86 replies to this topic

[Kin3ticX]

russ thinks the 50k isnt so harsh... soo I suggest bracing for impact because it could easily be 100k per player and we could even see a more progressive system which has no fee for sub-50 units

also wouldnt be suprising if the MC was quadrupled soon

The joining fee is meant to long-run attrition large units down to smaller ones but 50k probably doesnt sting enough imo. If you had a space tax in your unit, you can probably raise a billion cbills per month in a 450 member unit pretty easily.

[fbj]

We are not here to encourage team play or creating a community.

It's the worst thing you can do here.

So we will increase the cost of Tickets for new units to 1.2 mil.

Thank You
Come Again

[L A V A]

Kin3ticX, on 24 April 2016 - 10:08 PM, said:

If you had a space tax in your unit, you can probably raise a billion cbills per month in a 450 member unit pretty easily.

You are completely missing the point of the OP.

BWC has a similar structure which is built on inclusiveness and shared gaming experience. We are a gaming group with over 2,000 members of which at any one time about 600 are active playing many various different games. We have 300 members in our Unit, or which we are lucky to have 100 play the game once per month. Many of our members are Active Duty Military who serve overseas for six months.

So it is quite possible to have a large group, but a small active community. And no, we are not going to kick folks out of our Unit because they are on deployment, have had a newborn and don't have the time to play the game, or just want to take a break and play something else for a while.

Basing recruiting costs on raw Unit numbers is a fundamentally flawed system.

PGI has access to the raw data to determine whether or not players in Units are actually playing the game.

Recruiting costs should be based on "active" participation.

Is it so hard for you all to see that there are groups out there who play MWO but are not dedicated MWO Clans?

Is it so hard for you all to see the damage that PGI is doing to these groups with punitive recruitment costs?

Is it so hard for you all to see that by taking a hammer to the problem of large MWO dedicated Clans, PGI will actually exacerbate its problem of a shrinking population playing the game and in fact magnify the impact of large MWO dedicated Clans on game play, producing the exact opposite effect it is trying to stop?

Units such as ours should not be penalized for providing a place where new folks can learn how to play MWO. Where casual folks who do not play the game every night can get together with some friends and play every now and then. Where folks with RL commitments have long term inactivity.

But we are and the unintended consequences will see a collapse in participation in MWO in our gaming group and eventually the end our of groups participation in MWO as a whole.

This whole system of recruitment costs was poorly conceived and it will hurt not only gaming groups and players, but MWO as well, which in fact, it already is.

[Ibrandul Mike]

I know, wrong part, wrong topic ...

But I really want to know ... can´t you at the moment see, who wasn´t active since the patch, as long as your unit is with a faction? Wouldn´t that help for a start to prune the unit? And you could even check them weekly. As long as I don´t accept the new faction, I have no faction symbol right? And if I decline, I leave the unit ... so it is no really good way, but it would be one possible way, wouldn´t it?

[Naglinator]

Just break yourself down into SWLA, SWLB, etc. You already have a second IS swol group so it's not that much of a stretch

[Adamski]

Yep, the Unit Recruitment cost is back asswards.

Russ got it stuck in his head that the problem with Faction Warfare was units being too big, and has refused to reconsider the position.

Even now, PGI has just introduced a system that encourages larger units, the bigger the better, by tying MC rewards to planetary tags, and Planetary tags are easiest to gain with larger units.

The MC rewards should be based on leaderboard position, not planet tags.
This way, units that want larger rewards are encouraged to break off to another faction for easier leaderboard placement.
Units that constantly follow competitive units around to avoid challenging fights will have to pay for the privilege by being lower on the leaderboards.

[Ghogiel]

Adamski, on 25 April 2016 - 04:42 AM, said:

The MC rewards should be based on leaderboard position, not planet tags.

Unit leaderboard position is primarily how many planets a unit has tagged overall. Then it's sorted by total planetary attacks that resulted in a tag, then defense, then current number of planets under tag. Then after that it's all the win/losses and other stats etc

So in theory a unit could be leading the board with zero planets being currently held and terrible other stats.

