44 replies to this topic

[chewie]

OK. Rant time.
This has angered me, and needs to be aired.

I know I'm painting a big target on my back now, but my principles and morals mean I need to say this.



So, there it is, the post from PGI.


Thanks to a partially sensible request to try and agree a rebalance of the current CW situation, PGI created a problem.

But this problem was never their fault to begin with.

It was a purely player base created problem.


PGI released a new mech, which may, MAY, have coincided with lots of people wanting to play with it in CW rather than sticking to being clan based and using the new mech in pug drops in between CW drops.

Coincidence.

The real reason, at least to my impartial eye, was the current meta weapon of choice. IS Er Large Lasers.
And probably a few other things such as the whole BJ issue.
But that's not what this post is about.

This post is about YOU, the players and teams, who all decided that you wanted to be IS for a week or two.
And very few wanted to be the clans (boo hiss, bad guys all round)


Your decisions created the lack of opponents in CW.

Not 1337 t34m5 "seal clubbing" opponents.

The lack of diversity chosen by the players.

So, instead of someone proposing on here, that PGI consider making changes to make it easier for the player base to correct this problem, one of the biggest teams who are just as responsible for the problem in the first place, begged Russ to break their contract for free so they could move to clans and help resolve the issue.

OK, it was a good thing that they wanted to resolve it, but for selfish reasons and implemented poorly.

That group, and any other group, if they gave a rats butt about this game rather than just being number 1 would have been better looked on if they had agreed to pay the fine and asked PGI to remove the last few days of their current contract in order to give teams doing drops proper opponents.

But no, the greedy selfish scrotes wanted their cake and to eat it too.

And PGI gave it to them. And not just a cupcake, but something Buddy of The CakeBoss would be proud of.

Now, a precedent has been set and PGI has had to open it up to other teams, thanks to not sticking to their guns.

The players created the problem. Not PGI.

Why should PGI drop everything thanks to the players choices.


Nicely done guys. You broke the system, not PGI, and have profited from it to.

Well done indeed.

Faith has now been restored that this game is now run by a bunch of Primadonnas more interested in showing how good they are, than gamers who love the game and wish to see it flourish.

It was your choice to create the imbalance. Your choice.


Bottom line:

PGI should have waived the clause to on breaking and taking new contracts where you have to wait 3 days but kept the fine.

Edited by chewie, 04 February 2016 - 02:52 AM.

[thehiddenedge]

So we in no way blame the company responsible for a perceived imbalance in the game and thus a shift in playerbase?

yeah ok...

[sycocys]

Imo players that throw raging fits over nothing are the largest creators of problems in this game.

[Spam Lanwalker]

pgi didnt ask you all to swap to IS did they ? But wether they did cave or not it does set a precidet , maybe something good will come of it in the future ? hopefully

[627]

If I remember correctly, the inner sphere was pretty good at beating the crap out of each other before the clans even showed up.

So even if we only have IS units we should still be able to fight each other. And if it helps I can make some jokes about those lousy liao shots where you have to come with 12 Awesomes so they finally can hit with every third shot or so

Why is everyone so obsessed with clans when there is a full inner sphere to conquer? I always wanted to visit Luthien...

[oldradagast]

627, on 04 February 2016 - 03:53 AM, said:

Why is everyone so obsessed with clans when there is a full inner sphere to conquer? I always wanted to visit Luthien...

Because Clans are perceived as easy mode based on table-top. There, the Clan mechs were stupidly powerful and IS mechs were basically target practice. Much like the seal-clubbing that defines the current laughable implementation of CW, playing Clan mechs let people polish their epeens and feel like gods while 1-shotting enemy mechs because of their "skill" in being handed a vastly superior character to play. It makes about as much sense as watching a level 10 D&D character kill a level 5 one - such "skill!"

Personally, I think it's all crap. The Clans are portrayed as "honorable warriors" - who spend their free time conquering vastly inferior opponents using vastly superior technology, and that doesn't even count how the average Clan warrior is bred and trained from birth to fight, while IS warriors are basically just normal people. I see no honor in running over an inferior opponent repeatedly, though the "fun" of such stomps gets acted out daily in CW around here. It's nothing but epeen-polishing, and that's all its been for 20+ years.

