58 replies to this topic

[QueenBlade]

Why is this not something on the design board? I've yet to hear this be brought up in any Town Hall or Road Map. The idea that a faction can only out size the smallest populated faction by a certain percentage before being closed off to new contracts.

Idea: Allow X Faction to increase by #% more population than smallest Y Faction, the population formula would not be implemented unless the total population of CW is above Z total population.

Rewards: (multiple ideas) for Factions that are smaller than the largest faction or a median % of 10% total population (10 faction / 100% = 10%)
1) Increase XP gains by %
2) Increase Cbill gains by %
3) Increase Loyalty gains by %
4) Increase All gains (XP, Cbill, LP)
5) Increase a mix (XP and Cbill, or Cbill and LP, etc)

*Note: Loyalist/Large Mercs are not limited to a certain % of a faction, the faction is limited by a % of the total population. Units can take up 100% of a faction for all I care, as long as the total population is not heavily in favor of said faction.

Example:
10 Factions, perfect spread would be 10% of total population for each faction. A faction can only support being 10% more than the smallest faction percentage. To keep it simple in explanation.
CW - 10%
CJF - 10%
CGB - 10%
CSJ - 10%
Steiner - 10%
Kurita - 10%
Davion - 15%
Liao - 5%
Marik - 10%

So all those factions with 10% of the population would have normal rewards, but Liao since they have a low population their rewards would be increased, while Davion with 15% would have their rewards lowered. Idea being they have to support more troops thus their funds have to spread out more, think having to ration. Now with a population cap due to being 10% higher than the smallest faction, Davion contracts would be turned off to units that hold a contract with anyone other than Davion. Current loyalist Davion units could stay, and mercs that are currently contracted with Davion would get first dibs when their contract ended for x amount of hours. After which their % would open to any unit. This would keep all factions' population within close percentage of one another and it would automatically adjust as the total population increased or decreased. Unit's themselves would have to keep their own size in check. While it isn't something that PGI had to control directly, it is now something that Unit leader's will have to control themselves depending on where they want to operate. A faction they couldn't go to before may not be open now, but as the total population of CW changes, then more contract opportunities will open up. This would mean more freedom for smaller units to move around, but it would also mean more control/choices for larger units.



*Numbers taken from a post made by XKineticX, but to put real data numbers into reference:

CW would have to release ~612 players (22.63% of their faction population) from their pool to come in line with the 10% idea. More than likely those 612 players will join another Clan faction.
CJF can hold 119 until it hits their cap but CSJ and CGB could hold all 612.
But perhaps the rewards increase for Liao, Marik, CSJ, and CGB are enough to bring their numbers up.

A 306 increase for both Liao and Marik would increase their population by a couple percentage and also increase battles coming from difference sources. If this happens, then CW's ability to take on more pilots increases by roughly 2%, or ~300 pilots.

The difference is ~1500 players under the total population for 14774 contracted players. As more players contract themselves the number that a faction can maintain increases as well, as long as the 10% split is maintained.

Whereas rewards from CW, CJF, Steiner, and Rasalhague would see a much larger drop. Davion would see a small drop, perhaps still keeping their mercs happy.

This may also bring the idea of the community paying units to stay with a certain faction when rewards are lower due to population. Idea being what Prussian Havoc did back in Phase 2, paying units to take on contracts with certain factions. Granted the population balance would still be enforced, but I'm talking about a situation where say, a faction was nearing the contract cut-off population and was looking to relocate for more rewards, but then get approached by a loyalist unit that offers to cover the lost in rewards due to the increase in population.

[Chemistrius]

While I do agree that pops should be evened out a lot, I feel like a hard cap would be immediately shot down.

"I can't join X to play with my buddies because it is full?!?"
or
"Y is full, but I always wanted to play that faction because I read a lot about it in the books, they're my favorite! WAAAAH!"

Given their track record on defending faction choice, I don't see PGI ever denying anyone entry to them, let alone doing it for population control..

[R79TCom1 Night Lanner]

I cannot express how much I like this idea.

- It address the issue where large units influence the map to heavily.
- While allowing units to grow as large as the want.
- It is tweakable so PGI can adjust the max percentages as needed.
- And there is a Lore/role-playing/in-game story explanation for why factions would not be hiring. "House Steiner regrets to inform you that they are unable to hire any more mercs/MechWarriors at the moment."

An issue I can see arising is how are units removed from a maxed out faction? Or do you just lock down the faction until other ones catch up; hoping that the mercs in the faction will move on to more profitable factions -- perhaps removing cost and cool down to leave a faction that has reached its max?

