1169 replies to this topic

[tee5]

8 months since this Thread was started.



And nothing really happened since then.

[Bowelhacker]

tee5, on 01 April 2019 - 12:52 AM, said:

8 months since this Thread was started. And nothing really happened since then.

But.. but... roadmap! Dervish mechpack! Old maps new again! Posts from Paul!

[Horseman]

tee5, on 01 April 2019 - 12:52 AM, said:

8 months since this Thread was started.

And nothing really happened since then.

You haven't been keeping up to date if you believe that.

[tee5]

Horseman, on 01 April 2019 - 10:45 PM, said:

You haven't been keeping up to date if you believe that.

Enlighten me.

Matchmaker Coming Soon, We need to test more.
Everything else (Event-System) is building up on the Matchmaker, so Coming Soon.
We want to do Public Testservers. Coming Soon.


The point which I wanted to show you with my claim was. That Ash was looking for changes that could be done in a quick way. So 2-3 months. And here we are 8 months later and nothing happened.

On the horizon we can see the changes, let's hope they will be good.

[Horseman]

tee5, on 02 April 2019 - 03:22 AM, said:

Enlighten me.

https://mwomercs.com...t-mechcon-2018/
https://mwomercs.com...rt-mar-22-2019/
https://mwomercs.com...rt-mar-29-2019/

Quote

The point which I wanted to show you with my claim was. That Ash was looking for changes that could be done in a quick way. So 2-3 months. And here we are 8 months later and nothing happened.

It's about 4 months after the post-MechCon update, and so far we did get three of the requested changes (queue counts, 32 drop decks, refresh on friends list), with the rest having been analyzed and prioritized accordingly to how complex they are.

In software development, "quick change" is code for "a ******* mess that will take weeks or months to do properly but we can hack together a poorly tested, unreliable version now and deal with the ******* nightmare of a fallout later".

Edited by Horseman, 02 April 2019 - 06:17 AM.

[Rustyhammer]

Horseman, on 02 April 2019 - 03:52 AM, said:

...
In software development, "quick change" is code for "a ******* mess that will take weeks or months to do properly but we can hack together a poorly tested, unreliable version now and deal with the ******* nightmare of a fallout later".

Hovewer, your seems to forget that PGI did exactly that and on the initial release all 3 main features were broken.
- refresh button was broken
- queue count was broken
- sorting was broken

I heard refresh button is still broken for unit list.
FP queue count is still buggy and sometime briefly display random numbers.

Under any standards I cannot call this quality development, there is simply no excuse for that. How the f**k you can spend few month doing the basic change and produce something that completely and obviously broken?

I'm legit scared with upcoming FP update. It's not a question if they gonna broke something, it's what exactly will be broken and how severely these broken features will affect us.

[Horseman]

Rustyhammer, on 03 April 2019 - 02:22 PM, said:

Hovewer, your seems to forget that PGI did exactly that and on the initial release all 3 main features were broken.

"Quick changes"

[Press Play On Tape]

Just played 12 pugs vs 11 unit members +1.
matchmaking sucks a lot.

[C H E E K I E Z]

Press Play On Tape, on 14 April 2019 - 12:09 PM, said:

Just played 12 pugs vs 11 unit members +1.
matchmaking sucks a lot.

If you ever catch my stream, I solo drop in cw about 65% of thetime. The other 30% is with a group of no more than 5. That last 5% I'll run in a 12 man and just bring hilarious builds to have fun with. When you stream constant loses, and show just how rough it can be for a solo oug, or small unit people kinda start to feel bad for you. but honestly I have most of my beat games as a solo pug.

A lot of people also call me the lug whisper, because I drop call invasion maps and usually win the. Eeven vs premade.

[Tin Box]

Faction Play is dead (again).

Compared to Battle of Tukkayid 3 about 2 years ago, now the tables have been turned. The Clans are currently in a heavy disadvantage.
Imho the good players already have sensed this and changed to IS (loyalty is not really rewarded), and this is further increasing the imbalance.

[Bishop Six]

Tin Box, on 19 April 2019 - 01:29 PM, said:

Faction Play is dead (again).

Compared to Battle of Tukkayid 3 about 2 years ago, now the tables have been turned. The Clans are currently in a heavy disadvantage.
Imho the good players already have sensed this and changed to IS (loyalty is not really rewarded), and this is further increasing the imbalance.

Maybe because Maradeur 2 came out?

But nooooooo......"IS OP"

[Tin Box]

Bishop Six, on 20 April 2019 - 12:03 AM, said:

Maybe because Maradeur 2 came out?

But nooooooo......"IS OP"

Currently, IS is OP, regardless the Marauder2 release.

[Curccu]

Tin Box, on 20 April 2019 - 12:39 AM, said:

Currently, IS is OP, regardless the Marauder2 release.

Weird my win ratio stays about same no matter which side I'm playing...

[Reno Blade]

on one hand, it can be discouraging managing a proper dropdeck when you are new, on the other hand, it can be "meaningless" to just play "deathmatches" without consequences... like QP.

I think committing to a Campaign should feel imersive and rewarding while require good management.

