164 replies to this topic

[R Razor]

You haven't seen grind until you have played WOT........that said, WOT is more fun to play than what this game has devolved in to. Haven't played in over 2 weeks and haven't missed it one bit. Check in here occasionally just to see if anything has improved but pretty sure that's just a pipe dream at this point.

Check again after the next patch.

[Joseph Mallan]

I cannot see why it is on Life support.

I played 3 games in under 3 hours.

Played against the Falcons and was soundly beaten. We were teh attackers yet we defended. It was a good game and I was interested in seeing how we lost. It was a combo of us not communicating and the Falcon's coordination. Good game.

Second game was against mostly Smoke Jags (no more than 3 PUGs) Defended We lost 42-48 Damn good fight. I'd like a rematch any day!

Third Match I/we faced a mostly Wolf team (4-5 PUGs). Man What a fight! We were the defenders, It was a back and forth battle. We won (my first REAL CW win) 44-47. That's we held off teh attack the full time.

Wait time felt shorter than the first week of CW.

The Matches were well fought, even the Jade Falcon's roll of us was impressive to watch. I want exactly this kind of fighting, never knowing what I will face team wise, but would like to know the force I will (likely) be facing on a drop. BUT Still willing to see a surprise special guest on occasion.

Fun Fact, the last drop got me my only point for the Challenge this weekend. Well not fun as in cool but still fun as in interesting.

[bobF]

Joseph, the perception might be skewed for pilots like us because we already did the work to plug ourselves into an active network of players. We can go to some TS servers, find a 12 man, and drop against other players in units doing the same thing. Last two nights have been a BLAST for me, constant battles, and of course the forum fallout (hey, hear anything about what's going on up here?...).

Casuals need to be eased into units, assuming they are even interested. Given what some have estimated this game's population to be, including casuals in CW, by whatever method, would see an insane amount of activity in queues compared to what we're currently used to.

The biggest contrast in my mind is comparing the activity of fronts with what we had at the first week of CW.

[hybrid black]

bobF, on 22 January 2015 - 11:21 AM, said:

This is a serious post.

All this glorious warfare, politicking, smacktalking, merc betrayal, merc loyalism, pug stomping, actual ggclose 12man fights and fun in TS seems like it's coming to a close.

Dunno about you guys, but the game seems to be driving everyone off, leaving a few pugs for stomping, but mostly 12 mans (or assorted units on comms) to ghost drop on attack or wait for the new Last 15 Minute Defense to keep planets from flipping.

It's gotten so bad that both factions and mercs are coalescing into a system of cease fires and known allies, just so there's a concentration of forces to have some combat.

There are two important realities that everyone needs to absorb, and internalize: 1) pugs make the world go round. Every PvP game is mostly pugs. Every GAME is mostly casual players. While I will agree 9000% with some of you that these scrubs should just git gud, the reality is that people just want to play a video game on medium difficulty, and not be frustrated getting curbstomped every match. 2) PvP is competition, and someone has to lose. Just as I spoke to my fellow elite neckbeards in point 1, I now address all casual players. You're not going to always win, even if you were dropped into a perfectly balanced match. Learn to love the struggle and ultimate satisfaction of getting good at something. Reach out to those neckbeards for pro tips, or to become part of their unit. I promise you won't regret it.

Those two things being said, the following NEEDS to be done to save CW:

1) THIS IS THE #1, NUMERO UNO HIGHEST PRIORITY: PGI, in order for your factional groups to come to real fruition, the game NEEDS CHAT LOBBYS. All these casual players could immediately be brought up to speed in like 5mins having a simple chat convo with a helpful vet. TS info could be readily spammed on these chat channels. Groups coordinated. Etc. PGI, this is a must-have, mission-critical feature for building community.

