Current cycle feedback

Miscellaneous topics about the campaign

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
Jackal
Posts: 1391
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 3:02 pm

Current cycle feedback

Post by Jackal » Sat May 12, 2018 1:00 pm

I'm going to take the plunge and start a feedback discussion about the new cycle. So far I LOVE the bold new fresh start, but I do think some tweaking is needed. Here are the things I love, like, etc.:

Things I love:
  • more focused map – I really think this is a great innovation, there was just no need for 3000+ planets. I think we're likely to see more meaningful movement on the map, and target selections will be MUCH easier than before.
  • all six factions – it's nice to see every faction back in the game. I also suspect this will make it easier to get a fight once people start building up their hangars
  • same terrains on all planets - puts attacker and defender on more even footing because neither side knows which terrain is going to be pulled. Great solution to the longstanding 'no one wants to defend' issue.
  • starting units - I love that we start out with a handful of lights and mediums and have to work our way up from there

Good but needs tweaking:
  • hangars – I like the general concept of the tighter hangar situation, and gaining hangars only from XP, but it's a little TOO tight in the current setup.
    • it's made matchmaking pretty difficult – with 7 mechs a negative bays I can only field one lance and it usually doesn't encounter anything. I've had to arrange all my fights and, even then, I can't always come up with a match
    • I also wonder how this will work late in the campaign when long-time players can cherry pick, but newcomers can't.
    • Both of the above could be solved just by having a few more starting bays. I think if every player had a minimum of 35 bays (enough to handle 5 lights and 5 mediums) this system would be AWESOME.
  • tighter economy – I like the tighter economy, but it seems some things still need tweaking. Repairs and specialized ammo seem a FAR too expensive for the much lower op payouts (I literally lost all my starting money doing repairs after my first fight.)

Don't like:
  • armies smaller than 4 units – in my personal testing armies smaller than 4 are immune to attack, but can still launch attacks (I assume that's unintentional). I've also found that at the very low BV's we're currently playing with, sub-4 unit armies kind of stomp 4 unit armies. I'd personally like to see a return to 4 unit minimums with enough hangar space to handle 2 lances (plus change).

Goul
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 8:21 pm

Re: Current cycle feedback

Post by Goul » Sat May 12, 2018 4:28 pm

I can only say i agree to the above and want to add some to it: as it is, i think the Economy is quite tight balanced. I can buy a light mech From housebays for 50 CBs, but, any mech that gets hit systems costs as much to repair. Get a Limb shot off? Costs even more.

As i was returning from a looong absence, i wasnt used to it and spend roughly 400 CBs on repairing a Stinger That lost an Arm and a Leg.

Then attacking costs CBs. Which is fine if the Economy isnt that tight. At the moment any mech that lost a Limb or get Criticals in Serius Systems, its !much! cheaper to scrap and buy new then to repair. Which would be fine if the Balance wouldnt be so far off. in repairing a Mech you know what you get, buy new and its a gamble what you get.

Maybe its gets more efficent with heavys and Assaults, as they cost much more to buy new. And Inf costs as much to buy from Housebays as a light mech.

to the Mekbays: i had a bit of bad luck, defected to Steiner and got lights with low BV ( around 400-490 ) and 2 Meds 1200 BV, 1 med 1000 BV. With this setup and Minus Bays, i couldnt use 2 of my meds because of BV diffrence Rule and was tied to only Play 1 Med, rest lights, or 3 meds. Was quite hard to find games because not able to alter BV much.
Last edited by Goul on Sat May 12, 2018 4:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Lando
Posts: 295
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2013 4:18 pm

Re: Current cycle feedback

Post by Lando » Sat May 12, 2018 4:37 pm

Here is my first Feedback.

I like the basic idea of building up your unit from the scrap to a big and powerful unit. I find it motivates me.

Economic:

The tight economic is great. You have to think, what to do with your money. You cannot do all things you want and have a plenty of money left. Thats really good.
I also like it, that specialized ammo is very expensive. Again you have to think twice, if you want to use it. It isn't an automatic move anymore to put prec ammo in all meks and vee that can use them.
From the lore there should be only few situations, where you see a mek with prec ammo.

On the otherside it is too expensive right now. For 1 ton of prexc ammo you can buy 2 med meks from the faction bay and spare some CBs. Thats a bit too much.

Also you have to surrender a fight earlier now, because youi can't be sure, that you are able to repair your units after the fight.
2 or 3 heavy losses now at the beginning can bring your entire hangar down.

