist Faction Loan Wolves ????
Faction Loyalist Units ????

Are you going to vote? How does that even work? How often does a Faction get to vote during the day? When does the vote take place (is it ALWAYS at 21:00 EST???).

And NONE of this stops those 'Big Bad Mercenary" units from winning game, after game, after game, after game. Winners are going to WIN. Losers are going to cry, none of this changes any of that.

As mentioned above (but just to make sure I'm being clear, encase I missed anything):
- It could/would/should be any individual player with a loyalist contract with that faction that gets a vote.
- The vote would be majority rules.
- Probably a 24 hour period to vote for the next day's attack lane.
- It's not designed to stop "big bad mercs" from winning. It's suppose to give better direction, reduce the queue sizes by reducing the number of planets being contested, and give Loyalists direction over their faction including the mercs who have been hired by their faction.

[fbj]

TL;DR:

Just give me more bacon!

[Zolaz]

PGI hasnt put in any additional costs for CW yet. No transport costs for mercs. No Repair and Rearm for mercs. Basically, mercs are getting all the benefits of being a House unit and none of the downsides.

If you are smart you would be in a unit farming mech bays in CW right now. When PGI makes merc membership more onerous, newer players will head over to a House so that they arent losing c-bills playing CW.

What can you say? CW is still in beta. Wait a few more years for PGI to finish it before you QQ so much.

[Armando]

Tesunie, on 08 January 2016 - 07:59 PM, said:

As already mentioned... Loyalist Voting to determine the attack lane for a "phase". Would give the Loyalists the control on where they are attacking, while leaving mercs (win, lose, large small, whatever) to still change factions and fight as they wish, however it would be at the targets designated by the faction.

Voting would be done by Loyalists (those with a permanent contract with a faction), and would probably be best to not be directed at a specific world, but just a faction. We do have a fairly good attack lane algorithm now. Might as well keep it in and use it. Only difference is, instead of having attack lanes on all boarder factions, it would be a select and voted faction. (Or two if need be even for balance and activity.)

As someone else stated, voting times would probably be open for 24 hours on the next 24 hour phase of attacks. So Loyalists would vote a day in advance for their targets (maintaining the 3 "waves" we have now, with ceasefires included), with the individual worlds selected by the computer.


Personally, I'd rather see one cease fire phase to determine a planet switching per day, but have it be total win percentage on each planetary territory determine if that planet will turn or not, instead of whatever was the last match played on it. Ghost drops could count for a smaller rating on this win percentage. I think this would really go a long ways towards helping CW, but that's just my opinion.



I believe it would be to determine what faction your faction is actually attacking, rather than specific planets. If I understand the proposed concept by PGI.



As mentioned above (but just to make sure I'm being clear, encase I missed anything):
- It could/would/should be any individual player with a loyalist contract with that faction that gets a vote.
- The vote would be majority rules.
- Probably a 24 hour period to vote for the next day's attack lane.
- It's not designed to stop "big bad mercs" from winning. It's suppose to give better direction, reduce the queue sizes by reducing the number of planets being contested, and give Loyalists direction over their faction including the mercs who have been hired by their faction.

I love this post !!!

This is a sound, well thought out, suggestion that has the potential to improve the gaming experience for ALL pilots IMO. I would really appreciate it if you reworded it to be a 'stand alone suggestion' to PGI and post it in the "'SOLO' IS AN ILLUSION, 24 LOCKED IN 12 VS 12 COMBAT IS REALITY." thread.

Edited by Armando, 09 January 2016 - 12:51 PM.

[Hotthedd]

Armando, on 09 January 2016 - 12:48 PM, said:

I love this post !!!

This is a sound, well thought out, suggestion that has the potential to improve the gaming experience for ALL pilots IMO. I would really appreciate it if you reworded it to be a 'stand alone suggestion' to PGI and post it in the "'SOLO' IS AN ILLUSION, 24 LOCKED IN 12 VS 12 COMBAT IS REALITY." thread.

Well that is just great.
21 pages of mostly civil debate and we all end up with something both sides like?

...that is the kiss of death. PGI will never do it.

[Armando]

Hotthedd, on 09 January 2016 - 01:51 PM, said:

Well that is just great.
21 pages of mostly civil debate and we all end up with something both sides like?

...that is the kiss of death. PGI will never do it.

I know RIGHT. lol