My Feedback of this Cycle so far

Miscellaneous topics about the campaign

Moderator: Moderators

Lando
Posts: 297
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2013 4:18 pm

My Feedback of this Cycle so far

Post by Lando » Mon May 04, 2015 6:11 pm

After this cycle is running for a while, I will try to give a Feedback from my side.

IMHO the open BM was a very good idea. Now there are three ways to get units, and every method has his advantages and his disadvantages.
1. Faction Status
More often you find single useful units in a bunch of less useful units. But you can calculate risk versus reward.
2. Buying with RP or directly from the factory
You have to pay a relative high price for a unit if you use money, and they are relative cheap if you use RPs. This is kind of a lottery, because you don’t know what you get. In the beginning I was very unlucky with those units, over the complete cycle I can say that I draw more useful than unuseful designs.
3.The BM
You know what you get, but you don’t know if you will get it. Therefore it tends to costs more than the same unit in the faction bays.

In a sum, I think it is a good combo of choices to get new units.


I’m not sure, if the campaign with our actual ruleset hinders or supports our game.
For players who ignores the campaign it doesn’t matters. Players who take the campaign seriously try to pick their games.
For example I was online a long time this weekend. More than 12 hours on Saturday, also a long time on Friday. Most of the time I was active. But I couldn’t see a single FSler coming active in my BV range.
I could also see only very few fights between FS and DC, more often there were games between DC and Peri or FS and Peri.

I don’t know the real reason behind it, but maybe showing the ELO and the feeling of risking the effords of the own faction mates make people avoid fights. They try to fight only if they are pretty sure they would win, or on planets without anything to lose. I got a few weeks ago two times an arranged game, lose the initial roll, and the FS attacker chooses a planet with 100% DC LP. So there was nothing to win for me, but only for my opponent.
After that I decided not to arrange games with FS anymore.

So my thoughts of “how to play the campaign” hinder me to play.

On the other side I play relative often against the Peri. But if I get on the losing side, I stop playing very early and surrender. This way I save useable units and it doesn’t matters if I lose. There is a positive effect of losing against the Peri: its lowers my ELO rating. Therefore I can win more land and lose less land against FS.

In this way I get less fights, and the fights I get are less meaningful. Therefore I’m thinking of ignoring the campaign and switching to the Peri. While playing the Peri I don’t have to think about the campaign, of winning or losing land, then mekwars is only a match making system for me.

I don’t know which part of the ruleset has to be changed.

- Shall we don’t show the ELO rating to make it more difficult avoiding the better players?
- Is the system of blinding the main cause?
- Or is it wrong to have a non-conquer faction?

I really don’t know, but I’m sure, that I will ignore the campaign in the next cycle if we don’t have major changes to our campaign setup.

User avatar
Bloodknight
MegamekNET PR Administrator
Posts: 1377
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 1:29 am
Location: Germany

Re: My Feedback of this Cycle so far

Post by Bloodknight » Mon May 04, 2015 10:35 pm

First of all, thanks for your feedback.
I’m not sure, if the campaign with our actual ruleset hinders or supports our game.
I don't know. What I do know is that last cycle with its practically meaningless campaign turned into something stale very quickly and the players did not come anymore. I don't think we'd do well at all if there was no campaign layer, no "story" to fight for.
two times an arranged game, lose the initial roll, and the FS attacker chooses a planet with 100% DC LP. So there was nothing to win for me, but only for my opponent.
To be fair, the DC players do the same. It's not exactly beautiful, but that's what the initial roll is for, apparently (if you choose a 50/50 planet, it doesn't matter who attacks anyway - basically winning that initial roll means you lose flu to launch the op and that's it ;)).
- Shall we don’t show the ELO rating to make it more difficult avoiding the better players?
Nah. Unless everybody changes his nickname (something I personally frown very much upon because it's so anti-community), that will work for all of 5 seconds against new players who don't know "the old guard" and that's it. Strong, new players will be identified after a few games, too.
- Is the system of blinding the main cause?
I could live without it, but then I'd prefer the system Legends uses and they're not sharing their code.
- Or is it wrong to have a non-conquer faction?
I don't know. We used to have one, then we didn't, now we do again. Number of games per week went up from last cycle at least.