And I have the same thoughts than Jackal. What happens to a new arrival player, after the cycle runs 2 or 3 months?

He has 7 shitty units and have to field against players with a hangar big enough for decent armies. This would be a major disadvantage.


Operations:

It is good to have operations for less than 4 units. I think it isn't intended that you can start a Patrol with 2 units, but you have to have 4 units to defend it. But to get fights with only 2 units can speed up some fights.

Until now I don't start a game, if i haven't at least 2 hours of time left. Now maybe 1 hour could be enough to do a quick Patrol.


Double blind off:

Well yes, this speed up games, therefore it is good. But beside that, it takes a lot of the tactical depth from the game away. You don't need sensors, and some units, for example LRM Carrier, SRM Carrier aren't worth fielding anymore, because you can't ambush anyone, and in the open they are destroyed too easy for there BV.

Goul
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 8:21 pm

Re: Current cycle feedback

Post by Goul » Sat May 12, 2018 4:41 pm

Lando wrote:Here is my first Feedback.

Double blind off:

Well yes, this speed up games, therefore it is good. But beside that, it takes a lot of the tactical depth from the game away. You don't need sensors, and some units, for example LRM Carrier, SRM Carrier aren't worth fielding anymore, because you can't ambush anyone, and in the open they are destroyed too easy for there BV.



I think you are right that it limits Tactics, but, you would have to be more carefull which slows down games. maybe just ask the other players if they agree on DB before start. Afaik you can change rules if both agree.

Illician Lancers
Posts: 153
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 10:34 pm

Re: Current cycle feedback

Post by Illician Lancers » Sat May 12, 2018 9:24 pm

Personally I think that no DB is a setback for the game. You will think because you know where the enemy is the game is faster but the reality is the opposite i know is there, so i win ini I jump to H forest, I lost ini I jump far away of the reach of that locust in the back of the hill level 2 at 3 hex so he cannot reach my back, kick me, etc. Especially with the set up of the initial hangar of 3 M and 4 L which is already hard to made armies because of the bv spread and is even more limited because you can do 1 decent army if you are lucky or a totally shit army if you get several 5/5 or 4/6 plus bv spread.

Limited hangar is a good idea but should be a bigger limited hangar for unless to made 2 armies and don't have the issue of the bv spread. 5M and 5L will do the trick to made it easy.

The tight economy is pretty hard to repairs units, i love that the especial ammo is more expensive that I think is a plus personally I will made it even a litter more expensive so you really need to think if you want repairs or ammo.

The price of the mechs are to low and the pay off from the ops are really tight.

So far that is all my feedback.

Personally I don't think I will play many games this cycle the no DB take all the fun out of the game for me and it has nothing to do with IDF just with tactics, you cannot ambush, or surprise any player, you cannot made the other player made mistakes or guest if there is a hidden unit in the back of that hill, building or forest with no LOS because you know where all units are so oh the centurion with MS is there so i move the other way, etc.

Erich
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2015 1:29 am

Re: Current cycle feedback

Post by Erich » Sat May 12, 2018 11:21 pm

I really like everything so far, except the no DB rule. Like said before it takes too much away compared to the benefits.

Lando
Posts: 295
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2013 4:18 pm

Re: Current cycle feedback

Post by Lando » Sat May 12, 2018 11:33 pm

Illician Lancers wrote:
Limited hangar is a good idea but should be a bigger limited hangar for unless to made 2 armies and don't have the issue of the bv spread. 5M and 5L will do the trick to made it easy.
Short question:

Have you realized that legal armies start with 1500 BV and 2 units? That there is an ops with no BV spread at all?

I believe that everybody should be able to field 2 armies with his 7 units.

The operations are a little borked yes (no payout for the Raid; you need 4 units to defend a Patrol but only 2 to start a Patrol), but I think Spork will correct them.

Illician Lancers
Posts: 153
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 10:34 pm

Re: Current cycle feedback

Post by Illician Lancers » Sun May 13, 2018 12:05 am

No a fan of 2 armies units unless you start with 4 and end with 2 that is different or you are playing clans in which case 2 armies units are powerful enough to take 4 or even 5 or 6 units so is somehow balance.

Ares
Posts: 160
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2013 10:05 am

Re: Current cycle feedback

Post by Ares » Sun May 13, 2018 12:13 am

My first ideas:
-I am short of time now. Last cycle, my exp was about 1000 (it was a long time ago, ago that I reached 4000 exp). It is said " You will earn 1 new bay per 100 exp", so I would have about 30 bays after several months. It will be really hard to field a heavy lance (unless I have only 4 units in the hangar when I have 400 exp). I like playing at high bvs so...

