522 replies to this topic

[DarklightCA]

Lord Scarlett Johan, on 30 December 2015 - 07:52 PM, said:

Make Seasons for CW that last say... 2 months. Prior to participating in a season, you pick a tech base: IS or Clan, and you're locked in for the duration of the season. You can freely swap from House to House or Clan to Clan, but never House to Clan and vice versa.

It records each Tech Base's stats, faction's stats, unit's stats, and personal stats: planets lost, planets held, # of victories, # of defeats, # of mechs lost, # of mechs killed. And then throws in a Tukayyid-like event at the end and all the stats are held and awards are given to the top tech base and faction.


Boom.

The whole faction hopping problem solved.

I actually like that idea, would make things a lot more simple.

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

Tesunie, on 30 December 2015 - 03:56 PM, said:

I understand that fewer contested planets would consolidate the queues, but how would you go about exactly doing that?

Attack vector voting may very well be that solution. Instead of having every faction that can attack a nearby faction, it would instead be a vote on attacking 1 or 2 of those nearby factions. I believe this has already been announced as a proposed change for CW phase 3?

Of course, this does depend upon how they implement the attack voting changes too. If it's on what planets your faction wishes to attack, it could reduce those attack lanes. If it's what exact planets to attack for each faction... then it will do little to help.

Every faction has two planets with every adjacent faction, so FRR starts off with 8 total planets. One attack and one defend with each faction.

Simply putting planets on an attack/defend rotation with each faction would halve the buckets, consolidating players spread among 8 planets to 4. So FRR has one rotation of attack Steiner, defend from CW, attack CGB, defend from Kurita. Next rotation, defend from Steiner, attack CW, defend from CGB, attack Kurita.

[Tesunie]

Lord Scarlett Johan, on 30 December 2015 - 07:59 PM, said:

Every faction has two planets with every adjacent faction, so FRR starts off with 8 total planets. One attack and one defend with each faction.

Simply putting planets on an attack/defend rotation with each faction would halve the buckets, consolidating players spread among 8 planets to 4. So FRR has one rotation of attack Steiner, defend from CW, attack CGB, defend from Kurita. Next rotation, defend from Steiner, attack CW, defend from CGB, attack Kurita.

This wouldn't overly solve problems, as much as it may open more.

Many players prefer to have alliances with nearby factions, such as Marik and Liao. If we were on a rotational attack lane (which honestly doesn't overly make a lot of sense), we'd be forced to attack Liao at times. They have been our allies against Davion for a long time, and we wouldn't want to attack them because the system said we had to this attack phase.

This is where the voting for attack lanes would come in. If each faction had to only choose between an attack lane at a given time, the loyalists could vote for the faction they want to attack at that given time. Then, the planet they are attacking would be a defensive planet on the other side. This would make players (loyalists) want to choose their attack path carefully. If you choose to (for example) attack Jade Falcon as Steiner, and Marik decided to declare Steiner as their attack, Steiner would be deployed on the offensive in the wrong direction.

In this case, the number of proposed attack lanes could be adjusted, if a single lane was too few (which it probably would be). However, a voting system would give Loyalists a purpose, and control Merc units on where they are going to attack.


If I understood what was proposed by PGI for Phase 3 of CW, this style of voting is the current considered concept. Of course, I could be wrong.


(As a side note, I actually would prefer the Houses not engaged with the Clans to not disturb those with Clan fronts, unless aggression is directed otherwise. A rotational attack lane would hinder this concept, and would detract the war against the Clans, which is what CW is kinda aimed at right now. A voting system could enforce this, and also show where open hostilities really are, instead of a rouge merc group kicking up trouble,)

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

Tesunie, on 30 December 2015 - 08:15 PM, said:

This wouldn't overly solve problems, as much as it may open more.

Many players prefer to have alliances with nearby factions, such as Marik and Liao. If we were on a rotational attack lane (which honestly doesn't overly make a lot of sense), we'd be forced to attack Liao at times. They have been our allies against Davion for a long time, and we wouldn't want to attack them because the system said we had to this attack phase.