[Adamski]

Ghogiel, on 25 April 2016 - 06:14 AM, said:

Unit leaderboard position is primarily how many planets a unit has tagged overall. Then it's sorted by total planetary attacks that resulted in a tag, then defense, then current number of planets under tag. Then after that it's all the win/losses and other stats etc

So in theory a unit could be leading the board with zero planets being currently held and terrible other stats.

So currently, a unit with that manages more successful drops but with a worse percentage is rewarded more, than a unit that has 100% wins but is smaller and cant flood the queue.

You don't see how this incentivizes Unit bloating?

[Ibrandul Mike]

For fox sake ... now I have to agree with Adamski ... it really incentivizes it

[nehebkau]

ScarecrowES, on 23 April 2016 - 03:53 PM, said:

And these costs have caused a bit of a crisis of identity for my unit. SWOL has always been an inclusive unit. For any of you that know us, you can attest we've always been open and active in the community. We've allowed any interested party to join, rarely ever turning players away unless we were at capacity. We've never had an application process. Never required players to fill out forms or pledges. Never required players to prove their worth or commitment to the unit.

For the first time, since the beginning of -SO- I have had to decline inviting someone because the 23,000,000 cost was just too high. -SO- prided itself on being inclusive, fun and friendly -- accepting people of all skill levels and play styles. This is in jeopardy now. The whole recruitment cost was a direct result of the force that -MS- could bring to bear as a giant mercenary unit but loyalist units are the ones to get hurt.

PGI: Drop the recruitment cost for LOYALIST units.

[Adamski]

Recruitment costs should be abandoned altogether and PGI should focus on fixing the underlying issue that rewards units that bloat and merge into the supersizeme units.

[Tom Sawyer]

People want to play join up and play together in large competitive teams in a game mode that states Community Warfare??? Change the name to Faction Borefare! Ban the units! Raise the costs! Allow everyone to create single player units of one! Drive off the non-conformers! Introduce bugs that reset drop decks! DO SOMETHING but do not fix the underlying problems!

Oh and would you like to buy a mech pack?

[CK16]

Does anyone else have an issue that large Merc units field more the entire factions.....Loyalist should have cheap entry fees, merc units should be expensive to expand. I am not happy with how little restrictions mercs have on them at this time, I would prefer PGI give alot more for being a loyalist to encourage more players to join a faction. And offer less if a merc....all but in Cbills atleast, I get they need to make money, but don't shower them with the same rewards as loyalist.....

[Adamski]

CK16, on 25 April 2016 - 07:39 AM, said:

Does anyone else have an issue that large Merc units field more the entire factions.....Loyalist should have cheap entry fees, merc units should be expensive to expand. I am not happy with how little restrictions mercs have on them at this time, I would prefer PGI give alot more for being a loyalist to encourage more players to join a faction. And offer less if a merc....all but in Cbills atleast, I get they need to make money, but don't shower them with the same rewards as loyalist.....

Ideally you want lots and lots of small Merc units, so that the population can even itself out with the Contract bonuses / rewards.

Penalizing units for inviting players is not the way to encourage this. Nor do you want the overlarge units to lock themselves into a faction, because then it becomes that much harder to balance faction populations.

[CK16]

But tell me right now, where is most of the loyalist population for Clans? Hardly anyone s dropping for Ghost Bear....

[Danjo San]

my two cents:
Recruitment cost is just right!
Units need to be capped, 300+ is compared to playerbase ridiculous. For me playing in the same Timezone as TCAF it will be impossible to gain a planet, ever! They have 7x more players than we do! And there are Units that have more Members than all Loyalists of Liao combined...
If you ask me Units should be capped at 48Players. 4 Dropships. That doesn't prevent Clans forming a multiple Set of Units, or subdivisons, but overall it makes more sense that way!

[Adamski]

Danjo San, on 25 April 2016 - 08:16 AM, said:

my two cents:
Recruitment cost is just right!
Units need to be capped, 300+ is compared to playerbase ridiculous. For me playing in the same Timezone as TCAF it will be impossible to gain a planet, ever! They have 7x more players than we do! And there are Units that have more Members than all Loyalists of Liao combined...
If you ask me Units should be capped at 48Players. 4 Dropships. That doesn't prevent Clans forming a multiple Set of Units, or subdivisons, but overall it makes more sense that way!