-I will have to play againt players with much higher exp and tuned hangars. I don't think it will be nice for me. Yes, I know that is my problem. If I want to play interesting games for me, I should play more but simply I can't. I don't have enough time. Hardly will I spend my short time to play with the units I have (and the units I will have within one month). And I don't have enough time to play against vees armies at low bv and I think I will find a lot of them in a short period of time.

-I liked the double blind system. With the double blind system removed, I think that units of the army going active should be shown (at least the type of units).

- I like the change in the map.

-Economy is interesting but I cannot give an opinion about the payouts, etc.

obese pigeon
Posts: 854
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 10:51 am

Re: Current cycle feedback

Post by obese pigeon » Sun May 13, 2018 3:10 am

I think the downside of the small hanger is that game matching becomes a little more difficult. I suspect the fact that valid armies can be made with as little as two units contributes to the problem and makes it for difficult for a match.

i was active with my two lances - 2217 (3 units) and 2249 (4 units) and not able to get a game

Also, my starting hanger doesn't look like a CC hanger, so it could be that the build tables are somehow not linking up correctly

Edit: I've just finished my first campaign fight. Wow. Cost of repairs are really high compared to what you earn. This will be a really tight economy! That combined with inability to buy bays also means that you got to play what you have. Its almost impossible to have a 'tuned' hanger unless you play a lot! As an example, the best guys in my hanger are a 4/6 SHD-2H and a 4/5 JR7-D 0.o

Get only 1 tech. You really can't afford more. I used up 500 cbills repairing from my first fight. I salvaged two badly damaged units from my opponent which kind of explains why. But wow. Its just super expensive. Kind of like running a struggling mercenary company lol

I think this kind of environment is good for developing playerskill in that you need to learn to play a bad army well. It is now very difficult to win games by relying on good units or very specific strategies and playstyles - but my concern is that it might be too restrictive and some players may not enjoy being forced to play a specific way.

One player has already stated that he would play less, although he stated that lack of DB is the issue. I've also observed that many players have preferred lance types and playstyles, simply because they probably win more using these lances. In this restrictive environment where you literally have to play what you get, im not sure how many players would just to to outright leave.

obese pigeon
Posts: 854
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 10:51 am

Re: Current cycle feedback

Post by obese pigeon » Sun May 13, 2018 10:36 am

Have also found that it is sometimes cheaper to scrap a critically damaged mech and fish a replacement in the faction bays (autoproduction is extremely important!) than to repair.

It seems that i log out when after a time when doing AFK production farming... Is there a timeout set?

Lastly, in the op viewer for patrol. Attacker has to have minimum of 2 units, while defender has a minimum of 4. This means that a lance of 2 to 3 units cannot be attacked on a patrol. Is that intended?
Last edited by obese pigeon on Sun May 13, 2018 2:24 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Illician Lancers
Posts: 153
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 10:34 pm

Re: Current cycle feedback

Post by Illician Lancers » Sun May 13, 2018 10:39 am

obese pigeon wrote:One player has already stated that he would play less, although he stated that lack of DB is the issue. I've also observed that many players have preferred lance types and playstyles, simply because they probably win more using these lances. In this restrictive environment where you literally have to play what you get, im not sure how many players would just to to outright leave.
Well sure I am going to play less or nothing at all. You know how long you can play a 2.3k army with no DB going around no risking ever because you know where the other player is all the time waiting for him to get bore and made a mistake? Let me give you a clue 4 or 5 hours and if you think that is insane just wait for it until started to happens and players got bore as hell. No having DB take out from Megamek all the deep and fan.

Then another thing that Ares said is totally true this type of hangar isn't for everybody. No everyone like to play low L armies for different reasons. Me normally I avoid low armies no because i dislike them but because became a luck game where the lower rolls are 9s and the average rolls are 10, 11 and 12 with maybe 2 to 3 weapons per units so games take a long time to play out and became more a ufff finally i can kick him and kicks are the kings of those games and now you even take out DB so games are going to be even longer with the only tactics involved of back off far from reach when i lost ini and taken the H forest or H smoke when I gain ini. Have fun with that.

