259 replies to this topic

[RichAC]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 03 January 2014 - 08:54 AM, said:

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.

Reality is depressing.

Skirmish does not make me people use more of the map. What actually happens is people use less of the map. Everyone just goes fights in the middle of a map usually.. Every battle is in the same area everytime on every map and not very dynamic. I don't know what you mean by bases limit where you can go. It actually breaks up teams and forces people to go fight in different areas. We can all think happy thoughts and paint happy pictures in our mind, but that doesnt' make them true.

What your suggesting is a whole nother game and unrealistic expectations. PGI isn't gonna start from scratch, lets let them release what they at least promised that we are still waiting for. UI 2.0, CW and weight limits. And apparently turrets on bases to provied more "depth" in assault , according to you, thats going to make them even less appealing IMO. Unless they become the only way to win. This turret idea seems like an idea they thought of before coming up with skirmish mode. The fact they came out with the game mode skirmish, makes turrets on bases seem silly now.

I love the game. Your the one complaining about the game modes. Not me. I play them all they way they are intended to be played. I also like playing skirmish for a change of pace, but I don't pretend its something it isn't.

IF assault and conquest are so unappealing, according to you, maybe they should have respawns in conquest and make cap points the only way to win. They should have respawns in assault and make capping the base the only way to win. Then that would mean we would have 3 diff game modes, and people wouldn't turn them into 3 skirmish modes.

Its nice that you have higher expectations, but higher then what? The most popular pc games in history? I like the fact PGI is also treating this game like a sport. Its how versus multiplayers should be treated.

Edited by RichAC, 03 January 2014 - 09:39 AM.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

RichAC, on 03 January 2014 - 09:17 AM, said:

Reality is depressing.

Skirmish does not make me people use more of the map. It actually makes people use less of the map. I don't know what you mean by it limits where you can go. We can all think happy thoughts and paint pictures in our mind, but that doesnt' make them true.

What your suggesting is a whole nother game and super high expectations. PGI isn't gonna start from scratch, lets let them release what they at least promised so far. UI 2.0, CW and weight limits. ANd your turrets on bases to provied more "depth" thats make them even less appealing imo.

I love the game. Your the one complaining about the game modes. Not me. I play them all they way they are intended to be played.

I don't know why I'm bothering to have a conversation with you if you don't understand why Assault mode limits map use, while Skirmish gives you unlimited use of the map.

Let me see if I can explain it to you...if you don't understand let me know and I'll try to go into further detail.

In Assault mode there are two ways to win. Kill all the other mechs or cap the opponents base.

This means that you HAVE to protect your base. That means you must always be in position on a map to return to your base. The other other option is to move immediately towards capping the opponents base and thus the match is basically decided by who can cap faster.


Skirmish on the other hand has no bases.

You can have your 12 man team go to ANY part of the map. You can have one lance go to the southern most part, one lance go to the northern most part, and once lance go to the middle. And the only thing you ever have to worry about is whether you can kill the opposing team.

And yes, the reality of who is developing this IP is very depressing. Especially since I'm a fan of the franchise while not necessarily being a huge fan of this iteration of the game.

Whereas you are just some F2P guy who will probably be gone in a few months.

[Roland]

RichAC, on 03 January 2014 - 09:17 AM, said:

Reality is depressing.

Skirmish does not make me people use more of the map. What actually happens is people use less of the map. Everyone just goes fights in the middle of a map usually.. Every battle is in the same area everytime on every map and not very dynamic.

No, you are incorrect. Your statement here is false.

Quote

I don't know what you mean by bases limit where you can go.

Bases limit where you can go, because if you move your forces into certain locations in the Assault game type, then you auto-lose, because you get capped.

The base prevents you from using 90% of a map like Alpine, because you aren't able to travel far off of the center line without exposing yourself to cap.

Once the base is removed, you are free to move your forces anywhere you like.

Now, on some maps like Forest Colony, the maps themselves are simply so small that there really isn't that much that can happen, especially with 24 mechs on the map. But this is due to the map size, rather than the game's limitations.

On larger maps, Skirmish allows you to engage anywhere you like.

This isn't to say that there are going to be moutbreathers who simply start walking straight ahead after they spawn, but those folks did exactly the same thing in the other game types too. Like the multitudes who consistently walk into what is clearly a deathtrap on certain maps, simply because it was what was directly in front of them when they spawned.

