64 replies to this topic

[ManDaisy]

This isn't Eve online or WoT. The possibility of such large scale abuses doesn't exist. There are no Dynamite filled mechs that explode on impact. A group of wandering lone wolves wouldn't be a lone wolf now would they? Tho Captain you have a very valid point in that a larger merc units could simply buy the cost of repair or prepay a lone wolf into their side they they knew before hand would have a chance of joining their game randomly while sorting thru all the other games joining and exiting and taking mission cancel losses, until they finally hit the game with their friends in it, yes that scenario exist.

I'm sure tho a boot and block could easily be put in to detect over zealous match hopping.

As losses would be sustained either way by a team "hire" lone wolf griefer , a lone wolf "collaborator griefer" or an "exterminator griefer" the most damaging and easiest way to be a **** would still come from the "hire" griefer.

Edited by ManDaisy, 08 February 2012 - 01:52 AM.

[Captain Hat]

This isn't Eve or WoT, but the playerbase is the same and cannot be expected to act differently. That is the key point. I do like the idea, in principle- don't get me wrong, it would be pretty awesome- but in practice it seems almost impossible to set up so that it isn't open to abuse.

[Omigir]

ManDaisy, on 08 February 2012 - 01:42 AM, said:

This isn't Eve online or WoT. The possibility of such large scale abuses doesn't exist.

That is naive... They will do it in ANY game where they can. People are people after all. Its not the games, its the players.

ManDaisy, on 08 February 2012 - 01:42 AM, said:

There are no Dynamite filled mechs that explode on impact.

It take one shot to take down an injured mech, don't need to self destruct. A player, (such as my self) can and often does, take a light mech out and steal kills. Thus taking points and experience away from players who need/worked for/earned them.

ManDaisy, on 08 February 2012 - 01:42 AM, said:

A group of wandering lone wolves wouldn't be a lone wolf now would they?

No, but if players can trasfer C-bills, that lone wolf just became a Merc for one side to bid for. An additonal mech really can make or break a battle and people really want to win.

ManDaisy, on 08 February 2012 - 01:42 AM, said:

Tho Captain you have a very valid point in that a larger merc units could simply buy the cost of repair or prepay a lone wolf into their side they they knew before hand would have a chance of joining their game randomly while sorting thru all the other games joining and exiting and taking mission cancel losses, until they finally hit the game with their friends in it, yes that scenario exist.

It does not just exist, but it will take maybe two months before there is a formula posted on the Wiki of how to do this so its almost a Greentree. Online gaming call this an 'exploit' and they are used *all* the time. Its better to minimize how many exploits there are in a game, and when they are discovered, remove them. You are talking about building one in from the start. that is why so many people reject this idea. Exploits are used to make the game unfair.

[autogyro]

It would be better suited to have both factions have hidden objectives from each other - XP or credit bonuses for completing an optional objective that each other team is not aware of.

The team could, then, use the lone wolf to attempt to complete the optional objective if they so desire, or use a faction/merc player.

Rather than to actually have independent lone wolfs that are not tied to either team.

Already the idea of having lone wolf players in faction-faction and merc-merc engagements is a dangerous ploy, but at least there is a distinct friendly team and enemy team which they are on.

I guarantee you there'll be lone wolfs who get put on a House or merc unit they don't like and grief them or otherwise do not contribute to their fullest extent, or disobey orders or directives, or otherwise sabotage their own team for any and all reasons, even with the current gameplay dynamic.

[ManDaisy]

Then the solution is simple, make the cost of doing such actions economically non - viable. Mission cancellation fees and repair fees could be a significant enough deterrence to expanded hiring. If someone really does want to grief there will be no way to stop them. But all in all I believe the griefer population will stay the same with or without this feature because, as I will twist captains words, the player base is the same.

Edited by ManDaisy, 08 February 2012 - 02:13 AM.

[Omigir]

ManDaisy, your not getting it. People grief with complete disregard to their own financial gain. There is no way to make it not economically viable. Eve and WoT proves this day in and day out.

The more you bring this up, the more I feel like your a kid who (analogy alert!) Thinks that kids should be allowed to buy alcohol so they can go get it for their parents under the present that kids shouldn't drink it so they simply wont. Alcohol destroys your liver and is all around unhealthy if consumed in large amounts and kids can and will abuse this. They will do it regardless of this because they think its great fun.

So no, kids should not be allowed to buy alcohol.

