121 replies to this topic

[DarklightCA]

Sandpit, on 15 January 2016 - 04:14 PM, said:

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

Yes, you have to be in a unit to capture planet's. I don't see the problem in that. Individual player's conquering planet's does not make sense to me. If you want to make a impact on the CW map, join a Unit it's not that hard. PGI should make finding unit's a lot easier and for unit's to find player's but that's another discussion.

As for sub unit's yes that may be a thing if they capped the Unit sizes or it may not be. Don't really see what baring that has on small unit's proving capable of capturing planet's and taking there just MC rewards in phase 3.

Edited by l)arklight, 15 January 2016 - 04:23 PM.

[MischiefSC]

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

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.

The majority of units never put a tag on a planet. Only the big ones, or at least the biggest ones in small factions. The smart choice then becomes to gel into the biggest unit you can get away with and switch to the smallest faction so you can dominate its borders for a bit.

Or flip to one side that generally loses, take worlds, then flip back and take them back and keep pushing so you bury your tags way back.

Just so many ways for this to get exploited. Especially with a split pug/unit queue crap and your larger units getting reduced rewards - so the more people in 228 the less each member will get for having a tagged world.

Isn't that an awesome idea?So anyone who isn't active and participating is reducing rewards for everyone else. All those units who have members who dont' play CW will be bleeding rewards from those who do.

That's got to be good for the community game experience, right? That'll be fun.

l)arklight, on 15 January 2016 - 04:20 PM, said:

Yes, you have to be in a unit to capture planet's. I don't see the problem in that. Individual player's conquering planet's does not make sense to me. If you want to make a impact on the CW map, join a Unit it's not that hard. PGI should make finding unit's a lot easier and for unit's to find player's but that's another discussion.

As for sub unit's yes that may be a thing if they capped the Unit sizes or it may not be. Don't really see what baring that has on small unit's proving capable of capturing planet's and taking there just MC rewards in phase 3.

How are you going to find and recruit those new players without ever playing with or against them?

It would help to let newbies play in the newbie queue up to, say, LP rank 6, then have them able to go out into the tagged queue but have a sort of generic tag so they can pug with unit players, learn good skills, break the bad habits they picked up and hopefully join a unit.

[Sandpit]

Repasy, on 15 January 2016 - 04:17 PM, said:

I don't think there's anything wrong with sub-units.

I never said there was.
You're missing the point.

The entire point of PGI making a separate queue for players without tags is so they won't get rolled over.
The entire point of PGI making a unit cap is so that large units can't dominate at will.

I just flat out and factually showed how it does neither of those things.

This isn't about my opinion regarding a queue separation, this is a factual discussion of how that queue sep doesn't fix the very reason it's being implemented according to PGI itself.

It's not going to stop that from happening. I just showed you exactly how and why it won't stop that from happening. I laid out a very simple way it circumvents the system to do that without ANY real effort other than creating a few alts. Do you really think the big units that are as coordinated as they are now can't think of these kinds of ways around it or will find it nothing more than a minor inconvenience to them?

Groups like MS did what they did to the IS map to point out and show PGI, "Hey, you're not listening to us, you're not listening to your community. Your sh*t is broken. There are many ways to fix this. Please look into it as now you have statistical and factual proof that it IS broken"
Then PGI looks at that, gets pissy and starts looking for ways to punish that group of players instead of actually trying to fix something that's broken.
Just like narc
Just like ecm
Just like collisions
Collisions is still the best example in my opinion. MONTHS players posted juggernaut threads regarding the broken nature and exploitation of knockdowns. MONTHS PGI ignored, downplayed, and dismissed the issue.
Then Paul gets caught live in front of the audience getting destroyed by it on purpose.
Guess what?
Collisions were taken out that day.
Not a week later
Not a month later
That day.

Then guess what?
They were never heard from again. Regardless of the FACT that just about every online game out there with combat has figured out how to manage physical collisions in their games, but we're to believe that somehow, in the magical world of "coding and netserver and hitreg", MWO is technologically incapable of implementing it.

