348 replies to this topic

[naterist]

Rick Windwalker, on 28 January 2017 - 04:02 PM, said:

Would be nice to have ANY responce on all those good community and FOUNDERS suggestions by ANY pgi responsible staff in here! (your official forums...)

PGI, do you care?

Any community managress/manager???

Any major game developer?

Any "boss" in charge?

Anyone in PGI? (....who likes to have my money in the future?)

Oh dear, i'm on Battletech TableTop since 1992, have been on all Mechwarrior PC games and MWLL since release...what is happening in here?
No Battletech-clue? No programming-clue? No gamedesign-idea? This game could be so much more!

PGI WTF are you doing with this great game/lore/story/franchise/...and community?

WHAT YOU DO IS NOT ENOUGH...
(...if you are not capable of doing more please use your community ressources offered by so may ppl)

Four years of hoping and spending money, so many dissapointments...

Rick out

its the weekend bro, theyll probably check monday

i will admit i want more lore in here though. even token nods to lore in as many ways possible would be apreciated. thats one thing that keeps major games going, like wow, and lotro, so i think we need more of it here, represented in as many minor and major ways possible here, with maybe a pgi twist if youd like, but some representation of it please.

Edited by naterist, 28 January 2017 - 10:21 PM.

[Volkodav]

Davegt27, on 28 January 2017 - 11:56 AM, said:

to me the #1 issue is the anti spawn capping walls

some of the placement of the walls has you going to dead ends and are not navigable
need to make sure an exit is an exit

spawn camping happens near the end so not a big problem

If there are walls - to do the gate. Simply. PGI plz/

Edited by Volkodav, 28 January 2017 - 11:23 PM.

[Outlaw]

My biggest concerns with balance are going to be the fact that with the addition of the new 3060-3068 equipment (wherever you land on with your final decisions) that the Power Creep that has been getting more and more predominant with many of the new mechs added is going to get unmanageable. The game is already starting to feel more and more like a twitch shooter than a simulator, and I have concerns that the additional tech will make that even more apparent.

Another thing I would like to bring up, there are many of us that miss the days of closed beta before L2 (ie DHS, ER, Pulse, UAC, LB, etc.) tech was implimented. What I would love to see, as an option, is either a queue for QP or a full on FP setup using the oldschool map with split IS factions in a 3025 setting.

[Tarogato]

Outlaw, on 29 January 2017 - 01:39 AM, said:

Another thing I would like to bring up, there are many of us that miss the days of closed beta before L2 (ie DHS, ER, Pulse, UAC, LB, etc.) tech was implimented. What I would love to see, as an option, is either a queue for QP or a full on FP setup using the oldschool map with split IS factions in a 3025 setting.

You find a way to double the population, and I'm sure PGI would be willing to separate the queues between Tech Level 1 and the rest. But at this point we're talking about Quickplay and the game as a whole, while this thread is supposed to be about CW-specific feedback and suggestions.

Edited by Tarogato, 29 January 2017 - 04:58 AM.

[Burt0n]

Tarogato, on 28 January 2017 - 11:36 AM, said:

Seconded. There are two bugs that are pretty pervasive right now that absolutely need to be fixed ASAP:

• sometimes it drops you in your mech, but the mech selection screen never goes away. You have to close the game and relog to fix it. This bug has been in the game for months.

• sometimes the dropship will drop your mech out of bounds from staggering heights. Goodbye 20 points of armour from your legs. This bug is new since the 4.1 patch, and seems to happen at least once per match per player, it's very common.

It's sad that we still have to talk about these bugs. Which should have been sorted as soon as they were initially reported with a hotfix. But sadly the round table was focused more on "what can we do next to make things better" rather than "What should we do now to fix it".

[MovinTarget]

Burt0n, on 29 January 2017 - 05:06 AM, said:

It's sad that we still have to talk about these bugs. Which should have been sorted as soon as they were initially reported with a hotfix. But sadly the round table was focused more on "what can we do next to make things better" rather than "What should we do now to fix it".

T'would hope this is already on the radar. The roundtable was supposed to be for feedback for FP improvements, not kvetching about known issues that PGI should already be trying to address. They should be on two separate progression tracks.

It was hard enough to keep people on task as it was... complaints about xl engines and such which are *not* FP problems specifically but part of a larger discussion of balance that may be made moot when new tech comes out anyway...

Edited by MovinTarget, 29 January 2017 - 05:55 AM.

[Rizn Nuke]

About the selection of drop location

I think Derek gets it almost right: You should not select the drop zone in itself but rather one of the 3 drop ships leaving simultaniously going to A, B and C drop sites. This eliminates the need for different /new flight paths for the drop ships.

After selecting your mech you can select your drop ship and confirm your selection. If the desired drop ship is already full, you can not select it anymore unless somebody else cancels his selection.

