122 replies to this topic

[MischiefSC]

If you want to be in a huge unit while playing a game with a small population you're creating your own issues.

The bigger issue is relative faction populations and a system designed to reward moving around. You stabilize player populations and the players will balance where they fight to get matches.

[Hawk819]

Listen, alliances happen. It's the nature of the beast, and a real big smelly sandwich. chocked full of nutritiousness. . .

Hold your nose and take a big bite out of it. Cause that will never change; and no amount of unit limit is going to stop it. Period!

[Big Tin Man]

@Deathlike--you realize all of this talk is for CW phase 3, where holding planets will provide rewards, unit coffers will matter, and there will be leaderboards? Did you listen to anything Russ said about for CW3 at all? CW3 is supposed to fix the incentive side.

I agree in the current iteration, breaking up units would do nothing. In CW3 though, it sounds like it would make quite a difference in spreading the population between factions to potentially earn more rewards and encourage more fighting.

[Adamski]

Unit limit wont stop alliances, but faction population controls and incentives will.

With 6 Successor Houses (IS Factions), and 4 Invading Clans, there are 10 different factions for players to spread across.

If each faction had 10% of the total CW playing population, then they would be balanced against one another.

For each 2% a faction deviates from the 10% goal, give it a 20%-60% bonus to earnings (if under populated) or penalty to earnings (if over populated).

This fits with the lore (the more mercenaries a faction has hired, the less money it has to hire more). House Units are just very long term contracts. On the clan side, it fits with the lore of the clans earning more honor for using less resources.

Then just like the Public Queue allows players to see what % of players are dropping in Light / Medium / Heavy / Assault mechs, let CW show players what % of players are dropping under each of the different factions banners. This lets players more easily determine if they want to move factions, and if so, where. Also, lower the time between breaking a contract and signing a new one, 72 hours is too long, it should be 4-12 hours at most.

Edited by Adamski, 28 October 2015 - 02:12 PM.

[BLOOD WOLF]

Kushko, on 28 October 2015 - 12:06 PM, said:

Maybe you should actually listen to the segment in question before joining the hate train leading to Clueless Town.

From what im hearing Russ is actually trying to come up with changes that will have a positive effect on CW, while the vocal minority is stomping their feet and acting like children not willing to listen to anything.

It was almost embarrising. Russ is giving possible solutions and instead of thinking of ideas, some just said "nope, nope, not gonna work"

[Adamski]

BLOOD WOLF, on 28 October 2015 - 02:13 PM, said:

It was almost embarrising. Russ is giving possible solutions and instead of thinking of ideas, some just said "nope, nope, not gonna work"

He's just regurgitating ideas that people shot down months ago. If he doesn't want to listen to player feedback and create better solutions, I'm not going to fault the players for not rehashing the same points all over again for him to ignore.

[Deathlike]

Big Tin Man, on 28 October 2015 - 02:07 PM, said:

@Deathlike--you realize all of this talk is for CW phase 3, where holding planets will provide rewards, unit coffers will matter, and there will be leaderboards? Did you listen to anything Russ said about for CW3 at all? CW3 is supposed to fix the incentive side.

I agree in the current iteration, breaking up units would do nothing. In CW3 though, it sounds like it would make quite a difference in spreading the population between factions to potentially earn more rewards and encourage more fighting.

The lack of specifics (besides "promises") is the problem.

Poking holes in the ideas the issue, as Phase 2 demonstrated that the longer things stay the same... the reality of the problems (like ghost drops) become mainstay issues that stop people from considering CW at all.

[BLOOD WOLF]

Adamski, on 28 October 2015 - 02:14 PM, said:

He's just regurgitating ideas that people shot down months ago. If he doesn't want to listen to player feedback and create better solutions, I'm not going to fault the players for not rehashing the same points all over again for him to ignore.

not even the case.

Deathlike, on 28 October 2015 - 02:15 PM, said:

The lack of specifics (besides "promises") is the problem.

Poking holes in the ideas the issue, as Phase 2 demonstrated that the longer things stay the same... the reality of the problems (like ghost drops) become mainstay issues that stop people from considering CW at all.

