110 replies to this topic

[Baulven]

Wolfs dragoons had five regiments. I am sure there is probably a bigger unit out there, so it makes no sense to artifically limit unit numbers.

[Unendingmenace]

My experience with the game would definitely be changed for the worse if I couldn't be in the same unit as the main group of friends that I've made along the way but there's much more too it than that.

As some of the others have already said in this thread (and many others) different units have different leaders and it's that combination that those Drop Commanders bring and how they influence their members with different leadership quality's that will ultimately change the team dynamics. This will differ from leader to leader and unit to unit which at the end of the day: Will change how much players can learn from their drop commanders and in turn how much potential their drop commanders can maximize from their members. When these things work in unison a more successful unit is bred. Not to mention people will become better pilots as their constantly learning new things and honing their skills while hopefully being challenged by other units along the way.

All in all players will be happier and this will create a more enjoyable experience which is of course why we play this game right? I know I for one wouldn't be the pilot that I am today (and I've sure as hell got a long way to go at that!) without the leadership of my Drop Commanders and the wealth of experience that they've shared with me.

[Armando]

Unendingmenace, on 17 July 2016 - 06:48 PM, said:

My experience with the game would definitely be changed for the worse if I couldn't be in the same unit as the main group of friends that I've made along the way but there's much more too it than that.

As some of the others have already said in this thread (and many others) different units have different leaders and it's that combination that those Drop Commanders bring and how they influence their members with different leadership quality's that will ultimately change the team dynamics. This will differ from leader to leader and unit to unit which at the end of the day: Will change how much players can learn from their drop commanders and in turn how much potential their drop commanders can maximize from their members. When these things work in unison a more successful unit is bred. Not to mention people will become better pilots as their constantly learning new things and honing their skills while hopefully being challenged by other units along the way.

All in all players will be happier and this will create a more enjoyable experience which is of course why we play this game right? I know I for one wouldn't be the pilot that I am today (and I've sure as hell got a long way to go at that!) without the leadership of my Drop Commanders and the wealth of experience that they've shared with me.

Very well said +100000000

Factions have far, Far, FAR more power than they show because they don't use their power efficiently...they fight divided.

That is why I firmly believe that Factions should steal "The Play" from the [-MS-] playbook and fight UNITED under one tag AS A FACTION.

You want your numbers Danjo San......you got em...in spades.
You want to put the "Community" back into "Faction Warfare"...

...Share Leadership
...Share Commanders
...Share Resources (pilots)
...Share Communications
...Share wins together
...Share losses together (*)
...Share "Faction Warfare" together

Less 'splinter units'...more 'united community factions'.

Train Leadership as a united Faction
Train Commanders as a united Faction
Train Resources as a united Faction
Develop a Culture as a united Faction

Enjoy the benefits of 'cross training':

Create a "Faction Play Book" made up of the best 'plays' contributed from each Faction Units playbooks.
- Learn from and Teach (Develop) Faction Commanders trained to lead pilots in executing "Faction Plays".

Enjoy better coverage:

Find more Leaders, more often:
- Granting access, removing access, promoting, demoting...more often.
Find more Commanders, more often.
- A horrible plan executed well is superior to 'no plan' executed flawlessly...share access to commanders, commanders share access to each other (more plays in "Faction Playbook")
Find more teammates, more often:
- Learn from more and different pilots. Have more pupils to teach. Have more teammates "In Coms".

Then there is the side effect:

Once [-MS-] secret isn't so secret (Every Faction enjoys the same 'coverage' that [-MS-] does), the overall effect is the EXACT ONE I think Danjo San is looking for. So, there is that...which is nice!
___________________________________________
(*): [Kcom], [228], [EVIL], [EmP], [TCAF], [BMMU] (Love you Bunny) and many more not listed but should be...thank you for the good old fashion passionate @$$ VVh!pp!nz you have handed my teammates and I since the dawn of CW/FW. I look forward to both the rare games were my teammates and I squeak a win out AND the usual..."Your team rips our guts from our chest, puts them in a bucket, then hands that bucket back to us just before putting a slug in between our eyes" type games to come!