How about no?

Instead of rewarding units for tagging a planet, we should be rewarding units for winning more matches, by tying rewards to leaderboards that focus on success rate.

That way competitive units are rewarded for being successful and casual units get to keep using unit tools without being penalized for the priviledge.

[CK16]

It is Faction warfare not Merc warfare. Sorry the game should not focus on merc units and allow them to rule the map. They are extras to help tip the scale a little bit for some factions, not be thier main force!

I am still upset this game caters to the large Merc units when it should encourage more actually joining a faction, besides faction pride (and even then not enough) tell me why anyone who plays this game would want to be a loyalist over a merc? The ONLY thing loyalist have is ability to vote for who to attack. And even then I bet there is heavy influence from large Merc units "advising" who to focus on....

[DarklightCA]

Adamski, on 25 April 2016 - 04:42 AM, said:

Yep, the Unit Recruitment cost is back asswards.

Russ got it stuck in his head that the problem with Faction Warfare was units being too big, and has refused to reconsider the position.

Even now, PGI has just introduced a system that encourages larger units, the bigger the better, by tying MC rewards to planetary tags, and Planetary tags are easiest to gain with larger units.

The MC rewards should be based on leaderboard position, not planet tags.
This way, units that want larger rewards are encouraged to break off to another faction for easier leaderboard placement.
Units that constantly follow competitive units around to avoid challenging fights will have to pay for the privilege by being lower on the leaderboards.

Too large of units are not the problem of Faction Warfare but they are a problem, when you have a unit that can put out much more 12 man's than other units to swarm wins on a planet. It's extremely hard for other units to compete against that even if they are winning every single one of their matches. There are some units in this game that make you question if there is even a limit to the amount of members units can have.

As for the planetary reward system, I question that you even read the patch notes. The current system favors smaller units over larger units. Even if units cared to fight over planets and the pitiful rewards they give, the rewards are capped at 6 planets which means smaller units with a lot less planet captures will make as much income as larger units with more planets.

Additionally this is a gamemode about planetary conquest so planet captures are the only way it makes sense to reward units. Also the unit leaderboards are based on planetary captures so the two are one in the same regardless. If units also broke off to other factions, they lose all their planets which in turn makes them lose their place in the leaderboards. So how does that give them easier leaderboard placement?

CK16, on 25 April 2016 - 09:02 AM, said:

It is Faction warfare not Merc warfare. Sorry the game should not focus on merc units and allow them to rule the map. They are extras to help tip the scale a little bit for some factions, not be thier main force!

I am still upset this game caters to the large Merc units when it should encourage more actually joining a faction, besides faction pride (and even then not enough) tell me why anyone who plays this game would want to be a loyalist over a merc? The ONLY thing loyalist have is ability to vote for who to attack. And even then I bet there is heavy influence from large Merc units "advising" who to focus on....

Loyalists get the ability to decide attack lanes, Mercs lose all planetary progress they make when they switch factions. How is it that the game caters to Mercs exactly?

Edited by DarklightCA, 25 April 2016 - 09:09 AM.

[Ghogiel]

Adamski, on 25 April 2016 - 07:07 AM, said:

So currently, a unit with that manages more successful drops but with a worse percentage is rewarded more, than a unit that has 100% wins but is smaller and cant flood the queue.

You don't see how this incentivizes Unit bloating?

But the scoreboard is set up like that. And in a mode that is completely about taking and tagging planets, num of planets taken should be the main criteria.

There are supposed to be other controls against unit bloating, member fee being primary amounst them. However PGI implimented it badly and until the atrition aspect of it shows up in larger units with inactive players, all it does is hinder new units and keeps a status quo of older units.
What PGI need to do is drop the recruit cost for smaller unit under 50, and gank it up at 100 players. That way entry to creating viable units that make sense within MWO player base is open to all, deters the unit bloating, and maybe solves some of the issue with the scoreboard being about unit spam in that more smaller units would be competing instead of unit spam wins (just like the old pgi tournies where you just had to poopsock as many matches in the time window).

Edited by Ghogiel, 25 April 2016 - 09:23 AM.