121 replies to this topic

[Murphy7]

I don't think MS is doing anything wrong, but I do think they are a great example of portions of the system that PGI has built that aren't working as well as they should. In game, I like having MS around as bogeymen and colorful opposition.

MS is not a unit I would seek to avoid on a planet - my win record may be terrible against them, but I think the matches are as fair within the system. I've seen MS get ahead quickly, then actively push the team throwing their mechs away with abandon which serves to speed up the match and allow the players on the losing side an opportunity to get their damage in and build their own scores. I feel like its good sportsmanship, which I have noted on several occasions facing MS groups.

There are other individuals I do not feel this way about, I suspect malfeasance and avoid them if I can.

[Khereg]

Sandpit, on 14 January 2016 - 10:24 AM, said:

That kind of attitude and self-policing in faction chat and the community itself are going to go miles beyond anything PGi CAN do to help new players and such.

Absolutely 100% agree with this. It needs to be part of the culture that better players, units, etc. foster learning and improvement among the player base.

Immediately following Tukkayid 2, I posted -MS-'s "secret sauce" to CW success. There's no secret to how we do things and a part of what we do is what you just described. See the full brain dump here: http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__4865413

[MischiefSC]

Of course groups avoid fights they are less likely to win than fights they will. Most the time that's mixed units avoiding big units though.

It's not about units however it's about teams that coordinate against teams that dont.

There are plenty of CJF pugs who can and do steamroll mixed units and 95% of other faction pug groups. I know, in an alt I drop with them sometimes.

So what we are saying is that we want to punish people who've learned to communicate and coordinate for beating people who refuse to learn either. There are tons of pugs who do so without being in a unit. A tag doesn't give you magical skills, being willing to communicate and coordinate just makes you more likely to join a unit and get a tag.

Edited by MischiefSC, 14 January 2016 - 12:04 PM.

[Conjure]

No. Dropping with -LW- we appreciate playing other units. Pug stomps get old and it lose any competitive feel you get from the game.

[Jenovah]

sycocys, on 13 January 2016 - 10:19 AM, said:

Most won't admit it, but there's a reason why you don't often see groups in the defense queue.

-The not lining up matches, which would be near instant drops match after match, because you'd prefer to grind c-bills off of pugs than have a quality match-up is a pretty telling bit. Especially between large units that are able to field multiple full teams against each other.

I still rather enjoy how people who are not part of an organization think they know so much of the inner workings. I have limited time, much like Tom Sawyer, due to my work obligations. (I throw this out because most people think we "train for 4 hours a day," to quote an angry salt from another thread.) Yesterday I spent my evening in Quick Play doing the event drops. I made about 4 mil CBills while finishing out my event, not including the cbills you get from it. In the same time frame I average another 4-5 mil cbills in CW, with shorter wait times with my drop deck to get a match going when attacking. The wait time to get a match set for my heavy, select maps, wait for everyone to ready up, and begin is longer than it is, in my experience, to attack a planet.

However, last night we did some defending due to some information we received. Whereas I have noticed a 3 minute (+/- 2 minutes) wait to get a match going on the attack, when we went to defend a hotly contested planet we had to wait a solid 10 or 12 minutes to get a match. Granted, when we did get that match it was vs an organized group and we had a very nice, fun, fight that resulted in a win.

When it comes to CW vs Quick, for me the answer is clear. Now I'm not on the level as a player as say, Hanzo, Kin3tix and many others I play with, I can consistently hit high damage and pull my weight in CW. I'm hitting higher damage and kill numbers in Quick play- so for me, personally, I get better opponent quality in CW than when I'm in quick play. This is, however, just my experience. I also can't stand quick play because VOIP is a hit or miss thing with me as far as whether it works (like some others have mentioned) and I cant communicate with my team.

AnimeFreak40K, on 13 January 2016 - 10:45 AM, said:

The way I see it, if large units like 228 and MercStar were truly honest about wanting to face off against other groups, they would take a page out of QQ's book and spend some time actively defending worlds instead of leaving that duty to PUGs/Skittles.

Most of this is addressed above, although I will add this- When we oppose someone, they hate us. When we are contracted with them, they have no complaints. I have literally dropped into a CW match solo when my group wasn't on, ran into a 6 man and a 4 man. There was myself and 1 other pug-

The conversation literally went like this, Player- "Hey, -MS-, you want to lead this?" Me- "My in game voip doesn't work, I'll follow your premade." Player- "You can type."

That being said, I guess at this point it doesn't matter. Everyone who is not a part of the organization thinks they know more about our intentions and desires than even the leadership does. Much as Hothedd pointed out, Russ' stats may indicate that units are not fighting each other, but it CANNOT establish intent. It's why I've taken to screenshotting every match up, win or lose, against another premade.

