Jump to content

Easiest Fp Population Fix


41 replies to this topic

#21 DarklightCA

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Heavy Lifter
  • Heavy Lifter
  • 774 posts
  • LocationToronto, Ontario

Posted 08 March 2017 - 10:31 AM

View PostJames Argent, on 08 March 2017 - 08:54 AM, said:

This isn't just about solo players, and nobody said anything about them dominating FP. I described what happens to my UNIT/GROUP when we run up against a continuous stream of stomps. But because FP is always 12v12 (and 4v4, but we're not talking about scouting), the solos are needed anyway. Should your unit just give up and not do FP sometimes because you can't field exactly 12 pilots every single time you play? Of course not...you either need solos to fill in the gaps in your sub-12 group or if you have more than 12 you need to split into two smaller groups and have solos fill even more gaps. Why should the pilots who make it possible for you to drop not be rewarded for doing so? They're at least as important as the 6-11 members of the unit that gets the tag because without them the unit didn't drop and there's no tag to be had.

I don't think anyone's suggesting that planetary income should go away, just that everyone should get something for their efforts or they'll stop showing up. Because they've stopped showing up. When they do show up, the excruciatingly slow LP grind is not enough to keep them there if they're not having the fun of winning at least some of the time.

Edit: OK, someone did call for planetary income to go away. Both could still work together, though.


This is primarily about solo players. If you are in a actual coordinated unit than getting MC was never a issue. Farming LP was easy because your coordinated group won more games than they lost. Getting planetary rewards is achievable because you have people you can work with to tag planets. MC rewards for those people is not a problem.

The only people not benefiting from planetary rewards is primarily solo players. You also don't need solo's to fill a lobby, PGI created a very useful LFG tool that is extremely underused. If people used it more to coordinate decks, remove players unwilling to work with the group, essentially dictate how your group will operate before you queue than you will have a better time when you actually get in the game opposed to gambling on a pug lottery.

Faction Play is also not about gifting MC to people just because they filled your drop. It's a reward item by grinding LP and conquering planets... that whole thing that was suppose to be the point of Faction Play. Also somebody did request to get rid of planetary income, that whole post I was replying to.

#22 FallingAce

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Butcher
  • The Butcher
  • 627 posts

Posted 08 March 2017 - 11:32 AM

View Postjustcallme A S H, on 07 March 2017 - 10:29 PM, said:


Now before the pitchforks come out and people say "but everyone will go to clan", that won't happen. Why? Cause it's not happening now. Clan is not winning territory hand over fit anymore, IS is winning cycles (we won one 3 nights ago, almost did last night).


I lost count/ lost interest, so how many wins does that make for the I.S. in Faction play 4.1 over the last 3months? 7? 8? 9?
I know that the I.S. Loyalist leader board shows a total of 11 planetary wins which hasn't changed in weeks.


View PostDarklightCA, on 08 March 2017 - 07:41 AM, said:


If you want to get rid of what is pretty much the only point to conquer planets just so all the lazy soloists who don't want to play with a group can get more rewards, what exactly is the point in keeping Faction Play at that point? Factions don't matter, Planets don't matter. Longer wait times for just a 4 drop version of quick play without group restrictions.


"Factions don't matter, Planets don't matter. Longer wait times for just a 4 drop version of quick play without group restrictions."

Toss in loyalty don't matter and that pretty much sums up Faction Play 4.1.

#23 nehebkau

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,386 posts
  • LocationIn a water-rights dispute with a Beaver

Posted 08 March 2017 - 11:54 AM

@ OP

They would not have to do this, just let players spend LP on crap in game -- perhaps even FACTION RELEVANT items.

#24 Marquis De Lafayette

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • CS 2023 Top 12 Qualifier
  • CS 2023 Top 12 Qualifier
  • 1,396 posts
  • LocationIn Valley Forge with General Washington

Posted 08 March 2017 - 12:42 PM

I like the idea of 2 MC for a win and 1 MC for a loss....

