September 20, 2018, 03:37:17 PM

Author Topic: NBT-MWO's Official 200th BattleRecord Feedback thread  (Read 3545 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Deadfire

  • NBT Community Team
  • *
  • Posts: 169
  • Karma: 5
    • View Profile
  • Unit: 228th IBR
NBT-MWO's Official 200th BattleRecord Feedback thread
« on: October 11, 2015, 04:11:31 PM »
We just hit our Official 200th Battle being posted. Please give us everything good and bad with how the Alpha has been going.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2015, 04:14:44 PM by Deadfire »

Offline Igor Kozyrev

  • Periphery State Representative
  • *
  • Posts: 36
  • Karma: 5
    • View Profile
  • Unit: The Librarians
Re: NBT-MWO's Official 200th BattleRecord Feedback thread
« Reply #1 on: October 11, 2015, 04:38:23 PM »
So far it works pretty great! Still can't waif for new automatization and all those delicious api's.

Regarding balance — periphery states having clan mechs were a surprize. I mean, what year are we playing? 3050-3053? How is that possible? I can understand that it was a way to balance small periphery state vs big IS house, but all major factions have been devided into districts and their sizes basically are comparable to periphery.

Also it would be very interesting to have pirates in the league and other features that been disabled so far.

Everything else is fantastic. The feel that every move you're doing in the battle or when managing resources is crucial is unbelievable.
Gentlemen, let's refrain from using local time zones. UTC is called Universal Time Coordinated for a reason.

http://librarians.ru/
ts.librarians.su

Offline QueenBlade

  • Mechwarrior
  • ***
  • Posts: 136
  • Karma: 1
    • View Profile
  • Unit: 228 IBR
Re: NBT-MWO's Official 200th BattleRecord Feedback thread
« Reply #2 on: October 11, 2015, 04:42:06 PM »
I believe the issue with Periphery having Clan tech was that admin didn't get all the left over rules from the 3077? league and ended up giving them Clan tech.  It is a small amount, think something like 5% of their total mech forces.

Offline ngrt

  • Cadet
  • *
  • Posts: 12
  • Karma: 2
    • View Profile
  • Unit: KCom
Re: NBT-MWO's Official 200th BattleRecord Feedback thread
« Reply #3 on: October 11, 2015, 04:53:35 PM »
Running and non engaging seems to be a big problem for all our fights.  The choice of using skirmish as a game mode is a major problem I feel.  Changing it to a conquest or a modified conquest would force teams to actually fight, even if they brought long range weapons.

Offline Derv

  • NBT Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 458
  • Karma: 3
    • View Profile
  • Unit: NBT
Re: NBT-MWO's Official 200th BattleRecord Feedback thread
« Reply #4 on: October 11, 2015, 05:20:43 PM »
Running and non engaging seems to be a big problem for all our fights.  The choice of using skirmish as a game mode is a major problem I feel.  Changing it to a conquest or a modified conquest would force teams to actually fight, even if they brought long range weapons.

We do have ways of randomizing the type of battles. Perhaps throwing in a random game mode selection under the map name in the battle report would be a way to spice things up. IE:

Battle 000
Map: Big City
Game Mode: Skirmish/Conquest/That Other One
Tonnage: 2
etc.
GRANDIOSE DELUSIONS

Offline ngrt

  • Cadet
  • *
  • Posts: 12
  • Karma: 2
    • View Profile
  • Unit: KCom
Re: NBT-MWO's Official 200th BattleRecord Feedback thread
« Reply #5 on: October 11, 2015, 05:25:51 PM »
Assault would lead to teams staying on their side of the map to prevent fast capping and just camping that way.  Conquest is really the only way to make a king of the hill mode to force fighting.

Offline Xavier

  • NBT Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 1209
  • Karma: 22
    • View Profile
  • Unit: NBT
Re: NBT-MWO's Official 200th BattleRecord Feedback thread
« Reply #6 on: October 11, 2015, 06:58:09 PM »
I finally got the game going and have enough time on it to have played all the maps and game modes.

I unchecked Assault in my matchmaking -- complete waste of time in any situation.

Conquest seems feasible. It's not about camping, which is good, and can also avoid those "tight group of 8 against tight group of 8" battles. I think we can probably start planning to sprinkle in Conquest drops, awaiting Tundra's input.

The clan tech in periphery issue is as described -- it was a mistake in the rules as posted during signups. On the other hand, if you want clan tech, it could be right there on your borders, even if you are nowhere near the invasion corridor...just sayin'. ;) Regardless, they have no way of making more, so once theirs is all gone, it's gone.

Production API (what parts are implemented, anyway) is active at api.netbattletech.com, and pre-release/development API (using pre-launch data) is up at api-dev.netbattletech.com. Currently HTTP only, HTTPS will be implemented soon (hopefully before we start using it in an authenticated fashion).

Offline QueenBlade

  • Mechwarrior
  • ***
  • Posts: 136
  • Karma: 1
    • View Profile
  • Unit: 228 IBR
Re: NBT-MWO's Official 200th BattleRecord Feedback thread
« Reply #7 on: October 12, 2015, 10:45:36 AM »
I do believe that conquest battles will allow for many more outcomes.  Stuff like, a team no longer believes they can win and decides to remove themselves from the capture points, allowing the other team to either bring the drop to an end quicker or hunt down the remaining mechs.  No longer is there a forced 20 minute match, its more in the hands of the teams, since you can reach the 750 resource win, kill all enemy mechs, or hit the 20 minute limit.

But I do believe this will require a change in the automation in determining who the victor is.  I believe the automation picks the side that lost less tonnage in the drop as the winner.  Which isn't always the case with conquest.

Offline Xavier

  • NBT Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 1209
  • Karma: 22
    • View Profile
  • Unit: NBT
Re: NBT-MWO's Official 200th BattleRecord Feedback thread
« Reply #8 on: October 12, 2015, 10:59:54 AM »
The game rules themselves say the winner is who (1) gets 750 cap points, or (2) end with most enemy mechs destroyed. In all "objective-based" maps, NBT has the policy that at least half the opposing tonnage needs destroyed for a win, otherwise it's a draw (with all mechs that were lost, logged as such) and the drop is replayed.

Conquest would be no different in NBT. NBT is about combat to determine outcomes, so the half-tonnage rule would stay in this case.

Offline BanditB17

  • NBT League Team
  • *
  • Posts: 68
  • Karma: 4
    • View Profile
  • Unit: Isengrim
Re: NBT-MWO's Official 200th BattleRecord Feedback thread
« Reply #9 on: October 12, 2015, 11:35:58 AM »
I wish people would just grow a pair and fight, even if it ends up in a loss.

Thankfully, none of our opponents thus far have buttoned up for long and all fights have been relatively interesting.