224 replies to this topic

[Jacob Side]

Yoseful Mallad, on 04 December 2014 - 06:12 AM, said:

WORDS & STUFF...., you will lose all LPs you gained with that unit before you left the unit.

As I recall it. You're not going to lose ALL your LP with a faction, you'll lose some.

[Sprouticus]

A few Q's


1) Will LP's be reset after beta? Same with the IS map, will it reset?
2) Will clan pack holders get similar LP rewards tot he phoenix pack in out (i) mechs? It was never stated but would be a nice gesture.
3) If players are NOT in a unit (lone wolves), can they group with other lone wolves or unit players of the same faction.


On #3-

I would HIGHLY suggest you allow LW's to group up with players in a unit and/or other lone wolves. I know at first glace that may seem to be against the whole LW idea, but in my mind a LW was just someone who didn't want to be part of a unit or merc group.

By letting LW's drop with groups, you make them different than mercs or clan loyalists. That seems like a GOOD thing to me.

Perhaps LW's get no LP, or they get 50% LP. But it allows folks to drop with a unit to see if they like and fit in with the unit without JOINING the unit.

Just a thought.

[Nightmare1]

TheCaptainJZ, on 04 December 2014 - 06:50 AM, said:

Yes, I think it was 2.5% actually.

These should be added in based off the base LP earned just as the bonuses Paul described were. He did make it pretty clear that no bonuses are on top of bonuses but that all calcuations were based off the base LP earned and then added together.

I actually completely forgot that the Prime variants were supposed to have a bonus.

Yeah, I figure it was something like that. Since he didn't say anything about the Phoenix Mechs I was secretly hoping that he might later let the medallions stack.

It makes more sense for it to be off the base amounts though.

[Solkar]

Multiple LP bonuses...

They said they do not stack

NOT THIS - if you earned 100 LP and have a 10% bonus and a 20% bonus you do not earn 100*1.1 = 110, 110*1.2 = 132 LPs.

YES THIS - if you earned 100 LP and have a 10% bonus and a 20% bonus you you earn 100*1.3 = 130 LPs.

[Jacob Side]

Solkar, on 04 December 2014 - 06:57 AM, said:

Multiple LP bonuses...

They said they do not stack

NOT THIS - if you earned 100 LP and have a 10% bonus and a 20% bonus you do not earn 100*1.1 = 110, 110*1.2 = 132 LPs.

YES THIS - if you earned 100 LP and have a 10% bonus and a 20% bonus you you earn 100*1.3 = 130 LPs.

Much better explanation then Paul's

[Hammer Hand]

bar10jim, on 04 December 2014 - 01:05 AM, said:

No. This was addressed in an earlier post. The module is still in the wreakage of the previous mech down on the planet.

I believe you, but that stinks. Will you share what thread that is in so I can red what else I might have missed?

[AlmightyAeng]

Quote

Paul:

LP bonuses do NOT stack with other LP bonuses. All calculations are based of the base amount of LP being rewarded.

I'm sorry...but can you explain how the contract bonus interacts with the Phoenix medallion bonus, then?

So, I'm assuming that a contract for 100 LP on a 14-day duration where I'm using a medallion gets me:

15 for the contract

5? for the medallion

120 total?

Not 5% of the 115.

Do I have that correct? Or will it be either OR...the contract OR a medallion?

Edited by Ghost Badger, 04 December 2014 - 07:12 AM.

[Syrkres]

Concern about the dropship weight.

I am a light pilot, so will almost always chose my 4 mechs as lights. As I am sure there are Assault pilots which feel the same way about assaults.

As individuals it would, I am sure it would be too hard to allow a player to pick 4 assaults, but in a group, that becomes easier.

If the weight limit is 140-240, and I am in a group, why can I not grant my excess tonnage to another player?

Lets say you have 2 players in a group, were allowed upto 240 each or (480). I select my 4 lights, which leaves an excess of 100 tons, which I can then grant to my buddy that I am grouped with, so he can now select 140 to 340.

This should be easy enough to implement and wouldn't gimp groups of players who want to coordinate things.

Any large group will not want each player to bring different mechs, players are good at playing specific roles (chassis). So by forcing them to play non-standard roles in groups seems unfair (making me play how I don't want to) as well as unfair to the group. Oh Syrkres only brought 140 tons, now we are 100 tons under possible enemy...

