Incoming wall o text! ... sorry =/
kamiko kross, on 11 January 2014 - 06:23 AM, said:
Fair enough, good replying post-clears up a few things:)
It's just there seems to be this kind of, well "theatrical" view of it being pushed about which is simply not true. In pug play at least. I've also noticed over my years of gaming, when this sort of mode is introduced into a game like this-the general (read:pug) skill level and play becomes worse-in the objective focused modes that is.
It also shifts focus of the players towards kills and all the detrimental effects of that focus shift:( I play mostly light mechs and don't really enjoy it because whilst I can still post up some good damage etc it's not really what my mechs are meant for and I'm always at a disadvantage (firepower and survivability-speed is becoming less relevant due to overspeed assaults and heavies).
What I have seen from pug play is whoever has:
Most assaults and heavies
Can snipe with more pp alpha
Forms most cohesive deathblob
Yes as I said you are correct that on a base level skirmish is just as {Scrap} as any other mode. Objectives do give the casual pub player something very obvious to focus on other than kills which means at the base level assault and conquest give a slight variation on skirmish, but it does not take long for the gravity of the bases to start shaping the combat into just as dull a grind as a badly played skirmish match IMO
Quote
WINS.
All three are pure toxic to good, mobile,fun gameplay.
Ironically the best fight centric games I have had have been in conquest. The small scale skirmishes you get between cap points have proven the most entertaining for me in my lighter, faster mechs. Maybe why so many hate those modes because they are in slower, more alpha focused mechs?
Anyway, just wanted to add a foil to "skirmish is best mode ever!!!" type of posts. We need more QUALITY and less simplicity. I'm looking to see what kind of mode we get next, though sadly I think the "me want smash" group have managed to make their voice the loudest at a shouting contest.
I actually LIKE conquest. Assault is the one I think is not great .... its not god aweful as long as i have an alternative, but its got serious issues for those who want to play at a certain level. The difference is that conquest gives you more objective CHOICES than assault. You can choose to attack, defend or vacate a base depending on how the battle is going. It is more dynamic in that way. Most games still end up with kills not a cap but thats ok - the gravity of the bases forces you to engage or be capped out. Conquest is a time pressure kind of mode, you need to act fast and constantly be pressing and reacting or you will lose by the alt win condition - in assault you just need to stay close enough to base to defend it and blob up - or rush the enemy base, its too binary.
Conquest is fine, its a much better mode for lone wolf pubbies and i choose that mode if i play alone.
In regards to the next mode i assume it will be the siege mode, attack/defend which could be fun. However what we really need if we want objectives in this game (and i WANT objective based gameplay skirmish is NOT the be all end all) is a game mode where the objectives grant you IN GAME bonuses and do not provide a binary win condition. The key here is that objectives should provide you something you can use in that match to further your victory but they are OPTIONAL. When they are optional you now have a meaningful choice on what to capture, defend, attack, or abandon based on the unique situation your force is in at the time. THIS is what objectives should do in my opinion so it is not as fantic as conuest which forces you to engage and take objectoves to stop being capped out.
Quote
N.B on a sidenote, that's a nice signature-quote from history?
Thanks man, no it is just something I made up. My unit has a strong Role Playing focus that many of our members including myself get into quite heavily and that ties into my 'character' and that of the family Heng which I am the leader of (a sub group of House Jurai).
RichAC, on 11 January 2014 - 07:00 AM, said:
"Anything you can do in skirmish you can do in the other two, but the tactics from the other two can't be applied to skirmish"
Incorrect. There are many tactics that if you try to do in assault or skirmish will simply get you capped out. Ambushes, flanking moves that take some time to do, using advantagrous terrain for your loadout that takes you too far away from the cap points. These things cannot be done in conquest or skirmish without a MASSIVE risk of being capped out. You can do similar TYPE of things but they will have to be much more limited in scope and location due to the importance of the bases. It is not rocket science to see this guys ...
There are indeed tactics or strategies if you will you can do in Assault and Conquest you cannot do Skirmish this is true though, that does not take anything away from Skirmish though and those particular tactics might be somewhat limited especially in assault IMO
Quote
And yes, I'm being broader in the sense that its the same story in any first person or 3rd person multiplayer versus game, not just mwo. You seem to lack this experience as well as an understanding of human nature.
