Author Topic:  No Guts No Galaxy Podcast #142  (Read 2332 times)

2 Jun 16

Read 2332 times

Offline SeanLang

  • NGNG Founder
  • Legendary
  • *

2 Jun 16

Reply #1

Offline kageru

  • Elite
  • ****

I'm only about halfway through the podcast (morning commute), but thanks.

Is there a patron section of the website?  The reason I called you out (in the #141 thread) on the trend was because you stated that you would try to do one a week.  If you want us to support you as more than just a good website, some of us are going to expect you to deliver product.  I understand vacation, personal time, or just times when the discussion has stalled and there's nothing new to talk about.  I just ask that you let us know.

About Faction Warfare ...
- I agree that the current attack/defend game mode needs more work.  Maybe more variety, maybe more depth, but it needs something.  I personally despise the game mode in it's current form, but I don't really have any great ideas on how to make it better.
- Scouting is fun, and I'm really looking forward to playing my Phoenix Hawks in Scouting mode.
- As someone who's not in the NA time zone, but enjoys playing with my NA team mates every now and then, I do not like the idea of restricting FW to particular windows.  Now that we have leader boards (which could be improved, but still, it's a ranking, which is more than we had before), do we really need planet tags as a metric of success?  Without the need to defend a planet, is there a need for the unsustainable 24/7 presence?

About chassis creep ...
- I understand the desire for each new 'mech to bring something different to the game.  The problem with the current pre-order system is that when a clearly OP 'mech is released (like the KDK-3) and behind a pay wall for a period of time, the corrective quirks or adjustments take too long to come out.  I believe it's not intentional, and I can't cite any specific examples, but the perception exists that the changes only occur after the 'mech is available for CB, that PGI is rewarding paying customers with OP 'mechs during the pre-order-only period ... which is very, very close to "pay to win".
- I just wish that all 'mechs would be roughly equal in their ability to influence a win.

Maybe more later (after I finish listening on my way home).

2 Jun 16

Reply #2

Offline kageru

  • Elite
  • ****

One idea to make FW more attractive, particularly to Mercenary Units while keeping it meaningful for solo players, faction loyalists, etc. and allowing it to be scaled to match the player base's interest ...

"Main Front"
- The "Main Front" of FW should be the IS Factions working together to fight the Clan Invasion.
- The number of planets being contested during any particular phase should be adjusted based on history, both long past and recent ... for example, how many players are historically in FW on a typical Thursday OC phase, and how many have been on for the past few days during the OC phase should determine how many planets are being disputed during any given OC Thursday phase.
- This could be automated.

Skirmish  / Trial Vignettes
- Short-term, limited conflict scenario vignettes should also be included, to give Merc companies something to bid and fight for.
- Faction vs. faction skirmishes that are designed to last for a day or two under the duration of one Mercenary Contract.
- IS vs. IS is a no-brainer, since there are three IS factions that don't border the Clans.
- Clan vs. Clan could be trials of grievance or whatever.
- Clan vs. IS could be key moments in the Invasion, the battle of Turtle Bay, for example.
- The week before the vignette, there's a news article about the pending conflict and how both factions are recruiting.
- Fight for one contract period, at the end, give the winners a cockpit trinket and a minor MC reward (maybe 250-500 MC).
- The following week, do a news article summing up the vignette and naming the key Units that contributed to the victory.  Maybe even name a couple of VIP players.

The Main Front would be continuous warfare ... the main force of the IS and Clans slogging it out in the trenches.  The number of planets in dispute at any one time would be scaled to match the participation level.

The Vignettes would be stand-alone events that Merc Units could choose to participate in, on one side or the other, or avoid altogether.  Any number of these could be going on at the same time, limited only by the amount of effort PGI is willing to put into generating the hype and the level of participation from the players.
« Last Edit: 3 Jun 16 by kageru »

3 Jun 16

Reply #3

Offline kageru

  • Elite
  • ****

Finished the podcast on my way to get groceries ... good stuff.

The "group queue needs work" discussion is a bit stale, but in general I agree with you.
- the easiest way to win in the game is to be part of a decently coordinated 9-12 man group.
- the best training a competent group can get in the queue is in small groups.
- the most fair group queue for all involved would probably be to limit groups to 2-4 players (although I could see 2-6 working, too).
- (this is where I agree with Daeron, more than Phil) it only make sense to limit group sizes after FW is working well as a place for large groups to go and have fun
- people are absolutely going to cry about not being able to play big groups in quick play, but it is the right thing to do for the game.

For the group queue leader board, maybe only small groups should count ... just a thought.

5 Jun 16

Reply #4

Offline kageru

  • Elite
  • ****

One thing that I can't stop thinking about ... nearly every town hall, you mention the volumes of questions the community has, and that you can't possibly get to them all.  Yet, you shy away from doing monthly town halls and weekly podcasts because there's not much "new" to talk about.

The old questions and concerns are still festering.  Many of them are likely passed-and-opening, and not really worthy of discussion, but some of them should probably be aired.  Again, I can't think of any specific topics or agenda items ... maybe I'll have some time later this week to review a couple of the recent town halls or podcasts and come up with some ideas.

You offer a unique lane of communication between the players and the development team, and I do sincerely appreciate it.

6 Jun 16

Reply #5

Offline Mondos

  • Rookie
  • *

Touching a little on matchmaker and what you guys said about the Kodiak being ahead of the game against the likes of the Atlas and King Crab 100T market.
It might be a bit of sore subject, but why do we balance on the 3/3/3/3 or compare a Mech that would cost 17,000,000 Cbills against one that costs 10,000,000 Cbills.
I pilot a Adder Prime 2/ER-ppc and a Trenchbucket 7M LRM30/Narc on a regular basis, now these Mechs are not really comparable in role/tons/play style. They do however roughly cost the same Cbill wise to build and strange enough a good game both will deal 600/700 damage, in a bad game 300/400 damage. Now this is based on personal skill/play etc, but I expect that from these mechs. What I don't expect is 600 damage from my 3,500,000 Commando.

I think it is partly expectations of players, seeing the heavily modified Firestarter's deal out some hurt and expect that from all light mechs, without realising it cost in the range of 10,000,000 Cbills and needs to be compared more to a Medium or Heavy in terms of cost to field.
Just with the whole Clan vs IS balance, people who run Stocks (Stock Mondays I think it is) and to some degree new players if an understanding on what a mech costs vs what is expected from it.

There will always be black sheep, over performers and under performers.
I just think there maybe a better community if we wern't trying to pit an Orion K against a Timberwolf. It may also help groups that like a bit of role play feel and want to run some stock IS 3050 mechs if they can drop in group play/CW and not have to face off against a wall of max tonnage clan tech. 


29 Jul 16

Reply #6

Offline kageru

  • Elite
  • ****

Hmm ... I thought JagerXII's idea in the Town Hall sounded familiar.