Staff and Dev Suggestions For The Next Cycle

[Orca]

I have little data on the more recent cycles and really need input from people who've been around.

Currently we have 3 requests that I feel warrant implementation, 2 from Spork:

* Remove Aero Ops and production.
Currently Aero damage in hangars is not working correctly and Spork is spending far too much time trying to decipher code that the current
MegaMek devs don't even fully understand. Aeros are little used and Spork has too much on his plate already.

* Simplify everything. Ops, build tables, economy etc. This is a general, not a specific suggestion but I see places where it can be applied.
- Economy is less intuitive than ever with RP being so centric but not apparent in menus. Sure, the interface can be redone. But again, this
requires the only MekWars coder we have to spend time on something that's really less than critical.
- Ops are still relatively opaque to the players. Anyone can run the Op Editor, I suggest that /retrieveoperation and /retrievealloperations
userlevel settings be drastically lowered, allowing knowledgeable players to access them and create tools to parse and convert the configs
into human readable formats. Might result in quality suggestions for Ops as well.
- I'm loathe to discard the great work Zerberus did on the build tables. Then again, the Reward tables aren't the canon ones he created, only
the factory tables are.

* Zone Control in the metagame.
- Good idea, I like it. Unfortunately the canon zones make LC well nigh invincible. Uncanon them.

[Klingon]

Concur with all 3. In regards to the economy, maybe add a popup giving you a choice of how you'd like to pay for that medium mech, giving you your choices?

[ ] 6 RPs (you have 14)
[ ] 2,475 C-Bills and 40 Flu (you have: 3,000 C-bills and 124 Flu)

Or something like that. Maybe as the red text in main chat,

Click here to buy with 6 RPs (you have 14)
Click here to buy with 2,475 C-Bills and 40 Flu (you have: 3,000 C-bills and 124 Flu)

Not sure which would be easier to implement, but either would make it clearer what choice was better.

[Orca]

Concur with all 3. In regards to the economy, maybe add a popup giving you a choice of how you'd like to pay for that medium mech, giving you your choices?

[ ] 6 RPs (you have 14)
[ ] 2,475 C-Bills and 40 Flu (you have: 3,000 C-bills and 124 Flu)

Or something like that. Maybe as the red text in main chat,

Click here to buy with 6 RPs (you have 14)
Click here to buy with 2,475 C-Bills and 40 Flu (you have: 3,000 C-bills and 124 Flu)

Not sure which would be easier to implement, but either would make it clearer what choice was better.

Either of which would require code. Spork's suggestion is to do away with RP entirely. It really makes no sense to have 2 different economies. RP were originally implemented as a way to give limited access to reward units (aka Rares). That's no longer the case and RP have been re-purposed to do exactly the same things that cbills do. One or the other, but not both. And the cbill economy is much more developed and robust.

[Klingon]

Now, see, now that I know that...

Makes perfect sense. Maybe figure some other use for RP, like a random reward table pull. Could be a mech, could be a bundle of CBills, could be some extra flu. Options abound, but if simplification is desired, best to just not use it atm, see how it works without it.

[BarukKhazad]

Players also use RP to buy the flu to attack and to buy factory units. These guys spend RP to counter their own sloppy habits of using up all their flu and then wanting to play a game with another guy who also is out of flu. Maybe Flu should remain a buyable resource using cbills if RPs will be put aside.

[Bloodknight]

I'd prefer it if flu could still be bought, if for nothing else than ease of hangar management. For me, abolishing the 1-per-tick limit on donating and scrapping units while still being able to buy flu was a very important step, because the wait times are just annoying and disadvantage people who can't just sit active for hours just to spend some money.

Simplify everything. Ops, build tables, economy etc

I think the ops are already quite simple since the speed requirements were removed - which was mostly a good thing because it allowed low-tier players to use Urbanmechs and practically every heavy or assault tank instead of giving them away to frontliners - after all there are not a lot of heavy vehicles around that move faster than 3/5. The weird 25% for both players limit on skirmish could be dropped, though.
Actually I'd suggest that we drop the 2 player level tiers, too.

Leave the canon tables, but shuffle a few unit percentages around.

Good idea, I like it. Unfortunately the canon zones make LC well nigh invincible. Uncanon them.

Yes. As it stands, LC has one sector that can be taken and only FWL has a reasonable chance of taking it. The others all have 30+ planets. As I said in the mod chat, maybe we should introduce sector capitals to get more use out of the Kingslayer op.

