0
It's based on the (cynic?) assumption that:
- Players want good/close games
- Players want to win
- Winning a stomp is preferable to losing a close game (for most players, be honest now)
For this reason, consciously or subconsciously, big/good units sort of gravitate towards the side they believe will win (the same side as the other big/good units). I bet many will disagree but to be fair who doesn't want to be on the winning side? Who wants to feel farmed, abused or stupid? Completely natural.
I guess this is the root why we call for matchmaking in CW, or split queues, or split units, etc.
My suggestion: Instead of forcing restrictive mechanics, give carrots to units choosing different sides, being an optimal size of 50-100 (?) members, etc. Some very brief unfinished thoughts, some work together, some are exclusive:
1. Have Faction leaders (one unit). Perhaps first by election or some stats, then by dueling for the spot (i.e. best of three group drops 12v12, solaris style or whatever). Give special treats to faction leaders like a) the only units being able to open up attack lanes using coffers (i.e. strategic command),
the only units being able to call for mercs using coffers, c) the only units being able to contest the top tier worlds (extremely few high profile worlds). What this will do is giving an incentive for the best units wishing to be of different factions to reduce the competition for the top spot. d) give direct bonuses for being faction leader, in such a way that it's more profitable to be faction leader of the losing side than being member of the winning side, once again spreading out the people that want to "win".2. Optimize CW for units of medium size. Russ mentioned increased upkeep costs for large units, can you do it with incentives too? Ideally I'd like to see each world battle being one unit vs one unit only, in a format chosen for say 2x 12-mans and 2-4x 4-man scout teams. No idea about execution, but optimizing unit size to be able to field 32-40 mechs at a give time feels reasonable. Be part of a bigger unit than that and miss out on the top action. Crude ideas. Even if a world contest starts broadly as a free-for-all pub brawl, I'd love if it eventually escalated into a single decisive fight between the top units on each side, like a football cup with grand finals. This would further give incentives for spreading units between factions because if you're second best in your faction you'll have a hard time reaching the finals. You catch my drift?
3. Don't have these incentives for mercs. Mercs can jump sides and have a faction flexibility that way so in order for not everyone going mercs, they need to have less strategic command and more respond to events set by others. Imo it would work best if the ordinary factions are in the drivers seat for shaping the campaign, for game play reasons only.
4. <insert smart idea here to give incentives that create more competetive matches and less stomps>
Edit: a small addition, in EVE for comparison when you contest/destroy other units star systems or player owned stations, there are attack timers. Same system here could be used if it would boil down to unit vs unit fighting. Give an attack timer of 2-3 days, then show up at the given time to defend or lose that stage. In EVE it's typically 3 cycles before complete loss. Time zones is always an issue, so need thought.
Edited by Duke Nedo, 17 January 2016 - 02:23 AM.
