63 replies to this topic

[Khobai]

Quote

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

They didnt respawn. But the concept of respawns is similar. Youre sending reinforcements into a battlezone. You dont necessarily have to be playing the same pilot or even the same mech.

[Joseph Mallan]

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

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.



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.



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.

Yeah... but he only had so many waves. Respawn is Stalin thinking. Now on a Planetary Conquest. IF PGI cannot get multiple groups dropping all at once to battle for supremacy... maybe, but what about strategic reserves? Respawning isn't the same as holding back troops to protect your flank. Strategic reserves are just that, a calculated number of troops to use as needed where needed. Respawn does not give us that. There is no real thinking in respawn games. At least not in the ones I have seen. Its fight a little, die... port back to respawn, charge back into the fight. That is in depth strategic combat? BS!

Remember most fights in CBT were company level battles. Raid level fighting. Most planets have less than a Battalion of defenders, spread over the whole world. There aren't that many reinforcements on the planet Unless it is a Capital or strategic/manufacturing center. Reinforcements don't show up in minutes when you are that thin.

Khobai, on 22 April 2014 - 03:45 AM, said:

Solaris is definitely about epeen.

One planet out of 2,700! You really wanna go with that?

[Khobai]

Quote

There is no real thinking in respawn games. At least not in the ones I have seen. Its fight a little, die... port back to respawn, charge back into the fight. That is in depth strategic combat? BS!

Actually Respawn games tend to be more strategic. Because the focus of respawn games is not on killing the enemy team but rather completing an objective. Completion of the objective is the #1 priority in respawn gamemodes. Although some respawn gamemodes have ticket systems which allow you to win through attrition.

While No Respawn games tend to be more tactical. Because the focus is on killing the enemy. So focus fire, poptarting, hillhumping, etc... become more important.

Im of the personal opinion that MWO should have limited respawns, i.e. dropship mode. What that does is combine the strategic aspect of having respawns and taking the immediate emphasis off killing the enemy but also still allows you to play a tactical game knowing the enemy only has a very limited number of respawns. So you have the option of winning either way: strategically through completing some objective or tactically by winning through attrition.

Edited by Khobai, 22 April 2014 - 03:58 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Khobai, on 22 April 2014 - 03:49 AM, said:

They didnt respawn. But the concept of respawns is similar. Youre sending reinforcements into a battlezone. You dont necessarily have to be playing the same pilot or even the same mech.

Got my name on it... Now if I could respawn as Anton or Xando... that is reinforcements. Joe is down and out, Next player. Big battles where the fate of a planet is in the balance should have long time limits. And multiple launches. if you want it to feel real .

I don't like the respawn mechanic I have played in other games, it is just lame. Oh the enemy killed me... Now I can go back and avenge... my... self...

Dumb as a rock.

[Khobai]

Quote

Dumb as a rock.

One pilot having 50+ mechs is also dumb as a rock though. Seems kindve silly to nitpick at some aspects of roleplaying but not others. The game doesnt make sense anyway... so why try to apply any sense at all.

But I agree.. it would be nice if we had actual "pilots" that we had to load into our mechs and could gain skill points and feats/perks for each game they played. Theyd also have a chance of dying. It could be like tank crews in world of tanks. That would make far more sense than one pilot having 50+ personal mechs.

Edited by Khobai, 22 April 2014 - 04:04 AM.

[Helsbane]

Joseph Mallan, on 22 April 2014 - 03:39 AM, said:

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.

Alright, both teams get dropped onto a specific map, so we have to assume that location has purpose. Some logical reason to be deployed there, right? Good LZ, staging area setup, tactical rendezvous for later forces, important grid in a larger scheme of things, great taco stand in the corner.... You know, something has to be important about it, right? So, Skirmish DOES hold to this line of thinking, even if you don't realize it because that objective isn't on the tiny slice of map we're on. The objective is to secure this particular slice of real estate, denying it from the enemy team. It's that sort of 'grand scheme' thinking that you're missing.

[Leartes]

Completely agree with Helsbane.

Take conquest for example, it makes much less sense than skirmish! You hold some generator stuff for some time, then what? You win with 1 damaged mech vs a superior force because you have been close to some positions before losing the battle hard? This makes no sense and is only there for esports purposes.
Skirmish on the other hand is much more about fighting to control territory. Whipe out that company and you can set up as much generators (or whatever those spots in conquest are) as you want and do what you want with the land.

Assault also makes some sense, but maps are too small for it. Teams are heavily constricted in their movement because of turrets and it produces the same boring positions over and over. Often you can't flank or manouver because the only 1-2 routes are totally obvious to everyone. We need larger maps for assault to make sense - and ideally an asymmetric assault mode (perhaps even 8+defensive structures vs 12).

