66 replies to this topic

[Carl Vickers]

Deathlike, on 19 September 2017 - 09:36 PM, said:

Seasoned Sea NaCl Salt powered veteran.

That made me laugh out loud in the office, now everyone is looking at me with raised eyebrows, cept the boss, he is just shaking his head.

I needed that Deathlike, thanks man.

[justcallme A S H]

I never had a problem winning games as IS?

But then I just look at it that way. Playing to win.

I used to be about MC, unit leader board... But really it doesn't matter as a few units only take planets cause they zerg their cycle, not chase they are good. Hence unit leader board position means **** all about how good you are - just that you're active (and only play Clan).

I prefer IS mechs anyway. Way more fun, rewards skilled piloting much better.

Edited by justcallme A S H, 19 September 2017 - 10:01 PM.

[Marquis De Lafayette]

My impression at the time was the special events was "sold" to loyalists as the thing that would help make up for their lack of faction identity which happened due going to the one bucket per side system. Now, I am not shocked if the preverbal fine print really was...."mercs will be able to take part as well, due to population issues." The impression left was this was a nod to the loyalist career path.

Personally, I have no issues (just because I am a realist) with Mercs taking part...heck if you made it loyalists only, Merc units would just go loyalist for the week anyway.

The issue I see is they are basically turning something initially billed as a boost to loyalists into another reason to go/stay Merc. the patch notes are full of nerfs (often rightly) due to over performance of a variant and lack of trade-offs. As far as career paths go PGI would do well to examine the career paths and recalibrate them so there are actual, legitimate trade-offs. This event system provided a opportunity to benefit the loyalists more (who should have more stake in a conflicts outcome anyway). So, far it looks like they kind of did the opposite and made this far more beneficial to Mercs....but Russ did tweet recently about this that it's new (and so they might tweak this) and really need to find a way to let loyalists have some advantage on something...

Edited by Marquis De Lafayette, 20 September 2017 - 08:07 AM.

[Mestari]

Marquis De Lafayette, on 20 September 2017 - 08:04 AM, said:

....but Russ did tweet recently about this that it's new (and so they might tweak this) and really need to find a way to let loyalists have some advantage on something...

PGI Doesn't have a good track record for iterative changes. Things tend to get pushed out and forgotten.

[Commander A9]

What I can't understand is how PGI plans to bring more people into Faction Warfare by creating events which exclude some people from actually contributing to said event...

Or perhaps Faction Warfare is merely an afterthought since Faction Warfare generates no revenue for them?

[Marquis De Lafayette]

Commander A9, on 22 September 2017 - 05:47 AM, said:

What I can't understand is how PGI plans to bring more people into Faction Warfare by creating events which exclude some people from actually contributing to said event...

Or perhaps Faction Warfare is merely an afterthought since Faction Warfare generates no revenue for them?

Hefty rewards always has worked historically. I actually think their new event tracking system is a big improvement over anything they have done before....and I can see how they could use it effectively in FW. However, my concern is in the decisions behind the programming. For example: we have a contest now that requires 50 damage with a uac 2 and 1000 with a uac20 ....this might seem mathamatically to make sense...due to the difference in comparative damage. However, anyone who knows how to play the game knows it would almost certainly quicker and easier to do 1000 dmg in uac 2 (I did 956 in my one and only match with a boating mauler) than it will be to do 1000 with uac 20's. Which have ghost heat, are harder to boat, shorter range (so you are brawling and in more danger) , etc. My concern is that they " really don't know this works on the ground" in the actual game. Thus, we could see most loyalists locked out of contest rewards while Mercs can collect them for all events by changing their contract on renewal. Mercs going loyalist (for a week) to collect 2 sets of rewards (Merc and loyalist...if they do seperate rewards), where loyalists can only get the loyalist side. Stuff that anyone who plays the game regularly can see coming from a mile away, but wouldn't be anticipated by someone who doesn't play FW

FW is the thing that keeps me buying Mechpacks. Sure, I want to win in QP...but it's mostly just for leveling mechs and testing stuff...so I could wait on mechs if it was just that mode. I doubt I am alone in my reasons for "why I buy with $".

Edited by Marquis De Lafayette, 22 September 2017 - 06:29 AM.

[Appogee]

To fix this "problem" all that needs to happen is for the Loyalists get higher bonuses in a Loyalist event than Mercs do.

And let other Loyalists side with one or other of the main two protagonists in the conflict.

PGI is probably already planning to do it this way. They do try to give everyone a chance to participate in every event, even if they didn't buy the specific hero or chassis that was most recently sold.

I would also point out that there have been no merc-only events.

Edited by Appogee, 22 September 2017 - 06:39 AM.

[Commander A9]

Yeah, but if I'm on Steel Vipers, and we've got a conflict between Kurita and Smoke Jaguar over Luthien, I want my victories to count for that, and quite frankly for any Faction Warfare conflict regardless of borders.

That's how it works right now.

No event should ever exclude any member of the population-that's crap considering how much money people have invested in this game.

And honestly...do we really think we have enough Loyalists to even consistently drop in FW? We went 3.5 hours last night with zero matches.

Edited by Commander A9, 22 September 2017 - 07:01 AM.

