237 replies to this topic

[Mercules]

Roland, on 16 April 2013 - 05:12 AM, said:

I'm not understanding the desire to force people to play a game mode that they apparently don't like.

It's as though you are afraid that so few people enjoy the current game mode, that you won't be able to play it because no one will be left to play it with.

No one is "forcing" people to play a game mode they apparently don't like. Hawken has TDM.

[Roland]

Mercules, on 16 April 2013 - 05:45 AM, said:

No one is "forcing" people to play a game mode they apparently don't like. Hawken has TDM.

Hawken isn't mechwarrior, it's a poor man's Armored Core.

But apparently you're heading down the road to trollville if your suggestion for folks who want a different game type in MWO is to go play other games.

[Agent of Change]

Roland, on 16 April 2013 - 05:47 AM, said:

Hawken isn't mechwarrior, it's a poor man's Armored Core.

And that's why it has TDM, that is where TDM belongs.

If this is going to be the "Thinking Mans' Shooter" we should be able to handle thinking beyond -

find and destroy enemy, rinse, repeat.

[Joseph Mallan]

Roland, on 16 April 2013 - 05:47 AM, said:

Hawken isn't mechwarrior, it's a poor man's Armored Core.

But apparently you're heading down the road to trollville if your suggestion for folks who want a different game type in MWO is to go play other games.

So long as Assault stays as is, I don't care if TDM is added. Personally I would like some kind of actual objective before adding another just kill everything mode.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 16 April 2013 - 05:52 AM.

[Roland]

Agent of Change, on 16 April 2013 - 05:51 AM, said:

[/size]

And that's why it has TDM, that is where TDM belongs.

If this is going to be the "Thinking Mans' Shooter" we should be able to handle thinking beyond -

find and destroy enemy, rinse, repeat.

I think that perhaps you are underestimating the complexity in finding and destroying the enemy.

You are mistakenly thinking that team deathmatch involves playing a doom-style twitch shooter, simply because it's the game mode from that game.

Ultimately though, it doesn't matter. The devs know that there is a large chunk of players who want a deathmatch style game type (with, of course, elements in place to avoid things like one mech running off to hide), so I'll trust that they'll add it eventually given how simple such a mode would be to inject.

[Mercules]

Roland, on 16 April 2013 - 06:14 AM, said:

I think that perhaps you are underestimating the complexity in finding and destroying the enemy.

You are mistakenly thinking that team deathmatch involves playing a doom-style twitch shooter, simply because it's the game mode from that game.

Ultimately though, it doesn't matter. The devs know that there is a large chunk of players who want a deathmatch style game type (with, of course, elements in place to avoid things like one mech running off to hide), so I'll trust that they'll add it eventually given how simple such a mode would be to inject.

My point was picked up well by Agent of Change.

For every "I want TDM for the intricate dance of enemy teams before combat." player like yourself there are 20+ "Run at enemy yelling, "Git Summmm!!!!1!"" players out there.

We currently have two modes of "Kill all enemy Mechs" we don't need a third we need something different.

[Agent of Change]

Roland, on 16 April 2013 - 06:14 AM, said:

You are mistakenly thinking that team deathmatch involves playing a doom-style twitch shooter, simply because it's the game mode from that game.

With all due respect, i'm not mistaking anything. I understand your point, and as i said before I truly believe you would TRY to make a TDM the tactical paradise you want it to be. You would fail, though through no fault of your own.

An honest assessment of the average player on the internet in a F2P game (the masses lets call them) will not make a distinction, to the masses TDM is a run and gun twitch style game mode. That is how it will be played by the majority. The minority (it may be a large minority but a minority none-the-less) that can spell tactics let alone use them will see no improvement.

To those that honestly want the TDM that you are discussing the only way you'll see it is to do the following:

Create teams
Set to Assault only
Sync drops
Say No capping.

Done, that's it because that's the only way you'll be sure to end up with people that are gonna want to play the TDM you envision because even if you get a true TDM down the line it won't be what you wanted.

[Viper69]

Like Smokey say "Only YOU can prevent base caps"

[Noobzorz]

Roland, on 16 April 2013 - 06:14 AM, said:

I think that perhaps you are underestimating the complexity in finding and destroying the enemy.

You are mistakenly thinking that team deathmatch involves playing a doom-style twitch shooter, simply because it's the game mode from that game.

Ultimately though, it doesn't matter. The devs know that there is a large chunk of players who want a deathmatch style game type (with, of course, elements in place to avoid things like one mech running off to hide), so I'll trust that they'll add it eventually given how simple such a mode would be to inject.

No he's not. The amount of tactical sophistication in MWO presently is on par with a low end Call of Duty match. Very few people understand simple concepts like initiating (edit: which, btw, means that you get no credit, explicit pointswise or implicit teamwise, for singlehandedly forcing the enemy into a brawl they cannot win the way you might in DotA, LoL, or TF2).

A doom/unreal/quake style twitch shooter in which you manage resources like rockets and armor is actually far more tactical, since positions have value (a lot more value, actually) other than the amount of cover they provide. Whenever I see this criticism I think to myself, "this person does not understand deathmatch half as well as they think they do."

Edited by Noobzorz, 16 April 2013 - 06:46 AM.

[Roland]

Noobzorz, on 16 April 2013 - 06:44 AM, said:

No he's not. The amount of tactical sophistication in MWO presently is on par with a low end Call of Duty match. Very few people understand simple concepts like initiating.

But that's an issue with the player base, not with the underlying game itself.

