Jump to content

- - - - -

Community Warfare Update - Nov 5 - Feedback


117 replies to this topic

#61 Impyrium

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The God
  • The God
  • 2,104 posts
  • LocationSouth Australia

Posted 07 November 2014 - 06:28 PM

View PostDirk Le Daring, on 06 November 2014 - 04:05 PM, said:

I can understand the perceived need for forcing players into a faction.....lack of numbers. But you really should do it differently.

A merc is a merc, contracts are fine, that's what we do. We do NOT align with anyone. I am seriously considering never doing CW. I expect to be a lone wolf working FOR a house/clan, NEVER a member of said faction.

Are there so few players that you must force this upon us ????

Not a happy camper, as I think this issue has been conveniently ignored, yet of concern to a fair number of players.

Please consider an alternative.


Dude. You're not a Merc unless you're currently fighting for a faction. The key word here is 'contract'. He did not say you're a member of a faction. Stop overreacting.

And also, there really ISN'T such a thing as a 'lone wolf' in BattleTech nor CW. I mean, who are you fighting for? The whole point of CW is to show the conflict between said factions. If you're not fighting for of a faction... then... what ARE you doing? :P

The way PGI is handling this is the right way, and really we may as well all be merc groups if we don't choose the permanent option.

#62 Dirk Le Daring

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,083 posts
  • LocationAustralia

Posted 08 November 2014 - 02:20 AM

View PostAUSwarrior24, on 07 November 2014 - 06:28 PM, said:

Dude. You're not a Merc unless you're currently fighting for a faction. The key word here is 'contract'. He did not say you're a member of a faction. Stop overreacting.


Bad logic, a mercenary may fight for ANYONE, there need be no FACTION involves, just a good sum of CBills. It could be a drug lord, or a pirate, even an exiled "noble", it makes no difference, the CBills are all the same. This is where the "contract" is. Yes he did say you would be a member of a faction......You choose a faction !!! It is a disguise, learn to read between the lines.

And it is not overreacting when your chosen path in a game, the one that matches the MERCENARY in the TITLE looks to be eliminated, and you protest that apparent path.

View PostAUSwarrior24, on 07 November 2014 - 06:28 PM, said:

And also, there really ISN'T such a thing as a 'lone wolf' in BattleTech nor CW. I mean, who are you fighting for? The whole point of CW is to show the conflict between said factions. If you're not fighting for of a faction... then... what ARE you doing? :P


There are Lone Wolves everywhere, we outnumber house affiliates by a large percentage I would wager. Here is a thing, I do not care much for the lore, there is nothing to draw me to a house or clan. It would be better if there was something to .......... capture my attention, but there is nothing but house and clan names. This game never got the same as, say D&D.

What am I doing ? ............... Fighting for the almighty CBill !!!!! What else does a mercenary do ???




View PostAUSwarrior24, on 07 November 2014 - 06:28 PM, said:

The way PGI is handling this is the right way, and really we may as well all be merc groups if we don't choose the permanent option.


I do not agree that it is the right way. Why not still be a lone wolf/merc corp, and have a "link" to the house, not be a part of it. Think lone wolf logo with a 1/4 size house/clan logo in the bottom left corner for instance. Even a reduction in loyalty points for not being a house/clan lapdog.

Peace, Brother <S>

I just am not comfortable with this, as PGI has not mentioned a peep about the seemingly impending extinction of the Lone Wolf / Mercenary Corporation.

#63 Red0ubt

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 109 posts
  • LocationNew Zealand

Posted 08 November 2014 - 03:03 AM

Yeah, um nah. What he said regarding the thing. I'm taking dirk's side.

#64 VXJaeger

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Wrath
  • The Wrath
  • 1,582 posts
  • LocationFinland

Posted 08 November 2014 - 03:58 AM

If that ******* hit registration is not fixed and this 100% server autenticated ******* bullshit continues, these challenges and playing overall is useless moneywasting ********.

#65 Johnny Z

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • 9,942 posts
  • LocationDueling on Solaris

Posted 08 November 2014 - 05:42 AM

Great update.

And yes I think every player wants to see some screens of the new maps, the new star map and anything else. :) But I was thinking, is there going to be a new intro or something also?????? New title screen?

LOL lets see some good video or something.



#66 Cimarb

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Caladbolg
  • Caladbolg
  • 3,912 posts
  • Twitter: Link
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationA hop, skip and jump from Terra

Posted 08 November 2014 - 07:31 AM

View PostJagdFlanker, on 07 November 2014 - 06:09 PM, said:

question: my brother is convinced there are 11 sectors to each planet, which means there's only 11 battles per each planet. i think it's unlimited battles per planet and zones exchange hands back and forth until the 24 hours are up, and whomever has the most zones wins/keeps the planet.