Ares have another good point too, for casual players is insane this hangar and how is design to evolve. They are force to play a shit hangar with so so or bad units for a long time while the hardcore players made hangars bigger and can field better armies. So what you are doing is strait away boring and made losing interest to a lot of players. Sure you maybe attract a few new players but you are teaching them the wrong way how this game is play and how to manage hangars.

I am a pretty active player here, I love to teach new players how this works, and I am one of the hardcore and Elite players too but this has made me lost all interest whatsoever in playing here, NO having DB is the biggest issue for me no wanting to play more as i explain already, forcing all players to play the same type of armies with a super limited hangar is another, that is less issue for me adapt or die :twisted: but seriously no everyone like those units, hangars or been force to play in a specific way and the limited hangar with 4 L and 3 M is exactly what it does force everybody to play the same in the same way. WHY? I don't see the point.

Sure some players will don't miss me at all and I am pretty sure a lot more will miss me around to those farewell and enjoy if you can the new settings. Maybe we meat again in the future. I can appreciate what Spork is trying to do here but I think he approach a few things the wrong way. I supposed we will find out eventually how works in general for the community.

Have fun guys.

Spork
Mekwars Developer
Posts: 3892
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 10:23 pm

Re: Current cycle feedback

Post by Spork » Sun May 13, 2018 7:02 pm

OK, repairs and ammo should be half what they were and much more supportable going forward - I had not considered those, when I changed payouts, so they were at last cycle's levels.

DB is *not* a default of BT, folks. If you want DB, then by all means, ask your opponent, and turn it on.
Never had much, grew up with nothing
But the music, well it was something
Been down and out, I've been on top of the world,
World that keeps on spinning on a turntable.

Lando
Posts: 295
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2013 4:18 pm

Re: Current cycle feedback

Post by Lando » Sun May 13, 2018 10:36 pm

Spork wrote: DB is *not* a default of BT, folks. If you want DB, then by all means, ask your opponent, and turn it on.
The problem with that is, that you see the units of your opponent, before someone can decide to turn DB on or not. Therefore everyone can decide, if DB would be better for his army or for the opponent.
I would assume that in most cases one of the two opponents would say no.

I also believe that DB isn't a default setting, because it is difficult to play with DB when you sit with your opponent at a table, and don't have a Gamemaster around.
But with a server as a "Gamemaster" this is a complete different situation.

Spork
Mekwars Developer
Posts: 3892
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 10:23 pm

Re: Current cycle feedback

Post by Spork » Mon May 14, 2018 2:52 am

obese pigeon wrote:Have also found that it is sometimes cheaper to scrap a critically damaged mech and fish a replacement in the faction bays (autoproduction is extremely important!) than to repair.

It seems that i log out when after a time when doing AFK production farming... Is there a timeout set?

Lastly, in the op viewer for patrol. Attacker has to have minimum of 2 units, while defender has a minimum of 4. This means that a lance of 2 to 3 units cannot be attacked on a patrol. Is that intended?
If I find that people are doing AFK production farming, I'm going to remove production from activity and only have it due to games being played.
Never had much, grew up with nothing
But the music, well it was something
Been down and out, I've been on top of the world,
World that keeps on spinning on a turntable.

Illician Lancers
Posts: 153
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 10:34 pm

Re: Current cycle feedback

Post by Illician Lancers » Mon May 14, 2018 5:54 am

Lando wrote:
Spork wrote: DB is *not* a default of BT, folks. If you want DB, then by all means, ask your opponent, and turn it on.
The problem with that is, that you see the units of your opponent, before someone can decide to turn DB on or not. Therefore everyone can decide, if DB would be better for his army or for the opponent.
I would assume that in most cases one of the two opponents would say no.

I also believe that DB isn't a default setting, because it is difficult to play with DB when you sit with your opponent at a table, and don't have a Gamemaster around.
But with a server as a "Gamemaster" this is a complete different situation.
Lando just got a bulls eye here that is exactly why DB wasn't a default setting in BT, TT works different. 100 RP for you Lando :wink: Plus you are totally right after you see the enemy army in main channel 99% of players will choose no DB at all. it is easy to kill a hetzer, lrm/srm carrier, Archer, etc when you know where they are that if you don't have a clue of what unit the enemy bring and where is hidden or approaching to you the game is totally different.

BlackRay
Former MegamekNET Moderator
Posts: 57
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 11:11 am
Location: CStar ROM secret base
Contact:

Re: Current cycle feedback

Post by BlackRay » Mon May 14, 2018 9:56 am

Illician Lancers wrote:
Lando wrote:
Spork wrote: DB is *not* a default of BT, folks. If you want DB, then by all means, ask your opponent, and turn it on.
The problem with that is, that you see the units of your opponent, before someone can decide to turn DB on or not. Therefore everyone can decide, if DB would be better for his army or for the opponent.
I would assume that in most cases one of the two opponents would say no.

