207 replies to this topic

[marcus elgin]

I read your post in it's unedited state, I merely ignored the off topic portion. I'm still interested in hearing about what form of community warfare you prefer and why. Getting into the nuts and bolts of game design is always interesting, especially if you're not that familiar with the genre.

[Kodaxx]

RG Notch, on 15 August 2012 - 03:18 PM, said:

Well the important part of my comment was edited out. Apparently the goons have taken over the forums and we are not allowed to address the real issues here. Thanks mod for removing the real thrust of my post. Good to see who gets special treatment around here. I guess you're allowed to act the fool if you can bring enough people with money.
Oh a game with good community warfare, anyone without Goons.

[REDACTED]

Please respond with constructive criticism rather than throwing a tantrum for getting your insulting post deleted.

I agree with most points and find pringles to be a knowledgeable and fair person. These ideas will benefit the community as a whole.

Edited by Helmer, 15 August 2012 - 03:38 PM.
Removed insulting imagery as reported by members of the MWO community.

[Numlock1776]

WardenWolf, on 15 August 2012 - 12:28 PM, said:

I am curious as to why pre-arranged battles are required at all? For merc company stuff... maybe. But if you are looking at the community warfare going on between the Great Houses I would think that there will be so many players from each faction on at any given time that the battles over worlds on their borders could be nearly non-stop.

I agree with this, there is no reason to use time zones at all.

Planets could become conquerable for 24 hours (for example), and which ever faction won the most battles on that planet is awarded (or retains) ownership of that planet. then there should probably be a cool down period during which that planet isn't attackable.

This would allow anybody to play matches with anybody else available in their clan whenever they have time. Plus there is no pressure to be in the game every day at the same time everybody else is.

[pixaal]

RG Notch, on 15 August 2012 - 03:26 PM, said:

So you ignored the important part. I'm interested in why I should care about the ideas of a group that claims they will come in and exploit game mechanics and try to ruin it. BTW it's obvious why you don't want limits on guild size and the reasons have nothing to do with what was stated. Speak the truth and maybe you might get answers.

The ideas are not of a group they are of a member of the group. We do not post stuff and edit it and go Ahhhh this is what we all want go forth! Please discuss the idea not the motives behind it.

Quote

I feel the idea is well thought out and a lot of effort was put into it by the OP. Its long and not a rant. I think it should be read and discussed in detail about how it will effect the balance of the game. Something like this really does need to be tested and be able to change.
Planets could become conquerable for 24 hours (for example), and which ever faction won the most battles on that planet is awarded (or retains) ownership of that planet. then there should probably be a cool down period during which that planet isn't attackable.

Planets being available for 24 hours and people having to win x percent of games seems well and good but if one side vastly outnumbers the other, or maybe they fight one match win and then ignore it now! They have a 100% win rate and there is nothing you can do about it since they wont fight any more.

If you allow them to simply start as many attacks as they want then it becomes a zerg fest. It is something hard to balance but you need to provide a reason to have more then a single 12v12 match to determine the fate of a planet without allowing someone to rush it with larger numbers and get default wins.

Edited by pixaal, 15 August 2012 - 03:34 PM.

[PringlesPCant]

If we could all stay on topic and not devolve into ad-hominem attacks that would be great. If you disagree with me, by all means discuss and disagree with the ideas not the person. We all have a stake in MWO being something we can all enjoy, and something we can do to help PGI out is keeping discussions productive and constructive. If there is a post off-topic or attempting to start a flame war, just report it, ignore it, and keep on with the constructive discussion.

To RG Notch,
Instead of attacking us personally, instead use neutral words to describe your reservations and why you are skeptical.

Talk about how as a person from a large organization I have a biased view towards many of these issues and that people should keep that in mind where my interests lie. Also my background is sure to leave me with blindspots that i might not be able to see myself, or I could simply be wrong about something.

Don't just go 'such and such are evil terrible people no one should listen to them all' Remember, if the worlds greatest fool says it's sunny outside that doesn't automatically mean it's raining.

[Dax Frey]

It's funny, after coming from WoT (from a different and equally successful clan wars clan, although ive not warred in a while...) I was like here we go... im going to get another warning about trolling...

But I think pringles might be on to something here.

Pringles is it fair to say that once you pop the fun don't stop?

probably one of the best posts on this forum to date...imo

+10 points

[Gwaihir]

RG Notch, on 15 August 2012 - 03:26 PM, said:

So you ignored the important part. I'm interested in why I should care about the ideas of a group that claims they will come in and exploit game mechanics and try to ruin it.

