522 replies to this topic

[Tesunie]

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.

I believe that that is how the proposed system from PGI is suppose to work, unless I've drastically missed something or misinterpreted something PGI released with their spoiler and other little hints I've sniffed out.

PS: If you want, you can always quote and post it in there. I wont necessarily complain.

[Wildstreak]

Thumper3, on 08 January 2016 - 04:26 PM, said:

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.

Yet your idea violtaes the intent of the 3 roles, Loyyalist, Mercenary and Lone Wolf. Each role was to have advantages that made the choice interesting. Your option essentially forces people into the Loyalist role begging the question why have the others. Killing all but one choice is not a good idea.

Edited by Wildstreak, 10 January 2016 - 03:37 PM.

[Thumper3]

Wildstreak, on 10 January 2016 - 03:36 PM, said:

Yet your idea violtaes the intent of the 3 roles, Loyyalist, Mercenary and Lone Wolf. Each role was to have advantages that made the choice interesting. Your option essentially forces people into the Loyalist role begging the question why have the others. Killing all but one choice is not a good idea.

One way to look at it. A flawed and shortsighted and seemingly intentional strawman way, but a way nonetheless. LOL


Here's another perspective on your reasoning against my suggestion, which was a logical economy. You want to do away with penalties for the different choices.......which means all are identical, there's no benefit to selecting one over the other (exactly what we have now).....so I ask you, even if we have 3 choices..........if they are all the same isn't it just one choice with 3 different names?

I never said take away advantages, I have no idea where you are pulling that from. My suggestion was and only is to have a realistic, logical economy which breeds strengths and penalties for your choices. A system which offers different ways to interact in CW and different rewards based on your choice. Advantages will in fact be different for each role choice so in fact will make the 3 choices actual choices.

This is in fact the exact system in place in the Battletech universe.

Mercenaries have higher costs, but they reap higher pay as well.

Freelancers gain little perks as they have no structure or sponsors, but they have amazing flexibility and choices.

Loyalists have no individual choices (they can't suddenly decide to attack a house that their faction is friendly with just to get some extra cbills), but they have low costs and decent perks. They also have lower pay and this all balances out or pretty close.

An economy won't kill all but one role, it will make all the roles unique and with a purpose...............as it is supposed to be.

[Wildstreak]

Riiigggghhhhtttt.
That's why you included this.

Thumper3, on 08 January 2016 - 04:26 PM, said:

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.

Pretty clear your objective was to make Loyalist look better than the other choices.
No strawman, you gave yourself away and refuse to admit to it.
Cowardice in admitting what you want doesn't make you logical.

[Thumper3]

Wildstreak, on 11 January 2016 - 03:26 PM, said:

Riiigggghhhhtttt.
That's why you included this.


Pretty clear your objective was to make Loyalist look better than the other choices.
No strawman, you gave yourself away and refuse to admit to it.
Cowardice in admitting what you want doesn't make you logical.

LMAO

Did you even READ what you quoted? It's like quoting someone saying the sky is blue and attacking them for saying the grass is blue. How int he world do penalties for switching factions have anything to do with the individual strength of any one faction?

Nice attempt to bait me with your ad hominem as well. Shows a strong argument.

I shouldn't, but I will address your personal attack. No cowardice here. What I want is for a balanced economy where each faction has a purpose and an appeal, balanced by penalties so that no one choice is better than all others in all ways. This also requires penalties for changing factions and collecting all the benefits and minimizing the negatives. This is already exactly what I have already said.

Since I actually never intended, nor said anything that would be construed by anyone (not trying to make things up or pick a fight that is) to mean I wanted Loyalist to reign supreme (especially since I am a merc, so why in the world would I argue to make loyalist the best choice?). If it's clear to you that my intent in requesting a balanced economy so that all choices are valid means that I want everyone but Loyalists punished.........then you sir need a primer in reading comprehension AND a course in basic logic. I mean come on, if I wanted to make one faction the best.....then why would there be a need to penalize people for switching? I mean, why would anyone switch from a clear ideal choice?



Faction HOPPING is changing from one choice to another....from Merc to Loyalist, or vis versus, etc......and has absolutely nothing to do with making one faction stronger than others.

There is a big gap between making choices attractive and making constantly CHANGING your choice attractive.

Right now we have no differentiation between choices. Being a merc, or a Lone Wolf, or a Loyalist has no bearing on rewards or penalties. In addition, as a separate issue, there are no real penalties for jumping around from house to house and faction to faction either. Those are two separate issues and thoughts, if you insist on intertwining and confusing them to craft your strawman then there's no point in discussing anything with you.

My argument is that each faction choice needs to have strengths and weaknesses that make each one attractive to different people but not so that one of them is a clear winner making no one want the others. Once that choice is made there needs to be penalties so that switching constantly to get all the benefits (therefore negating most if not all the penalties) is not effective. That is the basis of a balanced and logical economy and anything short of that will result in a bland and boring CW and a game that can not sustain a strong player base.