[Domenoth]

allowing knowledgeable players to access them and create tools to parse and convert the configs
into human readable formats. Might result in quality suggestions for Ops as well.

Haven't done much with this lately, but this is what I used to put up what's currently on the wiki. Spork got a hold of the config files, uploaded them, and then passed me the output. Then a few copy and pastes in the wiki edit interface and it's done. [url=http://mek_wars_ops.domenoth.com/]Check it out if you feel so inclined.[/url]

[fahr]

the futzing about with aero this cycle killed the playerbase for it, but there are still those who enjoy the game. I understand limiting sporks time to more important things, but there is no reason we couldn't leave it as is, and let those who play it keep playing it. we could remove flu and production if the fear is flu farming, but the current ops are still fun.

a forgiving ecomony helps those of us with more limited time (I can reasonably play one game a day, or 2 hours or so during the school year) a stricter economy makes me less likely to field my less than ideal armies, meaning less games for everyone.

If we do away with RP, we need to re-balance Cbills so the casual player has a shot at staying relevant. RP right now made that possible, I could lose a game I was blinded in and get enough RP to replace a mek and buy flu so that I could be the attacker next time. When RP was rarer and using it for flu a poor choice, I ended up spending more time trying to farm flu (playing fewer armies at odd BVs) so I could occasionally get the attack. as someone who hasn't a lot of time, it really meant I was defender way more often than attacker because I often had to play 3 matches as defender to have enough flu to initiate a conquer. this rewarded the folks who could sit on the server active for hours with one ideal army.

[Spork]

It's a fairly simple matter to up the flu reward for defending enough that a single defense = enough flu to attack. Now, if you choose to spend that flu on factory pulls, BM bids, etc, that's on you, not us.

[BeeRockxs]

Currently Aero damage in hangars is not working correctly and Spork is spending far too much time trying to decipher code that the current
MegaMek devs don't even fully understand,

Uh?

[Klingon]

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=7505

Jackal suggested using the "Glancing Blow Rule"; linking here for a bit more visibility, and... well, relevance.

[Spork]

Design contests....

[BarukKhazad]

What about this....

Proposal #1: Replace the Regular Commander status with a short term XP multiplier
Proposed changes:
- Remove the Regular Commander status.
- For the first 1500 xps, adjust the % land that this player can win or lose based directly on those xps. In java it would be, "min((500 + PlayerXp) / 2000, 1)".
------ This formula would apply as a multiplier to the current ELO adjusted land % for both players.

Examples of the effect:
- Two players, one with 100 xp and the other with 100 xp.
----- The land exchange is 9% of the ELO adjusted land %.
- Two players, one with 2000 xp and the other with 100 xp.
----- The land exchange is 30% of the ELO adjusted land %.
- Two players, one with 2000 xp and the other with 1000 xp.
----- The land exchange is 75% of the ELO adjusted land %.
- Two players, one with 2000 xp and the other with 2000 xp.
----- The land exchange is 100% of the ELO adjusted land %.

Expectations:
- Noob hunting would be mitigated by the noob's low xps.
- Anyone can be a conquer target.

[BarukKhazad]

And this....

Proposal #2: Add land gain/loss to Raid and Skirmish ops, capped by the amount the attacker owns.
Proposed changes:
- For Raid ops (aka HnR), apply the old HnR land %, capped by how much the attacker's faction currently owns.
- For Mek - Skirmish ops (aka Patrol), apply the old Patrol land %, capped by how much the attacker's faction currently owns.
- For Mek - Skirmish, remove the min land % required to attack (leave Vee - Skirmish as is).

Expectations:
- Requires code if I understood all the options on the Ops Editor. But maybe just a new ops flag and a short formula.
- This is intended to keep the fighting on the currently contested planets and to limit the number of contested planets, but to allow all ops to involve land %.
- Militia Skirmishes would still require the min land %, no hotdrops for tanks.

[BarukKhazad]

And this....

Proposal #3: Add an elite Mek - Conquer op to leverage skilled pilots.
Proposed changes:
- Op requires 7.8 skillsum (5 levels per 4 units).
- Op requires four meks, 40+ ton.
- A successful attack would gain about 50% more land than a Conquer.
- A successful defense would gain the same amount of land as a Conquer.
- All other ops details would be the same as a Mek - Conquer op, including bv diff and payouts.

