21 replies to this topic

[David Decoster]

Don't know if this has been asked / responded to, but I was wondering if PGI is planning to implement a member cap on in-game clan/corp/guilds. I'd rather if they didn't, since all I've seen is negatives from my WoT experiences:
1) Forces larger gaming clans to set up 'joint' in-game chat channels instead of having all their members in the same channel;
2) The reasoning that 'it will limit the larger clans from completely dominating the smaller ones' is mostly flawed: they simply bypass it by creating extra 'subclans'. Also, WoT experience still has some of the larger clans dominating simply by them having a wider playerbase to pool from.
3) Necessity for 'subclans' creates an unnecessary burden for clanmates wanting to play together if not in the same 'subclan'.

[pursang]

As far as we know, the only population caps that will be implemented in-game will be the amount of people who can play in any given session.

Edited by pursang, 23 April 2012 - 04:12 AM.

[David Decoster]

Thanks pursang!

[Threat Doc]

What I would like to see, however, should they decide to put any sort of caps on population, are number benchmarks for each type of unit. In other words, Houses would be different from Clans would be different from non-House States (FRR, SIC) would be different from Mercenary Units would be different from Periphery elements.

In other words, using Houses and Merc Units as an example...

Within the Houses, and yes I know this would put Liao on equal footing with the other Houses, which is not necessarily realistic, but all Houses would have to reach a benchmark of, say, 24 people each, before the ceiling would be raised to 48, etc. If all Houses cannot reach the benchmark, the benchmark is not raised.

Within the Merc units, it would be perhaps 4 at a time, and the same rules would apply, until a unit reaches its nominal lore maximum. For example, Merc Unit A was only ever one Company in size; once they reach a Company in size, they are released from the benchmarks, but their finances are not, unless the Merc Corps commanders reach certain in-game requirements to raise that level.

This sort of system would ensure, basically force, a certain level of equality among each unit type in the game.

[MaddMaxx]

I may have misunderstood the premise but what is the good of a ceiling # if a group never reaches it, or if it is raised immediately upon reaching it? The Team either has enough to move up or not!

What I hope is that for Mercs at least, there in no minimum, or it is only 4, and Contracts come in various size(s) so the smaller Merc Corps can bid for, win and then fight based on those smaller force sized Contracts.

[Threat Doc]

MaddMaxx, on 23 April 2012 - 08:26 AM, said:

I may have misunderstood the premise but what is the good of a ceiling # if a group never reaches it, or if it is raised immediately upon reaching it?

Mathematics, Maxx, just simple mathematics. Team A has 36 folks, and so they can drop three Companies in drops on a single contract. Team B has 9 folks, so they can drop less than a full Company. Team A is going to win the contract, no matter what, because Team B can't even field one full Company, let alone three, and with minimum repairs in-between matches in a game, Team B is as good as gone. Why should the players of Team B even show up? Now do you understand the idea behind benchmarks/caps? Simple math.

Edited by Kay Wolf, 23 April 2012 - 09:20 AM.

[Kaemon]

I agree with Kay on this, however Team B could supplement with another Merc Corp or Lone Wolfs to fill out their Company (which would be a pain).

So I guess either way would work, really dislike when games become win by numbers, but it might be unavoidable in here.

[Threat Doc]

The only answer I might have to the win-by-numbers thing is that PGI would have each Company have separate contracts, so in the case of my example, it would only be 12 v 9; still, those could turn out to be some pretty long odds, and I'm pretty sure I wouldn't like that means of making contracts.

[Havoc2]

Not sure how it could be adapted here, but in many planetary based leagues I played in, when a merc company was called in it was simply announced that mercs XYZ would be fighting alongside House ABC and if the merc company failed to hold up their end (i.e. they didn't win at least 50% or whatever the contract stated) they would fail to complete their contract.

Until we know what the battle/challenge format will take, it's hard to guess how something could be implemented or if it even could but perhaps houses/mercs who are going to battle (defence or offence) could do a merc corp search that could show them currently active merc corps and the number of members that are currently online. Kind of like a LFG but on a unit scale.

This could allow leaders to offer contracts out immediately and get matched/superior numbers for the fight.

Edited by }{avoc, 23 April 2012 - 10:58 AM.

[Threat Doc]

I think I'll be happy to wait and see what the PGI devs have in mind.

[David Decoster]

I think what Kay says has a lot going for it. But what I wouldn't like seeing either is Merc Corps having lower member caps than Houses just for the sake of lore/canon. I think some of the larger multi-gaming clans deploying into MWO might go the Merc Corp route since it's unlikely that all of them are fans of the same House or Clan. I don't think it would be fair to limit them more than say, a House affiliated clan, just because of that. But again, I could surely live with a gradual increase of your Corp/Regiment/Clan member cap, with the increase requirements being steeper for Corps than for Houses or Clans.

[Victor Morson]

I'd like to go a step further and suggest that not only are mercenary groups uncapped but the roster gives lots of options for organizing the team if possible. I know the Blazing Aces would love to setup a European company or the like, so we have pilots dropping out there at all times (when said Euro pilots can't make the US time zones). In the past in games like NBT we've had a number of Euro pilots braving very odd hours to come with us on NBT drops, but due to the 24-hour cycle of MWO, I'd really like to help get our Euro pilots on the same page to play with each other during compatible hours, too.

