100% attacker and Player info suggestions.

Miscellaneous topics about the campaign

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
Deadweight
Posts: 504
Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2013 7:17 am

100% attacker and Player info suggestions.

Post by Deadweight » Wed May 06, 2015 3:48 pm

So, lots of folk arguing about HELO/LELO and the payouts and the benefits and the cons and new players not wanting to activate because of the risk and so on and so forth.

Here's some thoughts (which, fair warning, may require a lot of coding for all I know).

What if:

1) There were severe punishments for an attacker losing a match on a 100% planet (Large loss of RP, CBills, Flu, Leased Bays [that could be re-leased later], Techs, Random Units, all of the above... or perhaps even a faction-wide punishment),
2) Player ELO info, faction info, and inactive/active info was hidden,
3) Payouts/Land exchange/other rewards and punishments were based on difference in ELO between two players, and lastly
4) All players were displayed in the player info window even when players were not logged into the server.

#1 seems to make a certain amount of sense to me. It might force factions to cooperate in a way that only their best players would risk attacking new planets while the poorer players could concentrate on locking down contested planets.

#3 is currently the norm, right? I'm not sure these days.

#2 & #4 would work hand-in-hand with each other. If ALL players are shown in the player window regardless if they're online or not, and all their critical info is kept a secret (faction, ELO, active/inactive), then wouldn't that encourage people to activate more?

Currently, if I log into the server, I can immediately tell if 4 people are online or 35. I can also tell if some of them are in games or not. I can also tell what faction they belong to. Therefore I can easily figure out if it's safe to activate or not. What if I had none of that info? I think I would blindly activate more than I already do. What are the pros and cons of an idea like this?

I'd still be able to send messages to any player because I'd be able to see a list of players.

I'd also know who was in my faction if I spent time writing down the names of everyone who showed up in my faction chat window, but assuming a player population of 40ish players and a somewhat even split of players between the 2 or 3 factions, I'd have 15-25 potential threats out there ALL THE TIME, and unless it's a busy Saturday and the Battles tab is full of games, I'm likely never going to know how many of those 15-25 potential threats are currently in a game. If we take this line of thought one step further, we could also change the Battles tab to only show if a ded is occupied/unoccupied.

Arranging AFR games against an enemy would be impossible (but with our current settings, that's already the case anyway) but one could still advertise their intent to play at various BVs in the main chat window.

Eric von Kastell
Posts: 53
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 8:09 pm
Location: Germany

Re: 100% attacker and Player info suggestions.

Post by Eric von Kastell » Wed May 06, 2015 7:36 pm

This are interesting thoughts ...
c_gee wrote: 1) There were severe punishments for an attacker losing a match on a 100% planet (Large loss of RP, CBills, Flu, Leased Bays [that could be re-leased later], Techs, Random Units, all of the above... or perhaps even a faction-wide punishment),

[...]

#1 seems to make a certain amount of sense to me. It might force factions to cooperate in a way that only their best players would risk attacking new planets while the poorer players could concentrate on locking down contested planets.
Regarding the higher efforts the establishment of a bridgehead requires, it would indeed make sense to make it harder/more expensive. And the result might be, that mostly veterans launch such attacks ...
The most realistic "punishment" would be higher costs in Flu and perhaps a certain percentage of the CBills of the attacking player. (A fix sum of Cbills would prevent such attacks especially at the beginning of a cycle, IMO).
c_gee wrote: 2) Player ELO info, faction info, and inactive/active info was hidden,
[...]
4) All players were displayed in the player info window even when players were not logged into the server.

[...]

#2 & #4 would work hand-in-hand with each other. If ALL players are shown in the player window regardless if they're online or not, and all their critical info is kept a secret (faction, ELO, active/inactive), then wouldn't that encourage people to activate more?

Currently, if I log into the server, I can immediately tell if 4 people are online or 35. I can also tell if some of them are in games or not. I can also tell what faction they belong to. Therefore I can easily figure out if it's safe to activate or not. What if I had none of that info? I think I would blindly activate more than I already do.
I think, if c_gee's item 4 would be implemented, his item 2 can partly be dispensed. I would still show ELO, faction info and which players are in a game, but hide the info who is online and active/inactive.