Expectations:
- A few players would stop complaining about pilot levels and accept these units from other players.
- Maybe include Beachhead in the op name and people will get all excited about it.

[Bloodknight]

Proposal 1:
Give Raids a range. Currently you can attack every factory on the map, which removes the strategy behind getting to a factory in the first place.

Proposal 2: in case proposal 1 gets implemented, add a little land exchange so one factory doesn't get hit all the time because the terrain is nice.

Proposal 3: make units from foreign factories cheaper to buy with money. There isn't much of an incentive to play economic warfare at the moment unless the other faction produces something vastly superior in a category than your own faction (as an example, back in CC I urged people to get me a Slayer factory, back when I dabbled in Aeros). For the most part, factions are pretty even when it comes to units and I just can't see myself blowing 9K on a random assault mech when I could buy 2 also random assault mechs at home. My suggestion would be 120-133% home price.

[Klingon]

Proposal 1:
Give Raids a range. Currently you can attack every factory on the map, which removes the strategy behind getting to a factory in the first place.

Maybe make the payout dependent on the range?

Proposal 2: in case proposal 1 gets implemented, add a little land exchange so one factory doesn't get hit all the time because the terrain is nice.

Could we track what factory has what components, so if one keeps getting hit it will simply run out, or again, reduce payout? Bleeding a faction dry through one factory out on the fringe seems a bit unrealistic.

[fahr]

would love to see comstar on the raidable factions in some way as well (since I will be playing there next cycle)

[Orca]

would love to see comstar on the raidable factions in some way as well (since I will be playing there next cycle)

Already been done (silently). You're behind the curve again fahr

[Orca]

Maybe Flu should remain a buyable resource using cbills if RPs will be put aside.

I'd prefer it if flu could still be bought...

The entire and sole purpose of Influence is to be a limiter. Being able to buy it negates it's purpose. I will entertain making it accrue faster and/or costing less to perform campaign actions, that's called "tweaking". If it can be bought, better to remove it totally. Otherwise it's another advantage to the wealthy players. (And I'm not going to consider removing it, I remember the reasons Influence was implemented and it does it's job.)

...maybe we should introduce sector capitals to get more use out of the Kingslayer op.

Ok, more detail please. Give us a Separate thread.

...there is no reason we couldn't leave it (Aeros) as is, and let those who play it keep playing it.

Yes, there is. Aeros do not transfer damage from MegaMek into the hangar. There are no repair costs, thus they're highly profitable.

we could remove flu and production if the fear is flu farming

No, we can't.

If we do away with RP, we need to re-balance Cbills so the casual player has a shot at staying relevant.

Yes yes. I'm already all over that. I don't plan to marginalize casual players, though they may not be able to afford constant heavy/assault BV's unless they're good enough to win often. Please give me credit for at least average insight, I've been around awhile.

Proposal #1...Proposal #2...

Require code, thus not on the table at the moment. Maybe later. Proposal #3 might be something to do.

There are other suggestions that I've not addressed yet, I know. But let me re-emphasize a couple of points:
* Suggestions that require code are non-starters. Spork doesn't have time and we both are in agreement that the server code is already an overly-complex monstrosity that's difficult to configure and admin. Our discussions are tending towards pruning unused features and streamlining. Right now we're discussing MegaMekNET settings only, not MekWars code. (Unless you're volunteering to write, test and debug the code. In which case by all means get in contact with Spork and fall to it with the blessings and thanks of everyone.)
* Suggestions that make the campaign more complex or less-intuitive than it already is are non-starters. We're already quite unintuitive enough.

[Nastyogre]

Aren't the reward tables derived of the canon build tables? I seem to recall discussions to simplify things by making a single table that was reflective of what is built and what is acquired by salvage/legacy unit etc, within in house. I thought the RP tables were more like the RAT's from the old books. Which is really more appropriate. Each Successor State had a significant industry in repairing and refiting salvage mechs. Some mechs aren't built but there are hundreds even thousands of them left.

Aren't the tables reflective of the "semi-canon" tables contained in a fan made (but canon derived) series of RATs?

If so, a single table based on those would be appropriate. I thought units currently built were taken into account.