Kay Wolf, on 23 April 2012 - 09:20 AM, said:

Mathematics, Maxx, just simple mathematics. Team A has 36 folks, and so they can drop three Companies in drops on a single contract. Team B has 9 folks, so they can drop less than a full Company. Team A is going to win the contract, no matter what, because Team B can't even field one full Company, let alone three, and with minimum repairs in-between matches in a game, Team B is as good as gone. Why should the players of Team B even show up? Now do you understand the idea behind benchmarks/caps? Simple math.

I don't think you understand how these contracts are working. It's my understanding that there will be a lot of active hot zones going at all times, and players can get into some form of match making system easily.

This means the team with 9 people will pick up 3 pubbies and then just hop into a game, while the team with 36 players will just hop into 3 different games. Nobody loses.

Edited by Victor Morson, 23 April 2012 - 12:22 PM.

[Dihm]

Member caps is a horrible, horrible, horrible idea.

[MaddMaxx]

Kay Wolf, on 23 April 2012 - 09:20 AM, said:

Mathematics, Maxx, just simple mathematics. Team A has 36 folks, and so they can drop three Companies in drops on a single contract. Team B has 9 folks, so they can drop less than a full Company. Team A is going to win the contract, no matter what, because Team B can't even field one full Company, let alone three, and with minimum repairs in-between matches in a game, Team B is as good as gone. Why should the players of Team B even show up? Now do you understand the idea behind benchmarks/caps? Simple math.

But then why would Team B ever bid on a Contract that stipulates they cannot fill the required #'s?

Won't there be various Drop sized types of Contracts, or just a Company every time?

What about LW's, the Contract fillers? 9 + 3 LW's = a Company right? Simple Maths

[wwiiogre]

I agree no caps please

chris

[Threat Doc]

MaddMaxx, on 25 April 2012 - 07:26 AM, said:

But then why would Team B ever bid on a Contract that stipulates they cannot fill the required #'s?

That's sort of a very silly question, don't you think? Have you ever bid on or been part of a contract, and what you bid to do is not what you actually ended up doing? Same thing, here. You bid to drop onto a planet, perhaps yours is the first unit there, or you overbid another team and removed them; well, now what? Another team is hired to come and depose you, and they're larger, and you have no choice but to fight them.

In MWO, will we actually hold onto planets we take, or is it ALL just arena-style combat. From everything I've read, it sounds as though the universe is going to be persistent, meaning that, if you take a planet with 8 team mates, plus yourself, what's going to stop unit A, with 36 folks, from coming and stomping a mud-hole in you? Otherwise, what would persistence and contracts be for?

Quote

Won't there be various Drop sized types of Contracts, or just a Company every time?

Oh, from my understanding there will be several sizes, lone wolves, Lances, and Companies. However, how many drops will be required in each contract, is there a cap on either attacking or defending unit sizes, and how will they all be dealt with? This is why I'm advocating for temporary caps, aka Benchmarks.

Quote

What about LW's, the Contract fillers? 9 + 3 LW's = a Company right? Simple Maths

Yes, simple math, as long as you can get enough lone wolves to do it. If -and I'm speaking on this from past experience- a unit is not able to get enough of its people on-line in the first place, what does that say about the lone wolves, who have zero obligation to a name, a commander, or their friends?

Next?

[MaddMaxx]

Kay Wolf, on 25 April 2012 - 08:27 AM, said:

That's sort of a very silly question, don't you think? Have you ever bid on or been part of a contract, and what you bid to do is not what you actually ended up doing? Same thing, here. You bid to drop onto a planet, perhaps yours is the first unit there, or you overbid another team and removed them; well, now what? Another team is hired to come and depose you, and they're larger, and you have no choice but to fight them.

In MWO, will we actually hold onto planets we take, or is it ALL just arena-style combat. From everything I've read, it sounds as though the universe is going to be persistent, meaning that, if you take a planet with 8 team mates, plus yourself, what's going to stop unit A, with 36 folks, from coming and stomping a mud-hole in you? Otherwise, what would persistence and contracts be for?

Oh, from my understanding there will be several sizes, lone wolves, Lances, and Companies. However, how many drops will be required in each contract, is there a cap on either attacking or defending unit sizes, and how will they all be dealt with? This is why I'm advocating for temporary caps, aka Benchmarks.

Yes, simple math, as long as you can get enough lone wolves to do it. If -and I'm speaking on this from past experience- a unit is not able to get enough of its people on-line in the first place, what does that say about the lone wolves, who have zero obligation to a name, a commander, or their friends?

Next?

Your making assumptions with out facts Kay. Where did you read that if my Contract calls for a Lance or 2 to drop and take on another Lance or 2 and we win, the loser get to come back and drop 36 Mechs?

Next?

[Threat Doc]

Maxx, I answered your questions with the best knowledge I have. If you've read everything, as I have to the best of my knowledge, all of the FAQ, Dev Blogs, Q&As, announcements, etc., you will understand where I get my information from. If not, ignorance abounds and this conversation is over. In fact, the conversation with me is over, anyway. You seek your own answers, or wallow in your own ignorance, it's up to you.

[Dihm]

Given that they've said absolutely nothing on contracts or how a merc unit will actually run, I think you're wallowing with us there Kay. So much anger.

[MaddMaxx]

Kay Wolf, on 25 April 2012 - 09:22 AM, said:

Maxx, I answered your questions with the best knowledge I have. If you've read everything, as I have to the best of my knowledge, all of the FAQ, Dev Blogs, Q&As, announcements, etc., you will understand where I get my information from. If not, ignorance abounds and this conversation is over. In fact, the conversation with me is over, anyway. You seek your own answers, or wallow in your own ignorance, it's up to you.

Ignorance is bliss baby. And your blissfulness is absolutely outstanding... LOL