259 replies to this topic

[Xmith]

Imo, some sort of score penalty should be giving to the winning team for not finding the last mech that might be shutdown somewhere.

Plus a score bonus for the loosing team for not having all mechs destroyed. This perhaps can discourage the practice of giving out your last team mech's position.

[Sandpit]

Xmith, on 12 January 2014 - 01:57 PM, said:

Imo, some sort of score penalty should be giving to the winning team for not finding the last mech that might be shutdown somewhere.

Plus a score bonus for the loosing team for not having all mechs destroyed. This perhaps can discourage the practice of giving out your last team mech's position.

Or you could just report players for it and let GMs punish those that are actually griefing

[Asmudius Heng]

Motroid, on 12 January 2014 - 11:32 AM, said:

We are talking of Vehicle combat simulation here. Games that encourage objective driven gameplay more than your average FPS ever could...
Having "only" to kill all OpFor for victory is a waste of potential of these combat vehicle simulation games, that offer thousands of possibilities to achieve different goals. At least Assault and Conquest mode tried to accomplish that.
Does anyone think "Counterstrike" would have become what it is when featuring only Team deathmatch? It's that thrilling suspense when the bomb has been planted and you are lacking a defusal kit or when escorting the hostages all the way back to safe zone while knowing there will be an ambush set up by the last two Ts somewhere.
Teamdeathmatch is just simple enough for everyone to pick up in minute. But not what I expect from "a thinking persons shooter". It fits more into the casual CoD and BF community.

You realize that BF is an objective driven game don't you and also has vehicles .....

[Sephlock]

GRiPSViGiL, on 19 December 2013 - 11:10 PM, said:

You got the game mode you wanted and now it isn't what you really wanted

[Fuerchtegott]

Asmudius Heng, on 12 January 2014 - 03:04 PM, said:

You realize that BF is an objective driven game don't you and also has vehicles .....

You have kind of a point there on one hand, but on the other, a tank is a tank is a tank.
The number of tanks is given by the map, as far as I remember BF.

In MWO we decide which tanks appear in a drop and what kind of specialization they have, so in my humble (I'm kidding, i'm not humble here) opinion there is a huge difference gameplaywise.

[Fuerchtegott]

Motroid, on 11 January 2014 - 07:17 AM, said:

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...

You Sir, have kind of a point here.
But, in a perfect world, where MWOs matchmaker works as intended, it should try to match teams based on weightclass and Elo and therefore for every medium mech that annoys you, the enemy should have an annoying teammate too.

In the live game on the other hand, you are often right. =)

[Asmudius Heng]

Fuerchtegott, on 12 January 2014 - 09:05 PM, said:

You have kind of a point there on one hand, but on the other, a tank is a tank is a tank.
The number of tanks is given by the map, as far as I remember BF.

In MWO we decide which tanks appear in a drop and what kind of specialization they have, so in my humble (I'm kidding, i'm not humble here) opinion there is a huge difference gameplaywise.

Yes the vehicles are set by map and each spawn point can sometimes give additional assets if captured as well but its not mechwarrior with all of it's customization for sure.

The point i was making is that BF is certainly objective driven and unrelated to CoD when talking about 'Deathmatch mentality'. Hell, BF has squad systems and rewards based on teamwork performance as well as great communications tools in the game to spot and set markers etc.

MWO could have taken a LOT of cues from the battlefield series and reworked them for a no respawn environment. I understand MWO is not funded like BF though but seriously there is huge potential to glean from that series.

As you can tell, i quite like Battlefield. I also like skirmish and conquest(Which is VERY much like battlefield). It is just assault that is extremely limiting and needs an overhaul.

[Fuerchtegott]

One could add, that if we would know which map we play on next, there would be cookie setups for any given maps and and my point would be invalid in no time. :-)
Hopefully they'll improve assault in an attack and defend style, or even better, copy some of BF levelution ideas.
I believe, the best designdecission they made so far, is that we not know which map we'll get next, without that, MWO had allready bored us all to death month ago.

Tbh, I hadn't read all you wrote by now, but I'll catch it up.

[Harmatia]

mwhighlander, on 17 December 2013 - 08:08 PM, said:

I agree, this mode is A LOT more enjoyable to play.

Biggest gripe I have is the matchmaker...


I had one of my ~8 games this afternoon where it was about 8 of us in medium ands 2 assaults v a team with 8 assaults and a catapult, orion, and two phracts. We were out tonned by about 450. In a mode like this, equal tonnages mean EVEN more. Its just pathetic the MM is still that dysfunction from time to time.

Other than that, games have been relatively close, and much more fun.

