869 replies to this topic

[JaxRiot]

MovinTarget, on 24 July 2016 - 03:02 PM, said:

FWIW, I did read your post and I singled out this one statement as it is part of the fundamental issue of FP. They have tried to make it all things to all people, but that is not realistic.

Some people want casual and a variation from QP. Others want hard mode elite play to showcase their/their unit's abilities. Others want immersive lore-base play.

They need to figure out who's mode it is and how to make the others happy if they want to keep all of us *and* attract more players.

I mostly agree with what you are saying, but I think that it can be more things to more people than what it currently is.

Personally I think that FP ( FW, CW, I dont even know what it is any more) is just simply too big for its own britches. It needs to be down sized and made more accessible.

1- Consolidate the Queues- Currently there are 40 ques. Thats way too many for the population. Place the Factions into Alliances that share the same attack lanes. This will greatly improve queues, add more Lore, and provide a more varied opposition opportunities.

2- Limit Merc Units- As it stands right now, Merc Units can get huge, have nearly unlimited Faction hopping abilities, equal rewards as Loyalists have (or close to it), and can earn MC a long with the ability to take planets. Thats far too much power and benefits. They need their wings clipped in a major way.

Merc Units need a hard member cap, reduced rewards to C-Bills only (the ability to Faction Hop is enough of a reward), and not be able to claim planets ( Mercs work for Factions. The Factions take the Planet. Not the Mercs), and greatly extended contracts, and possibly remove the ability to have Clan Mercs (Clans didnt use Mercs in Lore).

Those changes reduce the negative impacts they currently have, and adds more Lore.

3- Increased Loyalist Rewards- Loyalists need more of a reason to even be a loyalist over Mercs. They need More Loyalty Ranks and more over all rewards to make being a Loyalist worth it plus provides a way to stabilize the the population.

I could go on with some more ideas, but I know that I am mostly only talking to myself. Not even sure why I took the time to write that. Hope maybe?

[MovinTarget]

Zoose, on 24 July 2016 - 05:15 PM, said:

Limit the size of units.

If you are going to limit the size of merc units, you better limit the size of all units because:

1) not all of us are as nefarious as you've been led to believe
2) Its not really fair to tell us to break up our units when other mechanics will accomplish the exact same thing (and you'll see it still won't accomplish what you think).

First of all I could care less about tagging planets. I care about 2 things:

Getting good games and getting the option to use all my mechs.


...and getting paid.


Instead, perhaps you should be asking what is the appeal of being a merc and seeing if it can somehow to be emulated within the loyalist ranks instead of wanting to tear us apart.

I have stated previously (over a year ago, in fact) as desire to have the ability to pilot any of my mechs. This was one of the reasons I ultimately wanted to go merc after reaching lvl 16 in Davion. I prefer FP over QP and this gave me the opportunity.

Not all mercs have the same reasons but perhaps if we discussed how to make loyalist-ing more fun, perhaps some would settle down. As I stated before, if at some point (i.e. level 13-14), loyalists were granted the ability to drop one "recovered" mech of opposing tech, I would have been happy as a clam. The lore purists might gripe a bit but it would allow people to use more of their mechs or *gasp* WANT TO BUY MORE MECH PACKS.

Zoose, on 24 July 2016 - 05:15 PM, said:

Limit the amount of Merc Units per faction. It hard to control although I could think of several systems that could functionally work including grading Merc units by size. EG only 1 top tier Merc unit could have a contract per faction with Merc units being ranked based off their current stats.

Think that out a bit... wanna bet you'll lose players?



TLDR;
Sorry loyalists, breaking up merc units will not solve your problems and may alienate more players.

[MovinTarget]

JaxRiot, on 24 July 2016 - 05:23 PM, said:

I could go on with some more ideas, but I know that I am mostly only talking to myself. Not even sure why I took the time to write that. Hope maybe?

You are not talking to yourself. and I would love for being loyalist to be attractive to more people so that the blame doesn't get dumped on mercs, b/c *any* unit can get huge, so why is it large Merc units are the ones singled out? Surely there are some loyalist units with 200+ players right? if not, why?

[JaxRiot]

Bombadil, on 22 July 2016 - 06:10 PM, said:

I'll be monitoring, taking notes, and participating in this thread as much as possible throughout the weekend.

Aah, so youre NGNG, huh? I was wondering who you were.