Yes, there are only 11 zones per planet, but the battles back and forth for 24-hours is correct, with the majority winner at end.

View PostRed0ubt, on 08 November 2014 - 03:03 AM, said:

Yeah, um nah. What he said regarding the thing. I'm taking dirk's side.

Do not like your own post. It is lame.

#67 AnimeFreak40K

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Defiant
  • The Defiant
  • 455 posts
  • Twitter: Link
  • LocationSomewhere between the State of Confusion and the State of Insanity.

Posted 08 November 2014 - 07:39 AM

View PostPrussian Havoc, on 07 November 2014 - 09:16 AM, said:

IMHO all PGI is looking to implement for us is the next point (a CW point, this time around) on the continuum of development for MWO. And I am just glad to be here to enjoy it.

I would advise not to panic nor to cry Havoc, thus further loosening the Forum Dogs of Disenchantment.

So very many of us have our own "Idealized version of MWO" in mind and lament to all who will listen just how very much separation exists between what PGI bring to us today and what we believe "We Were Promised" or in our wisdom we believe "How it Ought To Be."

We lose sight of the fact that PGI is NOT here to realize for us all our hopes and dreams for a gaming incarnation of BattleTech Lore / Canon. IMHO PGI is in the business of:

1. Staying in Business (Paying Employees, keeping the lights on, maintaining servers, etc.)

2. Herding enough of us Gamers (us "Cats") further down the MWO continuum of development while achieving "acceptable" monetization that will enable number 1 above.


"Herding Cats" (http://youtu.be/Pk7yqlTMvp8) is in all likelihood quite an apt comparison. Just judging from even a quick perusal of these forums our individual "Idealized versions of MWO" conflict on just about every level. From this forum, PGI's efforts to divine MWO Gamer expectations and determine just where we are willing to accept/tolerate monetization are prime examples of the nightmarish balancing acts and feats of diplomacy that PGI must craft on a daily basis and expressed in all its forum threads and posts, tweets and devlogs.




I supremely enjoy MWO. It is an incredible realization of simulated BattleTech Combat. At each point along PGI's continuum of development we are moved incrementally forward toward a more complete and satisfying Gaming experience with increasing trappings from the BattleTech universe. I can be patient as PGI carefully crafts a monetized/viable future for MWO... can you?


This... THIS has been my stance regarding this game since day frikkin' ONE! You, sir (or ma'am) have managed to put my rambling thoughts about pretty much everything in MWO into something coherent and understandable.

#68 Hoax415

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 645 posts

Posted 08 November 2014 - 09:12 AM

I'd really love to talk about population balance issues and fixes. Or ask for more details on time windows, planetary battlefield settings that are in-play, ammo resupply mechanics in invasion mode. I'd very much like to try to get Paul to give us more insight into what is going on with the current crop of maps and Skirmish/Conquest/Assault in CW (crazy to have 100% invasion imho).

Most importantly I'd like to try to induce Paul to respond to questions about using 100% FIFO matchmaking only in CW for all games. Because while I think that CW is no place for strict elo or solo queue games 100% FIFO and that's it is not fun maximizing for anyone and will result in a very small playerbase for CW.

But instead of any of that I feel obligated to try to bore down on "the merc issue" because until that is settled more every one of these threads gets derailed by people crying and crying and crying some more about it. Proof I suppose that people care more about rewards than gameplay.

Lets start with some simple questions:
Q: Are you even allowed to "pick" LNW as a faction for CW? Or is it only Merc and Dagger-Star + The 10 faction-Factions that are available?

Q: Do you even select a faction anymore? Or is it more you're a blank slate as a player and you (or your unit) take a contract of some kind but when it ends you go back to your default/neutral state and need to take another contract before you can fight more?

Q: Assuming some players can still declare they are Merc players and then they take a faction contract on top of their merc status: Do such Merc players have the option of taking a contract with ANY faction (including clans) or only the six IS factions?

Q: What are the penalties if a player leaves their unit while the unit is mid-contract?

Q: What are the penalties if a player signs up for a contract as a solo player and then joins a unit (obviously taking on whatever the unit's contract is).

Ok so there's some basic stuff that we need cleared up badly.

Now lets get into some details. The main "issue" everyone is having so far on the IS side (the clans are having their lore disrespected so often by this system I don't want to get into it) is that "Faction Players" seem to function identically to "Merc Players".

Faction Player: Individually selects Kurita when he joins CW. Joins a Kurita unit on a Kurita 4-month contract.

Merc Player: Individually selects Merc when he joins CW. Joins a "Merc" unit. The Merc unit takes a Kurita 4-month contract.

