353 replies to this topic

[Almond Brown]

Kirkland Langue, on 25 September 2014 - 01:46 PM, said:

Ok Actual question:

Will different planets impact the likelihood of getting different maps? I know that new maps will be created for CW but I suspect there will still be some hot maps, some cold maps, some goldilocks maps. If I click on a map that appears to be a ball of ice, and I drop onto a map of lava.... that's not going to be good times.

If we use Earth as an example, one Planet can have multiple environments, from Temperate (Equator), to Freezing (Antarctica) to Volcanic/Hot (Iceland). All depends where you land.

Edited by Almond Brown, 30 September 2014 - 10:07 AM.

[Almond Brown]

Wintersdark, on 25 September 2014 - 02:46 PM, said:

Groups can do that, but why should they have to? Why do groups have to measure the worth of their players based on their activity? I understand some will do that regardless, and on a group by group basis that's fine - set whatever criteria you like for your members, after all.

But why should less active players be a direct drain on the unit? Why should a unit basically be forced to pay for players who play less?

That's just bad game design. From a game design viewpoint, you want to remain inclusive, to not punish players who already suffer for being unable to play often. Charging a unit on a per-member basis whenever they drop results in a unit being forced to weigh players financially: Is their presence in the unit a net loss? If that player only plays, say, a few matches per weekend, but the unit is large and runs CW drops daily, the unit is going to have to pay to keep that player on their roster even if that player isn't directly contributing to CW, and even though that player happily donates his percentage of his per match earnings to that unit's coffers.

Now, i can image some saying this is fine, if he's not contributing to CW directly, maybe he should get out of the unit? But that's a terrible, terrible way to force units to be. Again, some units may choose to be exclusionary, and that is their right, but from a game design standpoint you absolutely do not want to punish units for being groups of friends first and foremost.

It also doesn't seem right that a small group, who could have 2 attacks or defenses ongoing at once maximum) would pay the same (tax) while gaining the exact same x2 rewards as a group that could carry out 25 such attacks/defenses, and reap those same X25 rewards.

Culling would be a Group based decision. As you noted, some will do it just because. But the LITTLE group (Small Business) should not be taxed at the same rate as the BIG (Corporations) groups. Funny how that lines up with reality as well.

[Almond Brown]

Scratx, on 25 September 2014 - 03:58 PM, said:

Well, with the ejection idea, losing a mech is a harsh penalty. 4 mechs is all you have.

Alternatively, with the ammo depots? If you run out of ammo you'd be looking at spending quite some time running back there, rearming, and then running back to the battle. Isn't that a penalty too?

Finally, consider this. If the goal is to turn it into LaserWarrior Online, won't it hand the Clans a good advantage? Clan lasers greatly outrange IS lasers and do more damage. While they're hotter, many clan mechs can boat heatsinks better than IS, due to 2 crits per sink.

I think it would be a tragedy if CW matches devolve into lasers and lasers and ppcs and nothing but energy weapons aside from the odd SRMs or something.

Come on, this can't be a serious suggestion. If TK'ing becomes necessary, something's gone very wrong.

Well they could implement a "hit override button 4 times in 6 seconds" and your Mechs self terminates.

[Almond Brown]

Kilo 40, on 25 September 2014 - 08:16 PM, said:

They gave 3 specific times at 2 hours each. That's only 6 hours out of a 24 hour day. and the times they listed are not times that I play.

I wouldn't ask that. But I would ask that they make it available more than 6 hours of the day.

Paul did state they would adjust based on need and player numbers fluctuation. 24/7 is no good, so some windows need be maintained.

[Almond Brown]

Cavendish, on 25 September 2014 - 10:45 PM, said:

1) Would be helpful for this but on the other hand there are several availible TS provided by the community for people to use, if you want to drop in an organized fashion you can. This does not mean I dont wanna see a VOIP in game, but its not as critical as getting a working CW going.

2) IS faction will still buy Hero mechs, and so will Clans if they ever start making them. How many Clan players do you think would pay for an IS pack today?

