72 replies to this topic

[Koniving]

(Thsi may get put in with Feature Suggestions, though technically this is requesting the restoration of a feature that we once had).

Dear PGI,

It was clarified recently by one of your moderators that a stance taken on why you have removed almost all of the tactical and gameplay value of your tactical shooter game was due to 'trolling' (and to be fair partly to abuse by sync-droping), as playing to the objective on assault is apparently 'trolling' instead of the point of the game mode.

We could assert that this is also the purpose behind increasing capture times in Conquest to 'boring' levels of 30 to 45 seconds to capture for the one person stupid enough to actually play to the objective, as well as moving them all so close together that the game instead becomes a camping fest of poptarts and LRMs until one side or the other gets so bored that they suicide-charge, giving the other side a complete victory.

What we are supposed to have are Skirmish for those who like to just duke it out, Assault for those who like tactics and role warfare (one of the key design pillars that you have so carelessly thrown out of the window as your 'position at the time' despite it being a huge selling point that netted the project with over 5 million dollars with incredible ease [I realize IGP spent a good portion of it on other projects but the point is it was your work that earned that money!]), and Conquest which was supposed to favor lights and mediums.

We apparently have Skirmish, Skirmish with turrets, and Skirmish with drills.

This is because assault's objective does not pay and in fact is detrimental to the team entirely. This is also because Conquest's objective is so time consuming that it's boring and it yields an "experience" reward so meager that you could get the same reward by suiciding at the edge of the map. What is the point of playing?

The allure of Mechwarrior Online is that unlike Hawken, it is supposed to be a tactical experience that is more than deathmatch. Well Skirmish is deathmatch. We have 3 versions of deathmatch and no substance. We have huge maps, we use less than 10% of them because the choke point is always the best place for camping.

Old complaints about people capturing the base were by players who wanted a Skirmish mode. They have it. Serious complaints about players capturing the base too early came from when you took the reward away from capturing the base.

Essentially through incompetence and misconception of actual gameplay as "trolling," you've alienated what made the game good.

I say again: By removing the reward for playing to the unique objective you have effectively alienated and removed all motivation to do what made the game good!

The excuse that "players would use this mechanic to farm by sync dropping" is soon being removed by your own future plans for matchmaker, limiting one group per team. Thus, soon this excuse will be completely invalidated and no longer will it be a barrier. Would you please change it so that we have the reward then?

The reason I say this (aside from it killing the game for us who actually enjoy tactical elements) is that we have an upcoming assault mode that is one-sided. Is your stance going to kill this thing right off the bat? Is it going to be considered that if the attackers play the objective, it will be "one sided trolling"? Are you going to make the objective completely worthless? Are you going to defeat the purpose of every game mode you ever create and turn them all into deathmatches with various methods of "trolling" instead of genuinely fun experiences?

You know what made assault fun in closed and early open beta? When it paid to do the objective, players were happy to play their roles and quick to learn what happens when you don't.

Right now, if we play the objective for the sake of doing what is fun, we get scolded, chewed out, and downright insulted by players who don't want to.

Watch this video. When we go to play the objective because it's been left open, we are chewed out by our own team. There have been other experiences where this gets downright degrading to the point of racial slurs, insults, conversations about mothers, coming to our homes to kill us, etc. Just for playing one of the objectives of the game that you, PGI, have alienated.


This wasn't the case in closed beta and early open beta when the game actually paid more for doing the objective than for killing everyone by yourself. It was simply how the game was played. It was a rich experience and people who were already in closed beta. This is because playing the objective meant that in order to win, you had to communicate with your allies -- thus inspiring community. You had to play your roles, and if some roles weren't filled, people volunteered to fill them despite not being built for it because it was necessary to prevent an easy loss.

Open beta.


This rich experience in closed beta made players eager to buy founder packs even though they were already in the game. Inspite of the NDA, they eagerly said to their friends, "This game is incredible, buy a founder pack and join me!" Enriching the experience directly increases sales revenue.