Rushvin
Former MegamekNET Moderator
Posts: 979
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 12:15 am

Re: My Feedback of this Cycle so far

Post by Rushvin » Tue May 05, 2015 12:37 am

My opinions

-The smaller faction base, 2 Conquest and 1 Non-conquest has helped concentrate players making for more games and the map actually feeling like its moving at times. It also prevents the tiny vet faction from coming out of nowhere to win the cycle.
-Lack of Subfactions I think is a good thing as it removes some of the issues and confusion those have.
-Pilot leveling is a plus. It has allowed many mechs to be of more use and not tried to pass them off to newer players by vets. It also makes more investment feeling on such instead of cold indifference if a pilot ejects.
-The open Black Market has allowed for buying at it more often. But it just seems to be a glut of units on it. You can live off the BM instead of your house bays if they just sold infantry. There is an issue with the tables allowing a number of high sought after units seeming to be available.
-Infantry being unlimited is a double edge. It does allow players to be able to fix BV when they are arranging games but with so many city maps you are seeing them as part of armies they might not normally be in. Also Indirect fire has become a common tactic.
-Small number of missions leaves less confusion over what you can attack and do. The lack of a resource raid is noticeably missing. For the Periphery the range limit makes for choice of terrains to attack restricted so that some units are not as worth using.
-The removal of the Bay Planets was a good idea. It stops the issue that can hurt a faction in middle or late cycle with new players.
-Removal of the not moved optional rule modifier I like. The -1 to be hit has caused a lot of issues with tanks losing movement but not yet immobilized. Sure it helps camping armies defense.

Lando
Posts: 297
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2013 4:18 pm

Re: My Feedback of this Cycle so far

Post by Lando » Tue May 05, 2015 5:57 pm

Bloodknight wrote:First of all, thanks for your feedback.
two times an arranged game, lose the initial roll, and the FS attacker chooses a planet with 100% DC LP. So there was nothing to win for me, but only for my opponent.
To be fair, the DC players do the same. It's not exactly beautiful, but that's what the initial roll is for, apparently (if you choose a 50/50 planet, it doesn't matter who attacks anyway - basically winning that initial roll means you lose flu to launch the op and that's it ;)).
If I choose a 50/50 planet I can influence the terrain of the fight. This is, in my opinion, an advantage.
And of course, yes, DC do the same. No doubt. I hope you know me well enough that it wasn't my point to blame anyone. If I want to blame someone, I have to blame myself 8) . Not for 100%planet picking, I wouldn't do that, but I carefully pick FS opponents :oops: . I carefully watch, who maybe waiting, before I go active. I also carefully watch who maybe coming active before I blind someone. If there are more HELOs than other players around, I deactivate.

Normally I don't blind Peri opponents, but waiting for them to attack me. It spares me flu, and it doesn't matters if I have to fight in the wrong terrain, because it is okay if I loose. :mrgreen:

All of these points are reactions to our ruleset. And all of these points leads to viewer fights. Maybe it is only me, thinking this way and playing this way, but I doubt that i'm something special. I think most of the people do that in one way or the other.
Bloodknight wrote:
- Shall we don’t show the ELO rating to make it more difficult avoiding the better players?
Nah. Unless everybody changes his nickname (something I personally frown very much upon because it's so anti-community), that will work for all of 5 seconds against new players who don't know "the old guard" and that's it. Strong, new players will be identified after a few games, too.
Correct. That isn't a good idea.
Bloodknight wrote:
- Is the system of blinding the main cause?
I could live without it, but then I'd prefer the system Legends uses and they're not sharing their code.
- Or is it wrong to have a non-conquer faction?
I don't know. We used to have one, then we didn't, now we do again. Number of games per week went up from last cycle at least.
Hmm, looks like there is no major change in the next cycle. It is okay for me. I never played Periphery before.

TigerShark
Mekwars Server Operator
Posts: 713
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 8:28 am

Re: My Feedback of this Cycle so far

Post by TigerShark » Tue May 05, 2015 6:11 pm

BTW - That could be (possibly) solved by an AFR version of each Op. It would at least provide an option for players who complain about "sitting around / waiting for a game." A lot of that (in what I'm hearing) is from people not wanting to go active and get hit with a Defense. At least a /roll gives you (a) a shot at attacking and (b) a game.

By costing 75% or 100% of your Flu to launch, it forces the player to still use the Blind system for most games. But it gives you a use for Reward Points and a way to get a game, if nobody is active / coming active. This is really good for off hours when there are no players online. Just a suggestion based on the post.

Deadweight
Posts: 504
Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2013 7:17 am

Re: My Feedback of this Cycle so far

Post by Deadweight » Wed May 06, 2015 3:18 pm

Bloodknight wrote:
I could live without it, but then I'd prefer the system Legends uses and they're not sharing their code.
Aren't they obligated to?