[Agent of Change]

Roland, on 16 April 2013 - 06:46 AM, said:

But that's an issue with the player base, not with the underlying game itself.

ok we hit the meat of it now.

It is an issue with the player base, so in the absences of any kind of external parameters the problem player base will be a problem.

Strictly TDM as it has been proposed is Big Stompy Robots go kill the other Big Stompy Robots. You can do it however you want, take as long as you want move around as much as you want, but no external parameters beyond Go forth and lay waste.

Given that we have accepted (at least partially) the premise that in that environment the player base will take that as license to grab the biggest mech with the highest alpha and b-line the shortest reasonable distance to their enemy then it becomes clear to me we need further parameters.

Capping is one such parameter. Deniable Victory conditions make great parameters as they are something that a team can affirmatively prevent from happening Multiple victory conditions create an environment where you need to consider multiple potential outcomes and make cost benefit analyses on your actions.

In an environment with multiple parameters conditioning will occur. Even the most gung ho of mindless run and gunners will eventually have to come to a place where they accept losing or modify their behavior to consider multiple victory parameters and the prevention of the same form the enemy.

Capping is not the best or perfect but it is flat out better than if it wasn't there. That is something i would put money on.

Edited by Agent of Change, 16 April 2013 - 06:56 AM.

[Klaus]

Roland, on 16 April 2013 - 06:46 AM, said:

But that's an issue with the player base, not with the underlying game itself.

I just don't understand what people who cry about capping want.

In my mind I just picture them happy being loaded up onto one side of a football field with the enemy team at the other and just walk into a straight line firing until they overheat.

In a game where your mech can be completely disarmed and have no way of doing damage, there has to be a way to still win.

Edited by Klaus, 16 April 2013 - 07:06 AM.

[Mercules]

Roland, on 16 April 2013 - 06:46 AM, said:

But that's an issue with the player base, not with the underlying game itself.

It is, but that base makes those same players realize that there is something just as important as running straight at the nearest enemy guns blazing in a way you will never get across with the TDM mode you want. Losing the match because you got tunnel vision is a very visceral way to remind "that player" that combat is not just shooting things but movement and tactics. You give them a TDM mode with that title and what you will see is what I have been saying you will see. That is all you will see so long as the matches are random drops where you do not get to choose your opponent. You will NOT get your carefully crafted movement. The bases FORCE... FOOOOOOORRRRRRCCCCEE those run and gun players to consider movement or lose. Without them the majority will simply go, "This place looks good. Lets shoot stuff that shows up." or "They started over there... lets run that way."

[Noobzorz]

Roland, on 16 April 2013 - 06:46 AM, said:

But that's an issue with the player base, not with the underlying game itself.

It is both. I guess I was annoyed that I pulled off a spectacular game-winning initiation and came out with the second lowest score on my team for doing so, and then went off topic.

If we keep my post to TDM, let's put it this way:
Call of Duty TDM is a wretched, scrubby affair, even at the highest levels of competition, which gives massive rewards for doing nothing and staring down your sights, and heavily penalizes players who want to keep the action going. At MLG (lol) matches would go on for the entire 10 minutes and have scores of 2X-1X because there was no reason to leave the best positions except boredom. And this is in spite of the fact that Call of Duty has MUCH more powerful tools for dislodging people.

Without the rewards that games like UT or Halo have for staying mobile, the optimal strategy in TDM is to pack up the best area and call it a day.

Now don't get me wrong, I approve of including TDM, but there is this ridiculous notion that it is a more "skilled" mode than assault or conquest, and that could not possibly be any further from the truth.

TL;DR:

- No map resources
- No Alternate objective
- Not noobish

Pick two.

[Joseph Mallan]

Agent of Change, on 16 April 2013 - 06:27 AM, said:

To those that honestly want the TDM that you are discussing the only way you'll see it is to do the following:

Create teams
Set to Assault Conquest only
Sync drops
Say No capping.

Done, that's it because that's the only way you'll be sure to end up with people that are gonna want to play the TDM you envision because even if you get a true TDM down the line it won't be what you wanted.

I changed your requirements for TDM. Assault with its one Cap is not that good for TDM mode. You need the multiple cap points of Conquest to get a better Death match. At least that has been my experience.

[Hood]

As much as I hate to say this.. defend your base. And trust me that hurt.. Why you go into assault and cap right off the bat i have no clue. I feel assault is for killing the other team. Though it does add strategy to the game and I do feel it has a place. I just wish people would try to kill first cap second.

To be honest I think there is less attempts to cap on conquest than in assault. No one wants to run around for 10 minuts playing catch the capper so they meet up and fight for the most part... lol JMHO

[Orbit Rain]

Agent of Change, on 15 April 2013 - 08:10 PM, said:

Technically a colloquialism i suppose but one local to nothing other than the MWO forums

my gift to you:

http://mwomercs.com/...m/152-kaetetoa/

Remember never not post.

"
Kaetetôã

"

lol...between so many forums to keep track of here and there and everywhere...I'd never ventured into that territory. I would have used a term from another forum "Grunch" - which is to say: my reply is to the OP (et. al.) , regardless and not reading (usually too numerous) additional replies.

[Taemien]

Muffinator, on 15 April 2013 - 10:56 PM, said:

I think you're thinking of someone else. But yes of course I've capped before, that's the way this game mode is so that's how you have to play it.

Oh no, it was definitely you in that game. Thats the problem with having a name like Muffinator, you're easy to remember.