SO moral of the story?
PGI has deaf ears until they're publicly embarrassed, which usually comes under the coordination of a big unit, then PGI overreacts and punishes that group of players for it. Then we spend the next 6 months trying to repair the damage it caused the community.

PGI doesn't look for solutions, it continues to look for punishments to groups like MS, 228, LOWTAX, LORDS, etc. because those groups use their coordination and community to do nothing BUT show the exploits many times. SOmetimes it's a minor thing and the uproar is small, sometimes
every once in a while
if you stop and listen
There's a HUGE uproar that's about to hit because some of the player base gets tired of being this whipping boy and scapegoat for the community and it's much larger than many seem to think or PGI remembers.

That's not any kind of "threat" or any other such foolishness so you trolling neckbeards don't even go there. It's a compressed history of PGI, MWO, and groups in general.

It's not made up.
It's simply a reflection of how this game gets changed. In lieu of the latest developments my prior stance of "Yea, but it's still dbaggy and you guys shouldn't do it" in regards to big units doing that kind of stuff..

I sadly admit that maybe you guys were right, maybe that is the only time PGI stops to listen and remember that even though MWO might be theirs legally, it's nothing without the community to support it, so that vision has to be tempered through the community's glasses.

Right now the perception is more smoky and hazy than it needs to be. Start a discussion about this with us before it comes to stupid nonconstructive things like community meltdowns.

[DarklightCA]

MischiefSC, on 15 January 2016 - 04:47 PM, said:

The majority of units never put a tag on a planet. Only the big ones, or at least the biggest ones in small factions. The smart choice then becomes to gel into the biggest unit you can get away with and switch to the smallest faction so you can dominate its borders for a bit.

Just so many ways for this to get exploited. Especially with a split pug/unit queue crap and your larger units getting reduced rewards - so the more people in 228 the less each member will get for having a tagged world.

Actually the Community Warfare map looks pretty diverse to me, other than some big unit's (not all of them) having a monopoly on planet's there are quite a lot of different tags in the mix and not every Unit is currently playing Community Warfare and not every Unit is grouping up to conquer planet's.

As far as reduced rewards go that sounds pretty balanced. If you want to be a big unit that makes a big impact on the Community Warfare map you have to split the rewards you get by a larger amount of members. Making smaller unit's that conquer territory having the possibility to actually earn more rewards which is fair because of how harder it is to conquer and keep territories with less members. You can also go the World of Tank's route which is MC is generated into the Unit and the Unit then redistributes the MC to the player's. Which they can do by there own standards, by participation, by performance, etc and completely cutting out any player's who don't play Community Warfare.

MischiefSC, on 15 January 2016 - 04:47 PM, said:

How are you going to find and recruit those new players without ever playing with or against them?

It would help to let newbies play in the newbie queue up to, say, LP rank 6, then have them able to go out into the tagged queue but have a sort of generic tag so they can pug with unit players, learn good skills, break the bad habits they picked up and hopefully join a unit.

Simple, a recruitment hub either ingame or visable on the website that allow's player's to actively search for Unit's that fit there play style without having to dig through hundreds of topics on a part of the forums nobody reads and allow Unit's to search for player's that they are looking for. Kind of like submitting a global application that all Unit's can see and accept.

If a Unit like's what you are about and wants to give you a try they send you a invite request through the recruitment hub and if the player accept's they would go through whatever recruitment process that Unit usually holds. Which with 228 would be they would have to play with 228 members for awhile on teamspeak and get a sponsor to accept his application into the Unit.

Allowing small unit's the tools to better turn the solo que population into functional unit's and small unit's into functional 12 man's that have a better time competing against bigger Unit's due to access to big sources of potential member base.

Edited by l)arklight, 15 January 2016 - 05:34 PM.