2) the pug queue HAS to be integrated into CW. Sorry elite 12 mans, casuals make the game and to deny them participation because they can't come with 12 for instant queues (or, turret killing as it's been of late) is foolhardy. The game is doomed without effective integration of casuals. PGI, there are a ton of threads all over with excellent ideas on how to implement this. The most straightforward way is to adjust the % needed to cap a planet higher, then have a "CW" option for the general queue that contributes to the cap of some planet; you could have CW and include all the normal game modes, ELO separation and fast queues everyone currently enjoys.

3) 12 mans, big units, and major community contributors need mechanics to choose their own destiny. Sorry casuals, but there needs to be a high level of competitive play, and that play should be rewarded with being the biggest contributing factor to map movement. Factions need ways to choose their own attack lanes, keep track of alliances and enemies, current merc employment, and other fun battle metrics. Otherwise, we would all just switch to the CW mode proposed in point 2, because of fast matches. Which neatly brings me to point number...

4) Participation in CW needs to be encouraged by the things that alter player behavior. Make a c-bill bonus for 12man faction groups that have at least 4 different units, a "pug" bonus of sorts, to encourage pugs to queue for CW. Make LP do something useful. Make unit coffers do something useful (like act as a unit bank, that unit players may withdraw funds from, with permissions admin'd by unit leadership). Give direct unit coffer rewards from factions, in addition to personal reward. Get that LP reward system in place, pugs love new mechbays, cockpit items, mechs, equipment, etc. There are many methods to get the masses into the game mode.

Yeah I know, why don't you guys get this done yesterday, right? I'm not ignorant to the work needed to make the above a reality, but just consider a moment what you're working on now, as requested by players (i.e. stupid **** like urbanmechs and in-game voip) versus what your game NEEDS to grow and thrive. Re-prioritize appropriately. CW has given you guys the opportunity to actually exist as long as you plan to, don't waste it.

1) It’s coming and has been said a few times

2) ELO is bad maybe for scrubs it has fast que times, But good players wait for ever and this is still unacceptable, also all you will get is large units solo dropping on planets getting 6+ players per game and the same **** will go down making it a waste of time for PGI to put resources into doing this when there is more that needs to be worked on.

3) This has merit other than your reference to your atrocious plan 2

4) Someone once said give solo players an extra 100k cbills win or lose I think that would go a long way to help pugs with other things like a reason to stay with one faction

Your paragraph shows how much you’re in your own world here on what has been going (i.e. stupid **** like urbanmechs and in-game voip) lines like this show you have no clue what the hell is going on, the urbanmech is not even been in development yet, that is the point of the presale to really see who would pay for this mech so the “community” just told PGI they want also there are different people working on mechs then CW it so your point is irrelevant.

edit to add

Edited by hybrid black, 25 January 2015 - 10:56 AM.

[Davers]

bobF, on 25 January 2015 - 12:20 PM, said:

I have bolded the portion I believe is the source of your butthurt. Do I think PGI should divert resources into what will make the game better, instead of ridiculous little demands because you're a chump for internet memes, mass psychology, and pathetic gamer hipsterism? Yes I do.

Do I think a tiny minority of comp players (or players who think they are comp players) need to accommodate and accept the fact that they don't have a game to play without casuals, who make up the vast majority in all games everywhere? Yes I do.

Finally, given where and who I've been dropping with the past two evenings, do I believe wild, tear-spiced salmon is better than penned, pug farmed salmon? Yes I do.

I think there will be an increased interest in CW with all the new developments in almost every theatre of conflict. Sometimes drama is a good thing!

[DaynarFaol]

I will say it again.

ONE MONTH OLD.

They have stated time and time again new game modes are in the works. New maps are in the works.

CW is ONE MONTH OLD.
Give it some time before saying it is dead.

It is in BETA and is only a little over ONE MONTH OLD If we were at this point six months down the road I would agree with the decanting voices, but one month old is ONE MONTH OLD PEOPLE.

So stop. And be patience. I am sorry that your instant need for gratification and hyper entitlement does not allow people to actually WAIT AND SEE WHAT WILL HAPPEN AS THEY GET FARTHER IN THE DEVELOPMENT CYCLE.

Go back to the last two Town Halls.