Another idea might be: if PGI wanted to repurpose a mechanic they already have in-game they could just use the (currently terrible) supply cache system make it 50 MC for one pilot on the winning side (mostly it would be a net of 25 MC to the pilot, as they would need to use a 25 MC Key to get in...if they didn't have one lying around from a grab-bag).
Advantages:
1. Less MC given anyway in total than giving 24 to the winning side and 12 to the losing side (PGI would like this), but it gives a decent little chunk to one of the "winners". I would be glad for that occasional MC bump
2. As groups do win more, it encourages grouping up....Giving them a minimum of 1 MC for showing up would be ok, but it might well mean more solos moving over from QP
3. PGI never has to admit the supply cache thing was a "bust"(which PGI would also like) ...it stays in game and players would always like what they get. It's like getting cash for a holiday present...sure a thoughtful gift means more..but everyone likes cash.

(Edit: if they wanted to make us really excited...they could keep the randomized payout of the supply cache and make of the 8 possibilities 3 25mc, 2 50mc, 1 100mc, 1 500mc and 1 1000mc....of course they could heavily weight the scales towards the 25 (where you break-even) and 50 (where you make 25 MC net) to keep the MC cost down for PGI....but it would certainly make those caches more desired and motivate winning in FW

Edited by Marquis De Lafayette, 08 March 2017 - 12:50 PM.


#25 Malrock

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Widow Maker
  • The Widow Maker
  • 313 posts

Posted 08 March 2017 - 01:22 PM

View PostDarklightCA, on 08 March 2017 - 07:41 AM, said:


It's designed that way because Faction Play wasn't meant to be dominated by solo players. It was created for Units/Groups and you don't have to be a good player to be in one. Every player gets LP rewards but if you want planetary income you need to be in a unit actively conquering planets (entire point of Faction Play).

If you want to get rid of what is pretty much the only point to conquer planets just so all the lazy soloists who don't want to play with a group can get more rewards, what exactly is the point in keeping Faction Play at that point? Factions don't matter, Planets don't matter. Longer wait times for just a 4 drop version of quick play without group restrictions.


Just because it was designed a certain way doesn't mean that is actually how it is used in game, or how it should continue to operate in the future. It is a terrible argument to say it was designed to be HRD COR and shouldn't ever be changed because that is how it was originally designed 5 years ago or what ever. When you take this line of thinking to its logical conclusion it means nothing in game should ever be changed.

To answer the question that so many people don't seem to get. The point of the mode is 4 dropping which is significantly different than Quick play and scouting (or medium brawling as I like to think of it which is also different from quick play). Has a whole other game play feel to it and typically takes more of a commitment in time than QP mode (for invasion style but some times shorter for scouting). So yeah the point of the mode in game is to have something different from QP which is 4 mech dropping or medium brawling and using drop decks. Sure i get some rewards by signing up to be loyal to a certain faction but they aren't amazing, and hardly a motivator in continue to try and play. So yeah the whole point is the different game modes / drop styles. This is why people sign up for FP.

Basing your decisions about how to improve the mode on anything other than current game reality doesn't make a lot of sense, as no one really cares how it was years ago. No one sits down and thinks let me check the state of game balance 3 years ago to see what i should do regarding lasers in the upcoming patch. That would be silly, just like it is silly for you to run out TEAMXOR ONLI! DESIGNED THAT WAY!!!! and other nonsense when you are talking about trying to increase the number of people queing up.

#26 Jaybles-The-PegLeg-PotatoCaptain

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Raider
  • The Raider
  • 383 posts

Posted 08 March 2017 - 01:23 PM

View PostFallingAce, on 08 March 2017 - 11:32 AM, said:


I lost count/ lost interest, so how many wins does that make for the I.S. in Faction play 4.1 over the last 3months? 7? 8? 9?
I know that the I.S. Loyalist leader board shows a total of 11 planetary wins which hasn't changed in weeks.




"Factions don't matter, Planets don't matter. Longer wait times for just a 4 drop version of quick play without group restrictions."

Toss in loyalty don't matter and that pretty much sums up Faction Play 4.1.



