207 replies to this topic

[Ken Fury]

Considering that the majority of players will probably unorganized or in small groups one could also entertain the option of having system designated "hotspots". Planets which have been choosen by the system (or gamemaster), and are thus avaible for everyone. I'd suggest those planets should be avaible for combat for a longer period from 48hrs to 1 week, this would allow everyone to participate.

If an ELO system is avaible the total outcome could be determined by calculating the total ELO ratingchanges of all players, or simply a measurement of all damage done, Mechs destroyed etc.

Dry dropping as i experienced it in MPBT3025 should be a mechanic that should be avoided imho, since its a non entertaining mechanic for Attackers and Defenders. Considering that we got Mercs and Lonewolf affilations, those could fill in for empty factionslots.

[onipanda]

TLBFestus, on 16 August 2012 - 06:17 PM, said:

Rule #1. We must make money

Rule # 2. We cannot make money without a vibrant and involved Community, so we will protect said community.

Rule #3. Anyone screwing with Rule #1 or #2 will be dealt with in a draconian and unsympathetic manner as befits our Overlord status.

There's a problem with this that I posted in another thread. If you start coming down overly hard on one group, you will be expected to come down hard on all groups. Both ways will be seen in a negative light: coming down hard on a group, and coming down hard on one group but not another. Being overzealous is a double edged sword because it risks alienating other players and/or future players. Being uneven alienates everyone. You have to be really really careful when dealing with groups especially those with "reputation" because it's so easy to get every single fact wrong on the internet.

An example, I used to play ragnarok online. Not with goons, I joined a random guild. Anyway, I finally quit playing because the GMs banned our guild leader for doing something they claimed was illegal. We had a fairly strong reputation on the server, and our leader had proof that he wasn't doing what they claimed, but they banned him anyway. Almost everyone in our guild (probably about 50 people) quit the game in disgust. ~50 people may be a drop in the bucket, but the negative press will add up. I know of other guilds who had mass quittings because of how the GMs in the game handled things. The worst thing to do is set a bad precedent.

[Bring Stabity]

Supraluminal, on 16 August 2012 - 07:20 PM, said:

Please, please focus on the content of the ideas presented, not on who's presenting them. I'm not saying you aren't entitled to consider someone's motivations when they make a suggestion, but speculating about vague conspiracies here in the thread isn't going to help. Instead, look for specific ways that the ideas presented could be abused or exploited, and if you feel like you've found something, speak up about it.

I'm going to tell you a secret about the goon conspiracy.

It's that we want a good video game to play.

[PringlesPCant]

Also just so people know, I state in the OP that i'm focusing only on the merc corps in this post not faction warfare. This is because I have almost zero experience with faction warfare the way they are going to do this in the game, I find it easier to make rules for because of the limitations you can place on the players, and because I already had written over 4,000 words.

Again, I just want to say this thread has had wonderful ideas, and I want to thank Helmar for showing what can happen when mods help keep threads on track.

A few points that seem pertinent to mention

• Whenever you make suggestions, try to read the dev blogs and give ideas that the devs can easily fit in with what they are already planning
  
• If you can't think of a good implementation/mechanic for them to use, just try to turn the idea behind it into a general rule. That way no matter what direction they choose to go they can implement it
  
• Unless they are willing to retcon major parts of their dev blog, loyalty points will be a thing. I think bidding might consist of spending loyalty points to earn the right to do something instead of you bidding for the lowest possible reward to win the contract.
  
• Devs, please be willing to take as much time as you need for community warfare. I applauded when I heard you were going to delay community warfare 90 days past release, and I'm sure everyone who wants MWO to be a long term success is willing to wait even longer if they have to.
  
• Shameless plug, Don't forget to read my first thread. The link is in the start of the OP.

[Gwaihir]

This here deserves a bump.

[Nekki Basara]

If everyone who posted "I don't like this idea because GOONS!" would instead post "I think this idea would be imbalanced in favour of large groups because" then the dev's would have a metric fuckton more useful information coming out of our feedback.

[iEatBabies]

I have no prior experience with extensive community warfare, that is why I'm gonna bump this and hopefully others with more experience can help contribute and give the devs good suggestions.

[RG Notch]

Nekki Basara, on 17 August 2012 - 06:01 PM, said:

If everyone who posted "I don't like this idea because GOONS!" would instead post "I think this idea would be imbalanced in favour of large groups because" then the dev's would have a metric fuckton more useful information coming out of our feedback.

