

Skirmish Mode - This Is Battletech
#141
Posted 01 January 2014 - 11:47 PM
#142
Posted 02 January 2014 - 03:37 AM
Fooooo, on 01 January 2014 - 11:28 PM, said:
Almost every game on skirmish alpine, when im on the team that spawns on the south side. We head to H10, climb the hill, and proceed to camp and smash the other team who basically always trundles right through the middle at the bottom of the hill, giving us perfect shots while they try to climb the hill.........
We never leave the top of the hill there, its got perfect little ridges to hide behind, and the hill blocks the other team from seeing other people who will end up being on their flank if they try to charge us.
Granted sometimes the whole team does not do this , and then we lose because 3 or 4 get picked off by the enemy team who has a height and terrain advantage on them & then we have to chase them down from behind etc....... (the lance who spawns on the south left side of the map unless a premade generally gets wiped out if they try to head north or toward the middle on alpine skirmish....unless ofc the whole team goes that way.....but you lose the height advantage if the team does that....)
To be honest, everything is the same in all the modes in a way. Skirmish is about getting a good position and holding it best you can.
Conquest is the same, however you have to worry about cap points. So sometimes teams are spread out more or have lights running around capping etc while the main force plays "skirmish" basically.
Assault is basically the same as conquest however you only have 1 base to worry about, and no resource timer to worry about either. So basically plays very similar to skirmish.
I'm not really seeing any great "tactical" differences in any of the mode really. 2 of them have more things to "worry" about which I would argue makes it more demanding and or skilled, but not by much.
In skirmish you have to worry about more flanks on your camping position.
Granted most pug teams dont know how to assault some positions yet but the tactics will evolve. it is just EASIER to defend a good position, it does not mean it is unassailable. Some maps will have better positions than others but Alpine is the worst offender you cannot draw the same parralel with most other maps.
strygalldwir, on 01 January 2014 - 11:47 PM, said:
So he engaged the enemy when he could trying to take them out while keeping his mech alive at any costs?
Sounds like he did the right thing in his situation - play to your strengths.
He was not shut down hiding he was engaging, if you cannot surround and rip him up if you have multiple mechs you are not playing well.
#143
Posted 02 January 2014 - 04:26 AM
Fooooo, on 01 January 2014 - 11:28 PM, said:
Almost every game on skirmish alpine, when im on the team that spawns on the south side. We head to H10, climb the hill, and proceed to camp and smash the other team who basically always trundles right through the middle at the bottom of the hill, giving us perfect shots while they try to climb the hill.........
We never leave the top of the hill there, its got perfect little ridges to hide behind, and the hill blocks the other team from seeing other people who will end up being on their flank if they try to charge us.
Granted sometimes the whole team does not do this , and then we lose because 3 or 4 get picked off by the enemy team who has a height and terrain advantage on them & then we have to chase them down from behind etc....... (the lance who spawns on the south left side of the map unless a premade generally gets wiped out if they try to head north or toward the middle on alpine skirmish....unless ofc the whole team goes that way.....but you lose the height advantage if the team does that....)
To be honest, everything is the same in all the modes in a way. Skirmish is about getting a good position and holding it best you can.
Conquest is the same, however you have to worry about cap points. So sometimes teams are spread out more or have lights running around capping etc while the main force plays "skirmish" basically.
Assault is basically the same as conquest however you only have 1 base to worry about, and no resource timer to worry about either. So basically plays very similar to skirmish.
I'm not really seeing any great "tactical" differences in any of the mode really. 2 of them have more things to "worry" about which I would argue makes it more demanding and or skilled, but not by much.
Yes, there are "skirmishes" in every game mode lol
And, Yep thats how it usually goes on skirmish on alpine, every dam time. WHen i'm on that map or espeically on the disadvantaged side, I try to convince my team to camp by J8 instead. THat little mountain where we can hide on the other side and make smores...and then play merry go round with the enemy. It works everytime when the whole team does it and we wait it out.