Let me throw some rough outline here how I would love a Campaign:
- 4-6 missions with your dropdeck and maybe some reinforcement mechs/parts
- using Resource Points (salvage/ammo/armor) from sucessful missions with resource gathering/defending + Loyalty and some CBills for multiple features of Faction Play

-> each mission increase the RP, LP and CB gained - even when losing the mission, the gains are higher for each mission
-> there will be multiple missions to choose from that will be important for the resources of your campaign: attack a factory for resources, defend a city for LP ...
-> you can even go into minus with LP to still buy certain benefits from your faction/employer and get a higher reward if you can do it against the odds.
-> Company/Lance Leaders can use additional funds from their units

- having to "repair & rearm" between missions with a mix of CB, RP and LP where you can actually benefit from being loyal for a long time (more LP and better discounts) and from gathering RP in scouting and raiding side missions
-> there will be a minimum (e.g. 50%) and a maximum (e.g. 80%) for repair/rearm, so it will also be important to try to stay alive as much as possible and keep the factor of damage and repair an essential part through the whole Campaign.
-> fighting over resources for the further progression of the campaign, so you can repair more for the final battle (and add/repair turrets)

- forfeit/surrender with heavy loss of LP with bargains for the conditions (e.g. possible to bribe with CBills, lose more LP but less RP and no CB)


Imho this would add depth to the meta game of FP which rewards careful gameplay (less damage) but also rewards the winners (more resources and time to repair vs the loser side).
Adding different values / multipliers for different planets per faction can add an easy way to make each mission play a bit differently (e.g. higher bonus on your own world, or allied world...) or you can get benefits from helping local people on a side mission that give you assistance (resources or new attack vector maps) later on.

Clans can also use only RP and LP rather than CB, and IS can use more CB to top-up the RP/LP shortages.
This would play more into the lore of Clans vs IS.


Maybe you can add in mission bonus (e.g. the benefits of scouting: scanners, ammo trucks ...) as drop bonus cards to alter your pre/post-battle factors (how much ammo/armor can be refilled. time, range, frequency of Artillery/UAV. Sensor strenght due to outside influences.

Only thing I'm not sure about is how to give the losing side a way to turn around the campaign when they already have lower repair/rearm options (maybe due to not winning the resource missions, or losing too many mechs) and how to make it not feel too much like an uphill battle that you can never win anymore after half of the Campaign is lost... maybe you have some idea?

Sure this sound like a lot of work, but that's what faction warefare (the metagame) should look like imho.

[iLLcapitan]

Reno Blade, on 28 April 2019 - 03:06 AM, said:

snip

too long to read. too much work for PGI. too many fallacies, nothing that would bring old diehards back.
repair & rearm, seriously? 2015 called they want their ****** ideas back.

On a sidenote, you seem pretty active on the forums but I don't recall seeing in a CW match, ever.
What makes you think you know what the mode needs? Cheers

Edited by iLLcapitan, 23 May 2019 - 12:30 AM.

[denAirwalkerrr]

iLLcapitan, on 23 May 2019 - 12:28 AM, said:

too long to read. too much work for PGI. too many fallacies, nothing that would bring old diehards back.
repair & rearm, seriously? 2015 called they want their ****** ideas back.

On a sidenote, you seem pretty active on the forums but I don't recall seeing in a CW match, ever.
What makes you think you know what the mode needs? Cheers

3,362 posts

[Uncleclint]

Roll it back to FP 1.0 ... and don´t ever bollocks it again

[- Gryphon -]

Good day!
The update lacks a red message in the lower right corner of the screen that people in the FP are required. Bring it back!

Edited by - Gryphon -, 27 May 2019 - 09:00 AM.

[Galenthor Kerensky]

in regards to faction rep, is it possible to have the game show your current faction as the first one that gets displayed? getting tired of seeing davion listed, and having to continually seek my faction of choice...

[xUnbreakablex]

https://mwomercs.com...62#entry6253762

Also I pointed this out on the PTS and was subsequently flamed, you're welcome. Some minor points I agree with is fix the tug-o-war, spread out the planets earned to multiple contributing units based on loyalty instead of the "one that does the most" to keep them from having a monopoly of players who want that MC. Another idea is give us something to shoot as the defender. Put one of those big nipple dropships in the attackers drop zone and if we kill the dropship we win, or one dropship for each lance that distributes 4 mechs solaris style. There are lots of good ideas here to use.

TL;DR:

1) Loyalist Units vote on random border planets to attack, separate factions again instead of 1 bar representing all Clan and IS factions. This incentivizes loyalist units and strategic players who can vote on map control and how to proceed as a Faction. This also gives smaller loyalist units the chance to finally control planets instead of one or 2 big groups controlling all the planets because they have numbers. Increase to Faction Points for loyalists and better Faction Rank Rewards.

2) Keep the conflict storyboard idea, divide into 4 stages, 1 day vote, 3 days invasion or defense. Increased chance of seeing specific map modes depending on invasion stage. Be creative, give us clear fun objectives for each phase.

3) MRBC, Mercs get MRBC rating based on W/L in FP. Higher MRBC rating means higher paying contracts. Player Units CAN issue contracts to MRBC for merc units. Merc units choose what contract to accept and fulfill that contract during the next attack cycle. In the absence of player contracts MRBC will offer default contracts. If the merc unit does not choose a contract they will remain undeclared and can be dropped into any side as the matchmaker needs to make games. Bonus Cbills or MC for successful contract completion to incentivize merc units.