ManDaisy, on 08 February 2012 - 02:07 AM, said:

[...] But all in all I believe the griefer population will stay the same with or without this feature because, as I will twist captains words, the player base is the same.

That is like saying you should let kids buy alcohol because they are going to drink it anyway and the same amount will drink it if you allow them to buy it then if you dont. : \

its not a good idea, yours, or letting kids buy alcohol.

Edited by Omigir, 08 February 2012 - 02:26 AM.

[Captain Hat]

The key points are that:

-People will ignore the ingame penalties and grief anyway. The do this in other games regardless of punitive ingame mechanisms designed to counter such. WoT even has an auto-ban system for people who cause a higher proportion of team damage than they should which locks people out of their accounts if they shoot teammates too often. People still grief.

-This proposed mechanism will make it easier for people to grief, and cause more of a problem when they do grief, regardless of the penalties you tack on afterwards.

Combined with the aforementioned organised unit tactic to (potentially) game the system and use this as an exploit, these problems will unfortunately make this mechanic largely unworkable.

[ManDaisy]

Omigir, Caption, I am happy to announce I have thought of a solution. A solution where the possibility of griefing is much less:


Setup:

Match system has 2 parties.

Team 1= Self define cohesive group, predefined at launch.
Team 2= Lone wolf pug team, each joins match but has seperate objective and no communications sharing.

Match setup: mainly garrison/ as lone wolves are raiders/ pirates / or on their own mission. Lone wolves don't control territory.

Therefore que of lone wolf missions may be accepted by single players. When a sufficient number is reached it throws them in against and oragnize garrison. other things remain the same, but now an enemy is defined. Lone wolves can only greif other lone wolves if they so choose.

[Captain Hat]

Why would that work? Nobody will play lone wolves after about a week under that scenario, because you'd lose almost all of your games and then stop queueing for them- and those who DID continue queueing for them would then have a really long wait to get a game and then still lose almost all the time.

You'd (potentially) solve the griefing problem only by making the gametype unplayable.

If you really want single-player missions, your best bet is something like Solaris.

Edited by Captain Hat, 08 February 2012 - 02:55 AM.

[ManDaisy]

I think it would work because they would not have to win as a unit. Some will win some lose. They would be a bunch of randoms who dive in and get out as soon as they complete their own personal objective. This as opposed to a team that stick around till total destructions or time expires. So if there were 12 wolves vs a team of 12 that is a cohesive group, that team would have to somehow defend 12 different targets at once. 7 outta 12 wolves might finish their mission and get outta there. while 5 would be intercepted and lose. Either way still worth it for those 7 that made it cause they ant on any team they're lone wolves. Screw the other guys.

Edited by ManDaisy, 08 February 2012 - 03:06 AM.

[Captain Hat]

Except that fewer than half of the PuGs would get anywhere because the first thing you do as a unit is work out where all the potential objectives on a map are and work up co-ordinated defence plans. So, for example, if there are 12 potential objectives and 12 enemy players you simply double up- 2 players on each of the first 6 objectives that are likely to get hit, meaning you should hold all six if the other team isn't co-ordinating (and they probably won't be), and then have organised fallbacks to defend other objectives as soon as 'mechs become available. Sure, that means some objectives stay undefended but it virtually guarantees you an easy win, and will stop well over half of the objectives from being taken or destroyed.

So you're looking at an average win ratio for the PuGs of less than 30%, which is just demoralising. At least in a Solaris match each player basically has an equal chance of winning (so even if the win ratio is terrible it's all down to skill)- in this scenario if you get assigned an objective that's on every defender's priority list you're basically screwed. You'd need to heavily stack the numbers in the PuGs' favour, and even then it will be very hard to balance right so that they have an even chance at success- and even then whether an objective will be achievable or not will be basically down to luck, which gets frustrating quickly for any gamer.

On top of that, people will- again- game the system, and a whole stack of a single merc unit will sign on as lone wolves for a game at the same time, which then gives you an organised team with out-of-game comms that you can't control facing off against a smaller enemy team whose only supposed advantage (comms, organisation) has just been largely negated.

Look, I apologise if I'm coming off as confrontational or offensive, I really do- that's not my intent. I don't mean to be an arse about things, I'm just trying to give things a realistic appraisal. I do like the idea of recon missions in enemy battlespace and so on- thematically they work, in the real world they would happen and the potential if everyone played nice would be great. It's just... having played online games for about 15 years now, I know what players are like, and the one constant thing is that it only takes one person in every 20 to be a dick and given half a chance they'll break the game for everyone.

