77 replies to this topic

[Molossian Dog]

As I said in the other thread: I want to take a bath in tears and ragequitsauce.

[N0MAD]

Kjudoon, on 03 February 2015 - 05:03 PM, said:

That's the one thing that will alienate the "I don't want consequences but want respawn" minority of the MWO population.

I fail to see this a bad thing if they rage quit, because far more will come in.


It's a variant of the economic principle of dealing on a scarcity of resources. You either control it's distribution by price or by rationing. In the case of something based on distance and time, you have to either limit range, or you have to charge increased jump costs.

Of course, you need to put units and players into the map as assets with movement rules and other limitations.

So what resource are you talking about?

[MischiefSC]

N0MAD, on 03 February 2015 - 04:23 PM, said:

Wow bro what happened to you? month ago an previously you were saying CW was the best thing since ..well ever and was the savior, what has happened to you?

What PGI pitched as cw originally and what they are now putting on the table, plus what a lot of players want (group queue with respawns and a map) happened. I'm good with playing a beta product when the end goal is what i will enjoy. The product PGI is describing and building toward has changed

Is it better? Sure. Is it anything like what it could or should be? No. PGI hasn't said anything to give me faith otherwise.

[Kjudoon]

N0MAD, on 03 February 2015 - 05:11 PM, said:

So what resource are you talking about?

any resource. Apples, bolts, medicine, distance able to be travelled or quantities of time. All finite universes have finite resources.

If you link a unit to a planet and limit their distance able to be travelled for matches, that's a finite resource based on the choices available in distance. You can price extending ranges through Cbills or MC. Currently, the borders are so wide, the map has no limits on how far you can travel, just that you can only drop on one planet at a time. Something that really should not exist in this game where it can take a year or two to cross the inner sphere from one side to another according to TT rules.

All these things need to get involved. Means if you want to fight clans, you're not fighting for Liao and vice versa. It should go so far as to force you to choose one faction border or the other like north south or western davion fronts. All other choices would be unavailable to your unit because the distance is too far.

Edited by Kjudoon, 03 February 2015 - 05:46 PM.

[Basilisk222]

I just wanted to chime in about something I read in this early on.

Banning an IP could end up banning a player that didn't do anything. I'd suggest a different method for bans.

Your IP is issued to you my your ISP, and on some ISP's it's not static.

You're not going to notice because even if they swap all kinds of IP's your network doesn't much care because the router hands out dummy IP's to your network. 192.168.1.1, (this is the IP of a huge number of routers.)

But if you keep track, some ISP's will issue your modem a new IP every once and a while.

Banning an IP on these structures will ban someone for a limited time at best, and at worst, will ban someone else possibly.

Also, multiple accounts being used on one IP isn't ALWAYS going to be a problem. What if you have two people in the house that play together, or you've got friends that play together as a lets say Saturday 4 group. What then? How can you distinguish? If you were mandated to enter in verifiable ID in some way, then maybe Account creation for OP's purpose for making this thread wouldn't happen. Besides, If I made a second account and played IS and Clan but chose Marik, Liao, or Fed Suns, I'm not convinced that would be an issue. Still, My point is, there is little way to curb this aside from more involved accounts.

Possibly tying accounts to social media sites could work, but you could just make fakes on those then make a fake MWO.

I think realistically, this is a problem. But it should be frowned upon, and if you can prove it, the user should be banned from both accounts. Not that that changes much, but at least they have to work back up to power again. So much grind.

[Molossian Dog]

Kilgorin Strom, on 03 February 2015 - 06:55 PM, said:

...Possibly tying accounts to social media sites ....

No effing way!

Edited by Molossian Dog, 03 February 2015 - 07:07 PM.

[Kjudoon]

Molossian Dog, on 03 February 2015 - 07:05 PM, said:

No effing way!

In fully agreement of spirit and vociferousness.

[Roadbeer]

Molossian Dog, on 03 February 2015 - 07:05 PM, said:

No effing way!

Remember when a Community Manager who will remain nameless went around and banned people for their social media opinions?

Pepperidge Farms remembers.

Edited by Roadbeer, 03 February 2015 - 08:01 PM.

[N0MAD]

MischiefSC, on 03 February 2015 - 05:33 PM, said:

What PGI pitched as cw originally and what they are now putting on the table, plus what a lot of players want (group queue with respawns and a map) happened. I'm good with playing a beta product when the end goal is what i will enjoy. The product PGI is describing and building toward has changed

Is it better? Sure. Is it anything like what it could or should be? No. PGI hasn't said anything to give me faith otherwise.