[Marquis De Lafayette]

Appogee, on 22 September 2017 - 06:38 AM, said:

To fix this "problem" all that needs to happen is for the Loyalists get higher bonuses in a Loyalist event than Mercs do.

And let other Loyalists side with one or other of the main two protagonists in the conflict.

PGI is probably already planning to do it this way. They do try to give everyone a chance to participate in every event, even if they didn't buy the specific hero or chassis that was most recently sold.

I would also point out that there have been no merc-only events.

I think everyone here hopes that you are right and PGI opens this up to all....the point of the OP is that they were explicit in their patch notes example (which I quoted in the OP) that it would only be between CSJ & Kurita forces....loyalist and Merc.

[Appogee]

Marquis De Lafayette, on 22 September 2017 - 06:27 AM, said:

My concern is that they " really don't know this works on the ground" in the actual game.

They're just not that into it.

[Marquis De Lafayette]

Commander A9, on 22 September 2017 - 06:55 AM, said:

And honestly...do we really think we have enough Loyalists to even consistently drop in FW? We went 3.5 hours last night with zero matches.

We actually got matches (all against a couple of different 12-mans) last night with little problem (4 drops, 1 ghost) and we were half or nearly 1/2 PUGs for the most part last night. Just Coincidence? Some teams dodging Kcom? Idk...

[Bud Crue]

Commander A9, on 22 September 2017 - 05:47 AM, said:

What I can't understand is how PGI plans to bring more people into Faction Warfare by creating events which exclude some people from actually contributing to said event...

Or perhaps Faction Warfare is merely an afterthought since Faction Warfare generates no revenue for them?

For those who may have forgotten or need an illustration of just how much faction play has indeed become an afterthought to PGI, go give the 2nd "round table" from January of this year a listen:

https://mwomercs.com...-twitchtvngngtv

2017 was supposed to have been a year wherein they were going to make a dedicated effort toward developing FP. Instead of ANY new development, we get this patch. A special event system that will not and cannot be viable in a 1 bucket enviornment. 7 months of presumed "development" and that is what they came up with.

[Marquis De Lafayette]

Appogee, on 22 September 2017 - 07:59 AM, said:

They're just not that into it.

Which (imho) is why they have struggled with many of the issues we talk about here on the forums. It's hard to understand the inside dynamics (not just game/mode mechanics) of something like FW (as opposed to QP) from the outside.

[Appogee]

Bud Crue, on 22 September 2017 - 08:11 AM, said:

2017 was supposed to have been a year wherein they were going to make a dedicated effort toward developing FP. Instead of ANY new development, we get this patch. A special event system that will not and cannot be viable in a 1 bucket enviornment. 7 months of presumed "development" and that is what they came up with.

It's clear PGI are just trying to keep the lights on until MW5... I expect pre-orders will be announced at MechCon.

Remember that Russ declared PGI had delivered on all the promised pillars of MWO more than a year ago. Since then, development has been even slower than it was previously. Road Maps are sparse, padded out with wish-lists beyond 3 months, and as we saw with IK, unreliable.

So let's all stop pretending that what was committed a year ago continues to be relevant.

Enjoy the game as it is today. This is as good as it's going to be.

Edited by Appogee, 22 September 2017 - 10:29 AM.

[naterist]

Commander A9, on 22 September 2017 - 06:55 AM, said:

And honestly...do we really think we have enough Loyalists to even consistently drop in FW? We went 3.5 hours last night with zero matches.

If word gets out that kcom cant que in it, they might show up.

[VitriolicViolet]

i feel sorry for all the people still posting on how to improve CW/FP some of them have good solid ideas but have no chance of ever being implemented. The last time PGI really did anything in CW was during The Dong, which basically killed what had been a good if disappointing mode. i still cant believe it took them 6 months to finally acknowledge The Dong was a bad idea by which time CW had become what you now see, devoid of anyone. all subsequent changes have been flailing attempts to bring people back, but since they arent willing to put in the time and effort and communication necessary to fix it, we get the cycle of quick fix, complaints, population decrease, quick fix, etc

[Poptimus Rhyme Wallace]

How to Get a better FW experience?

Sign up for the NBT league, simple.

[justcallme A S H]

If you think stomps happen any less in NBT, then you are just outright ignorant.

[naterist]

justcallme A S H, on 02 October 2017 - 04:42 AM, said:

If you think stomps happen any less in NBT, then you are just outright ignorant.

But nbt has ways to deal with it if your good at diplomacy and negotiation. You get allies or mercs to stomp the guys who stomp you.

[justcallme A S H]

Sorry but you get a big fact ZERO for credibility on that one when you said this not even a week ago:

naterist, on 27 September 2017 - 11:09 AM, said:

Let me give you all an example of this at work. 228 took kurita in netbattletech. They decided to stage a war against cgb because f it, why not. Cgb left the league after a few stomps because and i quote

"We came in looking for a casual, low stakes league, and found ourselves dropping against a Div A competitive team, who were willing and able to put much more time, effort and skill into the endeavour than we are. "

Heres a link so you can verify: http://www.nbt-mwo.c...pic,1421.0.html

Are you naive enough to think that isnt happening here?

Stomps happen in NBT.
Stomps happen in FP.

Are they both avoidable? Yes.
Is one "better" at the other at avoiding it? Not really.

Is it just a simple fact there will always be someone better than you at something. Either you seek to improve, or you do not.