49 replies to this topic

[Mekwarrior]

Hello,

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned already but there are too many pages to read to see.

People are complaining about mechs just shutting down and wasting time.

So my idea to fix it without introducing complicated rules etc. is...



Many maps are very cold, very hot or very acidic, or have no atmosphere.

My idea is that if a mech is shut down for too long on these maps it will start to take damage from the environment, or life support will fail.

I mean with no power there would be no air generation, no heating or cooling and when the planet is inhospitable this would result in the mech or pilot not surviving extended total shut downs.


So it's not a 'rule' but an environmental reality that makes sense.

[Zerberus]

Strongly against.

The "community" asked, no, SCREAMED at the top of their lungs for MONTHS that they wanted a "pure" deathmatch mode with absolutely no frills and no way to end early. So much that they continued whining almost a month after it was announced that the mode would be introduced.

EVERYTHING that is happening in skirmish games is EXACTLY what almost everybody that has been playing since closed beta or even just for a few months told them would happen. To the letter and the dot on the i.

IMO the only change tha needs to happen to skirmish mode (because it is, in fact, EXACTLY what "the community" wanted in every way) is that it needs to finally be deselectable so that the people that enjoy actual tactics and not the mindless hurr-durr-assault-smash-mech-blobfest that is skirmish can queue up for Conquest and Assault without having to waste 3/4 matches playing Quakewarrior Online.

[RickySpanish]

On the other hand Zerberus, I welcome the removal of the faux objectives that made Assault mode so damned rubbish. When I play skirmish, I see any location on a map becoming a viable battle front: Battles are fought in a very fluid fashion and often drift across areas of interest as Mechs fall, or take up defensive positions on either side. Lances are more likely to fight together and to make bold flanking maneuvers as they have no need to fear leaving their "base" undefended. You are right, this is exactly what the community wanted - a game mode where tactics and communication are at the forefront of success, instead of some nob in a locust that takes the long way around to sit in the little red laser box.

[GRiPSViGiL]

You are kidding about Skirmish being tactical right?

In theory yes there is no need to guard a specific spot on the map however that doesn't change where teams gather up and where they fight it out very often if at all.

I still see the same spots we ever saw have poptarting going on until someone pushes and the get ring around the death circle till the back end of one group is thinned out enough the team with more mechs can then cut off the other and finish it.

The thing that has done more to allow for different skirmishes isn't skirmish mode but rather the new spawn point location change. Which has done wonders for the other game modes.

Yes deselecting Skirmish would be ideal but I am probably to stubborn to stop dropping "Any".

[Mekwarrior]

Anyway, I really enjoy skirmish mode, and there are rarely players that try and make it go for longer for no reason, if there are you could just use another mech and play another game anyway.

But I haven't actually quit yet because a bit of search and destroy can be fun also. If it happened every game it might get annoying but it's quite rare so I don't actually really mind.

But I just saw many people posting about this issue so I thought of a way that could fix it, in a realistic simulation sort of way.



I don't know what you mean when you say you can't deselect it, there are only two other modes, just select one of those.


I don't see why some people seem to be against skirmish in general, I think it's a great mode, but if you don't like it for some reason you can just play one of the other two.


The more modes the merrier I say.


Also sometimes it's your mouse that dictates whether you are better at light or heavy mechs, I used to play almost exclusively light mechs but then my mouse broke and I cheaped out and bought a cheap one which had a palm dragging issue and a worse sensor which didn't suit light mechs at all, so recently I have been playing with heavy mechs exclusively, I just bought a better mouse so I might get some lights again. So it's good if there is a mode that is good for heavy battles and another one for light tactics.

Edited by Mekwarrior, 11 January 2014 - 03:25 AM.

[Zerberus]

RickySpanish, on 10 January 2014 - 11:21 PM, said:

On the other hand Zerberus, I welcome the removal of the faux objectives that made Assault mode so damned rubbish.

I think this is where the disconnect between the "skirmish rules" and "skirmish is brain dead" factions lies...

Ther is no such thing as a "faux objective". There are only objectives that you do not understand the merit of. But it is not your job to understand them, and you`re not getting paid to do so. You`re getting paid to ACCOMPLISH them if at all possible.

Quote

When I play skirmish, I see any location on a map becoming a viable battle front: Battles are fought in a very fluid fashion and often drift across areas of interest as Mechs fall, or take up defensive positions on either side. Lances are more likely to fight together and to make bold flanking maneuvers as they have no need to fear leaving their "base" undefended. You are right, this is exactly what the community wanted - a game mode where tactics and communication are at the forefront of success,

Where you see "tactics and communication", I see 12 Mechs of Duty running around like chickens with their heads cut off trying to be rambo, just waiting to to fall over dead. If a battlemech weren`t able to take as much punishment as it can, people would be screaming about skirmish mode being way too hardcore because randomly running around not covering your own *** is asking to be shot at in any warzone.