[Fleeb the Mad]

It's better to identify and address problems early in the cycle, Daynar, rather than let them wreck the public impression of CW like the dragged-out beta process has for MWO in general. Changes need to happen fast and frequently to shake out the bugs.

For the overall thread, playing in the group queue for some hours yesterday highlighted a general dirth of pubbie players, even though it's supposedly much improved since the CW launch drawing units away. As far as I can tell, casual pubbie groups have largely disappeared from MWO.Your groups of 2-3 buddies who just want to play together and blow stuff up without the need to get invested in units and the like.

There's a glaring gap in perspective with people who regularly play in groups, particularly in units.It doesn't actually matter if you offer the broader casual group a unit or a TS to try and mitigate the fact that the competition is lopsided. Most of them don't want to be stuck in a unit TS largely dominated by people they don't or barely know, where they can't BS with their buddies. It's a bother, particularly if they don't play regularly. Offering to 'bring the casuals up' is the wrong approach, at least if the objective is to bring more people in. A lot of pubblie players simply don't enjoy playing things that seriously.

Casuals by definition aren't terribly attached to the game. The more effort is required to participate in something like CW, the more likely they'll just wander off and spend time doing something else. Casuals have to be able to easily drop into something, and also have fun doing it without many prerequisites.

I can tell you I've had some recent adventures with a bunch of old beta players that have been away from the game for ages, and the current experience with groups drives them away in frustration. Playing in small groups isn't any fun, and they just leave in frustration after a few curbstomps. They're not lining up to find a unit. The effort required to get good games out of it has been deemed not worth it.

That's the problem that needs to be addressed more than anything.

[Acheron Blade]

So, I figured I would give CW one last try to see if things had improved any after grinding out my cataphract. Boy was that a mistake. PUG group drops against one of the big units with 8-10 folks from their unit. It was a total thrashing. But in addition to that, the pugs had to listen to two guys from their unit making jokes about lube/****/fapping talk at the beginning of the match. Classy. No one except me actually even cracked 800 damage, as they just camped our base spawns and wiped the pugs 47-10.

Like others I am done with CW until they pull out the large teams and stick them in their own queue. Shame really...PGI should have known better. Three of my friends that used to play have stopped playing MWO completely due to similar experiences, and I definitely would not recommend anyone new going in there either. Lots of bad behavior going on now in CW.

[Davers]

Acheron Blade, on 25 January 2015 - 04:58 PM, said:

So, I figured I would give CW one last try to see if things had improved any after grinding out my cataphract. Boy was that a mistake. PUG group drops against one of the big units with 8-10 folks from their unit. It was a total thrashing. But in addition to that, the pugs had to listen to two guys from their unit making jokes about lube/****/fapping talk at the beginning of the match. Classy. No one except me actually even cracked 800 damage, as they just camped our base spawns and wiped the pugs 47-10.

Like others I am done with CW until they pull out the large teams and stick them in their own queue. Shame really...PGI should have known better. Three of my friends that used to play have stopped playing MWO completely due to similar experiences, and I definitely would not recommend anyone new going in there either. Lots of bad behavior going on now in CW.

What border did you drop on, if I may ask? You might have more success dropping on an actual Davion border, rather than a Clan border for instance.

[Acheron Blade]

Davers, on 25 January 2015 - 05:00 PM, said:

What border did you drop on, if I may ask? You might have more success dropping on an actual Davion border, rather than a Clan border for instance.

It was in fact on the clan border...honestly though just about every big unit I have ever dropped against, whether clan or IS (or both because it seems like they just end up jumping factions every week) have been really poor sports/rude/vulgar. I know I am generalizing, and I'm sure there are good people/units out there, but it's just not worth the effort at this point. This whole thing just leaves a really bad taste in my mouth, and I'm not sure I want to give it another go at this point. I'm going to go play some other games I got on sale from steam for now. When I feel like coming back to MWO, it's purely solo queue going forward. Thanks for the suggestion though.