Especially the information, which HELO players are in a game can motivate LELO players to activate. Otherwise, (if being in a game is not shown), I fear, that many LELO players might leave MMN completely or only want to arrange games.


But in general, I think, this is a basis to discuss possible improvements on the IMO already nice environment. :D

Deadweight
Posts: 504
Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2013 7:17 am

Re: 100% attacker and Player info suggestions.

Post by Deadweight » Thu May 07, 2015 1:00 am

Eric von Kastell wrote: Regarding the higher efforts the establishment of a bridgehead requires, it would indeed make sense to make it harder/more expensive. And the result might be, that mostly veterans launch such attacks ...
The most realistic "punishment" would be higher costs in Flu and perhaps a certain percentage of the CBills of the attacking player. (A fix sum of Cbills would prevent such attacks especially at the beginning of a cycle, IMO).
If the general consensus is that the absolute best strategy is to always attack planets that are controlled 100% by an enemy faction to avoid losing any land gained, and that that is considered a problem in the MMN community, then it would seem to me that the best way to fix the problem is to dissuade players from abusing that tactic in a very punishing way. Sure... if you win, you get some land and didn't have to risk any yourself... right? But what if you had to risk something much more than just the flu or cBills it costs to launch the attack. What if some of your units were being risked (in addition to the army you attacked with)? What if it was a random unit... possibly your favorite unit?

I mean, the only other way I can think of making the gains vs. losses fair in a situation where faction A attacks a 100% planet controlled by faction B is to award the loss of land (should A lose the match) to the next closest planet that A controls. Ex. You lose a battle on Northwind (owned 100% by the enemy), so after the battle, your enemy gains a % of land on your faction's closest planet (let's say it's New Earth), equal to what you would have lost on Northwind if you had any control over it.

Padraig Tseng
Mekwars Server Operator
Posts: 311
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 5:29 pm
Location: Arizona
Contact:

Re: 100% attacker and Player info suggestions.

Post by Padraig Tseng » Thu May 07, 2015 2:08 am

I mean, the only other way I can think of making the gains vs. losses fair in a situation where faction A attacks a 100% planet controlled by faction B is to award the loss of land (should A lose the match) to the next closest planet that A controls. Ex. You lose a battle on Northwind (owned 100% by the enemy), so after the battle, your enemy gains a % of land on your faction's closest planet (let's say it's New Earth), equal to what you would have lost on Northwind if you had any control over it.
That is actually a very good idea...now if we can just get it coded :)
life is the crummiest book I ever read,
there isn't a hook, just a lot of cheap shots,
pictures to shock and characters an amateur would never dream up

Rushvin
Former MegamekNET Moderator
Posts: 979
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 12:15 am

Re: 100% attacker and Player info suggestions.

Post by Rushvin » Thu May 07, 2015 4:37 am

there use to be a beachhead mission to start the control gaining of a world.
Main trouble was just such restrictions were hard on newbie players learning each mission and the game setup.

User avatar
Nastyogre
MegamekNET Moderator
Posts: 4134
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 4:46 am

Re: 100% attacker and Player info suggestions.

Post by Nastyogre » Thu May 07, 2015 1:25 pm

c_gee wrote: If the general consensus is that the absolute best strategy is to always attack planets that are controlled 100% by an enemy faction to avoid losing any land gained, and that that is considered a problem in the MMN community, then it would seem to me that the best way to fix the problem is to dissuade players from abusing that tactic in a very punishing way. Sure... if you win, you get some land and didn't have to risk any yourself... right? But what if you had to risk something much more than just the flu or cBills it costs to launch the attack. What if some of your units were being risked (in addition to the army you attacked with)? What if it was a random unit... possibly your favorite unit?

I mean, the only other way I can think of making the gains vs. losses fair in a situation where faction A attacks a 100% planet controlled by faction B is to award the loss of land (should A lose the match) to the next closest planet that A controls. Ex. You lose a battle on Northwind (owned 100% by the enemy), so after the battle, your enemy gains a % of land on your faction's closest planet (let's say it's New Earth), equal to what you would have lost on Northwind if you had any control over it.
This is not the general consensus. This is an old debate brought up again that is related to the HELO vs LELO debate. A backdoor to force LELO to give games to HELO that the HELO can gain land at. We've fought that and we know the handicap isn't going away.