I will say patience wins matches in this game, and skirmish does require the most patience.
But Another map i hate on skirmish is crimson straits now, which used to be my favorite map. Because unlike on assault, teams are less likely to guard both paths, or actually three paths. The one through pass, and the one through lower city and tunnel. Usually its always a bottleneck head on fight in one area, 9 times out of 10...tunnel.
Also that one spawn point on the corner of the map, that has a lance all the way by themselves nowhere near their team on the opposite of the island, is terrible. It forces that one lance to rush as fast as they can across the water through the island to meet up with their team before they get sniped by upper area, or by flanked by the enemy team going tunnel, is terrible. One side definitely has the advantage in skirmish on that map.
Thats the other thing, without bases, teams on one side usually have more of an advantage over a team spawning on the other...
Also, The reason you don't have to worry as much about being flanked compared to the other game modes. Is because Teams are more likely to guard the other parts of the map against such a thing in assault. Capping a base is a reason to evade and move around an enemy thats too slow and dumb to stop you.
In skirmish there is no point to evading the enemy, and noone cares or wants to bother guarding against flanks, if they don't even guard against base caps, which is why most are playing skirmish in the first place. The best strategy is everyone stay together.
Edited by RichAC, 02 January 2014 - 05:04 AM.
#144
Posted 02 January 2014 - 06:35 AM
Sure there are games where people act like it's assault and follow the same paths that we have always followed, heading to the same choke points and such.
But as a whole I've seen a lot more jockeying for position. I've also seen a good amount of lights and mediums oddly enough.
The funnest game for me was actually Terra Therma, which isn't a map I enjoy much. But there was a lot of punch - counter punch, as we shifted around the center. Occasionally a team would make a push, then the other would feint back, shifting around to get better position.
These things cannot happen in Assault due to base capping being a mechanic. I'm fine if you don't enjoy Skirmish, but don't act like Assault takes more thought to play. It does not.
#145
Posted 02 January 2014 - 09:11 AM
I do feel like a Mechwarrior game should have detailed objectives instead of team deathmatch, however Assault and Conquest feel so lacking in execution, that they just aren't that fun.
Maybe with Assault getting turrets that might help, but it still feels a bit half-a$$ed IMO. If the game had a good built-in voice chat and bases took a little more effort than "stand in red square for X amount of time", I would play other game modes.
As it stands now, I am perfectly content with 12v12 team deathmatch.
P.S. I used to be against a Skirmish mode before because I thought 1 lone mech would hide and drag the match out needlessly long. It does happen, and more frequently than I would like, but it still feels tolerable. Can't have everything I suppose.
Edited by MeiSooHaityu, 02 January 2014 - 09:13 AM.
#146
Posted 02 January 2014 - 09:26 AM
MeiSooHaityu, on 02 January 2014 - 09:11 AM, said:
I do feel like a Mechwarrior game should have detailed objectives instead of team deathmatch, however Assault and Conquest feel so lacking in execution, that they just aren't that fun.
Maybe with Assault getting turrets that might help, but it still feels a bit half-a$$ed IMO. If the game had a good built-in voice chat and bases took a little more effort than "stand in red square for X amount of time", I would play other game modes.
As it stands now, I am perfectly content with 12v12 team deathmatch.
P.S. I used to be against a Skirmish mode before because I thought 1 lone mech would hide and drag the match out needlessly long. It does happen, and more frequently than I would like, but it still feels tolerable. Can't have everything I suppose.
I thankfully haven't had a "hider" yet. I've had a few with Spiders or Ravens with ER Large Lasers sniping. Which I mean honestly, that's what they were doing before the whole team died anyway. So why would it change when they were the last one left alive?
And they tend to do damage too. I've seen one Spider take out two heavily damaged heavies before he was finally taken out.
