272 replies to this topic

[Zyllos]

Technically, what is wrong if the first respawn is all assaults? As long as you get to do the same thing, it shouldn't matter.

[Johnny Z]

JeremyCrow, on 12 September 2014 - 03:32 AM, said:

Stop thinking World of Tanks and start thinking Eve Online. Seasons and resets kill the immersion and the meta game. Let the factions create unofficial alliances and politics and make the rewards worthwhile. If a faction is too powerful, balance it somehow. Let the players decide the course of CW.
Bring the feel of Michael Stackpole's books to this game.
Mechwarrior is not a sport and should be be seen as such.

I am not turned onto anything in game that is esports at all, so i couldnt agree more. Solaris being what it is can have something along those lines i guess, but the faction battles should be treated with some fictional seriousness.

For instance I really would like it if the faction battles were reported via news feed or what ever and/or with cool cinematics of in game play.

[Zyllos]

Honestly, I think having an open ended mech selection/tonnage for respawns is the best way forward for MWO and all of the community. This allows for players to have reasons for taking light options of a weight class, like the Quickdraw or Dragon.

It also opens up battles to feel unique. Maybe one group likes to play heavy, but being heavy means you are limited in respawns. Maybe another group likes to keep it balanced or another likes it light.

This should be the way forward for respawns.

There is no mechanical issues with random drops as everything is contained within each individual player. The rules will want players to pick as many mechs as possible for their tonnage and selections.

It allows for swarms of Commandos and Jenners or a ton of Hunchbacks and Centurions to fight off just 12 Dire Wolves and Mad Cats. I do not see what the issue with this is.

Edited by Zyllos, 12 September 2014 - 07:33 AM.

[627]

Not sure if this came up already, but how about multi characters for the faction mech dilemma?

Like every account can create [3] Characters for community warfare and can play in three different factions.

These 3 would share the mechs and cbills but not the faction/loyality points and the whatsoever rpg progress.



Of course you can have more then [3] char slots for some mc so you can still make some money from this.

your kurita char could use all IS mech ending with a K, the clan alt could use the new shiny and so on.
Of course some thoughts on Units would be needed but this could still work

Edited by 627, 12 September 2014 - 07:37 AM.

[StalaggtIKE]

@Paul/Russ --
One major concern is that a high level unit could essentially assist a faction in taking over the map. It is true that a reset would band-aid this. However the problem will continue to exist, as whatever faction the high level unit migrates to will only dominate again; if they move in the first place. A part of the issue is that there is only one means of succeeding, superior battlefield tactics. however there is more to a war than simply fighting battles. There are many ways to win a war through:

• multiple fronts
  
• disrupting supply lines
  
• resource depletion
  
• planet hopping (guerrilla tactics)
  
• attrition

Rome fell because of over-expansion. No matter how well a unit performs on the battlefield, they're only as good as their management of logistics.

• Include travel time from planet to planet.
  
• Include an economy with some form of R&R.

Please realize the importance of this much needed layer of depth to CW.

[Galenit]

JeremyCrow, on 12 September 2014 - 03:32 AM, said:

Stop thinking World of Tanks and start thinking Eve Online. Seasons and resets kill the immersion and the meta game. Let the factions create unofficial alliances and politics and make the rewards worthwhile. If a faction is too powerful, balance it somehow. Let the players decide the course of CW.
Bring the feel of Michael Stackpole's books to this game.
Mechwarrior is not a sport and should be be seen as such.

Resets should happen, but not in a set timeframe.
They should be triggered by goals that must be reached.

Examples: IS: All clans are destroyed, Clan: 75% of IS planets owned.


To balance the factions out, they have the mercenarys.

Make the mercenary contracts based on the power of the client,
the more he is in need of mercenarys, the higher is the payment

Edited by Galenit, 12 September 2014 - 07:46 AM.

[Johnny Z]

StalaggtIKE, on 12 September 2014 - 07:36 AM, said:

@Paul/Russ --
One major concern is that a high level unit could essentially assist a faction in taking over the map. It is true that a reset would band-aid this. However the problem will continue to exist, as whatever faction the high level unit migrates to will only dominate again; if they move in the first place. A part of the issue is that there is only one means of succeeding, superior battlefield tactics. however there is more to a war than simply fighting battles. There are many ways to win a war through:

• multiple fronts
  
• disrupting supply lines
  
• resource depletion
  
• planet hopping (guerrilla tactics)
  
• attrition

Rome fell because of over-expansion. No matter how well a unit performs on the battlefield, they're only as good as their management of logistics.

• Include travel time from planet to planet.
  
• Include an economy with some form of R&R.

Please realize the importance of this much needed layer of depth to CW.

In P2 or Phase two they said logistics wouldnt be in, but it will be interesting how they do P3.