Why? People reap what they sow. There should consequences to one's actions and one's postings. If one wants to act a tool, or associate with tools one should be prepared to have that thrown in their face. I know if I was a member of a group that had such a lousy reputation, I would leave, thus anyone who stays in knows who they are associated with when they wear those tags. This whole long post can be reduced to "Don't limit guild size". All the rest is smoke and mirrors. The OP even says every mechanic, that includes his suggestions. can be abused. Guess what allows the most abuse, unlimited group size. Anyways, based on where this comes from we have good indications of how it will be received by those who matter. Examine how many of said group are so very interested in keeping this bumped and you can draw your own conclusion as to what their aim is. If you don't consider the source, you set yourself up for trouble later.

[Nekki Basara]

Well your first two sentences make my point for me. If you don't post reasons as to why this is a bad idea and just troll without providing alternatives then all the dev's have to work on is the idea you dislike.

In short: ad hominems don't win debates, stop using them.

[RG Notch]

Nekki Basara, on 20 August 2012 - 06:56 AM, said:

Well your first two sentences make my point for me. If you don't post reasons as to why this is a bad idea and just troll without providing alternatives then all the dev's have to work on is the idea you dislike.

In short: ad hominems don't win debates, stop using them.

It's not ad hominem when it is essential to the understanding of the entire post. Some people have even stated they don't know what type of group you are, thus they are working from the baseline that you want to make the game better for all and not just make it exploitable and fun for your group. Plus if they don't work why are you concerned? Ad hominems may not work but the truth surely does. Context is vitally important when considering ideas and that's what I'm providing. Nothing in my post violates any stricture of the rules for posting or offends the CoC. Thus I am just as free to post here as all your guildies are to bump and like it. Just because there are a lot of you doesn't give you the right to tell anyone what or where to post absent rule breaking.

[Nekki Basara]

Hey man, if you want to ignore honest advice on how to best counter the points we make and thus minimise the effect we have on the game development then that's your call, and you can live with the results of it. But since you bring up the CoC:

Quote

Harassing or Defamatory
This category includes both clear and masked language and/or links to websites containing such language or images which:

• Insultingly refer to other characters, players, Piranha Games Inc. employees, or groups of people
  
• Result in ongoing harassment to other characters, players, Piranha Games Inc. employees, or groups of people
  
• <snip>
  
• Harassment takes many forms, and is not necessarily limited to the type of language used, but the intent.

So hey, keep on posting if you believe that strongly, I'm not going to stop you.

[Anders]

Mr. Arr-Gee Notch:

Once again, you resort to hysterics to attempt to get your point across. Please understand that there are groups that have as many, if not more members than we here at the Word of Lowtax. Would you gainsay those group's ability to remain as a group just because of a suggestion made by "one [who] wants to act a tool, or associate with tools"?


[REDACTED]


[REDACTED]

Take a break, my friend. Relax. Find that inner calm. Realize that we are truly out for this game's best interests.

Thank you for your post. We here at the Word of Lowtax appreciate your support.

Robotically Yours,
Anders
Public Relations Officer, Director of Man/Bird Relations
Bropocalypse Now Battalion - "The Fist of Lowtax"

Edited by Viterbi, 20 August 2012 - 09:33 AM.
Removed suggestive language

[fil5000]

RG Notch, on 20 August 2012 - 07:08 AM, said:

It's not ad hominem when it is essential to the understanding of the entire post. Some people have even stated they don't know what type of group you are, thus they are working from the baseline that you want to make the game better for all and not just make it exploitable and fun for your group. Plus if they don't work why are you concerned? Ad hominems may not work but the truth surely does. Context is vitally important when considering ideas and that's what I'm providing. Nothing in my post violates any stricture of the rules for posting or offends the CoC. Thus I am just as free to post here as all your guildies are to bump and like it. Just because there are a lot of you doesn't give you the right to tell anyone what or where to post absent rule breaking.

What on earth makes you think that we want a game that we just flood with people and shut off any avenue to an actual fight? Where would the fun in that be? Whatever else you may think of us, we want to PLAY this game, not hit the launch button and collect cbills. I'll lay dollars to donuts that every single goon would rather have an interesting, challenging game that we LOSE than a million billion where because of some metagame advantage we win. No one is interested in the creation of a system that causes us to win by weight of numbers, that is BORING.

[Samuikaze]

RG Notch, on 20 August 2012 - 06:30 AM, said:

Why? People reap what they sow. There should consequences to one's actions and one's postings. If one wants to act a tool, or associate with tools one should be prepared to have that thrown in their face. I know if I was a member of a group that had such a lousy reputation, I would leave, thus anyone who stays in knows who they are associated with when they wear those tags. This whole long post can be reduced to "Don't limit guild size". All the rest is smoke and mirrors. The OP even says every mechanic, that includes his suggestions. can be abused. Guess what allows the most abuse, unlimited group size. Anyways, based on where this comes from we have good indications of how it will be received by those who matter. Examine how many of said group are so very interested in keeping this bumped and you can draw your own conclusion as to what their aim is. If you don't consider the source, you set yourself up for trouble later.