When DERP was NERP, we managed to collect 6 planetary wins in 3 weeks as IS. That's 25 players dropping with never more than 12 on at once, usually 5-8 and somehow we managed to tag a planet twice a week as IS. And it's not like anyone on these forums is calling DERP elite. So it is possible. But you know we also do crazy things like hop on the FRR TS so even if there are only 2-3 NERPs, we still try to get in as large a group as possible with whoever is available online and wanting to group up. We friend people who drop with us, and we spam invites from our friends list when we're trying to fill out a drop. It's not rocket science and it's not hard.

#27 James Argent

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 721 posts

Posted 08 March 2017 - 01:27 PM

The only difference between having the system fill your empty spots with solos and you filling your empty spots with solos is that the LFG lets groups pick and choose certain people to let in their groups. They're still solo players. They still don't benefit from planetary MC. They're still responsible for the tagging unit getting the tag by enabling the drop to occur. It's a distinction without a difference.

I'm unaware of any option for anyone but solo players to answer a Call to Arms, so it's pretty apparent that PGI thinks they're important to FP.

On the other hand, simply being in an organized group doesn't solve everything. Organized groups still lose, still sometimes lose to stomps, and still lose interest in FP when repeatedly being stomped with no hope of catching a different group against which to drop. It happens less often, but it does happen. Organized groups who win also don't always get planetary MC, either. If EVERYONE was in an organized group, half of them would still lose each match, and unless only four organized groups were on the winning side, some of those groups, though winning the cycle, would never benefit from planetary MC.

#28 Jaybles-The-PegLeg-PotatoCaptain

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Raider
  • The Raider
  • 383 posts

Posted 08 March 2017 - 01:43 PM

View PostJames Argent, on 08 March 2017 - 01:27 PM, said:

The only difference between having the system fill your empty spots with solos and you filling your empty spots with solos is that the LFG lets groups pick and choose certain people to let in their groups. They're still solo players. They still don't benefit from planetary MC. They're still responsible for the tagging unit getting the tag by enabling the drop to occur. It's a distinction without a difference.

I'm unaware of any option for anyone but solo players to answer a Call to Arms, so it's pretty apparent that PGI thinks they're important to FP.

On the other hand, simply being in an organized group doesn't solve everything. Organized groups still lose, still sometimes lose to stomps, and still lose interest in FP when repeatedly being stomped with no hope of catching a different group against which to drop. It happens less often, but it does happen. Organized groups who win also don't always get planetary MC, either. If EVERYONE was in an organized group, half of them would still lose each match, and unless only four organized groups were on the winning side, some of those groups, though winning the cycle, would never benefit from planetary MC.


OK maybe I just have a different gaming background, but every MMORPG I have every played has forced you to group up to get the best rewards, and every single game gives you a "clan" option to do so. And the people who usually get the best rewards are in the best/most active/grind kings "clans."

Why is it so crazy that PGI has implemented this same system in MWO. If you want to tag planets and get MC, you have to group up. The Units that do it the best earn the tags and the MC. Why is this so controversial with the MWO population? If PGI had made the MMO PvE game so many seem to want, do you think it would be any different? You'd still have to group up and you'd still have elite units with all the best space opera junk around.

Apparently I'm just not capable of understanding why people want to play solo in a team based game, or why solos should be rewarded equally as well as people who want to group.

#29 LordNothing

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 17,155 posts

Posted 08 March 2017 - 04:06 PM

View PostDarklightCA, on 08 March 2017 - 07:41 AM, said:


It's designed that way because Faction Play wasn't meant to be dominated by solo players. It was created for Units/Groups and you don't have to be a good player to be in one. Every player gets LP rewards but if you want planetary income you need to be in a unit actively conquering planets (entire point of Faction Play).

If you want to get rid of what is pretty much the only point to conquer planets just so all the lazy soloists who don't want to play with a group can get more rewards, what exactly is the point in keeping Faction Play at that point? Factions don't matter, Planets don't matter. Longer wait times for just a 4 drop version of quick play without group restrictions.


idk if planet capture is really worth it for team players. ive heard tales about how the mc isnt really that much and that planet capture is still pointless. especially since its the larger groups running multiple drops that net the tags. this also means that what little mc you won from holding the planet has to be divided up between more players. as a group player the victory pay would likely be better than what you are getting now. its also more fair and doesn't have to be managed by a unit leader. by its very nature victory pay goes primarily to the players that participated most in the phase regardless of type. im not even against it being exclusive to winners, because it wouldn't be victory pay if its participation pay. that might also encourage more solos to use teamwork in order to net the victory point.

