215 replies to this topic

[Noobzorz]

Since at this point I think it is safe to definitively conclude that the other poll is totally biased, I thought I'd make a poll that is actually useful.

I think that TDM should probably be included at some stage of the game. It sounds like it wouldn't take much in the way of dev resources (take assault mode, remove base), and it would prevent those ******* ****** who refuse to cap on the basis they can farm more C Bills from ruining assault. I don't really see a problem with it.

But the fact of the matter is that TDM is not a balanced play format, and it has horrific, horrific features for a mechwarrior game that you will almost certainly not like. I have two points I'd like to make which are, flatly irrefutable, and though someone will doubtless try to argue them, all they will be doing is providing us all with a valuable thought experiment in self-delusional nitwits. I also have a point which I consider debatable, but which I firmly believe in. Those of you who are uninterested in this can vote, hit the back button and carry on with your day (have a good one!). Those who are may find this edifying or they may not. Be warned, it's a novel; read on if you care to.

*****************************************

1. One light mech can escape a group of assault mechs for a period of time that is virtually indefinite. That's it. That's all.

This whole point is the only reason we have bases in assault. Essentially this provides a no ******** condition that cannot be effectively managed by any other means. He wants to run? Ok. We'll take his base.

One popular response I hear is that this will be resolved by the report function. This is mind numbingly inane. Not only is that light mech playing correctly according to his class (using their resources, in this case their speed, to avoid an engagement on unfavourable terms so they can fight later at favourable terms), but it is not arguable that a draw is preferable to a defeat and that if players are extended the option, they should choose to draw over losing every time.

Bases resolve this within the ruleset, rather than demanding that the light mech run over and die like a good boy standing in front of the assault, which is about as unreasonable and counter to proper competition as anything I can think of.

2. Camping is real. It is not soluble or counterable in TDM. That's it. That's all.

This will be obvious to almost everyone here, I would think. In the era of the class based shooter, you will probably have noticed that TDM has. . . devolved somewhat. If you have ever played, for example, a modern military shooter and tried its TDM format, this will not have escaped you. Games traditionally did not feature this problem because it was possible for a team to camp, for instance, the shield belt in UT99, or the railgun in Quake. Features like this kept the action flowing by focusing the action in specific spots and providing a heavy implicit penalty for not fighting in those spots when the other guy conked you for 60 damage with a railgun shot.

Now consider Call of Duty, where the map has no resources. Instead, it is incredibly common to see people posted around corners, immobile for the duration of the map. I don't think anyone would dispute that camping in CoD TDM is a serious, serious issue. For this reason players are extremely maneuverable, the (good) maps are designed to allow multiple directions of attack for any position, and the tools at your disposal are incredibly powerful. There is no equivalent to the C4 in or the lightning strike mechwarrior. All these decisions specifically designed to combat camping still fail miserably, leading to the common appelation Camp of Duty. What results is a stalemate in which the team that gets impatient typically starts a snowball rolling that ends in masses of killstreaks. TDM in Call of Duty requires an implicit contract between both teams to be fun and fair, otherwise it becomes a low scoring snorefest of a stalemate. This problem is resolved completely in domination, since the only reason sitting back and defending a position would ever be optimal is if that was the intended behavior (i.e. you control at least 2 of 3 points).

MechWarrior is also a class based shooter. The mechanics are obviously vastly different, but it would be pretty fair to compare it to something like TF2, CoD, or BF3, at least in its fundamental attitude. You bring all of your tools into the match from the start and you have to use them to prevail against your opponents. If there is no reason to control space, the clear move is to pack yourself into the most advantageous position possible and wait for the other team to get brave. This is going to happen in TDM.

I have heard two counterarguments to this, both of which are so facile it beggars belief that their originators were not embarrassed into keeping them private but I will number them for your amusement:

a ) Artillery will solve this.
No. It wont. By definition "the most advantageous position" will be sufficiently protected from artillery to justify its use over any other. That camping team also has access to artillery, and there is no reason they cannot use it back. Further, the (necessarily vastly more powerful) equivalents in Call of Duty do absolutely nothing to resolve camping.

b ) Report Function
Again, ******* daft. You are proposing to report people for correctly exploiting their advantages and playing in an optimal fashion?

In MWO, TDM is going to require both teams to enter into an implicit contract that they don't just pursue a boring optimal behaviour and cause stalemates every time.

3. I strongly believe that TDM will lead to loadout homogenization, and everyone will run an assault mech.

I think people will be familiar with this argument and its justification, especially since we are already seeing this to some degree in assault and conquest. If we remove any need for spatial control, certain mechs are out of the running. I think it is very likely that matches will devolve into big teams of stalkers and atlasses bashing the snot out of each other, much like what happened to alpine before people figured out you could just swing around the mountain and cap the base.

