Community Warfare Queue - How It Works
#81
Posted 14 December 2014 - 05:17 AM
#82
Posted 14 December 2014 - 05:28 AM
Darth Futuza, on 13 December 2014 - 03:28 PM, said:
#83
Posted 14 December 2014 - 05:36 AM
Odanan, on 14 December 2014 - 04:49 AM, said:
Unfortunately, most people are not clever (or bold) enough to do that.
Won one Assault - but we had some one co-ordinating waves so last wave managed to samash through and finish the generator - enjoyed leading the final charge in my Crab
#84
Posted 14 December 2014 - 05:38 AM
Callinicus, on 14 December 2014 - 02:04 AM, said:
This is my very-very first comment on MWO forum, and my english is limited as a Riflemans rear-armor.
So, I really want to try this community warfare, and invasion stuff, but I don't really know how. Where should I click with my mouse, for get into a battle...
I tried to find a tutorial on youtube, but... nothing. :-(
The only thing what I can see and try, is when I see "turtle bay need defense" click on it, than click on "defense", than nothing happens, just a very empty "preparing for drop" menu, with now waiting for team for 20 minutes, with a full empty company list...
I don't understands how this stuff works. :-(
p.s. It's a known bug that other players dont show in the waiting queue.
Edited by Ace Selin, 14 December 2014 - 05:41 AM.
#85
Posted 14 December 2014 - 06:27 AM
#86
Posted 14 December 2014 - 06:56 AM
SuckyJack, on 13 December 2014 - 01:18 PM, said:
Not saying it's being abused or happening right now but I can see this systems causing the outcome of community warfare to not fall at the feet of performance or combat but instead at the feet of population imbalances. Before CW kicked off the factions were supposedly even, how is it after the CW launch?
True. Planetary access should be controlled by ressources not by PGI. Units should have to spend C-Bills or time or whatever, to get to a certain planet. Hopping all over the Sphere at will is utter nonsence. There will never be anything close to the historical development in BT space with this model. No strategy that can be planned in a military way, just game mechanics exploitation. We need jumpship ranges, fuel expenses, somethin like that. Just look at EVE Online and it's 5000+ systems. You are allowed to go where you want, but logical ingame world mechanics limit what you can really do in a given amount of time. Clan units should drop in Stars (making it 10 man groups), then there is no need to nerf their superior technology into the ground. But, they should also have much less access to jumpships/ressources, not allowing them to jump deep into the IS easily (or leave them stranded there). But I guess, this is too much for a simple minded tactical shooter game, that is all about demolishing as much material in a short time as possible.
#87
Posted 14 December 2014 - 06:56 AM
#88
Posted 14 December 2014 - 07:02 AM
Ace Selin, on 14 December 2014 - 05:28 AM, said:
Actually we don't know. PGI never shows any hard numbers. I hope they made their development decisions on hard numbers. That means, most players play 12 man group...still I doubt that. Shafting solos (I prefer solo or small group, and I payed severaö hundred dollars since beta) is not smart. We can't get everything at once from PGI, but I don't get the impression that CW will deliver what many people called for in the end. It's a nice PVP hack'n'slay mode. Capture the hill with a little longer lasting battles. But there is no strategy involved, no deeper gaming experience unless all you want is pew pew. Why not give every planet a combination of 4 (existing and new) maps, and play them as a 4 mission sequence. Then people could fill dropship bays in a tactical way, according to map conditions and mission conditions. Now it's a big hackfest. Ever checked Star Conflict? They have all this and it works very well.
PS: Sub objectives is key. Large maps call for mini mission goals (some optional, some mandatory). Like reactivate that generator on the hill on enemy drop area. Or send a lance into the tunnel system far away fromt he main battle zone to put out a generator, causing a few defending turrets to fail). And it shouldnt be limited to gate/turret generators. There should be a major mission goal, along with 1-3 submission goals. That way both sides can/have to split forces, play dynamically (not the 12 Timber Wolves sit atop gate and shoot everything to pieces) and allow solo drop players to gain some minor achivements even if the battle is lost. This is so narrow minded now, I wonder why the effort of putting up a map with 3000+ planets...