[Jenovah]

Murphy7, on 14 January 2016 - 10:46 AM, said:

I don't think MS is doing anything wrong, but I do think they are a great example of portions of the system that PGI has built that aren't working as well as they should. In game, I like having MS around as bogeymen and colorful opposition.




MS is not a unit I would seek to avoid on a planet - my win record may be terrible against them, but I think the matches are as fair within the system. I've seen MS get ahead quickly, then actively push the team throwing their mechs away with abandon which serves to speed up the match and allow the players on the losing side an opportunity to get their damage in and build their own scores. I feel like its good sportsmanship, which I have noted on several occasions facing MS groups.




There are other individuals I do not feel this way about, I suspect malfeasance and avoid them if I can.

THIS! I had returned from a deployment (left prior to CW going live) and when I got back I went back to my original MWO unit. That unit had abandoned CW even though when I left they had planned to be a part of it. I was dropping CJF vs FRR and kept running into -MS-. While I never won, I was always invited to check out their TS, guides, builds, etc. So I started dropping with them.

I have had great fights with 228th, BO, KCOM and others, and while I do keep my damage up, my skills are not "OP" or as good as some players. I have never avoided a drop against any of them, however, I always learn something from my fights with them.

Edited by Jenovah, 15 January 2016 - 03:27 AM.

[Armando]

Khereg, on 14 January 2016 - 11:11 AM, said:

Absolutely 100% agree with this. It needs to be part of the culture that better players, units, etc. foster learning and improvement among the player base.

Immediately following Tukkayid 2, I posted -MS-'s "secret sauce" to CW success. There's no secret to how we do things and a part of what we do is what you just described. See the full brain dump here: http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__4865413

Don't you know that this goes against the "MercStar is the devil responsible for every problem in the history of Mech Warrior" meme...there is no WAY MercStar actually does anything positive for the community, they are nothing but a bunch of damn dirty mercenaries. amiright???

[Sandpit]

Jenovah, on 15 January 2016 - 03:26 AM, said:

THIS! I had returned from a deployment (left prior to CW going live) and when I got back I went back to my original MWO unit. That unit had abandoned CW even though when I left they had planned to be a part of it. I was dropping CJF vs FRR and kept running into -MS-. While I never won, I was always invited to check out their TS, guides, builds, etc. So I started dropping with them.

I have had great fights with 228th, BO, KCOM and others, and while I do keep my damage up, my skills are not "OP" or as good as some players. I have never avoided a drop against any of them, however, I always learn something from my fights with them.

Unfortunately Russ thinks units like 228, Ms, etc. are the evil ones and looking to punish, segregate, and make it difficult to have a large group now.

Charging units to recruit?
MC costs for tags and planets and such?

Yea, that's how you build a community lol

tweet
Russ

[Jonathan Paine]

From what I've seen, MS does what MS wants. They dont appear to be shying away from any fight, but they do prefer to attack. It seems some groups decide to join whatever faction MS is currently part of, probably because they are too smart to stand in the way of the juggernaut. OLD has never prided itself on smarts, so we have had quite a few good drops against MS.

Why do groups attack? Because it is the easiest way to tag planets, and tagging planets is the only bragging rights currently. If defending planets made more sense, then groups would be more likely to defend.

Here is an easy way to encourage defending planets:
- The more planets you control, the more planets you need to take to get your unit tag on a new planet.
Example:
1. Unit ABC controls no planets, tagging one planet gives them that planet.
2. Unit ABC controls 1 (perhaps to 3) planet(s), they now need to tag/take two planets to gain one.
3. Unit ABC controls 4+ planets, they now need to tag/take three planets to gain one.

Furthermore, when PGI finally gets around to implementing bonuses for controlling planets, these bonuses should ramp up from almost nothing when you take the planet, and increase day by day until they reach max.

In this scenario, defending a planet you already control makes more and more sense. It would also prevent the ridiculous scenarios where units start to control dozens of planets.

[Repasy Cooper]

The major fallacy behind saying that units are not avoiding eachother BUT are normally on the attack is that you guys rarely fall into the defense queue. That in fact means that normally you ARE avoiding eachother...

[DarklightCA]

Repasy, on 15 January 2016 - 12:52 PM, said:

The major fallacy behind saying that units are not avoiding eachother BUT are normally on the attack is that you guys rarely fall into the defense queue. That in fact means that normally you ARE avoiding eachother...

That makes no sense, to be avoiding unit's that has to be a conscious decision for your actions. Pretty sure the primary basis of Unit's contracting with faction's and choosing attack lane's is not avoiding unit's.