This is where the voting for attack lanes would come in. If each faction had to only choose between an attack lane at a given time, the loyalists could vote for the faction they want to attack at that given time. Then, the planet they are attacking would be a defensive planet on the other side. This would make players (loyalists) want to choose their attack path carefully. If you choose to (for example) attack Jade Falcon as Steiner, and Marik decided to declare Steiner as their attack, Steiner would be deployed on the offensive in the wrong direction.

In this case, the number of proposed attack lanes could be adjusted, if a single lane was too few (which it probably would be). However, a voting system would give Loyalists a purpose, and control Merc units on where they are going to attack.


If I understood what was proposed by PGI for Phase 3 of CW, this style of voting is the current considered concept. Of course, I could be wrong.


(As a side note, I actually would prefer the Houses not engaged with the Clans to not disturb those with Clan fronts, unless aggression is directed otherwise. A rotational attack lane would hinder this concept, and would detract the war against the Clans, which is what CW is kinda aimed at right now. A voting system could enforce this, and also show where open hostilities really are, instead of a rouge merc group kicking up trouble,)

Wat?

You missed the mark.

Liao and Marik have an alliance? Having one planet to contest over instead of two doesn't change diddly. They still have a Non-aggression pact. Instead of currently having to two planets against Davion, two against Steiner, and two against Liao, they now have three total instead of six: one against Steiner, one against Liao, and one against Davion; literally consolidating the queues.


Either way, the voting system or reducing the number of available targets would work in consolidating the queues. And that's what's needed at the moment.

[MischiefSC]

Lord Scarlett Johan, on 30 December 2015 - 07:52 PM, said:

Make Seasons for CW that last say... 2 months. Prior to participating in a season, you pick a tech base: IS or Clan, and you're locked in for the duration of the season. You can freely swap from House to House or Clan to Clan, but never House to Clan and vice versa.

It records each Tech Base's stats, faction's stats, unit's stats, and personal stats: planets lost, planets held, # of victories, # of defeats, # of mechs lost, # of mechs killed. And then throws in a Tukayyid-like event at the end and all the stats are held and awards are given to the top tech base and faction.


Boom.

The whole faction hopping problem solved.

Your suggestion is logical and reasonable.

As such it is doomed to oblivion here. When Russ introduces 'Ghost Faction-Switching' I'm going to blame you for making a reasonable suggestion, which in turn drives PGI to do something totally irrational.

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

MischiefSC, on 31 December 2015 - 01:48 AM, said:

Your suggestion is logical and reasonable.

As such it is doomed to oblivion here. When Russ introduces 'Ghost Faction-Switching' I'm going to blame you for making a reasonable suggestion, which in turn drives PGI to do something totally irrational.

Should I start licking windows?

[Tesunie]

Sorry, long post. Tire, and I may have rambled a little...

Lord Scarlett Johan, on 31 December 2015 - 01:29 AM, said:

Wat?

You missed the mark.

Liao and Marik have an alliance? Having one planet to contest over instead of two doesn't change diddly. They still have a Non-aggression pact. Instead of currently having to two planets against Davion, two against Steiner, and two against Liao, they now have three total instead of six: one against Steiner, one against Liao, and one against Davion; literally consolidating the queues.


Either way, the voting system or reducing the number of available targets would work in consolidating the queues. And that's what's needed at the moment.

Ummm... Not really?

You were talking about a rotational attack path, where each attack phase (whatever given length of time) would be on a rotation, so one moment you could be (in Marik's example) attacking Davion/defending Steiner, then next phase Liao/Steiner, then Steiner/Davion, then back to Davion/Liao... With no control. This leaves the Merc and Loyalist at the same level still.


