46 replies to this topic

[Khobai]

Quote

Boo-Ya baby! A reason to play the game again!

Im not too excited about community warfare to be honest. From their presentation it seems like theres really nothing to really work for... like you dont get house rewards or unique house mechs for climbing in rank within a house. It seems purely achievement based which doesnt interest me at all.

Being able to fight other units 12v12 doesnt interest me either because everyone just plays meta builds which is so inane and boring. It would be nice if we had a battlevalue system so you could bring whatever you wanted in 12v12 and match the battlevalues for both teams before the game starts.

I do think the game needs community warfare, but it disappoints me that it was prioritized over so many other important facets like weapon/mech balance, matchmaking, role warfare, and new gamemodes.

Edited by Khobai, 20 February 2014 - 09:20 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Not community warfare per se, but winning planets from other players! That is a reason to play again. I don't and won't pay meta builds when i do perfectly fine in my rides.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 20 February 2014 - 09:20 AM.

[Khobai]

Quote

Not community warfare per se, but winning planets from other players! That is a reason to play again.

Im more interested in putting contracts out on players I dont like... which is pretty much everyone... but i have hundreds of millions of cbills to blow

[Sandpit]

Khobai, on 20 February 2014 - 09:24 AM, said:

Im more interested in putting contracts out on players I dont like... which is pretty much everyone... but i have hundreds of millions of cbills to blow

I've got a few bounties I will be taking out lol

[SI The Joker]

Community Warfare you say?

I'm a broken record...

PLEASE:

- Authentication API so we can send auth requests to MWO from our own sites
- Data API so we can pull data back and create deep roleplay leagues around planetary conquest, economics, politics and the like for those players in the community that crave (need) the deeper experience of the Battletech Universe.
- PGI should handle Solaris ladders/leader boards to cater to more casual players who don't care about BT. Loyalty points and such could still be used in solaris type scenarios, no change to their path required.

This of course requires lobbies and the ability to play private matches... all of which is supposedly "coming".

[Nik Van Rhijn]

CW will suffer further delays as PGI have to switch efforts to balancing Clan tech/mechs after unforseen problems on their introduction.
This will probably delay CW for a short time (one or two years).

[Sandpit]

Nik Van Rhijn, on 20 February 2014 - 02:42 PM, said:

CW will suffer further delays as PGI have to switch efforts to balancing Clan tech/mechs after unforseen problems on their introduction.
This will probably delay CW for a short time (one or two years).

Weren't you one of the ones saying UI2.0 would be delayed?

[FactorlanP]

Sandpit, on 20 February 2014 - 09:27 AM, said:

I've got a few bounties I will be taking out lol

I imagine you'll likely be the target of a few as well, unless I miss my guess.

[Sandpit]

FactorlanP, on 20 February 2014 - 02:48 PM, said:

I imagine you'll likely be the target of a few as well, unless I miss my guess.

I certainly hope so! Especially if they go with y suggestion of having the bounty win a portion of the bounty every time someone tries to collect and fails
I'll be rich!

[Mycrus]

After closed beta
After open beta
After launch
After ui2.0
After launch module
After, after, after... let's just say it's coming soon™

[Willard Phule]

Sandpit, on 20 February 2014 - 02:46 PM, said:

Weren't you one of the ones saying UI2.0 would be delayed?

Coulda swore UI 2.0 was supposed to have been released last year at some point.....so, by definition, that pretty much makes it "delayed."

[Sandpit]

Willard Phule, on 21 February 2014 - 12:44 PM, said:

Coulda swore UI 2.0 was supposed to have been released last year at some point.....so, by definition, that pretty much makes it "delayed."

So in other words, "Yes I was. I said they'd miss this deadline. I wasn't wrong though because what I meant was the fact that the original deadline (which was explained, discussed, argued, etc.) wasn't met so at this point anything they do is delayed in my eyes and I'll never ever admit otherwise"

At least now I understand better

[Rokuzachi]

Willard Phule, on 21 February 2014 - 12:44 PM, said:

Coulda swore UI 2.0 was supposed to have been released last year at some point.....so, by definition, that pretty much makes it "delayed."

If the level of quality of UI 2.0 is what we get for a delayed feature, I hope they miss their CW dates by a very, very big margin.