I have not seen any of the "run, hide, shutdown" stuff everyone seems to bring up here.
#147
Posted 02 January 2014 - 10:24 AM
1) Weapon balance : If all weapons were somewhat viable, you would see many more different strategies being used. Camping right now is being favorable to all other strategies because of poptarts/AC metagame. Any flankers will have to do a high-risk low-medium reward flank because of the risks of being completely destroyed by a couple of alpha salvos.
2) Spawn points being nearer or all together : By being all at one spot for both teams, you take out the "random" factor in games and actually promote map mobility and strategy. Exemple : you dont want an LRM boat to spawn the nearest to the front line or on the flank of your team. That's just stupid.
Only when these 2 conditions will be met will skirmish be actually interesting for me (and I would guess for the competitive scene IMO).
Right now, with the current metagame and at higher elo, skirmish usually goes like this :
1) All units meet at at center point
2) Both teams form a firing line and they exchange poptart / sniper fire
3) Eventually, 1 team will try to flank
4a) If the flank works, it mostly ends in a steamroll
4b) If the flank fails, it mostly ends in a steamroll
5) if a team has lights or mediums, the opposing team usually will murderball rush because they won't have enough DPS/armor in the brawl
Very rarely have I seen skirmish to be different than that, aside from those rare occasions where both teams had funky mech builds (locust, LRM boats, funky streak machines and a combination of that).
tldr : Not very interested in skirmish until they change 2 key points : spawn points and weapon balance
#148
Posted 02 January 2014 - 10:55 AM
Nicholas Carlyle, on 02 January 2014 - 09:26 AM, said:
I thankfully haven't had a "hider" yet. I've had a few with Spiders or Ravens with ER Large Lasers sniping. Which I mean honestly, that's what they were doing before the whole team died anyway. So why would it change when they were the last one left alive?
And they tend to do damage too. I've seen one Spider take out two heavily damaged heavies before he was finally taken out.
I have not seen any of the "run, hide, shutdown" stuff everyone seems to bring up here.
It has happened a couple of times. One guy on the enemy team left, and everyone has to fan out and look for him. It doesn't seem to happen too often though.
Oddly enough, I had one match where the enemy had two Spiders left (they were in the same party I believe) and the two spiders ran out of bounds and suicided instead of fight. I thought that was a bit unsportsman like. Were they really that worried about giving someone else a kill? Maybe there is some stat tracking I am un aware of that they didn't want to ruin. Who knows.
In anycase, The occasional shenanigans in Skirmish I witness aren't that bad or too much of a headache.
Edited by MeiSooHaityu, 02 January 2014 - 10:55 AM.
#149
Posted 02 January 2014 - 11:49 AM
#150
Posted 02 January 2014 - 12:01 PM
Roland, on 02 January 2014 - 11:49 AM, said:
A spider running around to try and cap is not hiding.
A spider going to hide and shut down because his team has a chance to win on cap points is fine and perfectly legitimate.
its called playing to win, using ways to win besides killing is something unfathomable for alot of players, especially those who prefer skirmish.
That said, a spider hiding as the last alive in skirmish is dishonorable.
Don't get me wrong I like skirmish too, its a change of pace from a cap rush in assault, or cap out on points in conquest. I just played a bunch of matches of skirmish with my company, I have no issues with it. I like playing them all.
But to constantly hear how is it the more competitive game mode or somehow requires more tactics or skillz then the other ones is a little delusional. Sounds to me like some people are ashamed, or have inferiority complexes, and want to make themselves feel better, for not being able to play the other game modes competitively, and want to ruin those other modes. Like the guy who was teamkilling me earlier in assault mode.
I like to play them all but consider conquest the most intricate and my favorite.
IMO, conquest would be the game mode with the best chance to go pro, simply going by the fact it is the game mode that would give game announcers the most things to talk about.
Edited by RichAC, 02 January 2014 - 12:09 PM.