[Davers]

Acheron Blade, on 25 January 2015 - 05:10 PM, said:

It was in fact on the clan border...honestly though just about every big unit I have ever dropped against, whether clan or IS (or both because it seems like they just end up jumping factions every week) have been really poor sports/rude/vulgar. I know I am generalizing, and I'm sure there are good people/units out there, but it's just not worth the effort at this point. This whole thing just leaves a really bad taste in my mouth, and I'm not sure I want to give it another go at this point. I'm going to go play some other games I got on sale from steam for now. When I feel like coming back to MWO, it's purely solo queue going forward. Thanks for the suggestion though.

I know the Clan border is no fun for pugs. Sorry to see you go.

[DaynarFaol]

Fleeb the Mad, on 25 January 2015 - 04:24 PM, said:

It's better to identify and address problems early in the cycle, Daynar, rather than let them wreck the public impression of CW like the dragged-out beta process has for MWO in general. Changes need to happen fast and frequently to shake out the bugs.

For the overall thread, playing in the group queue for some hours yesterday highlighted a general dirth of pubbie players, even though it's supposedly much improved since the CW launch drawing units away. As far as I can tell, casual pubbie groups have largely disappeared from MWO.Your groups of 2-3 buddies who just want to play together and blow stuff up without the need to get invested in units and the like.

There's a glaring gap in perspective with people who regularly play in groups, particularly in units.It doesn't actually matter if you offer the broader casual group a unit or a TS to try and mitigate the fact that the competition is lopsided. Most of them don't want to be stuck in a unit TS largely dominated by people they don't or barely know, where they can't BS with their buddies. It's a bother, particularly if they don't play regularly. Offering to 'bring the casuals up' is the wrong approach, at least if the objective is to bring more people in. A lot of pubblie players simply don't enjoy playing things that seriously.

Casuals by definition aren't terribly attached to the game. The more effort is required to participate in something like CW, the more likely they'll just wander off and spend time doing something else. Casuals have to be able to easily drop into something, and also have fun doing it without many prerequisites.

I can tell you I've had some recent adventures with a bunch of old beta players that have been away from the game for ages, and the current experience with groups drives them away in frustration. Playing in small groups isn't any fun, and they just leave in frustration after a few curbstomps. They're not lining up to find a unit. The effort required to get good games out of it has been deemed not worth it.

That's the problem that needs to be addressed more than anything.

And if people would listen the Town Halls and read the dev notes most of the issues are being worked on.

4vs4 is going to be a thing.

So is 8vs8

AND PvE.

So down the road it will not be PUGs getting stomped by 12 mans. It will be a whole range of options for EVERYONE to play in CW. Invasion is the foundation and will more then likely be the core to CW.

It is going to time for them to get the rest of the stuff online.

THAT IS MY POINT.

Everyone is throwing a fit over what we have right this moment in a BETA. When the devs keep saying over and over that more content designed for a WIDER player base is in the works.

Yet few in this thread are willing to wait until more of that content becomes available.

All of the above IS COMING. Just not tomorrow or next month. Some of it will be here this year. The rest next.

One month old and NO ONE IS LISTENING TO THE DEVS.

If people would actually pay attention to what has been said in the Town Halls and elsewhere this thread would not have been even started.

Eventually people will be able to drop in CW as smaller groups, or not even fight other people if that is the zen that got going that day.

Counter-Attack update is slated for the 3rd. So two game modes.

So is a new map with a whole new tactical level.

Again if this was all we had 6 months down the road I would be right there with you all.

But one month is NOT ENOUGH TIME TO BUILD ALL THE NEW CONTENT THAT IS PLANNED.

I have said it over and over in this thread.

New content is coming.

It is just going to take time.

Yet few people have acknowledged that.

Or seem to pay any bit of attention to what is planned.

Yes plans will change, but right now that is what has been stated over and over by PGI.

CW will be focused on the 12 Mans, but it wont be just about them.

Down the road. So take a breath, step back, ignore the idiot trolls that are trying to push peoples buttons and succeeding in some cases and wait a few more months.