Bro remember our Debates months ago about how CW would end up? i kept telling you CW would be pick a faction, pick a dot on a map that was available, drop into a pub match, after a certain time period a winner is announced, no consequence.
What did you get? well read above, also our debate about unit/leader input in strategy (btw you owe me).
Beta? keep beleiving that, what you got is what your getting, this is it.
People talk about Economy, Logistics etc, not possible with this design, economy when the bulk of the player base has dozens and dozens of mechs and multy million/billions of $? sure, what are you going to make them pay for travel? thats not economy thats a money sink, you going to offer discount on mechs? to people that most likely have 100 mechs + ? Repair/Re arm
? for a population that have more $ than Bill Gates? (only people effected would be poor noobs) so tell me about economy...
Logistics, how do you implement logistics to a game where planets are attacked every 8 hours when Jumps take days to a close planet months to a planet half way across the map? a time machine? a $ cost?. Logistics is about time to move hardware/supplies/troops, thats not possible with this setup of planets coming under attack every 8 hours and then its over in 8 hours.
Diplomacy in a game where people can change faction at a whim? lol.
Now Paul (god help you all) has said that 4v4 is on his board, well kiss big groups goodbye cause unlike most big groups seem to think, big groups are a minority, if you get options for a 4v4 Q the big groups are either going to drop in groups of 4 only or have no one to play with, beta you say?, enjoy it.
Most of us seen this coming long ago, you closed your eyes and believed your secret squirrels club would change the world, well welcome to your new world bro and good luck with it.
And as the leet would say, GGCLOSE.

[DaynarFaol]

oldradagast, on 03 February 2015 - 03:50 PM, said:

If they want CW to be anything more than a pointless PUG stomp, where the most one can hope for is to be doing the stomping (which is also boring, at least for mature adults who don't need validation from a video game), they'll need to add a lot more to it. Some ideas include:

1) Logistics: What if winning or losing meant something other than gaining pixels on a map? Now, the old R&R system was a mess, at least from what I've heard... any game system that can set things up so it is more economical NOT to play has problems... but it would still bear some investigation to see if there was some way to offer an economic side to CW.

2) Interlinked missions. What if success on Mission 1 changed the options on mission 2? Heck, games as far back as Warcraft had different branches in their mission paths for success and failure. I'm not saying this would be easy to pull off, but the concept would add a continuous dimension to CW and make it feel more like a war vs. pointless skirmishes over and over again.

3) Vastly expanded missions and maps: Create maps with variable objectives - search and destroy, rescue missions, guard a convoy, etc. If done right, these would provide far better dynamic interaction and game play vs. "hide in the base and shoot targets" or "rush the generator over and over again."

The sky is the limit... but only if the goal is more than getting people to grind the latest meta mech so they can feel good about themselves while pot-shotting targets wandering through an obvious kill zone that shouldn't even be on a properly designed map in the first place.

Last two townhalls addressed most of these.

4v4, 8v8 and PvE are coming . With different mission profiles as well as game types. It is just going to take the one thing no one can stand TIME.

They are working the LogCom side of things, but they have yet to find a happy medium. To be honest logistics in the real military is a pain, so making a balanced user friendly version would be rather hard, not impossible; it has been done. Just hard. Tends to end up being either too complex by half, or so simple that it really adds nothing but number crunching.

Comparing Master of Orion 2 vs Master of Orion 3. Different companies, but many they went from a rather simple interface to one so complex I got lost.

[skorpionet]

DaFrog, on 02 February 2015 - 07:57 PM, said:

Just ran into an unknown Davion unit called -JD-. Attacked Steiner space with 12 tdr 9s. I can only assume that it is a Clan unit with alternate accounts.

Excuse me .... why?

[Joseph Mallan]

CW will fail cause Our Community isn't.

[Thorn Hallis]

DaFrog, on 03 February 2015 - 01:23 PM, said:

Last time I checked, this game was called mechWarrior....It'll always be TDRs and firestarters.

You know, last time I checked both TDR and Firestarter are...*hold your breath*...piloted by Mechwarriors!

[Joseph Mallan]

Roadbeer, on 03 February 2015 - 03:27 PM, said:

Fixed that for you.

I know 3 CBT Communities. Member on all three. One WAS Toxic and I was a member only in name and to promote Commando Events. One was HeavyMetalPro, Ran by the most fair, and nicest guy I never really met. And BattleCorps the Paid membership Forum. As respectful as HMPro, but at a price.

This is the first CBT Universe forum I have been on that actually hates itself!

[Molossian Dog]

Joseph Mallan, on 04 February 2015 - 02:39 AM, said:

... One was HeavyMetalPro, Ran by the most fair, and nicest guy I never really met...

I will second that. Those guy(s?) are awesome.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Hey guys look!

Someone posted from the dreaded JD unit at post number 5 (FIVE) case closed.

[MischiefSC]

Joseph Mallan, on 04 February 2015 - 02:39 AM, said:

I know 3 CBT Communities. Member on all three. One WAS Toxic and I was a member only in name and to promote Commando Events. One was HeavyMetalPro, Ran by the most fair, and nicest guy I never really met. And BattleCorps the Paid membership Forum. As respectful as HMPro, but at a price.

This is the first CBT Universe forum I have been on that actually hates itself!

The fundamental issue with trying to a broader, less dedicated group is that they are... Less dedicated.

We have managed with f2p model to get a bunch of don'tcares. This is what that gets you. Good or ill.

[GrizzlyViking]

Is this the thread to replace the "Why MWO Will Fail" thread?

Edited by GrizzlyViking, 04 February 2015 - 02:30 PM.