164 replies to this topic

[Basilisk222]

Mirkk Defwode, on 26 January 2015 - 11:14 AM, said:

Funny how Firebases in Vietnam and even today continue to operate in areas with the intent of having open sightlines and secured walls. This allows you to clearly see who is coming and if aggressive respond in kind. Admittedly these also get shelled from a great distance.

Spoiler

FOB in Afghanistan receiving airdrop. Earthwork walls, clear sightlines in the desert.


Firebase Kien from Vietnam - Observe clear sightlines to the treeline

And the argument for having dropships goes both ways. If you're in a hole, especially a canyon, having those rocks around can account for the ground being dropped on you. If you're buried in a mountain bringing the mountain down can be challenging, but cutting edges off cliffs? Gimme a drill and some TNT. We've been blasting away edges of cliffs for well over 300 years.

Joseph Mallan made the same observation I just pointed out there. Big falling rocks are a pretty good offensive weapon and don't take much to get them rolling.

Now for digging into the earth, I did say that was a good idea. But I don't see any section of the bases for the CW maps buried or entrenched into the cliffsides around them. There is no underground base to speak of that's accessible to the users on the map. So that's sorta moot unless you see PGI planning to make that whole section behind the gate now underground. (I wouldn't be against that either, but that means a lot more work on their behalf)

The point still stands that constructing a base of such a design doesn't fit for the style of warfare of the technology.

I think really what I was trying to convey is that technology in some facet or another pretty much eventually cores out any benefit of anything at all.

Bunker busters and shells that are 100 tons a piece are going to splatter underground bases, normal bases, and high bases.

Correctly attacking a high base from higher up, or crumbling and burying a low one from higher up, or jumpjetting at the point of least resistance in a base with 360 degree walls and gates.

Ultimately there's a huge flaw no matter where you put your base. unless it's so far underground it's practically useless, and has an enormous amount of exits to prevent sealing exits to kill you off, with many many redundant life systems in place.

It was fun to think about, genuinely.

[Hutijin]

To say it again.... The PUGs go, the game goes. You can try to force guys into groups, but all that will do is piss people off and cause more to quit. If you want the game to die, keep bad-mouthing the casual gamer and act elitiest and you will be playing nothing in a year. You can also say it is not the case... In that regard, here is more rope to hang yourself with... I think a lot of this is so over-thought is getting silly. It's just a game and people get bored, that's why Merc units switch and attack at other areas. It has nothing to do with motives or winning. What happens if all the Clan territory gets taken by the IS? NOTHING. It's like watching a James Bond film.. No matter what, you know he won't die or lose. If either of those happened the franchise would be done. Same thing here. There will be no eventual winner as that is bad for business. FIx the gameplay and embrace the PUGs, or watch the game wither and die... Or stay thinkiing that the Clans will take all the IS space and the game will be over... lol lol lol..

[Ax2Grind]

Hutijin, on 26 January 2015 - 01:54 PM, said:

To say it again.... The PUGs go, the game goes. You can try to force guys into groups, but all that will do is piss people off and cause more to quit. If you want the game to die, keep bad-mouthing the casual gamer and act elitiest and you will be playing nothing in a year. You can also say it is not the case... In that regard, here is more rope to hang yourself with... I think a lot of this is so over-thought is getting silly. It's just a game and people get bored, that's why Merc units switch and attack at other areas. It has nothing to do with motives or winning. What happens if all the Clan territory gets taken by the IS? NOTHING. It's like watching a James Bond film.. No matter what, you know he won't die or lose. If either of those happened the franchise would be done. Same thing here. There will be no eventual winner as that is bad for business. FIx the gameplay and embrace the PUGs, or watch the game wither and die... Or stay thinkiing that the Clans will take all the IS space and the game will be over... lol lol lol..

No one is forcing anyone to do anything. The PUG's are being embraced...but they complain when facing groups. Posts that explain that they have all the same tools are not demands...they are helpful guides. By all means keep playing without VOIP or teammates! Just don't be surprised or angry when you lose!

Edited by Ax2Grind, 26 January 2015 - 04:45 PM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Hutijin, on 26 January 2015 - 01:54 PM, said:

To say it again.... The PUGs go, the game goes. You can try to force guys into groups, but all that will do is piss people off and cause more to quit. If you want the game to die, keep bad-mouthing the casual gamer and act elitiest and you will be playing nothing in a year. You can also say it is not the case... In that regard, here is more rope to hang yourself with... I think a lot of this is so over-thought is getting silly. It's just a game and people get bored, that's why Merc units switch and attack at other areas. It has nothing to do with motives or winning. What happens if all the Clan territory gets taken by the IS? NOTHING. It's like watching a James Bond film.. No matter what, you know he won't die or lose. If either of those happened the franchise would be done. Same thing here. There will be no eventual winner as that is bad for business. FIx the gameplay and embrace the PUGs, or watch the game wither and die... Or stay thinkiing that the Clans will take all the IS space and the game will be over... lol lol lol..