If we don't see at least the 8vs8 being close to release by June I will be right there with you bitching.

[Heisenbug]

Dawnstealer, on 22 January 2015 - 11:42 AM, said:

They need to dump the idea of having only the last matches before the window closes count. It's a bad idea. Just have it be an overall percentage of victories and defeats. You fight and win 51% of the battles for a planet, you win it. If that's two battles out of three, or 1,501 out of 3,000, that's it: straight percentage.

^^!

[Mirkk Defwode]

Mystere, on 23 January 2015 - 07:25 PM, said:

...
If I were designing a fortress, that is exactly how I would do it. So to me, it is not "broken". It is by design. Isn't it funny how that works?

If I were building a Fortress in the age of Airborne drops, I'd be building it on the high ground not in a box Canyon. It yields better sightlines and avenues of fire while limiting the effectiveness of cover approaching...

Funny they did that in the age of swords and Archery too for very similar reasons.

Typically building back into a wall like that unless you're digging out the mountain side and the majority of the base being inside the security of that much stone is a bad thing. If this were real warfare, why not drop troops to either side on the mountain top and shoot down into the base in that little canyon? There is no protection from assault up there.

[Joseph Mallan]

Mystere, on 23 January 2015 - 07:25 PM, said:

If I were designing a fortress, that is exactly how I would do it. So to me, it is not "broken". It is by design. Isn't it funny how that works?

And if I were attacking the Fort... I'd do it from on top of the wall behind it, dropping boulders and causing an avalanche.

[Mystere]

Mirkk Defwode, on 26 January 2015 - 10:07 AM, said:

If I were building a Fortress in the age of Airborne drops, I'd be building it on the high ground not in a box Canyon. It yields better sightlines and avenues of fire while limiting the effectiveness of cover approaching...

Funny they did that in the age of swords and Archery too for very similar reasons.

Typically building back into a wall like that unless you're digging out the mountain side and the majority of the base being inside the security of that much stone is a bad thing. If this were real warfare, why not drop troops to either side on the mountain top and shoot down into the base in that little canyon? There is no protection from assault up there.

Joseph Mallan, on 26 January 2015 - 10:28 AM, said:

And if I were attacking the Fort... I'd do it from on top of the wall behind it, dropping boulders and causing an avalanche.

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.

Edited by Mystere, 26 January 2015 - 10:36 AM.

[Basilisk222]

Mirkk Defwode, on 26 January 2015 - 10:07 AM, said:

If I were building a Fortress in the age of Airborne drops, I'd be building it on the high ground not in a box Canyon. It yields better sightlines and avenues of fire while limiting the effectiveness of cover approaching...

Funny they did that in the age of swords and Archery too for very similar reasons.

Typically building back into a wall like that unless you're digging out the mountain side and the majority of the base being inside the security of that much stone is a bad thing. If this were real warfare, why not drop troops to either side on the mountain top and shoot down into the base in that little canyon? There is no protection from assault up there.

problems:

It may lead to better sightlines for you, but it ALSO leads to better sightlines for them. Unless you're much better armed, and have much better range, your fortress will be visible by artillery, planes, helicopters, long range tanks, mechs, and power armor. Power Armor will have difficulty charging, but you will likely take intense damage from air strikes and artillery due to your position In addition a 2 mile long ship in orbit can rain all kinds of doom on your fortress with pretty clear shots. (each shot is literally 100 tons) Dat's gonna do some damage.

Medieval times didn't have to worry about dropships, planes and helicopters, and especially bombers. So the sightlines gave them better range over their adversaries due to height since gravity is a thing. Jump jets on power armor (yes that's a thing) would drastically change advantages for height.

