311 replies to this topic

[Kyrie]

@Paul,

On seeing the examples listed as potential rewards for Loyalty Points, I get the feeling these are all cosmetic-class items with not much additional functionality and certain no additional "power", if you will. There are those of us who greatly enjoyed the role-playing of belonging to House, and miltary-themed rpg elements could greatly enhance this effect.

If I am not mistaken, all the actual "CW abilities" will be governed and controlled through the Unit Management interface and the internal privileges awarded within said unit and will have no relation to what has been earned through Loyalty Points.

When I originally heard about the LP concept, I assumed it was an amalgamation of what Multi-Player Battle Tech by Kesmai referred to as "Rank" and "House Standing". In MPBT, war related privileges were related to Rank. You accumulated rank-points by completing missions, and this process also earned House Standing with the particular House you were fighting for (while lowering standing against the Houses you were fighting against). For example: At rank Tai-i (Captain) you could pilot a Heavy mech and be placed in command of a Unit. At rank Chu-i (Lieutenant) you could be appointed Lance Leader. And so on.

In your reply to Kay Wolf you reject the idea of Faction Management, that is, players directing the Faction. And in that vein it would follow that by rejecting the idea behind players commanding Houses, you can't award privileges based on rank other than the cosmetics of titles and the like. However, have you considered the success of the original MPBT design and the concepts behind the MPBT:3025 that never saw the light of day? The link to my great wall of text on CW is in my signature and the link to the MPBT:3025 design doc is here: http://mwomercs.com/...1513#entry51513

In both my wall of text from 2012 and in the MPBT:3025 design doc there is a comprehensive plan for players running Houses based on the BattleTech canon. I would urge that something along these lines be considered for the future.

[Mackie Ozora]

You said that you are worried about being able to see beyond the match play when doing HALO drops from the dropship. What about the Battletech standard of Drop Pods for the Mechs that split and vanish upon touchdown. Keeps the dropping Mechs from seeing anything outside of the map provided by their sensors. That should minimally solve that issue.

[Cimarb]

Prussian Havoc, on 26 October 2014 - 12:00 AM, said:

IMHO this Clan overmatch is so very much more pronounced in MWO whereas in BattleTech the Clans were significantly less numeric but were able to at least during the initial waves of invasion "consume the Inner Sphere elephant, one bite at a time."

Obviously we are guessing about a lot of this still, since CW has not started "for reals" yet, but I do not think there will be this huge disparity like you are talking about. In the challenge this weekend, I was seeing vastly more IS mechs than Clan mechs the whole time I was dropping solo. In one match, I was seriously the ONLY Clan mech on my team. That is not normal, I admit, but it illustrates my point.

Prussian Havoc, on 26 October 2014 - 12:00 AM, said:

Just look at the upcoming Quirk Pass... to even stand a chance in a Mech on Mech contest for Worlds, the IS needs upwards of 50% performance buffs (just check out the Awesome hero for an example of this upper limit buff.) These quirks along with limiting the number of planets a House or Clan can lose in a given week are just two of the levers PGI has put in place in an attempt to prolong the initial attempt at CW.

They are being balanced against other IS mechs, not Clan mechs. Clan mechs are not even in the equation yet. Tier 1 mechs were untouched, and all the rest of the Tiers were buffed to (hopefully) bring them in line with those Tier 1 mechs. Clans will be next, and be handled in the same way (balanced with each other, not with IS).

Prussian Havoc, on 26 October 2014 - 12:00 AM, said:

A third significant mechanism is PGI's attempt at using Market dynamics to get gamers to quickly and efficiently transition between mismatched combatants. Higher rewards for contracts to losing Houses ect will drive us so far past the "persistent and growing world" you are looking for that the Clans will even need to be able to hire Mercenaries in order to maintain ANY resemblance to a lore-centric (or otherwise) balance between Clans.

Totally agree on the first sentence, and I hope they do a good job with this. Tons of opportunities to make a very good system of dynamic risk/reward combat.

I am not quite sure what you mean by the rest of that paragraph, though - can you expand on that? Why would Clans need to hire mercenaries?

Prussian Havoc, on 26 October 2014 - 12:00 AM, said:

That is why seasons (at least initially) makes sense. Give PGI a chance to run some iterations and look into the resulting game/faction/unit metrics before there is blood in the forums over a "persistent BattleTech Universe."

Does that not appear prudent?