What do we have now? "Don't bother." "Wait for a sale." "You don't want to get started until they find their drive." "What happened to you PGI?" "You're ruining my game." If you backtrack where all of that started, it began when playing the objective in Assault stopped paying.

See back in the day, if you don't leave anyone to defend, your base will get taken. It's common sense and part of the originally intended gameplay, and players responded with having defenders who doubled as commanders thoroughly enriching the experience. You took those rewards away, players learned it stopped paying, and then getting the base captured was an annoyance to both teams rather than an enriched experience with good sportsmanship as it used to be.

If the reward is returned now or in the near future when groups are limited to 1 per team, the new turrets will buy players time to realize the lesson that defending the base in Assault is important; something you didn't have before. This gives everyone something to do in assault, even lights and mediums; both of whom feel rather useless. Base stealers to go out and take bases. Scouts to find the base stealers. Defenders to protect the base. Frontlinesmen to hold off the firepower. Everyone will have something to do and even the Locust will feel valuable; after all there are no faster mechs (or there shouldn't be aside from the Cicada and maybe the Flea with MASC).

We have Skirmish for those who just want to duke it out.

Give us back Assault, with a higher pay for capture (or better yet destruction; but make it difficult enough that it'll require several mechs and some time to complete; time and base health relative to the size of the map) than for total annihilation. That way we'll get decent pay for both killing a lot of mechs and taking the base.

You will actually have some happy players for once. And right now I honestly believe you need more happy players.

Zhizhu, my group, has virtually left MWO because what sold us on MWO is gone. The tactical gameplay. The very thing PC Gamer boasted about. The very thing game review places try to sell the game on. The very thing you, PGI, sell as the reason for perspective players to try the game over Hawken and other competitors on... is gone. You removed it. You defeated the purpose.

Bring it back. Make the tactics matter again and you won't see as many complaints about meta mechs abusing bad pinpoint mechanics because the game won't revolve around them anymore. Give us a reason to use 100% of the maps. Give us a reason to explore, to scout, to play our roles. Give us depth. Give it to us with a purpose and reward for doing so, and we will fulfil those roles and give you the gameplay experience you want to provide to all players.

But take any reason for doing so away, and all you'll have are poptarts, LRM boats, and a lot of angry people that are cynical about every design you make that further ruin (or even enrich) the experience.

Please PGI. Show some common sense. I realize that it is not actually common, but I know you're more intelligent than you seem to let on. Its good for PR, its good for the players, its good for you. Make it happen.

This is the sort of experience that a reward for base capture just might provide. In this case, the enemy team chose an entirely defensive stance. Though they could have easily chosen a neutral or the offensive stance that we chose. In fact one or two mechs with enough endurance and skill to take our the turrets at our base while we're busy could turn this entire fight around. (Tactics!)


This old match is a great experience. It would have been further enriched with the upcoming AC nerfs (our blatantly superior range advantage would have been significantly reduced which would have made the game even more intense).

Back then, however, there wasn't enough players per team to have any good counter-offensive tactics. We now have those needed players so that teams on the defensive could turn it around by sneaking out some lights or mediums.

[Wolfways]

MWO is now even less the "thinking persons shooter" than it was in closed beta. It needs some of that back.

[Dracol]

Will be honest, stopped reading at the bolded text about removing the reward for objectives.

Assault strategic options initially:
1. Kill enemy
2. Rush base
The tactics used to achieve those goals included the often denounced fast mech/fast cap

Assault strategic options currently:
1. Kill enemy
2. By pass/destroy defenses to cap base (strategically speaking a High risk / low reward proposition)
The tactics now involve either a heavier force to attack base which leads to a fight
or
Utilizing the base defenses when your team is down mechs

Imho, compared to the prior version of assault, I prefer the tactical choices now available. Although I do miss having a non-combat based strategy being available.

As for conquest, I would stand behind a decrease in cap time to make the objectives a little more tempting.

Edit: In regards to rewards, I am of the opinion assault nor conquest require any adjustment.

