175 replies to this topic

[White Bear 84]

Adamski, on 19 April 2016 - 04:13 PM, said:

Faction populations are determined by total players, not active players. WTF

THIS!!!!

&

UNIT POPULATION DOES NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THAT SOME PLAYERS WITH UNIT TAGS ARE NOT CW PLAYERS!

[MischiefSC]

Okay, so change how faction populations are calculated.

How do you motivate units to play against units?

[Triordinant]

MischiefSC, on 19 April 2016 - 08:46 PM, said:

How do you motivate units to play against units?

This is the key question that will determine whether or not CW is back to 10% of the playerbase after a month.

[MischiefSC]

Triordinant, on 19 April 2016 - 08:58 PM, said:

This is the key question that will determine whether or not CW is back to 10% of the playerbase after a month.

Agreed. So how do you answer it?

[Vas79]

The only reasonable answer to this is to burn it all down and start anew!

[White Bear 84]

Simple; there is more honour in fighting against units than there are pugs (since we all know how unit v pug matches tend to digress..).

So what?

More LP, unit combat specific rewards? More doritos per fight where you win/lose e.g. 2 instead of 1..

[Triordinant]

MischiefSC, on 19 April 2016 - 08:59 PM, said:

Agreed. So how do you answer it?

Let's see what sleep deprivation can cook up... I remember reading recently that if you work for the tax man and leave government service you're not allowed to work for an accounting firm that deals with the tax man for a whole year. Maybe something like that might work... (bear with me, my mind is unfocused).

If you leave a Unit for the next 7 days you have only 3 choices: 1) play in the non-CW queues, 2) join another Unit or 3) form a Unit of your own (alone or with others). For a week you won't be able to drop in the CW solo (tagless) queue. That might throw a monkey wrench into any plans by "rogue" Unit members pretending to be tagless only to sync-drop into the CW solo queue while on TeamSpeak.

Edited by Triordinant, 19 April 2016 - 09:21 PM.

[xX PUG Xx]

MischiefSC, on 19 April 2016 - 08:59 PM, said:

Agreed. So how do you answer it?

My ideas regarding this revolve around a cbill "pot" that is divided amongst the faction loyalists, with bonus dividends paid to units (both mercenary and loyalist) that have tagged planets. Regional capitals and other important worlds would have higher dividends relating to their importance.

The more planets the faction occupies, the larger the pot but the larger the population the smaller the piece of the pie each player receives. It would need to setup in such a way the large territorial factions (Davion/Steiner/Kurita) do not have too large an advantage to start with but I think the population factor would help to even out the payments.

The bonus dividends could be a mixture of both cbil and mc payments in varying values, making certain planets truly desirable to be held. Thus promoting units to push hard to fight for them and once held, defend them for as long as possible. The time limit on awards may be a good add-on to this, helping to prevent superunits "camping" the most valuable planets.

Theres a lot more that could be done but no time to think about it now....work, work, work.

[50 50]

I'm with MischiefSC on this.
Huge amount of content added, they have already stated that they would like everyone in there to test it for a while.
Give some honest, unemotional feedback.

Ok, sounds like the tonnage for the scout mission could be adjusted or perhaps something with the timers or when the dropship gets called back? Perhaps more points need to be collected?

The scouting bonuses might need to be activated differently. Maybe that is something that could be added to the Commander function in the battlegrid? (Or even a new proper commander role).

There are some very good teams out there who will test the extremities of the functions.
Everyone else falls in between somewhere.
Lets keep at it for a while and see how it pans out.
12 hours from a small section of the player base is not much to go on.

[TexAce]

The salt after not even 24h of patchtime is astonishing. A new low for this forum, especially with such a great content patch.

I bet 80% of the whole population have not even booted up the game yet but everyone is already sure he knows what is wrong and what doesnt work and will never work.

just L.O.L.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

Two things strike me about solo players.

The 1st is that Freelancer's get no rewards. I think they either need to get their own reward track, like Mercenaries or get Loyalist(-like) rewards but at a notably slower rate. They should be able to get contracts like Mercenaries which would increase the LP they get.

The 2nd thing that strikes me is that Solo Loyalists should be able to vote, but their vote should probably be less influential. The concern over abuse is legitimate.

[MischiefSC]

Brandarr Gunnarson, on 20 April 2016 - 02:42 AM, said:

Two things strike me about solo players.

The 1st is that Freelancer's get no rewards. I think they either need to get their own reward track, like Mercenaries or get Loyalist(-like) rewards but at a notably slower rate. They should be able to get contracts like Mercenaries which would increase the LP they get.

The 2nd thing that strikes me is that Solo Loyalists should be able to vote, but their vote should probably be less influential. The concern over abuse is legitimate.

So who are they coordinating to War Plan with? How are they part of Planning a War? Exactly who are they communicating to build a faction war strategy with? What, exactly, is their logic for casting a vote? They hate this one faction so regardless of what overarching strategies may be going on they wanna just go shoot those guys?

That very mentality is exactly what you don't want in CW Loyalists/Unit queue. That's exactly what you do NOT want. It is the opposite of a 'Faction War' and is, instead, some QP guys wanting to go play big stompy robots and blow stuff up cuz lazors and stuff. That's great. The game has tons of room for that. Largely built around it.