The most effective ways I can see of making solo play viable are:

-Random games. Both sides are PUGs, though which team you're on is determined by faction alignment (or lack thereof, for a merc, though mercs can have contracts to fight for a specific side to gain additional benefits). This is open to click-timer gaming to all get on the same team from organised units and to griefing, but there's no real way around that and at least this way they're all listed on the FOB instead of being essentially invisible.

You can limit the number of "organised unit" players who can join a game if you want, but all that will happen is that each unit will have "orbiting" players that are not technically part of their unit in game terms but still part of their "community" outside the game and still on comms with them, so it wouldn't really help much except to make the game more confusing for the non-hardcore players (who you don't want to discourage because they will be the majority of the player base and because if you do they will never become hardcore players).

-Solaris matches.

Edited by Captain Hat, 08 February 2012 - 03:20 AM.

[ManDaisy]

Your assuming they they know the objective and objectives will not have enough variance. Also there should be distance as to not allow that scenario 100% of the time. I am 100% in favor of solaris however solaris is just not enough.

Edited by ManDaisy, 08 February 2012 - 03:25 AM.

[Captain Hat]

After two weeks, every organised unit in the game will have an itemised list of what all of the potential objectives are and a detailed plan on how to counter as many of them as possible.

This WILL happen.

Hell, I'll be surprised if it takes that long. Two days is all it'll take for the larger groups to get a handle on it, less than that if there's a beta because the beta testers who carry on playing will already know it when the game starts.

[ManDaisy]

if the possible target where selected out of a choice list of greater then 12, then coverting only 6 would not be sufficient. Say a 12 out of a total selection of 48 points existed. The random factor would be too great to for a constant 50% defend rate. This and targets would not be uniformly distributed as to make patrolling a necessity and prevent point camping.

Edited by ManDaisy, 08 February 2012 - 03:38 AM.

[Captain Hat]

You're still going to have co-ordinated an effective strategies for defence emerging after the first two days which will go on to becokme near-certainties once the teams start drilling them.

The number of objectives won't matter- you don't heve to defend them directly, you just have to stop anyone getting there. That's the way organised teams work. I know- I've been part of several.

[ManDaisy]

Heads up, no problems with my first suggestion, Forgot about missions requiring LP so that mission switch scenario can't happen. Also how will you prevent a break thru in your ranks? Speed is not static in this game. Lights, meds, hvys, assualts dont move like most FPS peeps where everyone moves the same rate. You may run up against mixed opponents, so in that case having all chasers wont cut it. You might be blown up a bit if you havent considered that.

Edited by ManDaisy, 08 February 2012 - 04:16 AM.

[ManDaisy]

Also because people can't win 100% doesn't mean they wont try. Its not made of of 100% competition based gamers. Lotta casual merc units as well. In that case these wolves stand a chance.

[Omigir]

: \ I think what the Devs have outlined already for Lone wolves works very well and you are trying to fix something that is not broken.

Any time there is a gap in one unit and they cannot field all 12 players, they get a lone wolf or two. Those lone wolves can either play along, or they can loose with the rest of the team. Otherwise, they may not be there at all. And if you load in a lone wolf and he is not appart of either team and he is just a 25th person out there on his own, there is to much potential for greiffin.

To me it sound slike one of two things, You want a lone wolf to be able to get into a match and do what ever he wants and still win, even if the rest of the team he is filling in with, looses.

that or you just want to show up and do what ever you want on your own/greiff people yourself.

Either way, your suggestion is not viable, sorry, but there is no way to do this in a way that I can see it working for any one.

Lone wolves can join a team, and do the objectives that a commander lays out for them like any other unit on that team. Lone wolves are FILLERS who have no allegiance to any specific house. That is why they are lone wolves. Not becuase they do their own thing in a match.

I think you should look through this, good source on the concept of lone wolves

http://mwomercs.com/...casual-players/

Edited by Omigir, 08 February 2012 - 05:07 AM.

[ManDaisy]

Since I cannot come up with a solution I can only disagree with your opinion.

[DragonClaw]

to me, solaris vii games would be a great recuitment tool. though some players might make it their primary roles to fight in the games. will it be so bad? or even better have it where a player has to rise up in raking on their home planet then sector then to solaris.