[BrockSamsonFW]

Zanathan, on 19 February 2014 - 06:27 PM, said:

Refer to this post for a detailed breakdown http://mwomercs.com/...e-inner-sphere/

For what you're looking for this is the relevant estimate:

Conservative Estimates:
- Association: July-Aug
- Planetary Conquest: Sept-Oct

By conservative you meant 2015, right?

(I had to sorry, lol)

[Varent]

Khobai, on 20 February 2014 - 09:17 AM, said:

I do think the game needs community warfare, but it disappoints me that it was prioritized over so many other important facets like weapon/mech balance, matchmaking, role warfare, and new gamemodes.

1) Depends on your opinion of weapon balance. I think its pretty close though jump jets make it seem more imbalanced then it is.
2) Matchmaking is a pretty bad problem but hopefully that one will be resolved with weight restrictions.
3) Role warfare could be fully resolved with CW once major objectives become more important as upposed to actually winning a battle. Also alot of people are hoping the narc change might help that abit more too.
4) To my knowledge and what they have talked about CW will have alot more game modes.

[Sandpit]

Varent, on 21 February 2014 - 04:55 PM, said:

1) Depends on your opinion of weapon balance. I think its pretty close though jump jets make it seem more imbalanced then it is.
2) Matchmaking is a pretty bad problem but hopefully that one will be resolved with weight restrictions.
3) Role warfare could be fully resolved with CW once major objectives become more important as upposed to actually winning a battle. Also alot of people are hoping the narc change might help that abit more too.
4) To my knowledge and what they have talked about CW will have alot more game modes.

One of the things they mentioned in the last vlog was having more than just one match strung together to complete an objective. What would be interesting and help would be adding in some sort of R&R between those missions and/or having mechs stuck in the field limited to the weapons and ammo that they start with.

You'd see a completely different game if we had to conserve ammo over 2-3 matches or pay to reload that between the matches before the actual mission was complete.

[Sandpit]

It would be kinda like CTF on CoD. You have 2-3 rounds (best of 3) so the first round doesn't decide the winner but continues on and if the losing team wins the 2nd round you go to a 3rd round tiebreaker. Now if they did something similar to this AND limited reload options (either through the above mentioned R&R fees or not allowing reloads between those rounds) that would be pretty awesome.

It would be interesting if they used dropship mode to allow players to switch out mechs between matches as well. So if you deplete the ammo from your first mech choice you can choose one of the remaining 3 and go to town. Throw in the map vote discussion we were having and the downside to just choosing 4 mechs that all run the same or very similar loadouts without giving any consequence to dropping on a map that hurts your design instead of taking 4 mechs that run different loadouts and ensures you have something for all occasions and I think you'd have some very fun and interesting dynamics at play

[Khobai]

Quote

You'd see a completely different game if we had to conserve ammo over 2-3 matches or pay to reload that between the matches before the actual mission was complete.

No youd just see energy only builds. There'd be absolutely no point in bringing ballistics if you only had enough ammo for the first match.

[Sandpit]

Khobai, on 21 February 2014 - 06:43 PM, said:

No youd just see energy only builds. There'd be absolutely no point in bringing ballistics if you only had enough ammo for the first match.

Having enough ammo for more than one match means altering your build to carry more ammo, not just holding the mouse button down nonstop (love doing that in a 3 AC5 Ilya btw), and having to be smarter with both builds AND firing off shots. If you run out of ammo then, to me anyhow, it's time to go back to the drawing board and see how to adjust that build.

[Navy Sixes]

Sandpit, on 21 February 2014 - 06:38 PM, said:

What would make it interesting for everyone running a heavy/assault would be adding in some sort of R&R between those missions and/or having mechs stuck in the field limited to the weapons and ammo that they start with. You'd see a completely different game because no one would take machineguns or AC/2s. The wouldn't take LRMs or SRMs, or any of the smaller ammo-spending weapons because they require a player to shoot often in order to do any damage. If we had to conserve ammo over 2-3 matches or pay to reload that between the matches before the actual mission was complete, you really couldn't afford to bring a -50 ton ballistic/missile build.

FIFY I really wish people would think about how their ideas apply to the entire game, not just their hero 'phract-build or the Jagerbomb that just killed them. This idea would force people into heavier mechs. Could we stop coming up with sweet-deals for high-tonnage builds?