Always be attacking is just the way to conquer territory. Attacking 100% worlds WAS highly encouraged when the ELO handicap was less significant. Attacking 100% worlds is essential to progress. The only time we encourage 100% hits is when its the next world to hit OR you have a very very new and green player. I think once all cycle I've done it when the player had virtually no idea how to play but had defected. It doesn't even make sense that a world next to another would lose territory.

I don't even see it as a problem. The FS MOTD has never contained any idea of having weak players attack 100% worlds this cycle. The VAST majority of combats are on contested worlds. I am at a loss as to why we look to penalize players for doing something necessary and strategically sound. We HAVE sent newer or low experience players up to challenge veterans with Patrols so little land is lost (or gained) while veteran players use assaults. Just makes sense.

obese pigeon
Posts: 874
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 10:51 am

Re: 100% attacker and Player info suggestions.

Post by obese pigeon » Thu May 07, 2015 1:32 pm

Some interesting ideas raised in this thread :)

Probably the only issue is whether mekwars has the code to handle said ideas

Deadweight
Posts: 504
Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2013 7:17 am

Re: 100% attacker and Player info suggestions.

Post by Deadweight » Thu May 07, 2015 4:49 pm

Nastyogre wrote:
This is not the general consensus...
There does seem to be a fair amount of posts about the 100% issue. Also, I do seem to recall being heavily encouraged to attack only 100% planets during my first cycle. Perhaps I'm wrong, though.

In any case, what are your thoughts about the other ideas I suggested?

Deadweight
Posts: 504
Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2013 7:17 am

Re: 100% attacker and Player info suggestions.

Post by Deadweight » Thu May 07, 2015 4:54 pm

Nastyogre wrote:
This is not the general consensus...
There does seem to be a fair amount of posts about the 100% issue. Also, I do seem to recall being heavily encouraged to attack only 100% planets during my first cycle. Perhaps I'm wrong, though.
Nastyogre wrote:It doesn't even make sense that a world next to another would lose territory.
Think of it less like they're losing territory and more like they're losing influence (political influence, not MekWars "FLU") on neighboring worlds and it makes a certain amount of sense.

In any case, what are your thoughts about the other ideas I suggested?[/quote]

TigerShark
Mekwars Server Operator
Posts: 714
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 8:28 am

Re: 100% attacker and Player info suggestions.

Post by TigerShark » Thu May 07, 2015 7:19 pm

It wouldn't be too difficult to code an "if/then" field, setting a minimum CP for a planet to get a full payout. i.e.: "If planet has 0% attacker held CP, then [attacker] payout is reduced by X".

That makes 0% CP planets prohibitive, as attacking them is risky and you may lose more than you gain in C-Bills / Mechs.
Last edited by TigerShark on Fri May 08, 2015 12:14 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Nastyogre
MegamekNET Moderator
Posts: 4134
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 4:46 am

Re: 100% attacker and Player info suggestions.

Post by Nastyogre » Thu May 07, 2015 10:40 pm

We certainly did teach you that your first cycle. I taught you that myself. Why? It made more sense then. There is a little advantage now, but not as much. There are no player levels (Garrison vs Frontline) the Patrol op offers little land loss.

I'd still encourage a brand new player to do low rent ops, but then again they are already limited via exp to patrol or skirmish. A successful new player? Even moderately capable? Nope, hit 'em, hit 'em hard. The changes to the campaign make it significantly less imperative to push everybody but non-aces to attack fresh worlds. The division into 2 factions helps quite a bit as well. There are just more similar skill/experience opponents available. We don't have 2 factions that are almost meaningless to play (LC and FWL) as we have had in more recent cycles. Every game counts, which is an added bonus to the current cycle setup.


We have a little attacker/defender incentive built in. Defender has increased salvage percent (I think) especially if they win. Changing that mix depending upon planet control would be a good idea. Not just for 100% worlds. Is 1% all that different than 0%? Sure its 1% but it's almost meaningless. So rather than focusing on 0% worlds. Perhaps scaling salvage and payout according to the mix of the world. Much like my views on the ELO handicap. Balance risk & reward. If you attack a world you can lose less than the full value upon (as adjusted by ELO) then your payout and salvage opportunity is adjusted downward. I think a minimum would be good. Earn SOMETHING for the effort. We should recognize that attacking 0% worlds is an absolute necessity. There is no campaign without it. That would be reasonable I think. That way if a faction pushes their green and developing players at 0% worlds those players won't be able to do it forever. They would run out of money and likely lose any and ALL mechs that end up in the salvage pool. New players that constantly lose 0% attacks would quickly run out of resources and either be a drain on the support network of the Faction or would have to attack at least minimally contested worlds.

