

Why Such Large Groups?
#1
Posted 03 February 2016 - 10:31 AM
I have seen posts from large groups saying they want fun in CW and don't want to ghost drop and the like yet they have the majority of the players that are involved. It just does not make sense and I have not seen nor read one good reason as to why they need units that big. I would like to understand it as maybe I am missing something. I run my own unit and will probably put the cap at 36 just because , well at 36 I can imagine running it for one is going to be a pain and 2 36 players seems like more than enough to make playing CW worthwhile and fun.
I am not trying to bash here or say there is anything wrong, I would just like one of the leaders of the huge groups explain to me their logic so I can understand for myself.
Thanks!
#2
Posted 03 February 2016 - 10:43 AM
Now compound that with the fact that not everybody plays every day or all the time, and you see that units that have multiple 12 mans for CW or group queue are going to have a much better chance of being able to field a full 12-man when needed.
#3
Posted 03 February 2016 - 10:48 AM
Also, a lot of units don't purge inactives. So sure, maybe a unit has 500 members, but really half of them are inactive - they're either in military, or just taking a break from the game and it would be rude to kick them out. This is the real reason why many units are bloated.
Edited by Tarogato, 03 February 2016 - 10:50 AM.
#4
Posted 03 February 2016 - 10:54 AM
MarineTech, on 03 February 2016 - 10:43 AM, said:
Now compound that with the fact that not everybody plays every day or all the time, and you see that units that have multiple 12 mans for CW or group queue are going to have a much better chance of being able to field a full 12-man when needed.
So essentially take your 36 member needs, and let's assume that your players have lives, (because some of them do) and you get MAYBE 4 hours covered for each of those 36 guys. If you want the same coverage for attack and defense you need to account for 6 more 4 hour blocks (and I'm being generous with 4 hours some folks can only do 2) so 6*36 and you have 216 members needed for round the clock dropping in CW alone.
Now let's add to that, training mechs, training formations, training fire discipline and firing lines etc and you can take 12+ guys out of that rotation on the regular to do that...
So that's all you need to consider BEFORE things like Game burnout, leaves of absence for life [the thing that happens when you are busy making other plans ] and so on....
Edited by Lugh, 03 February 2016 - 10:54 AM.
#5
Posted 03 February 2016 - 11:11 AM
Jerry Beard, on 03 February 2016 - 10:31 AM, said:
I have seen posts from large groups saying they want fun in CW and don't want to ghost drop and the like yet they have the majority of the players that are involved. It just does not make sense and I have not seen nor read one good reason as to why they need units that big. I would like to understand it as maybe I am missing something. I run my own unit and will probably put the cap at 36 just because , well at 36 I can imagine running it for one is going to be a pain and 2 36 players seems like more than enough to make playing CW worthwhile and fun.
I am not trying to bash here or say there is anything wrong, I would just like one of the leaders of the huge groups explain to me their logic so I can understand for myself.
Thanks!
In mercstars case, they are a superunit consisting of multiple other units. I don't know if they still consider themselves as separate units within mercstar or if they see ms as being their primary game identity, I only know what the score was when they were setting up as the unit im in thought about it but elected to continue down it's own path. There are, I believe, a couple of other units of similar size.
The reasoning for having a big unit (if you are into cw) is that units with large numbers of active players will be capable of dominating the map through having multiple teams dropping and winning on a planet and therefore tagging it. Makes sense logistically, however it's blatantly painfully when cw doesn't have the population to function with even a single significantly sized active unit. Hell, cw can't barely handle a single competent 12 man dropping over and over without most planets getting tagged and the unwashed casuals getting upset.
The solution is to give players good reasons to make cw their primary game mode. Lots of time waiting to drop isn't a good reason, and therefore cw defeats itself.
Edit - any wierd wording due to my tablets spell check
Edited by NextGame, 03 February 2016 - 11:18 AM.
#6
Posted 03 February 2016 - 12:22 PM
#7
Posted 03 February 2016 - 12:37 PM
We're casual, so we have a lot of members who only play once or twice a month, while others are on every day. On our very best nights we see about 40 payers at the same time. This lets us cater to lots of different desires. A member can have the choice of playing CW, doing quick play matches, or just hanging out and chatting.
One of the biggest advantages to our size is that we can do lots of in-house matches and tournaments. We are nearing the end of a map based campaign with three different teams fighting to control territory.
As for running such a unit, yes, it can be a huge pain, but really worth the effort. We have our CO who manages the paperwork side of things and our XO is our main field commander. Members are divided up into three battalions (each with a battalion officer) with three companies each (led by a company commander). The divisions are really just for promotions and bookkeeping. We all play together regardless of division (unless one company wants to challenge another). The trick is division of labor. There's no way one person can run it all (unless they don't have a job/family to think about), but with about a 1:10 ratio of officers to enlisted it's not bad at all.
#8
Posted 03 February 2016 - 12:42 PM
Actually it's beginning to feel like:

Edited by Dimento Graven, 03 February 2016 - 12:52 PM.
#10
Posted 03 February 2016 - 12:52 PM
http://mwomercs.com/...d-stats-part-2/ or/better https://docs.google....#gid=1956695009
3 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users