User avatar
Bloodknight
MegamekNET PR Administrator
Posts: 1377
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 1:29 am
Location: Germany

Re: My Feedback of this Cycle so far

Post by Bloodknight » Wed May 06, 2015 3:40 pm

Yes, they are. It would help if they honored the license agreement.

Deadweight
Posts: 504
Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2013 7:17 am

Re: My Feedback of this Cycle so far

Post by Deadweight » Wed May 06, 2015 3:53 pm

Bloodknight wrote:Yes, they are. It would help if they honored the license agreement.
Tell CGL? Ask them to assist?

TigerShark
Mekwars Server Operator
Posts: 713
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 8:28 am

Re: My Feedback of this Cycle so far

Post by TigerShark » Wed May 06, 2015 4:03 pm

He's talking about an open source license. CGL doesn't have any direct control over it. Not any you'd want them to exercise anyhow.

User avatar
Nastyogre
MegamekNET Moderator
Posts: 4134
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 4:46 am

Re: My Feedback of this Cycle so far

Post by Nastyogre » Mon May 18, 2015 7:58 pm

Rushvin wrote:My opinions

-The smaller faction base, 2 Conquest and 1 Non-conquest has helped concentrate players making for more games and the map actually feeling like its moving at times. It also prevents the tiny vet faction from coming out of nowhere to win the cycle.
-Lack of Subfactions I think is a good thing as it removes some of the issues and confusion those have.
-Pilot leveling is a plus. It has allowed many mechs to be of more use and not tried to pass them off to newer players by vets. It also makes more investment feeling on such instead of cold indifference if a pilot ejects.
-The open Black Market has allowed for buying at it more often. But it just seems to be a glut of units on it. You can live off the BM instead of your house bays if they just sold infantry. There is an issue with the tables allowing a number of high sought after units seeming to be available.
-Infantry being unlimited is a double edge. It does allow players to be able to fix BV when they are arranging games but with so many city maps you are seeing them as part of armies they might not normally be in. Also Indirect fire has become a common tactic.
-Small number of missions leaves less confusion over what you can attack and do. The lack of a resource raid is noticeably missing. For the Periphery the range limit makes for choice of terrains to attack restricted so that some units are not as worth using.
-The removal of the Bay Planets was a good idea. It stops the issue that can hurt a faction in middle or late cycle with new players.
-Removal of the not moved optional rule modifier I like. The -1 to be hit has caused a lot of issues with tanks losing movement but not yet immobilized. Sure it helps camping armies defense.
I agree in the main with Rushvin on all points. If we kept things the same or made the minor changes he suggests, I'd be happy a pig in poop. (Or just an Ogre)

to combat the proliferation of infantry and the Camp army, I would like to see a unit that we could purchase that is off-board artillery. There is already a BV cost attached somehow. When an assault/grand slam is run the BV cost of those tubes is added. I would like to see a way to buy those intentionally. If possible to bring into the lower rent games. It would help keep those armies honest. I generally play with pretty flexible armies and I've seen a few camp forces that I couldn't defeat with an army that wasn't specifically designed to do so.

If no arty, then bring back the stationary modifier or limit infantry. Just my preference though I would think lots of people disagree.

I would like to see all factions get a resource raid. It's fun. Though it can distract from running "real" ops, it is something to consider that with fewer factions there is less autoproduction. So hitting factories and bays does more meaningful damage to the faction economy.


OH! Add the unit contest units to the tables! :-)

Ceorl
Posts: 529
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 4:43 am

Re: My Feedback of this Cycle so far

Post by Ceorl » Mon May 18, 2015 11:57 pm

If no arty, then bring back the stationary modifier or limit infantry. Just my preference though I would think lots of people disagree.
While I understand the desire for arty when someone brings a camp force this is a high level of play concern. My concern has always been that been that arty is a skill-gate weapon, meaning that beginning players struggle mightily with it, and higher level players are more likely to use camp lances. If arty is added back, beyond your suggestion quoted above, perhaps it should be limited to an operation that occurs only if the army has a unit below a speed threshold say 3/5. This way rookie players, who are unlikely to build camp lances, are less likely to have handle artillery while it remains open as a counter to specific play styles.
(Retired)

User avatar
Nastyogre
MegamekNET Moderator
Posts: 4134
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 4:46 am

Re: My Feedback of this Cycle so far

Post by Nastyogre » Tue May 19, 2015 2:56 am

Excellent discussion Ceorl and excellent points.

