130 replies to this topic

[Treckin]

jay35, on 12 March 2013 - 09:31 AM, said:

The random map nonsense invalidates the point of the mechlab, camo, colors, and build strategy.

What some here fail to realize is that the more variety of maps that are released, the increasingly restricted set of uniform, "safe" builds remain viable to play across all maps, and the more players disconnect when a map comes up they either don't want to play or happen to have a build that doesn't work well on it.

Random maps HURTS tactics and strategy. It in no way improves it or benefits it. It is also lazy game design that hurts the fun factor for everyone playing the game, because you're either the one stuck with the wrong mech for the map, or you're on a team with disconnects from people who were.

Tactical/strategic gameplay begins with knowing the map you'll be dropping into before selecting your loadout and camo/colors (or, at a minimum, somehow being able to pre-set which chassis, loadouts and camo/colors you want to use with each specific map, so whichever map comes up, you're piloting a chassis appropriate to the environment, map size, and color scheme, based on the pre-set to be used for that map). PGI can go about it either way, as either way solves the problem. i.e., if they insist on keeping the map selection random, they can provide users a way to preselect which mech builds and camo to use for each map in the game (think Dropship mode writ large), or they can ditch the random map selection and simply tell the player what the next map will be so they can manually select an appropriate mech.

It would resolve a lot of the disconnects, which hurts everyone. It hurts the balance between the two teams, putting the side with more disconnects at an automatic disadvantage, and one that ELO cannot account for. It also wastes the time of the person who disconnected, because that's their only recourse to avoid playing on maps they simply don't want to play on, wasting their time spent loading into a map they don't want to play, and locking up their mech until that round ends.

Forcing everyone to play the random maps is a negative experience for all involved and will continue to be so regardless of what PGI does to try to force it. Being stubborn about it will only hurt their player population, turn people off from playing it, and create more negative sentiment about the MWO experience. The only viable solution is to provide players a way to line up appropriate builds and camo/color schemes for each environment or get rid of the randomness in the first place.

Map voting when you're already in the game with a specific mech does not address this at all, and will only continue the same problems for everyone and will actually encourage or increase a greater number of disconnects. People who don't win the vote will disconnect. And now, the kiddie population that votes for the same map over and over again (c.f., any other FPS game with map voting enabled), will cause even regular players to disconnect from matches when they're sick of playing the same map over and over again.

Thanks for not being a meme posting d1ckpull.

I agree wholeheartedly.

[Coolant]

I remember reading somewhere that eventually we will be able to vote on maps. Seems like that should be easy to implement, then after a map has won then mech selection takes place.

[malibu43]

ragingmunkyz, on 12 March 2013 - 09:04 AM, said:

To your second point, it does work that work that way. First of all, if you are told you need to deploy to a certain planet, you should have some idea of the layout you are going to encounter when you get there, and you would be able to choose which mech would be appropriate before you even left.

What Zeh said. For all we know Frozen City and Alpine are on the same planet. Maybe RIGHT next to each other. Sure, you'd know you're dropping onto an icy planet. And maybe you know where you're going to drop. But you don't know exactly what 2 x 2 km space you're going to be fighting the enemy in. Maybe the new Desert map is just on the other side of the ridge on River city.

I vote no for picking your mech after you see the map. I'm ok with the Dev's idea of letting players vote between two maps.

[Matt Minus]

jay35, on 12 March 2013 - 09:31 AM, said:

The random map nonsense invalidates the point of the mechlab, camo, colors, and build strategy.

What some here fail to realize is that the more variety of maps that are released, the increasingly restricted set of uniform, "safe" builds remain viable to play across all maps, and the more players disconnect when a map comes up they either don't want to play or happen to have a build that doesn't work well on it.

Random maps HURTS tactics and strategy. It in no way improves it or benefits it. It is also lazy game design that hurts the fun factor for everyone playing the game, because you're either the one stuck with the wrong mech for the map, or you're on a team with disconnects from people who were.

Tactical/strategic gameplay begins with knowing the map you'll be dropping into before selecting your loadout and camo/colors (or, at a minimum, somehow being able to pre-set which chassis, loadouts and camo/colors you want to use with each specific map, so whichever map comes up, you're piloting a chassis appropriate to the environment, map size, and color scheme, based on the pre-set to be used for that map). PGI can go about it either way, as either way solves the problem. i.e., if they insist on keeping the map selection random, they can provide users a way to preselect which mech builds and camo to use for each map in the game (think Dropship mode writ large), or they can ditch the random map selection and simply tell the player what the next map will be so they can manually select an appropriate mech.

It would resolve a lot of the disconnects, which hurts everyone. It hurts the balance between the two teams, putting the side with more disconnects at an automatic disadvantage, and one that ELO cannot account for. It also wastes the time of the person who disconnected, because that's their only recourse to avoid playing on maps they simply don't want to play on, wasting their time spent loading into a map they don't want to play, and locking up their mech until that round ends.