[RichAC]

Roland, on 03 January 2014 - 09:54 AM, said:

No, you are incorrect. Your statement here is false.

I see your stalking me now. Well we agree to disagree.

Quote

Bases limit where you can go, because if you move your forces into certain locations in the Assault game type, then you auto-lose, because you get capped.

The base prevents you from using 90% of a map like Alpine, because you aren't able to travel far off of the center line without exposing yourself to cap.

Once the base is removed, you are free to move your forces anywhere you like.

Now, on some maps like Forest Colony, the maps themselves are simply so small that there really isn't that much that can happen, especially with 24 mechs on the map. But this is due to the map size, rather than the game's limitations.

On larger maps, Skirmish allows you to engage anywhere you like.

This isn't to say that there are going to be moutbreathers who simply start walking straight ahead after they spawn, but those folks did exactly the same thing in the other game types too. Like the multitudes who consistently walk into what is clearly a deathtrap on certain maps, simply because it was what was directly in front of them when they spawned.

Haven't you read any of the discussions about Alpine and skirmish in this thread? Its usually a battle in the middle of the map, which is many peoples complaints, not just mine. It becomes a boring reptitive waiting game. Where people just rush to the top of the largest peak on the map and camp there. 90% of the time.

Bases force you to go to different areas of the map to either guard against enemy assaults through different paths, or to try and evade an enemy to try and assault their base. In skirmish this is not nescessary so usually teams go to the same spot everytime that has worked for them previously in big "murder deathball huddle" as its become known. And camp it out.

On conquest bases speak for themselves as to why forces are spread out all over the map fighting in different areas. I'm sure you can agree with that?

But unlike assault, in Skirmish, for example on crimsons straights, its not a good idea to split up your team. You also don't have to defend all paths to each side of the map, cause you don't have to worry about being capped. So fights usually happen outside of a tunnel entrance, rather then a pass, definitley usually not at both points like in assault. And the matches get played out the same way every time.

Because noone has to worry about guarding against a base cap. Noone is trying to evade a team to base cap , because the only way to win is to out fight the team, so in skirmish fights usually happen in the same points on the map 90% of the time.

Edited by RichAC, 03 January 2014 - 10:04 AM.

[RichAC]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 03 January 2014 - 09:29 AM, said:

I don't know why I'm bothering to have a conversation with you if you don't understand why Assault mode limits map use, while Skirmish gives you unlimited use of the map.

Let me see if I can explain it to you...if you don't understand let me know and I'll try to go into further detail.

In Assault mode there are two ways to win. Kill all the other mechs or cap the opponents base.

This means that you HAVE to protect your base. That means you must always be in position on a map to return to your base. The other other option is to move immediately towards capping the opponents base and thus the match is basically decided by who can cap faster.


Skirmish on the other hand has no bases.

You can have your 12 man team go to ANY part of the map. You can have one lance go to the southern most part, one lance go to the northern most part, and once lance go to the middle. And the only thing you ever have to worry about is whether you can kill the opposing team.

And yes, the reality of who is developing this IP is very depressing. Especially since I'm a fan of the franchise while not necessarily being a huge fan of this iteration of the game.

Whereas you are just some F2P guy who will probably be gone in a few months.

Yes you are free to move anywhere you want without having to defend your base. So in theory you can say you afree to go anywhere. But what happens is, because people don't have to defend or assault a base......they go camp in the same spot everytime.

Theories and possiblities, dont' always = reality. You sound like another computer industry dude.

We all lave played skirmish, we all know in alpine peaks, its camp at the top of the mountain first. We all know in crimson straits, one side always rushes towards the tunnel and ignores the pass 90% of the time......noone is going to battle on the island now that there are no bases dude.. Or in any other rare parts of the map for that matter.

The only thing that has changed in reality, is that people are using even less of the map!!

Even though they possibly could go brawl on the island, without having to worry about a base cap. There is just no need for it in reality so it never happens. You will see more fights in different areas of the map on the other game modes, cause people are trying to find different routes to bases.

Edited by RichAC, 03 January 2014 - 10:12 AM.

[Roland]

RichAC, on 03 January 2014 - 10:00 AM, said:

Haven't you read any of the discussions about Alpine and skirmish in this thread? Its usually a battle in the middle of the map, which is many peoples complaints, not just mine. It becomes a boring reptitive waiting game. Where people just rush to the top of the largest peak on the map and camp there. 90% of the time.