Edited by Armando, 17 July 2016 - 08:05 PM.

[MischiefSC]

Won't work Armando because you'd have to agree on leadership and direction more or less.

What we really need is, as I said prior, to have the benefits be around being a loyalist and have mercs hired by contracts (or work for base pay). This would stabilize populations enough to let loyalists work out how to deal with population disparities.

[Jon Gotham]

Ductus Hase, on 16 July 2016 - 03:31 AM, said:

So your opinion defines "officially"?

My opinion:
In Phase 1 Clanmechs were severely OP - now we do stand a chance. Clanmechs are still more noobfriendly that´s about it.
Thus we are FAR from Phase 1.

ehhh...stop that. How can mechs that require more face time, but have lower survivability than their opponents with worse heat be more noob friendly? I'd argue the short face time, structure/movement/heat/range/duration quirked Is chassis were.

We stand way more than a chance, if we play to our chassis strengths they don't stand a chance. Quirks>all.

after the rebalance if they are taking away quirks you'll see the power shift again. but build for fldpp and you'll still win.

[Armando]

MischiefSC, on 17 July 2016 - 08:06 PM, said:

Won't work Armando because you'd have to agree on leadership and direction more or less.

What we really need is, as I said prior, to have the benefits be around being a loyalist and have mercs hired by contracts (or work for base pay). This would stabilize populations enough to let loyalists work out how to deal with population disparities.

It CAN WORK. I know this because IT HAS ALREADY WORKED. /wink

Each Unit Leader would STILL BE the Leader of their unit, responsible for the overall training and disciple of their unit members (although the door to cross training now becomes open) and keep of the individual unit culture.
________________________________________________
Name the "Unit Ranks" of the Unified Faction Team as follows:

"The RESPONSIBLE":
For Mercenaries "The RESPONSIBLE" holds the "Contract Keys". Only a handful of the most trusted are granted access to the "Manage Contract" function. They are responsible for ensuring the decisions of the "Leadership and Commanders" is executed in game. {[-MS-] Example: We have 5}

[-UNITED FACTION TAG-] Commanders and Officers:
A shared resource pool of commanders and officers. Each Unit can have multiple commanders and officers represented. In addition, both the leadership and commanders from the units vote on Factions matter that will be executed by "The RESPONSIBLE". {[-MS-] Example: We have 20]

[-UNITED FACTION TAG-] NCO:
A shared resource pool of trainers, lance leaders, and 'knowledgeable resources' who are not commanders or officers. {[-MS-] Example: We have 6]

[Unit 1] - Name of Unit 1
[Unit 2] - Name of Unit 2
[Unit 3] - Name of Unit 3
[Unit 4] - Name of Unit 4
{[-MS-] Example: We have 15 Units + Sub units ranging from 3 members to 110 members in size}
________________________________________________
Our Communications are set up with...

...Community Level Leadership and Command Channels (Rules based on Faction Culture)
...Community Level Faction Warfare Channels (Rules based on Faction Culture)
...Community Level Quick Play Channels (Rules based on Faction Culture)
...Unit Level Leadership and Command Channels (Rules based on Unit Culture)
...Unit Level Faction Warfare Channels (Rules based on Unit Culture)
...Unit Level Quick Play Channels (Rules based on Unit Culture)
....Community "Other Games" Channels (Rules based on Faction Culture)

Any Factions that would like assistance setting up "Unified Communications" please let me know....I know a guy!
________________________________________________
To put this another way: If a group of dirty damn mercenaries can pull this off, Loyalist will execute 100% better when they realize they DESERVE more leaders, commanders, teammates...more often; their Unit DESERVES more leaders, commanders and teammates...more often; their FACTION DESERVES more leaders, commanders and teammates...more often. When they realize that more leaders, commanders and teammates...more often = more fun!

It's going to happen, Factions will Unite, the only question left is: Which Faction going to reap the benefits of sharing and pull it off first?
_________________________________________________
Danjo San is RIGHT: There is a problem!

The solution to THIS problem isn't one PGI can solve for us....it is a problem we need to solve ourselves TOGETHER. A solution is available that WILL WORK, but it will TAKE WORK, to make it happen.