THIS Was said 2 years ago. I don't do threats in real life, why would I in a game?

I'm pretty much a casual gamer, I have a competitive attitude (hence my feelings on threats), but the Open Que is where I go to faff about. That is what it is meant for. I PUG and group drop in CW, when I want a challenge. 1 and 22(with one ghost drop excluded) is proof that CW is a real challenge. Best part is I got my only real win as a PUG. I PUG over 70% of the time in this game. I read a lot of NOOBs demanding 100% easy mode. That will kill the game just as fast as 100% nightmare will.

[Joseph Mallan]

Mystere, on 26 January 2015 - 10:33 AM, said:

I would build it on top of the mountain too. But my orders were to build it down in the valley instead. And while Yamamoto Kansuke had Takeda Shingen as his boss, I have a bureaucrat as one.

And so you have to make the best with what you have.


And which is also why I have suggested PGI to build a base at H11-I12 in Alpine Peaks.

IF I remember where that is... It would be heinous to attack. Smart thinking.

[Mystere]

Hutijin, on 26 January 2015 - 01:54 PM, said:

To say it again.... The PUGs go, the game goes. You can try to force guys into groups, but all that will do is piss people off and cause more to quit. If you want the game to die, keep bad-mouthing the casual gamer and act elitiest and you will be playing nothing in a year. You can also say it is not the case... In that regard, here is more rope to hang yourself with... I think a lot of this is so over-thought is getting silly. It's just a game and people get bored, that's why Merc units switch and attack at other areas. It has nothing to do with motives or winning. What happens if all the Clan territory gets taken by the IS? NOTHING. It's like watching a James Bond film.. No matter what, you know he won't die or lose. If either of those happened the franchise would be done. Same thing here. There will be no eventual winner as that is bad for business. FIx the gameplay and embrace the PUGs, or watch the game wither and die... Or stay thinkiing that the Clans will take all the IS space and the game will be over... lol lol lol..

You are overthinking it too.

We now only have 1 game mode and 2 maps.

Joseph Mallan, on 27 January 2015 - 03:19 AM, said:

THIS Was said 2 years ago. I don't do threats in real life, why would I in a game?

I'm pretty much a casual gamer, I have a competitive attitude (hence my feelings on threats), but the Open Que is where I go to faff about. That is what it is meant for. I PUG and group drop in CW, when I want a challenge. 1 and 22(with one ghost drop excluded) is proof that CW is a real challenge. Best part is I got my only real win as a PUG. I PUG over 70% of the time in this game. I read a lot of NOOBs demanding 100% easy mode. That will kill the game just as fast as 100% nightmare will.

Well, 100% easy mode will kill them game for me.

[Rebas Kradd]

Mystere, on 27 January 2015 - 03:56 AM, said:

Well, 100% easy mode will kill them game for me.

The game may not have a choice.

And it may NEVER have had a choice. CW was always going to come down to this. The appeal of this game just isn't that wide.

[Listronicus]

I spent 35 minutes waiting to drop for one CW match as a PUG. The match was ok, but 35 minutes is time I don't have. I often only get to play a few matches a week. I think if they had drop ships that you could see waiting to drop for a planet and see how many were currently on board it could lead to shorter wait times. Who cares about match balance if you are waiting longer than the match for a game. At the very least if you could chat while waiting it would help kill some of the time.

Also it would be cool to be able to see the history of the map changes.

[DaynarFaol]

Give it a few months. New map the 3rd. More game modes and game types coming.

AGAIN THIS IS BETA. WITH LITTLE OVER A MONTH.

[Livewyr]

Daynar, on 31 January 2015 - 07:29 PM, said:

Give it a few months. New map the 3rd. More game modes and game types coming.

AGAIN THIS IS BETA. WITH LITTLE OVER A MONTH.

A little over a month following a bad track.

Think about this.. a train on a track starts up and has only been going for 5 minutes.. but 10 minutes down the track.. the bridge is out.
Do you:
A- Have the train switch tracks to avoid the problem...
or
B- Say hey: it's only been 5 minutes.. give it time! (I think you know what happens to the train.)

[Basilisk222]

Livewyr, on 31 January 2015 - 08:12 PM, said:

A little over a month following a bad track.

Think about this.. a train on a track starts up and has only been going for 5 minutes.. but 10 minutes down the track.. the bridge is out.
Do you:
A- Have the train switch tracks to avoid the problem...
or
B- Say hey: it's only been 5 minutes.. give it time! (I think you know what happens to the train.)

