174 replies to this topic

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

EgoSlayer, on 13 October 2014 - 10:49 AM, said:

In either the FAQ's from command chair, or one of the feed back threads, Paul has said the resets are not necessary total resets. It's more for balancing if any one faction is too dominant some adjustments may be made and possibly rolling back some of their gains. It's probably also why Capital planets are not subject to attack so that every faction will always have a home base.
Then with the new season, and this is speculation on my part, the season "win" conditions perhaps adjusted to provide incentive for players to move from that dominant faction to a less represented one.

lol thats totally contrary to what Russ said in this very thread, page 2 that I quoted right up there

Wonder which is the more recent one

Wait; if the capitols cant get attacked (as they did say all we can attack are the border planets in CB) how would you lock down the whole IS?

Edited by Mechwarrior Buddah, 13 October 2014 - 10:55 AM.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Maybe we'll get Russ' insight on how the resets will work; he has been responding more to such speculation lately

I have the feeling we wont see an apology from the guy who incorrectly accused me of lying but thats to be expected because accusing ppl like me of lying is ok even if I wasnt.

Because its not considered impolite if youre accusing someone you dont like

Edited by Mechwarrior Buddah, 13 October 2014 - 11:12 AM.

[CyclonerM]

Were i in Russ i would wait at least a month of CW gameplay before deciding that resets are necessary. As i keep saying, with so many planets and with bonuses for mercs it will be much harder to totally stomp a faction or take the whole IS.

Btw, i like the idea of scenario seasons, but i still hate resets. My idea of CW is a constant war. In the lore, borders are always changing. There is nothing like a god like power that resets everything as it was. Factions get stronger or weaker and then the opposite again.

What i would like to see is the timeline advancing to introduce new events and tech but keeping the gains of each faction.

If the fed suns get focused on by all the factions that hate them, and they get their planets considerably reduced (but not totally stomped), it will stay that way, but the timeline will get , with a jump, to the Great Refusal for an event, and then the civil war era with all the new tech (I would exclude op. Bulldog, we still need some bad guys around) .

[Angel of Annihilation]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 13 October 2014 - 10:50 AM, said:

lol thats totally contrary to what Russ said in this very thread, page 2 that I quoted right up there

Wonder which is the more recent one

Wait; if the capitols cant get attacked (as they did say all we can attack are the border planets in CB) how would you lock down the whole IS?

I have to admit that considering the Battle of Luthien was such an important and pivotal battle during the Clan Invasion, they really need to re-evaluate not being able to take capitols.

[keith]

i gonna go old timer here, well semi. back in NBT we had no resets. only time things got given back was if the lead admins deemed if something too valuable was taken away. only saw that a few times in 5 years of play, mind u there was alot of behind the scene stuff as in lead admin gave X amount of mechs to X faction to help them. resets would make all the hard work a faction do pointless. make it ever X amount of months a unit can switch factions. then watch hell break lose

[Big Tin Man]

Wow, I'm shocked by the amount of 'no season' arguments here. I just need to ask you this question:

Does anyone here think PGI is going to get CW right in the first 3 months of deployment? 6?

How long until all features are rolled out and stable? 12 months from drop?

Resets allow these issues to be fixed, new features get tested and tweaked, etc. And reset doesn't necessarily mean reset to the beginning, if there is some clear dominance happening, they don't have to give all of that back. It could stand as a slow progression (i.e. Clans wipe out the FRR in the first season, FRR only gets 2/3 of their original space back in the next season and the clans retain the rest).

[CyclonerM]

Big Tin Man, on 13 October 2014 - 12:17 PM, said:

Resets allow these issues to be fixed, new features get tested and tweaked, etc. And reset doesn't necessarily mean reset to the beginning, if there is some clear dominance happening, they don't have to give all of that back. It could stand as a slow progression (i.e. Clans wipe out the FRR in the first season, FRR only gets 2/3 of their original space back in the next season and the clans retain the rest).

Did the Poland get back 2/3 of its territory after the german invasion?
To be really honest, i am shocked there are so many pro-seasons arguments
For the sake of not having our fights's results lost, i would not mind to have feature or balance changes during CW without resets.