As someone who has reaped the benefits of sharing resources since the start of CW/FW let me tell you that without a doubt the results of putting in that work are WORTH IT, on SO many levels!
_________________________________________________
I am so desperate to see a Faction pull a "merc star", and based on how important I think having good Drop Callers and Drop Commanders is to Faction Warfare... I will make the following offer:

I will commit to teaching 6 different 30 minute courses on Drop Calling. (Every member should attend this)
I will commit to teaching 2 different 60 minute courses on Drop Commanding 101.
I will commit to teaching 2 different 30 minute courses on Advanced Drop Commanding.
I will commit to teaching 2 different 30 minute courses on "How to Teach Gaming".

...to the Callers / Commanders of the first "Unified Faction" to either existing Callers/Commanders, pilots who are not Callers/Commanders but would like to learn, and or both.

These classes are a practice I highly recommend continue long after I fill my quota, and are an example meant to be modified by each Faction to fit within said Factions Culture.

I am not the type of commander to call for a push and sit in the back. I am not going to ask Factions to "put in work" and not be willing to put on my boots and gloves to "do some work" for them so they can get the same 'coverage' and be able to compete consistently at (or ABOVE) the [-MS-] level too (or as close as possible).
_________________________________________________
If we ARE "Officially back where we left in phase 1" then let's use the 'downtime' in Phase 3 to get Factions "set up" to fight AS FACTIONS when Phase 4 starts.

There is nothing standing between Factions and Unification but fear and air (makes swhoop sound of sucking in air). Stop living in fear, start enjoying the benefits fighting as a UNITED FACTION. Each and every one of you DESERVE better 'coverage'....give your selves what you DESERVE....UNITE. It's OK to for Factions to steal from the [-MS-] playbook, Mercenaries don't deserve to be the only 'Faction' that has 'coverage'. PGI can't solve this problem for us...we have to solve this problem ourselves.

It is not a question of "Can it be done?"...IT HAS BEEN DONE ALREADY (Blueprint has been written)....It CAN be done again...It is WORTH doing. We need to be like Nike and "Just Do It"...What Faction is going to be the first to call me out and take my offer?

Edited by Armando, 17 July 2016 - 11:05 PM.

[MischiefSC]

Except it works for a merc unit where you have control over everyone who joins. That's not a Faction. Factions are often 30-70% pugs, many of whom absolutely refuse to coordinate. They view it like some evil trick.

Of the units left many are casual or semi-casual and don't really want to get into something that involved.

The best factions do have a core of dedicated units that communicate and coordinate. Davion even has a WhatsApp chat going with unit officers from a number of units running 24x7. Back when people played FW we had several units and hundreds of players (about 2x the population of MS) coordinated from that. It's how we managed to tread water with 3 active fronts, often with 2x our numbers hammering at the door.

We're about the only faction with that level of communication. We still couldn't somehow get all our pugs to act like unit members.

MS doesn't have pugs and you can kick people out of your faction for being bad, stupid or a disruptive dbag. You have some control over your whole membership, where they go, where they fight, what avenues they take.

Factions don't. Anyone joins them and does their own thing. Doesn't work like a merc unit.

[KinLuu]

Large units are not the problem.

Any unit not beeing encouraged to stay in and identify with a faction is (one of) the problem(s).

[Danjo San]

R31Nismoid, on 17 July 2016 - 01:47 PM, said:

Yeah for sure, especially the aussie style of gaming whilst heavily under the influence... Makes for some hilarity




There is no irony.

There is only alienation.

You force people to split up their larger units/communities that will be the nail in the coffin for some of them. Some people prefer a larger community/unit and share the one tag, some do not.

To alienate one specific group because you were upset that one time a larger unit tagged a planet for 15MC... Back to reality please.

Back to reality, I have Players telling me that seing no chance of getting a shot at the "end game goal" is keeping them from playing FW... It is reality.