From there on (according to what we think we know) the two are functionally the same in the game's eyes. They are fighting for exactly the same "motivations" gain Kurita LP, maintain or expand Kurita territory controls, defeat Kurita enemies. In fact I'm led to believe that they would be earning Kurita LP at the exact same rate because they both are on "4-month Kurita contracts" at the unit level.

This I believe is the crux of the issue.

Q: Why is there no "Merc LP" with mercs having their own pool of rewards?

Q: Shouldn't "temporary" contracts only exist for Merc units? I guess I'm saying why would a player who picks Davion as his personal faction and then joins a unit that is made up of Davion players and is a Davion unit even have the option of being on a 2-month contract with Davion?

Q: What are the "high-end" (think impossible to gain unless you are a permanent faction contract player for months) rewards that would differentiate "Faction Player" from Merc player?

Q: What about LP "sinks"? Is there nothing you can "spend" LP on? Because if there isn't, what's the point of fighting for one faction only forever at some point you "max" LP and then you are done?

Q: Faction ranks/skins/flags have been described as being given out to merc players. Then taken away if (like mercs) they go work for someone else later. Are we missing something else mercs get?

Another big "merc issue" is cbills. And the fact that they are never mentioned. Has there been consideration towards making "merc-Faction Contracts" much different from the faction player/unit contracts.

i.e. A merc player fighting for Davion would get a higher cbill bonus but a much lower LP bonus for his time and efforts.

Here is the worst case scenario that I think its all too easy to imagine based off what we know. This post is my attempt to get some answers that will lead us away from worrying about this kind of scenario:

Storied merc unit The XY Mercs who have played for 2 years with the merc icon next to their name has always cared primarily about CW. They join CW -as a merc unit- but in order to participate they must sign on with a faction. Even if they take a 1-month contract with FRR, their in-game icons become FRR, they are rewarded with FRR ranks, FRR skins, FRR colos, FRR mech discounts, FRR cockpit items. Those items are unlocked by gaining FRR LP. At the end of the 1-month because they are so elite they all have high ranking FRR military titles and can make their mechs look like FRR mechs.

If you saw them in-game and they were utilizing the fruits of their labors they don't look like a merc unit at all. They look like a FRR military unit.

RIP Merc life.

I don't think this is how you want CW to be for mercs and I don't think this is how you plan CW to feel or play out for mercs. Can you please tell us why this isn't the way it'll go down?

Thanks for your time and updates, its much appreciated.

Edited by Hoax415, 09 November 2014 - 08:21 AM.


#69 Cimarb

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Caladbolg
  • Caladbolg
  • 3,912 posts
  • Twitter: Link
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationA hop, skip and jump from Terra

Posted 08 November 2014 - 09:53 AM

What Hoax said. I want to know how Loyalist and Merc will be differentiated.

#70 Cimarb

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Caladbolg
  • Caladbolg
  • 3,912 posts
  • Twitter: Link
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationA hop, skip and jump from Terra

Posted 08 November 2014 - 09:57 AM

Also, it is really important for us (CGBI) to know HOW permanent the permanent contract actually is.

For instance, we eventually would like to become the Ghost Bear Dominion (shhh, do not tell the other Clans!...), and because of that, we are probably going to only take long contracts, not permanent, because we do not know what will happen regarding that.

#71 Jarl Dane

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Point Commander
  • Point Commander
  • 1,803 posts
  • Twitter: Link
  • LocationJarnFolk Cluster

Posted 08 November 2014 - 10:02 AM

The planet Alborg in the Jarnfolk cluster in the IS Map does not show its name when zoomed in. Will this be fixed in the new IS map?

#72 Lily from animove

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Devoted
  • The Devoted
  • 13,891 posts
  • LocationOn a dropship to Terra

Posted 08 November 2014 - 06:44 PM

STill the question:

how will grouping work?

will different units pledged to the same faction be able to group up, or does every unit have to create an own group?

#73 OznerpaG

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Bludgeon
  • The Bludgeon
  • 977 posts
  • LocationToronto, Canada

Posted 08 November 2014 - 07:09 PM

if there are multiple planets being contested for every faction every day, it might be an idea to make one or some of them non-group drops only (kind of like CW PUG-only drops). or have a checkbox option to drop in non-group populated drops only

group drops and non-group drops are almost 2 different experiences in PUG - non-group drops would play out more like 'last ditch militia/reserves planet defense' games since it's (generally) less organized

#74 Sudden

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 275 posts
  • LocationK2 cockpit

Posted 08 November 2014 - 07:26 PM

why are clans giving out merc contracts. that is in no way lore based.

#75 Hoax415

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 645 posts

Posted 08 November 2014 - 09:31 PM

View PostLily from animove, on 08 November 2014 - 06:44 PM, said:

STill the question:

how will grouping work?

will different units pledged to the same faction be able to group up, or does every unit have to create an own group?