#151
Posted 02 January 2014 - 12:14 PM
RichAC, on 02 January 2014 - 12:01 PM, said:
A spider running around to try and cap is not hiding.
A spider going to hide and shut down because his team has a chance to win on cap points is fine and perfectly legitimate.
its called playing to win, using ways to win besides killing is something unfathomable for alot of players, especially those who prefer skirmish.
That said, a spider hiding as the last alive in skirmish is dishonorable.
Don't get me wrong I like skirmish too, its a change of pace from a cap rush in assault, or cap out on points in conquest. I just played a bunch of matches of skirmish with my company, I have no issues with it. I like playing them all.
But to constantly hear how is it the more competitive game mode or somehow requires more tactics or skillz then the other ones is a little delusional. Sounds to me like some people are ashamed, or have inferiority complexes, and want to make themselves feel better, for not being able to play the other game modes competitively, and want to ruin those other modes. Like the guy who was teamkilling me earlier in assault mode.
I like to play them all but consider conquest the most intricate and my favorite.
IMO, conquest would be the game mode with the best chance to go pro, simply going by the fact it is the game mode that would give game announcers the most things to talk about.
I see what you are saying, but in the end Conquest seems to end two ways most times. One is with one team rolling the other (not fun).
And the other is with one team having more caps but more team members dead, with the team saying "Hide and win with points".
I get that's how the game is supposed to be played, but it doesn't feel at all like Mechwarrior.
Skirmish is simply who has better pilots and better tactics (barring crazy weight matching issues).
#152
Posted 02 January 2014 - 12:34 PM
Nicholas Carlyle, on 02 January 2014 - 12:14 PM, said:
I see what you are saying, but in the end Conquest seems to end two ways most times. One is with one team rolling the other (not fun).
And the other is with one team having more caps but more team members dead, with the team saying "Hide and win with points".
I get that's how the game is supposed to be played, but it doesn't feel at all like Mechwarrior.
Skirmish is simply who has better pilots and better tactics (barring crazy weight matching issues).
Better Pilots and better tactics still wins conquest matches. The difference is better strategy and map control is also needed. A match is more interesting to me when there are actualy objectives besides killing the other team.
I don't know what mech warrior is supposed to be played like. I admit this is my first mechwarrior game. I was always an fps player growing up. quake, counterstrike, unreal tournament, battlefield. I just really like the game mechanics and fantasy weapons in MWO.
I guess capture the flag would be out of the question then? lol
Edited by RichAC, 02 January 2014 - 12:37 PM.
#153
Posted 02 January 2014 - 12:44 PM
RichAC, on 02 January 2014 - 12:34 PM, said:
Better Pilots and better tactics still wins conquest matches. The difference is better strategy and map control is also needed. A match is more interesting to me when there are actualy objectives besides killing the other team.
I don't know what mech warrior is supposed to be played like. I admit this is my first mechwarrior game. I was always an fps player growing up. quake, counterstrike, unreal tournament, battlefield. I just really like the game mechanics and fantasy weapons in MWO.
I guess capture the flag would be out of the question then? lol
Well, honestly Mechwarrior was always based on objective based warfare. But the problem is...Conquest isn't really an objective so much as an alternative way to win.
You either win by killing or win by capping (normally accompanied by hiding).
What would be much more interesting is well first off...bigger maps. I understand that Alpine feels huge, but part of the problem is most of the map is under utilized.
Then here is what I'd consider a fun experience and mechwarriorish.
Lets say two groups drop on a map. In the center there is a base to take over. But the base defenses are going to shoot at anyone in range. So not only are you fighting eachother, you are fighting the base.
Then there are a bunch of different structures. Lets say one is an ammo dump. You take the ammo dump and any mechs that come near it regenerate ammo.
One is repair bays. Take over the repair bays and suddenly you can stop for repairs.
Another item might be an Aerospace Facility, lets say that lets your commander call in an airstrike once every 2-5 minutes (arbitrary) sans a required module.