Edited by Leartes, 22 April 2014 - 04:29 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Helsbane, on 22 April 2014 - 04:04 AM, said:

Alright, both teams get dropped onto a specific map, so we have to assume that location has purpose. Some logical reason to be deployed there, right? Good LZ, staging area setup, tactical rendezvous for later forces, important grid in a larger scheme of things, great taco stand in the corner.... You know, something has to be important about it, right? So, Skirmish DOES hold to this line of thinking, even if you don't realize it because that objective isn't on the tiny slice of map we're on. The objective is to secure this particular slice of real estate, denying it from the enemy team. It's that sort of 'grand scheme' thinking that you're missing.

Cause its not there, thats why It is being missed. With the other scenarios at least we have lip service objectives that many want to ignore.

Secure LZ. That is a mission... IF there is an actual landing to follow. That would be cool. Skirmish is just fighting for fighting sake... That is just boring after almost 2 years of fighting for no reward.

[Albatroz]

Skirmish is just that, a skirmish. It´s that moment when 2 armies meet each other at the battlefield and there´s no other objective than to kill the enemy.

There´s nothing wrong with that mode, it´s a basic one. The problem is that we don´t have many options, that´s it. It´s actually my favorite one, because it´s the only one where I don´t feel the weight of a bad team as in other maps: just keep them together and you´ll enjoy a nice defeat with at least one kill.

Now, in conquest mode I see people, for example, trying to capture 3, 4 points at the same time, spreading out like there´s no enemy team hunting us down. It´s horrible. In the beggining of the game I can see if my team will lose or win... pathetic. Or that frustrating moment where you destroyed all their team, except that freaking light that just ran from on side of the map to another capping and see him win for a few amounts of points. How can that be a victory if they lost their entire army?

Now about assault there´s some topics about those turrets. I for instance hate them, particularly in small maps. It´s perfect in big maps when the 2 armies don´t stand around those turrets waiting, but that is not what´s happening. I was playing lots and lots of maps where those turrets became the coward´s paradise, with entire teams there waiting for the enemy. I actually saw a match where the game ended in a TIE because of that. And in some maps, those lrm turrets have such a range, that I can´t use my light mech to try and flank them, like in Caustic Valley. I´m just boycotting that mode for now, I uncheck it everytime I play MWO.

But really, we could have some variations of Skirmish with some OPTIONAL (or not) objectives on the table, like killing the enemy commander (cutting the head of the snake), capturing alive (with some option for surrendering)... whatever. It´s still the best mode for many right now. Hope there are some changes coming soon.

Edited by Albatroz, 22 April 2014 - 05:38 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Khobai, on 22 April 2014 - 04:01 AM, said:

One pilot having 50+ mechs is also dumb as a rock though. Seems kindve silly to nitpick at some aspects of roleplaying but not others. The game doesnt make sense anyway... so why try to apply any sense at all.

But I agree.. it would be nice if we had actual "pilots" that we had to load into our mechs and could gain skill points and feats/perks for each game they played. Theyd also have a chance of dying. It could be like tank crews in world of tanks. That would make far more sense than one pilot having 50+ personal mechs.

The topic isn't about how many Mechs you got. If I want to get em all I Play Pokemon or the old Monster Rancher. I take a moment to poke fun at those who brag up that they have 50+ mechs, I shake my head at those who brag about the C-bills they have. If they are a Billionaire why are they still fighting and not hiring someone else to fight for them?? Or creating a Merc Command?

You are right Al, I have just had way to many months of Skirmish prior to skirmish being released. It has all been kill the enemy or you're a NooB.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 22 April 2014 - 05:06 AM.

[FlipOver]

Albatroz, on 22 April 2014 - 05:03 AM, said:

Now, in conquest mode I see people, for example, trying to capture 3, 4 points at the same time, spreading out like there´s no enemy team hunting us down. It´s horrible. In the beggining of the game I can see if my team will lose or win... pathetic. Or that frustrating moment where you destroyed all their team, except that freaking light that just ran from on side of the map to another capping and see him win for a few amounts of points. How can that be a victory if they lost their entire army?

I agree with almost everything else you said.
Turrets, well, the maps need to be larger, especially River City, Caustic, Frozen City and Forest Colony. But that's my personal take on that.

Apart from this and regarding the Conquest mode, I have to say, I don't agree with your view from your example. That light was doing what the team should (cap), but instead the team tried to turn the game in assault to no avail and while battling, they distracted the enemy from the real objective. So that team wins by capturing most resources even if 11 were dead.
It's one of the most brain-tickling modes in the game. Someone who has a real perspective of strategic movement can make a difference even if the rest of the team doesn't know what to do.

Edit - Extrapolating into a more realistic scenario, imagine the resources will help the 'mechs in the army functioning. Not enough resources and they stop working. Making them sitting duck for the lone light to destroy.

Edited by flipover, 22 April 2014 - 05:22 AM.

[meteorol]

Khobai, on 22 April 2014 - 03:54 AM, said:

Actually Respawn games tend to be more strategic. Because the focus of respawn games is not on killing the enemy team but rather completing an objective. Completion of the objective is the #1 priority in respawn gamemodes.