3) Mercs should earn money and have their own faction ranks (my suggestion would to give mercs "Reputation" instead of standing with any house. Reputation would affect what equipment they would have access to, for example Wolfs Dragoons can probl. get a special mech design produced for them by a mech factory due to size, wealth and influence, where Bakers Bushwhackers who has spent half a year guarding a mineral mining operation and owns 2 mechs would not). Same option should be open to Lone Wolves.

4) Agreed, most mercs are a corporation looking for profit, not an unsactioned arm of the house military forces. They sign on to do a job, and once that is over they collect their fee and move on. They should have Reputation instead of being forced to stick to one house. Honestly how hard is it to introduce that? "IS side, allied with "MERCS"-faction"

If memory serves, almost NO Merc Corps had access to their own JumpShips. A select few had DropShips and as such were solely dependent on the Houses to get anywhere. So no matter what level of freedom they want for their Merc Corps, you will have to deal with the Houses for Travel amongst the stars of the I.S. Best get used to it.

[Almond Brown]

Jakob Knight, on 26 September 2014 - 03:00 AM, said:

The primary issue with this idea is that it turns Mercenaries into window-dressing. How is what you are proposing any different than being a House unit? Yet, Mercs are as different to House units as Clan units are to Inner Sphere units....Mercs are the third Faction, after all.

The only way Seasons could count towards the fulfillment of what Mercs were always declared to be in MWO from Day One would be if House and Clan players and Units could not change their faction at all. In other words, you become a House Kurita Unit or Clan Ghost Bear Unit, you are that for the rest of your playtime in MWO. Otherwise, there is no credit to the idea that Seasons=Contracts, because House and Clan units do not use Contracts, and so would not have any grounds for being able to change factions in the same way at the same rate and with the same benefits.

Right now, a Season is 'the entire history' of the Inner Sphere. When a Season ends, everything is reset, all history wiped out, all dates reset to 3049, and all progress reversed. Telling a Merc group that they have a contract for a 'Season' is no different than telling a House or Clan unit that they are with a faction until the 'end of history'. Both are the same, and it effectively eliminates Mercs from the game except in name alone.

I don't understand why it is so hard for the Devs to put in what they promised they would, yet this seems to be an ongoing issue. Why is having two Factions (Clan and Inner Sphere now instead of the five Inner Sphere states that were promised when CW was outlined for all players) and a third Faction that can ally with either but not get the full benefits of permanent alignment with either (Mercenaries) so difficult? Just do it and let the game progress as it should, rather than trying to micro-manage how the Invasion progresses.

Because in Lore, in 2.5 years there is a truce between the Clans and the Houses. What happens to everyone then? We just wait for it to end and then carry on. Having all the states being able to fight for themselves with Merc support would be great, bu the FRR lost its ass to the Clans and are out of the fight year 1. Who would join that faction after CW begins or 6 months in?

Or does FRR kick ass this time around? Point being what has happened and what could happen in the CW of MWO is not dependent on the Lore version, for obvious reasons, the I.S. pie got eaten alive by the Clans, until Com-Star woke the *uck up.

So lets write a new chapter, and see how it goes.

[Cimarb]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 30 September 2014 - 03:36 AM, said:

I wish I did, it was from when they used to have all the articles going about what they are going to do with this game on ths last forums -.-

Citation or you are full of Surat feces, sorry.

[Drake67]

First off, planets will transition ownership every 24-hours.

Could you please explain what you mean by this?

[Hoax415]

Drake67, on 04 October 2014 - 06:32 AM, said:

First off, planets will transition ownership every 24-hours.

Could you please explain what you mean by this?

It means that the score between attacker and defender is tallied after 24 hours and the winning side is determined. If the attackers had a high enough winrate the attacking faction now controls the planet in question.

[Drake67]

Hoax415, on 04 October 2014 - 07:52 AM, said:

It means that the score between attacker and defender is tallied after 24 hours and the winning side is determined. If the attackers had a high enough winrate the attacking faction now controls the planet in question.

must have missed the explanation somewhere. Thanks.

[Solkar]

Parduke, on 25 September 2014 - 09:04 AM, said:

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?

I was wondering the exact same thing... if no one defends a planet can never be captured the way things were described. There NEEDS to be something coded so that if an 'Attack Team' is built and ready and waits 10 to 20 minutes with no 'Defend Team' available a point is awarded to the attackers.