Why is it so terrible to have one tiny slice of the game, strategy (A dirty word around here I know) be confined to people who actually want to be involved with their community to build a strategy with?

One guy being a solo loyalist is not involved in the faction Strategy. Not because he's not wanted but because he doesn't want to be. A faction strategy is inherently a group concept. One guy wanting to go shoot this other guy because he doesn't like Dragons isn't an actual relevant, useful or worthwhile part of a faction strategy.

Also a Solo Loyalist isn't involved in things like which units are where, he's not going to deal with that - ergo at no point is he going to make intelligent decisions about where his WHOLE FACTION is going to successfully invade. He has intentionally and actively decided to AVOID THAT WHOLE PART OF THE GAME.

The only reason for solo loyalists to vote is because they want to feel special and 'involved' when they've actively decided to take a non-involvement position in their faction. They want to play in the kiddie pool but have a vote at the big kids table about what the big kids do.

[Sniper09121986]

MischiefSC, on 20 April 2016 - 02:51 AM, said:

The only reason for solo loyalists to vote is because they want to feel special and 'involved' when they've actively decided to take a non-involvement position in their faction. They want to play in the kiddie pool but have a vote at the big kids table about what the big kids do.

The douche level of this statement is over 9000. Since when is taking part in a vote an inactive position? People want to fight for their faction, they do not want to take part in unit politicking, butt-kissing, wheeling and dealing, and you know what? They have every right for these things! What you, good sir, have just uttered is 1) unit players are big kids and solo players are cannon fodder, and 2) faction loyalty should not be rewarded with the privilege of determining said faction's fate. You basically promote player segregation. That is just medieval. You want strategy - you have to go to the faction forum, make a thread, present the "intelligent decisions" you speak of and finally, have the bollocks to accept the result of a democratic majority vote.

[Adamski]

MischiefSC, on 19 April 2016 - 08:46 PM, said:

Okay, so change how faction populations are calculated.

How do you motivate units to play against units?

its pretty easy. Dont reward taking planets, reward people for what place they are on each factions leaderboard.

This encourages units to split up to seperate factions to get rewards, or else they have to compete directly or get smaller rewards when another unit is higher on the leaderboard.

[Adamski]

Also, faction voting should be weighted by faction warfare activity. Inactive players or players that dont play faction warfare shouldn't count for much compared to players that are participating

[Sniper09121986]

Adamski, on 20 April 2016 - 03:56 AM, said:

its pretty easy. Dont reward taking planets, reward people for what place they are on each factions leaderboard.

This encourages units to split up to seperate factions to get rewards, or else they have to compete directly or get smaller rewards when another unit is higher on the leaderboard.

Would actually make sense if leaderboards did not track solely by KMDD. This does reward efficient players, but among players with equal skill it rewards the one who simply plays more games, just like our current tier system. PGI used to host events with elaborate scoring formulae to determine average results within a single game, these should be implemented here as well.

[Davers]

xX PUG Xx, on 19 April 2016 - 09:32 PM, said:

The more planets the faction occupies, the larger the pot but the larger the population the smaller the piece of the pie each player receives. It would need to setup in such a way the large territorial factions (Davion/Steiner/Kurita) do not have too large an advantage

Theres a lot more that could be done but no time to think about it now....work, work, work

If all factions are worth the same then it only makes sense to attack Liao or the FRR since their planets are worth at least three times as much as planets from larger factions.

MischiefSC, on 19 April 2016 - 08:59 PM, said:

Agreed. So how do you answer it?

Solo players decide where solo players fight, units decide where units fight.

[keith]

Brandarr Gunnarson, on 20 April 2016 - 02:42 AM, said:

Two things strike me about solo players.

The 1st is that Freelancer's get no rewards. I think they either need to get their own reward track, like Mercenaries or get Loyalist(-like) rewards but at a notably slower rate. They should be able to get contracts like Mercenaries which would increase the LP they get.

The 2nd thing that strikes me is that Solo Loyalists should be able to vote, but their vote should probably be less influential. The concern over abuse is legitimate.

its not even the reward track. its when u win as say a loyalist, u get a cbill win bonus. the freelancer does not get that. if u do a 30 min match, then win and only based off of your total skill. sometimes its meh and u only get 250k. for someone who comes on and plays ever so often and just wanna click the pop ups and play a CW match real fast, they get screwed out of alot of rewards.

[Big Tin Man]

Ok, so here's the fix to the solo unit issue:

Your unit gets X number of votes based upon how many CW matches your unit members dropped in the last 72 hours. Not involved with the war? No votes. Your unit is dropping 12 mans like it's going out of style, you get a bigger say in things. Tune the numbers accordingly, but 0 drops should equal 0 votes.

[Moonraven83]

Big Tin Man, on 20 April 2016 - 06:31 AM, said:

Ok, so here's the fix to the solo unit issue:

Your unit gets X number of votes based upon how many CW matches your unit members dropped in the last 72 hours. Not involved with the war? No votes. Your unit is dropping 12 mans like it's going out of style, you get a bigger say in things. Tune the numbers accordingly, but 0 drops should equal 0 votes.

Probably the best way to handle this problem.