People keep saying this, yet somehow I have never seen the actual source of this persistent myth!

We want a game with an engaging healthy CW system so that the first honest to god mechwarrior title in 11 years (I love me some MWLL, but they're hobbled by the old junky cryengine2 compared to the awesomeness that is cryengine 3) does not get rapidly consigned to the dustheap of boring non long-term viable video game history. However, even as I write these words, I know they're wasted on you, so kindly :getout:

p.s. If anyone else has examples of good community warfare systems it sure would be nice seeing them contrasted here.

[Two Beans]

RG Notch, on 15 August 2012 - 03:26 PM, said:

a group that claims they will come in and exploit game mechanics and try to ruin it.

I'd like to request that you site where a goon, any goon, has stated that we intend on "ruining" MWO. Link to forum posts where this was spoken as being a goal of goons.

[marcus elgin]

Numlock1776, on 15 August 2012 - 03:30 PM, said:

I agree with this, there is no reason to use time zones at all.

Planets could become conquerable for 24 hours (for example), and which ever faction won the most battles on that planet is awarded (or retains) ownership of that planet. then there should probably be a cool down period during which that planet isn't attackable.

This would allow anybody to play matches with anybody else available in their clan whenever they have time. Plus there is no pressure to be in the game every day at the same time everybody else is.

I could see a bit of a problem with this system, in that no one is forced to fight. You could just win a few matches in a row and then have all the members of your clan stop fighting at that location. The enemy has no chance to win after a clan accumulates a small edge. The alternative is to have each attacking group that isn't met by a defending team count as a win, which just encourages massing your clan at odd hours of the day.

In my opinion the system you describe could work for larger house pub play, but the smaller clans the OP is focusing on need a more defined window.

[Anders]

Mr. Arr-Gee Notch:

You seem upset. Why are you so upset? Why do you think that the Goons have taken over the forums, and "The Man" is preventing you from addressing the "Real Issues"? We want to talk about community warfare, please help us help PGI help us with an interesting Community Warfare arm for this great game (which you can see we all love and want to see succeed).

As someone who did raid in WoW, the ability to take a break would be amazing. The constant grind is the fastest way to burnout.

Thanks for the posting, Arr-Gee Notch. The Word of Lowtax appreciates your continued engagement in this thread to strive for something better.

Hugs.

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

[GhostBexar]

I am really impressed with Pringles. Thank you for your insights, and ideas!! The MWO community is a better place with members like yourself!

[Numlock1776]

pixaal, on 15 August 2012 - 03:32 PM, said:

The ideas are not of a group they are of a member of the group. We do not post stuff and edit it and go Ahhhh this is what we all want go forth! Please discuss the idea not the motives behind it.

Planets being available for 24 hours and people having to win x percent of games seems well and good but if one side vastly outnumbers the other, or maybe they fight one match win and then ignore it now! They have a 100% win rate and there is nothing you can do about it since they wont fight any more.

If you allow them to simply start as many attacks as they want then it becomes a zerg fest. It is something hard to balance but you need to provide a reason to have more then a single 12v12 match to determine the fate of a planet without allowing someone to rush it with larger numbers and get default wins.

I'm thinking more a long the lines of the following.

Planet Podunk, a border world held by the Federated Commonwealth, becomes conquerable. As it is on the Border between the FedCom and the Capellan Confederation attack and defense missions will appear (that are visible to the house affiliated units) over the course of the next 24 hours. Lets say 48 total, so two an hour. Each Attack mission will be paired with a Defense mission.

Units affiliated with the house will bid on the right to take that mission, and at the end of the 24 hours the Faction with the most victories gets the planet.

Since there is a limited number of missions (48 Pairs) that show up over the entire 24 hours, it isn't possible to Zerg the planet and we allow players in any time zone to fight for that planet.

Edit: The mission would be up for grabs for an hour. At the end the two units that won the bids fight. If for some reason nobody bid on the mission it would be voided. If only one unit bid on the mission it would be an automatic victory.

Edited by Numlock1776, 15 August 2012 - 03:48 PM.

[Stargell]

Numlock1776, on 15 August 2012 - 03:30 PM, said:

I agree with this, there is no reason to use time zones at all.

Planets could become conquerable for 24 hours (for example), and which ever faction won the most battles on that planet is awarded (or retains) ownership of that planet. then there should probably be a cool down period during which that planet isn't attackable.