This happens to me most of the time when I'm running my Shadowhawks or Hunchbacks. I basically stopped playing until they figure out how to not have me going against 8 assaults all the time.

[Motroid]

Asmudius Heng, on 12 January 2014 - 03:04 PM, said:

You realize that BF is an objective driven game don't you and also has vehicles .....

So you call Battlefield a "Vehicle combat simulation"? Battlefield is a FPS with a few vehicles, that's it.
And objective driven? OK, got me here, but it feels like TDM nevertheless.

[Asmudius Heng]

Motroid, on 13 January 2014 - 01:58 AM, said:

So you call Battlefield a "Vehicle combat simulation"? Battlefield is a FPS with a few vehicles, that's it.
And objective driven? OK, got me here, but it feels like TDM nevertheless.

Put words into my mouth? I never said it was a vehicle combat simulation I just said it had vehicles.

If BF feels like deathmatch to you then I am extremely surprised that you consider assault as anything better.

This is the crux of it though you say it 'Feels' like TDM to you. BF does not feel like TDM to me at all.

Skirmish might feel like linear robot mega brawl with no tactics to you - but to me it feels like a keen test of positioning and tactics to gain the best advantage via terrain and team composition without the game offering any short cuts or distractions.

So go ahead and lump people into the CoD basket but beware that you might not be looking at it from anything but a narrow perspective.

[Motroid]

Asmudius Heng, on 13 January 2014 - 02:20 AM, said:

Skirmish might feel like linear robot mega brawl with no tactics to you - but to me it feels like a keen test of positioning and tactics to gain the best advantage via terrain and team composition without the game offering any short cuts or distractions.

So go ahead and lump people into the CoD basket but beware that you might not be looking at it from anything but a narrow perspective.

To you skirmish feels like a keen test of positioning and tactics to gain the best advantage via terrain and team composition without the game offering any short cuts or distractions. tactical depth or variety whatsoever. Fixed that for you.
Any TDM tactics can easily be applied to Assault or Conquest. But NOT vice-versa. But that has already been mentioned.
Maybe I expect somewhat more from a game calling itself a "thinking mans shooter" than you do. Skirmish or Teamdeathmatch is just a dumbed down, easy accessible gamemode catering for the CoD kiddies. At least this is my impression of the implementaion so far.
So you agree withe the OP that Skirmish has finally brought Battletech feeling to MWO? That it feels more like Battletech and LESS like CoD? Because that was the point I really jumped on. It is such a nonsense, imo....

[Asmudius Heng]

Motroid, on 13 January 2014 - 03:31 AM, said:

Any TDM tactics can easily be applied to Assault or Conquest. But NOT vice-versa. But that has already been mentioned.

I have already answered that fallacy. There are huge amounts of things you can do in skirmish that cannot be done in assault and conquest because of the importance of the bases.

Re read my replies and debate the point.

Is this more like battletech? well the tabletop game was largly just about killing each other ... the books and lore was about a hell of a lot more.

So it feels more like the TT game but that is neither here nor there ... again i WANT objectives but the ones we have now do not feel like battletech either. Assault is a poorly thought out game mode with limited tactiocs - conquest is better if you want objectives.

There are better ways to make game modes and skirmish provides ... oh why do i bother, i made this post already read it again and come back with actual points to argue not bringing up the old ones i have already applied logical analysis to and offered a comprehensive argument about.

Or you can go on simply believeing that because there is an objective that automatically means there is more depth without understanding how the application of objectives and win loss conditions can vary greatly and the implementation of such this leads to depth - or lack of it.

[Jon Gotham]

Harmatia, on 12 January 2014 - 11:46 PM, said:

This happens to me most of the time when I'm running my Shadowhawks or Hunchbacks. I basically stopped playing until they figure out how to not have me going against 8 assaults all the time.

I've come to the conclusion through observation of how the fights happen, where they tend to happen and how they end that the route to success is to boat large quantities of fast assaults. We are talking the ones who can backpedal and torso twist and keep perfect track of a 95kph medium.
Or, my unit sometimes have one scout with a tag and 3 overloaded lrm ( basically LRM240) boats to systematically pound one assault at a time. I'm even thinking of making a few lrm boats just to try to dissuade the rising tide of "Assault/Heavy or go home."
I've found running lighter things only really works if you have a sniper set up, because if those fast assaults blob up you are not going to be able to brawl with them. Yes, there are ways to stem them-but it is starting to force a horrible meta.

In assault we can out cap the fatties, in conquest we can out manouver them. In skirmish...we are FORCED to fight an enemy that if he sticks together through sheer attrition he will win. We have done this btw...find a good spot and wait, beat opposing team down with armour/firepower combination-results so far? 100% success rate.
Not cool.

