76 replies to this topic

[MischiefSC]

Unit cap /= active players.

It's just a bad idea.

Best option was and still is rewarding the behaviors you want, not trying to punish players for grouping up.

[Koshirou]

MischiefSC, on 25 February 2016 - 03:16 PM, said:

Unit cap /= active players.

Cap drop tickets instead of players then, as suggested before.

[nehebkau]

nehebkau, on 25 February 2016 - 10:06 AM, said:

I think loyalist units should have NO cap, and NO ability to move. I think Merc units/mobile units should have a cap and that size should be quite small ~ 128 max.

Necromantion, on 25 February 2016 - 10:08 AM, said:

No.

My suggestion is based more on reality vs. just being mean to mercs. A loyalist unit will be supported by an entire industrial military complex and as such would have both the facilities and space to house units. A merc unit has no such luck and must maintain mobility which inherently prevents the merc unit from getting too large. No planet is going to house a giant merc unit, whose size is larger than their standing military anyway.

[Gruinhardt]

MischiefSC, on 25 February 2016 - 03:16 PM, said:

Unit cap /= active players.

499 unit members /= 10 players in CW = 2%. That was SWOLS activity at 9 PM CST last night. By 10:30 the number dropped to 0. I think a better question to asked is why does the largest unit in MWO have 2% activity during what should be the most active time. It's not just SWOL. I can't remember the last time I seen a team from HHOD, RRB, or SROT.

[Crockdaddy]

Gruinhardt, on 25 February 2016 - 04:40 PM, said:

499 unit members /= 10 players in CW = 2%. That was SWOLS activity at 9 PM CST last night. By 10:30 the number dropped to 0. I think a better question to asked is why does the largest unit in MWO have 2% activity during what should be the most active time. It's not just SWOL. I can't remember the last time I seen a team from HHOD, RRB, or SROT.

Well ... maybe other units actually prune their rosters periodically. I just did. 136 down to 112 and if I was honest I could easily chop another 20 off fairly easily and then I could simply remove the Comp only guys and the few solo only players, I could realistically drop the unit down 30 more members if I was being diligent about it. I'd say monthly we have close to 90 actives but really only 60 drop CW in a given month.

[Gruinhardt]

Crockdaddy, on 25 February 2016 - 04:57 PM, said:

Well ... maybe other units actually prune their rosters periodically. I just did. 136 down to 112 and if I was honest I could easily chop another 20 off fairly easily and then I could simply remove the Comp only guys and the few solo only players, I could realistically drop the unit down 30 more members if I was being diligent about it. I'd say monthly we have close to 90 actives but really only 60 drop CW in a given month.

SWOL may have 499 members, but reality is, were a small core of active players.

[MischiefSC]

22AL shows up with 40% or more of our member 4 or more nights a week.

Problem is that units are not businesses, they're groups of friends. If your friend ends up with drama or life stuff going on and doesn't play for a couple few months you don't boot them to trim the rolls.

Unit size is irrelevant. All that should sanely and reasonably matter is active drops in CW.

Most games have a breakdown in efficiency the further you get from home and more cities you take. Just base it off that. ******* teams for not treating their members like employees is just classless.

[Sandpit]

Gruinhardt, on 25 February 2016 - 04:40 PM, said:

499 unit members /= 10 players in CW = 2%. That was SWOLS activity at 9 PM CST last night. By 10:30 the number dropped to 0. I think a better question to asked is why does the largest unit in MWO have 2% activity during what should be the most active time. It's not just SWOL. I can't remember the last time I seen a team from HHOD, RRB, or SROT.

because PGI can't understand statistics.

Like you and Mischieft have pointed out, membership =/= active players. I have players in RMA that haven't played in over a year or more. According to PGI's philosophy and logic though, those players are considered "active" and would count against a player cap number.

So now unit leaders face a decision of booting personal friends or paying a penalty. All because PGI, and some of the players, have zero idea on what a unit actually is and how they work.

MischiefSC, on 25 February 2016 - 05:20 PM, said:

22AL shows up with 40% or more of our member 4 or more nights a week.

Problem is that units are not businesses, they're groups of friends. If your friend ends up with drama or life stuff going on and doesn't play for a couple few months you don't boot them to trim the rolls.

Unit size is irrelevant. All that should sanely and reasonably matter is active drops in CW.

Most games have a breakdown in efficiency the further you get from home and more cities you take. Just base it off that. ******* teams for not treating their members like employees is just classless.

being in a player created unit should be completely irrelevant to anything. It shouldn't factor into ANY "balancing" of any portion of the game.

P.S.

ESPECIALLY when you had to pay PGI for the "privilege" of creating the unit in the first place. Not like they could do something simple like raise the rates to break contracts
increase contract lengths
increase long contract rewards
etc.

Instead we're back to complicated mechanics that won't solve the issue in the first place just so a few players can feel better about themselves and PGI can keep using players as scapegoats for their poor decisions

[Kin3ticX]

Doesn't seem right for the future of the game mode to have the unit cap almost as big as some factions.