Skirmish does not force you to have a complex tactical engagement. It merely ENABLES it, rather than the assault and conquest rules which PREVENT it.

Of course, if folks want to just rush to the center, they totally can... Although, even in that case, Skirmish frees you up to flank around OPFOR unlike in Assault where flanking would allow them access to your base.

But you know what? In Skirmish, there is absolutely nothing which says you need to rush to the center of the map. Funny thing is, there are actually higher locations on the northern size of that region that you could potentially move to. The reality is that it's rare that anyone actually goes to the highest peaks... The highest locations on that map are on the northern border.

You know, that section of the map which you literally NEVER went into when playing the older game modes.

Quote

Bases force you to go to different areas of the map to either guard against enemy assaults through different paths, or to try and evade an enemy to try and assault their base.

No they don't. Bases limit you to only moving your force into certain areas.

That's why you can look at the heat maps and see extremely limited usage of the larger maps in terms of where people moved. If the heatmaps allowed filtering further based on game type, you'd see that for maps like Alpine in Assault, only maybe 20% of the map ever gets used.

Quote

Because noone has to worry about guarding against a base cap. Noone is trying to evade a team to base cap , because the only way to win is to out fight the team, so in skirmish fights usually happen in the same points on the map 90% of the time.

No man, you are mistaking you limited experience with the rule. It's not.

Again, if you are playing with a bunch of uncoordinated pugs, then you're not likely to see any real complex tactical movement.. But from a decade of experience playing in competitive MW4 leagues, I can tell you that deathmatch enables far more complexity that anything you have ever witnessed in MWO.

Honestly, even in Skirmish you're limited by the short time period. 15 minutes really isn't enough time to have the kinds of battles we used to fight in MW4.

[Joseph Mallan]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 23 December 2013 - 10:34 AM, said:

You don't find that fights tend to sway towards area's that would normally be completely ignored due to having to defend caps? I've only done like 8 or 9 Skirmishes and I can already see a different style.

After a year of dancing around a map shoot one another... the where of it does not matter much. Now give me an objective other than kill those guys, that would be refreshing.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 03 January 2014 - 10:23 AM.

[RichAC]

Roland, on 03 January 2014 - 10:14 AM, said:

Skirmish does not force you to have a complex tactical engagement. It merely ENABLES it, rather than the assault and conquest rules which PREVENT it.

yes it merely enables it in theory in skirmish, but 90% of the time it doens't happen in reality. In assault, or conquest, 90% of the time its actually mandatory and happens often, especially if playing to win.

Quote

Of course, if folks want to just rush to the center, they totally can... Although, even in that case, Skirmish frees you up to flank around OPFOR unlike in Assault where flanking would allow them access to your base.

true but you end up flanking the same usual positions.

Quote

But you know what? In Skirmish, there is absolutely nothing which says you need to rush to the center of the map. Funny thing is, there are actually higher locations on the northern size of that region that you could potentially move to. The reality is that it's rare that anyone actually goes to the highest peaks... The highest locations on that map are on the northern border.

True, but still only possiblities and theories not based on actual examples.

Quote

You know, that section of the map which you literally NEVER went into when playing the older game modes.

I've been in more locations on the other game modes.

Quote

No they don't. Bases limit you to only moving your force into certain areas.

People usually look for different ways to evade a team to get to the base. Its what makes those game modes dynamic, and why i love PGI's map design so much. There are no bottlenecked maps.. and thats how it should be. So you never know which direction an assault will come from.

Quote

That's why you can look at the heat maps and see extremely limited usage of the larger maps in terms of where people moved. If the heatmaps allowed filtering further based on game type, you'd see that for maps like Alpine in Assault, only maybe 20% of the map ever gets used.

Not so on conquest.

Quote

No man, you are mistaking you limited experience with the rule. It's not

Again, if you are playing with a bunch of uncoordinated pugs, then you're not likely to see any real complex tactical movement.. But from a decade of experience playing in competitive MW4 leagues, I can tell you that deathmatch enables far more complexity that anything you have ever witnessed in MWO.

Honestly, even in Skirmish you're limited by the short time period. 15 minutes really isn't enough time to have the kinds of battles we used to fight in MW4.