I'd say you just about nailed it with those points and comments above. The sad thing is, many here don't know who or what these lot are about and thus they see these so called "ideas" as something good for the whole community, which they are not. The reality is, these lot are just trying to get a game to suit their style of play mechanic. If they can get half or quarter of it their way, in their eyes it is a "job well done." Just not a "job well done" for every other player in this game. Lets hope the devs take threads like these with a pinch of salt and not get played by these characters.

[Nekki Basara]

Samuikaze, on 20 August 2012 - 08:54 AM, said:

I'd say you just about nailed it with those points and comments above. The sad thing is, many here don't know who or what these lot are about and thus they see these so called "ideas" as something good for the whole community, which they are not. The reality is, these lot are just trying to get a game to suit their style of play mechanic. If they can get half or quarter of it their way, in their eyes it is a "job well done." Just not a "job well done" for every other player in this game. Lets hope the devs take threads like these with a pinch of salt and not get played by these characters.

Please see my response to RG Notch re the CoC and then provide an example of how YOU would like community warfare to work.

[REDACTED]

Edited by Viterbi, 20 August 2012 - 09:31 AM.
Offensive

[TOOON]

Awesome post with some very good idea's !

[Pandy]

The OP is really good and I believe this might work out well for Merc Corps alone. I don't think the Faction Warfare would benefit from this type of system, but when it comes to the border worlds, I think it'll work great.

[REDACTED]

Edited by Viterbi, 20 August 2012 - 09:57 AM.
Off-topic comment removed

[Bait and Swatch]

Very good points made in the OP, in this and his other post covering this topic. I really hope all of this is taken into consideration for the metagame development. The metagame is what will determine the lifespan of MWO, and addressing the points in this thread will allow MWO to succeed where others have failed. Successful community warfare mechanics mixed with an ongoing storyline is just as much of a draw as is the gameplay and the mechwarrior brand. Do it right, and this game will draw far more than the usual audience.

Also, I fail to see the point of ignoring good advice simply because the thread's author is in the WoL. I could understand if it was illogical bs, but the points he makes are valid. The problems he addresses are the same I have seen in various metagames. He is obviously out to try and make the game better, not worse. Screaming "blasphemer" and gathering a mob because Copernicus (Pringles, in this case) said the "earth travels around the sun" is exactly what should not happen. This a discussion that needs to occur, and he framed it perfectly in the OP. This is one of the few worthwhile threads on the forums, so go find a different one to worry about goons on.

Edited by Acre, 20 August 2012 - 09:47 AM.

[AmnesiaLab]

RG Notch, on 20 August 2012 - 06:30 AM, said:

This whole long post can be reduced to "Don't limit guild size". All the rest is smoke and mirrors.

I am honestly curious why you think that. It doesn't matter all that much to goons whether they have everyone in one guild or they have five allied guilds working together. They're going to be equally coordinated either way, and if you break them up into multiple guilds, they might end up in multiple houses, so they're harder to avoid. The way you're freaking out about goons, I would think you would rather see them all in one place where they're easier to avoid. Regardless, it seems to me that being split up wouldn't be much of an inconvenience for the goons.

[RG Notch]

[REDACTED]

[REDACTED] I have provided exactly what is wrong with the OP's ideas. As stated by the OP every mechanic can and will be abused, thus it's obvious that it's easier to abuse mechanics that one has suggested. The system would be a disaster as it is designed to allow large groups to dominate it. All the other fluff is there to try to deflect the obvious thrust. Allowing large groups to stomp others and generally act like bullies is poor design. If said group has that reputation, then that argues that one should carefully examine the source.
Clearly some folks like a challenge, some are just bullies and no amount of words will wash away actions.Who's actually going to come out and say they want to bully smaller groups around? Of course people will argue they want "fair" fights and "challenge".
The real key is that people, and not just players know where this comes from and how many grains of salt one should use in examining it. If this is so inconsequential and misguided why is it continually attacked? If you believe your reputation is fine then just ignore these posts and let the logic of your arguments speak for themselves. Isn't that how the forums are supposed to work? [REDACTED]

Edited by Viterbi, 20 August 2012 - 10:52 AM.
Removed quote of deleted content and other accusatory sentences