Reality of a Cap? You say there will be no more training? there will be no more people dropping together, it is the nail in the coffin... fabricated. There is no proof, you are just saying a fair limit, to ensure that everybody has an equal shot, would be the end of FW.
But on the other hand I have players telling me they are quitting because there is no incentive, large units control simply due to numbers. I know I have been talking to players... I have a network of Units and players, coming from a background of my unit always sharing teamspeak servers with other units. And the reality of that was, we dropped together we trained together, we fought together, it does not matter if a player from unit A is the Drop Commander or from Unit B... We fill the Queue with whoever hangs out on our servers.
But yeah, I guess I am making that stuff up or my space communist decentralized ideologies are too present in my Liao mindset.
You say a cap breaks up communities. I play in a community with multiple units. So No
You say a cap prevents training and the intake of new players, New Players come and go in our community, some join my unit some join one of the others in our network, and they get training.

I say a cap would increase incentive by making the distribution of victory tokens fairer. Players that invested much time and effort into FW would not be bought out as easy, and such are more likely to stay.
I say a cap of unit size would make the tags on the map be more diverse, because one single unit cannot field enough players for 24 hours non stop, a dynamic change in the overall Landscape of Tags would be the result. More diversity, means casual Players and small Units would not get the Impression of "We are too casual to have a chance to get a tag." they only go to the same guys over and over. more players from small and casual units, that actually know how to follow orders and shoot would return back to FW. Instead of a magnitude of new players that have no clue what they are doing and just clicked on the call to arms button. I am telling you, there are active players out there that quit FW because it is a waste of time, you get less c-Bills per minute, and you don't even stand a chance to tag, so why do it in the first place. These are "real" concerns of players and it is a real effect that is visible in the makeup of faction warfare. You can see it... well at least I do.

[Daidachi]

The reality is that you are twisting figures to benefit your own argument - and everyone, from all sides does so.

Until you can recognise your own bias, how do you hope to persuade us?

DSx have very rarely had a population above 50, yet they were the #3 Jade Falcon unit on Tukkayid, and have managed to tag planets multiple times through phases 2-3 (I wasn't active in FW in phase 1). Ebon Keshik have done the same.all through phase 3 with 40 pilots on their roster.

256th Bear Cav only operate in one time zone really, and they've tagged planets in both Marik and Draconis space with 44 pilots (I'm saying this because it shows smaller units in both busy and non busy zones).

Suggestions have been made as to how to address your concerns - and these have ranged from Mischief's suggestion of making loyalist rewards better than those mercs have for a more stable population spread (by incentivising players to choose to be loyalist), through to wholesale changing the tag system by rewarding individual players who have contributed to the successful attack/defense of a planet instead of per unit - and yet you systematically choose to ignore these ideas and beat that dead horse some more - and are surprised when people ignore you or treat your suggestions with derision?

Your opinion is your opinion, and you are entitled to it - but part of having that is that I and others are just as entitled to believe you are completely and utterly wrong. Communities come in a variety of sizes, big and small, and encouraging them to grow and develop is part of what keeps a game going long after the content fails to inspire - what you are effectively saying to the populace at large here is that your units method is the only method worth considering.

That, more than anything else, is why your ideas are being dismissed out of hand (by me at least).

[Sjorpha]

I think currently the FW population being so low is the reason behind clustering, not the size of units.

I doubt any unit right now can muster 12 mans reliably around the clock, not even MS. The small units like us certainly can't, we almost never have a full MJ12 12man going. So you don't join "empty" factions because of the risk of not being able to attack due to lack of players.

So basically for clans you go JF right now because you know there are other players there. For IS you go Steiner or FRR I guess depending on where you think the players are.

With FW population this low, we have to cluster up to make at least one Clan and one IS faction active and get matches. Right now it would be nice to move some units over to IS perhaps, but not long ago the clustering was on the IS side in FRR, so there is a fair bit of randomness involved.

I could see some kind of mechanic to balance IS vs Clan population to get more matches, but right now I think population is too low to also spread players out across factions, better to cluster up in one or two factions on each side.

Removing or fixing Long Tom would increase player count, that is the best thing that could be done to improve the population issue right now.

[Danjo San]

AnTi90d, on 16 July 2016 - 03:13 PM, said:

I think 100 is way too low to be functional, but the bones of that system are interesting. If they allowed 500 merc heads to each faction, that would forcibly spread people out.