I dont see how ghost heat limits anyone as far as seeing the majority of mechs running energy.

[Mirkk Defwode]

Kiiyor, on 28 October 2015 - 01:43 PM, said:

That's battletech fandom in a nutshell.

There's a legion of crusty and gnarled fans stretching waaaay back to the first titles, fueled by nostalgia and recollections of awesome games who's faults they generally overlooked in the excitement of new technology and progressively better realized battlemech warfare, all with their own ideas and a hazy mental image of what their perfect mechwarrior game looks like.

It's the clarity of those ideas and the ability to express them that is often blurred. Some people have a fairly clear idea of what they want MWO to be, while others have a much harder time expressing it, yet have a vague notion of a recollection of an idea that they will still defend to the death. Others use the good bits of older titles as a frame of reference for the things they want implemented, despite the fact that older games often got away with far more than newer ones because the technology of the day placed far more restrictions on game development than it does with modern titles. We expect more.

The most hardcore BT and MW fans are like those old men that sit together drinking moonshine and lamenting the good ol' days. The only thing they can really agree on is that they can't really agree on anything.

Part of it is we don't have a big picture as a community either. The last solid presentation of what the goal of the title is, in spoke word or written document was the video presentation of community warfare prior to the closed beta.

We are now seeing short term goals, but not the long plan of what's coming out. Or any sort of schedule associated with that, Sadly even with the big picture presented before the closed beta that has yet to come to fruition even though they've had a 3 year development time. We have snippets of what was presented and the whole package just seems out of reach.

Even so, there needs to be a clear leadership and directive for what the end product should be and the community should be damned until that is actualized from the perspective of someone who has the big picture and approves of the implementation of each individual system that has an affinity to the universe as well as a keen eye on the user experience in focus.

In another thread is was brought up that the UI has been done 3 times over because it wasn't done right the first time, We see the "Flavor of the Week" style weapon balance changes, or have in the past, frequently because those numbers don't seem to be hammered out in conjunction with the potential combinations or the way the heat system works.

And at this point...I'm one of those grumpy old men recalling the better days, but I'm recalling just superior implementations for a lot of stuff. Building on the shoulders of those that came before you isn't bad, I feel like PGI is trying to do things their own way and some of it just doesn't work.

[Adamski]

Having been a MWO player since December of 2012, I don't trust any of PGI's "ideas" until they have a concrete patch date.

Even then, I got burned with 4v4 coming out in summer of 2015. Where instead of just copping to whatever problems came up, they just silently ignored that they just broke a promise to their player base, yet again.

Also, reread that post, he is talking about Ghost Drops, not Ghost Heat.

[Deathlike]

BLOOD WOLF, on 28 October 2015 - 02:30 PM, said:

I dont see how ghost heat limits anyone as far as seeing the majority of mechs running energy.

Deathlike, on 28 October 2015 - 02:15 PM, said:

The lack of specifics (besides "promises") is the problem.

Poking holes in the ideas the issue, as Phase 2 demonstrated that the longer things stay the same... the reality of the problems (like ghost drops) become mainstay issues that stop people from considering CW at all.

I'm not even sure if you can read.

Ghost drops are currently used as a "defense" mechanism to "not show up". While originally intended to give "meaning" (not a "free win") when the opposing faction doesn't have enough players to field.. it's really just a turnoff for an attacking force because it would take far longer to get a planet than ever really intended. Sure you can "farm the PUGs" to get the planet, but that feeds into why people don't play CW in the first place.

So, a bad system stacked ontop of poor behavior only deserves to dilute CW. It says more about PGI's "lack of understanding" of the situation coupled with massive inaction... or massive "lack of a focused plan to address issues" is pretty much why any changes to CW is really just "talk" instead of action.