[fahr]

Yes yes. I'm already all over that. I don't plan to marginalize casual players, though they may not be able to afford constant heavy/assault BV's unless they're good enough to win often. Please give me credit for at least average insight, I've been around awhile.

ok, This statement has me wondering, what is the thought that says that only hardcore players should be playing assaults and heavies constantly? The economy should be balanced such that playing a given weight class is a player style choice, not an enforced economic choice. this cycle was pretty much a free for all unit wise, and I didn't see nearly as many threads complaining about cheesy lances or vets with too many nice toys.

I thought that we learned from this cycle that the heavier meks are more forgiving on newer players, otherwise folks would still be playing light lances. generally they are not, so my concern is that we would be forcing casual players into playing the more difficult light meks from an economic standpoint, and while that may be canon, I don't see it as being a positive for gameplay.

fahr wrote:
...there is no reason we couldn't leave it (Aeros) as is, and let those who play it keep playing it.

Yes, there is. Aeros do not transfer damage from MegaMek into the hangar. There are no repair costs, thus they're highly profitable.

fahr wrote:
we could remove flu and production if the fear is flu farming

No, we can't.

ok, so are we concerned about Aeros creating very wealthy players who only play aero? that seems unlikely as there are not enough folks who play aero to make that happen.additionally, a simple solution there is to make the aero ops cost as much as you think repairs would be, or adjust the payout so that it is small enough to not be a good way to make money. I am happy with the campaign effects that they have now (destroying units in enemy faction bays) and they don't need anything else to be fun. last cycle aero was played by a small group of folks fairly often, for minor effect on the factions, but I don't believe anyone got terribly rich on it.

why can we not remove flu and production, My understanding is that Flu and production is based on what ops the armies are legal for. setting aero ops as not legal for flu and production seems reasonable. If I am mistaken, I apologize, but that was the impression I got from some of the other flu related discussions I have had before.

[Orca]

Aren't the reward tables derived of the canon build tables? I seem to recall discussions to simplify things by making a single table that was reflective of what is built and what is acquired by salvage/legacy unit etc, within in house. I thought the RP tables were more like the RAT's from the old books. Which is really more appropriate. Each Successor State had a significant industry in repairing and refiting salvage mechs. Some mechs aren't built but there are hundreds even thousands of them left.

Aren't the tables reflective of the "semi-canon" tables contained in a fan made (but canon derived) series of RATs?

If so, a single table based on those would be appropriate. I thought units currently built were taken into account.

Aye, a single table is preferred. We currently have 4 sets, 3 of which are in use.

[Orca]

ok, This statement has me wondering, what is the thought that says that only hardcore players should be playing assaults and heavies constantly? The economy should be balanced such that playing a given weight class is a player style choice, not an enforced economic choice. this cycle was pretty much a free for all unit wise, and I didn't see nearly as many threads complaining about cheesy lances or vets with too many nice toys.

Where did "hardcore" enter into the conversation? I said play heavy/assault BV's "constantly". The concept is that people will have to play light/medium BV's in order to afford to play heavy/assualt BV's unless they can win more than half their heavy/assault fights. If they can win em, they'll get enough compensation to replace losses. If they lose most of the time, they'll need to replace with lights/mediums and get paychecks. It's not hard.

I thought that we learned from this cycle that the heavier meks are more forgiving on newer players, otherwise folks would still be playing light lances. generally they are not, so my concern is that we would be forcing casual players into playing the more difficult light meks from an economic standpoint, and while that may be canon, I don't see it as being a positive for gameplay.

The concept is that you can lose 100% of light fights and still make enough cbills to replace losses. And everyone starts with lights/mediums/heavies in their hangars. If you can win even 50% of your heavy fights, you'll be able to replace losses. I fail to see your point.

why can we not remove flu and production, My understanding is that Flu and production is based on what ops the armies are legal for. setting aero ops as not legal for flu and production seems reasonable. If I am mistaken, I apologize, but that was the impression I got from some of the other flu related discussions I have had before.

You're mistaken. Influence and Production are generated by armies that are legal for Ops. Any Ops.

[fahr]

why are we pushing people to play lights?
why should the economy reward folks for playing lights?

I am not saying what you are suggesting won't work, I am asking if that is what we want?

I see our playerbase happier in general this cycle with less pressure to play one class or another of meks, and instead playing what they like. so my questions are not to suggest that you don't know how to do it, but more why do we want to do that.

Why do you see the need for more lights then heavies to be a positive factor for player fun?