No, not at all. I have no problem with PGI "resetting" if the initial few months get really out of whack, but that is only an emergency situation. As you said in your last quote, hopefully the dynamic nature of contracts will make the underdogs - whoever they may be at the time - lucrative enough that people switch to that faction to help push "the winners" back. A good push/pull between factions is the key to a long and exciting CW.

Logan Hawke, on 26 October 2014 - 08:32 AM, said:

He wasn't talking about leaderboards, he was talking about 'campaigns' giving us a the ability to have truly meaningful decisions and actions. We could have faction specific mechs without it being a problem, we could have true weight behind actions because though they are permanent within the campaign, in 4-6 months a new campaign will begin so it's not permanently restricting like applying the same thing to the 'endless war' would do. It's a way for there to both be hardcore RPing and casual players all enjoying the same mode without it ruining immersion.

And try thinking about them like D&D campaign modules instead of seasons, it's closer to what it would be and it might make you feel less like it's supposed to be 'sooper leet competitive', you know? The name 'season' really doesn't give the right message, just like the name 'player council' gave a different impression from what it was supposed to be

Have you even looked into the player-ran campaigns I have been talking about? MRBC, MCW, and similar campaigns are specifically designed to do EXACTLY what you are wanting to do: rehash the same conflicts over and over and over ad nauseam through "seasons". They have super competitive brackets, as well as "casual" brackets.

Seasons are not the way to do CW, and it does not matter if you call them seasons, campaigns, or whatever. CW is meant to be the roleplaying part of MWO, and that means a persistent universe with minimal (emergency only) resets.

[Sudden]

Kyrie, on 26 October 2014 - 01:32 PM, said:

@Paul,

the link to the MPBT:3025 design doc is here: http://mwomercs.com/...1513#entry51513

In both my wall of text from 2012 and in the MPBT:3025 design doc there is a comprehensive plan for players running Houses based on the BattleTech canon. I would urge that something along these lines be considered for the future.

I copy and pasted that whole page , and send it to them awhile ago. it didn't help.cw will not be as good as mpbt 3025 was.or ever will be I guess.

[RustyBolts]

Moridan, on 24 October 2014 - 03:48 AM, said:

Looking through all of the original post and following Q & A, I didnt see any specific details on how Clan will be balanced Vs IS. It's becoming more and more obvious that in a match, the team with more Clan mechs typically wins. There is just no comparison. I can sit in my IS Heavy and pound on a Clan Medium, trading blows, and 100% of the time I will lose. Can you please address this?

You must be doing something wrong. I have slugged it out with Difewolfs in my Atlas and won. I have slugged it out with Timberwolfs in my Jaeger and won. I have also slugged it out with a stormcrowe in my shadow hawk and won. I wont even bring up how many adders and kitfox I have killed in my Firestarter.

Clan mechs are easy to kill once you know their weaknesses.

[RustyBolts]

Moridan, on 24 October 2014 - 08:38 AM, said:

Every outcome of every match I have playing in over the last couple of weeks has been determined by the number of clan mechs per side. Since my unit is expecting to be playing as IS, we have been practicing a long those lines. And that is with a split on each team. Imagine 12 IS vs 12 Clan...

Funny because my team ran some IS vs Clan just yesterday and the IS won every time. I was in a firestarter and a Centurion. Did pretty damn good.

[The Boz]

So what terrible weakness of a Dire Whale did you exploit in order to beat it with an Atlas 1v1 other than
a) it was damaged or ammo-starved from previous engagements
ii) the pilot is an incompetent spray-happy tardlet who can't focus fire
3) you managed to sneak up to it from behind and opened up on the RT
?

[Mr Blonde]

The Clan mechs are better, but not overwhelmingly so even in canon. It's the pilots that made the difference then, and in this game.

[Dracol]

The Boz, on 27 October 2014 - 03:22 AM, said:

So what terrible weakness of a Dire Whale did you exploit in order to beat it with an Atlas 1v1 other than
a) it was damaged or ammo-starved from previous engagements
ii) the pilot is an incompetent spray-happy tardlet who can't focus fire
3) you managed to sneak up to it from behind and opened up on the RT
?

4) Dakka Direwolf needs to stare down a target in order to deal damage. Atlas can instantly unload Ac/20 & 18SRM at the Direwolf CT then quickly twist, spreading all that dakka around.

Atlas ends up with 1 destroyed side torso and red armor everywhere. DWolf dies with cored CT and yellow armor everywhere else.