Finally, let's not forget that the Clans were originally meant to be the villains that the players unite against. People obsessed with playing the Clans - usually for the free power - remind me way too much of people who demand to play vampires, dragons, or some other silly, overpowered thing in D&D. They can't play something normal - they have to be better than everyone else in all ways for no good reason to be having "fun."

Edited by oldradagast, 04 February 2016 - 04:26 AM.

[Parnage Winters]

The amount of people still upset about the Clans existing is outstanding. It's time to get over it and move on.

Dudes move to IS, cant find games, get tired of it, want to go clans 3 days earlier. PGI does it, cus **** it, Clans own like nothing maybe it'll help.

Suddenly it's a big deal. Boo hoo they didnt pay the what 6mil cbills to break contract? oh the ******* horror. I'm sure somehow things will work out.

CW is a mess, and you know what. I want to blame Loyalist units. They cant shift around to solve player size issues, wtf is up with that? Why are loyalist units so greedy smh they just playin for that op IS/clan quirks. All players need to be forced to merc units of 12 and only 12 players. For Balance.

The sad part is I could see people agreeing with this.

[Red Shrike]

oldradagast, on 04 February 2016 - 04:23 AM, said:

Because Clans are perceived as easy mode based on table-top. There, the Clan mechs were stupidly powerful and IS mechs were basically target practice. Much like the seal-clubbing that defines the current laughable implementation of CW, playing Clan mechs let people polish their epeens and feel like gods while 1-shotting enemy mechs because of their "skill" in being handed a vastly superior character to play. It makes about as much sense as watching a level 10 D&D character kill a level 5 one - such "skill!"

Personally, I think it's all crap. The Clans are portrayed as "honorable warriors" - who spend their free time conquering vastly inferior opponents using vastly superior technology, and that doesn't even count how the average Clan warrior is bred and trained from birth to fight, while IS warriors are basically just normal people. I see no honor in running over an inferior opponent repeatedly, though the "fun" of such stomps gets acted out daily in CW around here. It's nothing but epeen-polishing, and that's all its been for 20+ years.

Finally, let's not forget that the Clans were originally meant to be the villains that the players unite against. People obsessed with playing the Clans - usually for the free power - remind me way too much of people who demand to play vampires, dragons, or some other silly, overpowered thing in D&D. They can't play something normal - they have to be better than everyone else in all ways for no good reason to be having "fun."

The appeal of superior firepower was never a factor when I took a liking to the clans. The major factors being their background and the visual appeal of their mechs.

Sure, I'd play IS too, but the fact that people are trying to create an even playing field means that one of the biggest appeals (imo) of playing IS is gone: Fighting against a superior foe.


The fact that CW maps are nothing but glorified Quick Play maps isn't helping either.

Edited by Red Shrike, 04 February 2016 - 04:44 AM.

[Sader325]

This thread is unconstructive. So I'm going to hijack it.

50 50, on 03 February 2016 - 05:30 AM, said:

Some really good points there.
I did not see a summary of what was talked about so thought I might add that in here.
I have a few comments of my own I would like to add but will do that in a separate post.
It seems like a few of the items discussed have been or are being developed with phase 3 so it will be interesting to find out how that is all going to work. Eg. The unit coffers to buy mercenaries.
Anyway, Hope I got it all.

Cheers!

1. Skill gap with mechs

Spoiler

- Change to mech skill tree has resulted in changing the difference between a new and mastered mech
- Some mechs received buffs, but the agility difference has narrowed mech selection for matches.

2. Grouping for Community Warfare.

Spoiler

- The Call to Arms to potentially be used by groups so that solo players end up with a group and not a 12 man solo.
- This is to circumvent seal clubbing
- Still help with the recruitment process for units who can recognise players and be recognised themselves
- Possible bonus/pay offered to players from the group to come and join them? (Is this how phase 3 merc incentives will work?)
- Solo player incentives for fighting over a planet, something meaningful.
- Balance between offense and defence?