Otherwise the clan invasion can be forced to fail simply by the IS refusing to defend... which makes NO sense.

[DI3T3R]

Suggestion for community-wide impact when a planet changes owners:

It was once mentioned that the IS would be divided into small conflict-theaters, each consisting of several planets and the domain of each faction consisting of multiple theaters. Is this still valid? (I will pretend that it is, for the sake of my suggestion.)

Give each unit/player a location:
It doesn't make sense that a unit is able to travel all of the Inner Sphere in an instant. Each unit/player is assigned to a conflict-theater and can only take part in attacks in this or neighbouring theaters. They/he can still defend wherever he wants in the IS, but not counter-attack wherever he wants.

Travel-time:
Travelling to a neighbouring conflict-theater takes 28(?) days (4+1=5 jumps with a KF-Drive). The unit/player picks his travel-destination in a menu. The 28-day-timer starts running down, life goes on as always, nothing changes. Once the timer is down, the "current location" is abruptly switched and the unit/player is in the new conflict-theater.

Owning/conquering planets speeds up travel-time for troop-relocations:
Staging an interstellar campaign should take preparation and a plan. If a faction owns several/particular planets in a conflict-theater, travel-time into/out of/through a conflict-theater is shorter.
For example:
1. House Steiner has moved lots of troops to the Periphery to fight Clan Jade Falcon.
2. House Marik decides to attack House Steiner.
3. But House Marik doesn't own a planet in the conflict-theater on the Steiner-side of the border, so the travel-time is long and the Marik-troops trickle in bit by bit, unless various Marik-units hatch a plan behind the scenes and synchronize their attacks.
4. Though the Steiner-players currently at the CJF-border can help defend against Marik-forces, they cannot counter-attack to push back against the gains House Marik makes. Only the Steiner-forces at the Marik-border can do that.
5. House Steiner relocates troops from the CJF-border to the Marik-border. Because House Steiner owns all the conflict-theaters inbetween, travel-time is short.

Balancing-issues:
- This would allow to stage somewhat realistic interplanetary campaigns while giving the defenders an inherent advantage. The invaders either need a good plan or overwhelming strength.
- When logistics eventually become part of MWO, these difficulties to move troops and supplies to a particular location in short time could become essential.
For example: spare-parts
* consumed when a Mech is repaired
* Each unit has an amount of spare-parts with them, but they cannot be replenished while in a hostile conflict-theater.
* transfering spare-parts so a unit can keep attacking takes time
* If the invading unit runs out of spare-parts before new ones arrive, it has to stop fighting for a while and the defenders have the opportunity to drive them back.

[FaythoftheLost]

I find it absolutely ridiculous that your not implementing one of the KEY components of the entire game. The first wave of the clan invasion hit MERC UNITS. Not house. MERC. How do you really justify not implementing it? You can't. 'Oh we're waiting to see...' Thats an excuse. And a poor one at best. At this point it is not MWO. It is RISK with power units.

If your going to pass off your unwillingness to take the time to design the game properly please be more honest about your lack of effort. And yes I do mean lack of effort. I have worked in design. I know how much more effort it would take to integrate a faction like this. As someone that has run tabletop games with multiple factions running at the same time I also understand that the math for organizing it can be complex. But if a single mom of two with two jobs can manage to run a multi faction tabletop game for nearly ten years you guys should be able, with a much larger employee base, integrate the units you SHOULD be utilizing in the initial phases of the games.

It is embarrassing to listen to those sorts of excuses. At the least you should be trying to maintain the level of honesty that you've tried to return to since PGI has taken full control of this project.

The Merc units, Lonewolves, and Daggerstars are major components of the initial invasion and to not have those key components in the initial wave is beyond understandable to me. Its like your playing god with our game and rewriting it into what you think it means instead of attempting to give us the illusion of MWO. Honestly at this point I'm beginning to wonder if ANY of you have ever played Battletech at all. I'm seriously beginning to think you haven't.