The entire problem with this is this analogy doesn't work.

Why? because the ultimate destruction of something is forseen in advance. As the conductor, you don't know the train is on the track to doom. But somehow another entity does. That entity is in reality powerless to stop the train, because if it can switch the trains tracks, it can contact the conductor to emergency stop the train.

Also, every single online game has this scenario. No online game can feasibly last forever. There's always a finite track before that bridge.

The scenario here is there is a small, freshly made track between two towns, with several junctions in place but they don't go anywhere yet. Passengers are instructed to ride with caution as the tracks are not prefectly smooth yet, and to please bear with the train company as the tracks are evened out and more junctions begin construction.

At first the fast movement between towns is nice, despite the bumpy jostling ride, but soon you grow irritated, waiting for the discomfort to stop. Loathing the trip after several rides.

Do you A:

Voice your displeasure or suggestions politely every single ride, or make some kind of list indicating where the issues are in the track. But still enjoy the fact your commute is cheap and barebones effective if nothing else, and try to believe it will improve?

Or B:
Swear off the company, boycott the ride, walk there which takes much longer, and complain endlessly despite the company's "excuse our dust" sign and in general do your best to make other riders' experiences worse?

I'd say my scenario much better captures what's going on here. The game isn't headed for an out bridge, it's on very unstable ground, it just needs some improvements and a few more places added to the "destination" list at the station.

[Bloody]

my 2 cents,

the Devs and most of you should take a leaf from Blizzard or King or the countless successful online games and recognise that you the hard core, are a tiny tiny minority. From Blizzard, the spent hundreds of hours, a huge % of their development making awesome hard core end game content. And then realized that the vast majority of their player base never saw it. How many actually saw the hard core content? about 2%. Yes have a good think about it, 2 percent. 98% were all casual players who just did not have the time or the inclination to put the hard yards in. But they pay ALL the bills for Blizzard. All 98% of it..

So to the devs, you really should learn from the best

1. You need a proper chat server for all players login into the game to LFG, organise and have a VOIP client added to your game.

2. You need to put incentive for the 98% to actually play the CW. And that will mean toning down the hard core aspects of waits and having 3 mechs etc etc And the rewards have to be good. Look at what Blizzard did to add value for their players to actually do Battlegrounds. Before that it was not well received or participated. Most just ignored it . Add in unique skins you can earn , add in unique mechs etc

3. The Hardcore will have to settle for some achievements and some self pat on the back. But lets face it, you are not keeping Piranha afloat..

Edited by Bloody, 01 February 2015 - 05:52 AM.

[Livewyr]

Issue is, Kilgorin, that there is a definite bridge out ahead.

There is no real community, in community warfare with this track.
There is a queue, with a nice game mode.

It is entirely player hands off: There is nothing at stake (except maybe RP'er pride)

If they completely did away with the map, and made this a DOS computer script, it would be little different. The planets are chosen for you (if they're chosen at all.. ergo Clan Wolf's recent problem.) Your opponent is random. The efficacy of your "diplomacy" is random. If nobody talked to eachother at all.. the play would be no different.

You still wouldn't get to choose your opponent. You can only choose the faction you fight if you choose one on your "force" because anyone can defend any fellow force faction from the enemy force factions. (say that 10 times fast)
Nobody has any reason to listen to [your unit] at all because there is no real consequence for going against the will of the faction, you cannot do a darned thing about it.

You are quite literally a cog in a machine with no direction and no purpose.

(That's why I get a kick out of factions talking trash. It's kinda like teasing another part of your country for getting bad weather.. you have very little to do with it, and cannot stop it from happening to you at all.)

Edited by Livewyr, 01 February 2015 - 10:06 AM.

[Davers]

Livewyr, on 01 February 2015 - 10:06 AM, said:

Issue is, Kilgorin, that there is a definite bridge out ahead.

There is no real community, in community warfare with this track.
There is a queue, with a nice game mode.

It is entirely player hands off: There is nothing at stake (except maybe RP'er pride)

If they completely did away with the map, and made this a DOS computer script, it would be little different. The planets are chosen for you (if they're chosen at all.. ergo Clan Wolf's recent problem.) Your opponent is random. The efficacy of your "diplomacy" is random. If nobody talked to eachother at all.. the play would be no different.

You still wouldn't get to choose your opponent. You can only choose the faction you fight if you choose one on your "force" because anyone can defend any fellow force faction from the enemy force factions. (say that 10 times fast)
Nobody has any reason to listen to [your unit] at all because there is no real consequence for going against the will of the faction, you cannot do a darned thing about it.