I also believe that DB isn't a default setting, because it is difficult to play with DB when you sit with your opponent at a table, and don't have a Gamemaster around.
But with a server as a "Gamemaster" this is a complete different situation.
Lando just got a bulls eye here that is exactly why DB wasn't a default setting in BT, TT works different. 100 RP for you Lando :wink: Plus you are totally right after you see the enemy army in main channel 99% of players will choose no DB at all. it is easy to kill a hetzer, lrm/srm carrier, Archer, etc when you know where they are that if you don't have a clue of what unit the enemy bring and where is hidden or approaching to you the game is totally different.
As I see the situation, it is, unfortunately, will be no compromise on DB.
Personally, I am in favor of DB, for it is greatly increase flavor of using sensors, scout units and tactics. It may delay the outcome, and so be the problem.
And I have to support above mentioned idea, random attacker/defender will not in general agree on DB
All said, it still may be a compromise of a sort.
In MMNet of old DB vas mandatory for city fights (and it make sence for radars and IR having troubles in concrete jungles =)).
If old Idea is not compatible with current strategic vision of campaign environment, I strongly support creating a class of DB operations.
It should be high risk\high pay-off mission, as city fight always was in war history.

Illician Lancers
Posts: 153
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 10:34 pm

Re: Current cycle feedback

Post by Illician Lancers » Mon May 14, 2018 11:15 am

BlackRay wrote: As I see the situation, it is, unfortunately, will be no compromise on DB.
Personally, I am in favor of DB, for it is greatly increase flavor of using sensors, scout units and tactics. It may delay the outcome, and so be the problem.
And I have to support above mentioned idea, random attacker/defender will not in general agree on DB
All said, it still may be a compromise of a sort.
In MMNet of old DB vas mandatory for city fights (and it make sence for radars and IR having troubles in concrete jungles =)).
If old Idea is not compatible with current strategic vision of campaign environment, I strongly support creating a class of DB operations.
It should be high risk\high pay-off mission, as city fight always was in war history.
Apart from taken out the flavor of the game for me having no DB to attract new players will teach them the wrong way of playing Megamek as i see it. They will learn to play in a way knowing all the time where the enemy have his units and what type of units they bring. Sure that looks great for new players but I am pretty sure said 100% DB will return soon or later. Then what? Players that know how to play with DB will smash to hell all those new players that learn to play with no DB tactics are totally different, they will don't understand why there isn't LOS in a lot of situations, why IDF is happening, how is possible that unit appear here or there, and 100s of details that will raise problems. Therefore they will get frustrated thinking they got a good level of play to discover they knew shit about real tactics. Maybe will not happens to all new players that learn how to play now with no DB but i can guaranty that will be the case for a minimum of 80 to 90% of players. Then complaints will start again about the game system, players tactics, and anything you can imagine, etc. :evil: :shock: :? :cry:

The DB ops sound terrific but only a few players old vets and maybe a few new players will go for it. Will be something like aero last cycle 4 or 5 players play aero the rest only ground, and then you need to made sure you get the same timezone, etc. So in the long run is a lot of work for the admin for just 4 or 5 guys out of whatever the total number of players.

I am not to sure why Spork choose to made this cycle with no DB. Sure he has his reasons but for me personally take all the fun out. Obviously he isn't going to change it back for just one player, but already a few more players have said the same thing about DB than me that take all the deep of the game out. So maybe that is something to think about.

I played already 2 games this cycle with another name to see how players play both games where the way i describe it will go, they lost ini they stay far away in forest or smoke no risking their units, they win ini they when very carefully around taken good positions dodging any possible attacks from the fast units in my army both games started to take really long i just surrender and move on and that is going to be all my games this cycle here, I check how players will play they play as i was expecting them to play with no DB so personally even play the BOT is more fun now that going around and around using as only tactic no risking ever because they know where everything is at all times. I wasn't even a little :shock: it was obvious to me how this will go. As i said have fun guys.

obese pigeon
Posts: 854
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 10:51 am

Re: Current cycle feedback

Post by obese pigeon » Mon May 14, 2018 1:35 pm

Spork wrote:
obese pigeon wrote:Have also found that it is sometimes cheaper to scrap a critically damaged mech and fish a replacement in the faction bays (autoproduction is extremely important!) than to repair.

