353 replies to this topic

[BARBAR0SSA]

The amount of communication now is just mind boggling....glad I spent a fortune on the mech packs, I'm assuming LP were loyalty points? Need more info on those for my non used phoenix mechs

[Bilbo]

Kill Dozer, on 25 September 2014 - 06:37 AM, said:

"Drop Decks"

PGI: Can you seriously consider putting the ability to save mech configs in the mechlab? Every other MW game had it and it is crucial for being able to put together a drop deck in the shortest amount of time.

As it is, group players spend as much time in the lab as they do in the game if they have to change up anything between matches. I realize you want to provide incentive for people to buy more mechs/parts/moduls etc but try and find a way to make it happen, even a cbill charge or something per mech chassis would work.

I have more mechs and parts than I can count but I'm not going to buy multiple's of the same variant to be ready to put a drop deck together, I'm just not going to do it and I'm not alone in that thinking.

Regards,
Dozer

Why would you need multiples of a variant? You can only take one of each weight class into the match.

[Mogney]

Paul, on 25 September 2014 - 07:14 AM, said:

We are not actually implementing the logistics at this time (maybe in Phase 3) but the cost of operations will be present in Phase 2.

Can we please get this statement clarified? Its really confusing...

[Colby Boucher]

Mogney, I believe Paul means that units will have to pay for things like food / fuel, but until "logistics" are implemented it will just be a flat tax with no way to influence the cost other than group size.

[Kill Dozer]

Bilbo, on 25 September 2014 - 07:31 AM, said:

Why would you need multiples of a variant? You can only take one of each weight class into the match.

Because there are multiple weapons/loadout configs for the same chassis depending on the role of that mech in the group as well as environmental factors that come into consideration depending on the map. I have around four different configs I like to run on a Battlemaster 1G for example, the mechlab is clunky enough that it takes too much time between drops to change configs if I am running with a group. That "one of each weight class" always has several viable configs that could be chosen based on how the match is going to be played out. In the pug queue its not that big of a deal, running with a group makes it a whole different ball game.

Go over to smurphys and look at all the different load-outs for a given mech variant, Stalkers for example. Why not have those saved so if you hit a hot map you can choose a cooler build or if you hit a cold map you can load up that laser boat, all with a few clicks instead of ten minutes in the lab moving engines, weapons, sinks and modules.

[Kain Demos]

Well I need to grind up a Light now. Guess its time to get behind the wheel of an Adder again.......

Also, the question about some sort of "reward" for piloting a 'mech affiliated with your faction struck me as a good one. I know the answer was the standard "we'll look into it" but I think this is a simple idea.

I've seen people mention this is to be considered the "hardcore role play" game mode of MWO. If that is the case make the rewards juicy for someone that pilots a 'mech associated with their faction (double XP and C-bills or 50% more XP and C-bills) to enhance the "RP" part of it since hopefully many people would be choosing 'mechs aligned with their faction to get the additional rewards.

The only downside I can see is that some factions are not represented well. Clan Ghost Bear in particular comes to mind since so many of their preferred 'mechs used MASC.

[Bilbo]

Kill Dozer, on 25 September 2014 - 07:42 AM, said:

Because there are multiple weapons/loadout configs for the same chassis depending on the role of that mech in the group as well as environmental factors that come into consideration depending on the map. I have around four different configs I like to run on a Battlemaster 1G for example, the mechlab is clunky enough that it takes too much time between drops to change configs if I am running with a group. That "one of each weight class" always has several viable configs that could be chosen based on how the match is going to be played out. In the pug queue its not that big of a deal, running with a group makes it a whole different ball game.

Go over to smurphys and look at all the different load-outs for a given mech variant, Stalkers for example. Why not have those saved so if you hit a hot map you can choose a cooler build or if you hit a cold map you can load up that laser boat, all with a few clicks instead of ten minutes in the lab moving engines, weapons, sinks and modules.

In FAQ after his update Paul has already said, you aren't going to be able to change anything after map selection. So it's moot point anyway. You are going to be stuck with what you brought regardless.

[Shlkt]

I am also concerned about the function of unit coffers in Phase 2. It sounds like a tax on having too many friends. I'd hate to see units breaking up just to lower their taxes, but I imagine that will happen under the stated system.

If nothing else, it'd be nice to at least get some rewards (and possibly notoriety) from all those "logistical contributions" to the war effort... either through increased loyalty points or something else. Otherwise it just seems like a massive C-bill sink that will sour everyone's mood.

We've got 200+ guys in our unit. We like each other. I'd hate to see us get priced out of CW because it costs too much :/ The cost is easier to justify if you get something in return.

Edited by Shlkt, 25 September 2014 - 07:53 AM.

[Felio]

Why does it have to be restricted to peak times?

I really don't think we were expecting to be totally shut out of CW if we have a schedule that conflicts with yours.

A match only happens if there are 12 players on each side. There is no such thing as a sneak attack in the middle of the night.

If it's a matchmaking problem, could there not be a release valve allowing factions that get along to serve alongside one another?

Edited by Felio, 25 September 2014 - 07:56 AM.

[Metafox]

How strongly are you tied to seasonal resets? If a significant majority of the playerbase opposes seasonal resets, will you consider seeking an alternative balancing mechanic for planetary conquest?

[Kill Dozer]

Bilbo, on 25 September 2014 - 07:49 AM, said:

In FAQ after his update Paul has already said, you aren't going to be able to change anything after map selection. So it's moot point anyway. You are going to be stuck with what you brought regardless.