****************************************

TL;DR
Anyway, in summation, TDM is a slapdash, clusterf**** . There is no rhyme or reason to it; it's just a good ol' fashioned scrubfest. And that's fine. Frankly, I see no reason not to include it since people want it and it doesn't sound costly, but those of you foolish enough to propose the game cannot be competitive until such time as it is included should get over it.


Edit: Added an abstain option.

Edited by Noobzorz, 28 March 2013 - 11:34 AM.

[Sears]

If they did an arena mode. With FFA and a small 4v4 TDM that would be cool. And I'd vote yes for that.

I think adding it to the main queue wouldn't be so hot. As weight limits would shoot up because mobility is no longer needed. Blobbing would be the only tactic and people would camp out waiting for the other blob to show it's face. So i'd vote No for TDM to be mixed in with the other CW battle modes.

[Mal]

Thank you for making an unbiased poll on the subject.

I voted no. It's another variation on Assault, and one without a way to win, if you're left playing 'chase the light' across Alpine Peaks, or Tourmaline Desert (or, similar sized maps).

[Teralitha]

This is where a mod steps in and tells you to use the existing poll and to stop clutterting up the forums with topics about the same thing.

[REDACTED]

Edited by Viterbi, 28 March 2013 - 08:37 AM.
Removed directed content

[Lil Cthulhu]

In regards to the BS about the light mech running around, we never asked them to drop the time limit, just the stupid red square mechanic.

[Mercules]

Teralitha, on 28 March 2013 - 06:45 AM, said:

This is where a mod steps in and tells you to use the existing poll and to stop clutterting up the forums with topics about the same thing.

[REDACTED]

So it's not a waste of space to be pro something but it is a waste to be anti something? Or is it just a wasted post to disagree with what you personally want?

[RG Notch]

Mercules, on 28 March 2013 - 07:00 AM, said:

So it's not a waste of space to be pro something but it is a waste to be anti something? Or is it just a wasted post to disagree with what you personally want?

No it's trolling to disagree with what he wants. Get with the program!

[Teralitha]

Here is the link to the other poll. - http://mwomercs.com/...h-who-wants-it/

For debates and arguments about TDM , you can also go here - http://mwomercs.com/...eedback-thread/

Vividos, on 28 March 2013 - 07:42 AM, said:

anyone suggesting to implement TDM is suggesting to make the game worse.

If you want the game to get worse, by all means, ignore the TDM crowd. They will leave/have already left. Dont add more modes. See how long the game lasts when no one is playing it.

Grey Black, on 28 March 2013 - 07:47 AM, said:

Do I want Team Deathmatch? .... well, yes, actually. Any form of new modes would be a good thing. However, if they were to do this, there would have to be certain restrictions (i.e. arena format maps, limited cover, limited map choice, etc.). For example, I could never see TDM being implemented in Alpine; that map's just way too damn big. However, I could see it being implemented in River City, say. Additionally, a time limit would have to be implemented that would be much shorter than our current 15 minute time scale (I'm thinking, say, 6 minutes).

Absolutely not. The point of a TDM match is longer matches on larger maps with no bases. Smaller maps and shorter time limits is the exact opposite of what the TDM crowd wants.

Edited by Viterbi, 28 March 2013 - 08:50 AM.
Edited out directed language

[Marj]

1.
- Automatic death counted against last man stnading on losing team if no shot is fired for three minutes (or similar). Removes the reason for hiding (preserving stats).
- Automatically reveal the location of the last mech if they power down for more than 1/2/3/ whatever the devs determine mins.
- Shrink the borders of the map starting when there are no more than X (say two) mechs on one team.
- Reporting system to report trolls
- How many more do you want?

2. Counters to camping
- Jump snipers
- Artillery/airstrikes
- Brawler rushes (from multiple directions - break focus)
- Fast harassers attacking from multiple directions. Only break cover when the enemy is distracted by another teammate who looks like they're about to attack.
- Long range ECM lights
- Don't put it in for maps where it isn't suitable
- How many more do you want? Give me a scenario.

A) Really? This means sitting in a cave, the only place where you aren't exposed to the air. Will you sit in a cave for 15 mins to achieve a draw? Is that your idea of fun? Cool, I'll tolerate the occasional 8 man sitting in a cave for 15 minutes if it means I get TDM.

Artillery works against static targets, not moving ones. The camper's artillery is useless against the mobile force, but if they stay put and they are in the open then they will get hit. They must break cover.

Remember, mechs have armour, a good pilot can spread the damage to get in on a stationary target and take it out. In COD/similar games this isn't an option. And artillery doesn't work when you can just respawn and be back in the fight in seconds. The death doesn't result in the artillery user being able to advance. Not so in mech.

What advantage are they exploiting? Pease explain how one mech running off and powering down for three minutes will result in him destroying his pursuers?