And so on and so forth.
And so this leads to a lot of decisions, a lot of objectives. And it's not as mundane as what we have now.
#154
Posted 02 January 2014 - 01:24 PM
Objective game modes need OPTIONAL objectives that give in game advantage so you can choose to engage with them or not.
Right now you just give different options to win the game.
With more random drop locations and optional mini objectives you would then have to think what would be the best way to approach each map - what is worth fighting over and what is worth retreating from.
That is how an objective based map could work but what the objectives give would need to be carefully thought out too
#155
Posted 02 January 2014 - 01:33 PM
Asmudius Heng, on 02 January 2014 - 01:24 PM, said:
Yup, this in a nutshell basically.
I wish they had just given us lobbies and some web tools to run our own CW while focusing resources on things like dynamic drop points, and REAL objective based maps.
We will do an infinitely better job running our own CW's than they ever will. Because in the end, their CW has to be built to never end with no major consequences. Or else people will stop playing it.
#156
Posted 02 January 2014 - 02:55 PM
RichAC, on 02 January 2014 - 12:01 PM, said:
A spider running around to try and cap is not hiding.
A spider going to hide and shut down because his team has a chance to win on cap points is fine and perfectly legitimate.
I suppose that depends on what you mean by legitimate.
It's allowed within the rules.
But in many cases, it's just a pointless waste of time. The lone spider loses anyway, because the other team takes the cap points and his score ends up stopping prior to the victory.. and then he can't recap because they'll just kill him. So it ended up just wasting a few more minutes of everyone's time.
Exactly the thing that a few foolish users complain about in Skirmish... only it happened constantly in Conquest, and very rarely happens in Skirmish.
But yeah, we get it Rich. You like capping instead of fighting. That's totally cool, man. You have your mode, and don't have to play Skirmish.
#157
Posted 03 January 2014 - 04:22 AM
Roland, on 02 January 2014 - 02:55 PM, said:
It's allowed within the rules.
But in many cases, it's just a pointless waste of time. The lone spider loses anyway, because the other team takes the cap points and his score ends up stopping prior to the victory.. and then he can't recap because they'll just kill him. So it ended up just wasting a few more minutes of everyone's time.
Exactly the thing that a few foolish users complain about in Skirmish... only it happened constantly in Conquest, and very rarely happens in Skirmish.
But yeah, we get it Rich. You like capping instead of fighting. That's totally cool, man. You have your mode, and don't have to play Skirmish.
Hiding in skirmish is a waste of time, because there is no other way to win. But i still never call for anyone to suicide or make comments on him. I just grin and bear it, even though I consider it dishonrable its part of the game.
But, If the lone spider has a chance to win in conquest on points by capping or hiding.....i'm all for it. There are cases when we are close to 750 and he does indeed have a chance by capping only one base. Your probably the guy who doesn't realize the score and is yelling at him to suicide all the time?
Same goes for an the lone last man standing Atlas in conquest. Don't yell at him to go hunting the other team down in his 50kph mech, because your mad you died and impatiently waiting for the next match. Instead let him cap to attract the enemy team to his location where he can possibly kill 3 all at one time in one spot. Because like you keep saying most people like to fight after all. Its usually the case.
I play all the game modes all the time. I don't see the difference you see for some reason.
what you don't get is I play to win, and pick the opportune moments to change my strategy or adapt when nescessary to do so whether thats fighting or not. I prefer more strategy to keep the game interesting and dynamic and less repetitive.
But That being said, I play skirmish all the time for a change of pace and I'm surprised you've never played with me before. Because I'm sure you'd remember if you did...
Edited by RichAC, 03 January 2014 - 04:40 AM.
#158
Posted 03 January 2014 - 04:38 AM
Nicholas Carlyle, on 02 January 2014 - 12:44 PM, said:
Well, honestly Mechwarrior was always based on objective based warfare. But the problem is...Conquest isn't really an objective so much as an alternative way to win.