3. Trial mechs

Spoiler

- Poor trial mech builds to be eliminated from selection.
- Use the community feedback more.

4. Better communication/battle visibilty options.

Spoiler

- Allowing players to communicate better prior to dropping to organise mechs and builds based on planet/map
- Improved player experience by allowing players to select a mech/drop deck appropriate for the map
- Commander option to help guide players on the maps with a reward system to incentivise it
- Random map selection not helping.
- Experienced groups that can bring in solo players to fill their numbers will invariably improve the experience for those solo players.
- Commander effectiveness prioritises that player next time - Incentives? Player votes on results?
- How could this be abused? Then how could this be avoided/reduced?
- Need better tools for commanding.
- New Polar Highlands map really encourages better communications.

5. Quirks

Spoiler

- Poor system
- difficult to manage with the number of mechs from a development perspective
- difficult for players to manage
- affects player experience due to each mech being different
- primarily weapon quirks are the problem
- mech structure and agility bonuses make more sense and leave the mechs with a bit of flavour
- make better use of the module system instead!
- shouldn't have a buff without a negative. Eg: range increase on laser for more heat or burn time. Increase structure but decrease agility.
- IS numeric advantage can be done with the structure quirks.
- more modules to give additional bonuses to other areas such as structure.
- Different level of bonuses for Clan and IS. Eg: IS structure modules are better than what Clan can get.
- Easier to balance?
- It seems that the balance is IS has the tankiness, Clan has the DPS.

6. Separation of Solo and Group/Unit queues.

Spoiler

- If the bonus is for a unit to take a planet to get their tag on the planet, the solo players due to lack of experience may affect this outcome.
- Potential for high level players to grief a unit by using high level players.
- The population may not be high enough for it?

7. Protecting a tagged planet

Spoiler

- Bury it behind the front lines.
- This means the 12 man units will always try to attack to move the border
- Best way is to not sit there defending the planet.
- capture the planet in one time zone, use the next time zone to move the border.
- This means the big units may not run into each other because they want the unit tags.
- Using the unit coffers to build planet defences, not just add more sectors. This gives players a way to take ownership of a planet, have a home planet.
- A group or solos may get incentives to protect a unit's home planet.
- Home planets for units would create other objectives for other units. It builds naturally.

8. Community Warfare direction/idea

Spoiler

- What is the over arcing idea?
= Incentivising a solo to join a unit.
- Player retention is much higher for units.
- At the moment, there is no goal other than, let's see if we can get to Terra.
- Would a change to a border conflict instead of a planet conflict help resolve this?
- Would a border conflict also help with match making? ie. change it to Clan vs Innersphere.
- Reduced queues would funnel units into head to head conflicts.
- Base defences need to be believable, as the defender gets base defences and other advantages. there needs to be a different approach to balance. Eg: Better defences or repair and rearm for defenders at the expense of drop deck tonnage or number of defending mechs?
- Defenders always have the advantage so with evenly matched teams, the defender is likely to win.

9. Gating for Community Warfare?

Spoiler

- If you do not have your own mechs shouldn't be able to drop? Eg. Need to be able to field 2 owned mechs in the deck.
- Haven't finished your cadet levels?
- It's the equivalent of gettng a level 1 player to do a level 99 raid.
- Merc Star was formed to play Community Warfare, it is the mode that brought the unit together.
- Don't want to completely stop players from joining, but due to the difficulty level there needs to be a 'qualification' level.
- Can't be a punishment method.
- Units inviting, paying an incentive, to solo players to fill out their group may be an option. Invited player needs to play, can't skip out. (Abuse the system).... some sort of reputation system units can use to track players? Use for Coffers?

10. Dropships and spawn camping

Spoiler

- Buffing dropships is detracting from the game play/competition
- Groups will sit in their dropzone as a way to grief the other team.
- They are not discouraged from using this tactic.

11. Another option for game completion, another win condition.

Spoiler

- This is to circumvent seal clubbing
- More of a problem in counter attack.
- Capture drop points to end the game? Ie. a way to stop the drop ships.