3.
"Take your blob and I'll take my fast jump snipers hitting your back armour from range at different angles. Want to rush one? Get shot in the back by the other three. You'll lose two mechs to my one by the time you get it. Not to mention opening yourself up to a flank rush from my brawlers. Strategy. Try it."

[Vividos]

Lil Cthulhu, on 28 March 2013 - 06:58 AM, said:

In regards to the BS about the light mech running around, we never asked them to drop the time limit, just the stupid red square mechanic.

you do realize that it's faster to send your mechs to the enemy base than it is to chase the light mech right? time limit or not, capping the base would end the match faster 100% of the time.
the only time matches are EVER won by capping is when that team has already won. so what you're basically saying is that you want to spend MORE time sitting around doing nothing waiting for the match to end than you would be if you were just playing assault mode instead.
last night i played 40+ matches and out of all of those only 2 were won by capping the base. in BOTH situations the losing team only had 1 mech left. in BOTH situations that mech was a light. in ONE of those situations, i was the sole surviving mech.

you know what one of the most (if not THE most) successful online games is? counter-strike. does counter-strike have TDM? NOPE! counter-strike has a system in place on every map, be it rescue the hostages or plant the bomb, that makes it so when everyone but 1 person is dead on the enemy team, you have another option to force victory OTHER than hunting down that one person who is inevitably hiding. a -faster- option for victory. one that wastes less time.

anyone suggesting to implement TDM is suggesting to make the game worse.

ON TOP OF THAT it would increase matchmaking times UNLESS you were to remove assault. which, obviously and as pointed out above, WOULD MAKE THE GAME WORSE.

[REDACTED]

Edited by Viterbi, 28 March 2013 - 08:54 AM.
Removed directed language

[1sh0t]

1 & 2 easily solved by adding a capture point at the center of the map which is locked for 5 mins.
3 Possible, but from what I've seen playing assault mode exclusively the last couple days is lots of every class except Assaults.

[Grey Black]

Do I want Team Deathmatch? .... well, yes, actually. Any form of new modes would be a good thing. However, if they were to do this, there would have to be certain restrictions (i.e. arena format maps, limited cover, limited map choice, etc.). For example, I could never see TDM being implemented in Alpine; that map's just way too damn big. However, I could see it being implemented in River City, say. Additionally, a time limit would have to be implemented that would be much shorter than our current 15 minute time scale (I'm thinking, say, 6 minutes). Whoever kills the most Mechs in 6 minutes would win, rather than the current base cap or mech kill for 15 minutes.

To be honest though? TDM should carry with it significantly diminished rewards, as in the CW arena, I couldn't really see it being as vital. Imagine a general in the war room: "Great, we destroyed their mechs! Did you take their base yet, though? How about monopolize their resources?" IT would be utter folly! In the grand scheme of waging war and taking planets, we really need to have a much larger scale for MWO for Community Warfare. It really can't be just a battle of "FRAG DER MEKS!", there has to be a sense of _why_ we're fragging their mechs. The current modes to convey that sense: Resource war? Check. Base capture? Check. Only question I have is with regards to TDM is what does it accomplish for the battlefield at the strategic level rather than the tactical level. If that can get worked out for Community Warfare, then I really do want it. Otherwise? Perhaps it should be passed on.

TL;DR: TDM should be implemented, but with significantly diminished rewards and timescale, and only if it can be worked out in the context of Community Warfare.

[Mal]

Despite popular belief.. the Devs do listen to the feedback from the forums. Just because they don't implement every idea (or, not implement ideas not everyone likes) doesn't mean they don't listen.

They can't design a game around the feedback from the forums...no one on the forums can agree on anything that they want!

Edited by Viterbi, 28 March 2013 - 08:52 AM.
Removed reference to removed content

[Bagheera]

Mal, on 28 March 2013 - 07:47 AM, said:

Despite popular belief.. the Devs do listen to the feedback from the forums. Just because they don't implement every idea (or, not implement ideas not everyone likes) doesn't mean they don't listen.

They can't design a game around the feedback from the forums...no one on the forums can agree on anything that they want!

Actually, it has been categorically stated by Bryan that they consider polls posted here to be biased samples with a strong implication that they (the poll results) are disregarded.

[Stoicblitzer]

it should be an option.

[1sh0t]

Vividos, on 28 March 2013 - 07:42 AM, said:

you do realize that it's faster to send your mechs to the enemy base than it is to chase the light mech right? time limit or not, capping the base would end the match faster 100% of the time.
the only time matches are EVER won by capping is when that team has already won. so what you're basically saying is that you want to spend MORE time sitting around doing nothing waiting for the match to end than you would be if you were just playing assault mode instead.
last night i played 40+ matches and out of all of those only 2 were won by capping the base. in BOTH situations the losing team only had 1 mech left. in BOTH situations that mech was a light. in ONE of those situations, i was the sole surviving mech.

you know what one of the most (if not THE most) successful online games is? counter-strike. does counter-strike have TDM? NOPE! counter-strike has a system in place on every map, be it rescue the hostages or plant the bomb, that makes it so when everyone but 1 person is dead on the enemy team, you have another option to force victory OTHER than hunting down that one person who is inevitably hiding. a -faster- option for victory. one that wastes less time.

anyone suggesting to implement TDM is suggesting to make the game worse.