If at the end of the 30 second countdown you have no drop ship selected, the game will try to give you the drop ship assigned to your lance if available, another one if not.

This way, if 4 or less people drop in one phase, they can choose to drop at the same point, reagardless wether they are in the same lance or not. If more than 4 people drop, they all can at least "avoid" one of the drop zones.

TL:DR

• Keep preset drop zones (but move them on some maps e.g. Forest Colony)
  
• Let players select drop ship instead of drop zone
  
• Full drop ships can not be selected in a phase
  
• Any player not selecting a drop ship will be put in the one belonging to his lance, if not full. Random if full

Edited by Rizn Nuke, 29 January 2017 - 09:38 AM.

[SuperFunkTron]

Tarogato, on 29 January 2017 - 04:56 AM, said:

You find a way to double the population, and I'm sure PGI would be willing to separate the queues between Tech Level 1 and the rest. But at this point we're talking about Quickplay and the game as a whole, while this thread is supposed to be about CW-specific feedback and suggestions.

Working on an idea to help with the population fix, but its going to take a few weeks to get it presentable. I'm really working hard to come up with an idea that will add faction flavor but work hard to make balance a priority as well.

[Cy Mitchell]

SuperFunkTron, on 29 January 2017 - 09:40 AM, said:

Working on an idea to help with the population fix, but its going to take a few weeks to get it presentable. I'm really working hard to come up with an idea that will add faction flavor but work hard to make balance a priority as well.

I am not sure what metrics would be used to determine this but Mercenaries need to be restricted to 50% Clan - 50% IS contracts. Mercenary movement has imbalanced CW-FW-FP since the beginning. They simply have too much freedom of movement. A contract should not be allowed to be fulfilled if the issuing of that contract will significantly skew the Mercenary balance between the two Loyalist Factions.

It is also imperative that the unit skill balance of the Mercenaries be balanced on both sides. The Units need a rating system that is determined by performance. This should take into account wins as well as Rolfstomps. Therefore wins and match kills should both be taken into consideration. Mercenary units with high unit ratings should cost more to hire than lower rated Merc units. Each Loyalist Faction should have a Salary Cap that they cannot exceed. This, in itself, would help with Mercenary unit balance.

[SuperFunkTron]

Rampage, on 29 January 2017 - 10:16 AM, said:

I am not sure what metrics would be used to determine this but Mercenaries need to be restricted to 50% Clan - 50% IS contracts. Mercenary movement has imbalanced CW-FW-FP since the beginning. They simply have too much freedom of movement. A contract should not be allowed to be fulfilled if the issuing of that contract will significantly skew the Mercenary balance between the two Loyalist Factions.

It is also imperative that the unit skill balance of the Mercenaries be balanced on both sides. The Units need a rating system that is determined by performance. This should take into account wins as well as Rolfstomps. Therefore wins and match kills should both be taken into consideration. Mercenary units with high unit ratings should cost more to hire than lower rated Merc units. Each Loyalist Faction should have a Salary Cap that they cannot exceed. This, in itself, would help with Mercenary unit balance.

Balancing the mercenaries is going to be one of the trickier elements for sure. My primary goal is to incentivize not only bonuses for loyalists but also provide some balanced diversity and depth so its not so generic in FP. I just found most of the resources I need yesterday to get started. In all honesty, stepwise improvements (every month or two) would probably be the best idea so tha balance can adjusted along the way rather than all at once. I'll give more info once I've got something presentable

[naterist]

SuperFunkTron, on 29 January 2017 - 10:57 AM, said:

Balancing the mercenaries is going to be one of the trickier elements for sure. My primary goal is to incentivize not only bonuses for loyalists but also provide some balanced diversity and depth so its not so generic in FP. I just found most of the resources I need yesterday to get started. In all honesty, stepwise improvements (every month or two) would probably be the best idea so tha balance can adjusted along the way rather than all at once. I'll give more info once I've got something presentable

I came up with a solution a while ago for this.

Pay mercs a set amount, and pay it half to the player, half to the unit, in daily increments as long as they play a game of fw that day(this encourages participation when contracted to a faction with a tech tree you dont like.
Pay the top 100 mercs mc in inreasing amounts the higher you are on the leaderboards(leaderboard position is increased drastically if you beat a higher ranked unit then you, which ensures people arent only trying for pug stomps if they want to be #1.
Your contract gets a payment multiplier based off how many phases were lost the previous day. If they lost 3 then its ×30% to the payment, if they lost 2, then ×20%, they lost only 1, no multiplier, and if the faction won all 3, theres a minus 10% for signing a contract with that faction.

Over time this will hopefully ensure more jumping around, and an eventual stablization of merc pops between IS and clan.