[MischiefSC]

l)arklight, on 15 January 2016 - 05:29 PM, said:

Actually the Community Warfare map looks pretty diverse to me, other than some big unit's (not all of them) having a monopoly on planet's there are quite a lot of different tags in the mix and not every Unit is currently playing Community Warfare and not every Unit is grouping up to conquer planet's.

As far as reduced rewards go that sounds pretty balanced. If you want to be a big unit that makes a big impact on the Community Warfare map you have to split the rewards you get by a larger amount of members. Making smaller unit's that conquer territory having the possibility to actually earn more rewards which is fair because of how harder it is to conquer and keep territories with less members. You can also go the World of Tank's route which is MC is generated into the Unit and the Unit then redistributes the MC to the player's. Which they can do by there own standards, by participation, by performance, etc and completely cutting out any player's who don't play Community Warfare.



Simple, a recruitment hub either ingame or visable on the website that allow's player's to actively search for Unit's that fit there play style without having to dig through hundreds of topics on a part of the forums nobody reads and allow Unit's to search for player's that they are looking for. Kind of like submitting a global application that all Unit's can see and accept.

If a Unit like's what you are about and wants to give you a try they send you a invite request through the recruitment hub and if the player accept's they would go through whatever recruitment process that Unit usually holds. Which with 228 would be they would have to play with 228 members for awhile on teamspeak and get a sponsor to accept his application into the Unit.

Allowing small unit's the tools to better turn the solo que population into functional unit's and small unit's into functional 12 man's that have a better time competing against bigger Unit's due to access to big sources of potential member base.

I'd be game with a recruitment hub but tools like that have been begged for over the last few years and pretty much been told 'no'.

Most factions have tags by 3 units. Do you really think most factions only have 3 units in them? That's also without tags meaning anything, the moment tags are worth MC that's going to change significantly.

For example, suppose 228 decides to join Davion and just tag Marik and Liao worlds, 3 worlds a day, both sides. What possible impetus does, say, MS have to join Marik or Liao and fight you over them? It would make more sense for MS to join, say, Kurita and tag Davion and Steiner and Marik the same way.

Are you guys truly going to give up getting easy tags on Marik and Liao to try and drop against MS all day?

So the smaller units, everyone who isn't in the big 2 or 3 for their faction, they get absolutely nothing. The thankless task of trying to slow the other big units from taking their worlds for tags while the biggest, most competitive units get the most tags from the people least likely to take them back.

So do we just let things dissolve down to 3 or 4 units per faction?

Not being sarcastic, I am serious.

I personally think a better option is just to have your 'payout' from those MC rewards be based on how many total 'win' drops you had on the taken world for a unit and payout accordingly. Even do it on a per-player basis, that way big units with the bulk of their population not playing CW are not punished and those who don't play don't get the rewards.

[Sandpit]

MischiefSC, on 15 January 2016 - 06:14 PM, said:

I'd be game with a recruitment hub but tools like that have been begged for over the last few years and pretty much been told 'no'.

this is part of the problem. We've asked and begged PGI for years to give us the basest and simplest communication tools and lobbies.
Somehow it's always met with "can't" (even though it seems to have been available for 10 years) or "won't"

makes no sense

[DarklightCA]

Actually it would be harder to avoid Unit fight's if planet's had MC rewards, right now there is no point for a Unit to defend a planet they conquered. It's far better to just keep hitting attack lanes for faster matches and to conquer more planet's but if planets generated MC you'd actually have a interest in defending planet's as much as you would in conquering them. With every unit conquering planet's any planet that let's say MS attacked would generate interest in the opposing Unit to defend and defeat that MS attack.

It would also limit faction swapping as there is very little reason for a Merc unit to switch to a new faction and completely ditch the defense of all the planet's they conquered. Meaning if let's say MS decided to contract with Clan Wolf and 228 decided to contract with CJF, MS would have a invested interest in maintaining Clan Wolf to defend all the planets they conquer and eventually 228 would expand into MS territory forcing MS to have to defend there planet's or otherwise completely lose them and vice versa. If MS then contracted with a different faction as to not have to defend against 228 they would effectively be losing all progress they made in Clan Wolf. Not saying MS would do this, just using it as a example.