Forcing everyone to play the random maps is a negative experience for all involved and will continue to be so regardless of what PGI does to try to force it. Being stubborn about it will only hurt their player population, turn people off from playing it, and create more negative sentiment about the MWO experience. The only viable solution is to provide players a way to line up appropriate builds and camo/color schemes for each environment or get rid of the randomness in the first place.

Map voting when you're already in the game with a specific mech does not address this at all, and will only continue the same problems for everyone and will actually encourage or increase a greater number of disconnects. People who don't win the vote will disconnect. And now, the kiddie population that votes for the same map over and over again (c.f., any other FPS game with map voting enabled), will cause even regular players to disconnect from matches when they're sick of playing the same map over and over again.

It must be opposite day here on the forums!

[Treckin]

If you have many readied mechs, I dont see why you cant pick between them... as if you dont have the keys to the others or what? Dead batteries?

Its just dumb, and there isnt any way out of that. Any other explanation is desperately apologist and seeks to justify a bad feature with even poorer reasoning.

[jay35]

If you want a really simply solution that would at least reduce the number of disconnects and pain points caused by random maps: Simply add a filter like we have for Game Mode, and call it Map Size, and allow, at a bare minimum, the ability for the player to select a preference for Small, Large, All (and add in any other maps sizes as they are released). This would cut down on the number of disconnects which really started en masse when Alpine Peaks was released and almost everyone in a slow mech was like, "The hell with this."' and disconnects because there's no way to restrict Large maps from their playlist.

That way, PGI retains their precious random maps system, people that like it are unaffected, and the rest of the playerbase are at least somewhat less annoying than they are currently with all the disconnects and wasted time bringing the wrong mech for the job.

Edited by jay35, 12 March 2013 - 09:44 AM.

[Treckin]

Lets be clear: Im NOT talking about changing the random map system.

It would function exactly as it does now.

I want to change it so that you pick one of your mechlab readied mechs AFTER the *random* map has been selected.

Edited by Treckin, 12 March 2013 - 09:46 AM.

[jay35]

Thontor, on 12 March 2013 - 09:44 AM, said:

Disagree with nearly everything here. Random maps does not invalidate mechlab, nor does it restrict people to certain builds any more than picking a mech to match the map would.

That's okay Thontor, I can respect that. Not everyone understands good game design.

[Zeh]

Matt Minus, on 12 March 2013 - 09:38 AM, said:

It must be opposite day here on the forums!

I also disagree with everything jay35 said. Pretty much everything. Wrong on all counts. Can't say much more than that.

Treckin, on 12 March 2013 - 09:40 AM, said:

If you have many readied mechs, I dont see why you cant pick between them... as if you dont have the keys to the others or what? Dead batteries?

Its just dumb, and there isnt any way out of that. Any other explanation is desperately apologist and seeks to justify a bad feature with even poorer reasoning.

Because your dropship only holds a few mechs (perhaps only barely your 2 lances). Not apologist, reasoning to justify a great balancing feature.

[Grumbling Coot]

Treckin, on 12 March 2013 - 06:37 AM, said:

I and many other people here would like to specialize more.

OP wants MOAR BOATING!!!!

as if we don't see enough...



Seriously though...if we could coordinate builds with teammates before the match starts that would be fun.

[Zeh]

jay35, on 12 March 2013 - 09:45 AM, said:

That's okay Thontor, I can respect that. Not everyone understands good game design.

***. You should feel as bad as your ideas now.

Grumbling Coot, on 12 March 2013 - 09:47 AM, said:

OP wants MOAR BOATING!!!!

as if we don't see enough...



Seriously though...if we could coordinate builds with teammates before the match starts that would be fun.

You can! Just group with them!

[Treckin]

Grumbling Coot, on 12 March 2013 - 09:47 AM, said:

OP wants MOAR BOATING!!!!

as if we don't see enough...



Seriously though...if we could coordinate builds with teammates before the match starts that would be FUN.

Edited by Treckin, 12 March 2013 - 09:48 AM.

[Dr Killinger]

I like how the field has diversified because of larger maps, so I vote no.

[jay35]

Dr Killinger, on 12 March 2013 - 09:48 AM, said:

I like how the field has diversified because of larger maps, so I vote no.

This is a good example of the strange disconnect in perception some players have.

When you add a new type of map that results in some builds no longer being viable, that is not an increase in diversity, that is a reduction in diversity. More people in light or medium mechs is not an increase in diversity. More people boating LRMs is not an increase in diversity. Less people taking Assault class mechs is not an increase in diversity. Those are the three outcomes Alpine Peaks has produced. None of them is an increase in diversity.

The only thing that has increased since the inclusion of Alpine Peaks is disconnects, which hurts everyone playing the game. It hurts the person that disconnects, it hurts everyone in the team that has the most disconnects, and it hurts the everyone in the match that was interested in having a proper 8v8 match. In fact, the only people who benefit from this whole fiasco are the ones interested in imbalanced teams when it favors their team. But since that is never always the same people, everyone actually suffers in one match or the next.

Edited by jay35, 12 March 2013 - 09:54 AM.

