Jump to content

- - - - -

Community Warfare - Phase 2 Update - Sept24 Feedback

Community Warfare Feedback Sept 24

353 replies to this topic

#181 Cerlin

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 922 posts
  • LocationCalifornia or Japan

Posted 25 September 2014 - 12:02 PM

I am in a big merc unit but I am glad to see this coming to the game. Penalizing big units sucks but people will find a way around it.

I am glad to see these things in games and I hope eventually that mercs have a bigger role but I am fine just fighting for the factions at the moment.

#182 Quincy McAllister

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • The 1 Percent
  • 118 posts
  • LocationEssen, Germany

Posted 25 September 2014 - 12:05 PM

Quote

What about logistics/repair/rearm?
Again, logistics is something we would like to do but it completely out of scope in terms of development time at the moment. The sheer amount of data that would need to be tracked and storing movement of units across 2400+ planets would be astronomical. We won't trash the idea but it is on hold for the moment.


This is very unambitous. You should have a look at Mech Battle Online where all the logistics are live and operating...

http://www.mechwarri.../Evo-index.html

#183 Wieland

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 755 posts
  • LocationKitzingen, Bolan Province, Protectorate of Donegal, Lyran Commonwealth

Posted 25 September 2014 - 12:05 PM

View PostAlmond Brown, on 25 September 2014 - 10:49 AM, said:



Just for giggles. Here is what you call 2 hours. Say I am US East. It is a Thursday, and I have a job. I can play from 5-8pm, and on a weekend, I could play 11am- 8pm. Plenty time, hell if the Beer holds up, I could switch to US West time for additional play.

Where does this whole notion of "ONLY a 2 hour play window" come from? Sleep or play... Same as now.

Do you actually read? I am talking about the CW play windows. I live in Europe, I work too. So my CW window is 8PM-10PM.
Its nice for you in the american timezones to have so many windows, but we others dont. Look at the Australians, most of them will only be able to play CW on the weekends.

#184 Revis Volek

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Vicious
  • The Vicious
  • 7,224 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationPlanet Weeaboo

Posted 25 September 2014 - 12:16 PM

View PostXanquil, on 25 September 2014 - 10:13 AM, said:

I chose to be a lone wolf because I didn't want to have to choose a house/clan. (lore reasons) As it stands (from what I have been reading) that will make it impossible for me to be part of CW, which is sad. I was looking forward to it too.

Hopefully there will be something for Lone wolfs like me to do to help out (either / both sides) in CW.


Currently there is not Fence sitting.....you must pick IS or Clan. I know a lot of people want to fight for both but i know for one if you Defended the IS i will never pick you up for my Clan once CW starts. You are a traitor at that point! lolz :P

And all if this was stated as to only be going on for "season 1" im sure they will figure it out by then....sucks for us Clan loyalist too because my group (CSA, SA) will now have to change our tags and act like a dirty Wolf or Falcon for the time being. Star Adders have bad relation with both of those so i guess its ghost bear or GTFO! :rolleyes:

#185 Revis Volek

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Vicious
  • The Vicious
  • 7,224 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationPlanet Weeaboo

Posted 25 September 2014 - 12:20 PM

View PostCerlin, on 25 September 2014 - 12:02 PM, said:

I am in a big merc unit but I am glad to see this coming to the game. Penalizing big units sucks but people will find a way around it.

I am glad to see these things in games and I hope eventually that mercs have a bigger role but I am fine just fighting for the factions at the moment.


Yup, just break your unit into smaller groups....cap it at 26 members or so just enough to field 2 teams and then make another "X group, B". This is silly attempt at being a C-bill sink and will not end up doing anything but being a pain for everyone....Just set the price per planet depending on how important the planet is....and give us a TRIP COUNTER when we invade as we travel. Its x light years from terra/Strana so it will cost X amount of cbills to get there. Doesn't get much more fair then that, quiaff?

#186 Scratx

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • 3,281 posts

Posted 25 September 2014 - 12:23 PM

View PostWieland, on 25 September 2014 - 12:05 PM, said:

Do you actually read? I am talking about the CW play windows. I live in Europe, I work too. So my CW window is 8PM-10PM.
Its nice for you in the american timezones to have so many windows, but we others dont. Look at the Australians, most of them will only be able to play CW on the weekends.