Unit's rarely fall into the defense que because it's a lot easier as a 12 man or large premade group to hit a attack lane and start up another que. Defense que's are by far the largest que in Community Warfare with them always hitting 99+ defenders and little under 60 attackers. Instead of most likely getting a ghost drop in a obviously stacked que, as a 12 man I'd much rather start a new que in a attack lane and as a result conquer a planet. So again, being nowhere in there does avoiding a Unit have any basis on that decision that statement is ridiculous.

Additionally if MC rewards for planetary conquest are added, more Unit's will be queing up in the defense que regardless because they would have to protect their investment planet's from being captured so I'd wait for phase 3 and see what happens.

Edited by l)arklight, 15 January 2016 - 01:40 PM.

[Khereg]

Repasy, on 15 January 2016 - 12:52 PM, said:

The major fallacy behind saying that units are not avoiding each other BUT are normally on the attack is that you guys rarely fall into the defense queue. That in fact means that normally you ARE avoiding each other...

But not intentionally...

We explained the various reasons why we primarily attack and we have no plans to change our approach unless the game mechanics change to make a different set of tactics advantageous in some way. We do defend sometimes, but usually as cease fire approaches and our primary objective is secured.

Edited by Khereg, 15 January 2016 - 01:13 PM.

[Jenovah]

Repasy, on 15 January 2016 - 12:52 PM, said:

The major fallacy behind saying that units are not avoiding eachother BUT are normally on the attack is that you guys rarely fall into the defense queue. That in fact means that normally you ARE avoiding eachother...

Because it happens does not make it a "fact" nor does it establish intent. As had been stated, numerous times, if PGI were to incentivize the longer wait time on defense- cbill boost, I'm not sure what, but something... Then maybe there would be a reason to defend more than there is now. The argument has been tried, and has repeatedly failed- more planets are taken by just attacking than by defending.

Give me a reason to defend beyond what there is now. However, when this happens, everyone will salt the world with their tears over how every 12 man is defending now instead of attacking.

[AnimeFreak40K]

Sandpit, on 15 January 2016 - 11:26 AM, said:

Unfortunately Russ thinks units like 228, Ms, etc. are the evil ones and looking to punish, segregate, and make it difficult to have a large group now. Charging units to recruit? MC costs for tags and planets and such? Yea, that's how you build a community lol tweet Russ

I think (and I had been reading the same tweets as you) that the MC stuff is for the rewards, at least that's how I interpreted it anyway.

As far as charging units to continue to grow in size after they reach a certain sizes is not unreasonable. Several games do this already.

Edit - with regards to stuff regarding the behavior of units, here's a secret that I realized awhile ago: perception trumps reality.
The present perception is that large units avoid each other, go seal-clubbing and/or [insert favorite terrible horrible thing that units do here]. The actual reality is that that units stay on the attack, have their own goals and obligations and are mostly made up of a group of people who like playing together.

...unfortunately, no matter what these units do (short of disbanding into several small units), they will always be perceived in a negative light.

Edited by AnimeFreak40K, 15 January 2016 - 02:28 PM.

[Sandpit]

AnimeFreak40K, on 15 January 2016 - 02:22 PM, said:

I think (and I had been reading the same tweets as you) that the MC stuff is for the rewards, at least that's how I interpreted it anyway.

As far as charging units to continue to grow in size after they reach a certain sizes is not unreasonable. Several games do this already.

Edit - with regards to stuff regarding the behavior of units, here's a secret that I realized awhile ago: perception trumps reality.
The present perception is that large units avoid each other, go seal-clubbing and/or [insert favorite terrible horrible thing that units do here]. The actual reality is that that units stay on the attack, have their own goals and obligations and are mostly made up of a group of people who like playing together.

...unfortunately, no matter what these units do (short of disbanding into several small units), they will always be perceived in a negative light.

Even if I agreed with that, which I don't, this change would do nothing to prevent that.
How hard is it for a group like MS to come up with smaller sub factions?
Or any other large group?
RMA
RMA1
RMA2
RMA3
RMA4

I can easily create an alt for each of those units and create those units. Doesn't matter that the player account attached to them is broke. You ahve unit coffers.

So now, the same owner still owns every one of those units
The same owner controls every one of thsoe units

Now they simply promote another player to general and bam, they've got their sub-unit commander/leader/president/whatever
all under the same original leadership and control

It solves none of the issues it's claiming to solve.
None

That's the major issue I have with it right off the bat.