My sincerest apologies sir, but my faith in your 'notes' is somewhat diminished after learning that you are with NGNG.

NGNG is notorious for fielding Soft Ball questions and hand picked White Knight statements.

Which makes me feel foolish for posting ideas in this thread thinking that someone might actually take note this time. That PGI is actually starting to care about what we really think.

Hopefully this time will be different and I am proven wrong.

Please prove me wrong.

Edited by JaxRiot, 24 July 2016 - 06:08 PM.

[N0MAD]

Deathlike, on 24 July 2016 - 04:48 PM, said:

I think the odd fear is having someone @ PGI (or maybe even volunteer mods) to moderate the entire thing (remember - this would be operational 24/7).

This would actually involve serious work on the interface (mostly because the existing client crashes through buffer overflow last I checked - through their personal messages or a flood of faction chat).

Every game has one,, there is a chat built into the Cry engine SDK i have so no prob there,, moderation? they find plenty for the forums so i dont see a prob there.
Look its a standard feature in all online games, if you dont create community tools you will never have a true community.

[Zoose]

MovinTarget, on 24 July 2016 - 05:35 PM, said:

If you are going to limit the size of merc units, you better limit the size of all units because:
I have no issue limiting all the units and that's a great idea.

1) not all of us are as nefarious as you've been led to believe
You seem to think that everyone has to be "nefarious" for there to be an issue. Look around there only needs to be an element of people in any system which are willing to use the system for their own personal gains at the detriment of the rest and the system will fail a large portion of the people in it. The current game dynamics allows for some units to ruin it for a majority. We need to take out, or limit this ability.
2) Its not really fair to tell us to break up our units when other mechanics will accomplish the exact same thing (and you'll see it still won't accomplish what you think).
I agree it is easier to limit your ability to do harm then it is to look at all the fundamentals that drive the units and create countless changes trying to balance the power imbalance. I will not see unless the changes happen and I get to witness it actually.

First of all I could care less about tagging planets. I care about 2 things:

Getting good games and getting the option to use all my mechs.


...and getting paid.


Instead, perhaps you should be asking what is the appeal of being a merc and seeing if it can somehow to be emulated within the loyalist ranks instead of wanting to tear us apart.
Already did this in my post...say what!!! I note you said you are driven by GG and Money. You can get both of these in the current system by ruining it for everyone else say perhaps if you all went to Jade Falcon together. Oh wait just happened. As previously mentioned the system of allowing only one top tier Merc unit per faction would be a workaround.

I have stated previously (over a year ago, in fact) as desire to have the ability to pilot any of my mechs. This was one of the reasons I ultimately wanted to go merc after reaching lvl 16 in Davion. I prefer FP over QP and this gave me the opportunity.

Not all mercs have the same reasons but perhaps if we discussed how to make loyalist-ing more fun, perhaps some would settle down. As I stated before, if at some point (i.e. level 13-14), loyalists were granted the ability to drop one "recovered" mech of opposing tech, I would have been happy as a clam. The lore purists might gripe a bit but it would allow people to use more of their mechs or *gasp* WANT TO BUY MORE MECH PACKS.
Already did this in my post.

Think that out a bit... wanna bet you'll lose players?


TLDR;
Sorry loyalists, breaking up merc units will not solve your problems and may alienate more players.
Two things: 1. in case you missed it. These were only my initial observations. 2. You say we MAY alienate more players....we wont lose as many as the game has already lost by doing nothing about it.

Edited by Zoose, 24 July 2016 - 06:35 PM.

[Stormbringer13]

change maps/gameplay options on FW. as it stands, we all gather into a deathball, move through a gate and encounter the people defending on the wall of shame for that map and we attack a bunch of stationary targets while getting peppered by turrets and mechs.
No strategy, no tactics. Hell, why not just drop a Long Tom unit on planet and have them take out the enemy base? We're destroying the generators, gates and everything. It's not even repaired when we defend, so wouldn't an orbital bombardment be more efficient? It's always some out of the way base, no population center to worry about.

The gamemode needs to make sense. If we are Defending, then there should not be a counter-attack mission. You don't send your Linebackers out on the field when you need to score a touchdown in football.