Edited by naterist, 29 January 2017 - 11:41 AM.

[Edward Hazen]

So, 3068 huh? Why does PGI pick the two eras in the BattleTech timeline which have factions with the largest tech disparities (Clans in 3050s and Word of Blake in the 3060s). If we get WOB as a playable faction, then PGI might as well just make the factions Clan + IS vs WOB.

[SuperFunkTron]

Who announced 3068? I thought it was 3060 as the cut off.

[Edward Hazen]

SuperFunkTron, on 29 January 2017 - 12:53 PM, said:

Who announced 3068? I thought it was 3060 as the cut off.

https://www.reddit.c...t5x&sh=fa1d9b29

[SCHLIMMER BESTIMMER XXX]

listened to it quiet a while and i had the feeling this is kinda inefficient, back and forth
discussion with multiple "missed the point" moments.Like drop locations decided by drop commander.This may work with an organized group in a match, but in a match with only randoms
this coud end up very bad for multiple reasons.
Maybie pgi shoud work out different FW developement ideas and do a poll about which way
to go.This way they coud let the community take part in the developement of FW to some degree, or at least the people active on the forums,
whilest keeping the options limited/realistic to their design vision of FW.
Because nobody of the community knows what the game designers limitations are,
or how much work pgi is willing to invest into developement of FW features.How shoud they?

[SuperFunkTron]

S0ulReapr, on 29 January 2017 - 01:22 PM, said:

https://www.reddit.c...t5x&sh=fa1d9b29

I don't really recall even a "soft confirm" during the round table. I do recall them saying that they still had to figure out how far they want to go, but 3068 seems really far considering that they were mentioning some campaigns such as operation bulldog

[Edward Hazen]

SuperFunkTron, on 29 January 2017 - 02:04 PM, said:

I don't really recall even a "soft confirm" during the round table. I do recall them saying that they still had to figure out how far they want to go, but 3068 seems really far considering that they were mentioning some campaigns such as operation bulldog

Word of Blake was active in the FWL as early as 3058.

[naterist]

also, can you get a surrender button. if the enemy is 2 waves ahead the lower team can call one of 2 things

for IS, its tactical retreat
for clans, safcon

when the team has a 24 mech kill lead on non objective based games, you can vote for safcon or a tactical retreat, and you surrender. it can also make it so that your loss moves the slider 2.22 instead of 3.33 percent, so its garunteed loss, but it moves the slider less. this dicourages units pug roflstomping, and gives them an incentive not to be {Richard Cameron} in a hope they keep the game going to get theyre cbills. its kinda like a soft punishment to roflstompoing teams, and gives teams who know its over in the first 2 minutes an out from 30 minutes of "oh god wtf" which is how new pugs see roflstomps. and you could make it a thing that requires 100% of the lossing team to agree, because there are some individuals who WANT to sit through the for some reason, but something needs to be in there. itll help keep newbs from getting too discouraged.

[tee5]

I read your surrender-button suggestion multiple times.
And it gets not better the more you post it.
I say NO.

CW has a liitle warning, when you first start CW.
It is the playground of the more expirienced guys and has no matchmaker.
So you have been warned.
And sometimes you meet some groups, who are really really better than you. And then you lose.

If you can not bear a rofl stomp, and this makes you quit CW forever, good than this is not the place for you (but also not good because we lose a player, but we can not protect and help the cry babies all the time, because then this is no longer the playground of the big boys, and big boys don't cry, they knock off the dust and keep on playing.

I can not count the rofl stomps I have endured, and I still play.
Maybe grouping up, find a good Unit, using teamspeak, and make good mechbuilds, and torso twist, is a good start for the beginners.

[Aargh Tenna]

tee5, on 29 January 2017 - 03:48 PM, said:

I read your surrender-button suggestion multiple times.
And it gets not better the more you post it.
I say NO.

CW has a liitle warning, when you first start CW.
It is the playground of the more expirienced guys and has no matchmaker.
So you have been warned.
And sometimes you meet some groups, who are really really better than you. And then you lose.

If you can not bear a rofl stomp, and this makes you quit CW forever, good than this is not the place for you (but also not good because we lose a player, but we can not protect and help the cry babies all the time, because then this is no longer the playground of the big boys, and big boys don't cry, they knock off the dust and keep on playing.

I can not count the rofl stomps I have endured, and I still play.
Maybe grouping up, find a good Unit, using teamspeak, and make good mechbuilds, and torso twist, is a good start for the beginners.

I wanted to write an angry post about how surrender button is actually a good idea, but then I remembered all those guys who see premades as opponents and start putting "gg" into chat. So yes, surrender button is a bad idea. If stuff goes pear-shaped, one can still try to do as much damage as one possibly can, thereby still getting some LP and kills.