12. PvE

Spoiler

- Should NPCs be allowed to use mechs.
- MWO was built as a PvP game.
- Mechs are meant to be special, NPCs may take away from this and will always be judged as such.
- Combined arms units such as tanks and helicopters would give a different perception. Reference to EVE Online. Eg: the player perception of mechs not playing as well, having a bad build or potentially seen as cheating to make them a challenge compared to a player
- Keep the mech vs mech combat special as player vs player
- Consider the dropships. These are seen as cheating with their pin point accuracy.
- Once these NPC units as tanks and helicopters are developed, they can be introduced into the other modes.
- Good option for the Ghost Drops or just make drop an autowin?

Cliff Notes for meeting provided by 50-50.

Hey general discussion, how about you discuss something actually constructive attempted by MercStar instead of whining about something that literally doesn't matter.

[Tom Sawyer]

@ OP

First I like how you used the word beg. It was a tweet from our leader to Russ about the state of CW in that nearly ALL the clan planets where lost and we where willing to move if it would help the game.

2nd if you think the fine of 6 million would be a deterrent to us moving you seriously need to look at the coffers of some of the bigger units.

3rd Tina has created a thread offering from PGI to other units the right to request a move IF it helps the over all game. So what we got others can to IF it helps the game. And not just some extra salt because you feel that we where given a luxurious foot rub along with our offer to try to help to find balance and a chance for all to find a game and not just ghost drops.

[chewie]

Tom

1. I used "beg" because it gave the strongest indication on how I felt after seeing the original tweet and the ensuing "butthurt" comments from the rest of the community.

2. I didn't think the 6million credits was a deterrent at all. What I know was the deterrent was the cooling off period before you could choose another contract.
The not having to pay 6 mill is what annoyed everyone else.

3 Tina only created this AFTER the tweet and the outcry to pacify the sheeples. 1 team got a free transfer, so it's only natural that what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

I have no issue with this.

My issue has and always will be how the player base creates a problem and demands a fix.

Gauss being abused by players (pop tarts). Pgi has to add jj shake to reduce the effect on the people being shot at.
Gauss is too devastating because of zero range penalty, zero heat. Gives it a charge time when using it.

Etc etc.

All because they have to have the lowest ttk while showing how super they are.


For now, it's the is er large and it's range module. It's made it almost god like. So everyone has to use it because its deemed as most powerful weapon right now. That andbthry can hit people without being hit back, the big cowardly sods.

So everyone's gotta go IS to use it in CW.

With this in mind, it could be argued that it's PGIs fault for making the weapon so damned good.

However. It's the player that's using the weapon and how he uses it that causes the problem.

Heaven forefend that some one else be held accountable for their own actions.

With that in mind, the IS large laser, I'm surprised the clan uac5 hasn't been nerfed yet thanks to all those dire wolves running 6 at time and nothing else.


You see a bar of chocolate for sale cheaply. And the advert gets your attention. So you buy it. Then discover your not hungry so don't need or want it. And want to return it after you've opened it.

Whose at fault. You for buying it, The shop for selling it, or the maker for making it?

This is what we have here.

It was the players choice to go IS. If the Yb can't get an opponent, it's not PGIs fault.
They didn't make everyone go IS.

Now if PGI were monitoring the metrics for how many teams were running clans and IS, the way they obviously do for weapons usage, this might have all been avoided because they could have have said:

"hey guys, we think there's an issue where you'll have trouble getting matches. We're looking for teams to play CW as clans to help even things put. Who's up for helping out the community?"

And again, MS could have said "hey Russ, there's a problem. We'd like to help. But contract renewal means we can't do anything for three days which meansnyour gonna have a lot of unhappy players in the meantime. Would you mind dropping the cooling off period so we can help out".

But as far as I've seen, they didn't.

And now we're here.

[xX PUG Xx]

While I can appreciate -MS- offering to do this and accept at face value their reasons for doing so, I do question the statement that their was no drops available. I take it fighting against Kurita and Steiner was not taken into consideration?