[Zyllos]

StalaggtIKE, on 12 September 2014 - 07:36 AM, said:

@Paul/Russ --
One major concern is that a high level unit could essentially assist a faction in taking over the map. It is true that a reset would band-aid this. However the problem will continue to exist, as whatever faction the high level unit migrates to will only dominate again; if they move in the first place. A part of the issue is that there is only one means of succeeding, superior battlefield tactics. however there is more to a war than simply fighting battles. There are many ways to win a war through:

• multiple fronts
  
• disrupting supply lines
  
• resource depletion
  
• planet hopping (guerrilla tactics)
  
• attrition

Rome fell because of over-expansion. No matter how well a unit performs on the battlefield, they're only as good as their management of logistics.

• Include travel time from planet to planet.
  
• Include an economy with some form of R&R.

Please realize the importance of this much needed layer of depth to CW.

I think it has already been explained that the economy for CW will come in a later phase.

[JeremyCrow]

Galenit, on 12 September 2014 - 07:44 AM, said:

Resets should happen, but not in a set timeframe.
They should be triggered by goals that must be reached.

Examples: IS: All clans are destroyed, Clan: 75% of IS planets owned.


To balance the factions out, they have the mercenarys.

Make the mercenary contracts based on the power of the client,
the more he is in need of mercenarys, the higher is the payment

Eve Online has been around since 2005 and resets don't exist, so I don't see the point. Besides, it's unrealistic. Let the players drive the story. Give us the power do create our own narrative.

[StalaggtIKE]

Zyllos, on 12 September 2014 - 07:46 AM, said:

I think it has already been explained that the economy for CW will come in a later phase.

Source? I don't recall anything definite.

Edited by StalaggtIKE, 12 September 2014 - 07:56 AM.

[xWiredx]

If we're only going to be able to switch factions once every 3 months, you guys -really- need to contemplate the salvage aspect more. Locking people out of mechs that they own when they start playing CW is going to cause a certain degree of anger. Having 80+ mechs and for 3 months I can only use 24, and the next 3 months I can only use the other 60... that presents a couple of problems. Mainly, the selection isn't there for clan players, and for founder/phoenix players to have spent that money without the ability to use it unless they drop into the same queue they've been playing for years is really fkn lame.

[Zeece]

I say that PGI should balance planetary conquest by making defenses stronger as you get further in to each faction's space as defined by the original static 3050 map.

As a faction moves further in, the attacks would become increasingly more difficult to the point where it would be impossible to take the innermost planets.

Conversely, a planet taken from within an opposing faction's space would have a defensive nerf, making it easier for that opposing faction to take the planet back.

You could call it rubber-banding difficulty to keep any one faction from getting too far behind. Even though we wouldn't be able to completely reshape the map this system, I'd gladly take it over a seasonal reset.

Edited by Zeece, 12 September 2014 - 08:03 AM.

[wanderer]

Better idea. Have an actual reinforcements queue. Dead players remain dead, as they do now.

As combat progresses, open slots for reinforcements for 4-man groups, checking 10 minutes into the match and every 5+ minutes thereafter. The queue would be for defending unit players first,but after a delay, other friendly units would be allowed to respond (which neatly represents the more awkward logistics of calling for help further out). If a team has lost less than 4 members, no reinforcement slots open- clearly, they don't need help. The number of reinforces should reflect planetary control- a 100% control defender should get maximum reinforcements, while one about to lose the world would be lucky to see a single lance relief.

Allow units to retreat off-map. This allows crippled units to clear the field instead of a wily opponent simply disabling targets and preventing help from arriving.

[Minoxen]

The inclusion of a mode like Dropship is very Exciting.

One way to "Respawn" while still giving it an authentic battle feeling is to have mechs power up in a bases mech hangers and enemy invaders power up and walk off of the drop ship. Keeping the mechs in sealed hangers in the map and "teleporting" the player to the next mech in their roster, powering it up and the door to his mech bay swinging open would give a very epic feel to the battle!

The requirement to include one of each mech in your personal drop deck doesn't seem a major detriment, and if PGI produces some quality trial champions that can fill in those slots it might encourage people to expand beyond one mech type.

The match for planetary conquest could even allow folks in the organised 12's or group ques to bring simply 12 of each weight class, and it would allow light pilots with a full roster to bring 4 lights, and a dedicated assault to bring 4 assault mechs. Similar to how group's function now there could be a "Totalized" section at the top detailing how many of each class the "Conquest or Defense" deck has. Going red when 12 of any is exceeded and allowing players to swap for a mech class that has spaces remaining in their drop deck.

[Willothius]

Zyllos, on 12 September 2014 - 06:37 AM, said:

EDIT: This also allows for variability between sides. One side might get more tonnage but less mechs while the other side might get less tonnage but more mechs. Just a simple two variables, tonnage and selectable mechs, adds SO much to this game.

Hell yeah! I want to see battles between 12 Assaults with base defences vs 36 lights and mediums running them over!

wanderer, on 12 September 2014 - 08:03 AM, said:

Allow units to retreat off-map. This allows crippled units to clear the field instead of a wily opponent simply disabling targets and preventing help from arriving.