[ski2060]

Any plans for an update? We're at 2 weeks since the last update on CW, Paul.
We would love to see communication be consistent going forward as it has been recently.
Thanks

[Cimarb]

ski2060, on 07 October 2014 - 12:10 PM, said:

Any plans for an update? We're at 2 weeks since the last update on CW, Paul.
We would love to see communication be consistent going forward as it has been recently.
Thanks

Russ said he plans to have one tomorrow, so I would expect it by the end of the week :-D

[Antonius Prime]

I'm sorry, but I don't have time right now to read all 17 pages before I post this. I am sorry if I am repeating something already stated. If I do and someone wants to kindly point that out, I will appreciate it.

I have a thought.

I have seen some Units having internal problems because some people in the Unit want to play Clan mechs, others want to use IS mechs, and then there are those who want to use all their mechs. The real thing that makes this topic hairy is that many of the people involved have spent real life money on IS Hero mechs, Phoenix packages, and Clan packages.

When you start telling people that their real life money investment is for all intents and purposes wasted, they start to get a little upset to say the least. Also, I'm sure PGI, understandably, wants people to have no reason to spend less real life money in the future buying both IS and Clan mechs and packages.

So, my proposed solution would provide the benefits of:
Preventing Units from feeling pressure to make a choice that alienates many of it's members.
Preventing PGI from causing many people to feel that the real life money people have spent on buying both IS and Clan mechs is basically wasted now.

My proposed solution:
Allow each Unit (if the Unit chooses) to choose both an allied House and an allied Clan.

Hear me out.

In order to make this not a conflict of interest, you could make some choices mutually exclusive. Maybe, the FRR and Clan Ghost Bear would be a good example. If you choose one of these, then you cannot choose the other. Also, keep in mind that any Unit with such convictions due to RP reasons may choose not to exercise this option at all. You are not forced to choose both. But, even Units who are centered around a specific RP could choose to ally themselves with a House or Clan that attacks their enemy.

An example of this would be an FRR Unit choosing a Clan option that primarily battles Kurita. That way they can make use of their Clan mechs in the role of playing an "enemy of their enemy". Don't think of it as one Unit actually being allied to both IS and Clan. Think of it from an RP point of view as only actually being allied to one and being able to play as NPC's of sorts elsewhere. (This distinction here really only matters for those who care heavily about the RP aspect.)

The benefit, though is that Units (many of which have been together since even before closed beta) who want to keep the members that they accumulated on a basis other than RP choices and faction allegiance could still stay together and not have to find themselves split by necessity. I truly believe that to do such would greatly hurt the community and, in turn, hurt the strength of the game's future.

Those members of the Unit who want to play IS only, can.
Those members of the Unit who want to play Clan only, can.
Those members if the Unit who want to play both, can.


If you limit the House/Clan choices so that their borders don't intersect, then you eliminate the potential of a conflict of interest. Nobody will have any benefit from logging on for one side and "throwing the match" or whatever. (Besides the fact that doing so would also be a colossal waste of the Unit's Coffers.)

Now, in Phase 3 it still might be that certain Clan or House choices might affect which IS or Clan mechs you can get at what price or whatever, but that really doesn't tell people that their real life money has gone to waste. That is the real issue at stake here.

Edited by Antonius Prime, 08 October 2014 - 05:16 AM.

[VVonka]

I agree with Antonius Prime, many large units were formed well before they even knew what community warfare was going to be, and well before clan mechs were even in the game.

I personally have a stable of IS and Clan mechs I have spent real money on. I also belong to a large group (200+ members) Something needs to be done so that those who want to make a choice can. Even if you allow "sub" groups to be formed under the main group. The only other option would be for groups to divide themselves, come up with their own tags and separate out completely.


If something doesn't happen, there will be chunks of members from different groups that fall off and weaken a core segment of your gaming population.

[Cimarb]

VVonka, on 08 October 2014 - 09:18 AM, said:

I agree with Antonius Prime, many large units were formed well before they even knew what community warfare was going to be, and well before clan mechs were even in the game.

I personally have a stable of IS and Clan mechs I have spent real money on. I also belong to a large group (200+ members) Something needs to be done so that those who want to make a choice can. Even if you allow "sub" groups to be formed under the main group. The only other option would be for groups to divide themselves, come up with their own tags and separate out completely.

If something doesn't happen, there will be chunks of members from different groups that fall off and weaken a core segment of your gaming population.

While I understand where both of you are coming from, as it was one of the key considerations when I switched from the Seraphim to CGB, I do not agree with doing that.