Perhaps there are NAP's in place that I am unaware of but even if there were would both sides not benefit from the increased activity if no drops against the Clans were available? It's all a moot point now and while it has opened a can of angry worms with some people it has highlighted a glaring flaw in CW; Faction population balance.

To me it seems that PGI need to code in some way to automatically even out "active" populations. How they can determine what is "active" would require data such as when player X last dropped in CW, rather than baseing it on the number of players with the flag next to their name. I'm not a programmer so not sure how this could be achieved but it appears that policing the Faction populations may be a necessity.

Anyway.... Chewie why you not post in CW forums?

[Mogney]

I do not follow the logic. If playeRs only play bad mechs that will lead to a larger population of players. Is that it? You will need to explain that one to me lol.

[Leartes]

xX PUG Xx, on 04 February 2016 - 06:17 AM, said:

While I can appreciate -MS- offering to do this and accept at face value their reasons for doing so, I do question the statement that their was no drops available. I take it fighting against Kurita and Steiner was not taken into consideration?

I'm not MS but I think this is easy to answer. On the Clan vs IS border you get fights much easier since you pool defenders from all factions. If you attack kurita or steiner chances are very high that you get a ghost drop. Most kurita/steiner pilots that actively play cw are already occupied dropping on the clan/is border, so the chance you can draw 12 defenders on an empty planet as attacker are very small. Try playing a faction without clan border for some time. It is so much harder to get attack drops. Anyway, it is very likely that this will be fixed in the next iteration of CW.

chewie, on 04 February 2016 - 06:02 AM, said:

My issue has and always will be how the player base creates a problem and demands a fix.

This is how it is in all multiplayer games and how it will always be. The competitive players task is to find the strongest strategy. Usually this means using the strongest mechs with strongest configurations etc. It is the game designers job to make the game in such a way that there is no single best option.
Ideally all weapon systems and all mechs are competitively viable. If they are not then you can either accept that (e.g. I accept that flamers suck) or you can ask for a change (e.g. I want more lift on jump jets and other solutions to the poptart problem). Why should players be content with a product that could be better?

In this case it is very hard for the players to chose the correct faction since population numbers are not public. It has been suggested many times that rewards could depend on a factions population, or average queue times could be public so that people can make better decisions before committing on a contract. Anyway, since the system is flawed any change that improves population balance is welcome.

[chewie]

I was a bit of a numpty there Pug.

I could have put it in CW because at heart it's a CW issue, but felt in reality it belonged in general discussion because there is more here to resolve than just the CW issue.

[Novakaine]

Jacklegs

[chewie]

Novakaine, on 04 February 2016 - 07:18 AM, said:

Jacklegs

What does that even mean old timer.

[JaxRiot]

chewie, on 04 February 2016 - 07:35 AM, said:

What does that even mean old timer.

jack·leg

ˈjakleɡ/

noun
USinformal
plural noun: jacklegs

• 
  
  

  
  an incompetent, unskillful, or dishonest person.
  "a jackleg carpenter"

[Bud Crue]

I love this stuff. Really. Best distraction from actual work evah.

As to the OP's points? I think the only thing that PGI did wrong was agreeing to let MS move early without "going public" first.

Russ should have responded to MS's move early twitter offer with something along the lines of "Appreciate the offer, great idea. I'll have Tina put something on the forums for all groups to take advantage of this ASAP. Thanks!" Instead, he granted the request and said nothing officially; let the forums explode over it for a couple of days; and then made an "official" notice via Tina's post to let everyone be in the same boat as MS...but after the fact. That was bad form is all. But the tinfoil crowd have all they need to see a conspiracy here.

By granting this simple request to move early -in light of his previous criticisms of large unit "abuse" and a need to "do something about large units"- Russ created a perception in these folks that something sneaky (at best) was occurring or that PGI is really beholden to the whims of "large units" (worse).

To those who think PGI (and especially Russ via his twitter fixation) are beholden to a select few parties, this is just perfect conspiracy theory fodder...and it all could have been and should have been avoided.

[chewie]

Cheers bud.

Never heard that saying before.

So who you calling that I now wonder