I agree. Arty is a tool to counter a certain style of play. Sure you can lay arty traps and devastate a mobile force IF you hit. It's hard to do. I like to think of myself as reasonably good with arty and I can't do it consistently. Now against some slogging near stationary tank force? I think almost any player could at least harass them, probably hit them. Plenty of 3/5 stationary tank forces. Behemoths are one of the big problems, but I've faced Heavy LRM carriers backed up by Partisans and a mech. Not designed to move just pepper you into oblivion. 1 tube of arty would change the game. It would work still, but it couldn't stand still.

It's why I'd like to see the ability to buy a tube or two in any op. Basically to combat an unbalanced style. I've done it, it's not much fun to play with or against unless the only focus is winning. Like Griffin or Spider hunts. They win, but suck for you and your opponent.

I am not saying this is some kind of server breaking problem as others have asserted about minor preferences. It would be nice to have as an option. My real solution to those forces is to play higher BV's where Behemoths and LRM carriers get thumped. Sure, you can do it even way up to 8000 BV it just gets that much harder. Though 6 Behemoths with mounds of infantry at 8K... eek. Then again, I'd trade shots with my AWS gladly, hur hur hur.

User avatar
Bloodknight
MegamekNET PR Administrator
Posts: 1377
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 1:29 am
Location: Germany

Re: My Feedback of this Cycle so far

Post by Bloodknight » Tue May 19, 2015 5:50 am

OH! Add the unit contest units to the tables!
The winners are in the process of being put into code and images. We'll announce who won soon.


Want of a ressource op has been noted, P will get their own set with longer ranges so they don't always have to raid Inner End...

obese pigeon
Posts: 874
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 10:51 am

Re: My Feedback of this Cycle so far

Post by obese pigeon » Tue May 19, 2015 1:30 pm

Bloodknight wrote: Want of a ressource op has been noted, P will get their own set with longer ranges so they don't always have to raid Inner End...
I would argue against having a resource op, because in my opinion, having one makes the campaign far less dynamic. You see the very nice back and forth campaign this cycle? Won't happen when 80% of the ops launched are resource raids. You know who actually launches campaign ops in such a situation? The better players. The better campaign players would be launching conquer ops and defending raids, perpetuating the oft seen vet player steamroll. Aside from a less dynamic campaign dominated by vet players, you also have a far more static land exchange situation as well.

Basically, having a resource op turns a campaign server into a mostly non-campaign one, except for a select few campaigners. Is that what is wanted?

User avatar
Nastyogre
MegamekNET Moderator
Posts: 4134
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 4:46 am

Re: My Feedback of this Cycle so far

Post by Nastyogre » Tue May 19, 2015 2:14 pm

Perhaps only P gets resource raid by them and against them? You make a good point. A cycle of mostly raids did happen. Perhaps like the old raids that still granted some land?

Zerberus
MegamekNET Moderator
Posts: 692
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 11:58 pm

Re: My Feedback of this Cycle so far

Post by Zerberus » Tue May 19, 2015 5:06 pm

If the resource op for conquer factions costs 120 flu to launch and the assault op costs 20 flu to launch, that might be different.

With regard to arty I was always in favour of having fewer rounds of fire but more tubes. If you only have 5 shots per tube, you cannot use arty in the way it is used now. Of course that puts further emphasis on knowing how to use arty properly (and on predicting moves or laying traps), but on the other hand it can reduce the luck impact on scatter a bit and removes the option to kill a luckily downed unit by aiming arty at that hex for 20 rounds while skirting the map edge ...

Rushvin
Former MegamekNET Moderator
Posts: 979
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 12:15 am

Re: My Feedback of this Cycle so far

Post by Rushvin » Tue May 19, 2015 7:36 pm

I would be against more operations having free Artillery.
There is a compromise of sorts...

For every X (say 1,500) XP a player is granted if they ask a Mod or Admin (Forum record can help keep track when and who gets one) a free Support Artillery that is offboard model to only be used offboard. Overrun rules can make it still vulnerable so they will not be totally invulnerable to harm and could set how much ammo it has and such.

They could then put it in an army to help vs. campers. With the high XP cost to get one no player should have more then maybe 2 at any time unless they never really bring them out. The player would also have to pay the BV cost to field and with it having a support tag would not worry about BV spread.

Could also have a different sort depending on how much XP the player has (first tube being Thumper and the third being a Long Tom). This would give a perk for those that play a lot, but not necessarily good.