ON TOP OF THAT it would increase matchmaking times UNLESS you were to remove assault. which, obviously and as pointed out above, WOULD MAKE THE GAME WORSE.

[REDACTED]

I'd estimate a good 50% of the matches I've played where capping was the deciding factor it was the team that got wrecked with only 1 or 2 lights left which won the game. So proclaiming "the only time matches are EVER won by capping is when that team has already won" is simply not correct in my experience (unless you were being redundant about the cap being a technical win).

And comparing this game to CS is laughable... CS actually has a real assault mode where one team defends while MWO has what is essentially TDM + base-defense which are horribly incompatible.

Listen TDM haters, obviously a straight up TDM mode would not be ideal. That doesn't mean one couldn't be developed or Assault couldn't be modified to be 100% combat centric. Why would you argue against a game mode which would improve this games potential for success? You know what turns a beginner off? Actually doing well enough to destroy a bunch of the other teams mechs only to lose to a lame solo light cap while you were kicking ***.

Keep fighting improvement and you'll end up watching your game die a slow death.

[Strand the Man]

WE NEED TDM! Also, CTF and other game modes to flesh out the Mechwarrior Online experience.

I can't understand why people would not want TDM...makes no sense. You can't look at TDM as having the same rules as the current game modes (i.e. one life, no respawns). In order for TDM to work, each team can be given a total number of lives. Each time a player is killed, their team loses a life. Once the team runs out of lives, they cannot respawn. This system would have many positive effects such as:

*Newer players see more action as fights are longer due to additional reinforcements.

*Team work is more critical in order to lock down areas and/or hold lines (can't get a couple lucky kills and then wipe the other team due to having more numbers).

*All mech sizes still have same roles, trade offs, and uses on the battlefield.

Of course, maps will need to be tweaked a little to prevent spawn camping. Perhaps give each side a few safe areas that are hidden where they can enter the map from...or even let the respawning player choose a deploy spot and the player then orbitally dropped into the action (20 second respawn timer). If you pick to be dropped too close to the action...then you risk being targeted/attacked while you boot up your mech. Enemy players can see you drop down too as well as get notified of incoming reinforcements.

How can you say no to that?

[Warrax the Chaos Warrior]

Noobzorz, on 28 March 2013 - 06:26 AM, said:

[...] flatly irrefutable, and though someone will doubtless try to argue them, all they will be doing is providing us all with a valuable thought experiment in self-delusional nitwits.

+1 mainly for this line, but I agree with you completely on all the points you make.

I don't believe TDM is going to give people the gameplay experience they think it is going to give them, for all the reasons you've listed.

IMO this game more complex and asymmetrical game modes for long-term viability; not more easy-to-implement, half-assed solutions to things that are problematic.

We do need some improvements to assault and conquest though, mainly in regards to the larger maps. Greatly increasing the cap time (assault) or resources needed (conquest) would be a step in the right direction.

I also think 12v12 will change the game dynamic in a big way. Even slow groups will be able to control more territory. I would implore the devs to at least wait for 12v12 (as well as tweaking the current modes) before making a final judgement on TDM.

Edited by Warrax the Chaos Warrior, 28 March 2013 - 08:14 AM.

[Mercules]

1sh0t, on 28 March 2013 - 07:55 AM, said:

You know what turns a beginner off? Actually doing well enough to destroy a bunch of the other teams mechs only to lose to a lame solo light cap while you were kicking ***.

Losing sight of the objectives and having tunnel vision in combat should be put one off. However, blaming the game mode instead of honestly asking yourself, "Was there something I could have done different?" is not right. You know when you are being capped, the game now gives you total awareness that it is happening. I know there are times when a person can't break away, but it is ever true that no one can break away? Part of the issue is how teams are put together and the lack of communication in PUGs.

[Mal]

Teralitha, on 28 March 2013 - 08:19 AM, said:

I disagree. TDM needs to be added to the game 6 months ago. Look at your player base.... how much smaller its getting... look at how bored many players have gotten with the current modes.... No... it should have been added to the game on day 1.

How much smaller has the player base gotten? Please provide numbers, and sources.

I've not had a harder time finding drops, and I rarely see the same folks in back to back matches. Which is no change to my situation from when OB started. There's plenty of participation in the weekend events, so, despite the 'sky is falling' posts on the forums, I have seen no proof that the size of the palyerbase has subsnatially shrank since OB started.