We don't want to penalize people for doing what they MUST do to move the campaign.We don't want a situation where the next world to attack is 0% and the players have to be concerned if they can afford such an attack.

I think too, we would want to exempt Assaults and Grand Slams from such an adjustment. Those ops are meant to capture entire worlds, flipping them in one go. So this would have to be coded on an operation basis. Even Skirmishes can capture a reasonable amount of land, and its entirely reasonable to hit a fresh world.

Overall, I do not think its a good idea at all. It's a natural part of the campaign, people have to attack fresh worlds. Now, making it somewhat more high risk, especially as salvage is concerned (which I think is most appropriate) isn't entirely off base. "Severe punishments for attackers losing on a 100% world" IS entirely off base. Modest for using low rent ops to attack 100% worlds perhaps.

Considering "real" warfare. Attacks on "meaningless" planets are probes or intentional distractions. When I've encouraged it as a Faction leader, it is meant to tie up opposing players, limit losses and allow us to exploit dropped guard of the now engaged enemy. It works as it should.

The games aren't meaningless though. I've been through many cycles, and I've seen "probes" that become wholesale invasions because we won a few of them. Defending against those attacks is as natural as making those attacks. Other than as part of the competitive vs casual/new debate, I'm not sure the need for this sort of thing. Competitive players want their games to win land. When they have games they can't win land, they feel like their time is wasted. It's just like fighting Periphery players right now. I don't agree those games are meaningless, they just are AS meaningful. I view the P as peril in the game. To be avoided if I reasonably can. I won't usually attack a P if I can help it, but I will defend their attacks. 1. They are a person a player that deserves my respect and time if I've gone active and gotten hit. 2. It's part of this game. I play here, I agree to play by the rules and structures established. 3. I might get salvage or blow bad units up on the P.

I do think that the P should have full range of the map if they are non-conq and have different ops that attack our assets directly. We should be able to hit them back too. So there should be a good reason to defend vs P. I have to actively discourage my own house from just giving up vs P. It's against the rules and not respectful of the other player. With 0% attacks, it still IS meaningful. You keep the enemy from gaining a foothold on your world. Can you win land? No. You do prevent loss though. So in a very real way, I don't see the point of trying to do this EXCEPT to force more of the games to be competitive.

I am not for any sort of severe penalties or impacts directly to the faction. Adjusting payouts and salvage to balance risk & reward, seem reasonable IF (and I think its not the concern it once was) its something the staff thinks we should adjust. Flip side, if I win a 0% attack? I should get lots more money and salvage. Sure, I didn't risk land but I risked "financially" so the payoff should be better. Though I don't really agree with any of it.

Problem with weak/new players attacking 0% worlds is pretty minor and something that will only be a problem of the faction that doesn't develop their team. An undeveloped team is going to get smooshed in their own defenses. Even with ELO handicap, the average will gobble up planets from the weak.

I don't see the point of any of the other ideas. Cgee. Hiding the info isn't going to make people more likely to go active, people will be paranoid and it will make them less likely unless they can activate at teammates BV's.

#3. Payouts are already adjusted by ELO. Not sure what you mean.

4. I'm not sure what showing all players in the campaign would do? You would have to figure out who is on by who is chatting in main? Wouldn't that just make nobody chat? If you mean that it would be impossible to avoid games, cherrypick etc. I suppose we wouldn't know it's SUPER DESTROYA that is going active, but just some opposing faction player. If we work on our player numbers and the keep rising, there will be too many people on to know. There will usually be players of varying levels on. It's the case right now. We see it in FS now. Could see Bloodknight or Obese Pigeon on. (Good Luck with that) Might see me, or Ares, you could win those games. Might see Gomer Pyle on too. Gomer is an easy mark. Might be him that's your game. All of us might be on and active.

I just don't see it as the a problem.