..ejecting from their mech to drop in a fresh one, leaving the crippled remains of the mech standing in the still ongoing battlefield.. Epic!

[BA Dillard]

Yeah, I like this. Make it so!

[Hoax415]

N0MAD, on 11 September 2014 - 06:34 PM, said:

So it seems the System(design team) picks what planets are contestable not the Unit leaders, unit leaders pick from a list of planets the system has chosen, and then only if you have a team that can field 12 players (12 man premade), then most likely this 12 man premade is going to fight a pug group.
Then 3 days of these premades vs Pugs games collecting points will determine who wins? really?

You missed a step. The system picks contested planets. Then unit leaders bid (huge ???? moment) to be the official defending unit. The official defending unit basically chooses a timeslot (how long, how many per day, we dont know) and then for 3 days during the timeslot the planet is open to be attacked. When the planet is open to be attacked 12-man premades can attack it. When its attacked first the official defending unit is notified. They have 2 minutes to respond by forming a 12-man. If they can't then its PUG time and same-faction and unaligned faction players will fill the needed slots.

Everything after this assumes that multiple attacking 12-mans can drop on a given planet in a given timeslot. We don't even know if that is how it works for sure yet.

That's how the system seems to work. Hopefully in two weeks we will get details like this officially corroborated.

One can only hope that the official defending unit can "share" that official defender status with X number of friendly or merc units (maybe doing so costs cbills? who knows). Basically spreading the network of potential player-unit premades that can come to a defense because now multiple player units get the alert for every attack and are given 2 minutes to respond before pug teams are formed.

One can only hope that the time windows are small enough that a player-unit can realistically expect pilots to stay online from start to finish. So say 2 hours maximum per day any given planet can be attacked. Again these are huge assumptions/inferences based on the glimmers of systems we know about so far.

One can only hope that finding out which planets will be under attack is easy to determine from the Faction Tab ui. So if you are in Davion, even if your unit is not the official defender of any Davion planets under attack during that time/day you could form up a group at the appropriate time and queue up to defend. This would further reduce the number of 12-man on solo player stomps.

One can only hope that the official-defender status means that successful defenses made by that unit are worth more "defender points" or whatever scoring method we are using.

One can only hope that an attacking 12-man versus 12 solo pug players is worth LESS "attacker points" if they win and worth some bonus of "defender points" if the defenders pull of the upset.

Edited by Hoax415, 12 September 2014 - 08:27 AM.

[Pezzer]

The respawn game mode sound amazing. Hopefully tonnage-based drops will be integrated into this, or another game mode later maybe? A LOT of people (namely Locust and Quickdraw players) would like to see a tonnage-based game mode.

[Cimarb]

Zyllos, on 12 September 2014 - 07:24 AM, said:

Technically, what is wrong if the first respawn is all assaults? As long as you get to do the same thing, it shouldn't matter.

What is wrong with a queue that just lets everyone drop in assaults, like it used to be? Because then you are essentially penalized for bringing anything except assaults. We have been through that before, remember?

[Hoax415]

Prezimonto, on 11 September 2014 - 06:35 PM, said:

That being said I'd expect that phase 2 CW is just Faction play not merc corp.

The mentions of bidding to be the official defending player-unit for each planet indicates its actually Faction Play being left out for release CW. Notice we have also seen no reference at all to canon faction units. I think all player-units will act like merc corps for now. Some will be aligned specifically to one IS or Clan faction but it all sounds like Merc Corp Play so far.

Tezcatli, on 12 September 2014 - 12:24 AM, said:

More and more. It's sounding like the battle for each planet will literally be one battle. Perhaps a battle on the biggest map so far. But one battle. That sounds like it would get repetitive. How do you guys plan to diversify the planets and battles?

They have put in writing that its currently planned to take days for a planet to change hands. I have no idea where people get this one battle concept. All this description of one battle is how one of the many many battles that will determine the "score" which determines if the planet is conquered or defended. The three days is just a placeholder value but its clear from that half-comment that its not one battle. Stop thinking that people.

Kraven Kor, on 12 September 2014 - 06:40 AM, said:

I am, though, concerned (?) about organized 12-man attacking groups mopping the floor with disorganized thrown-together defenders, if I am reading this all right. And maybe that has already been addressed, if so I apologize.

It is definitely an early concern. I just made a long post about things that might ameliorate that problem somewhat. They may also be planning on giving defenders inherent advantages. So by design the defender would win an even match so its less of a big deal if many/some of the matches are 12 solo defender pugs versus 12-mans on voice comms.

These advantages could take the form of spawn points or victory conditions. There has been mention of defenders getting the turrets from assault or even being able to purchase them or something. Its certainly something they will need to balance but it should be possible.

Edited by Hoax415, 12 September 2014 - 08:36 AM.