Quote

instead of some nob in a locust that takes the long way around to sit in the little red laser box.

I very seriously doubt that the simple addition of an actual base to assault (which is still just a box, only with walls that a slowass late defender can`t shoot through to save the match) will change anything about the well documented hulk smash robots assault blob`s playstyle. Defending the base was never something they were mentally capable of, otherwise it would have actually started to happen when the timer was slowed down like molasses in january middle of last year... but the only thing that happened was that the assault blob got even slower and cared even less about base defense, but cared even more about flaming PGI and cappers for their bad experience.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can`t make him drink. But just because he prefers to lick the mud instead doesn`t mean that`s a good idea for everyone.

Edited by Zerberus, 11 January 2014 - 11:07 AM.

[Gremlich Johns]

GRiPSViGiL, on 10 January 2014 - 11:43 PM, said:

You are kidding about Skirmish being tactical right?

You are obviously ignorant about "movement to contact", "bounding overwatch", "the meeting engagement", "tactical withdrawal", escaping an ambush,?

I've seen it all in Skirmish.

[Joseph Mallan]

RickySpanish, on 10 January 2014 - 11:21 PM, said:

On the other hand Zerberus, I welcome the removal of the faux objectives that made Assault mode so damned rubbish. When I play skirmish, I see any location on a map becoming a viable battle front: Battles are fought in a very fluid fashion and often drift across areas of interest as Mechs fall, or take up defensive positions on either side. Lances are more likely to fight together and to make bold flanking maneuvers as they have no need to fear leaving their "base" undefended. You are right, this is exactly what the community wanted - a game mode where tactics and communication are at the forefront of success, instead of some nob in a locust that takes the long way around to sit in the little red laser box.

C.O.:
Spanish. Wasn't your unit assigned to pacify Bumphast?

Spanish: Yes Sir we are fighting the enemy sir!

C.O.: But you are outside of Knekdiep 14 klicks away from your objective!

Spanish: But we are fighting the enemy sir.

C.O. You Were ASSIGNED to pacify Bumphast you {Dezgra}! Get yer keister back on task Or So help me my boot and your feces is all you will be tasting for a month!

[Zerberus]

Gremlich Johns, on 11 January 2014 - 11:37 AM, said:

You are obviously ignorant about "movement to contact", "bounding overwatch", "the meeting engagement", "tactical withdrawal", escaping an ambush,?

I've seen it all in Skirmish.

If throwing around pseudo-tactical wanna-buzzwords out of context in an attempt to mask the mindlessness of the engagement makes a "tactical game", then my Yugo is a a rare superexpensive one-off Ferraroghini becasue it has stickers from both Lambo and Ferrari on it.

Edited by Zerberus, 11 January 2014 - 12:05 PM.

[Roland]

Zerberus, on 10 January 2014 - 09:10 PM, said:

Strongly against.

The "community" asked, no, SCREAMED at the top of their lungs for MONTHS that they wanted a "pure" deathmatch mode with absolutely no frills and no way to end early. So much that they continued whining almost a month after it was announced that the mode would be introduced.

EVERYTHING that is happening in skirmish games is EXACTLY what almost everybody that has been playing since closed beta or even just for a few months told them would happen. To the letter and the dot on the i.

IMO the only change tha needs to happen to skirmish mode (because it is, in fact, EXACTLY what "the community" wanted in every way) is that it needs to finally be deselectable so that the people that enjoy actual tactics and not the mindless hurr-durr-assault-smash-mech-blobfest that is skirmish can queue up for Conquest and Assault without having to waste 3/4 matches playing Quakewarrior Online.

It's funny reading posts from folks like this who obviously are angry that Skirmish mode even exists.

Honestly, why do you hate it so much, given the fact that you don't even have to play it? Your mentality which is focused on trying to force people to play game modes that they don't like is nonsensical. People don't want to play "stand in the square". There's no reason to force them to.

You have other game modes you like. What's your problem?

[Zerberus]

^ You entirely misinterpret my opinion of skirmish.

My issue is with stupid people screaming at the top of their lungs until they turn blue that they want something, then start crying and whining when they get exactly that. ESPECIALLY when they were warned beforehand but knew everything better.

These people are wasting PGIs time, their time, and our time, and most importantly development resources. Resources that are sorely needed elsewhere.

THAT is my problem... Generation Entitlement getting exactly what they want and still bitching and moaning that it`s not right, while everyone else is left with the mess.

That I would prefer to be able to stay out of skirmish and queue for assault + conquest does not mean I "hate" the mode, though I admit to not being a fan simply because this is not and should never become Hawken. I will NEVER play any mode with an actual respawn mechanic in this game should one be implemented, because that`s what CoD, BF, Quake, Planetside, Hawken, et al. ... are for. but that is a future discussion...