The Voting system PGI is contemplating (from what I've grasped of it) would be limiting attack lanes in a far more reasonable (and Loyalist controlled) manner, thus giving a reason to be a Loyalist over a Merc, and giving reason for sticking with a faction over time. It could be limiting each faction to a single attack lane at a given time (or more if required).


And yes, Marik and Liao have had a long standing alliance in CW since practically it's start. It appears as though recently that may be getting called off by Liao, but I'm not sure how that situation has been progressing as of the last few days. If we Loyalists could control where our faction attacked, I'm certain Marik would not be choosing Liao, and instead be targeting Davion. It would also inform us (Marik) if Liao actually did have hostile intent against us with their declared attack lane, or if it's a rouge unit/merc trying to kick some dust around (who with a Loyalist vote system, wouldn't get an attack on us). (Some of us players actually enjoy this aspect of CW.)



As far as what I've read from your post, do you mean consolidated (not rotational) queues, where defense and offense are combined, and whomever wins takes the planet (preventing planet switching)? AKA: Instead of being able to attack X planet and defend Y planet, you just have an "Attack this faction" button, and whichever side wins the most territory takes a planet from the losing side? (Removing the Defense and Offense of specific planets, and turning it into a lump pool?)

This concept is vastly different from what you originally proposed. Either that or you didn't explain it very well... (Reminder quote inserted for reference.)

Lord Scarlett Johan, on 30 December 2015 - 07:59 PM, said:

Every faction has two planets with every adjacent faction, so FRR starts off with 8 total planets. One attack and one defend with each faction.

Simply putting planets on an attack/defend rotation with each faction would halve the buckets, consolidating players spread among 8 planets to 4. So FRR has one rotation of attack Steiner, defend from CW, attack CGB, defend from Kurita. Next rotation, defend from Steiner, attack CW, defend from CGB, attack Kurita.

Or do you mean it would rotate the attack and defend options against a faction? (I believe this is what you meant, rereading it, but the phrasing is a little hard to grasp.) One phase Steiner can attack Wolf, the next phase they would be defending against Wolf? If this is your proposition, I don't think it would be a very good idea. It does consolidate the queues, but people wish to continue pressing an offense when they have an advantage. I don't think this is a system that players are looking for, and it doesn't address the Merc and Loyalist issue many players want corrected.

People want more matches faster (consolidating queues achieves this goal, and your proposition would work here) and they also want rewards for sticking with a faction compared to "faction hopping". They want Loyalists to have some benefit, or have the ability to "control their mercs". CW Phase 1 showed a lot of this desire, especially as players organized themselves, their factions, and their factions allies. A lot of work went into that, and sometimes a random merc unit would pop in, attack a faction that was in an alliance, cause a bunch of "trouble" and then wonder off to the next faction afterwards. This was no fault of theirs, as it was what the system let them do.

After the first map reset, a lot of people lost interest in CW. Some of this was because of how the faction relations were handled, as in not touched (understandably so, considering how massive CW is as a project). Combine that with weeks/months of work coordinating attacks, taking planets, getting unit names on worlds, epic contests (Wazon comes to mind) between factions... and it all got "reset" (understandably so). It made players feel like their work was for nothing.


Giving Loyalists some aspect would help that. "Controlling Mercs" and making them feel different, and not having them determine the map is another often brought up subject. As other people have stated, giving meaning to taking a world (besides a unit tag) would be another good step (no concepts on what is expected here), Speeding up the queuing times would be another bonus.

Right now, we can address Three of these issues with one concept, if it's done right and everything is placed into consideration. We can address how Mercs and Loyalists relate, we can reduce the queue times by restricting the number of planets, and we can provide a reason for actually taking a Loyalist contract over a Merc. Your concept (which isn't necessarily a bad idea, mind), only addresses one of these issues currently.


CW is a large project. There are many facets to it, and a single problem is often times not one issue, but several issues compounded into a tangled knot. Sometimes, one needs to take a step back and make note of all the issues, and break it down into smaller categories that can be tackled together. No need to address each issue separately, when one solution can sometimes be created to address several issues at once.