So do we know what map is being selected or is it a random map on the drop? If the map is known then there is no reason to not have a save config function.

[Son of the Flood]

I'm really looking forward to this....looks like it will be a lot of fun! Lots of information on how CW will work and I need a little time to digest, but was there discussion on expected earnings per match now that the matches will be longer with dropship mode?

[color=#00FFFF]From Paul - "Who knows, maybe you'll see Liao pull a Hail Mary and take over the IS and keep the Clans from invading. [/color] "
^
^
^
Looks like the word is out.....I knew we should have password protected our "Super Top Secret Universe Domination Plan"

[AgroAlba]

I like the idea of Dropship mode. It makes a lot of sense. Take 1 of each weight class, and the matchmaker doesn't have to worry about matching mech class, since everyone has 1/1/1/1.

Sounds great, y'all. Keep it up

[Bilbo]

Kill Dozer, on 25 September 2014 - 07:59 AM, said:

So do we know what map is being selected or is it a random map on the drop? If the map is known then there is no reason to not have a save config function.

There appears to be only one map that would be ready for the mode at the time of release anyway. Unless I read it wrong.

[Kael Posavatz]

"The cost per drop will be scalar based on the number of members in your Unit. This is to avoid smaller units being punished while large units don't notice the cost at all. This is not unlike moving the Swedish army costs compared to the US army costs."

You do realize the error in your logic with that last sentence, quiaff?

Two units of the same size (equal numbers of soldiers with equivalent types and amounts of equipment) traveling the same distance will have roughly the same absolute movement cost. (Note, roughly; Sweden did not have to pay for the development of the eight C-130 aircraft they use for international transports, Sweden also pays for airtime in C-17s as part of its NATO commitments rather than purchasing airframes, differences in pay and benefits, etc). The size of the host military is immaterial to these costs aside from development expenditures and capital costs (number of transport aircraft purchased).

The only real scenario where equal force-distance costs would balloon out of proportion for the smaller military would be when the force being moved eclipses the transport capability available to the smaller power. For example, a movement requiring 14 C-130Hs would require one lift by the US, but two for Sweden (the eighth C-130 being a tanker model) would come at the associated costs of the additional trips to move units to and from the fighting (up to three round trips for Sweden but one for US assuming the transports stay in relatively close proximity to combat zone rather than returning home, also increased single-component wear for Sweden that would be more spread out among US airframes...as I said, roughly the same).

If the larger military wanted to move more combat power into the theater of operations it could do so at increased costs, but you have indicated that you do not wish this.

The appropriate analogy that you are looking for is not the relative sizes of US and Swedish militaries, but the relative sizes of US and Swedish military budgets. Budgets which are themselves a function of the size of the host-state's economy (tax base) and the percentage of that dedicated to the military. Only within the scope of the budget will the cost of an equal force moving equal distances result in a situation where, as you put it, "large units don't notice the cost at all", and yet you have created a situation in which participation in the tax base is entirely voluntary!

As units grow in population it becomes increasingly difficult for everyone to know everyone. This in turn requires the development of organizational and managerial frameworks to guide the unit, adjudicate disputes, oversee training, making sure new members are made welcome, ensuring that players are grouped with others with same general availability, and more. Usually all this extra work and effort (and it is work and effort, often an incredible amount) comes with commensurate benefits: economic and military influence and the like. What I am taking from this post is that you wish to drastically limit if not eliminate these benefits.

Is this the case?

[Tolkien]

RE: Unit coffers:

Quote

The cost per drop will be scalar based on the number of members in your Unit. This is to avoid smaller units being punished while large units don't notice the cost at all. This is not unlike moving the Swedish army costs compared to the US army costs.

I want to make sure I understand what you are saying. It sounds like you are saying that the cost per drop (12 mechs) will increase linearly with the size of the unit.

Paul, please consider that as the size of the unit increases the number of drops per unit time also increases linearly.

In effect if you make larger units pay more per drop, you are charging the individual member of the unit exponentially more for each additional member.

Is this intentional to gimp larger units? If so, you should be aware that players are more than capable of just making two sub-groups that cooperate 100% rather than pay your tax - especially since anyone can bid on a defense.

Edited by Tolkien, 25 September 2014 - 08:38 AM.

[Almond Brown]

StalaggtIKE, on 24 September 2014 - 07:11 PM, said:

Correct. Or even smaller, like lances.

So you want to initiate an Attack with a lance and hope what? 3 other Lances from your Unit get queued to make the 12, or you want the Lance and any 8 fillers...?

Not sure why a small attack starter (Lance) would be seen as better than an all unit based 12 man. Surely drop costs, initially, won't be overly exorbitant.

Edited by Almond Brown, 25 September 2014 - 08:56 AM.

[Parduke]

If no one defends a planet the attack never happens and you never lose one? Or will there be a time limit to respond or opfor auto wins?

[Herzog]

I would think that a way to ensure enough folks come to defend while sticking to the lore is to use the Fedcom vs. Concord of Kapteyn balance. Steiners, Davions, Mercs and LW vs. Kurita, Liao, Marik, Mercs and LW. Same for Inter-clan rivalries; Wardens vs Crusaders. Civil wars and rebellions could be special events.

[Khobai]

seasonal reset is fine

but I dont like being locked into one faction. Wouldnt it make more sense to allow players to pick both one IS house and one clan each season and be able to switch between them?