Go read the updates. This has been explicitly spelled out. Every planet has its own queues for attacking side and defending side. You "select" a planet, that your faction-contract makes you eligible to fight for (either as defender or attacker). You hit drop. From there its all automated First In First Out matching with anyone else hitting drop on the same planet as either attacker or defender whichever it is you are.

The only thing different about CW planetary queues and Public Group Queue is that if you drop in a 4-man group instead of just finding a match and loading the match the MM will put you into <a ui element? maybe the same group screen we see now?> with other groups/solos until a 12-man is formed. Then the actual match finding can start.

View PostJagdFlanker, on 08 November 2014 - 07:09 PM, said:

if there are multiple planets being contested for every faction every day, it might be an idea to make one or some of them non-group drops only (kind of like CW PUG-only drops). or have a checkbox option to drop in non-group populated drops only

group drops and non-group drops are almost 2 different experiences in PUG - non-group drops would play out more like 'last ditch militia/reserves planet defense' games since it's (generally) less organized


It could be done but they clearly have no plans to do it at this time. Also while it sounds like a win-win I think that solo players might be a little bit upset at their second class status if the "solo planets" are always minor and inconsequential type worlds away from the main conflict areas. But if they aren't backwater, unimportant planets everyone who cares about lore/universe/Btech and the units and the comp players will be pissed for being shut out of actually playing "for keeps" in CW.

View PostSudden, on 08 November 2014 - 07:26 PM, said:

why are clans giving out merc contracts. that is in no way lore based.

Because a top3 complaint about CW has always been:
"waaaaa I bought clan packs AND I bought IS hero mechs! I should be allowed to use all my mechs all the time!!!! I won't ever give you money again!"

So the contract system really is mostly about making it clear that anyone can switch from IS to Clan so they can use both sets of mechs if they want to. Hence Clan-contracts. Its just an inelegant solution to a major problem PGI was having.

I personally advocate for a 1-time special account split offer where anyone who wants to can create a 2nd account and migrate all of their clan mechs to that account. Afterall some players with foresight actually created a second account for clan purchases because they knew this was coming but others who didn't know the lore that well did not. I think they deserve a chance to fix that mistake.

Edited by Hoax415, 08 November 2014 - 09:35 PM.


#76 Lily from animove

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Devoted
  • The Devoted
  • 13,891 posts
  • LocationOn a dropship to Terra

Posted 09 November 2014 - 05:07 AM

View PostHoax415, on 08 November 2014 - 09:31 PM, said:


Go read the updates. This has been explicitly spelled out. Every planet has its own queues for attacking side and defending side. You "select" a planet, that your faction-contract makes you eligible to fight for (either as defender or attacker). You hit drop. From there its all automated First In First Out matching with anyone else hitting drop on the same planet as either attacker or defender whichever it is you are.


All we know now is a unit forms a group consising only of its unit and then iis queuing in. the MM will put others in as well. But many want to make groups that are not "unit-only" This was people of small units or even soloplayers will not really be able to go into CW. While it would be easier for them if they cna just join a specific group like a mercenary would be hired by a Unit (instead of a faction). I hardly see sense when the COMMUNITY warfare is dividing the community into units at all and does not allow alliances between units preparing and dropping in groups together.

#77 Hoax415

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 645 posts

Posted 09 November 2014 - 07:39 AM

I think you are inferring restrictions that Paul has not actually said are restrictions.

Quote me where he says you can only form groups with players from your unit. I don't believe that is the case not since the 2nd or 3rd CW update.

#78 Toothless

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Territorial
  • The Territorial
  • 861 posts

Posted 09 November 2014 - 07:41 AM

I've somewhat lost track, when is the release for this and invasion game mode set for this time?

#79 Hoax415

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 645 posts

Posted 09 November 2014 - 08:22 AM

12/16 - 12/23 somewhere in there.

12/21/2014 is the stated goal.

#80 Haroldwolf

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Fury
  • Fury
  • 233 posts
  • LocationKalispell, MT

Posted 09 November 2014 - 04:07 PM

"First, repair and rearm is something we have to be very careful about. We do not want to cause a situation where players lose so many CB through RnR that they can no longer play. We bring this topic back up every 2-3 months and still are looking into a way of bringing it back in a manner that makes sense and is fair to the player."

I dare say there are a number of long time mechwarriors who believe there should be consequences for playing poorly and RnR is one of those mechanisms. Nobody likes playing with a mechwarrior whose style is "Leroy Jenkins". The other side of RnR is a the game needs a way to retire from the field when damage is significant.

If you have read FASA scenarios, and I know you have, playing a scenario in a partially repaired mech was somewhat common.





14 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 14 guests, 0 anonymous users