[JaxRiot]

MovinTarget, on 24 July 2016 - 06:02 PM, said:

You are not talking to yourself. and I would love for being loyalist to be attractive to more people so that the blame doesn't get dumped on mercs, b/c *any* unit can get huge, so why is it large Merc units are the ones singled out? Surely there are some loyalist units with 200+ players right? if not, why?

First off, nobody (or at least not me) thinks that Mercs are 'bad' people. You guys are just playing a game like the rest of us and trying to have some fun. Nothing wrong with that.

The difference between a 200+ member Loyalist Unit and a 200+ member Merc Unit is that the Loyalist Unit is stationary. It doesnt move.

Thats population stability.

A 200+ member Merc Unit can drastically change the population of a Faction with a click of a button.

Thats not population stability.

A member cap on Mercs of say 50 (just as an example) could turn that 200 member Merc Unit into 4, 50 member Merc Units.

So when that new Clan Mech pack comes out, maybe, just maybe, not all 200 will choose Jade Falcon and totally whack out the queues.

Maybe 50 will go to Jade, and 50 to Smoke? Maybe one of the 50 member Units will decide to stay Steiner and take advantage of the better Ques?

It actually creates more options and avenues to help keep the population more stable instead of an instant, one click landslide

At least in my opinion. But Ive been wrong before, and chances are, I still am.

Edited by JaxRiot, 24 July 2016 - 06:44 PM.

[5hredder]

there needs to be another way to play this game. one that is geared towards the people who like progression. for example: whenever i get on this game, i am always like "yay, mechs!" and then i play a few matches and i start feeling kinda meh with it. it feels like i am not really grinding towards anything, because i often buy the mechs i want. and there is no benifit to having a bunch of mechs that i dont play...

a good way to fix the progression system would be to add new and exciting goals to achieve. each with their own unique rewards. maybe there could be a multiple mission system that gives a uniquely skinned mech for completing all of them, or a special decal. there could be little things that are rewarded sorta like achievements, or the events, but without a time constraint upon when to complete them, and a harder to achieve.(yet still achievable by scrub players if they play enough to reach the specific requirements..)

another thing that i see that needs improvement is that there is a huge lack of things that a player can do with their mechs. what i mean is there is quick play(which is very fun , but repetitive.) and then there is fp. which is also fun. but it TAKES FOREVER to get into a queue sometimes. what i would suggest to fix this lack of diversity, would be to incorporate coop game modes.
introducing the game mode "grinder" would really add a bunch of fun to it. the way i suggest building it, would be to have a Solaris style arena, and to have ai's spawn by getting dropped in at a spot relatively far from you and your lance. and to have all of the ai's consist of player builds. with all of the player built ai's color schemes and such intact as well. also, to heal in between waves, there could be a mech repair bay that you walk into, just like older games had.

there could also be other game modes, such as lance vs lance, 1v1s and capture the flag. all in a sub category that rewards different items then normal play.(so it would rewards tokens to unlock something unique and cosmetic or whatever instead of c-bills.) doing this would make it so that both game modes are played, but the players will still inevitably play the normal mode as well.

i really want to see some form of AI/multiplayer integration. with the grinder being my favorite idea.(the grinder is a survival mode that heals you a little bit after you pass every wave. it was introduced in the xbox game:MechAssault)

i understand that implementing such crazy changes is hard, since there is currently no ui built around having multiple game modes to choose from, aside from fp anyway.

edit: i realized that my topic sentence didn't really explain what i was talking about, but this was a brain dump about some of the things that i see are issues, and what i see as potential innovation. making the game more varied and adding more rewards and stuff to earn for playing will make progression players happy, and it will feel more appealing to play the game more often.

Edited by 5hredder, 24 July 2016 - 06:42 PM.

[Cy Mitchell]

MovinTarget, on 24 July 2016 - 06:02 PM, said:

You are not talking to yourself. and I would love for being loyalist to be attractive to more people so that the blame doesn't get dumped on mercs, b/c *any* unit can get huge, so why is it large Merc units are the ones singled out? Surely there are some loyalist units with 200+ players right? if not, why?

I think the reason why large Merc units get a bad rap is that they can switch sides at will and manipulate the entire game mode. PGI has given the freedom to do this so it is not really the fault of the Mercenary units for taking full advantage of it and using it to their advantage.