You are quite literally a cog in a machine with no direction and no purpose.

(That's why I get a kick out of factions talking trash. It's kinda like teasing another part of your country for getting bad weather.. you have very little to do with it, and cannot stop it from happening to you at all.)

Well, the trash talk is the players trying to add some context and meaning for the fights, until PGI adds that in. I hope that all the trash talking is in good fun- we are all here to play a game after all. I can see how some might get annoyed when their faction isn't doing well, especially when the reasons are entirely out of their hands. But factions waxing and waning is just another part of the game.

[oldradagast]

Hutijin, on 26 January 2015 - 01:54 PM, said:

To say it again.... The PUGs go, the game goes. You can try to force guys into groups, but all that will do is piss people off and cause more to quit. If you want the game to die, keep bad-mouthing the casual gamer and act elitiest and you will be playing nothing in a year. You can also say it is not the case... In that regard, here is more rope to hang yourself with... I think a lot of this is so over-thought is getting silly. It's just a game and people get bored, that's why Merc units switch and attack at other areas. It has nothing to do with motives or winning. What happens if all the Clan territory gets taken by the IS? NOTHING. It's like watching a James Bond film.. No matter what, you know he won't die or lose. If either of those happened the franchise would be done. Same thing here. There will be no eventual winner as that is bad for business. FIx the gameplay and embrace the PUGs, or watch the game wither and die... Or stay thinkiing that the Clans will take all the IS space and the game will be over... lol lol lol..

There's far too many cheers around here when the PUG's leave, because "we don't need them anyway, mucking up our CW!"

Except they do. If CW was truly able to stand on its own as the "elite mode for real teams," they could just close it off to anyone but large groups... but they can't, because the game lacks the population to do such a thing. So, the reality is that CW NEEDS the PUG's to survive. So, if it needs them, isn't it more than a bit absurd to think that they are going to stick around as cannon-fodder, enduring a game mode designed to suck the fun out of their MWO experience?

MWO is just a game. Nobody "has to": join a team, buy the meta-mechs, get on coms, and so forth. 80%+ play casually - where's the logic in dumping resources on a game mode that is designed to NOT appeal to 80% of your customer base? That's simply bad business.

So, PGI can either give PUG's, casuals, and even newer players some reason to play CW other than to be targets for epeen-polishers, or they can accept the fact that they are pouring money down a rat-hole because the number of CW players will not increase with time - not with the brutal experience new players get in that game mode.

[Evil Ash]

I think if they brought back 8v8 it might solve the problem with not enough people. 12v12 is nice, but it's still cramped as all hell on most maps.

[Davers]

Evil Ash, on 01 February 2015 - 01:00 PM, said:

I think if they brought back 8v8 it might solve the problem with not enough people. 12v12 is nice, but it's still cramped as all hell on most maps.

I think that is why they are adding a 4 vs 4 game mode and VOIP. Asking 12 strangers to coordinate is asking too much, but 4? Much more reasonable.

[oldradagast]

Davers, on 01 February 2015 - 01:07 PM, said:

I think that is why they are adding a 4 vs 4 game mode and VOIP. Asking 12 strangers to coordinate is asking too much, but 4? Much more reasonable.

They could also use this to create themes for the 4 vs. 4

Such as a scouting mission with a very low tonnage limit and a huge map. Or, an "urban brawl" situation, with big, slow mechs smashing each other while trying to complete some sort of objective.

It opens up some options, though I'm not sure if they'll take advantage of that.

[Mystere]

Davers, on 01 February 2015 - 01:07 PM, said:

I think that is why they are adding a 4 vs 4 game mode and VOIP. Asking 12 strangers to coordinate is asking too much, but 4? Much more reasonable.

I can already predict what will happen next:

Mystere, on 27 January 2015 - 04:45 AM, said:

Solo Players: I don't want to be facing any of those evil 4-man premades! PGI, I want a solo-only CW queue nao or I will rage quit!


It will just be history repeating itself.

[Davers]

oldradagast, on 01 February 2015 - 01:18 PM, said:

They could also use this to create themes for the 4 vs. 4

Such as a scouting mission with a very low tonnage limit and a huge map. Or, an "urban brawl" situation, with big, slow mechs smashing each other while trying to complete some sort of objective.

It opens up some options, though I'm not sure if they'll take advantage of that.

I doubt it. At least at first anyway. But I imagine that 4v4 would allow them to recycle the old maps into CW.

Why they haven't tried out the 'different drop weight per planet' thing yet, I don't know. It has the potential to shake up people's drop decks considerably. But maybe they are waiting to have more game modes, with different kinds of objectives. I feel some players would be very mad if they ended up with a 160 MAX tonnage drop with the current state of affairs.