Edited by l)arklight, 15 January 2016 - 06:43 PM.

[MischiefSC]

l)arklight, on 15 January 2016 - 06:36 PM, said:

Actually it would be harder to avoid Unit fight's if planet's had MC rewards, right now there is no point for a Unit to defend a planet they conquered. It's far better to just keep hitting attack lanes for faster matches and to conquer more planet's but if planets generated MC you'd actually have a interest in defending planet's as much as you would in conquering them. With every unit conquering planet's any planet that let's say MS attacked would generate interest in the opposing Unit to defend and defeat that MS attack.

It would also limit faction swapping as there is very little reason for a Merc unit to switch to a new faction and completely ditch the defense of all the planet's they conquered. Meaning if let's say MS decided to contract with Clan Wolf and 228 decided to contract with CJF, MS would have a invested interest in maintaining Clan Wolf to defend all the planets they conquer and eventually 228 would expand into MS territory forcing MS to have to defend there planet's or otherwise completely lose them and vice versa. If MS then contracted with a different faction as to not have to defend against 228 they would effectively be losing all progress they made in Clan Wolf. Not saying MS would do this, just using it as a example.

Except why would you go take worlds from MS on Kurita when you can roll casuals on the Marik border?

The problem is that it rewards quantity. Taking a world's from MS is harder than taking a world from Liao loyalists. The best way to play would be to pick a faction with casual borders and start farming. If 228 was in Davion and had taken 20 worlds from Liao and MS attacked Davion from Kurita are you going to NOT take a world from Liao to get another tag so you can go fight MS for A world you don't have tagged? It rewards you for grinding fast, easy fights, not trying to take tags from units who would be a hard fight and ignoring whatever you don't already own.

[AnimeFreak40K]

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.

Are you sure about that? That seems like an AWFUL lot of work for little/no return.

Look, I'm going to be quite clear; I am very critical of large units existing in a game that inherently has a small player base/audience. But I understand the other side of the argument too. Personally, I think a unit cap of 100 is large enough to be able to play with your friends, have enough people on during peak hours to get at least one (though likely more) 12-man team going and/or apply enough force to accomplish whatever mission they have going on.

This being said, I don't see a problem in having a unit be capped at say, 50 members and then for the unit to have to shell out C-Bills to increase that unit cap and/or bring in players above that number. Again, there are games out there that have a unit member cap and if you want to go over that number, you have to spend in-game currency to be able to do that. Heck, some games even have it cost in-game currency to invite/add people to that unit.

With regard to splitting up units, I really think you and a lot of people who argue against splitting large units up seem to forget is that the only reason why splitting won't work is because planets don't have value. I mean, once you start putting meaning behind locations, suddenly these sub-units are going to go off in their own direction so they can get their own stuff.

[Sandpit]

AnimeFreak40K, on 16 January 2016 - 01:53 PM, said:

Are you sure about that? That seems like an AWFUL lot of work for little/no return.

3 minutes to create an alt account is hardly what I would call "AWFUL lot of work"
so no, I dont' see it as an awful lot of work with little to no return.

I explained to you exactly how to bypass the system. Ignoring it or trying to use the "too much work" excuse doesn't change the fact that units with several hundred members ARE that dedicated and coordinated.

You seem to fail to grasp just how much money units like that invest in themselves.
Not cbills
Not MC
MONEY
$$$

SO yes, if my 600 member unit that myself and other key members have donated hundreds,m and sometimes thousands, of dollars into over the past 3 years for websites, TS servers, etc. (not to mention you fail to understand that most of these units aren't JUST MWO units and play other games as well), I'm going to take 15 minutes of my time and 0 of my dollars to create a few alt accounts to do exactly what I laid out above.