Edited by Allen Ward, 14 December 2014 - 07:07 AM.
#89
Posted 14 December 2014 - 07:20 AM
Marius Gage, on 14 December 2014 - 03:18 AM, said:
There won't be a thing for solos/small groups. According to Russ on twitter us solo players should be happy to play Assault/Skirmish/Conquest forever with no new features or game types or maps or changes.
Never mind that most people, at this point, were playing the "basic" game while waiting for CW. But PGI doesn't care - they made 12 man groups happy, they are going to go on holiday vacation soon (after they pat themselves on the back for a job well done)
#90
Posted 14 December 2014 - 07:52 AM
Ideally, you need to add a variety of missions: that on the one planet had to fight in several sectors, rather than on two cards with the same type of tasks (ideally 10 -11 maps). For example, to destroy the command center, capture the communication transmitter , etc. those orbital gun it would be logical to change to Comstar station. And in the last final battle for the planet was just a battle with defending forces. So to speak, knocking them off the planet after the capture of important nodes.
#91
Posted 14 December 2014 - 08:48 AM
#92
Posted 14 December 2014 - 09:19 AM
#93
Posted 14 December 2014 - 10:15 AM
This game is now showing it's bias for pre-made groups in this system , not mention mixing the pre-mades with PUG's again , do you learn nothing from past mistakes or was this such a rush job it has been poorly implemented as per usual?
I bet it would all be fine and dandy if you had figured out a way of making cash from CW!
#94
Posted 14 December 2014 - 10:42 AM
I'm trying to get back into the game after taking several months off, and was looking to CW to renew my interest enough to justify buying the resistance pack as an xmas gift to myself. No such luck though. I've followed this project since it was just a player name reservation and honestly, every time I think about spending any significant money on MWO, something snaps me back to reality. I can handle a little nerfing and game changes, but will not just sit watching a timer. I'll check back after the holidays and see if things have improved.
#95
Posted 14 December 2014 - 10:44 AM
#96
Posted 14 December 2014 - 10:56 AM
#97
Posted 14 December 2014 - 12:23 PM
#98
Posted 14 December 2014 - 12:38 PM
I now wait 5-7 minutes and try another planet then. The suggested features might help me.
Still I wonder: "First come, first serve" was promised... now I am even pushed BACK in line by bigger groups?
Allow several ques at the same time and let smaller groups fill in the ranks in a waiting time priority - the MM ignores ELO and doesn´t match even sized premades - how hard can it be?
#99
Posted 14 December 2014 - 12:48 PM
I would also have the game dynamically limit the number of contested planets down to where the current player population can support it.
#100
Posted 14 December 2014 - 04:28 PM
Was thrilled to see what the patch was including when I jumped on over the weekend and the map is brilliant.
While I did experience delays waiting for matches, I generally did not wait any longer in a queue than 4 minutes before cancelling and trying a different planet.
The little pop up messages are good to direct your attention to a conflict but I feel that seeing a list of waiting players and groups will greatly assist in getting the matches sorted out.
At the moment, jumping into a queue and having no idea if there are any other players waiting is the biggest drawback so I am excited to see there are some thought processes going on in regards to this aspect.
I would also suggest that the match making ideas should extend back to the single drop battles.
I also wonder if it is worth letting players sort out the match making process themselves. If they can see the groups/players that are waiting in a CW match the gaps can be filled in a FIFO approach. The same can be done in the solo drop matches using a mech weight slot approach.
Players can sort out lance allocations once they are in.
In general, the ability to communicate easily and effectively outside of the matches needs to be looked at so some form of global chat with filters for faction, clan and house would greatly improve things.
Ideally I would love to be able to walk around my dropship and use some in-game console or holographic meeting room with my MechWarrior to facilitate this. Get further immersed into the game.
A layered voip system (lance commanders to each other and another for lance members) would make a huge difference to the in battle experience.
If this needs to be handled with a third party app, then players need better direction to finding these groups and apps from within MWO.
That's a little out of context but something that I feel is fairly significant for the game.
In any case, great to see the game evolve and improve. Hats off to the team for working so hard to make it all happen and I'm looking forward to see what comes next!
8 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 8 guests, 0 anonymous users