[MahKraah]

pgi can not fix the problem
if you stop faction hopping every season of cw will be decided after the first weekend.
one week and one weekend and you know witch faction have the most good players and due to the unability to change faction it would stay that way untill next mapreset.

sice is not everything, noone is stating that HHOD is game breaking despite of beeing verry big.
stoping faction hopping and restricting unitsice wont solve the problem.
resposible decisions by unitleaders will
the awareness of the own units impact, the will to not sealclub and find good/challanging matches, should lead to responsible decisions of the leaders of the game deciding units.

as the moves and statements of both the 228 and ms are now known in this thread i will take those as a example:

cjf and wolf where unstopable strong, ms moved out of wolf and joined steiner .
great move!(for once did the right thing for cw instead of breaking it as hapend a dozent times in the cw history) it would restore game balance as wolf is now weakened/more suited to opose frr and steiner is reinforced to withstand the cjf onslought.
as had left cjf even bevore but after 2 days 228 moved out of cjf and joined frr.
over 700 elite pilots moved out of 2 clanfactions and joind the direct opponents of the same clans.
after ms joined steiner, 228 had guaranteed instant matches against 12 mans, the ideal situation! great challanging games nonstop, paradise!! they decided to move regardless and attack a already weakened and overstretched wolf.
why?
it is moves like this that directly counter what the units say they want, good ,challanging and instant matches.
it is moves like this that will get russ to try stupid things to rescue cw, things that are doomed to fail and dammage the game even more.

this is only one example, beta 1 was full of other instances of the same behavior and this is not aimed at 228, i used this example because the moves are well documented in here.

a positive example:
ns just moved out of kurita and joined cjf because kurita has no opponents.
davion is pounded by liao and marik, csj is quiet and the bears dont have a border to kurita.
they moved there unit to where they can find instant matches aginst good opponents(without breaking the lore by attacking frr or steiner while the clans are invading).
it seems they are doing what they say, why cant the bigger units of the same quality do the same?

it is the units that can provide there members with the best possible experiance and rescuing cw while doing so.

the fact that they dont, leave the comunity with only one possibel conclusion:
they want only the easy games against pugs or weak groupes
they want cw to fail
they want to drive new players out of the game
they want to extract all possible rewards out of the system bevore they crash the whole gamemode
once they have taken what ever is possible they will return to the privat leagues again while chatting about how faild this cw gamemode is.

you are in a big and verry successfull unit and you dont agree? state that everything is totaly different?
than act accordingly! the moves of your unit is what ppl will see and what they draw there conclusions from.
(this is a exaggeration to highlight the problem)

cw is riddled with many problems, desingnwise.
it cant survive if the players dont make it work, dont be a problem, be the solution!
the mercs are meant to provide flexible balance.

[Tesunie]

MahKraah, on 31 December 2015 - 09:56 AM, said:

pgi can not fix the problem

You make it sound hopeless, and that CW can never be salvaged nor used.

I believe PGI's already proposed solution of Loyalty members voting on their faction's attack path is a good start.

However, what possible answer do you have for this issue? Everyone seems to have a "solves all the problems" solution (and I am by no means saying that they aren't very good ideas in their concepts). What's yours?

[Chados]

cSand, on 29 December 2015 - 09:23 PM, said:

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

That's exactly how it worked in Kesmai's EGA Multiplayer Battletech. House military units had to run mechs that the faction provided. But the military dealt with R&R. The Mercs would run whatever they wanted but were (1) limited by the House they were working for in what they could attack, and (2) had to pay R&R costs out of what they got out of the contract.

