23 replies to this topic

[perfectblue]

Purely speculation, but what sort of ideas would you implement to address any problems arising from House population inconsistencies?

For instance if one House grossly overpopulates another resulting in victory by numbers. Which in turn could lead to more borderland planets being controlled and other issues.

[Max Grayson]

Interesting problem i hope they thought through.....good question OP

reminds me of the horrible balance issues in SWTOR

Edited by Max Grayson, 24 May 2012 - 02:09 PM.

[Damion Stranik]

I'll admit that I am a bit worried about this as well. From what I've seen in other communities (CBT 3025, various Mekwars campaigns) the Draconis Combine and Federated Suns often seem to command the highest populations of players. This is the result of a variety of issues - much recent fiction centers on the Federated Suns as the good guys along with the DC, while the villains tend to be the Capellans+Lyrans, while the FWL gets the short end of the stick. Clans obviously tend to enjoy popularity (Wolf, Falcon, Smoke Jaguar, Ghost Bears to an extent), but I am worried that factional biases will lead to problems down the road for the strategic meta-game in MWO. I hope the devs have some good ideas on how to address this because it has the potential to cause problems both in gameplay and in lore.

Edited by Damion Stranik, 24 May 2012 - 02:19 PM.

[tenderloving]

Shouldn't mercs be part of this? I assumed that mercs would get a bonus for fighting with an underpopulated faction, and thus they would serve as an equalizer.

[V3nom0us]

tenderloving, on 24 May 2012 - 02:22 PM, said:

Shouldn't mercs be part of this? I assumed that mercs would get a bonus for fighting with an underpopulated faction, and thus they would serve as an equalizer.

I agree..Mercs should be used to equalize the battles for underpopulated houses..

[FrostPaw]

calculate scores in a percentage. That way, how many members a team has doesn't give a benefit to system conquest.

Edited by FrostPaw, 24 May 2012 - 02:33 PM.

[Redshift2k5]

Teams will be balanced among individual matches, OPs worry is in the overarching inner sphere planet control meta.

I would presume the merc companies and lone wolves would be given contracts to fight on behalf of any under-populated house, although hopefully the differences are not too large.

[LaznAzn]

Hey, so long as I get paid for it, I'll fight in any hell-hole.

[Kurenai]

are we really going to have 15 v 15 team deathmatch matches where its houses against houses in every game or are people just going to queue up and all get lumped with some mythical matchmaker.


Does being in a particular house mean anything in your queue time?

[Kymlaar]

I like the idea of giving Merc companies an incentive for assisting under-populated houses. Or possibly even have the over-populated houses not use Merc contracts at all. Federated Suns has a huge number of pilots signed on (and active in the last week), they don't hire Mercs.

[Creed Buhallin]

This is probably a bit premature, since we know absolutely nothing about the system for planetary control, but...

I hope the system won't be based around single battles, but rather the aggregate. As an example, a border world between each faction could be selected for a week - so maybe McComb for DC/FS, Constance for FRR/DC, etc. Matches are played with whoever happens to be on, and the aggregate results at the end of the week determines the results and the planets change hands accordingly.

It's less control than I'm sure some people would want, but it goes a long way towards avoiding the 2am raid silliness and normalizes the population discrepancy.

As for mercs, I honestly don't think they're going to work as an equalizer. If everyone was going to flock to the underdog, we wouldn't have the population problem in the first place. I see no reason to expect units to do so when individual pilots will not.

[V3nom0us]

Creed Buhallin, on 24 May 2012 - 03:09 PM, said:

This is probably a bit premature, since we know absolutely nothing about the system for planetary control, but...

I hope the system won't be based around single battles, but rather the aggregate. As an example, a border world between each faction could be selected for a week - so maybe McComb for DC/FS, Constance for FRR/DC, etc. Matches are played with whoever happens to be on, and the aggregate results at the end of the week determines the results and the planets change hands accordingly.

It's less control than I'm sure some people would want, but it goes a long way towards avoiding the 2am raid silliness and normalizes the population discrepancy.

As for mercs, I honestly don't think they're going to work as an equalizer. If everyone was going to flock to the underdog, we wouldn't have the population problem in the first place. I see no reason to expect units to do so when individual pilots will not.

Thats the reason it would be great to offer Mercs added incentives for helping the underdog..the thing that drives Mercs is C-bills and salvage..so..a merc would go to the house offering the most lucrative contracts..
purely speculation btw..

[LaznAzn]

So what's the incentive to belonging to a House if Mercs get these bonuses?
Discounts on specific mechs and weapons?

[checker]

I wouldn't worry too much about it as the BIG HOUSES will be fighting among themselves so much they'll never notice the little guy. It would take a monstrous turn of events (House Leadership) and cooperation to get a HOUSE aligned to stand as a unified front. Something I don't see happening in today's social atmosphere. Wanna fan the flames a little just to see; go ask who the LEADER is of a HOUSE and see how many hands go up. Only when the HOUSE has a single leader to call the overall shots will they be a force to be reckoned with - until then it's just a house divided and that will not stand the test of time. Just my two cents and that's about all it's worth.

[Ian]

I highly suspect that they will not have a working inner sphere economy where losing worlds cuts down on available cash for the great houses. That being said it then makes sense for the less played houses to have more mercenary contracts available at better values to shore up their shortcomings in popularity.

[Broken Moriarty]

Whatever bonus the mercs get to aid an underpopulated House has to be balanced with the benefits House membership brings. It would be a horrible move to punish players that want to belong to one House just because a large number of other players also like that House. But I do like the idea of different incentives; pure extra C-bills to mercs, extra salvage to under-population House members, and cheaper equipment (consumables?) for over-populated House members or something along those lines.

[veretax]

Back in the Muxing days to keep sides even I remember them only allowing a certain % difference from a mean. Basically it meant someone had to join another faction or wait longer to join up if memory serves. Not saying I advocate that though.

What if it was done by random assignment?

[Wolfe Ryatt]

Sorry, but there's just no helping House Marik.

[Drakkars]

as suggested. just have mercs shore up the weeksides.. contracts only get offered on behalf of the underpopulated sides, or if offered for both sides its at a big price difference between the 2.

Houses dont really NEED much more of a boost then they are getting normally.. winning means advances in loyalty points which equals more rewards.

[Purgatus]

Also, game with more than 2 factions can balance themselves. The weaker ones will often band together to defeat the stronger ones.