First, it makes little to no sense from a lore standpoint, which is what CW is all about: living out the lore of the Clan Invasion. Giving every unit effectively two units will not only break that immersion, but it will lead to all sorts of other balance issues where people are fighting for both sides of the same fight. Remember, any IS faction can defend against any Clan attack, and vice versa.

Second, nothing is stopping you from creating two in-game units and using them collectively as one out-of-game unit like you can now. Most faction-based games do this, such as WoW and SWTOR, where you have an Alliance guild and a Horde version, for instance, yet they are both part of the same unit out-of-game. The Seraphim does that in SWTOR (and DCUO a) already, does it not?

Lastly, CW is only one part of the game. You can still use your non-faction mechs all you want in the public and private queues, and that has always been the case. Any justification based upon "we payed for these things so we must be able to use them for that" is a poor one, since this is a role-playing aspect of the game. It would be like your comp team going into MCW and saying "We paid for the Timber Wolf, so you need to let us play it in the tournament".

Sorry, but I hope PGI does not cave on this too. It will be a sad day for all of us long-time BT fans if CW just turns out to be a pretty map and Deathmatch leaderboard.

[VVonka]

Listen to what you are saying though Cimarb, what is the difference in creating a separate in game unit for IS and Clan and having the ability to have a sub unit? The same conflict you mention exists and that does not solve that problem in any way. The only thing it does is create a whole different layer of confusion and a LACK of transparency. Atleast if you allowed sub units you could control it in some way to keep the balance.

Imagine a horde of a less reputable team "sync" dropping as 2 different units and throwing battles. I don't see that as a valid option as long as there is some competitive advantage. If there was a sub unit then you could ensure they would not drop opposite each other.

[Antonius Prime]

That is what I am saying. It would not be a large change to ensure that certain Factions would not help each other. Maybe Kurita would not help FRR defend themselves. They would focus on their own battles. That would be an easy fix.

Are you aware that for most people, the near entirety of their play time will be focused on CW once it comes out? I have a real problem with the fact that I spent $240 on a bunch of Clan mechs that I can only use for the "just playing freestyle, nonconsequential missions" portion of the game. I also have also spent about the same amount on Founders, Phoenix/Reinforcement, and Hero mechs that, should I choose Clan, I can only use in the part of the game that doesn't really matter for anything.

So, I understand the idea of immersion and role playing. That is why I said choose a primary Faction. That is your "actual" Faction. The other is like an NPC Faction that you can play for. You can limit however you want. Certainly you cannot be on both sides of the same battle.

Unless the plan is to integrate Clan and IS tech into both sides. But I'm sure you would agree that doing that would break immersion far more than being able to also play for a sub-Faction. That is why they are keeping the tech separate in the first place. In order to preserve the feel. Yet, they are boosting IS and nerfing Clan tech. Does that not break your RP immersion a bit? The Clans are suddenly not some formidable force that is super scary and seemingly unstoppable?

But I am not complaining about those kind of immersion breakers. Those are PGI just trying to keep the game fun. Well, I am hoping for them to also keep the game optimally profitable.

I just know it isn't like I spent a measly $5 to unlock a skin or character that I cannot use in the main campaign of some adventure game. I have spent hundreds of dollars on mechs I won't be able to make much real use of. And on top of that, I may have to leave a Unit and friends that I like because they are choosing Alliance and I want Horde. That is a whole different ballgame, my friend.

I tried to put it nicely and politely in my first post. I didn't want to sound upset like many other people do. I wanted to offer a nice suggestion. If pushed, though, I will come right out and say it. And why shouldn't I? It is not like I am paying a $15 monthly subscription to get access to the game and from there the game lets me choose either Clan or IS. I specifically paid handsomely for certain mechs and will not be allowed to use them for much of anything.

I say throw immersion to the wolves if it is between preserving immersion vs. preserving my RL investment of large amounts of cold hard cash. But that is not what I am presenting. I am looking at how immersion can be preserved at the same time. And please take note that any Unit who chooses to could elect not to choose a sub-Faction. If you and your Unit want immersion above all, go for it.

Edited by Antonius Prime, 08 October 2014 - 06:30 PM.