[AtomCore]

Paul,
have you already made CW economics model? Any plans?

[Kill Dozer]

Cattra Kell, on 04 December 2014 - 05:18 AM, said:

I'll see if I can help out here from how I understood it -
You can only form a group of your own players to drop into the matchmaker with - but the matchmaker will pair you up of other groups of your faction.

So if you have a group of 4 - all 4 players in your group must be in your clan - but you might get in game with 2 other 4 man groups of different units.

Did anyone get anything different out of that? That's how I interpreted it...

Thanks for the explanation.

I hope they change that as we play with several other units outside of Murphy's Law and everyone is hoping to be able to put mixed unit drops together (say a 4 man lance from each unit but all under Steiner). We drop in the group queue like this now (may have 2-4 different units represented in our group queue team).

Most units are small, having to PUG drop a 4 man lance into the CW queue is going to blow.

[Bishop Steiner]

Thanks Paul! can't wait to see the dropships in action!

Viva la CW! In before Winter, so the haters can SUCK IT!

[Joe Mallad]

Solkar, on 04 December 2014 - 06:57 AM, said:

Multiple LP bonuses...

They said they do not stack

NOT THIS - if you earned 100 LP and have a 10% bonus and a 20% bonus you do not earn 100*1.1 = 110, 110*1.2 = 132 LPs.

YES THIS - if you earned 100 LP and have a 10% bonus and a 20% bonus you you earn 100*1.3 = 130 LPs.

ok, i see now

[Joe Mallad]

Syrkres, on 04 December 2014 - 07:11 AM, said:

Concern about the dropship weight.

I am a light pilot, so will almost always chose my 4 mechs as lights. As I am sure there are Assault pilots which feel the same way about assaults.

As individuals it would, I am sure it would be too hard to allow a player to pick 4 assaults, but in a group, that becomes easier.

If the weight limit is 140-240, and I am in a group, why can I not grant my excess tonnage to another player?

Lets say you have 2 players in a group, were allowed upto 240 each or (480). I select my 4 lights, which leaves an excess of 100 tons, which I can then grant to my buddy that I am grouped with, so he can now select 140 to 340.

This should be easy enough to implement and wouldn't gimp groups of players who want to coordinate things.

Any large group will not want each player to bring different mechs, players are good at playing specific roles (chassis). So by forcing them to play non-standard roles in groups seems unfair (making me play how I don't want to) as well as unfair to the group. Oh Syrkres only brought 140 tons, now we are 100 tons under possible enemy...

people are just going to have to get used to it i guess. Its not 100% fair to all but its a whole lot better than the 1-1-1-1 limit they wanted to go with. At least with the tonnage limits, most players can take at least 2 to 3 mech types they want to take. We have guys in my unit that only want to run lights and thats what they are good at. So we are letting them do that while the rest of us figure out who will run what number of other weights classes. I for example, love heavies and most mediums with 1 or 2 assaults ill take here and there. But if the tonnage limit for one planet happens to be the max of 240 and I want to run Assaults... i can still run any 2 Assaults I want and have to find 2 other lighter mechs to run. If some guys LOVES his 100 ton Assaults, guess what... hes only getting 2 and he better learn to run lights too. Because all he is going to have left is 40 tons to work with and still HAS to bring 2 mechs. For the IS right now, that 2 locusts lol.

Also, we as pilots probably need to get used to being good in most mech weight classes or at least a few. Because If i understood Russ correctly in the Town Hall meeting, not all planets will have the same min-max weight tonnage limits. We could attack a planet that "at the time" is only offering a min-max of 140 to 200... or something like 140 to 160 lol. But the max as of right now will go up to 240.

[Steel Scout]

Just reiterating my earlier opinion on contract lengths.

I think you should at least double it. I think double what you have now would be a good happy medium to make adjustments to going forward. Not as long as originally stated but longer than the revised lengths posted now. 7 days just seems to short. 2 weeks is still kinda short but flexible enough to change things up. And if they want to play their other mechs, there is still public queue.

Edited by Steel Scout, 04 December 2014 - 08:59 AM.

[Harrison Kelly]

I'm of the opinion that 240 is too low. Either 240 is too low, or the 4 'Mech restriction needs to go away. As it stands, I'm incredibly underwhelmed with community warfare, because it's going to require that I play chassis or classes that I dislike, or else not play chassis that I do like.