It would just feel so bad to artificially lose what we gained , both from an immersion and pure gaming point of view. So please neg.

[EgoSlayer]

CyclonerM, on 13 October 2014 - 01:15 PM, said:

Did the Poland get back 2/3 of its territory after the german invasion?
To be really honest, i am shocked there are so many pro-seasons arguments
For the sake of not having our fights's results lost, i would not mind to have feature or balance changes during CW without resets.

It would just feel so bad to artificially lose what we gained , both from an immersion and pure gaming point of view. So please neg.

Except we are talking about a game. And one of the key things for a game is "FUN". If (When) a faction gets wiped out, or nearly wiped out, there are not going to be any people playing that faction and things stagnate because people will jump to the hot/favored side. Until there are only two or one playable faction left. How is that fun?

Edited by EgoSlayer, 13 October 2014 - 01:22 PM.

[Powder Puff Pew Pew]

I'm so sick of PVP! UGH This **** is so boring. Can we introduce something new atleast like PVE?

[Chip Danger]

^no

[Cimarb]

EgoSlayer, on 13 October 2014 - 01:19 PM, said:

Except we are talking about a game. And one of the key things for a game is "FUN". If (When) a faction gets wiped out, or nearly wiped out, there are not going to be any people playing that faction and things stagnate because people will jump to the hot/favored side. Until there are only two or one playable faction left. How is that fun?

I do not think it will be so cut and dry. Just because the top competitive teams are the top does not mean that everyone is in them. We have a lot of reasons to be in the units we are in, and the majority of us are in them even if - and especially in the case of FRR and Liao - they are the underdogs. I do not think that will change hardly at all in CW, and with a little bit of intelligent design, I think PGI can make the system reward the underdogs very easily to balance things out.

Cycloner mentioned some great ideas, and here is one to add to his: as worlds get taken, and a faction starts to get down to the last dozen or so worlds, it takes increasingly more attacks to earn a token. By the time you are at their capitals doorstep, you effectively have to win five attack matches to win a token, while one successful defense takes away a whole token from you. That would make assaulting deep into a faction very difficult.

[Hoax415]

That's a smart "comeback mechanic" and yes we should be wanting comeback mechanics, the key is to create a balance where its rare any one faction just gets rolled with no chance of winning all the way off the map but where the map isn't stagnant because nobody can make actual progress because our "comeback mechanics" are too strong.

But comeback mechanics do not eliminate the need to try to keep populations from getting too imbalanced.

The more we keep populations from being a major factor the more we can let players winning or losing speak for itself.

Edited by Hoax415, 13 October 2014 - 01:45 PM.

[Johnny Z]

This topic is why the guys making this game read the forums. Some great ideas. I hope half of them at least get in game.

[CyclonerM]

EgoSlayer, on 13 October 2014 - 01:19 PM, said:

Except we are talking about a game. And one of the key things for a game is "FUN". If (When) a faction gets wiped out, or nearly wiped out, there are not going to be any people playing that faction and things stagnate because people will jump to the hot/favored side. Until there are only two or one playable faction left. How is that fun?

As Cimarb said, it would hardly happen so easily.

Btw, i would have fun trying to recover the lost space of my faction. An example? I have already mentioned that game, EndWar. Right now, in the persistent war, the USA players only hold Washington (1 territory, compared to 14 of Europe and 26 of Russia..). Well, i hoped i could have a chance to switch faction just for a day (a turn) to feel the thrill of pushing back the invaders from my homeland (something i already did kicking the Russians out of eastern Europe right after i started playing it again ).

However, as i said, a balancing mechanic will be needed. Anyway, there is only so much you can do. Would you reset CW every single time the Clans push too far into the FRR? How can you invade without taking a number of planets?

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

CyclonerM, on 14 October 2014 - 03:47 AM, said:

Anyway, there is only so much you can do. Would you reset CW every single time the Clans push too far into the FRR? How can you invade without taking a number of planets?

Exactly