[MischiefSC]

l)arklight, on 15 January 2016 - 01:09 PM, said:

That makes no sense, to be avoiding unit's that has to be a conscious decision for your actions. Pretty sure the primary basis of Unit's contracting with faction's and choosing attack lane's is not avoiding unit's.

Unit's rarely fall into the defense que because it's a lot easier as a 12 man or large premade group to hit a attack lane and start up another que. Defense que's are by far the largest que in Community Warfare with them always hitting 99+ defenders and little under 60 attackers. Instead of most likely getting a ghost drop in a obviously stacked que, as a 12 man I'd much rather start a new que in a attack lane and as a result conquer a planet. So again, being nowhere in there does avoiding a Unit have any basis on that decision that statement is ridiculous.

Additionally if MC rewards for planetary conquest are added, more Unit's will be queing up in the defense que regardless because they would have to protect their investment planet's from being captured so I'd wait for phase 3 and see what happens.

Be honest - if you get MC rewards for tagging worlds there's going to be people exploiting the **** out of that.

Also it pretty much eliminates the reason to be in anything BUT a big unit.

Which PGI will respond to by trying to split up/punish big units.

I see so many issues there.

[Sandpit]

MischiefSC, on 15 January 2016 - 03:40 PM, said:

Be honest - if you get MC rewards for tagging worlds there's going to be people exploiting the **** out of that.

Also it pretty much eliminates the reason to be in anything BUT a big unit.

Which PGI will respond to by trying to split up/punish big units.

I see so many issues there.

apparently everyone but PGI and the supporters of this idea and the uninformed see them as well
smh

[DarklightCA]

MischiefSC, on 15 January 2016 - 03:40 PM, said:

Be honest - if you get MC rewards for tagging worlds there's going to be people exploiting the **** out of that.

Also it pretty much eliminates the reason to be in anything BUT a big unit.

Which PGI will respond to by trying to split up/punish big units.

I see so many issues there.

Pretty sure you will get MC for holding planets as well otherwise what's the point. If you get MC generation for planet's than there is nothing to exploit. You get your attack lanes up than if you want to hold on to that resource you have no choice but to defend it against whoever attack's it.

You don't have to be in big unit to capture territory, phase 1 and 2 proved that. Just makes it easier to both hold territories and take new ones if you have more than one 12 man. Additionally it would make Merc unit's less likely to contract outside of other faction's because it would be impossible to defend those planet's in another faction. Making Merc bouncing still possible but less of a thing and making everybody else happy.

It would also make big unit's a victim of there own success, the more planet's they own = the more planet's they require to defend. More time in the defense que allows smaller unit's the chance to conquer planet's in there stead.

Edited by l)arklight, 15 January 2016 - 04:07 PM.

[Sandpit]

l)arklight, on 15 January 2016 - 04:00 PM, said:

You don't have to be in big unit to capture territory, phase 1 and 2 proved that.

no, just a unit
that's capped on size limits
that now get split into sub-units owned by the same player
that now just go further into being able to manipulate the entire CW with more focused control

Everything about this idea does nothing but provide the players causing the headache in the first place, easier, faster access, to the exploits they'll be riding throughout this.

Players without units have no assistance
no coordination
no meaningful impact on the CW map

yea, that sounds like a "fun" and encompassing environment that lends itself to making every player regardless of unit, group, solo, new, or otherwise feel like they can accomplish something in CW outside of events and tournaments.

Again, segregation does nothing to enhance the community or game play, it just leads to even more confusion, miscommunication, misconceptions, and makes it more difficult to organizer ANYone outside of units.
period

[Repasy Cooper]

Sandpit, on 15 January 2016 - 03:32 PM, said:

Even if I agreed with that, which I don't, this change would do nothing to prevent that.
How hard is it for a group like MS to come up with smaller sub factions?
Or any other large group?
RMA
RMA1
RMA2
RMA3
RMA4

I can easily create an alt for each of those units and create those units. Doesn't matter that the player account attached to them is broke. You ahve unit coffers.

So now, the same owner still owns every one of those units
The same owner controls every one of thsoe units

Now they simply promote another player to general and bam, they've got their sub-unit commander/leader/president/whatever
all under the same original leadership and control

It solves none of the issues it's claiming to solve.
None

That's the major issue I have with it right off the bat.

I don't think there's anything wrong with sub-units. Again, if they introduce per-faction player cap based on a percentage of total active ComWar community, there is no problem. Then, some of those sub-units would be forced into other factions, and we could have a more balanced community. I don't really care if one person 'owns' all units, just so long as the units are dispersed equally.

That has never been the case though. The running trend has always been "Big units move to one faction, steal land, then they switch to opposite faction, steal more land, etc." That's not Community Warfare. That's called Community Exploitation.