#30 Malrock

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Widow Maker
  • The Widow Maker
  • 313 posts

Posted 08 March 2017 - 05:10 PM

View PostJaybles, on 08 March 2017 - 01:43 PM, said:


OK maybe I just have a different gaming background, but every MMORPG I have every played has forced you to group up to get the best rewards, and every single game gives you a "clan" option to do so. And the people who usually get the best rewards are in the best/most active/grind kings "clans."

Why is it so crazy that PGI has implemented this same system in MWO. If you want to tag planets and get MC, you have to group up. The Units that do it the best earn the tags and the MC. Why is this so controversial with the MWO population? If PGI had made the MMO PvE game so many seem to want, do you think it would be any different? You'd still have to group up and you'd still have elite units with all the best space opera junk around.

Apparently I'm just not capable of understanding why people want to play solo in a team based game, or why solos should be rewarded equally as well as people who want to group.


Guild (clan) option in MWO is mostly non existent for a few reasons:

1. social interaction in this game is severely limited. No one talks to anyone else outside of drops, and even in drops people don't talk much. A big part of which is a lack of general communication channel, or even a reasonable way to text back and forth with another player. The chat interface is actually terrible even if you are just trying to talk with some one on your friends list.

2. The chat tools that are included effectively lock you out of every other aspect of the program, and don't allow you to do anything else while you are chatting. I have never played any mmo like this that locked all other aspects of the program away any time you wanted to chat. Basically PGI has set it up so chatting is a punished activity. It isn't like there is a handy chat box in the bottom left corner of every non active drop screen so you can talk to people. It is instead "oh you want to talk to your faction, ok np, click the faction play mode, and go to the faction play chat, and oh congratz you can't do anything else but wait to talk to people in the faction play area, which is completely dead b/c no one sits around in FP screen hoping to talk to others. There should be options in a dialogue box to swap your chat to your faction, your guild, the general population, people lfg, etc. But there aren't any of those things.

3. You are punished for inviting people to your guild because you have to pay an exorbitant c bill cost to do so. If you invite the wrong person or they don't work out you have wasted c bills. Thus being exclusive and choosy about who you invite because it costs you. Every other MMO has a basic fairly trivial cost to start a guild and you can invite and kick whom ever you desire cost free.

The other problem is Lack of accessibility:

Yes MMO's do have a guild system that rewards people for joining together to progress through raids. But many, in fact most of the guilds in those MMO's didn't raid and were formed strictly for social reasons or to progress through non eliete content or content of a different sort and were not hard core in nature. We don't even have those options here in MWO because the only reason to join a unit is not to join FP because you can FP with out a unit, but the reason to join a unit is to club baby seals in FP, which in and of itself is not very compelling.

But back to your MMO example. You know what those MMO developers found? They found that they spent all this time making this end game content and almost none of their player base actually experienced it. An active minority certainly would move from tier to teir but most of the players never experienced it at all and those who did no more than a fight or two in the first tier, and certainly never more than the first tier. What problem does that sound like... oh right MWO has very low numbers of the player base experiencing FP.

So what did MMO's especially the most successful ones do? The increased the ease of access. They created LFG tools that actually let you pug que for a specific elite dungeon with random people. They lowered the skill necessary for Pug groups to compete in said elite dungeon. They created a method whereby you could get rewards similar to people doing elite dungeons by doing non elite dungeon activities. The made the game over all much more accessible.

Guess what MWO should do ? Make the game more accessible. This is why pug que in FP is what people think will truly help the game grow. Even in a pug que you would still have to work together, just as those people in the pug que for elite dungeons had to work together. Sure the team work just doesn't get to the same level as say an elite raiding guild with a dedicated shot caller would, but most people don't want or need that level of organization they want to have fun blow off some steam and experience some content. So yeah they are willing to do some team work because you can't beat the bosses with out some team work, but it is hardly like they are going all out to be the most honed fighting force to grace the planet. People have day jobs many don't need that type of commitment.