It seems that i log out when after a time when doing AFK production farming... Is there a timeout set?

Lastly, in the op viewer for patrol. Attacker has to have minimum of 2 units, while defender has a minimum of 4. This means that a lance of 2 to 3 units cannot be attacked on a patrol. Is that intended?
If I find that people are doing AFK production farming, I'm going to remove production from activity and only have it due to games being played.
What I meant by AFK farming is that I am at active, waiting for a game, while doing something else on the computer with mmnet in the background. I'm not watching any of the chats, hence, AFK. And I keep getting disconnected. I'm not sure if it's just me or others.

With regards to DB, I did not mean to bring up a discussion on it, merely just stating a fact that as settings change some players will understandably be unhappy. It's the 'you can't make everyone happy' thing. The server has actually operated without DB for far longer than it has run with double blind.

I also don't think it's fair to say that new players who are not exposed to double blind do not learn 'real tactics'. The tactics involved with the double blind mechanic (like ambush, IDF) is just a very small subset of all available tactics and strategies in the game.

Spork
Mekwars Developer
Posts: 3892
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 10:23 pm

Re: Current cycle feedback

Post by Spork » Mon May 14, 2018 4:01 pm

I will check the inactivity timeout when I get home.
Never had much, grew up with nothing
But the music, well it was something
Been down and out, I've been on top of the world,
World that keeps on spinning on a turntable.

NanookoftheNorth
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2018 2:27 pm

Re: Current cycle feedback

Post by NanookoftheNorth » Mon May 14, 2018 5:20 pm

I played I think the most recent "inbetween" cycle I was told it was. I am relatively new, but take this with a grain of salt.

My objective is to play with straight vanilla DCMS mechs. During the last cycle (the inbetween one with all of the factions and planets) I had all of the classic mechs at my disposal that I wanted to try out, Jenners, Panthers, Dragons. Nothing crazy really. I had a few wildcards, but for the most part I was happy with what I had options about.

This new cycle, having less mechs to choose from ends up with me with dozens of locusts, and no choice but to use them. This discourages me from playing really, I don't want to play with only locusts... I don't know very well how to handle this situation other than selling them.

Anyway, compared to last cycle, I am discouraged. I hope it will get better, but the guides seem out of date now with the changes made.

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

Re: Current cycle feedback

Post by Ceorl » Mon May 14, 2018 9:50 pm

You start with negative -4 bays and 7 units which means you can field a lance and a half if you're lucky. If you lose your first match and even one unit bites it you're now down to 6 units which makes it impossible to field more than 1 army.

However, because you only have 1 army it becomes more difficult to find an opponent to gain XP to earn bays to field a 2 army.

Gotta say this feels like this has the potential to be a pretty vicious circle for crappy players like me.

Also with Patrol having no land exchange and flu removed, it makes no sense to have the op cost C-Bills to launch. The attacker can lose up to 50% of his winnings so it makes more sense just to sit and wait to be attacked.
(Retired)

Spork
Mekwars Developer
Posts: 3892
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 10:23 pm

Re: Current cycle feedback

Post by Spork » Tue May 15, 2018 4:35 pm

Nobody has started with negative bays that I am aware of. I defected to all factions. Has P lost a bay planet in the meantime?

Periphery is going to be a *very* difficult landing spot. That is on purpose.

I will also maintain that when I started this game, I had 5 units and managed to survive.
Never had much, grew up with nothing
But the music, well it was something
Been down and out, I've been on top of the world,
World that keeps on spinning on a turntable.

Serena
Posts: 17
Joined: Mon May 07, 2018 5:15 pm

Re: Current cycle feedback

Post by Serena » Tue May 15, 2018 5:48 pm

Spork wrote:Nobody has started with negative bays that I am aware of. I defected to all factions. Has P lost a bay planet in the meantime?
P started with -4 bays on launch day.

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

Re: Current cycle feedback

Post by Ceorl » Tue May 15, 2018 7:30 pm

Ya I swore I started with -7 and I doubt any planet exchanges have occurred. I had to intentionally thin my starting forces, which were already sparse to begin with, so I could start building the armies I wanted.
Periphery is going to be a *very* difficult landing spot. That is on purpose.
That's fair, and I should expect that. Though the rookies might be caught unaware as I'm not sure the server advertises the issue. My concern is that players with few units have few armies and will have a harder time finding games.
(Retired)

Post Reply