I don't know what you mean by limited experience? Oh your a pro MW4 player? If you told me you were a pro quake or counterstrike or LoL player you might of impressed me lol.

Edited by RichAC, 03 January 2014 - 10:54 AM.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

To break down Rich's argument...since people choose to use the same part of maps as they do in Assault, Skirmish does not allow you to use more of the map.

Just because you play with people who make a DECISION to run towards the middle of the map and die in a boring battle, does not make that the fault of the mode. In fact the mode makes it a decision as opposed to a requirement like it is in Assault and Conquest.

He's not really listening to what anyone else writes. He's just saying "I SAW PUGS GO INTO THE MIDDLE OF ALPINE ON SKIRMISH" over and over again.

RichAC, on 03 January 2014 - 10:53 AM, said:

I don't know what you mean by limited experience? Oh your a pro MW4 player? If you told me you were a pro quake or counterstrike or LoL player you might of impressed me lol.

And now we know what kind of person we are dealing with. You've officially hit the level of "not worth the effort". Why don't you just move into a new F2P game?

[Roland]

RichAC, on 03 January 2014 - 10:53 AM, said:

yes it merely enables it in theory in skirmish, but 90% of the time it doens't happen in reality.

The fact that people don't employ any type of strategy is immaterial to the game mode, because the other game modes have the exact same issue.

RichAC, on 03 January 2014 - 10:53 AM, said:

In assault, or conquest, 90% of the time its actually mandatory and happens often, especially if playing to win.

No Rich, assault and conquest do not have any kind of tactical depth at all.

That's the thing that you don't really understand. What you are perceiving as tactical depth in those game modes is a joke. There is nothing to it. It's not real tactical movement. It's trivialized to a handful of fixed decisions.

With the removal of bases, the tactical possibilities explode into a huge assortment of potential options.

Now, certainly with a disorganized pug group who isn't even communicating, you're not going to see any of those options realized.. but that's because any real tactical combat depends upon organization.

You are perceiving what you see in Assault as tactical depth, because it's been the limit of what was possible in MWO.. so you mistakenly think it's all there is. But I assure you that the potential for complex tactical maneuvering goes well beyond anything that you have likely witnessed.

HRR Insanity wrote a guide to Mechwarrior 4 No-Respawn play way back in the day.. like 2002 probably. A bunch of folks copied it, so you may actually be able t find a copy of it somewhere online. If I recall, it contains a breakdown from one of our old AAR's of an engagement with clan Wolf back in the end of the first cycle of the UTS league. It was near the end of things, with HRR and Wolf duking it out for control of Terra.

If you can find it, I think you may better understand where I am coming from when I talk about the potential for tactical play that's enabled when you remove silly fixed bases.

While the game mode was simply Team Attrition Deathmatch, the engagement sprawled across the entire map (And bear in mind, all of the MW4 maps were FAR larger than any of the MWO maps, with some of them being much larger than Alpine). Scouts were being used by both sides to make and maintain contact while the main forces engaged, disengaged, and re-engaged. The battle took around 50+ minutes to finally play out, I believe.

That's why it's so laughable to me (or any of the veterans who played back in those days) when folks suggest that TDM is just a big blob that rams into the other force. Sure, you can play it like that, but that's not how its played CORRECTLY.

Quote

True, but still only possiblities and theories not based on actual examples.

Like I said, I have the better part of a decade of actual examples. I've been playing this game for the past two years now, and I played Mechwarrior 4 competitively from around 2001 through 2006(?).

Quote

I don't know what you mean by limited experience? Oh your a pro MW4 player? If you told me you were a pro quake or counterstrike or LoL player you might of impressed me lol.

Feel free to believe that your three months of experience in limited engagements that last less than ten minutes gives you a good grasp of what Mechwarrior can really be.

I assure you that it does not. It can be much more than what you have seen in this game to date.

And you do not need to take my word for it, because there were tens of thousands of us who played in the old planetary leagues. A lot of those old players used to be here in MWO, although a good many of them have abandoned this game at this point. Mechwarrior 4 actually had a pretty large thriving online community, portions of it which still exist to this day.

[Chip Danger]

Your all wrong. the maps are too small for any kind of real game play for 100 ton mechs at all. Hell foot troops would laugh at the lack of space and end up fighting in the same spots as mechs.