You either win by killing or win by capping (normally accompanied by hiding).
What would be much more interesting is well first off...bigger maps. I understand that Alpine feels huge, but part of the problem is most of the map is under utilized.
Then here is what I'd consider a fun experience and mechwarriorish.
Lets say two groups drop on a map. In the center there is a base to take over. But the base defenses are going to shoot at anyone in range. So not only are you fighting eachother, you are fighting the base.
Then there are a bunch of different structures. Lets say one is an ammo dump. You take the ammo dump and any mechs that come near it regenerate ammo.
One is repair bays. Take over the repair bays and suddenly you can stop for repairs.
Another item might be an Aerospace Facility, lets say that lets your commander call in an airstrike once every 2-5 minutes (arbitrary) sans a required module.
And so on and so forth.
And so this leads to a lot of decisions, a lot of objectives. And it's not as mundane as what we have now.
Alpine is like tortue in an assault mech.
most people don't want to fight over a base as it is now? You think they will when the bases fight back? I can see this working if taking over the base is the only way to win, like in League of Legends.
Or one base in the middle of the map, is just another way of saying king of the hill. I'm not sure if I would be into that game mode, but alot of players want a mode like that.
The rest of what you suggest sounds complicated and like a whole different game. RIght now I'd rather see PGI just release private and public qeued community warfare with weight limits.
Maybe they should make assault mode and conquest respawn players, and capturing the bases the only way to win. Especially since now we have skirmish mode. It does also seem silly to me with both win options.
Edited by RichAC, 03 January 2014 - 04:46 AM.
#159
Posted 03 January 2014 - 07:52 AM
Quote
Yes, there are times when that is the case.
More commonly, you can clearly tell by the score that the score isn't going to make it to 750, and that it'll end up stopping short, and that it'll just wait till the end.
But whatever. I honestly don't care at all any more, because I don't need to play the capping modes. In games where capping is a victory condition, you're allowed to do it. Go nuts. Since I don't need to play that mode any more, I honestly do not mind at all.
It was funny, last night I jumped into the game and the group lead forgot to set it to skirmish... Assault on Caustic... Both teams ended up flanking right and kind of passed each other, at which point it was like, "Well, have to cap them, otherwise they'll cap us." And we moved onto their cap a little before they got on ours, and we won via cap after around 2 minutes total game time... Oh, and I killed the one poor guy who was foolish enough to come back and try to stop our cap.
And then we were like, "lolz Assault" and flipped it back to Skirmish, where we actually had consistently good matches the rest of the night.
#160
Posted 03 January 2014 - 08:54 AM
RichAC, on 03 January 2014 - 04:38 AM, said:
Alpine is like tortue in an assault mech.
most people don't want to fight over a base as it is now? You think they will when the bases fight back? I can see this working if taking over the base is the only way to win, like in League of Legends.
Or one base in the middle of the map, is just another way of saying king of the hill. I'm not sure if I would be into that game mode, but alot of players want a mode like that.
The rest of what you suggest sounds complicated and like a whole different game. RIght now I'd rather see PGI just release private and public qeued community warfare with weight limits.
Maybe they should make assault mode and conquest respawn players, and capturing the bases the only way to win. Especially since now we have skirmish mode. It does also seem silly to me with both win options.
You are depressing as hell man.
The reason people don't want to fight over the bases we have now is A} there is no depth and B} when it's two bases on either end, it basically limits where you can go due to having to defend the base.
What I suggest isn't complicated, and it is what this game was supposed to be. Did you even bother to read the original expectations PGI set for this game?
It's a shell of what it was supposed to be.
Maybe this isn't the game for you. There are tons of games like what you want. I have higher expectations of this IP.
Edited by Nicholas Carlyle, 03 January 2014 - 08:57 AM.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users