Meaning games that have both game modes, with map items and objectives verse those without. Meaning No map items or objectives, means people use less of the map in general. Its just a fact of reality. Its also less challening to pro teams, and less interesting to fans. It really is disingenuous to try and claim otherwise. Its only proving you have other reasons to prefer skirmish apparenlty.
You are being quite insulting here if you are talking to me or people who agree with me. I do not understand human nature? I lack experience? Really ... I am glad you know so much about us all and you are so wise! *rolls eyes*
Ok lets use a little bit of logical analysis.
-Objectives scattered around a map will encourage people to use more of the map to get those obejctives.
-No obejctives means people will NEVER EVER EVER use other parts of the map (this is what you are claiming).
-More usage of a map means it is more interesting
=Therefore objectives always allow more usage of a map and therefore it is more interesting.
Truth number 1: Objectives DO encourage people to go for those obejctives
Fallacy number 1: Assault only had 2 objectives thefore the gravity of where people go is tied to these 2 obejectives drawing people AWAY from other parts of the map.
Fallacy number 2: Just because there are no defined game objectives on a map does NOT mean the map gets used less. You see there are non game obejectives that encourage map use called TERRAIN and POSITIONING. Sometimes you will want to use some terrain to attack from, defend from, use as cover, use to mask a flank etc etc. These encourage usage of the map and when there are no bases to be forced to defend people will start looking for different ways to use the map using terrain and angles of attack.
Fallacy number 3: More usage of the map does not always map it more interesting. Diversity and changes of the way the game is played as often as possible keeps things alive. Stale gameplay is uninteresting and assault is the most stale of all 3 modes in my opinion. Overall if people use more areas of the map it CAN be more intersting but assault does not do that anyway.
Human nature. Yes i know what you are getting at here. You are talking about the lowest common denominator which is what you get in random pug drops. The more OBVIOUS options you give to random players the more chance there is that they will choose a range of different options. Without obvious options they will do whatever seems to be the most obvious thing which in your mind is charge in and die in a straight line.
I agree somewhat yes. But assault offers very little more than that either, all it does is give a vague direction to attack and defend for the most new of newbies. Conquest is different and quite a bit better allowing some dynamnic changes mid game on where you want to position but I am talking about assault as the worst offender.
As i said above a REAL objective based game would give you optional objectives so you have more meaningful choices to aid the primary obejctive not over ride it. This is much more like the quake example you talk about i assume where you can move to get heals and 4x damage etc (its been a long time since i played quake ...) These are OPTIONAL not a binary win loss condition which is assault.
Remember positions on the map ARE obejctives to help you win, its just the game does not hand that to you on a plate and tell you to get it.
Quote
On another note, Someone thought conquest was capture the flag game mode yesterday. I was trying to explain to them that conquest and capture the flag are two different game modes and that capture the flag mode is not in this game...lol The community would probably just dumb it down into a 4th skirmish mode by begging for wins on kills, but I would find it fun regardless.
Even more condescention, not very good at arguing the point are you.
Capture the flag could be interesting but would need a serious rework to be viable in MWO as the mechanics are so different to an regular FPS.
Christ the very first topic i made in closed beta was about different game modes. I got insulted and told it will come dont get ahead of myself, this isnt a topic for now ... how long ago was that now ... it was exactly the time to be talking and planning game modes but anyway ....
Motroid, on 11 January 2014 - 07:17 AM, said:
The addition of a "dumbed down" skirmish mode is a great sign of the times. Casual players all the way.
"More BT than ever and feels LESS like CoD" the OP said. Haven't read such nonsense in a while. You, sir, haven't clearly played any BT game at all. Battletech is about scouting enemy forces, escorting VIPs, destroying target objectives, etc...
What we see with skirmish feels LESS like BT than ever. Yeah, got it, a thinking persons shooter! There just don't seem to be enough thinking people out there to run this idea. Which kinda matches my RL impressions so far.
btw: teamdeathmatch as a classic gamemode is no big deal even in Mechwarrior, but WITHOUT tonnagelimits it's just stupid to run mediums and I don't wanna see them in my team at all...
Well assault and skirmish don't really provide that much at all either. Assault in particular is immersion breaking ...
11