[BLOOD WOLF]

You didnt adress what i said: if ghost heat was such a restrictive factor then we would be seeing less players boating energy loadouts, to none if any. That is not the case, just in a a match with a opponent of Quad Large lasers/

Nvm, By kerensky, all i see is energy load outs.

if ghost heat is a limiting factor in what load outs people bring, then energy would be a minority, but as far as i can tell they are not. getting around ghost heat is very easy to do. If you haven't learned by now then i do not know what to tell you,

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 28 October 2015 - 02:53 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

The lesson here, CW was always a much larger and more complex problem than PGI is willing or capable to deal with, so scrap it and focus on more important issues that are still abundant throughout the rest of the game. CW has never been necessary provided the rest of the game is interesting. The problem has always been that this game is unfortunately more shallow than it could be.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 28 October 2015 - 02:58 PM.

[BLOOD WOLF]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 28 October 2015 - 02:54 PM, said:

The lesson here, CW was always a much larger and more complex problem than PGI is willing or capable to deal with, so scrap it and focus on more important issues that are still abundant throughout the rest of the game. CW has never been necessary provided the rest of the game is interesting. The problem has always been that this game is unfortunately more shallow than it could be.

quite vague, address an actual issue, else i have to guess what you are talking about.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

BLOOD WOLF, on 28 October 2015 - 03:02 PM, said:

quite vague, address an actual issue, else i have to guess what you are talking about.

It's vague because CW is plagued with numerous issues, whether it be the game modes, ghost drops, how planets change hands, lack of real incentives, balancing PUGs vs coordinated groups.

Not sure why I even responded though since apparently you keep misreading Drops as Heat with regards to Deathlike's posts. That can't bode well for this discussion.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 28 October 2015 - 03:06 PM.

[BLOOD WOLF]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 28 October 2015 - 03:04 PM, said:

It's vague because CW is plagued with numerous issues, whether it be the game modes, ghost drops, how planets change hands, lack of real incentives, balancing PUGs vs coordinated groups.

Not sure why I even responded though since apparently you keep misreading Drops as Heat with regards to Deathlike's posts. That can't bode well for this discussion.

Deathlikes post was malformed, also i didnt misread, the actual matter of the game is opposite his post. I nor do I hear much about ghost heat anymore, also and i have already posted to this idea, the way to solve the problem is harder than simple solutions.

I do agree that how we tale planets should be implemented differently. Ghost drops can be a problem but There are a rare occurrence for the number of CWI matches i play,but more incentives are a good idea. As far as that, russ did throw some ideas, and i am sure players are gonna come up with some creative solutions.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 28 October 2015 - 03:12 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

BLOOD WOLF, on 28 October 2015 - 03:09 PM, said:

Ghost drops can be a problem but There are a rare occurrence for the number of CWI matches i play,but more incentives are a good idea.

Your post borders "it isn't a problem for me, so I don't see how it could be a problem"

It is a problem for as long as their is a low player count on any planet. Ghost drops period are a great deterrent from keeping players involved in CW.

[BLOOD WOLF]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 28 October 2015 - 03:16 PM, said:

Your post borders "it isn't a problem for me, so I don't see how it could be a problem"

It is a problem for as long as their is a low player count on any planet. Ghost drops period are a great deterrent from keeping players involved in CW.

I can acknowledge that there are a (hypothetical)majority of Units that ghost drop regularly; However I would at least expect that I would experience the same results that these other players are facing. I am not saying it does not happen, of course i have experienced ghost drops. I just do not know.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 28 October 2015 - 03:22 PM.

[Zolaz]

PGI could always subcontract out CW.

[Deathlike]

BLOOD WOLF, on 28 October 2015 - 03:09 PM, said:

Deathlikes post was malformed, also i didnt misread, the actual matter of the game is opposite his post. I nor do I hear much about ghost heat anymore, also and i have already posted to this idea, the way to solve the problem is harder than simple solutions.

In NO PART of that post, that I mention "ghost heat". I said GHOST DROPS.

If you're intentionally being dense, then there's nothing more to say other than you've said too much.

I've had to even quote what I said (it was unedited to boot), so I don't know why you're ranting about something irrelevant to the convo.

Edited by Deathlike, 28 October 2015 - 03:49 PM.