[DarklightCA]

Chemistrius, on 12 April 2016 - 11:46 AM, said:

While I do agree that pops should be evened out a lot, I feel like a hard cap would be immediately shot down.

"I can't join X to play with my buddies because it is full?!?"
or
"Y is full, but I always wanted to play that faction because I read a lot about it in the books, they're my favorite! WAAAAH!"

Given their track record on defending faction choice, I don't see PGI ever denying anyone entry to them, let alone doing it for population control..

There are many things wrong with Community Warfare but in regards to balance, faction population differences is on the top. What he is suggesting isn't denying anybody their favorite faction choices. If you are a Clan Wolf person than you become a Clan Wolf Loyalist and occupy apermanent spot in Clan Wolf. However being that Clan Wolf units are among the largest and as a faction it's pretty popular.

What that means is that Clan Wolf will likely not be-able to accept further contracts meaning for mercs they won't be-able to stack that faction and if Clan Wolf is a higher % population than the rest of the factions than it will gain lesser income compared to other factions until Clan Wolf is less stacked and any faction that has less population than the average faction would gain higher rewards to attract more population to balance it.

At the same time what PGI wants units to do is get rid of some of their bulk and slim down some so they are not so much of a powerhouse on the map. What this would do is allow units to still be what they want to be but the larger your unit is, the less faction choices you will have. The smaller your unit the more choices you will have. Making it more rewarding to be a smaller unit and giving larger units more incentive to slim down. Win/Win for PGI, Win/Win for Balance, Win/Win for everybody.

[Chemistrius]

I'm not disagreeing with the point, or the idea. I just feel like PGI will cite silly reasons not to do good things and go "LALALALALA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU! LALALALALA!"

[QueenBlade]

If there is no community outcry, then perhaps yes PGI will continue to look away from the problem and keep their focus on issues that the community it currently poking them about. Like I talked about at the beginning of my post, there has not been any real talk about the population balance issue at the Town Halls, nor the Road Maps. Closest thing we've had was the mention of limiting unit sizes as a hard fix (bandaid fix in my opinion), and now the separation of solo / group queues in CW.

Last time I checked, PGI said CW was hardcore mode. Only thing that is getting harder is finding a match due to all these population imbalances.

Edited by QueenBlade, 12 April 2016 - 12:55 PM.

[QueenBlade]

R79TCom1 Night Lanner, on 12 April 2016 - 11:55 AM, said:

An issue I can see arising is how are units removed from a maxed out faction? Or do you just lock down the faction until other ones catch up; hoping that the mercs in the faction will move on to more profitable factions -- perhaps removing cost and cool down to leave a faction that has reached its max?

Contracts are turned off for the Faction, until the population drops back below the threshold. Loyalists are not affected, only units that take anything other than a perma contract. Yes this could mean that a faction can stay above the threshold, but they are unable to take on more players, or the loyalist unit can do a faction change.

Edited by QueenBlade, 12 April 2016 - 12:49 PM.

[Kael Posavatz]

Actually there are a couple of things that have been mentioned at the last few townhalls, it just takes a bit to tease the details out of the "blah, blah, blah, meh, meh, meh".

1) Unit size, adding personnel to a unit will incur a cost on the Unit Coffers. Cost indexes to unit size. So a large unit will have to pay more to add an additional player than a small unit would.

2) Rewards for holding a planet. Loyalist units will earn MC for holding a planet. MC to be distributed by the Unit Leader. This will encourage units to join smaller-population factions (better chance to take/hold a planet) and foment the breakups of large units (better MC rewards per player).

3) C-bill rewards will index to faction population (more players in a faction= less c-bill rewards).

Of course, how many of these actually will make it into phase III remains to be seen.

[Akillius]

Denying entry to a faction based on population is not inspiring and it would be just a frustrating roadblock for most players.
(Personally, I'd file a support case every time I was denied entry.)

DarklightCA, on 12 April 2016 - 12:04 PM, said:

If you are a Clan Wolf person than you become a Clan Wolf Loyalist and occupy apermanent spot in Clan Wolf.

The other concept of only allowing permanent entry to 1 faction ever is not the answer, unless you want a dozen non-playing alts for many players, also that straight-jacket concept would completely ignore the mercenaries...
*cough* mwomercs.com *cough*

Struck out the above, was my bad since I didn't read the previous line.

DarklightCA, on 12 April 2016 - 12:04 PM, said:

What he is suggesting isn't denying anybody their favorite faction choices.