If I truly "hated" the mode as you so rashly assume, I would not simply be annoyed that 3/4 matches seem to be skirmish matches when queued for any (when if evenly balanced the ratio would be 1/3), but would absolutely refuse to play the mode, and not simply wish for a launch interface similar to those in every other game. But unlike the whiners that demanded a way to completely remove themselves and play their own personal sandbox game, I play the map and mode I am given, without whining, disconecting, or otherwise making an ******* of myself.

But unlike the Skirmish-fans that kept demanding it a month after it was announced and even almost a week after it was IMPLEMENTED, I expect UI 2.0 to alleviate my issue, and also have what is known as patience. I feel no need to run around starting 10 threads daily in each forum solely dedicated to attention whoring for my personal problem.

But when the discussion arises as is the case here, I most certainly will not pull punches.

I`m sorry Dr. Freud, but you need to go back to school for a refresher

Edited by Zerberus, 11 January 2014 - 01:28 PM.

[GRiPSViGiL]

Gremlich Johns, on 11 January 2014 - 11:37 AM, said:

You are obviously ignorant about "movement to contact", "bounding overwatch", "the meeting engagement", "tactical withdrawal", escaping an ambush,?

I've seen it all in Skirmish.

You are obviously ignorant about the Corp I hail from. I am very aware about what you list among many other tactics and well versed since my corp single-handedly often times is the reason there are even 12 mans to drop son.

We are talking PUGs and that includes 4 mans for the most part.

You can keep thinking checkers is chess though.

Edited by GRiPSViGiL, 11 January 2014 - 02:08 PM.

[Roland]

Zerberus, on 11 January 2014 - 01:16 PM, said:

If I truly "hated" the mode as you so rashly assume, I would not simply be annoyed that 3/4 matches seem to be skirmish matches when queued for any

Ah, so here we have your problem.
You are angry because a mode you don't like is clearly preferred by the majority of the player base.

[Zerberus]

Roland, on 11 January 2014 - 02:08 PM, said:

Ah, so here we have your problem.
You are angry because a mode you don't like is clearly preferred by the majority of the player base.

It`s times like this that even I thank god I didn`t grow up stateside but on military bases in Europe, becasue I must be the only american that doesn`t get "angry" every time a fly takes a **** 3 counties away.

People molesting children makes me angry.
Corporations corrupting the political system makes me angry.
Stupidity in general garners my distaste, and peole such as yourself that jump to extreme conclusions in a pathetic attempt to dissect other people are, well, beneath me. But it does not make me angry, simply because I understand that 50% of the earth`s population is below average intelligence.

If a computer game or any other inanimate object ever made me angry, I would simply stop using it like any mature adult. That`s a part of growing up, eventually understanding what you can and can`t change. And not just part of the Human experience, mind you, every life form has to understand this eventually in some way.

Hell, even monkeys don`t continuously repeat behavior that they know is bad for them, only select humans are that stupid. But I`m not one of them

Edited by Zerberus, 11 January 2014 - 03:08 PM.

[Malcolm Vordermark]

I can count on one hand the number of times I have seen someone attempt to hide and only once were the successful. It's just not common as I expected it to be. Currently I don't think there is a problem here.

[Roland]

Zerberus, on 11 January 2014 - 03:05 PM, said:

Stupidity in general garners my distaste, and peole such as yourself that jump to extreme conclusions in a pathetic attempt to dissect other people are, well, beneath me. But it does not make me angry, simply because I understand that 50% of the earth`s population is below average intelligence.

It sure sounds like you're angry.

[Davers]

While I don't play Skirmish exclusively (I usually play on Any), I really haven't seen this behavior very often. Maybe once. Is this really a problem, or did you just have one or two matches where someone did this?

[Kenyon Burguess]

Mekwarrior, on 10 January 2014 - 06:34 PM, said:

So my idea to fix it without introducing complicated rules etc. is...
So it's not a 'rule' but an environmental reality that makes sense.

the timer will count down, so I doubt MWO is worried about it. i think assault will be the better choice of modes eventually. one base to cap/destroy. you know everyone will show up there and if someone hides its game over anyways....now if they could just limit the amount of arty that will drop in that base from lazy squads.

[Zerberus]

Roland, on 11 January 2014 - 03:15 PM, said:

It sure sounds like you're angry.

Then you need to adjust the voice of the application that is reading my posts to you to one that sounds like a normal human and not a screaming child.

Edited by Zerberus, 11 January 2014 - 03:21 PM.

[NRP]

I too don't really care for Skirmish, but I am glad it exists for those who want it.

However, PGI should let us choose which games we want the matchmaker to find for us. Hopefully that's not too hard to do.