[MeiSooHaityu]

I have been playing exclusively Skirmish and I couldn't be happier (then again, I used to play only Assault before).

I don't like that some people talk down to the people who play this game type. I PUG and I don't like feeling helpless playing Conquest when the team is all disorganized and wandering around.

Assault is annoying with the basecaps, but I never REALLY had a huge problem with it. I would still play Assault if I had an Assault and Skirmish only room.

Skirmish may be simple and straight forward, but with no team coordination, it plays the best for me. It isn't an inferior gametype, it just plays better for some people.

I would like to play more objective based gametypes in the future, but...
A. They need to be more involved than stand in a square for X seconds
B. I would need to find a group I like to play with. It would be my friends, but they left long ago. I am the only one I know still playing MWO.

As it stands, Skirmish is a good game type for me. I'm not a lesser player for it, and people who like Skirmish shouldn't be talked down too because I am sure they are in a similar boat with similar feelings towards the current game.

[Kotzi]

Ye me dumb actionlover too, i like.

[LowSubmarino]

What is annoying in skirmish is that in a lot of games a large amount of mechs in the team keep moving in one direction while ppl in the middle or back see enemies and start firing. The herde loses more and more mechs 'along' the march and while the tail gets slaughtered the front still keeps on marching blindly ahead.

I've seen this a lot more in skirmish than in assault.

This kinda weird 'urge' to keep on marching.

And since in skirmish you dont have a base to defend it is more prevalent in my experiences.

[Jon Gotham]

MeiSooHaityu, on 13 January 2014 - 06:52 AM, said:

I have been playing exclusively Skirmish and I couldn't be happier (then again, I used to play only Assault before).

I don't like that some people talk down to the people who play this game type. I PUG and I don't like feeling helpless playing Conquest when the team is all disorganized and wandering around.

Assault is annoying with the basecaps, but I never REALLY had a huge problem with it. I would still play Assault if I had an Assault and Skirmish only room.

Skirmish may be simple and straight forward, but with no team coordination, it plays the best for me. It isn't an inferior gametype, it just plays better for some people.

I would like to play more objective based gametypes in the future, but...
A. They need to be more involved than stand in a square for X seconds
B. I would need to find a group I like to play with. It would be my friends, but they left long ago. I am the only one I know still playing MWO.

As it stands, Skirmish is a good game type for me. I'm not a lesser player for it, and people who like Skirmish shouldn't be talked down too because I am sure they are in a similar boat with similar feelings towards the current game.

The reverse is also equally true my friend. Skirmish is also not "better" than the other two , either. I think it will be improved no end with weight limits though, might be more enjoyable for the rest of us then.
Last few days it has been wall to wall assaults, one team has 3 other team has 8 etc.

[MeiSooHaityu]

kamiko kross, on 15 January 2014 - 04:04 AM, said:

The reverse is also equally true my friend. Skirmish is also not "better" than the other two , either. I think it will be improved no end with weight limits though, might be more enjoyable for the rest of us then.
Last few days it has been wall to wall assaults, one team has 3 other team has 8 etc.

Very true. I don't feel that any one game type is better than the other. I just feel Skirmish is the best fit for me. Just seems weird when people knock on players who prefer it because it doesn't have a capture mechanic.

I will go back to Assault when some better base capture mechanics are added in.

I never cared for Conquest though. It's not too bad on the smaller maps, but on big maps like Terra and Alpine, it feels like I do more running than anything else.

Again, just my preferences.

[Jon Gotham]

MeiSooHaityu, on 15 January 2014 - 06:36 AM, said:

Very true. I don't feel that any one game type is better than the other. I just feel Skirmish is the best fit for me. Just seems weird when people knock on players who prefer it because it doesn't have a capture mechanic.

It's probably down the sheer amount of aggressive, abusive tirades the anti cap brigade rained upon people. All those who denounced people who cap as "cowards" and "skill-less" and "unmanly" etc. To them MWO should be about "smashing and fighting like men" or so has been said.
Probably why all the silly comments have been wheeled out.
The fact is, those players who enjoy having objectives probably won't enjoy skirmish very much-nor those who find themselves outweighed. Those that like to fight more probably won't like having objectives-the fight and the kills are what they are after.
Only detrimental thing I have noticed is skirmish mentality is slowly creeping into assault and conquest-that spells trouble in the long run.
The happiest medium would be to have checkboxes that allow you to que up for conquest and assault only. Now, we have to que either for conquest only or assault only-not the best option eh?
But chest thumping proclaiming skirmish to be better or more battletech is just well......

Edited by kamiko kross, 15 January 2014 - 07:57 AM.