[StaIker]

It's really rather simple. If you played in the MW4 NR leagues then you know what real tactics and combat are supposed to look like. If you didn't, then you have no idea and no way to imagine it. What MWO offers is a pathetic shadow of what MW4 delivered for years and years.

[Asmudius Heng]

StaIker, on 03 January 2014 - 05:10 PM, said:

It's really rather simple. If you played in the MW4 NR leagues then you know what real tactics and combat are supposed to look like. If you didn't, then you have no idea and no way to imagine it. What MWO offers is a pathetic shadow of what MW4 delivered for years and years.

This same discussion happened back in closed beta, the same circular arguments.

Until a player has experienced tactical depth it is hard for them to really understand and fathom.

That might sound elitist to some but its simply a reality that it is difficult to understand complexities until you experience them.

[RichAC]

Not to sound stuck up or anything, but you guys are talking about MW4, when there have been actually professional fps games like quake and counterstrike. Which were more fast paced, and imo, required even more "tactics"

The most popular FPS games in history, that are considered the greatest e-sports of all time. Not a game that not many people played and which never went pro, unless your mean modern warfare when you say mw lol. I know the fact you grew up playing MWO games you feel gives you more creedance, but it actually doesn't imo.

The only thing PGI needs to take from those games is weight limits imo. Other than that I want a multiplayer i can consider a sport. Not an online simulation or wanna be singleplayer game.

Edited by RichAC, 04 January 2014 - 05:01 AM.

[draiocht]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 03 January 2014 - 11:49 AM, said:

He's just saying "I SAW PUGS GO INTO THE MIDDLE OF ALPINE ON SKIRMISH" over and over again.

Mindfully, it's fair indication that PGI has an audience that MWO's current modes don't adequately cater to. There's a breadth of strategy to be had in Skirmish, but most players' impatience (and in part, the rewards system) act against it.

The answer seems obvious enough: solo-deathmatch, small maps, infinite respawn, 10-minute timer. Action! (I've found searched posts that refer to a similar feature suggestion, but could only find misguided requests for Skirmish in that sub-forum.)

I'm glad Skirmish exists, but it doesn't appear to be what the PuGs really want.

[Roland]

RichAC, on 04 January 2014 - 04:57 AM, said:

Not to sound stuck up or anything, but you guys are talking about MW4, when there have been actually professional fps games like quake and counterstrike. Which were more fast paced, and imo, required even more "tactics"

Rich, what are you even talking about? Twitch based shooters are totally different games from mechwarrior.

Mechwarrior is, essentially, a shooter that is focused on Armored warfare. Compared to infantry combat, there are different aspects to the tactics and strategies used. There are books written on the subject.

You attempted to make statements regarding the tactical possibilities within the realm of mechwarrior, and those with far more experience than you discredited your statement using years of actual experience with the exact topic of discussion. And now what? You're trying to discredit that experience by saying, "Well that experience wasn't in other, more popular competitive games!" No, that experience was in THIS GAME. So when you say that things are impossible in THIS game, and people have actual experience in THIS GAME which proves you wrong, then your argument has been defeated.

And quite frankly, you obviously haven't played THOSE games on a competitive level either, so I'm not really sure why you are even bringing them up.

Quote

The most popular FPS games in history, that are considered the greatest e-sports of all time. Not a game that not many people played and which never went pro, unless your mean modern warfare when you say mw lol. I know the fact you grew up playing MWO games you feel gives you more creedance, but it actually doesn't imo.

In fact it does exactly that, since we're talking about the possible tactical depth in mechwarrior.

Quote

The only thing PGI needs to take from those games is weight limits imo. Other than that I want a multiplayer i can consider a sport. Not an online simulation or wanna be singleplayer game.

So you want mechwarrior to be quake or counterstrike? Or League of Legends? Or Starcraft? What are you even talking about? You're just flailing around now. None of this has anything to do with the tactical possibilities in a TDM game type in mechwarrior, which is what THIS thread is about.

[StaIker]

draiocht, on 04 January 2014 - 12:04 PM, said:

Mindfully, it's fair indication that PGI has an audience that MWO's current modes don't adequately cater to. There's a breadth of strategy to be had in Skirmish, but most players' impatience (and in part, the rewards system) act against it.

The answer seems obvious enough: solo-deathmatch, small maps, infinite respawn, 10-minute timer. Action! (I've found searched posts that refer to a similar feature suggestion, but could only find misguided requests for Skirmish in that sub-forum.)