..but if a unit the size of SWOL tried to move around, there would also need a system to be put into place to increase the contract sizes so they wouldn't be stuck outside of FP.. either that or bust up large units to fit into the system, but that would really piss off some people.

Now if you balanced available contracts by the average active merc and loyalist population, some units claim only 20% of them are active in CW tops. let's assume that is true for a bulk of players, if you just play with the numbers you get to something like this
Faction A has
loyal unit #1 300 players, 20% active = 60 Players
loyal unit #2 150 players, 20% active = 30 Players
loyal unit #3 60 players, 20% active = 12 Players
Total active players 102

Faction B has
loyal unit #1 250 players, 20% active = 50
loyal unit #2 200 players, 20% active = 40
loyal unit #3 200 players, 20% active = 40
loyal unit #4 70 players, 20% active = 14
total active players 146

Mercs to distribute
merc group #1 300 players, 20% active = 60
merc group #2 200 players, 20% active = 40
merc group #3 50 players, 20% active = 10
merc group #4 40 players, 20% active = 8
merc group #5 30 players, 20% active = 6
Merc group #6 30 Players, 20 % active = 6
Total active players 130

In order to achieve a perfect balance between Faction A and Faction B, available contracts would have to be distributed as such
Active players Faction A + active Faction B + active Mercs, divided by 2. Each Faction should have 189 active Players
That leaves
189-102= 87 Contracts for Faction A
189-146= 43 Contracts for Faction B
to account for new players joining lets add an extra 20% contracts available to make up for fluctuation
87+20% = 104.4 so 105 rounded up Faction A
43+20%= 51.6 so 52 rounded up Faction B
Now look at unit size within the Mercs to be distributed in regard to available contracts to see a perfect balance. Merc groups #1 and #2 could not take any contracts because there is no size limitation, where as out of the smaller merc groups at least some could take contracts.... units 3-6 could get contracts...
Sure this is just a play with numbers and does not by any means reflect the accurate states of what needs to be taken into consideration.
Multiple smaller groups are easier to distribute. smaller groups usually also have a higher "active player count" than a large group, I bet there are units out there with 70-80% active players. some may even have close to 100% during weeks or events.
Just a simple cap on contracts according to the players regaardless of activity:
510 Players Faction A
720 Players Faction B
650 Mercs
Total 1880 divided by 2 = 940 per Faction
430 Contracts for Faction A
220 Contracts for Faction B
Now if Merc group#2 (200 Players takes the Contract for Faction A quicker than Merc group #1 can take it. Merc group #1 can not take any more contracts.... until the next available contract opens up...

Bottom Line... active balancing requires some sort of common ground. I believe a fair distribution can only be achieved if a cap is set it will be crazy hard to ditribute mercs with large groups, without having an algorythm disinguish where they have to go in order to remain large and obtain a balance between all Factions and Players alike. Which would leave large Merc companies little to no choice for which contract to take.

[justcallme A S H]

This is one thread that should have gone missing, but hasn't.

What is wrong with the Mods...

[Armando]

Danjo San, on 18 July 2016 - 10:15 AM, said:

Now if you balanced available contracts by the average active merc and loyalist population, some units claim only 20% of them are active in CW tops. let's assume that is true for a bulk of players, if you just play with the numbers you get to something like this
Faction A has
loyal unit #1 300 players, 20% active = 60 Players
loyal unit #2 150 players, 20% active = 30 Players
loyal unit #3 60 players, 20% active = 12 Players
Total active players 102

Faction B has
loyal unit #1 250 players, 20% active = 50
loyal unit #2 200 players, 20% active = 40
loyal unit #3 200 players, 20% active = 40
loyal unit #4 70 players, 20% active = 14
total active players 146

Mercs to distribute
merc group #1 300 players, 20% active = 60
merc group #2 200 players, 20% active = 40
merc group #3 50 players, 20% active = 10
merc group #4 40 players, 20% active = 8
merc group #5 30 players, 20% active = 6
Merc group #6 30 Players, 20 % active = 6
Total active players 130