Let's say I wanted to bring my 3 favorite IS chassis: a Highlander, a Catapult, and a Shadow Hawk. This isn't a Steiner scout lance, it's fairly well-balanced. Great, now I have just 30 tons left, and that basically forces me to play a light. Specifically, a Spider which I don't own. I hate playing lights. I never play lights. What this proposal is saying is that community warfare isn't for me.

I've seen proposals that would up the tonnage to the 250-265 range, and feel that would be overall better. Alternately, distribute the tonnage across the group rather than per player so dedicated light players aren't "handicapping" the team. As it stands, 240 tons is simply too low for me to ever play community warfare. The tonnage restricts player choice too much and doesn't suit my preferred roles. It's more important to me that I be able to play roles and chassis that I want (within reason) than to be forced into something I don't enjoy.

I don't have fun playing lights, therefore I will not opt into a mode that forces me to play them.

Edited by Harrison Kelly, 04 December 2014 - 08:37 AM.

[Bigbacon]

Harrison Kelly, on 04 December 2014 - 08:33 AM, said:

I'm of the opinion that 240 is too low. Either 240 is too low, or the 4 'Mech restriction needs to go away. As it stands, I'm incredibly underwhelmed with community warfare, because it's going to require that I play chassis or classes that I dislike, or else not play chassis that I do like.

maybe this is a good thing and you'll find something else you like.

just sucks that non clanner types have no real place in CW. We get the equivalent of the Volkssturm vs organized groups.

just going to cause a big split in the community

Edited by Bigbacon, 04 December 2014 - 09:05 AM.

[Texas Merc]

Can we get this put up on the test server for a few hours ?

[Kirkland Langue]

The only part of this that concerns me is the Grouping rules - I expect that this will lead fewer people to participate in CW.

I can see this example perfectly: Unit is looking to drop into CW with 5-6 people on TS right then. They also happen to have a friend who isn't in the Unit, but often comes onto the TS. That friend would be happy to drop into CW with them, but because of the group mechanic - they aren't allowed - and because the Unit doesn't want to isolate the friend, they may just decide to drop into a public queue with the friend instead of dropping into CW.


If this scenario plays out often enough (which it easily could) - this could end up being a lot of missed opportunities for players to participate. The end result is that the queue for CW could be much slower than desired - further driving people away from CW.

I'm not saying that this mechanic should be changed - but it certainly should be monitored. Simply looking at the number of group drops in public queue which contain players not of the same unit. The greater number of such groups that exist, especially if all members of the group are already under contract with the same Faction, the greater number of groups who might have been willing to drop into CW instead.

[VanillaG]

Paul Inouye, on 03 December 2014 - 11:53 PM, said:

To re-emphasis what has been mentioned before. Community Warfare is primarily directed to role-playing and unit gameplay. It is because of this that groups in CW (Unit Groups) will consist of only players within the same unit. A team can have players from multiple units but groups themselves will only consist of players who are in the same group/faction.

Does the bolded part mean that players not part of unit (Lone Wolf) are allowed to create groups and drop in CW?

As some additional feedback it would cool if you granted LP bonuses for dropping in "faction correct" mechs. For example, dropping in a Timberwolf for Clan Wolf or a Dragon for Kurita would provide a [2.5%] LP boost. Also, when the economic part of CW comes into place adding a similar C-Bill boost would be nice as well.

[Rufus Ingram]

Yoseful Mallad, on 04 December 2014 - 04:59 AM, said:

the LP bonus on the P-mechs and medallions was one of the main selling points for me on that package. If i use one of those mechs and or medallion and i dont get the ADDED bouns for them... Than Im going to be a bit upset! Having these mechs and items with bonuses should stack on any LPs you get IMO.

Not stacking bonuses mean that you don't multiply the percentages one after another, NOT that they don't apply at all.

so 2% bonus plus 30% for contract length =32% from base award or 1.32 x Base Award

NOT

(1.02 x Base Award) x (1.3). In the second case your second bonus compounds the first bonus. It's just like Hero mechs and premium time. Premium time bonus doesn't apply to the amount you get for using a hero mech but you get both.

If only one bonus applied a 10% preimum time bonus to LP would only make sense for people with 7 day contracts because the other contract bonuses are bigger than 10%.

Edited by Rufus Ingram, 04 December 2014 - 09:27 AM.