Not sure anybody's mentioned it before, but I think the UTC window IS the European window. It would be nice if Asia and Australia had their own windows, too.

#187 Kill Dozer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 343 posts

Posted 25 September 2014 - 12:29 PM

View PostAlmond Brown, on 25 September 2014 - 10:30 AM, said:


An "Elited" Mech requires 3 Chassis be in use, unless sold after Basic, which is just silly really, so 3 Mechs per weight class should be plenty to have a chassis ready to go for most fights?

What do you want? 1 Dragon Brawler/Cold, one Dragon Brawler/Hot, one Dragon Brawler/Neutral etc. etc. for ALL Chassis.?


Three chassis that have different hard points and thus font carry the same configs. And yes, I have several builds for the same mech, especially mechs with that have a cbill bonus and mechs that carry ECM (Battlemaster-1G and Atlas DDC for example).

Having played MW 2/3/4/MWO I thought just about everyone did that wasn't just a casual player (not trying to be snarky here, just being truthful). The ability to save configs has *always* been there, I've always considered it a short coming of MWO that it wasn't present.

eta: For example in MW4 on a Thanatos I'd run UAC-10's and lasers on urban maps, on open maps I'd run large lasers and light gauss rifles, different tools for the job at hand.

Edited by Kill Dozer, 25 September 2014 - 12:32 PM.


#188 Hobo Dan

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 597 posts
  • Twitter: Link
  • LocationWest Virginia

Posted 25 September 2014 - 12:33 PM

Paul, please see this thread on Tonnage Limits instead of 1/1/1/1 for dropship as it contains some really good discussion.

#189 AlmightyAeng

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 3,905 posts

Posted 25 September 2014 - 12:42 PM

In your post you said,

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.


Can you PLEASE take this one step further, and instead of basing it on the number of players, base it on the TONNAGE of the group (including all 4 dropship mechs).

This would actually encourage some groups to make the choice to take lighter tonnage mechs for a great risk/reward...instead of just giving us a bland X per person cost. People would be able to capitalize on winning with sub-optimal mechs...but would have to carry HARD to do it.

Please...I'm begging you. Give us a reason to not take a D-DC every time for Inner Sphere and a Timberwolf every time as Clan.

Edit:

In addition...if a group is SHARING the cost of a dropship (ya know, because units drop together) and likely traveled there together in Jumphships...for the sake of Lore and encouraging group play in your "thinking man's shooter" please consider making the cost per tonnage (or per person) for a group scale SMALLER the larger a group is.

IE. Lone Wolves pay X fuel costs for hopping a ride solo. A group of 4 guys dropping might pay X-10 per ton/person. A group of 12 might pay X-40 per ton/person.

It makes sense...and encourages people to actually PLAY WITH OTHER PEOPLE.

Edited by Ghost Badger, 25 September 2014 - 12:49 PM.


#190 Maxx Blue

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Urban Commando
  • Urban Commando
  • 370 posts

Posted 25 September 2014 - 12:44 PM

I have some concerns about the 1-1-1-1 dropship criteria. Just speaking for myself, I don't enjoy playing Lights. I have a couple and even went ahead and mastered them just to see if they got 'better', but I've come to the conclusion over the past couple years that I really just don't like playing light mechs. I'm not really a fan of assaults either, but I do occasionally have fun in them. I own a decent pile of mechs and have purchased some of Clan Wave 1, and plan to buy a couple Clan Wave 2 mechs once a-la-carte is up and running as well, but I don't own a single Clan light mech, and the only Clan Assault I bought was the Dire Wolf, which is OK, but I didn't exactly love it.

What I am trying to say is that, over time, I have come to realize that I greatly prefer to play medium and heavy mechs since I have much more fun in them. I find both Lights and Assaults more frustrating than fun, and I am currently able to avoid playing them if I choose to. In order to participate in CW, I will have to play with both of these classes, even though I don't enjoy them. Furthermore, if I choose to play Clan (which I am leaning towards), I will be stuck with trial mechs unless I decide to buy mechs I don't want to play just so I have a consistent, customized option in CW. This is a problem for me.

For me, playing ilghts and most assaults just isn't that much fun. I don't want to spend my leisure time doing it. With the 1-1-1-1 Dropship requirement, you are asking me to have 50% of the mechs I take be mechs I don't want to play. I would GREATLY prefer a different option that didn't force me to play every weight class. I could live with Tonnage limits, or even a restriction of no more than 2 of any weight class, but please...pretty please...Don't make me take a light and assault in every dropship. Let me have more say in what mechs I choose, and balance the drop in a different way.