I'm glad Skirmish exists, but it doesn't appear to be what the PuGs really want.

I don't think you're reading the situation correctly. PUG's are not leaders of innovation, because you can't innovate as one guy doing something unique against 12 opponents. The innovation comes from established units that can develop ideas and test them and refine them over a large number of games. In MW4 the PUG's learned their tactics from being in the same servers as established units, watching their moves and slowly gaining the ability to contribute to more complex tactics. But here, in PGI's wisdom, PUG's are isolated from the teams and so they NEVER have the opportunity to learn anything or do anything different than just march to the centre with the rest of the blob. PUG's did learn and improve their tactics in MW4 because they had to in order to match the teams they were playing against in open servers. But that's just not going to happen here.

[RichAC]

Roland, on 04 January 2014 - 01:49 PM, said:

Rich, what are you even talking about? Twitch based shooters are totally different games from mechwarrior.

Mechwarrior is, essentially, a shooter that is focused on Armored warfare. Compared to infantry combat, there are different aspects to the tactics and strategies used. There are books written on the subject.

MWO is different cause its slower paced, and more like driving a tank. But You can also consider your character in quake for example, and "armored" vehicle, since you also have different armor attributes at times, and its also just a video game.

[

Quote

You attempted to make statements regarding the tactical possibilities within the realm of mechwarrior, and those with far more experience than you discredited your statement using years of actual experience with the exact topic of discussion. And now what? You're trying to discredit that experience by saying, "Well that experience wasn't in other, more popular competitive games!" No, that experience was in THIS GAME. So when you say that things are impossible in THIS game, and people have actual experience in THIS GAME which proves you wrong, then your argument has been defeated.

Discredited my statement how? Thats exactly what I'm saying. This version of mechwarrior online has nothing to do with any singleplayers. And its more sportlike, which will make it more competitive imo, which is why its the first one I've ever played.

Quote

And quite frankly, you obviously haven't played THOSE games on a competitive level either, so I'm not really sure why you are even bringing them up.

If by competitive you mean on a professional level, then your right. But that doesn't discredit anyone. Alot of fans of pro athletic sports can you tell you more about the games then some professional team managers.

Quote

In fact it does exactly that, since we're talking about the possible tactical depth in mechwarrior.

The general tactics and things that make fps games competitive, are no different. Its the reason why people want to say skirmish is more like "real life" because its just about pure team fighting and nothing else.

Quote

So you want mechwarrior to be quake or counterstrike? Or League of Legends? Or Starcraft? What are you even talking about? You're just flailing around now. None of this has anything to do with the tactical possibilities in a TDM game type in mechwarrior, which is what THIS thread is about.

Its pretty much already is, which is why I'm playing it now. sorry that makes you uncomfortable. And I disagree. The difference for me is the movement mechanics, and the fantasy weapons and customizations and maps, etc... But general team deathmatch tactics don't change between the games.

Basically The game mode is the same, The only thing difference about it, is PGI calls it skirmish instead of TDM.

Edited by RichAC, 04 January 2014 - 06:36 PM.

[Roland]

RichAC, on 04 January 2014 - 06:25 PM, said:

Discredited my statement how? Thats exactly what I'm saying. This version of mechwarrior online has nothing to do with any singleplayers. And its more sportlike, which will make it more competitive imo, which is why its the first one I've ever played.

Dude, obviously you are unaware of this, but MWO is effectively the same game in terms of core gameplay mechanics as Mechwarrior 4.

And when the mechwarrior 4 vets talk about that game, they aren't talking about the single player campaign mode. They are talking about the competitive online play that took place in leagues with, literally, thousands of players competing.

See, basically, back in MW4 we kind of had what PGI has promised to deliver in MWO. We had a big simulation of the entire Inner Sphere, and units competed for resources across that map.

Quote

But general team deathmatch tactics don't change between the games.

Only on the most basic level.

Again, what I and others are trying (obviously in vain) to explain to you is that Mechwarrior, due to its unique mechanics compared to other shooters, actually does involve differences in how its played. You are unaware of this, because you've never seen it played on that level... but other folks HAVE seen it played on that level. That's how people know, beyond question, that you are wrong.

[Klaus]

Skirmish is the worst thing to ever happen to this game. It took the viably away from mech that already weren't that viable. This mode might as well be a big football field where both team right at each other shooting.