Once you get more people experience in playing the FP game mode and then those who crave more structure go on to find an MWO unit by google warrioring their way to a unit with pre defined group drops, which leaves you with more people playing the mode and a group of people who are actively looking to regularly join the more organized ranks because they want more than is offered in the pug que. But you also get a healthy pug que that is experiencing and enjoying this content as well, and you get a larger player base because people are sticking around because now they get to enjoy the end game content as well.

The more exclusive and harder you make it for people to get into a game mode the fewer people will play. Every artificial barrier to entry you erect the order of magnitude of the player pool drops because some people won't bother when QP is so easy. This is why the shouts by people when any change is suggested about NO IT IS FOR HARD CORES ONLY HURRR DURRR.!!! DESIGNED THAT WAY!!!! DURRR!!! make no sense and do nothing but show you are out of touch with the problem and the solution. The solution is to be more inclusive and get more people into the mode. This will help the health of the game and the health of all ques.

#31 James Argent

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 721 posts

Posted 08 March 2017 - 06:11 PM

Sure, 'the best' rewards should be reserved for those that do 'the best,' but in no other MMO that I've ever seen has there been a 'winner take all, screw you totally for losing' system. Other developers seem to understand that in a totally voluntary leisure activity, people who get beat down over and over again need to have something to motivate them to keep plugging away at it or else they'll simply go do something else that's actually fun for them...especially if there's no subscription fee to make them feel obligated to play in order to get their money's worth.

Planetary MC is what you get for being the best...the cherry on the top. A winner's MC reward is what you would also get for winning a match. The loser's MC reward would be lower than the winner's MC reward and lower still than a combination of winner's MC and Planetary MC, but still enough to keep some people in the game who might otherwise find an urgent need to do something else more enjoyable than getting their mechs' faces pushed in the mud over and over all day long.

#32 Carl Vickers

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Covert
  • The Covert
  • 2,649 posts
  • LocationPerth

Posted 08 March 2017 - 06:18 PM

In this case, the rewards you get for losing, you get when you go up LP ranks, MC is the cherry on top for those units that play together as a team and win planets.

#33 James Argent

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 721 posts

Posted 08 March 2017 - 06:34 PM

Well, let's take a look at the multitudes who think that's sufficient and are staying in droves for Facti-...

Hahahaha...I couldn't finish. Non-subscription based gameplay relies on enticement to ensure sufficient population. The current enticements are obviously not working.

#34 justcallme A S H

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • CS 2020 Referee
  • CS 2020 Referee
  • 8,987 posts
  • LocationMelbourne, AU

Posted 08 March 2017 - 06:34 PM

View PostJaybles, on 08 March 2017 - 01:23 PM, said:



When DERP was NERP, we managed to collect 6 planetary wins in 3 weeks as IS. That's 25 players dropping with never more than 12 on at once, usually 5-8 and somehow we managed to tag a planet twice a week as IS.


Yep, similar for 54MR. Have had 5-6 planet wins as IS in 3 weeks of contract.

And given you guys are different time zone to us, that makes at least 12 cycle wins in the past what, 5 weeks?
Most Oceanic cycles no one wins and I believe Euro has been heavily IS wins of late, US has switched to Clan wins, but again that'll change the week due to population I suspect.

It's more null results than anything. And hardly majority clan, not even close to it.

Focusing on "just wins" is dumb. Take I to account the sheer null results, of which are plenty, the % win via IS or Clan is nothing like the 80% clan it was in the first month of 4.1

#35 FallingAce

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Butcher
  • The Butcher
  • 627 posts

Posted 08 March 2017 - 11:03 PM

Remember the faction play town hall where Russ said there would be a new reward system ~2 months after the release of 4.1 ? Guess no one else does.
I'd find the exact spot, but 30 seconds of listening to Russ was all i could stand.


Phase 3 every faction had the opportunity to tag 2 planets, 1 attack , 1 defense. So we went from 10 tags(150mc) per cycle to 4 tags(60mc) per cycle.- remember, no defensve tags in 4.1.