Besides, 1-1-1-1 incentivises folks to take the heaviest mech they can that isn't a **** in each weight-class. There is no reward for giving up 15-20 tons and taking a mech on the lighter side of a weight bracket, especially on the IS side where we have more mechs in each weight class.

Edited by Maxx Blue, 25 September 2014 - 12:46 PM.


#191 Bront

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Urban Commando
  • Urban Commando
  • 4,211 posts
  • LocationInternet

Posted 25 September 2014 - 12:50 PM

View PostJuvat, on 25 September 2014 - 11:50 AM, said:

As for your comments here is my responses to them:
1.) the Faction point I made had nothing to do with countering Clan invasions. The specific example they gave was House Davion invading a Kurita world and everyone being allowed to assist in defense. I agree that anyone from the IS should be able to fight off the Clans but when it comes to the "Border fights" it should be totally Faction-based (i.e. Davion vs. Kurita in this instance) with Mercs and Lone Wolves being allowed to supplement their forces.

2.) I have been involved with MWO for over 2 1/2 years now and have invested substantially in this game. As such I have every right as you do to voice my opinion about the progress of the game. Telling me to be patient is like preaching to the choir as I have been very patient with them. However, as an investor (which anyone who has spent money on this game is) I have the right to tell them when they are going wrong and to (hopefully) get them to correct course. So I will continue to voice my feelings about the direction of a game I have committed time and resources to of my own and I encourage others to continue to do the same.


Apparently there was miscommunication. I did not get the impression that when Kurita attacks Davion, anyone can respond on defense, I thought that only Davion and Mercs could. The all response was for clan invasion only. That's still how I read it.

And do indeed give your feedback. Wasn't saying you shouldn't. However, if in order to get working CW in, Mercs won't initially be fully explored when it launches, with plans to do so later, I don't think that's a bad thing, I think it's progress in the right direction. Assuming they actually manage to do it.

Either way, I do appreciate your thoughts were well written and thought out, and simply wanted to respond to them :)

View PostNightcrept, on 25 September 2014 - 11:47 AM, said:

I have only one real question and it's probably due to me not being around for awhile.

When exactly are we getting cw?

I really don't care if I have to sit at my computer wearing a fez, a giant diaper, nipple rings and sucking my toes so long as i finally get to play cw.

Wait, you mean we aren't supposed to be doing that now?

#192 Savage Wolf

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Wolf
  • The Wolf
  • 1,322 posts
  • LocationÅrhus, Denmark

Posted 25 September 2014 - 01:03 PM

View PostAlmond Brown, on 25 September 2014 - 10:05 AM, said:


I think the "generators" are destroyed to "open the gates" to the compound, within which lies the actual "win objectives". So you can destroy the Mechs, defending the fortified compound, 4 waves, or drop the Gennies, gain the compound, destroy all forces or designated victory targets.

That does not explain what their design goals for which is the most likely victory is which is the question I really want answered. Everyone playing Conquest knows that you can win either by capping or by destroying all enemy forces, but everyone also knows that the last one is the most likely way to win and so it is kind of treated like the primary objective.

Edited by Savage Wolf, 25 September 2014 - 01:06 PM.


#193 RapidFire7

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 411 posts
  • Facebook: Link
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationNew Zealand

Posted 25 September 2014 - 01:05 PM

Question: Are there going to be any governing councils/bodies of any type in CW with real staff playing key roles in their chosen factions? Marik is a representative democracy, Davion a constitutional monarchy etc.

#194 PhoenixNMGLB

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 307 posts

Posted 25 September 2014 - 01:07 PM

Ok so 2 quick questions;

1. If the cost of the drop scales with the number of members in a unit, does this mean that a unit with 100 plus members pays more per pilot?

2. Why not make cw available all the time? Sure sometimes people may have to wait for a drop but surely that should be player choice?



#195 PhoenixNMGLB

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 307 posts

Posted 25 September 2014 - 01:16 PM

Also I actually like the 1,1,1,1 idea. It nicely represents that yes you can get back in the fight but not with your favourite mech.