[Pihoqahiak]

MovinTarget, on 24 July 2016 - 05:35 PM, said:

If you are going to limit the size of merc units, you better limit the size of all units because:

1) not all of us are as nefarious as you've been led to believe
2) Its not really fair to tell us to break up our units when other mechanics will accomplish the exact same thing (and you'll see it still won't accomplish what you think).

I think a reasonable solution to the potential problematic effects of units with a large number of active Faction Play members would be to shift from having to pay to add new members to a unit, and instead have it be a cost for units to have more than 12 unit members in Faction Play matches at a time. This sort of suggestion may well have been offered by someone already, there's a lot to read through on the forums to catch everything. Have an increasingly expensive per slot system for purchasing additional unit member Faction Play slots. I would suggest having the slots last the duration of the contract for Mercenaries, at a lesser cost than a Loyalist unit. Maybe starting at 100k c-bills for the first 12 extra slots for Mercenaries. To be honest, few units would really need more than that and 1.2 million c-bills isn't a huge cost, but does give some reason to use the unit coffers a bit. Additional Faction Play slots beyond 24 should start to cost considerably more, maybe as much as an extra 100k c-bills each. If a unit really wants to focus on Faction Play to the degree of having more than 2 full 12 player drops at a time, then they should be able, and willing to pay the costs required to support it. The Loyalist unit extra slots could either last longer or maybe even be permanent at a higher cost. This would reward the Loyalist units for the stability they offer to the Faction populations and encourage some players to go that route. Not only does this fit the in game needs for preventing a very large, active unit from having a detrimental effect on the game population, it also fits the feel of the genre and lore for a unit to have to pay for Jumpship/Dropship usage to get to their planetary battle.

Edited by Pihoqahiak, 24 July 2016 - 06:58 PM.

[JaxRiot]

Pihoqahiak, on 24 July 2016 - 06:49 PM, said:

I think a reasonable solution to the potential problematic effects of units with a large number of active Faction Play members would be shift from having to pay to add new members to a unit, and instead have it be a cost to units to have more than 12 unit members in Faction Play matches at a time. This sort of suggestion may well have been offered by someone already, there's a lot to read through on the forums to catch everything. Have an increasingly expensive per slot system for purchasing additional unit member Faction Play slots. I would suggest that having the slots last the duration of the contract for Mercenaries, at a lesser cost than a Loyalist unit. Maybe starting at 100k c-bills for the first 12 extra slots for Mercenaries. To be honest, few units would really need more than that and 1.2 million c-bills isn't a huge cost, but does give some reason to use the unit coffers a bit. Additional Faction Play slots beyond 24 should start to cost considerably more, maybe as much as an extra 100k c-bills each. If a unit really wants to focus on Faction Play to the degree of having more than 2 full 12 player drops at a time, then they should be able, and willing to pay the costs required to support it. The Loyalist unit extra slots could either last longer or maybe even be permanent at a higher cost. This would reward the Loyalist units for the stability they offer to the Faction populations and encourage some players to go that route. Not only does this fit the in game needs for preventing a very large, active unit from having a detrimental effect on the game population, it also fits the feel of the genre and lore for a unit to have to pay for Jumpship/Dropship usage to get to their planetary battle.

First.. Paragraphs are your friend..

Second.. Thats not a bad idea at all. I like it

[MovinTarget]

Pihoqahiak, on 24 July 2016 - 06:49 PM, said:

I think a reasonable solution to the potential problematic effects of units with a large number of active Faction Play members would be shift from having to pay to add new members to a unit, and instead have it be a cost to units to have more than 12 unit members in Faction Play matches at a time. This sort of suggestion may well have been offered by someone already, there's a lot to read through on the forums to catch everything. Have an increasingly expensive per slot system for purchasing additional unit member Faction Play slots. I would suggest that having the slots last the duration of the contract for Mercenaries, at a lesser cost than a Loyalist unit. Maybe starting at 100k c-bills for the first 12 extra slots for Mercenaries. To be honest, few units would really need more than that and 1.2 million c-bills isn't a huge cost, but does give some reason to use the unit coffers a bit. Additional Faction Play slots beyond 24 should start to cost considerably more, maybe as much as an extra 100k c-bills each. If a unit really wants to focus on Faction Play to the degree of having more than 2 full 12 player drops at a time, then they should be able, and willing to pay the costs required to support it. The Loyalist unit extra slots could either last longer or maybe even be permanent at a higher cost. This would reward the Loyalist units for the stability they offer to the Faction populations and encourage some players to go that route. Not only does this fit the in game needs for preventing a very large, active unit from having a detrimental effect on the game population, it also fits the feel of the genre and lore for a unit to have to pay for Jumpship/Dropship usage to get to their planetary battle.