In order to achieve a perfect balance between Faction A and Faction B, available contracts would have to be distributed as such
Active players Faction A + active Faction B + active Mercs, divided by 2. Each Faction should have 189 active Players
That leaves
189-102= 87 Contracts for Faction A
189-146= 43 Contracts for Faction B
to account for new players joining lets add an extra 20% contracts available to make up for fluctuation
87+20% = 104.4 so 105 rounded up Faction A
43+20%= 51.6 so 52 rounded up Faction B
Now look at unit size within the Mercs to be distributed in regard to available contracts to see a perfect balance. Merc groups #1 and #2 could not take any contracts because there is no size limitation, where as out of the smaller merc groups at least some could take contracts.... units 3-6 could get contracts...
Sure this is just a play with numbers and does not by any means reflect the accurate states of what needs to be taken into consideration.
Multiple smaller groups are easier to distribute. smaller groups usually also have a higher "active player count" than a large group, I bet there are units out there with 70-80% active players. some may even have close to 100% during weeks or events.
Just a simple cap on contracts according to the players regaardless of activity:
510 Players Faction A
720 Players Faction B
650 Mercs
Total 1880 divided by 2 = 940 per Faction
430 Contracts for Faction A
220 Contracts for Faction B
Now if Merc group#2 (200 Players takes the Contract for Faction A quicker than Merc group #1 can take it. Merc group #1 can not take any more contracts.... until the next available contract opens up...

Bottom Line... active balancing requires some sort of common ground. I believe a fair distribution can only be achieved if a cap is set it will be crazy hard to ditribute mercs with large groups, without having an algorythm disinguish where they have to go in order to remain large and obtain a balance between all Factions and Players alike. Which would leave large Merc companies little to no choice for which contract to take.

Says the guy who would NOT be effected by the changes he is suggesting.

All evidence points to; you could care less the consequences of the changes your are proposing as they would have ZERO effect on YOU. That you could care less about everyone else effected, and as long as YOU are happy....well F everyone else.

It seems like you are unwilling to put in the time, energy or effort that groups like [228], [-MS-], and many, Many, MANY other units who would be effected by your sadistic plan (telling people they can no longer associate with their friends is in fact sadistic) and instead would rather PGI undo YEARS of personal networking put in by said "Big Units", again, because you are unwilling to do the same.

HARD PASS!

You 'claim' that 'numbers' is why 'big units' win, but have presented ZERO evidence that this is true. THEN, you ignore evidence that without a shadow of a doubt prove that if a unit such as [-MS-] were to 'trim back' to 36 players they would STILL top the leaderboards (proving that unit size has no effect on unit effectiveness).

If you spent HALF the time you do BEGGING PGI to break up 'big units'...into Uniting your own Faction, you would already be a part of a force capable of decimating the 'big units'.
______________________________

The problem you have with the game (you know...that one thing we agree on) is NOT, will NOT, COULD NOT be solved by PGI. It is a problem that stems from community structure issues, it is a problem that can ONLY be solved by the COMMUNITY (we are on our own with this one folks).

Keep fighting it....

...keep fighting having more pilots to drop with.
...keep fighting having more commanders to lead drops.
...keep fighting better training.
...keep fighting a real "Faction Culture".

...why would anyone what that???

You say "I don't want to fight it" I want better coverage, better training, and a real "Faction Culture"...well, THAT ain't gonna happen with 200+ different units ranging in size from 1 pilot to 198 pilots, all with their own 'unit culture' who, more often than not, drop exclusively with each other (and more than a few choose dropping alone over dropping with their teammates...let alone anyone else).

Edited by Armando, 18 July 2016 - 03:50 PM.

[Danjo San]

Armando, on 18 July 2016 - 02:48 PM, said:

Says the guy who would NOT be effected by the changes he is suggesting.

All evidence points to; you could care less the consequences of the changes your are proposing as they would have ZERO effect on YOU. That you could care less about everyone else effected, and as long as YOU are happy....well F everyone else.