[Sandpit]

AnimeFreak40K, on 16 January 2016 - 01:53 PM, said:

. Again, there are games out there that have a unit member cap and if you want to go over that number, you have to spend in-game currency to be able to do that. Heck, some games even have it cost in-game currency to invite/add people to that unit.

First and foremost

Those games haven't been in retail launch for 3 years taking millions of dollars from paying customers and THEN tell them their units are capped.

Secondly, I don't know of a single game of this type of genre that does that. Every other game I know of encourages players to join units

You don't do things like that 3 years into taking money from customers. Period
It's bad business.

You don't make huge sweeping and fundamental changes without conversing with your community after 3 years of commercial launch. (They started taking our money happily back in OB)

You don't take a customers money for 3 years under the constant guise of "beta". They lost "beta" when they chose to voluntarily take money from customers. I don't care what "legally" or "technically" the word "beta" means because it's irrelevant.
It's irrelevant because those customers that handed them money don't really see it that way and what's really at the basis of this "outrage" is some of the players here are getting sick and tired of being PGI's whipping boy and scapegoat because THEY can't figure out how to properly balance their game.

Some of us are sick and tired of having the rugs pulled out from under us every few months because PGI can't figure out how to run a Btech campaign. That most 13 year old GMs could do 20 years ago.

Some of us are sick and tired of getting blamed and made pariahs of simply because we understand teamwork and like to drop with friends.

Some of us are sick and tired of being PGI's excuse as to why some things in the game are unbalanced.

PGI needs ot take ownership and responsibility. Not us, we don't code the game. We sit here, listen to what PGI says they're going to do and what they're going to change. Then we say "Ok, here's our money". Then PGI comes back a few months later and it's always either "Well we can't do that due to technical limitations" (Which is crap to begin with most times) or something along the lines of "That was our position at the time and because new players are having problems we're going to take it out on you and publicly make you a scapegoat"

I'm tired of spending hours and dollars to try and help build a community in lieu of the actual company who brilliantly decided to beuild a multiplayer only video game and CHOSE to avoid putting in basic functions like TUTORIALS for nearly 3 years
VOIP
LOBBIES
COMM TOOLS
SOCIAL ENVIRONMENTS
COHESION

that every other game and eveloper out there has seem fit to do for 10+ years. This isn't reinventing the wheel. I personally am sick of PGI screwing something up and then them jumping on the bandwagon to blame
premades
groups
now units

for THEIR inadequacies in being able to develop this game. PGI screws things up not
preamdes
groups
units
or any other boogeyman you want to scapegoat.

[DarklightCA]

MischiefSC, on 16 January 2016 - 01:29 PM, said:

Except why would you go take worlds from MS on Kurita when you can roll casuals on the Marik border?

The problem is that it rewards quantity. Taking a world's from MS is harder than taking a world from Liao loyalists. The best way to play would be to pick a faction with casual borders and start farming. If 228 was in Davion and had taken 20 worlds from Liao and MS attacked Davion from Kurita are you going to NOT take a world from Liao to get another tag so you can go fight MS for A world you don't have tagged? It rewards you for grinding fast, easy fights, not trying to take tags from units who would be a hard fight and ignoring whatever you don't already own.

Not everybody is in Community Warfare for easy wins, I know for a fact that 228 isn't. If anything the fact it's a MS planet promising 12 man fights would make that a juicy target for 228 to attack and I know 228 isn't alone in that aspect. There are a lot of unit's that would prefer harder fights against actual team's. 228 has fought quite a few of them that thanked us for playing them and beating them. 228 has even gotten so bored of fighting pug's that sometimes when we land on a good 12 man unit they sometimes beat us and those are awesome games.