User avatar
Klingon
Posts: 1144
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 12:59 am
Location: Austin, Texas (on assignment from Luthien)

Re: 100% attacker and Player info suggestions.

Post by Klingon » Fri May 08, 2015 12:03 am

TigerShark wrote:It wouldn't be too difficult to code an "if/then" field, setting a minimum CP for a planet to get a full payout. i.e.: "If planet has 0% attacker held CP, then attacker payout is reduced by X".

That makes 0% CP planets prohibitive, as attacking them is risky and you may lose more than you gain in C-Bills / Mechs.

-fixed. ;)
"Grasshopper, the three secrets to life are as follows. First, keep your eyes and ears open. Second... don't tell everything you know."

Got a good idea to add to MekWars? We'd love to hear about it. (from that page, go to "Tickets", then "Feature Requests")

TigerShark
Mekwars Server Operator
Posts: 714
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 8:28 am

Re: 100% attacker and Player info suggestions.

Post by TigerShark » Fri May 08, 2015 12:14 am

Klingon wrote:
TigerShark wrote:It wouldn't be too difficult to code an "if/then" field, setting a minimum CP for a planet to get a full payout. i.e.: "If planet has 0% attacker held CP, then attacker payout is reduced by X".

That makes 0% CP planets prohibitive, as attacking them is risky and you may lose more than you gain in C-Bills / Mechs.
-fixed. ;)

Yes, that is what was intended. :)

Deadweight
Posts: 504
Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2013 7:17 am

Re: 100% attacker and Player info suggestions.

Post by Deadweight » Tue May 19, 2015 4:29 pm

So, does anyone know?

Would it be possible to have the list of currently online players changed to show ALL of MMN's player population whether online or not? Is this something that the code would/could support?

Rushvin
Former MegamekNET Moderator
Posts: 979
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 12:15 am

Re: 100% attacker and Player info suggestions.

Post by Rushvin » Tue May 19, 2015 7:43 pm

I don't think it really is that big of an issue.
There is only a finite number of worlds you can hit that are 100%. Eventually those will have a small chunk taken out so it will be able for the other side can gain land defending more attacks on them.

Deadweight
Posts: 504
Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2013 7:17 am

Re: 100% attacker and Player info suggestions.

Post by Deadweight » Tue May 19, 2015 10:46 pm

Rushvin wrote:I don't think it really is that big of an issue.
There is only a finite number of worlds you can hit that are 100%. Eventually those will have a small chunk taken out so it will be able for the other side can gain land defending more attacks on them.
I assume you're responding to my last post in this thread?

Regardless of how you feel about 100% worlds, what I really am trying to find out is if it would be possible to have every player listed at all times instead of just when they're online. That way, players wouldn't be able to "hide" and deactivate when they see Demir (for example) come online. You'd never know when BloodKnight (another example) comes online... you'd just know that he's a player on this server and that he might be online and active.

I think having all players shown as being "online" all the time would go a long way toward getting people into more games more often. Currently, the way things work can be very frustrating and annoying. It sucks spending an hour or more active and waiting for a game... Especially when you can see there are 10 players online (half from Faction A and half from Faction B)... Even more especially when none of the 10 players are in battles.

User avatar
Nastyogre
MegamekNET Moderator
Posts: 4134
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 4:46 am

Re: 100% attacker and Player info suggestions.

Post by Nastyogre » Wed May 20, 2015 1:06 am

I suppose it takes away the possibility of timing activations etc. Won't people just not go active? Worse, they would only try and arrange games by announcing their presence in chat? Also you wouldn't have any idea if it was worthwhile to even go active. You could have no opponents on, go active and sit, totally unaware that it was impossible to get a game. It's not far fetched. I've been on when it was only my faction or I was the only person on in my faction. So prior to my logging on, it was only DC players.

I don't think this will solve the problem you perceive. What's more, I think it would damage the community. This isn't just a game server. There is plenty of discussion that goes on in main chat. If you had no idea if people were on, how would you know who to talk to? "Read any good books?" "Hello? Is anybody on?" You might see your own faction, but I have many good discussions with opposing players. I might even go so far as to say I am friendly with some players in other factions. (They aren't my friends though, Ogres don't have friends, lest Rushvin remind me of it again, I'm not allowed. **Sniff**)

Post Reply