Edited by Dracol, 31 May 2014 - 10:00 AM.

[itiziDITKA]

Koniving, on 31 May 2014 - 09:01 AM, said:

-snip-

I 100% agree with this. Awards for capturing the base in Assault mode and reducing the time to capture in Conquest would do wonders to change up the way matches play.

I rarely see anyone try to capture the base in Assault mode, mostly because there is no reward to do so. With turrets, it can now be very difficult to achieve, and without rewards there is no reason for even trying. I would love to see a massive reward for capturing (at least 30-50k c-bills) the opposing teams base, as this would give motivation to actually try capturing the base.

[Mathies Jaeger]

I second this. When they first released skirmish, my friends and I were relieved because we hoped it meant all those who only wanted to slug it out would play skirmish and leave the other modes to the rest of us. We almost solely played assault or conquest once we were allowed to select the game mode. With the advent of turrets, and the terrible rewards associated with taking the base, assault has become a more stagnant and boring version of skirmish in which less of the map gets utilized to stay outside of base defense range. We have since switched almost entirely over to skirmish and conquest, despite disliking vanilla experience of skirmish. There needs to be true incentives to taking the base. Make assault worth it again.

On a related note, I really wish the cap speeds on conquest were faster, while maybe making it so the total points needed to win are higher. I think the game mode would be improved if cap points rapidly flipped allegiances, so you actually have to defend your points. As it stands now, it usually boils down to cap one or two of the extra points so you don't get swept early on and then kill the enemy team. Unless you're on a massive map and the other team has numerous lights, the actual capping mechanic rarely plays a role in the fight. I think I've seen River City conquest end via points once in my 1.5 years of playing.

[WildmouseX]

While I agree that those of us who understand tactics of the battle get hosed on rewards, the problem with making the game modes rely more on tactics is the player base. Too many people run straight for getting into a ball, or hide behind rocks with their atlas' and watch their team get powned - any tactical game mode is going to fail with teams full of cowardly morons.

[Statius]

I agree to. Moreover, tactical, objective based gameplay is a factor missing from balancing. A variety of meaning objectives, and new maps with new features, would inevitably change the way the game is played. Alas, it has been heretofore all to concerned with numbers.

[RAM]

Thanks to reppu there is no thinking in the thinking man's shooter.

Removing the Kill Objective from Assault would work wonders.


RAM
ELH

[darkkterror]

I think a lack of appropriate reward was really one of the biggest reasons why people hated it when the match ended with a base capture. Sure, there were those people that simply wanted Skirmish at a time when there was no Skirmish, but now they have it so they should be able to play the way they want. Other people, though, knew that maximizing their C-Bill and XP earnings meant destroying and kill assisting against the enemy Mechs, not going after the enemy base. An Assault match that was won quickly because of a base capture meant a much lower pay out for both teams, not just the team that lost. Capping the base really should be the most lucrative (or darn close to it) way to end an Assault match in order to give people an incentive to actually go after the base.

The other big problem I saw with Assault mode (at least in my opinion) is that nobody wanted to defend the base. First of all, defending is generally boring. If nobody comes to attack your base then you spend the round doing nothing. Who wants to do that? Furthermore, if the entire enemy team just decides that it wants to play Skirmish and fight your team head on, then not only is that defender bored out of his skull, he's also a liability because he's putting his team one Mech down in the big fight. Then, after that big fight is over, if the defender's team mates couldn't win, then the defender is left getting steamrolled by the remaining enemy forces. So, ultimately, he has a pretty boring match where he gets steamrolled and next to nothing as far as C-bills and XP go.

Defending should be rewarded in some way so that people might actually choose to do it. Maybe they should get some kind of periodic C-bill and XP reward for staying within X distance of the base. Maybe they should get some kind of end-of-round reward based on how long they were near the base. Obviously, whatever the defense rewards may be, they need to be balanced or only rewarded in a way such that everyone in the match doesn't just decide to sit at their own base for the entire round. Still, defenders should get something to make their time spend on defense worthwhile.