Point being that if planetary rewards launched, it will prompt unit's to balance there queing habbits between both attacking and defending and enable other Unit's to actually care about defending there worlds. Allowing for a much bigger chance of Unit's actually queing up against each other. If a Unit would rather ***** out than fight another 12 man than honestly they wouldn't do very well in Community Warfare because there wouldn't just be pug team's maxing those defense que's anymore and hopefully the incentive of actual rewards for capturing planet's and the promise of actual fight's in Community Warfare will bring out more Unit's to play it in phase 3 assuming Russ doesn't completely destroy the grouped and Unit aspect of that game mode.

Edited by l)arklight, 16 January 2016 - 04:30 PM.

[MischiefSC]

l)arklight, on 16 January 2016 - 04:27 PM, said:

Not everybody is in Community Warfare for easy wins, I know for a fact that 228 isn't. If anything the fact it's a MS planet promising 12 man fights would make that a juicy target for 228 to attack and I know 228 isn't alone in that aspect. There are a lot of unit's that would prefer harder fights against actual team's. 228 has fought quite a few of them that thanked us for playing them and beating them. 228 has even gotten so bored of fighting pug's that sometimes when we land on a good 12 man unit they sometimes beat us and those are awesome games.

Point being that if planetary rewards launched, it will prompt unit's to balance there queing habbits between both attacking and defending and enable other Unit's to actually care about defending there worlds. Allowing for a much bigger chance of Unit's actually queing up against each other. If a Unit would rather ***** out than fight another 12 man than honestly they wouldn't do very well in Community Warfare because there wouldn't just be pug team's maxing those defense que's anymore and hopefully the incentive of actual rewards for capturing planet's and the promise of actual fight's in Community Warfare will bring out more Unit's to play it in phase 3 assuming Russ doesn't completely destroy the grouped and Unit aspect of that game mode.

I would love to believe that most units would act like 228 does. I am.... dubious on that point however.

My concern is that the combo of MC for tags plus unit caps and fees plus split queues is the pug queue can flip worlds will result in a cluster **** of trying to game the system that will burn CW in nuclear fire.

I would love to see more Unit's in CW but I'm not sure this is going to do it. There's still no impetus for units to fight units. Units fighting units should pay more and each front should only be 1 world, not 2.

[Sandpit]

Just to give an example of the types of behavior the segregated queue will bring out

Ghogiel, on 16 January 2016 - 06:25 PM, said:

If I understand correctly how this new queue works, I think in the new system I might have a legit use for my alt. I can coordinate my alt with players in units trying to take a planet. And similarly with other players alts. We can make sure both queues are getting farmed. Having a few kicker pugs in the non unit queue to make some groups to stomp with. And obviously you'll have to roll in larger units or super groups made on the fly or else the unit queue is going to be ggclose for the average solo player.

[Ghogiel]

Sandpit, on 16 January 2016 - 06:33 PM, said:

Just to give an example of the types of behavior the segregated queue will bring out

You say that like that isn't exactly how the game is designed to be played. What behavior? Now you need unitless alts to play on a different border just like players have clan and IS alts.

[Tarl Cabot]

Remember, PGI has nothing being signaled what unit(s) are on any planet.

And as noted several times, formed unit drops are more likely to be on the attack venue than the defend venue, to expand the borders. They are more willing to sit on an undefended planet and wait for defenders while defenders would not even think to take it upon themselves to sit on a planet hoping for an attacker to show up.

Now if PGI attempt to split CW queue does go live...where will all of the non-unit pugs go? Sorry. Why attack a planet if you are not sure you will have other attackers join you while waiting for defenders. Turn that around, why defend a planet your faction already owns while defensive ghost drops would gain nothing...

There is no real incentive to perform defensive ghost drops while waiting for attackers. Similar to no real incentive to obtain or keep planet ownership until closer to the ceasefire cutoff timer.

[DarklightCA]

MischiefSC, on 16 January 2016 - 06:13 PM, said:

I would love to believe that most units would act like 228 does. I am.... dubious on that point however.

My concern is that the combo of MC for tags plus unit caps and fees plus split queues is the pug queue can flip worlds will result in a cluster **** of trying to game the system that will burn CW in nuclear fire.