If unit leaders want to ignore player turnover and just become a blob of inactives, thats their prerogative. They don't need 512 players to do that though.

It is true that 512 players can have zero impact on the map if nobody plays anymore. However, 512 unit cap is potentially game breaking if they happen to be active. Mercstar may have 400 something nominally but it really only does what it does with ~200.

Why 512 and not 1024 or 2048? At 512 there might as well not be a unit cap.

Edited by Kin3ticX, 25 February 2016 - 08:56 PM.

[Fanatic]

Look at the "% of unit that participated" for the Tukkayid 2 event --> Google Doc or http://mwomercs.com/...d-stats-part-2/

unit members /= active players

Edited by Fanatic, 26 February 2016 - 07:12 AM.

[Khereg]

ice trey, on 24 February 2016 - 11:35 PM, said:

I think that it would be best to put the limit at 108.

Most numerical limits in the game are set by bit sizes instead of coded limits. The current size limit for units is 7-bits. So, you could have 128, but not 108.

[Necromantion]

Khereg, on 26 February 2016 - 01:53 PM, said:

Most numerical limits in the game are set by bit sizes instead of coded limits. The current size limit for units is 7-bits. So, you could have 128, but not 108.

WWTLTD?

What would the lore tards do?

[AnimeFreak40K]

Not sure if suggesting increasing/removing unit cap or lowering it.

My personal opinion is reducing it from 512 to 384 or 256 (since there's that whole bit-related thing).

To be clear, this is not about punishing large units (although I know that some folks would see it that way regardless) and more about creating more units.

To put it another way; I am suggesting that PGI go all Teddy Roosevelt and start busting some trusts and breaking up some monopolies.

[Crockdaddy]

Necromantion, on 26 February 2016 - 01:59 PM, said:

WWTLTD?

What would the lore tards do?

Now now ... the "loretards" largely fund this game so be nice. I love the lore and BT (which is why I backed hairbained schemems oneline TT game) but I don't have to be married to the lore in MWO. Just be faithful to it and make a working game. If you have to break some S**t to make it work go for it. Most of us still here are so invested in MWO we could barely afford another ship Constellation variant in Star Citizen.

[Gruinhardt]

AnimeFreak40K, on 26 February 2016 - 02:11 PM, said:

Not sure if suggesting increasing/removing unit cap or lowering it.

My personal opinion is reducing it from 512 to 384 or 256 (since there's that whole bit-related thing).

To be clear, this is not about punishing large units (although I know that some folks would see it that way regardless) and more about creating more units.

To put it another way; I am suggesting that PGI go all Teddy Roosevelt and start busting some trusts and breaking up some monopolies.

You wouldn't be punishing large units. Even with a cap limit of 128, most large units would survive, keeping only the top players in the unit. But you would be punishing individual players. Those players not meeting a certain skill level or participation level would be looking for a new unit. Or just quit. New recruits and casual players would find it harder to find a unit.

Lets be honest. We tell people complaining about CW to join a unit, or stay out of CW until they have basic skills and own their own mechs, doesn't work. We tried that, and now we will get a split queue.

Edited by Gruinhardt, 26 February 2016 - 03:16 PM.

[Necromantion]

If they advanced the timeline we could have less factions and more diverse gameplay than we even do now due to new weapons for both factions and new mechs. This would also likely increase their revenue along with player contentedness.

Am I wrong to say that?

[DarklightCA]

While 500 player units are ridiculous, especially for a small populated game like this. By no means should PGI limit units ability to become a large community of players. This game is not just about Community Warfare and Community Warfare as a gamemode took a long time to be made.

Units and entire communities of players have since grouped together for the only concept of doing so to play the game with other people. Community Warfare only units are only a recent thing and only really small units can claim that. Those large units that you are talking about are large community of players with a varied interest in the game.

You look at a big unit and not even half those players are likely to be actively playing this game as a whole, and its unlikely that more than a quarter of those active players have any invested interest in Community Warfare. Trying to reduce entire communities of players for one gamemode is also pretty ridiculous given that fact. A 200-250 unit cap seems reasonable to me, big enough to remain a large community of players with varied interests and not too ridiculously large.

As far as the whole "this is not punishing large units but creating new units" thing goes, you can also create new units by adding a actual effective in-game recruitment tool that allows small struggling units to become a community of players without forcing players out of existing units and praying that they funnel into the smaller ones or create new ones.

Edited by DarklightCA, 26 February 2016 - 06:45 PM.

[dervishx5]

There are so many incorrect facts in this thread that instead of listing them all I'm just going to bottle it up inside until I release it at an inappropriate moment and teamkill Crockdaddy.

[MischiefSC]

dervishx5, on 27 February 2016 - 11:01 AM, said:

There are so many incorrect facts in this thread that instead of listing them all I'm just going to bottle it up inside until I release it at an inappropriate moment and teamkill Crockdaddy.

It's important to have a system that works for you. Thumbs up.

[Kin3ticX]

whats the point of having 500 inactive players in your unit

if unit leaders are dying for some logistics then they should have to manage their rosters with more care than invite anyone and keep them forever