I agree Bonus Reward % percentages is a great idea.
Those ingame "economics" of cbills, xp, loyalty is of a high interest to most players.
Whatever metrics PGI uses to add some percentage increase in earning those 3 rewards for factions with smaller populations,
and include a way for players to look up population density when they want to (daily at least),
I believe that alone should even out the faction sizes.

hmm I'd expect some wild faction jumping in the first weeks/months because of it.

Edited by Akillius, 14 April 2016 - 07:31 AM.

[MovinTarget]

This makes sense to me. I approve (of) this message.

[Banditman]

Akillius, on 12 April 2016 - 12:58 PM, said:

Denying entry to a faction based on population is not inspiring and it would be just a frustrating roadblock for most players.
(Personally, I'd file a support case every time I was denied entry.)

That's not what is being suggested, please read more carefully. It's generalizations like this which make life so hard for good ideas.

What was suggested is that mercenary units would be unable to take a contract with a faction that is population imbalanced. It doesn't mean you can't join a unit already in that faction. It doesn't mean you can't take a Loyalist contract. It means only that faction hopping mercenaries can't pile in to a faction that already has a huge population.

I'm not sure I love the idea, but I understand the intent and agree with that.

[vocifer]

QueenBlade, on 12 April 2016 - 11:29 AM, said:

The idea that a faction can only out size the smallest populated faction by a certain percentage before being closed off to new contracts.

#of signed players != #of active players

game over

[mp00]

I had tried to figure out something like this myself long ago, but my brain fried.

Some issues and ideas I had:

- Not just total population can be used in figuring out a factions %. Player FW activity will need to be factored in. Davion probably has a very high overall population based on lore popularity and simple fact it is the first choice players may click on and try. This does not mean they have anywhere close to the active population playing FW.

- I do not believe in completely barring players from switching to the faction or clan of their choice. Rewards as QueenBlade listed by % are great start. I think a large variety of mercenary contract lengths and types should be available and the higher a factions population is the less these will pay or types will be available.

[QueenBlade]

vocifer, on 12 April 2016 - 01:47 PM, said:

#of signed players != #of active players

game over

You are correct, this would urge Unit Leaders to take better care of their rosters.

Also, non-active players after a contract change stay un-factioned (lonewolf) until they log in. So they are not included in your formula since they are not signed into a faction, unless they log into the game.

Thus # of inactive players == # of unfactioned players in a unit

game on

Edited by QueenBlade, 12 April 2016 - 02:10 PM.

[Triordinant]

I approve this message.

[UberStuka]

You should cram all of that into a "tweet"

They should just say F it and pull the trigger on Unit and Faction population caps.

[QueenBlade]

There is already a unit cap of 500. And I'm not asking for a hard faction cap, I'm asking for a system that will adjust itself based on the population of CW, a soft cap that will help with many other systems that PGI is currently trying to hard cap.

[UberStuka]

I know its a bit off topic but I was thinking something more reasonable like 150 for units. Its just game breaking for 400+ players to tag planets. The smaller units just cannot compete on that scale of offence. Anyhow sorry for the hijack.

Back on subject... yes I agree 100% there should be some sort of mechanism/algorithm that keeps the Faction populations in check.

[QueenBlade]

Well sadly, you'll just see multiples of the same units. So a unit of 400+ will just divide themselves across 3 units of 150 each in the same faction, thus smaller units will still get bombarded. Where if the faction was limited based on the population of other factions. A big unit could still split themselves, but then they would operate out of multiple factions having to hit different planets, but they couldn't exactly help each other, unless they do something like say, send part of their unit as Liao, and another part as Kurita and hit Davion from two sides.

Which is something that would happen in the BT lore. And the action causes a sense of logistics cause now Davion has to try and stop two smaller attacks, instead of 1 giant attack, which Davion players will feel they can defend against better.

[vocifer]

It's not exactly what I've meant...

The main issue is deeper: You are not able to control player's activity. You can't predict whether the currently active player is going to do ten drops today or just one.

The current PGI's approach is actually more close to the point then yours. Bad thing is that they scaled everything to the times higher population and make no efforts to scale it down.

Why? - Because if you want to balance the gameplay side you should put your limits close to the one. They are capping the attack options by having only one border of two planets between each pair of factions with 13 maps/planet which is 2*13*12=312 slots, and is just too much currently.

And this is where ~200 players are active in best hours at a time. It will work with 2000 though.
How would you cap ^ this number with faction caps?