Ironboot
Mekwars Server Operator
Posts: 212
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 5:00 am
Location: Boston, MA

Re: My Feedback of this Cycle so far

Post by Ironboot » Wed May 20, 2015 2:37 pm

I've enjoyed this cycle a lot!
Quick list...
1) Set amount of starting bays to start off with and not setting bays to planets.
2)BM - Nice to see what you are buying.
3) Three factions where everyone can play each other. It felt I had a better chance to get a game. It would be a lot of work but if you make the build tables/sub factions you could make the game FS/LC vs CC/DC/M and have P still non conquer. :)

TigerShark
Mekwars Server Operator
Posts: 713
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 8:28 am

Re: My Feedback of this Cycle so far

Post by TigerShark » Wed May 20, 2015 7:28 pm

...or simply include the Artillery as an MUL army and have it be on-board. That would serve the purpose of (a) dislodging campers and (b) allowing the other army to destroy the artillery if they move from their position. Also really serves to shorten the game time for Light/Medium battles, since Lights get pimp slapped by Sniper and Long Tom guns.

obese pigeon
Posts: 874
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 10:51 am

Re: My Feedback of this Cycle so far

Post by obese pigeon » Thu May 21, 2015 5:43 am

Something just occurred to me.

I like how the differentiated land exchange based on ELO means that picking on players weaker than one self (eg specifically arranging games with baby seals) is not rewarded, but actually punished from a campaign perspective.

I would elaborate, but i think its pretty self explanatory. I think its the best setting for the cycle right there ^^

Gottloser
Mekwars Server Operator
Posts: 132
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 9:06 am

Re: My Feedback of this Cycle so far

Post by Gottloser » Thu May 21, 2015 11:41 am

obese pigeon wrote:Something just occurred to me.

I like how the differentiated land exchange based on ELO means that picking on players weaker than one self (eg specifically arranging games with baby seals) is not rewarded, but actually punished from a campaign perspective.

I would elaborate, but i think its pretty self explanatory. I think its the best setting for the cycle right there ^^
As a weaker (I don´t know all the tactics, you know) players I don´t particular like this setting. It´s awesome in environment in which there are a) plenty of opponents and b) you can cherrypick your opponents.

Most of the time (according to my experience) players go active and take whatever opponent they get. You can even use weaker players to shield now.

Good player and weak player (ELO wise) are active at the same BV, great player attacks - weak player takes it and can´t lose much while the good player can fight a mediocre player for more land.

If we had 100 players constantly on and sharks cherrypicking on baby seals, the setting would be great. Right now I think it´s just stalling.

User avatar
Nastyogre
MegamekNET Moderator
Posts: 4134
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 4:46 am

Re: My Feedback of this Cycle so far

Post by Nastyogre » Thu May 21, 2015 2:22 pm

I feel the opposite Gottloser. If we had 100 players on and it was difficult to go active and not get blinded, it would be tough to cherrypick. What's more there would be such a broad swathe of players across all skill levels ELO handicapping wouldn't be necessary. It's the small scale of the server that makes it a good idea.

As much as I've argued for ELO handicapping, I'd prefer to see a situation where it wasn't necessary.

obese pigeon
Posts: 874
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 10:51 am

Re: My Feedback of this Cycle so far

Post by obese pigeon » Sun May 31, 2015 7:16 am

I think bays should be made cheaper next cycle. I can't think of any disadvantage to letting players build a bigger hanger. bigger hanger = more armies = increased number of games being played

Ceorl
Posts: 529
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 4:43 am

Re: My Feedback of this Cycle so far

Post by Ceorl » Sun May 31, 2015 4:37 pm

I can't think of any disadvantage to letting players build a bigger hanger. bigger hanger = more armies = increased number of games being played
I can, more cherry picking of units and more min-maxed armies. This dynamics happens every cycle, is inevitable really, but higher costs delay the acquisition of units and force players to rely more on what's available than on what is most effective.
(Retired)

Casimir
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2015 9:57 pm

Re: My Feedback of this Cycle so far

Post by Casimir » Sun May 31, 2015 6:35 pm

I am relatively new, so my feedback is only regarding specific points:

- Please disable "mobile Headquarte" units. They are more than cheesy and lead to frustration very easy.

- Please activate the "stacking-ini-bonus"-rule, so ini is more evenly distributed between the parties.

- Please activate the "move-double-units-at the beginning of the turn"-rule.

Post Reply