Edited by Dracol, 27 October 2014 - 05:29 AM.

[Riordan Lionheart]

What about controlling certain worlds giving bonuses? Like 5% off Atlases and Zueses if your faction controls Hesperus II

[RustyBolts]

Dracol, on 27 October 2014 - 05:27 AM, said:

4) Dakka Direwolf needs to stare down a target in order to deal damage. Atlas can instantly unload Ac/20 & 18SRM at the Direwolf CT then quickly twist, spreading all that dakka around.

Atlas ends up with 1 destroyed side torso and red armor everywhere. DWolf dies with cored CT and yellow armor everywhere else.

Bingo! I would shoot and twist will moving close and lateral. He could not turn as fast and when he did get centered he ate ans AC20 and 3 SRM4s in his CT. I lost my left arm and he died. I have done this to several direwolfs to the point I seek them out and not run from them. Once I close the gap and get him turning he is a deadmech.

[Karpundir]

Jakob Knight, on 25 October 2014 - 08:54 AM, said:

If you want to play Clan, then play Clan. If you want to play Inner Sphere, play Inner Sphere. If you cannot make that decision, then you don't have the commitment to participate in CW, and can/should play in the normal mode of play. Remember, you can jump in and out of CW as you want, so play whichever is your favored Faction when in CW, and the other in normal play. If you are part of a Unit, but you don't want to be on the same side as that Unit, then you probably made a bad choice joining them in the first place and should look for another Unit to join that matches your preferences.

Dracol, on 25 October 2014 - 08:47 AM, said:

As a member of a large group as well, this has come up in discussion for us as well. What CI is looking into is forming a second "Merc Unit" for those who wish to pilot their clan mechs. From reading your posts, this might be a solution for you and your group.

My group has over 80 members with many of us playing together for well over a year, some over 2 years. Our forums have been active with discussion about who wants to go clan vs. IS. Some of the guys have invested in Clan Mechs and want to use them, while others have only a few, if any, Clan Mechs. We also expect our returning players to be forced to go IS, because they don't have the 'Mechs or cash to get into Clan Mechs right away. The last thing they want to do is grind weeks on end when CW hits.

We also discussed making a secondary team for the alternate faction, but are concerned about creating a divide anyway, where the merc corp just gets split into 2 teams operating independently from each other.

I have invested a LOT of time in running and building QQ Mercs into what it is today and I will be damned to see any of my gaming friends go because PGI decided that it wouldn't give merc corps the option to take contracts from both sides simultaneously. Let the merc corps decide which contracts they want to take and suffer the LP losses as they see fit. That is the true nature of a mercenary, anyway. They go for the contracts that best suit their needs for that given day. To be locked into a month with a particular faction or house seems counter-intuitive to the definition of a merc corp. Mercs should at least be able to break contract and switch their affiliation, should the faction not be the right fit for the merc corp or a better contract presents itself. That would actually be fitting for lore.

[CyclonerM]

I understand, but what would not fitting for lore is mercs working for any Clan..

[Cimarb]

I am too lazy to look it up, but I am pretty sure that Paul or Russ said that you would be able to break contracts early, with serious penalties. I do think that is a good idea.

I also think that mercs using Clan tech is horrible. I understand the reason for it, I do, but it should be worked some other way that is at least a little lore-friendly. Call them Dagger Stars like we already have. No need to make a distinction between Clan Lone Wolves and Clan Mercs, as they are the same thing.

[Kageru Ikazuchi]

In the most recent NGNG podcast, Karl Berg stated that there would be "no match making for CW", which concerns me.

If a top tier unit initiates an assault, will anyone answer the call?

One possible option would be that the rewards for a defense could be related to the average Elo of the group that is conducting the assault ... the higher the risk, the more the reward.

[Belorion]

Kageru Ikazuchi, on 27 October 2014 - 04:56 PM, said:

In the most recent NGNG podcast, Karl Berg stated that there would be "no match making for CW", which concerns me.

If a top tier unit initiates an assault, will anyone answer the call?

Would they answer if there was match making?

Seriously I don't see how they could have matchmaking in CW.

[Hoax415]

Karpundir, on 27 October 2014 - 02:11 PM, said:

[/size]
[/size]

My group has over 80 members with many of us playing together for well over a year, some over 2 years. Our forums have been active with discussion about who wants to go clan vs. IS. Some of the guys have invested in Clan Mechs and want to use them, while others have only a few, if any, Clan Mechs. We also expect our returning players to be forced to go IS, because they don't have the 'Mechs or cash to get into Clan Mechs right away. The last thing they want to do is grind weeks on end when CW hits.