I would love to see more Unit's in CW but I'm not sure this is going to do it. There's still no impetus for units to fight units. Units fighting units should pay more and each front should only be 1 world, not 2.

Just because there is no reason for unit's to fight unit's doesn't mean they won't. Most Unit's want a harder fight and you have to have faith that given the proper incentive that Unit's will look for the harder fight. This whole Unit's will dodge fight's just because it's easier crap doesn't make sense. The whole point of planetary rewards is that is give Unit's better incentive to defend there planet's rather than constantly stack the attack que.

Right now Unit's are attacking planet's owned by Unit's all the time, happens every day in Community Warfare but without those Unit's really giving a crap about defending there own planet's they are going to miss those fight's with those Unit's attacking there planets because you'd get better que times hitting the attack que. Given that incentive to defend there planet, increases the chances by a lot that a Unit will meet a Unit in the que.

Edited by l)arklight, 17 January 2016 - 12:37 AM.

[Sandpit]

l)arklight, on 17 January 2016 - 12:36 AM, said:

Just because there is no reason for unit's to fight unit's doesn't mean they won't

The units these fixes are designed to work against will though. That's what seems to be forgotten. The units and players that weren't part of the problem to begin with are the ones that really get screwed over. The units and players promoting this type of environment, preying on new players and such, they aren't going to even be slowed down by a change like this.

That's the point. The things it's designed to fix and the players it's designed to punish could care less and yes, they will most certainly do any and everything they can to exploit the system because that's what they already do. That IS the game to them.

[DarklightCA]

What? "preying on new players". I mean... unless there is some switch I am unaware of that detects which planet's to drop on at which times that highlights all the player's that are new to this game for those players/unit's to prey on, that don't make sense. New player's shouldn't be playing in Community Warfare in the first place, they should be in regular que in the safe embrace of a match maker grinding cbills and leveling mech's so they can play Community Warfare.

Any new player's or solo player's that drop Community Warfare do so at there own choice, they CHOSE to enter a game mode designed to be full of Unit's and premade groups with ZERO match maker. That CHOSE to drop as a solo quer completely gambling on the abilities of their teammates and EVERYTIME they press that que button they are gambling who there opponent is. Could be another solo que team or could be a 12 man. That's the ENTIRE POINT of Community Warfare. It's not designed to be easy, it's not designed to be fair. You have the full choice of taking the full advantage of it by joining and playing with a Unit or playing at a disadvantage by dropping solo. The fact such things are even being discussed is completely ridiculous let alone trying to waste PGI's time by "fixing it".

[Sandpit]

l)arklight, on 17 January 2016 - 05:06 AM, said:

What? "preying on new players". I mean... unless there is some switch I am unaware of that detects which planet's to drop on at which times that highlights all the player's that are new to this game for those players/unit's to prey on, that don't make sense. New player's shouldn't be playing in Community Warfare in the first place, they should be in regular que in the safe embrace of a match maker grinding cbills and leveling mech's so they can play Community Warfare.

Any new player's or solo player's that drop Community Warfare do so at there own choice, they CHOSE to enter a game mode designed to be full of Unit's and premade groups with ZERO match maker. That CHOSE to drop as a solo quer completely gambling on the abilities of their teammates and EVERYTIME they press that que button they are gambling who there opponent is. Could be another solo que team or could be a 12 man. That's the ENTIRE POINT of Community Warfare. It's not designed to be easy, it's not designed to be fair. You have the full choice of taking the full advantage of it by joining and playing with a Unit or playing at a disadvantage by dropping solo. The fact such things are even being discussed is completely ridiculous let alone trying to waste PGI's time by "fixing it".

I'm telling you exactly what Russ, PGI, and those advocating the split are giving for reasons.
PUGs getting rolled up by organized units
New players getting clubbed by organized units

That's THEIR reasoning for doing this
not mine
I don't agree with or think for one second this new idea will fix ANY of that