You dropped the "R-bomb", now the thread will go the OMGZORZ SOMEONE SAID RESPAWN way
Telling you stuff that you probably already know, but especially that argument will fall on deaf ears. Respawn will lead to a huge influx of "CoD-Kids" (because they are all like: what a game that i never cared for has respawns now? Gotta play it!), and everyone else will will start to mindlessly charge into his death over and over again once respawn is in this game. Guys would play by rolling their head over the keyboard, because you know, thats how games with respawn gamemodes are played. And you know, immersion. Most important thing, one gamemode with respawn would force everyone to never play a non respawn mode again.

Edited by meteorol, 22 April 2014 - 08:23 AM.

[Odins Fist]

GreyGriffin, on 21 April 2014 - 10:43 PM, said:

"What Good Can Be Learned From Skirmish?"

Learning how to think in a more fluid situation, and NOT relying on as much forced contact due to base defense.

It will make a person to learn how to walk, if you take away that person's crutches.


THE END

Edited by Odins Fist, 22 April 2014 - 08:42 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Odins Fist, on 22 April 2014 - 08:36 AM, said:

Learning how to think in a more fluid situation, and NOT relying on as much forced contact, due to base defense.

It will make a person learn how to walk if you take away that person's crutches.


THE END

I think you have the thinking backwards Odin? There is more thinking required in how to properly defend a location from a determined force, than to just need to be concerned with combat. Fighting is easy, protecting something while you fight... more complicated.

[Odins Fist]

Joseph Mallan, on 22 April 2014 - 08:41 AM, said:

I think you have the thinking backwards Odin? There is more thinking required in how to properly defend a location from a determined force, than to just need to be concerned with combat. Fighting is easy, protecting something while you fight... more complicated.

I most certainly do NOT have that backward.. If you have a Static position to defend, then there are only so many options available for defense since the MAP never changes... Approaches, Cover, line of sight..

In Skirmish, the map never changes, BUT you do not have a spot on the map that MUST be defended if attacked, the situation is more fluid, and therefore open to more possibilities..

The fight can end up in many different possible places in Skirmish mode..

In assault mode I see the same areas being contested over, and over, and over again on almost every map.

In Skirmish you must adapt to the battle more often..

Assault mode RIver City anyone..?? LOL

Edited by Odins Fist, 22 April 2014 - 08:47 AM.

[Ngamok]

Skirmish is best for doing 12s. It will even shine more if they do any bigger maps with more cover ie. imagine if Canyon Network was at least 50% bigger.

[MischiefSC]

Conquest - Light wolfpacks and LRM boats. I'm sure it'll be awesome after 3/3/3/3.

Assault - Camptastic. You don't even have to think about it; each map has like 1, maybe 2 viable locations and setups for each team. It's like a dance that everyone already knows, you can play without having to think about it. If that's your thing, great.

Skirmish - This is Battletech. You and the other team drop on a big map. You have to scout each others location and actually create viable reasons to promote the other team to go where you want them. offer them a target or push them with ranged fire and LRMs. There are no cheap tricks (like capping) to force them to take or leave a position. It's fluid and dynamic and every match is different.

I'd love to have complex objective matches. Locations that taking and controlling provide benefits for. Destructible objectives. Those things don't exist though and capping is the cheapest, shallowest and most pointless objective concept you could have for this sort of game. Standing in a box isn't tactically complex.

Where Skirmish shines though is putting the impetus for good and bad tactics in the hands of the players instead of spoon feeding them the 1 or 2 viable tactics that work on each map.

[Bhael Fire]

Skirmish is my primary game mode mainly because it's not trying to pretend to have any objectives other than killing the other team.

Assault no longer requires you to actively defend your base and capping resources in Conquest takes too long so it's often easier to just kill the enemy.

In other words, there's nothing about Assault/Conquest that requires you to do anything but kill the other team; this is the main design flaw of these two modes. It sure would be nice if these two modes were scrapped and we were given true objective-based game modes that require you to do more than just kill the enemy.

Edited by Bhael Fire, 22 April 2014 - 09:25 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Odins Fist, on 22 April 2014 - 08:44 AM, said:

I most certainly do NOT have that backward.. If you have a Static position to defend, then there are only so many options available for defense since the MAP never changes... Approaches, Cover, line of sight..

In Skirmish, the map never changes, BUT you do not have a spot on the map that MUST be defended if attacked, the situation is more fluid, and therefore open to more possibilities..

The fight can end up in many different possible places in Skirmish mode..

In assault mode I see the same areas being contested over, and over, and over again on almost every map.

In Skirmish you must adapt to the battle more often..

Assault mode RIver City anyone..?? LOL

You missed the point. How do you attack and defend at the same time? which forces go which way? Back when The Law could drop as a 8 man we chose whether to static defend, mobile defend, assault or Cap Rush. Left, Right or down their throat. Layered or on line movement. Skirmish takes away some of those decisions. less thinking not more.

[OznerpaG]

never play conquest anymore - too disorganized and everyone splits up - so i play only assault and conquest

however when i'm using my LRM mechs i only play assault since it is camp-tastic which is perfect for LRMs