You need to address that argument with facts and reason if you truly wish to argue against it, not make up your own version to attack.

[Korrner]

Economy already has made its way to CW if the rumors I heard are right. Some units are paid real life money as contracts ... when that comes into play, I don't think the in-game economy would be such a factor.

Faction leaders are already willing to pay real cash to attract merc units and there's no economy. Having an in-game economy only would give more bargaining chips to those people.

I'm not against the idea, I think it would be fun ... I'm just saying I don't see that as a solution to anything that's happening right now.

[Khereg]

Korrner, on 11 January 2016 - 09:22 PM, said:

Economy already has made its way to CW if the rumors I heard are right. Some units are paid real life money as contracts ... when that comes into play, I don't think the in-game economy would be such a factor.

I've never heard of real life money changing hands. To the best of my knowledge, -MS-'s contracts have always been for c-bills. If there's another group out there getting real cash, I don't know about it.

[Hotthedd]

Who in their right mind would give somebody real cash to help make pixels change color, knowing it is all going to be reset anyway?

Could you give me their number?

[Inkarnus]

i know what they do they reintroduce NKVA to defend against MS

[Korrner]

Hotthedd, on 12 January 2016 - 07:17 AM, said:

Who in their right mind would give somebody real cash to help make pixels change color, knowing it is all going to be reset anyway?

Could you give me their number?

I would never do that ... I do not need to win that bad. To me, the fight is as much interesting as the results, so I don't mind loss ... but there are a lot of people who are overly competitive, to them winning becomes important.

I don't have any number for you

[Korrner]

Khereg, on 12 January 2016 - 05:45 AM, said:

I've never heard of real life money changing hands. To the best of my knowledge, -MS-'s contracts have always been for c-bills. If there's another group out there getting real cash, I don't know about it.

I know of at least one person who was recruited in a big merc unit on the promise of having mechs bought for him. That included hero mechs ... so then when I hear about a faction doing the same thing to bring a big merc unit to fight for them, I do believe that bragging rights are THAT important to some people

[Greyhart]

A thought occurred to me that might help with the 12 man stomp by nudging 12 mans to fight other 12 mans.

If each player had a CW rating based on their performance in CW and this was then averaged over the team and a bonus given if you beat a team with a high CW rating. Further bonuses would be applied if you beat pre-made groups depending on the size of the group.

That way stomping PuGs would not be as profitable as fighting other pre made teams.

[Kjudoon]

Greyhart, on 13 January 2016 - 06:32 AM, said:

A thought occurred to me that might help with the 12 man stomp by nudging 12 mans to fight other 12 mans.

If each player had a CW rating based on their performance in CW and this was then averaged over the team and a bonus given if you beat a team with a high CW rating. Further bonuses would be applied if you beat pre-made groups depending on the size of the group.

That way stomping PuGs would not be as profitable as fighting other pre made teams.

cw-psr

[Greyhart]

Kjudoon, on 13 January 2016 - 06:39 AM, said:

cw-psr

only never used as a match making tool

[DarklightCA]

Greyhart, on 13 January 2016 - 06:32 AM, said:

A thought occurred to me that might help with the 12 man stomp by nudging 12 mans to fight other 12 mans.

If each player had a CW rating based on their performance in CW and this was then averaged over the team and a bonus given if you beat a team with a high CW rating. Further bonuses would be applied if you beat pre-made groups depending on the size of the group.

That way stomping PuGs would not be as profitable as fighting other pre made teams.

There is no 12 man avoidance, you can't contract with a faction and just automaticly get into 12 man fight's. You have to wade through the horde of pug team's to stumble upon the random 12 man qued up at the same time as yours. So pug teams are still going to get massacred regardless. The only way that would work would be to give 12 man's a bounty for every match they win regardless if it's against a 12 man or a pug team that gives people extra Cbill's for beating them. Maybe allowing pug team's to actually attempt at beating 12 man's rather than auto give up and just camp there own spawn points.

That or stop trying to cater to pug mentality and try to transform Community Warfare into what it should be, a Unit vs Unit planet conquest gamemode and come up with ideas to transform the horde of pug's into functional organized Unit's so majority of the fights are premades vs premades.

Edited by l)arklight, 13 January 2016 - 07:19 AM.

[Greyhart]

l)arklight, on 13 January 2016 - 07:18 AM, said:

There is no 12 man avoidance, you can't contract with a faction and just automaticly get into 12 man fight's. You have to wade through the horde of pug team's to stumble upon the random 12 man qued up at the same time as yours. So pug teams are still going to get massacred regardless. The only way that would work would be to give 12 man's a bounty for every match they win regardless if it's against a 12 man or a pug team that gives people extra Cbill's for beating them. Maybe allowing pug team's to actually attempt at beating 12 man's rather than auto give up and just camp there own spawn points.

That or stop trying to cater to pug mentality and try to transform Community Warfare into what it should be, a Unit vs Unit planet conquest gamemode and come up with ideas to transform the horde of pug's into functional organized Unit's so majority of the fights are premades vs premades.