Edited by darkkterror, 31 May 2014 - 11:25 AM.

[Imperius]

LOST-TECH

[Corvus Antaka]

Spot on Koniving.

I remember winning conquest in my spider alone because all 6 enemy assaults stayed in 1 big blob instead of putting 1 assault on each base.

Is that really a bad thing when 6 assaults are to dumb to spread out?

The lack of base cap ability and the incredible boredom of having to cap forever have turned the entire game into skirmish regardless of gamemode.

[monk]

I agree that incentives to play assault "properly" aren't there. It's kind a joke when assault loads because people treat it exactly like the other modes except they try to avoid the enemy base territory because it's tactically stupid to not do so. Anyhow. Please make the modes matter and give those of us who want to play tactically a mode that offers incentives to do so.

Here's a quick and dirty suggestion for an assault mode that more or less uses features and functions that appear to be in game already, so I'd hope it wouldn't take too much to implement. I'm still very confused on why we have such limited modes after all this time.

Two teams assault the same base:

The map is divided into nine grids. The game selects one of the grid spots as the Objective. The teams are then assigned spawn grids that are roughly equidistant from the base. (The spawns could be by lance or by team and you could have some lances spawn further from the objective than others, but I don't see it as necessary. Oh, btw, now we can have battles all over the maps, instead of just one location! Woot!)

The objective base has three capture locations that are about 500 meters apart. Far enough to make them not necessarily part of the exact same firefight, but close enough that you can make tactical decisions that don't take 5 minutes to come into play. Each capture location offers a benefit once captured. If you manage to capture it, it will slowly bring online some base defenses to help hold it (perhaps the first right away and then another each 15 seconds until there are 3-4). Capture time is significantly reduced from what it is now. Solo cap takes 20-30 seconds (some adjustment would need to be made, I'm sure).

- Winning team is the team with the most capture locations at the end or the last team standing. Ties are possible but not excessively frustrating to both teams as you'd still get decent rewards for a tie or loss.
- Teams get a significant cbill bonus for each capture location they control at the end. (maybe 25k?)
- Teams get cbill bonuses for how long they controlled each location (500cb for every 10 seconds? This amount could plausibly be larger than the bonus for what you have at the end in the case of one team "controlling the map" until near the end and then losing everything).
- Teams get "normal rewards" for kills, assists, base defense, etc. We try to reward players for doing the objective (crazy, I know)

Some of the benefits to this mode:
- Reasons to initially scout. Identify what the enemy is, where they are coming from and where they are headed.
- Nobody has to sit and defend their base and maybe do nothing most of the match.
- Lots of combat.
- The ability for teams to change their tactics on the fly in a meaningful way.
- More places on the maps we have get used. (There are seriously places on the maps I've still never seen even though I've done thousands of drops)
- Reasons to play roles. There will be a place for scouts, spotters, faster attack packs, assaults, etc. Everyone can be useful in their own ways. Role warfare.

I realize there would need to be some adjustment to make this mode not the best xp/cbill gathering method by a long shot, so adjust the numbers down a bit for kills/assists or whatever. I wouldn't mind if this was potentially the most lucrative mode by some margin, but others would likely be bent out of shape. I know plenty of players who just want to play skirmish, which is fine. Not all of us do, though. That said, I would envision this mode ending a lot of times with all the enemy dead.

Please give us more modes with meaningful and different gameplay. Can you not assign one or two guys a few days to work on this so we can have a few new game modes? You don't need to make new assets, just reuse what you already have. Please. I'm begging you. =)

I can imagine Sun Tzu shaking his head as tears stream down his face when he thinks about our current assault mode.

Edited by monk, 31 May 2014 - 11:41 AM.

[Koniving]

RAM, on 31 May 2014 - 11:08 AM, said:

Removing the Kill Objective from Assault would work wonders.