Digging back into a wall with strong forces will allow the main base to actually be under a lot of solid earth, which means the enemy either has to push into a funnel, which will always result in high losses, or drop special ammunition to hit the base under a lot of stone. (which can be done but it's harder to do that than hit a building on a mountain)

It's not to say that you shouldn't go for sightlines, but why do you even need them? Unmanned scouts and recon vehicles are available, it's not like you won't know where your opponent is. Radar, and sonar as well. Thermal detection, all of these make sight lines and height advantage much less relevant. But most of all, lasers don't care about gravity, their range is their range no matter what. A large laser can hit at it's max range and the same laser can do the same, which negates height advantage entirely. Maybe you could argue you can see better, but again, seeing better than an opponent with a UAV in the air is sort of irrelevant.

Was fun to think about though.

[Mirkk Defwode]

Kilgorin Strom, on 26 January 2015 - 10:34 AM, said:

problems:

It may lead to better sightlines for you, but it ALSO leads to better sightlines for them. Unless you're much better armed, and have much better range, your fortress will be visible by artillery, planes, helicopters, long range tanks, mechs, and power armor. Power Armor will have difficulty charging, but you will likely take intense damage from air strikes and artillery due to your position In addition a 2 mile long ship in orbit can rain all kinds of doom on your fortress with pretty clear shots. (each shot is literally 100 tons) Dat's gonna do some damage.

Medieval times didn't have to worry about dropships, planes and helicopters, and especially bombers. So the sightlines gave them better range over their adversaries due to height since gravity is a thing. Jump jets on power armor (yes that's a thing) would drastically change advantages for height.

Digging back into a wall with strong forces will allow the main base to actually be under a lot of solid earth, which means the enemy either has to push into a funnel, which will always result in high losses, or drop special ammunition to hit the base under a lot of stone. (which can be done but it's harder to do that than hit a building on a mountain)

It's not to say that you shouldn't go for sightlines, but why do you even need them? Unmanned scouts and recon vehicles are available, it's not like you won't know where your opponent is. Radar, and sonar as well. Thermal detection, all of these make sight lines and height advantage much less relevant. But most of all, lasers don't care about gravity, their range is their range no matter what. A large laser can hit at it's max range and the same laser can do the same, which negates height advantage entirely. Maybe you could argue you can see better, but again, seeing better than an opponent with a UAV in the air is sort of irrelevant.

Was fun to think about though.

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.

[Tom Sawyer]

Mirkk Defwode, on 26 January 2015 - 10:07 AM, said:

If I were building a Fortress in the age of Airborne drops, I'd be building it on the high ground not in a box Canyon. It yields better sightlines and avenues of fire while limiting the effectiveness of cover approaching...

Funny they did that in the age of swords and Archery too for very similar reasons.

Typically building back into a wall like that unless you're digging out the mountain side and the majority of the base being inside the security of that much stone is a bad thing. If this were real warfare, why not drop troops to either side on the mountain top and shoot down into the base in that little canyon? There is no protection from assault up there.

I would build the fortress deep inside a mountain. Sorta like NORAD and Cheyenne Mountain. Then on top of that mountain I would mount some serious anti-air systems and put calliopes in a ring pattern around it.

You want in? Need to blow some serious holes. Rumor has it the Soviets had multiple deep penetration MIRV nukes in the megaton range just for that job. Lucky for us it never happened.

The future however, who knows.

[Mirkk Defwode]

Tom Sawyer, on 26 January 2015 - 12:20 PM, said:

I would build the fortress deep inside a mountain. Sorta like NORAD and Cheyenne Mountain. Then on top of that mountain I would mount some serious anti-air systems and put calliopes in a ring pattern around it.

You want in? Need to blow some serious holes. Rumor has it the Soviets had multiple deep penetration MIRV nukes in the megaton range just for that job. Lucky for us it never happened.

The future however, who knows.

I don't disagree with that - Infact that's one of the things I said in my original statement.

Mirkk Defwode, on 26 January 2015 - 10:07 AM, said:

...
Typically building back into a wall like that unless you're digging out the mountain side and the majority of the base being inside the security of that much stone is a bad thing. If this were real warfare, why not drop troops to either side on the mountain top and shoot down into the base in that little canyon? There is no protection from assault up there.