We also discussed making a secondary team for the alternate faction, but are concerned about creating a divide anyway, where the merc corp just gets split into 2 teams operating independently from each other.

I have invested a LOT of time in running and building QQ Mercs into what it is today and I will be damned to see any of my gaming friends go because PGI decided that it wouldn't give merc corps the option to take contracts from both sides simultaneously. Let the merc corps decide which contracts they want to take and suffer the LP losses as they see fit. That is the true nature of a mercenary, anyway. They go for the contracts that best suit their needs for that given day. To be locked into a month with a particular faction or house seems counter-intuitive to the definition of a merc corp. Mercs should at least be able to break contract and switch their affiliation, should the faction not be the right fit for the merc corp or a better contract presents itself. That would actually be fitting for lore.

1. Don't appeal to the lore when you are demanding that mercs be able to take clan contracts. The lore is already left almost entirely for dead to give players as much freedom as possible without making the matches in CW seem exactly the same as any other match.

2. Until we know what it means to switch units after CW has launched there is no reason to say that making a QQ Mercs Clan Division doesn't solve your problems. You have enough players that a split won't create two units too small to function. All you guys can still meet up in TS or whatever and hang and talk and group queue drop together.

You know why your complaint is ridiculous? Because there is no way that guys using clan mechs and guys using IS mechs get to be on the same team. So one unit doesn't get to use both types. Ever. Period. Even if you were "allowed" to take multiple contracts or 1-hour contracts or whatever.

So your guys won't all get to use their clan mechs and IS mechs AND play all together. Its not happening and nobody should have ever had the impression it would work that way without just blindly believing what they wanted to believe.

Edited by Hoax415, 27 October 2014 - 07:19 PM.

[CyclonerM]

Hoax415, on 27 October 2014 - 07:19 PM, said:

1. Don't appeal to the lore when you are demanding that mercs be able to take clan contracts. The lore is already left almost entirely for dead to give players as much freedom as possible without making the matches in CW seem exactly the same as any other match.

Just because lore has been left too much out of the game, should we not fight to have more of the awesome background in MWO?

[DeRazer]

Prussian Havoc, on 25 October 2014 - 05:59 PM, said:

(I just hope my small unit gains a single token to call its own! If there were some ingame way for PGI to make these tokens persist in a small but meaningful fashion... maybe like Battle Streamers on the guidons/flags of real-world units. In MWO it might only ever be a line of text under a tab of the Faction page but if these wins/tokens could end up being represented on individual unit Faction pages, that would be something that smaller / micro units could hang their hats on, when the 100+ gamer units claim planet after planet.)

This!

My small unit of just pals stand no chance of every getting a planet tag - it would be ridiculous to even think that the six of us could win enough tokens to do that.

BUT! I want my medals and ribbons - for "Service to House Steiner in the Defence of Planet Booger", "For Heroic Actions [>10 kills] in the Assault of X." That's the kind of stuff that is so easy to program but so rewarding to the players - and you can hinge unit management off it.

Link it to Loyalty Points - every LP is earned for something - ribbons and medals just gives those "Somethings" a name.

[pyrocomp]

If to get back to initial topic in the first post AND to the questions voiced above about rewards for capturing planets and so on... More questions arise.
1. Should switching loyalty to another House automatically mean losing loyalty point with the previous House? Wolf's Dragoons did exactly that switching and kept loyalties. May that be that switching loyalty and NOT participationg in hostile actions towards previous House NOT lead to loosing respective LPs?
2. Will the fight in CW go for the planet of for some objects in the system few 'tokens' each step by step (which will mean prolonged fight for few weekends)?
3. Wouldn't winning a system mean that for some time that system will remain untouched? Say the time for virtual shuttles to retreat, jumpships to jump from the system, get reinfocments and so on, so on, so on along the lines of this Universe?
4. Shouldn't the commanders or individuals with highest LPs for the Faction have an opinion on what to attack next (even via simple mail query to select from list)? Some personal reward and goal afterall.
5. Will there be tags/tabs/banners/ComStar records/honorifix/what-ever-memento-to-brag-about-over-forum/etc for all actively participated (mot a single drop, some variable threshold) units or individuals?
6. Will there be assaults/defendings against raiders (I think there is no 'Pirates' faction) on random occasions?