#36 Husker Dude

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Överste-Löjtnant
  • Överste-Löjtnant
  • 319 posts

Posted 09 March 2017 - 07:29 AM

I don't think incentivizing wins would help balance the population; if you make higher MC rewards dependent on actually winning your match, the "easier" side will likely still be stacked, with many units not wanting to swap sides to face the stronger ones.

Additionally, I think a lot of players insist on playing FW before they're ready because it's a rare place that they can get mechbays without actual money; while I would welcome the idea of additional MC rewards, I'd also worry that there'd be more players who aren't at all interested in coordinated team play drawn in only by the allure of MC.

#37 Monkey Lover

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 7,918 posts
  • LocationWazan

Posted 09 March 2017 - 07:59 AM

View PostFallingAce, on 08 March 2017 - 11:03 PM, said:

Remember the faction play town hall where Russ said there would be a new reward system ~2 months after the release of 4.1 ? Guess no one else does.
I'd find the exact spot, but 30 seconds of listening to Russ was all i could stand.


Phase 3 every faction had the opportunity to tag 2 planets, 1 attack , 1 defense. So we went from 10 tags(150mc) per cycle to 4 tags(60mc) per cycle.- remember, no defensve tags in 4.1.


Same one that said we would have loyalist events often.

#38 justcallme A S H

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • CS 2020 Referee
  • CS 2020 Referee
  • 8,987 posts
  • LocationMelbourne, AU

Posted 09 March 2017 - 09:53 AM

^ still waiting for your evidence BTW.

#39 Monkey Lover

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 7,918 posts
  • LocationWazan

Posted 09 March 2017 - 10:00 AM

View Postjustcallme A S H, on 09 March 2017 - 09:53 AM, said:

^ still waiting for your evidence BTW.


What do you want? You did this see the FP map swing from one side to the other based on how all the mercs changed sides at the same time? Or you didn't see two months ago when all but 1 top merc group was clan? Sorry can't help you

Mercs screw up cw and it's all yours now have fun .

Edited by Monkey Lover, 09 March 2017 - 10:02 AM.


#40 Jaybles-The-PegLeg-PotatoCaptain

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Raider
  • The Raider
  • 383 posts

Posted 09 March 2017 - 10:38 AM

View PostMonkey Lover, on 09 March 2017 - 10:00 AM, said:

What do you want? You did this see the FP map swing from one side to the other based on how all the mercs changed sides at the same time? Or you didn't see two months ago when all but 1 top merc group was clan? Sorry can't help you

Mercs screw up cw and it's all yours now have fun .



We like the IP, so we invest in both clan and IS mechs. We like FP, so we choose the career path that lets us play both tech bases. And because of this we screw up FP?

Give me away to separate my $1500+ investment in this game between IS and clan and I'll gladly join a IS faction and clan faction. Unfortunately, PGI released clan mechs and packs before CW and the career system. If I'd known then what I know now, I would have split my investment between 2 accounts. Sadly, I was much to invested when PGI released the career paths with 3.0.

Don't blame mercs for playing the game. Blame PGI for making the loyalist path pointless and painful in relation to the game mechanics PGI implemented.

As clan, I play against IS groups everyday. Loyalist and merc. This past sunday I ran up against 3 different davions mixed 12 mans. (HHOD, C4, etc.) as well as a couple of mixed FFR hub 12 mans, and merc groups like AWOL. If us mercs screw it up, why are there so many 12 mans and groups dropping on both sides? If it's dying, why do I continue to see different groups of players everyday?

You keep quoting evidence from December when there was a massive clan population imbalance, (mostly as a consequence of 3.0 btw) but you seem unable to acknowledge that the two sides have balanced themselves out now population wise. And when one side does get a bit bloated, it usually levels out within a week because merc groups are constanly shifting for a variety of reasons. Some shift every week, some shift ever 2 weeks, some shift every month, some shift when a mech is released, some shift when they just get bored with one side, hell some shift everyday looking for the best fights. Having been a merc all along, I can tell you that with the units I've been in, "where can we farm the most potatoes?" was never a question that was asked in regards to shifting factions before 4.1 and now shifting sides. But I won't tell you that, because you won't believe me, after all, I'm screwing up CW by spending money on MWO and playing almost exclusively FW near everyday since FP 4.1 dropped.





3 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users