I would have no problem with a system that allows a unit to be as large as it wants, yet prevents them from being over powered.

I can't recall the last time I saw 228 drop 2 full 12 man's simultaneously... and yet because we happen to have almost 200 players, people have assumed we are trying to wreck FP for everyone else, when more often than not we usually try to get on the lower populated side of an active front so that we can get games and not sit in queue.

Sorry everyone if I got salty earlier, so many people like to throw out the cap limit as a solution and I am not buying it. It is short sighted and will not solve our balance problems.

[Pihoqahiak]

JaxRiot, on 24 July 2016 - 06:53 PM, said:

First.. Paragraphs are your friend..

Yeah, for some reason things look much better while I'm typing them in the edit window than how they end up looking in the forum page.

[JaxRiot]

MovinTarget, on 24 July 2016 - 06:57 PM, said:

I would have no problem with a system that allows a unit to be as large as it wants, yet prevents them from being over powered.

I can't recall the last time I saw 228 drop 2 full 12 man's simultaneously... and yet because we happen to have almost 200 players, people have assumed we are trying to wreck FP for everyone else, when more often than not we usually try to get on the lower populated side of an active front so that we can get games and not sit in queue.

Sorry everyone if I got salty earlier, so many people like to throw out the cap limit as a solution and I am not buying it. It is short sighted and will not solve our balance problems.

Ok thats fair and no hard feelings.

But honestly, if 228 can barely field 2, 12 man teams (24 players), then why would a cap of 50 (as an example) hurt the Unit?

Even if 228 could field 3, 12 man teams, thats still only 36 players. Which is easily within a 50 (again, just as an example) member cap.

If 228 broke up into 4 smaller Units, you wouldnt even notice the change since it seems over 100 are not even on any way.

So I apologize but Im not understanding the staunch opposition you have against a member cap of your Unit, when less than 50 even play. Im not getting it.

Edited by JaxRiot, 24 July 2016 - 07:31 PM.

[Groundpound Devalis]

I have a HUGE issue with the speed in which planets change hands. I also can not stand the fact that there is so little warfare between IS neighbors and Clan neighbors. Here are some questions I would like answered or at the very least heard by the PGI team for future considerations.

What is being planned for logistics, a huge factor nonexistent in current CW? Logistics are key to any war. In this case it would give defending houses or clans ways of hindering a specific factions onslaught by taking away key planets required for forward momentum. Also, it could encourage a Clan unit to hit a specific Clan's world to stop their dive towards Terra!


In line with Logistics, why are mechs always readily available for immediate and constant use in CW? How about a cooldown period after that mech is used on a per planet basis. Meaning, your Drop Deck is locked to a specific planet for an entire attack phase or something, which also means if that planet is counter attacked in the next attack phase you still get those mechs as they were already on location. This does not mean those mechs can't be used for Quick play, I also don't feel Modules should be locked. Just the mechs.

Ideally this would require people to throw out some different mechs to continue to the next planet OR jumping in to help at a different planet. I realize this limits newer players so how about slightly larger rewards for those with only one drop deck? But not really as an attack phase is pretty long right now, which is great do not make the window shorter, hell longer would even be ok.

Houses not attacking Houses and Clans not attacking Clans:

While I can not speak for house loyalist players, I can speak for Clan loyalist type players. No, I don't mean the career choice, I mean players. I am a proud Nova Cat Warrior, I know countless others that are Snow Raven, Diamond Shark, Hells Horses and yes even Blood Spirit. I know these players would jump to their proper home Clan in the Homeworlds. They would then fight intensely to carve their own path into the Innersphere. As you know there are limited paths into the Innersphere so these are the guys and gals that would cut off choke points to their competing Trueborn brothers halting their progress and etching their own names into the remembrance in their bid for Terra and ILClan.

I do have one theory for Innersphere but I honestly do not know if it would work but it would affect both sides. Remove Mercenary and Lonewolf as options. Everyone a Loyalist with huge penalties for jumping ship to another faction.

Edited by Groundpound Devalis, 24 July 2016 - 07:53 PM.