It is also a good way to encourage players to use different types and better understand how they work in a group. Maybe even encourage a little more teamwork? ;)

#196 Dan the Ice Man

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 290 posts
  • LocationAlrescha

Posted 25 September 2014 - 01:18 PM

View Postslide, on 24 September 2014 - 06:56 PM, said:


I am disappointed that Merc units will have to align with a faction at first but the rest of it sounds ok.



ya but here's the thing about that, Lore wise it makes sense. a Merc corp allies itself with a faction, and is put to work...
best example i think of is the Northwind Highlanders they were with Liao for a really long time....

not sure if i am a fan of the dropship mode with 1 mech per class however.

my question is will we be able to to change that lineup between match's.

and in my concerns to a Merc Corp it seems is to just keep a unit big enough for the 12 man group maybe have 16 people total to cover for people that can't fill a full group, and to keep costs down.

but then again the merc taxes shouldn't be an opt in or out IMO. if you have a small group and no one wants to put stuff into the coffers then whats the point of having the coffer to begin with? Because you will ALWAYS get freeloaders and people that refuse to pull their weight

if you join a merc corp you "sign a merc contract" made by the guild leader detailing "company expenses" IE taxes and it should be a cap of that the Merc leader take no more then 10% of players "wages" for the coffers (and to curb abuse). and the leader could set it anywhere from 1% to 5% or even to the cap at 10%.

that's my take on it it would be way better then having it opt in or opt out as LONG as the player wanting to join the Merc Corp is made aware of everything BEFORE they join etc

Edited by Dan the Ice Man, 25 September 2014 - 01:20 PM.


#197 MadTulip

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • Bridesmaid
  • 262 posts

Posted 25 September 2014 - 01:19 PM

"Is there a possibility of a some type of reward for piloting a mech that are popular amongst your own particular faction? For example a Kurita mechwarrior piloting a Jenner 7-F would be in line for a small reward of some sort or extra compensation?
This isn't planned at the moment but is a very cool idea. Open for discussion on it."

i would directly couple this with the idea that owning certain planet allows for discounts on buying mechs. Buying mechs is not something you do on a regular basis. CW games are. You want some benefit which is reflected often like best in every match from owning a certain planet.

"now that we have the planet that produces the JNR 7-F we secured them as the light mechs which are avilable to us in larger numbers on the frontlines. They are thus common, cheap to get by and common to see in battle."

- Mechs are produced on some planet (or multiple which all produce parts for it)
- If you faction controlls say a JNR-7F factory (by controlling a planet with such a factory) then dropping with a JNR-7F is less expansive then dropping with some other chassis where you do not own a factory. (instead of buying your JNR-7F is less expansive)
- If you faction own multiple factories for JNR-7F price degrades with diminishing returns.
- Alternatively to CB coffer costs for entering a CW drop you could modify the ammount of "tokens" beeing taken when a battle is won. If the defender used all "cheap in house produced mechs" and looses the loss doesnt weight as much as if they would have lost theire "elite, hard to get by rare chasis".

- There should be motivation to USE the mechs which are available to your houses military. The mechs that your house can produce are those that it will (have to) field (represented by the players). Players should thus be rewarded for playing the mechs that the faction has available.

- Factories for items like AC20 or ammo types (if included to the game at some point like swarm LRMs) can later be added. -> "we lost all AC20 ammo factories ... thats bad, 1t AC20 ammo just gives you 3 shots instead of 7 in CW now." Connections like this between the IS map and theire planets and borders and the actual matches should be there as much as possible to spice things up and to make the map count something instead of just beeing another kind of matches. I wouldnt mind if the ATL just becomes unavailable to drop with because my faction lost its factory or if i can not bring any more XL300 because we lost its factory. I believe CW is not about beeing fair and fully balanced all the time. if your faction looses territory you should feel that.

- Factories can be build during a full CW cycle (you mentioned 3 months). The whole faction can vote/pay/influence/depending on individual campaign success somehow which kind of factory they want and where.

Edited by MadTulip, 25 September 2014 - 01:34 PM.


#198 Bront

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Urban Commando
  • Urban Commando
  • 4,211 posts
  • LocationInternet

Posted 25 September 2014 - 01:20 PM

Just a thought on costs.