MPBT didn't have mech customization. That made it easier to balance, obviously. In MWO that genie is already out of the bottle and can't be put back. But making Mercs pay R&R while giving loyalists a pass could be done with the current setup, though it'll annoy the Merc units very much and that's where most of the competitive players are at. Also, in MPBT the House leadership set attack priorities. We don't have that mechanic here but if the loyalists..i.e. the leaders of the various units...are the only ones allowed to vote on where to attack in unit queue, that will accomplish much the same thing. What about CW PuG queue, though? It looks like there will be a different queue for units vs. PuGs. One wonders how that would play out. Are loyalist PuGs going to be restricted to running within faction, I wonder? In MPBT that was the rule but our drops were all 4v4 PvE. It's a lot harder to match make 12v12 PuGs like that. But if it is only the units picking attack corridors...well, that would encourage joining House units to get a say in the process and encourage the role playing side of the game.

Edited by Chados, 31 December 2015 - 10:28 AM.

[Levi Porphyrogenitus]

Make unit coffers a thing. Charge merc units a capitation if they're over a certain size, scaling up as they hit size thresholds. 1-12 has no tax, 13-24 has 50k per member per week, 25-36 has 100k per member per week, etc.

[Tesunie]

Levi Porphyrogenitus, on 31 December 2015 - 10:29 AM, said:

Make unit coffers a thing. Charge merc units a capitation if they're over a certain size, scaling up as they hit size thresholds. 1-12 has no tax, 13-24 has 50k per member per week, 25-36 has 100k per member per week, etc.

I... don't think that would work.

Many units look large, but have a small active population. Taxing a unit (and lets face it, all units even those with a Loyalty contract is viewed as a merc in game) would only hinder unit growth and force players (typically leaders) to pay this tax.

I don't think your suggestion would be well received by players, and would be the end to basically all units. Or, units would just break down into smaller units, share the same TS chat, and group up anyway masking their movements and compounding the perceived issues. Instead of MS being viewed as an issue, suddenly it's MS1, MS-B and MS5 units working together...


I don't feel that "large" units are necessarily the problem. It's those large units faction hopping (which can be a good thing, depending), then even possibly going against the factions interests that they joined to "help". Overall, it isn't the size of the individual unit, but what they often do. Sometimes, even a small unit can have a great impact.


I do agree that Unit Coffers need to have something more done with them beside to break contracts. Using it for support options in CW would be better, such as maybe purchasing additional defenses on a planet, having "shareable unit mechs" (See as "unit trial mechs") that can be purchased, customized, and placed for unit players to use, etc. Using it as a taxation system would just hurt things, not help (in my opinion of course).

[Lukoi Banacek]

Any and all suggestions that the playerbase is responsible or should faction hop a certain way for fairness, balance, etc are misguided. The vast majority of people will default to what THEY find compelling and enjoyable (be it lore, farming wins and seal clubbing or the tiny minority who dont just say they want competitive matches but actually pursue them). As I wager that casuals and lore fans make up a huge portion of the population, feeling like the champ is important to their enjoyment of the game and there is no harm in that, but that is also why people gravitate to where there is advantage naturally.

Whether thats the meta, or numbers or playing nascar on the star map to find the soft, targetable faction, its human nature.

That is why it is incumbent on the game design to emplace structure at the meta level to discourage this if they want to attain balance and/or parity (similar but different facets btw). Until there are meta level pros and cons to being IS vice Clan, House loyalist vice Merc, Clan invader vice Clan Supporter etc, the units who want to "win" at CW will continue to bounce all over as much as they like.

Its not just their numbers so taxing or hurting large units isnt the answer (there are several measuring in the hundreds of players, who accomplish little in CW for a variety of reasons, so why should they be unit capped or taxed for having alot of casual friends).

[Kjudoon]

2 step solutions to big groups gaming the system.

1. Economic controls. The larger the group the higher the expensez and lower the payout with a "laffer point" of optimum equilibrium of profit set at the ideal maximum. Loyalty points as currency where length of service increases them and quits treating them as xp or achievements to unlock.

2. Unit "psr". The more success a group has the contacts available to them become harder or the payout for facing pugs or lower level units the less payouts they get or flat out inability to play pugs forcing them into conflicts with equal skill and success units. Limiting the attackers vectors of attack will help with this locking down factions ability to help other factions will go a long way to help thers.

