63 replies to this topic

[GreyGriffin]

Full disclosure, I do not like Skirmish from a design standpoint. I feel that all the matches are already deathmatches and skirmish is really just throwing in the towel.

However, with that said, Skirmish is the best mode in MWO right now for one powerful reason - variety. In Skirmish, the opposing teams have to probe each other out, hunt each other down on the map. The lack of static objectives means that both teams can approach the map from different angles, and can move and deploy as a team without leaving their base naked and exposed. This means that instead of the predictable choke points choking up yet again, new areas of the maps get approached from new angles, creating actually exciting and interesting new gameplay that doesn't revolve around the same 3 rocks or buildings.

I would really like to see this dynamism injected into more strategic, objective-based play. Of course there are core gameplay hurdles to strategic play like map design and TTK.

Has anyone else learned lessons about gameplay from Skirmish? Any idea on how to spice it up?

Edit: While I appreciate the tactical and personal testimonials about personal lessons learned on how to play better, I was really thinking of lessons from a design perspective, as to how we can use the advantages and good experiences of skirmish gameplay to advance the other modes or devise new ones.

Edited by GreyGriffin, 21 April 2014 - 11:03 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Honestly, I find it about as boring as game modes come. I love the having to take turrets into account in Assault (even though they need some serious work to feel "right") and the ever counting ticker of doom on Conquest.... get too caught up in TDM, and BOOOM 750 is suddenly upon you!

Skirmish? It has it's place, but It bores me. I think in 12 man it has more place, and Comp in general, like tournaments. But as a primary PUG, I find it to be fantastic, tbh. Any "lessons" to be learned there can be learned better in the other formats, IMO.

[Levi Porphyrogenitus]

The main gameplay lesson I've picked up from Skirmish so far is that passivity is suicide. Of course, I already knew that from Assault and Conquest, but Skirmish really drives the lesson home, since there's nothing stopping people from simply cowering behind a ridge for the entire match as they get whittled down one by one (Assault has bases to capture, and Conquest has the points limit, both of which force some minimal level of committment).

If the enemy team has snipers, don't hide until they get an angle and can poptart you to death. If the enemy has LRMs, don't hide until the enemy gets and angle and can IDF you to death. If the enemy has consumables, don't hide until they get an angle and can bombard you to death.

In short, hiding is okay if it has a purpose and you stop when that purpose has been served. Hiding as the only tactic you use is only outmatched as a stupid idea when compared to fleeing slowly away from the enemy across an open field.

Prudence is the handmaiden of Victory, but Cowardice is the Defeat's "special friend." Take cover from the snipers and the LRMs, but use that cover to reposition. Close up and get inside the minimum ranges of those PPCs and LRMs, or move to where only a few of the enemy can get an angle when you leave your cover. In short, bloody well move!

Aside from that, Skirmish is probably the least inventive game mode for PUGs. Nobody has any objectives but killing, so everyone just mutually decide to meet up at some convenient, customary place, at which point the team with fewer cowards and slightly more coordinated aggressiveness usually wins. I still queue with all three modes, but Skirmish is my least favorite unless I'm in a particularly blah mood and don't want to bother thinking while I play...

[meteorol]

We are playing TDM since closed beta, so the lessons learned from a third TDM mode are somewhat limited

[xCico]

I love Skirmish, even tho skirmish has become in assualt only which will be fixed soon, well if you dont like it, you have option to avoid it, and many people search on ''any'' mode so you are able to find match on assualt or conquest and soon there are new modes, i also dont like conquest but i keep putting on any and get conquest often

[Lupin]

Seems to have moved shoot-em-up players away from Assault & Conquest where players like a bit more tactics.

[Khobai]

skirmish is the absolute worst game mode. the team that deathballs the best wins. and then theres like 5 minutes of chasing down a light mech. its completely boring.

[Spawnsalot]

I feel this is more a failing of the other game modes and map design.