Perhaps rearm and repair could come from Unit funds? It would scale well (with larger units involved in larger scale battles needing a larger war-chest), and it wouldn't hurt the individual players. Non-unit players would simply be considered part of the local militia rather than dedicated house units, and you could even have rewards that go directly to the units for wins to help cover some of these costs beyond simple volunteer donations.

Throw in some tracking so units can see which players are costing the unit the most, as well see who's donated the most, and you have a need for the unit coffers, a reason to donate as a player (inability to cover R&R costs from your unit would prevent your unit from being able to drop in CW, or players would have to pay the overage from their winnings), incentive to win as a team (the Unit earns back money so players don't need to donate as much), and it shows which players are costing the unit the most vs which members are giving the unit the most. You give the coffers a reason to exist, as well as another game within the game, managing the costs of war. It wouldn't even require a lot of new coding, since R&R costs are likely still in the system somewhere, they would just change where they're charged to. Meanwhile, solo players aren't adversely effected or penalized by the system directly, so it's not a new player tax.

#199 Hoax415

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 645 posts

Posted 25 September 2014 - 01:34 PM

View PostJman5, on 25 September 2014 - 11:20 AM, said:

That could potentially ruin Community Warfare. Despite what many people think, Elo does play a large role in funneling players into adequately competitive matches. Without it, will not be very fun for people outside those top dozen or so competitive teams. I worry that people will simply give up on Community warfare if that becomes the case.


I agree with this sentiment and I hope they come up with something a little more robust than FIFO matching considering we've moved far away from forcing people to at least organize a 12-man which means there will be a lot more disorganized pug teams running around who are just going to cry if they are suddenly unprotected by elo.

Also the combination of no elo matchmaking and much longer games seems very poor.

View PostPhoenixNMGLB, on 25 September 2014 - 01:07 PM, said:

2. Why not make cw available all the time? Sure sometimes people may have to wait for a drop but surely that should be player choice?


Its not going to happen.

1) they want normal queue to still be a thing.

2) they want CW to feel special.

3) hopefully they plan to put the player units being the recognized holders/defenders of a given planet back in. That system really doesn't work in CW is 24/7.

Edited by Hoax415, 25 September 2014 - 01:35 PM.


#200 Bront

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Urban Commando
  • Urban Commando
  • 4,211 posts
  • LocationInternet

Posted 25 September 2014 - 01:41 PM

View PostSavage Wolf, on 25 September 2014 - 01:03 PM, said:

That does not explain what their design goals for which is the most likely victory is which is the question I really want answered. Everyone playing Conquest knows that you can win either by capping or by destroying all enemy forces, but everyone also knows that the last one is the most likely way to win and so it is kind of treated like the primary objective.

The difference in CW would be that, due to having reinforcements, simply wiping the floor with your enemy takes a long time. I would also hope that reward wise, there are some large rewards for either holding the gates (on D) or blowing the gates (on O) even if the final objective of victory is not met.

So, if taking a gate is the equivilent to 3 kills for the entire team, there's a team effort to take the gate. Meanwhile, holding a gate offers a bonus for the D team, there's a reason to not simply hunker down at base and then slaughter the enemy. Incremental rewards for capturing (or preventing the capture of, or undoing the capture of) a space helps as well.

The biggest issue they'll have is making the attack rewards and the defense rewards about equal. If they don't, you'll have trouble getting folks to actually defend anything, which will cause problems making matches. In many ways, you'll probably have to offer bonuses for objectives on the attack, while defense will get more bonuses for kills and maintaining points, simply because the defender has the general advantage of knowing the attacker has to ultimately come to him.

Really, Attackers win by killing the enemy or completing the objective, while the defense generally only wins by turning back the attacker or occasionally destroying/capturing their spawn point. Assuming they don't go the spawn point route capture/destruction (at which point it's basically a larger scale assault mode), it'll need to be balanced appropriately so monies generally line up on a win on either side, and that needs to include the amount of time invested (generally, a defensive win will likely take more time than an attack win).

Rewards wise, in match needs to be good even in a loss (assuming it's well fought), if only because of the time invested, I'd be quite upset if I came out of a 25-30 minute match that I contributed in in some meaningful way with only 100,000 CBills (even if the possible rewards would have been over 1,000,000). Give me a reason to play CW over the regular game (and better rewards even in a loss is one way to do it. Why grind CBills in the regular game when a good CW game can earn me twice the rewards? It means folks will fill the CW queues, which is good for everyone).





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users