It seems like you are unwilling to put in the time, energy or effort that groups like [228], [-MS-], and many, Many, MANY other units who would be effected by your sadistic plan (telling people they can no longer associate with their friends is in fact sadistic) and instead would rather PGI undo YEARS of personal networking put in by said "Big Units", again, because you are unwilling to do the same.

HARD PASS!

You 'claim' that 'numbers' is why 'big units' win, but have presented ZERO evidence that this is true. THEN, you ignore evidence that without a shadow of a doubt prove that if a unit such as [-MS-] were to 'trim back' to 36 players they would STILL top the leaderboards (proving that unit size has no effect on unit effectiveness).

If you spent HALF the time you do BEGGING PGI to break up 'big units'...into Uniting your own Faction, you would already be a part of a force capable of decimating the 'big units' (Factions are FAR bigger than any unit...even one as large as -MS-; unite and work together? Not on Danjo San's watch! That would mean....work....better to cry to PGI to fix their problems for them).

hahaha... I am laughing so hard right now! Unwilling to put in time work and effort... hahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahaha
HAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA .... hahahahahahahaha... do you even believe a word you are saying.

Balance is great the way it is. I get it... we should just take the few players that play MW:O and the even fewer players that take interest in FW and cluster them into two groups... that would help right. F all the individuals... F all the casuals.
Either you are hardcore, competitive, or numbered high... but when it comes to low population issues you turn a blind eye
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Sorry, but you claim only a few percent actually play, and a cap is irrelevant, either for merc contracts or unit. Also you claim to "want good fights" but yet you choose to cluster into faction that pugstomp after pugstom, because all the "hard hitters" cluster in the same faction.
Yes I can care less... I get my matches, even without being part of a large unit, I play more FW than most. I care about bringing back people that quit for said reasons, and holding casual and irregular players in playing FW.
Do you hold talks with small and irregular and casual players... I don't think so...
May I suggest you get involved talking to them, or is that too much to ask. Go to the small and irregualr units and ask them why they are not dropping in CW? Reach out and ask around instead of sitting in the "large bubble"
MY agenda is to point out flaws I see in the current system. From experiences I have talking to people of multiple units, from having people join and leave my unit from players passing though my community. from talking to other larger units that are still smaller than super clusters. and from watching and playing FW for a very long time.

Would it have Zero effect on my unit. No it would effect my unit in a positive way. It would also effect many other small units in a positive way. Would it hurt Kcom or Evil... not at all. Who would it hurt? not small elite nor small casual units only the large groups... but now we have a situation where small casual units that are not elite or competitive see no incentive and in return play no FW in result drawing players from the queue ... It is happening. and it is real! And such large groups are hurting players incentive... but yeah I get it that you can not see that, stuck in a bubble

Democratic systems live from opposition. And I will continue to play the role speaking out for small and casuals as long as they do not unify and spaek up... You agree we have a problem, and I am adressing issues from a perspective that is not much represented in the players council. and I step on toes. I know that. I am doing that for a betterment for the all of us. As long as PGI does not magically pull in thousands of new players equal distribution will be hard and such remain an issue that needs to be addressed.

Oh yeah and by the way, you know nothing about my network so please don't claim I do nothing to work on a network of players

Edited by Danjo San, 18 July 2016 - 04:02 PM.

[Armando]

Danjo San, on 18 July 2016 - 04:02 PM, said:

hahaha... I am laughing so hard right now! Unwilling to put in time work and effort... hahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahaha
HAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA .... hahahahahahahaha... do you even believe a word you are saying.

Balance is great the way it is. I get it... we should just take the few players that play MW:O and the even fewer players that take interest in FW and cluster them into two groups... that would help right. F all the individuals... F all the casuals.
Either you are hardcore, competitive, or numbered high... but when it comes to low population issues you turn a blind eye
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Sorry, but you claim only a few percent actually play, and a cap is irrelevant, either for merc contracts or unit. Also you claim to "want good fights" but yet you choose to cluster into faction that pugstomp after pugstom, because all the "hard hitters" cluster in the same faction.
Yes I can care less... I get my matches, even without being part of a large unit, I play more FW than most. I care about bringing back people that quit for said reasons, and holding casual and irregular players in playing FW.
Do you hold talks with small and irregular and casual players... I don't think so...
May I suggest you get involved talking to them, or is that too much to ask. Go to the small and irregualr units and ask them why they are not dropping in CW? Reach out and ask around instead of sitting in the "large bubble"
MY agenda is to point out flaws I see in the current system. From experiences I have talking to people of multiple units, from having people join and leave my unit from players passing though my community. from talking to other larger units that are still smaller than super clusters. and from watching and playing FW for a very long time.