Assault was initially a place-holder game mode for us to sandbox in while PGI collects data, it's not structured in a way that allows for a back and forth from both sides, both teams must defend a vulnerable point while taking another. It's clumsy and doesn't promote dynamic team movement.

One of the sure-fire ways to win is not to move from the base and melt anyone that gets too close. (Granted, the effectiveness of this has been toned down through the use of artillery and air-strikes.)
Another works just as well due to the MOBA style map designs - people are funnelled down a few lanes and several poptarts on over-watch can wreak havoc on anything stumbling into the kill-zone.

That same design issue carries over into Conquest, you can cap 3 points and set up shop guarding approaches to the caps and murder everything that comes your way from dug-in positions.

Conquest is better than Assault but it still has issues gameplay-wise but the one life only style of play means that one of the more effective strategies is to hunt the other team and wipe them out while they're spread out capping.
If Conquest allowed you to take a selection of mechs (like the four we could pick for our "ready list" under the old UI) with an increased resource cap limit, it probably wouldn't be perfect but it would definitely make matches more interesting.

This is why Skirmish works so well - with arena/MOBA style maps and no vulnerability to leash the team to a maximum radius, teams are free to move around and engage from anywhere through any style of their choosing with more flexible mech configurations that players can tailor to their preferred style of play.

I'd like to think the supposed up and coming mode of Attack/Defend will make things more interesting and make objective play more worthwhile but I feel this also needs to be coupled with maps that are more battlefields than arenas.

[El Bandito]

Skirmish is what I play mostly, because it offers me the biggest C-Bill/XP earning chance. Since the ultimate objective is to kill everyone on the opposite side, it also gives me the best chance for making some sweet videos or SS for e-peen purposes.

[Khobai]

The main problem with the gamemodes is the lack of respawns. Not having respawns is GREAT when both teams are competitive premades. But when you add pugs into the mix it stops being enjoyable, because all it takes is two or three pugs dying early to give your team an unrecoverable disadvantage. Losing like that is complete BS because you have no control over your teammates and cant even effectively communicate to them when you see them making mistakes.

Having a respawn gamemode would help smooth out the skill curve of the game so the game doesnt get ruined by bad players. The addition of respawns would also increase the possibility of comebacks, which are currently uncommon in MWO. Once your team gets down 3-4 mechs youre pretty much guaranteed to lose and that makes for very predictable and one-sided games. Every successful esport game has the possibility of comebacks, because it makes it more exciting to spectate.

I honestly see no reason not to add a respawn gamemode. Especially with the addition of the game lobby system which lets you set up pregame options. No Respawn/Respawn would simply be another option.

Edited by Khobai, 22 April 2014 - 03:18 AM.

[FlipOver]

There has been an almost instantaneous change to how pugs play when Skirmish hit MWO.

Skirmish helped those who didn't know yet, that you have to work as a group.
You split up, you die faster, harder and without helping your team as much.

Regarding the whole "5-minutes-chasing-a-light":
If this is supposed to be a war simulation game. I wouldn't expect for the last light to come and charge at my team when we outweigh and outnumber him. I do expect for a light to run, try some hit and run tactics. Try to split us up and try to get us one by one.
All this takes time. If you don't want to wait, then you are probably an Assault/Conquest-mode player, so stick with those modes.

Edited by flipover, 22 April 2014 - 03:13 AM.

[Onmyoudo]

I only play skirmish these days. Deathmatch gives the most c-bills usually and that's what the other game modes often turn into anyway. If only there was an actual game to play, skirmish might not be so appealing.