The point being that you get paid extra for beating pre-mades.

This should therefore nudge units to stop avoiding other units rather than stop them meeting Pugs.

[DarklightCA]

Greyhart, on 13 January 2016 - 08:12 AM, said:

The point being that you get paid extra for beating pre-mades.

This should therefore nudge units to stop avoiding other units rather than stop them meeting Pugs.

As I said, there is no Unit avoidance being there is no match maker. You can't contract with FRR, do Clan Wolf attack lanes and automaticly get a MS or SWOL 12 man. Who we get matched up against is not our fault and that doesn't mean those pre-mades aren't trying.

I've seen countless 228 12 man's attack Clan Wolf planet's all day and very rarely do we get matched up against a SWOL 12 man and very rarely have we been matched up against a MS 12 man. All we get are hordes and hordes of pug team's. If you want a solution to getting premades to fight more premades, stop listening to what Russ claims on twitter and try to create ideas to transforming the majority solo que pug population base into more premades for other premades to fight.

Edited by l)arklight, 13 January 2016 - 08:24 AM.

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

Here's a hint for a lot of people from my observations:
-queue on defense to pull groups
-queue on attack to pull skittles

Queueing on defense condenses your attackers into a singular faction increasing the likelihood of pulling groups. Conversely, going on attack means it pulls opponents from multiple factions.

It's not foolproof, but the observation has been accurate for the last month.

[Ssamout]

Greyhart, on 13 January 2016 - 08:12 AM, said:

This should therefore nudge units to stop avoiding other units rather than stop them meeting Pugs.

Pugs should stop picking a fight with those 12-men. Seriously. Why oh why all those puggies try to avoid other pugs and keep pestering units trying to gain more pixels.

[Greyhart]

l)arklight, on 13 January 2016 - 08:22 AM, said:

As I said, there is no Unit avoidance being there is no match maker. You can't contract with FRR, do Clan Wolf attack lanes and automaticly get a MS or SWOL 12 man. Who we get matched up against is not our fault and that doesn't mean those pre-mades aren't trying.

I've seen countless 228 12 man's attack Clan Wolf planet's all day and very rarely do we get matched up against a SWOL 12 man and very rarely have we been matched up against a MS 12 man. All we get are hordes and hordes of pug team's. If you want a solution to getting premades to fight more premades, stop listening to what Russ claims on twitter and try to create ideas to transforming the majority solo que pug population base into more premades for other premades to fight.

yes I accept all of this (I don't think I ever said that units were actively avoiding units, it is the perception and the possibility of abuse that needs addressing not whether or not it actually is). But If I may play devils advocate:

the logic (from certain people) is;

1. that large groups deliberately avoid fighting other large units by only attacking or moving together to the same faction.

2. PuGs are easier than pre-mades due to lack of coordination and therefore large units want to farm PuGs for easy money.


Now I don't think there is any debate that pre-mades (for this we should read coordinated teams of course this might not be the case) are harder than PuGs.

Now if the above logic is true then the game should reward those that fight harder opponents with MORE money or something.

If logically a unit would get more money from fighting other units then they would not actively game the system to avoid other units (not that they are). This is not to say that they have the choice on who to fight. Fighting and winning against anyone should still be rewarding, but not as rewarding as fighting and winning against tougher opponents.

So if the unit has a PuG stomp they are getting what they get now. If they face off against another pre-made then they get a bonus.

Of course this system could be gamed by experienced players remaining freelance and hitting the call to arms thing and then coordinating on teamspeak. To avoid this (theoretical risk) if each player was to have a CW ranking and the team given an average of those ranking and then a further bonus is applied if the lower ranked team wins. This would mean that attempting to farm or exploit the system is harder, given that if you do that you eventually will rank up to a point where you don't get the bonus.

Also the system of bonus for beating teams that are high ranked and premade would encourage PuGs not to disconnect or quit when facing what appear to be overwhelming odds.

the pre-made team bonus could be a simple multiplier added to the rank bonus reward rather than a reward on its own.

The idea is not to force anyone to do anything because no one would be worse off if they continue as they currently do (not that I think there is anything that the units can do in the current system anyway). However it is about nudging potentially exploitative behaviour if it does exist. This would in the end not change anything but it would remove the complaint that premades want to avoid premades by the units being able to point out that they get better rewards for more challenging fights.

simply put it is a system to make winning against harder opponents more rewarding.

Now of course you could subscribe to the logic that because X rewards me more than Y and I don't get to select X when I want therefore I am being punished for playing Y. Then you are not going to like that system. If however you look on it as X is a bonus that I get if it comes up and that's great then you'll be ok with it.

NB I note that i did say the system should nudge unit to stop avoiding other units. in hindsight it could be implied that I meant that units avoiding other units was actively happening. This was not my intention. The problem at the moment is the perception that units avoid units to pug stomp or that there is a possibility of this exploit.

Edited by Greyhart, 13 January 2016 - 08:54 AM.