Would it have Zero effect on my unit. No it would effect my unit in a positive way. It would also effect many other small units in a positive way. Would it hurt Kcom or Evil... not at all. Who would it hurt? not small elite nor small casual units only the large groups... but now we have a situation where small casual units that are not elite or competitive see no incentive and in return play no FW in result drawing players from the queue ... It is happening. and it is real! And such large groups are hurting players incentive... but yeah I get it that you can not see that, stuck in a bubble

Democratic systems live from opposition. And I will continue to play the role speaking out for small and casuals as long as they do not unify and spaek up... You agree we have a problem, and I am adressing issues from a perspective that is not much represented in the players council. and I step on toes. I know that. I am doing that for a betterment for the all of us. As long as PGI does not magically pull in thousands of new players equal distribution will be hard and such remain an issue that needs to be addressed.

Oh yeah and by the way, you know nothing about my network so please don't claim I do nothing to work on a network of players

So....tell me again how many of your teammates will you have to say goodbye to (we have established I will split off from 330+ teammates)?

Edited by Armando, 18 July 2016 - 04:08 PM.

[Danjo San]

Armando, on 18 July 2016 - 04:05 PM, said:

So....tell me again how many of your teammates will you have to say goodbye to (we have established I will split off from 330+ teammates)?

Maybe I should tell you that my community and my network of friends exceeds that... how many will I have to say goodbye to? ... ZERO! Community and Unit Tag are two seperate things. If your community leaves you for not being able to wear the same tag, I feel very sorry for you and your community. It must mean you have built a very solid foundation for friendship if the only thing holding you together is a [BRACKETOFLETTERS]

[Kael Posavatz]

Is it the large merc units that move around that are the problem?

Or are the large loyalists units that don't move around the problem?

Or maybe the problem is all those people with loyalist contracts that no longer play the game but are still counted as loyalists when it comes to balancing population that is the problem?

Or what about those who are in units with loyalists contracts who play very often, but don't play faction warfare?

[Armando]

Danjo San, on 18 July 2016 - 04:20 PM, said:

Maybe I should tell you that my community and my network of friends exceeds that... how many will I have to say goodbye to? ... ZERO! Community and Unit Tag are two seperate things. If your community leaves you for not being able to wear the same tag, I feel very sorry for you and your community. It must mean you have built a very solid foundation for friendship if the only thing holding you together is a [BRACKETOFLETTERS]

So stop acting like you care about the game or the people that play it, end the pretense that you care about anything or anyone outside your self.

Are you to good to share a tag with Tikonov Commonality Armed Forces / 4th Tau Ceti Rangers / Mean and Green / Harloc Raider - Irregulars? Or, will they simply have nothing to do with your unit?

[Danjo San]

Kael Posavatz, on 18 July 2016 - 04:26 PM, said:

Is it the large merc units that move around that are the problem?

Or are the large loyalists units that don't move around the problem?

Or maybe the problem is all those people with loyalist contracts that no longer play the game but are still counted as loyalists when it comes to balancing population that is the problem?

Or what about those who are in units with loyalists contracts who play very often, but don't play faction warfare?

Is it the Mercs that caused balance issues in multiple phases... absolutely
Are loyalists to blame for not moving around? Nope, count the top 100 units for merc and for loyalists and see compare the numbers, you will see that there are the same amount, or even more, mercs than loyalists that span 10 factions
Loyalists counted into that that won't play vs. mercs, if mercs have the same amount or more players than the respective loyalists...do I really need to answer?
Those with loyalist contracts that don't play very often... good question. You should ask yourself why they don't play very often?
maybe one of the reasons can found above. maybe one of the other reasons applies, aside frm incentive or mercs dominating the map