[PeekaBoo I C Ju]

skirmish is the only thing i play, it is the only mode where you see diverse strategies, assault and conquest always do the same thing over and over again....so boring. The way I see it is Skirmish revitalized a near dead game for me, if it wasn't for it and a few good folk I play on TS with i wouldn't even play this game any more...before skirmish came out i didn't play for 3 months because the only thing people did was camp the same spot over and over again or base camp...nothing new or exciting. At least in skirmish you see something new once in a while

[Joseph Mallan]

Khobai, on 22 April 2014 - 03:07 AM, said:

The main problem with the gamemodes is the lack of respawns. Not having respawns is GREAT when both teams are competitive premades. But when you add pugs into the mix it stops being enjoyable, because all it takes is two or three pugs dying early to give your team an unrecoverable disadvantage. Losing like that is complete BS because you have no control over your teammates and cant even effectively communicate to them when you see them making mistakes.

Having a respawn gamemode would help smooth out the skill curve of the game so the game doesnt get ruined by bad players. The addition of respawns would also increase the possibility of comebacks, which are currently uncommon in MWO. Once your team gets down 3-4 mechs youre pretty much guaranteed to lose and that makes for very predictable and one-sided games.

I honestly see no reason not to add a respawn gamemode. Especially with the addition of the game lobby system which lets you set up pregame options. No Respawn/Respawn would simply be another option.

I would say the main problem with most game modes is there is no true objective. Respawn is for people who cannot accept losing to attrition. Which is how combat is meant to work. If you wanna play a combat game play a combat game and accept the results. This isn't directed at you specifically Kho, but Respawn is a cheap mechanism and frankly I find it lame.

[Khobai]

what diverse strategies? focus fire is king in MWO so the only strategy in skirmish is deathballing. there is no other strategy because no other strategy maximizes focus fire.

Quote

Respawn is for people who cannot accept losing to attrition.

Disagree. So would Stalin with his human wave tactics. Sending endless wave after wave to wear down the enemy is how the attrition game is played.

Theres nothing cheap about respawn really. Every other major game title has respawns for a reason. Because it addresses numerous problems that currently plague MWO... like disconnects and bad players completely ruining the game. You may find it lame, but the fact remains its an industry standard, and will continue to be for decades to come.

Again respawns would be optional. You dont like them you wouldnt have to play with them turned on. But I see no reason not to have the option.

Quote

I would say the main problem with most game modes is there is no true objective.

I agree with this. We definitely need some actual objectives. Mostly to break up companies into lances to discourage deathballing. Deathballing isnt fun for anyone because no body likes to die instantly.

Edited by Khobai, 22 April 2014 - 03:32 AM.

[Helsbane]

Skirmish opens the map up to pure tactical maneuver and counter maneuver, without having to worry about leaving a base exposed. Nothing static to take defensive positions on the same three pieces of real estate every damn game. We've fought on scraps of map largely unexplored before the mode was introduced, and it's a refreshing change.

Now, I also love assault due to the new dynamic the turrets bring. The old cap rush is a thing of the past (although I do miss it at times) and tactics have changed to take the added damage and warning systems into account. The 'leash' is longer now, and you can extend further without leaving your base naked and vulnerable.

I use Conquest for training light pilots. The locations of the bases means you have to learn how to play the maps, getting to know the low ground, high peeking points, ambush zones, etc. very well. They should return Alpine's base location to the original layout as to better utilize the vast expanse of the map, but all in all, it's a great mode for teaching.

[Joseph Mallan]

Helsbane you are right it does do that... which means it removes strategic thinking from the players. It sure makes the fighting easier when you DON'T have to worry about your supply lines, you DON'T have to be concerned with losing your base of operation, your bed, chow and civilians. Takes all the important thinking out of the fight. It also removes all the reasons to fight.

Its a combat game not a sport. Its about conquest not Epeen.

[Khobai]

Quote

Its a combat game not a sport. Its about conquest not Epeen.

Solaris is definitely about epeen.

[Arnold J Rimmer]

Khobai, on 22 April 2014 - 03:21 AM, said:

Stalin

Tell me more about how all those Russian soldiers respawned after throwing themselves on the sword of the Wehrmacht.

[Spawnsalot]

Plus what officer in their right mind would set up camp within spitting distance of the enemies camp?