[Pat Kell]

Zolaz, on 24 July 2016 - 03:25 PM, said:

So, PGI is going to throw away what it promised about Faction Warfare when it offered Founder packages? I know things like the Pillars and a multitude of promises have fallen along the Trail of Tears that is MWO. Please tell Russ that a Town Hall isnt where you cherry pick your soft ball questions and wonder why your player base is still upset.

Way to be part of the solution...

[MovinTarget]

JaxRiot, on 24 July 2016 - 07:27 PM, said:

Ok thats fair and no hard feelings.

But honestly, if 228 can barely field 2, 12 man teams (24 players), then why would a cap of 50 (as an example) hurt the Unit?

Even if 228 could field 3, 12 man teams, thats still only 36 players. Which is easily within a 50 (again, just as an example) member cap.

If 228 broke up into 4 smaller Units, you wouldnt even notice the change since it seems over 100 are not even on any way.

So I apologize but Im not understanding the staunch opposition you have against a member cap of your Unit, when less than 50 even play. Im not getting it.

We have 6 different comp teams currently, one for fp, 3 na, one euro, one oceanic.

All have contributed to the rep of 228 which is why it would suck to bteak it up.

[SilentScreamer]

Bombadil, on 22 July 2016 - 06:10 PM, said:

I'll be monitoring, taking notes, and participating in this thread as much as possible throughout the weekend.

Bombadil, on 22 July 2016 - 07:01 PM, said:

This meeting will be focusing on further-reaching issues, such as player buckets and queue times. If successful, future meetings may focus on other topics, which may or may not include sale requests.

I appreciate your commitment to Faction play Bombadil. As a player regarding Faction Warfare, rather than talk about longtom or clan vs. i.s. balance, I'm glad the focus will be wait times and population. Please consider the following:

A) Players want a reason to be active in Faction Play and opponents to play against. Last fall PGI issued a series of "Comstar Intercepts" which ensured every faction had something to do. I thought this was a great way to keep interest in Faction play (then community warfare) going, and was surprised it was not continued.
http://mwomercs.com/...tar-intercepts/
Sadly, a thread to revive the practice as not received much attention....
http://mwomercs.com/...tar-intercepts/

B) If PGI's current model for awarding higher incentive contracts to mercs bases the figures only on total players in the Unit, it is inadequate. Total population membership does not equal active players. Active players are what keep Faction Warfare going. The bonuses should be based on players online at any given time for that Faction. For example, even if Clan Jade Falcon has the highest total membership population (including mercs and loyalists) but only 12 CJF players are online at a specific time, they should get a large bonus for playing. Similarly, if Clan Smoke Jaguar has the lowest total membership/population, but 90% of the online players are with CSJ, the contracts should be adjusted downward in order to promote equal active population at any specific play-time.

C) If in the end it is decided that five Inner Sphere and four Clan Factions are too many "buckets" then consider possibility of a Faction Play "mode shift" after each Ceasefire Period. Modes would be:
1) all Clan Factions vs all Inner Sphere Factions
2) Clan vs. Clan only and I.S. vs. I.S. only.
This would keep the "buckets" smaller than the current system, and since there are currently three Ceasefires at day, players would not be permanently forced one play or another by do to their timezone. Simply log-in the same time the next day, or delay your matches for a few hours and the mode will be "flipped". It would enable the Inner to unite to fight off the Clans as a whole, but still allow each faction to maintain petty rivalries (such as Federated Suns vs Draconis Combine and Clan Jade Falcon vs Clan Wolf).

Edited by SilentScreamer, 24 July 2016 - 08:01 PM.

[Cato Zilks]

MovinTarget, on 24 July 2016 - 02:55 PM, said:

I am trying to offer a means to balance that will satisfy those that feel threatened by us (for some odd reason) that doesn't force us to break up what some have works years to build.

I don't know why you can understand why this would be unattractive and disheartening to us.

I don't feel threatened by 228, I learned more dropping with AdolphGhandi for a week than any other period playing this game. I loved dropping with yall.

My problem is that so many good players disappear at once. When a big merc unit leaves it creates a vacuum in a smaller faction. That vacuum is depressing and can drive players out of FW.

I get that we are trying to solve the same problem, and I don't want to put you in a negative light and I certainly don't want to assign people to factions. I ultimately don't care how better balance comes about, but we need to do something to keep these numbers from fluctuating so much.