As in requiring the capture of the base as a mandatory objective? It could work; more so with the upcoming 'one sided assault' mode.

darkkterror, on 31 May 2014 - 11:23 AM, said:

1) I think a lack of appropriate reward was really one of the biggest reasons why people hated it when the match ended with a base capture.

2) The other big problem I saw with Assault mode (at least in my opinion) is that nobody wanted to defend the base.

3) Defending should be rewarded in some way so that people might actually choose to do it.

1) There actually was appropriate rewards; it's what I'm asking for the return of. In truth at one point in time it paid more to capture the enemy base than to kill all 8 players by yourself. In fact (and this is where the abuse started that had the rewards removed completely) it paid the most if no one died because you could collect the undamaged 'scrap' of every enemy player that was still alive.

With the upcoming one group per team, farming that aspect will be gone.

Also, PGI could simply prevent the accumulation of salvage from mechs that were not killed (it seems they already have otherwise winning by capture would pay something more than 25,000). Removing the ability to collect scrap from the living mechs then prevents that "I get more money by not fighting and just taking the base" aspect.

Once done by preventing the salvage aspect of living mechs and restoring the base capture rewards, you would then maximize your earnings by killing most of the players and then going for the base. Or you can go for the base early for a middle-ground payout. Or you can camp in some impossibly advantageous spot (I9 mountain on Alpine anyone) and then annihilate all the players for the lowest payout; but you do so at the risk that the enemy team will simply take your base as it'll pay better than putting up with it.

2) You don't necessarily have to stay on the base to defend it. For example on Alpine you can loop around to one of the hard-to-get-to high rises and overlook the entire base. Or go forward and defend from a forward position. With the upcoming Commo Rose and new in-game "possibly team-wide" VoIP option in addition to text, it would allow players to give advance notice of enemies heading toward base. Poptarts with ER PPCs or Gauss (as they will be the new 'long range' weapons of choice after the upcoming AC nerfs) will be able to 'sharp shoot' enemies on the front line and turn around to defend the base. LRM boats could also do this.

In an ideal situation you start out with defenders on both ends and have scouts sent out to scope out the situation. When the main enemy force is located, judge what the situation will be. You can easily pull your defending forces forward. If pulling the defending forces to the front line was a bad idea, you can send the lights or mediums back to the base to pull defense or push forward to take everything.

With the new turrets, the base itself can buy you time to orchestrate your defense.

3) Defending is rewarded, but only when a kill is achieved while standing on the base. But then PGI has a policy against standing inside your own base as it obstructs gameplay by preventing capture. It does reward if you kill someone while they are standing on your base, but most enemies tend to move.

monk, on 31 May 2014 - 11:29 AM, said:

I agree that incentives to play assault "properly" aren't there. It's kind a joke when assault loads because people treat it exactly like the other modes except they try to avoid the enemy base territory because it's tactically stupid to not do so. Anyhow. Please make the modes matter and give those of us who want to play tactically a mode that offers incentives to do so.

Exactly. Also I like your mode ideas.

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 31 May 2014 - 11:28 AM, said:

Spot on Koniving.
The lack of base cap ability and the incredible boredom of having to cap forever have turned the entire game into skirmish regardless of gamemode.

Thank you. It's what has killed the game for the group I'm with. We're older gamers who enjoy games with meaning and depth; the depth sold to us was role warfare and tactical combat. But if the objectives don't mean anything, most tactics and mechs are just thrown out the window, the roles mean nothing, and ultimately the game becomes nothing more than a Call of Duty clone with mechs.

The fixes to such a fundamental problem are so amazingly simple.

All it really involves is making the objective (for assault) worth more than the typical payout for a moderate player and have that payout given to each player on the winning side. It'll put everyone on board and the more skilled players will obviously fight a lot and then capture while the not so skilled players might orchestrate a capture (as it gives them a better payout than straight up fighting; though obviously there will be fighting for them anyway).

For Conquest, reducing capture time to be no more than 20 seconds maximum (I kid you not I once timed it at 46 seconds) or at the very least remove the 'neutral' shift time as that'll take 10 seconds away from the whole boring ordeal. In exchange, require resources on larger maps to be 1,500 and again spread them out.