This would allow anybody to play matches with anybody else available in their clan whenever they have time. Plus there is no pressure to be in the game every day at the same time everybody else is.

Edit: marcus elgin beat me to it a few posts above mine. That's what I get for going afk in the middle of writing a post!

There would have to be limitations in place to prevent an organized faction from guaranteeing a win by refusing to fight after they have the majority of wins (my side won 2 out of 3, now we won't drop for 24 hours thus guaranteeing a win). If you attempted to punish a faction for not defending (forfeits), then large factions would easily be able to 'zerg' planets by just queuing en masse.

I think you are on to something though. I think the last thing people want is having to wake up in the middle of the night for some sort of planet defense op (which I suppose is the kind of thing that happens in Eve).

Edited by Stargell, 15 August 2012 - 03:48 PM.

[onipanda]

RG Notch, please stop posting in the this thread. You have proven that you cannot stay on the topic of discussion, and the only thing you ARE discussing is how much you hate goons. That has no place here. Pringles' ideas are solid, even I don't agree with all of them. He stated his ideas and given logical reasons for why he believes so. Either refute the points, and/or make your own points backed by logical supporting reasons.

[onipanda]

RG Notch, on 15 August 2012 - 03:50 PM, said:

[REDACTED]

That is Paul's opinion. Never has it been stated BY US that that is our goal. I'm also saddened by Paul's words, because his position as lead developer, he is showing that he is not remaining neutral when it comes to hearsay about members of his player base. I am a founder because I want a mechwarrior game, as are just about every single goon who is following this. Why in god's name would we throw money at something we want to fail?

[Stargell]

Numlock1776, on 15 August 2012 - 03:46 PM, said:

I'm thinking more a long the lines of the following.

Planet Podunk, a border world held by the Federated Commonwealth, becomes conquerable. As it is on the Border between the FedCom and the Capellan Confederation attack and defense missions will appear (that are visible to the house affiliated units) over the course of the next 24 hours. Lets say 48 total, so two an hour. Each Attack mission will be paired with a Defense mission.

Units affiliated with the house will bid on the right to take that mission, and at the end of the 24 hours the Faction with the most victories gets the planet.

Since there is a limited number of missions (48 Pairs) that show up over the entire 24 hours, it isn't possible to Zerg the planet and we allow players in any time zone to fight for that planet.

Edit: The mission would be up for grabs for an hour. At the end the two units that won the bids fight. If for some reason nobody bid on the mission it would be voided. If only one unit bid on the mission it would be an automatic victory.

To me this brings an another important issue to mind. How do the devs plan on handling house population balance? With no PvE there really is no outlet for players, and if 50% of the players decide to play Davion (yuck) how would the community warfare system balance things? 48 missions might be just right for one faction, way too little for another, and unrealistic for a small or unpopulated faction (say the FRR).

RG Notch, on 15 August 2012 - 03:50 PM, said:

[REDACTED]

If it's not against the board rules to post PMs it's still an incredibly douchy thing to do.

Edited by Helmer, 15 August 2012 - 04:13 PM.

[onipanda]

Stargell, on 15 August 2012 - 03:53 PM, said:

To me this brings an another important issue to mind. How do the devs plan on handling house population balance? With no PvE there really is no outlet for players, and if 50% of the players decide to play Davion (yuck) how would the community warfare system balance things?

In MPBT3025, the balancing mechanic was you got a pay (and maybe exp? don't remember exactly) bonus for going with a low population house. Now that can't translate directly to MWO since MPBT had much harsher penalties for losing, but it's an idea. You go with an underdog house so that you can buy new mechs faster, enough people feel the same way, and you're no longer underpopulated.

[Numlock1776]

Stargell, on 15 August 2012 - 03:53 PM, said:

To me this brings an another important issue to mind. How do the devs plan on handling house population balance? With no PvE there really is no outlet for players, and if 50% of the players decide to play Davion (yuck) how would the community warfare system balance things?

Maybe something that increases the amount of awards you get for taking missions affiliated with houses that don't have a huge player base. This would encourage Independent clans and players to fight for that house (MORE MONEY YEAH).

[Kodaxx]

RG Notch, on 15 August 2012 - 03:50 PM, said:

[REDACTED]

Uninformed people provide uninformed opinions. What's your point?

Edited by Helmer, 15 August 2012 - 04:13 PM.

[Popgun]

Or RG Notch, who is doing nothing but derailing and flamebaiting this thread, straight up posted a fake PM.