So the controls are very simple in concept but will require a lot of work for logistics and economic programming. The question remains will this happen because of cost or skill?

[Tarl Cabot]

Introducing R&R for merc units would change several dynamics, such as capture the base, should they kill every mech or run for the generators/omega? But first PGI would need to make the distinction between merc units and House/Clan Loyalty units, cause atm all units are technically merc units.

Another aspect would be on switching contracts. The larger the unit the longer your base contract lasts, regardless of how many active vs inactive members.

The other side of the coin would those same units reduce their CW play-time? And the R&R would have to affect not just the unit but the member themselves, those who are in the unit but drop as a pug, cause a number of players will attempt to sync drop on the same planet in an attempt to bypass the R&R portion.

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 01 January 2016 - 09:14 AM.

[TWIAFU]

Hotthedd, on 30 December 2015 - 03:46 PM, said:

Well the obvious simple fix to that is to have fewer active planets at a given time.

With Loyalist Units dictating where to attack/defend.

Phase III can't get here fast enough.

[Tesunie]

Kjudoon, on 01 January 2016 - 12:58 AM, said:

1. Economic controls. The larger the group the higher the expensez and lower the payout with a "laffer point" of optimum equilibrium of profit set at the ideal maximum. Loyalty points as currency where length of service increases them and quits treating them as xp or achievements to unlock.

I honestly would love to see Loyalty be a currency you can use to buy mechs to use in CW. My concept would be you can't use your mechs from your Quick Play roster, but would have to purchase special CW mechs. Each faction could sell specific mech lists maybe even. Mechs bought with MC could be used in either game mode (being a "get it quicker" concept).

This would make faction hoping beneficial for getting more mech types, but less because you'd have to build up those loyalty points for that faction first.

(Mechs could also be specific variants per faction even.)

You could even have a loyalty boost or something if you use mechs related to your faction.


So much that could be done... but might be too late to do it now.

[Czarr]

You know what would be a cool idea with mercs is to have a reputation system where the more you fight along side a faction the higher rep you get but your rep with the faction you are fighting against goes down, if it gets to low you won't be able to go to that faction, having more reputation points means more Cbills per victory

I too would like to see a system more closer to lore...a lot of mercs in lore rarely ever changed factions. Kell Hounds were always house Steiner, Northwind Highlanders were almost always house davion (after they left house Liao), in fact only wolf's dragoons has worked with every faction and they did cause they were secretly a clan unit sent to recon the IS

Edited by Czarr, 01 January 2016 - 09:22 AM.

[gloowa]

Tesunie, on 01 January 2016 - 09:06 AM, said:

I honestly would love to see Loyalty be a currency you can use to buy mechs to use in CW. My concept would be you can't use your mechs from your Quick Play roster, but would have to purchase special CW mechs.

Brilliant way to get flooded with ~100 000 refund demands. Please implement ASAP.

[Khobai]

Quote

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

the worst part is we told them this 2 years ago. and they ignored it.

of course if people get the biggest rewards for switching sides rather than remaning loyal to one side then people arnt going to remain loyal to one side. derp.

they need to restructure the loyalty rewards so loyalists get the biggest loyalty rewards and faction hopping earns you almost no loyalty at all (just cbills)

Quote

Make unit coffers a thing. Charge merc units a capitation if they're over a certain size, scaling up as they hit size thresholds. 1-12 has no tax, 13-24 has 50k per member per week, 25-36 has 100k per member per week, etc.

you realize some of those merc corps have hundreds of players and billions of cbills right? thats not a solution at all.

what we need to do is get rid of huge merc corps completely and break them into smaller units in order to populate the factions more evenly.

merc corp size should be capped at like 50 members. if the larger merc corps complain just explain that they brought it on themselves with their abusive faction hopping ********. because its true they only have themselves to blame.

Edited by Khobai, 01 January 2016 - 11:11 AM.