It may not be much, but it's a start and a step in the right direction.

Edited by Koniving, 31 May 2014 - 12:01 PM.

[Khobai]

1) Assault was always a terrible gamemode.

2) Assault with turrets is even worse; effectively just being skirmish but with turrets and base camping.

3) Assault should be completely removed and instead replaced with an attacker/defender gamemode, where both teams get a chance to be the attacker and defender, and whichever team has the higher score at the end of both matches wins.

[Sarlic]

Good stuff, Koniving.

[Koniving]

Khobai, on 31 May 2014 - 12:02 PM, said:

1) Assault was always a terrible gamemode.
3) Assault should be completely removed and instead replaced with an attacker/defender gamemode, where both teams get a chance to be the attacker and defender, and whichever team has the higher score at the end of both matches wins.

I'm sorry you don't like the current assault mode (I don't like what it's turned into because of the removal of the reason for taking the base), but that's why Skirmish exists, so that players like yourself will have something else to play.

Upcoming is an attackder/defender game mode. It'll be just as pointless as this one if something isn't done, as I guarantee you it won't provide any tangible rewards for actually taking the objectives. It would instead, if PGI keeps this trend up, pay only if you slaughtered every enemy. Playing the objective would be considered "Trolling."

[Khobai]

Quote

I'm sorry you don't like the current assault mode (I don't like what it's turned into because of the removal of the reason for taking the base), but that's why Skirmish exists, so that players like yourself will have something else to play.

I abhor skirmish. But its clear having two bases on base assault doesnt work, because you get crap like cap rushes happening in Pug matches. It would be much better to have ONE base and an attacker/defender gamemode with teams alternating as the attacker and defender.

Worse yet in competitive play you get stalemates were neither team wants to move out. So they just stay near their bases and poptart because nothing forces either team to commit to fighting. A lot of times these matches end in ties because neither team wants to fully commit.

Quote

Upcoming is an attackder/defender game mode. It'll be just as pointless as this one if something isn't done, as I guarantee you it won't provide any tangible rewards for actually taking the objectives. It would instead, if PGI keeps this trend up, pay only if you slaughtered every enemy. Playing the objective would be considered "Trolling."

Uh generally when you attack an enemy base you have to kill the enemy first. So it seems far more realistic to me than running into an empty base, capturing it, and winning.

However instead of capturing the base, the objective should simply be to destroy the enemy HQ. That way you can choose between attacking the enemy or attacking the HQ. That gives you two different ways to win which is all you really need.

Edited by Khobai, 31 May 2014 - 12:29 PM.

[Koniving]

Khobai, on 31 May 2014 - 12:07 PM, said:

I abhor skirmish. But its clear having two bases on base assault doesnt work, because you get crap like cap rushes happening. It would be much better to have ONE base and an attacker/defender gamemode with teams alternating as the attacker and defender.

That's what the turrets are supposed to reduce. You only truly have that if one team 'trains'. It is incredibly easy to counter that. We call it artillery strikes.

Last time a team tried to 'train' a capture, I had 9 kills with an artillery strike after our entire team systematically dropped them one after another. You can teach people lessons to prevent bad behavior.

Ever tried an ambush? Ambushes are also great fun and yield great results because the enemy is so desperately trying to run down the cap meter, they can't move and it's incredibly easy to slaughter them.

So much depth right there, and all that's being done in those few sentences is teaching players with bad habits a valuable lesson about their bad tactics. Just that alone would make the game so much richer in gameplay experience.

[WarHippy]

I miss capping, and even before turrets it only happened 15% of the time according to PGI so I don't see what the problem was. In my dream scenario I would give large rewards for capping, normal rewards for killing and loss of all but base pay when you get capped. Penalizing the team that gets capped give them an incentive to protect the base and large rewards for capping gives incentive to try and cap.

[Vassago Rain]

Ninjacap was a bad mechanic, and assault is largely a placeholder game mode.