[KuruptU4Fun]

While I see your points Treckin and Jay, and would see the logic you put behind them. If you notice a large portion of threads are (both pre and post ELO) are about teams vs. pugs and their imbalanced match-ups. While your points are mostly geared towards tactical gameplay then your idea really only works in team-play based tourneys. Since those really haven't been addressed yet, it would remain to be seen if it would work. The other side of my argument going to the "there is no in game chat" that would make this viable on a normal gameplay level.

[Dr Killinger]

jay35, on 12 March 2013 - 09:52 AM, said:

This is a good example of the strange disconnect in perception some players have.

When you add a new type of map that results in some builds no longer being viable, that is not an increase in diversity, that is a reduction in diversity. More people in light or medium mechs is not an increase in diversity. More people boating LRMs is not an increase in diversity. Less people taking Assault class mechs is not an increase in diversity. Those are the three outcomes Alpine Peaks has produced. None of them is an increase in diversity.

The only thing that has increased since the inclusion of Alpine Peaks is disconnects, which hurts everyone in the match.

More people in lights and more LRMs are more diversity? Some catapults taking LRMs again instead of SRMs is an increase in diversity, as is the shift from assaults to mediums.

[malibu43]

Treckin, on 12 March 2013 - 09:45 AM, said:

...I want to change it so that you pick one of your mechlab readied mechs AFTER the *random* map has been selected.

In addition to encouraging more "1 trick pony" builds, my other concern about this is that it gives an advantage to those that have more mechs in a readied state. Someone can plunk down for a ton of MC, buy 10's (or hundreds) of chassis, save different versions with loadouts specialized for each map, equip each one with an XL engine, etc... Techinically, a free player (or one spending less money) can do the same thing over a longer period of time, but the guy that pays more will technically always be able to have a "better" garage with more specialized builds.

Real example. I currently have one XL300 engine I share between 6 chassis/variants (that are each better or worse in different fighting conditions, but I try to keep them relatively balanced). So only one of those can be readied at any one time. I can spend MC to buy and sell chassis, buy 5 more XL engines, and now have all six of those readied all at once and have some geared for brawling and some for long range, etc... Tell me I didn't just pay for an advantage if I'm able to pick a mech after I know the map.

Edited by malibu43, 12 March 2013 - 10:04 AM.

[Zeh]

jay35, on 12 March 2013 - 09:52 AM, said:

This is a good example of the strange disconnect in perception some players have.

When you add a new type of map that results in some builds no longer being viable, that is not an increase in diversity, that is a reduction in diversity. More people in light or medium mechs is not an increase in diversity. More people boating LRMs is not an increase in diversity. Less people taking Assault class mechs is not an increase in diversity. Those are the three outcomes Alpine Peaks has produced. None of them is an increase in diversity.

The only thing that has increased since the inclusion of Alpine Peaks is disconnects, which hurts everyone playing the game. It hurts the person that disconnects, it hurts everyone in the team that has the most disconnects, and it hurts the everyone in the match that was interested in having a proper 8v8 match. In fact, the only people who benefit from this whole fiasco are the ones interested in imbalanced teams when it favors their team. But since that is never always the same people, everyone actually suffers in one match or the next.

No disconnect here. What isn't viable? Splatcats, AC20 cats can do great on Alpine. Do they rule the field? No. That's the difference. They're not the end-all-be-all best mech on that map. They're still quite a serviceable design.

What variety is limited by being forced to occasionally fight on a map with large open areas? There is none, brawls will happen, I've never seen an Alpine match that didn't involve its share of up-close fighting unless one team was just stupid.

The only useful knowledge I've really gotten from your posts so far is that you're a disconnect ranger. Or you at least suggest it's an acceptable way to deal with not getting what you want every round.

[jay35]

KuruptU4Fun, on 12 March 2013 - 09:54 AM, said:

While I see your points Treckin and Jay, and would see the logic you put behind them. If you notice a large portion of threads are (both pre and post ELO) are about teams vs. pugs and their imbalanced match-ups. While your points are mostly geared towards tactical gameplay then your idea really only works in team-play based tourneys. Since those really haven't been addressed yet, it would remain to be seen if it would work. The other side of my argument going to the "there is no in game chat" that would make this viable on a normal gameplay level.

Interesting argument. Thing is, ELO also can't account for teamplay, which is the only real deciding factor in 90% of matches (teamplay, that is).

The team that does the better job of coordinating, sticking together, and focusing fire on one threat at a time, will almost always come out on top. And ELO has no ability to predetermine or account for that factor, which is why ELO is mostly useless and often ends up providing horrible matchups because eight people who work together and are already coordinating which mechs they take via TeamSpeak, will at least work together well regardless of the map, and thus they already have a distinct advantage over a PUG group of individuals. At least if the individuals had the opportunity to select a mech appropriate for the map, it might give them a better chance.

Edited by jay35, 12 March 2013 - 10:08 AM.

[Moonsavage]

This would be a Cheesefest...
Ppl would have mechs set up with the optimal build for each map, and it would make Trial mechs even more difficult to play.