63 replies to this topic

[Almond Brown]

meteorol, on 21 April 2014 - 10:58 PM, said:

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

You have been playing TDM since CB. Thus the lessons you will learn, ever, are very limited.

[Ngamok]

Bhael Fire, on 22 April 2014 - 09:22 AM, said:

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.

Nah, Conquest can be won without eliminating the other team. I see it happen plenty of times. If they put in the Attack/Defend mode, you can still win by eliminating the enemy team that is defending whatever objective. Unless you were planning on using pre nerf 6x AC/2s JM6-DD at 2k meters to kill the objective.

[Almond Brown]

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

stuff

and bad players completely ruining the game.

And given these player types new fresh Mechs, with which to continue to be bad and ruin the game further, is helpful how exactly?

When the "suck" is gone from the Match, be it DC or Rambo'd themselves to death, then the real cream will rise...

[A banana in the tailpipe]

Skirmish has taught me that meta player do not like Assault and Conquest.

[Almond Brown]

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

Solaris is definitely about epeen.

It likely will be exactly about that. Given the # of epeen based threads to be found around here.

Assuming it ever arrives.

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.

Well actually, I Pilot every Mech I pilot.

[Odins Fist]

Joseph Mallan, on 22 April 2014 - 09:29 AM, said:

You missed the point. How do you attack and defend at the same time?

By firing my weapons...

MischiefSC, on 22 April 2014 - 09:03 AM, said:

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.

This ^

Edited by Odins Fist, 22 April 2014 - 10:13 AM.

[Bhael Fire]

Ngamok, on 22 April 2014 - 10:02 AM, said:

Nah, Conquest can be won without eliminating the other team. I see it happen plenty of times.

Oh, I do too...but my point was that it's not required and is often easier to just kill the other team.

It would be nice to have a game mode that required you to complete certain objectives other than killing the enemy.

Edited by Bhael Fire, 22 April 2014 - 10:13 AM.

[Almond Brown]

Joseph Mallan, on 22 April 2014 - 05:03 AM, said:

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.

Like those rare Matches, you have selected ALL for modes. You drop, Conquest, check the roster, oh yah! 5 Light Mechs. Perfect... Not. You lose to TDM and the other team earned more f'ing points, with less Light Mechs.

Those are the sourest of grapes. Play the mode how it is meant to be played ffs. That is why they allow the choice now.

[Almond Brown]

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

Tell that to the H10 - I10 campers on Alpine Peaks.

[Almond Brown]

Bhael Fire, on 22 April 2014 - 10:12 AM, said:

Oh, I do too...but my point was that it's not required and is often easier to just kill the other team.

It would be nice to have a game mode that required you to complete certain objectives other than killing the enemy.

The most interesting text chats I ever see is from Teams who get on Conquest, then try and Death-Ball with their 99% Assaults blobs, LOSE to the Counter and then have the gall to complain about how lame the other team was for not playing their death-ball style under the Conquest banner.

It is as utterly hilarious as it is ludicrously stupid. Gamers. A breed apart, from reality.

[Odins Fist]

Almond Brown, on 22 April 2014 - 10:20 AM, said:

Tell that to the H10 - I10 campers on Alpine Peaks.

In skirmish mode if you can get your team to pull them away from those areas by NOT assaulting that position, but forcing them to leave to make contact by not "going there", then yeah they have been told...

Also I said "I see the same areas being contested over, and over, and over again on almost every map."

[RealityCube]

I learned not to play lights in skirmish. I'm usually that last light mech being chased for 5 minutes. So I'll hide out in a spot to try to separate the enemy, or power down until one passes me and powerup again to get the initial hit advantage. People start saying "just go die" or "stop hiding", or any number of things and some get very mad if I decide not to engage in a 10 v 1 fight and hide out till time. If I had just gone heavy or assault I could have contributed more damage quickly, and died even faster so they can move onto their next match.

[Bhael Fire]

Almond Brown, on 22 April 2014 - 10:26 AM, said:

The most interesting text chats I ever see is from Teams who get on Conquest, then try and Death-Ball with their 99% Assaults blobs, LOSE to the Counter and then have the gall to complain about how lame the other team was for not playing their death-ball style under the Conquest banner.

I agree. But again, I think my point was not taken; capping is not required in Assault or Conquest.

It would be nice to have game modes with objectives that were required other than killing the enemy.

[PeekaBoo I C Ju]

Look, stop whining about Skirmish, it is the best mode...it goes and a lot of players go with it, including me

[PeekaBoo I C Ju]

Almond Brown, on 22 April 2014 - 10:20 AM, said:

Tell that to the H10 - I10 campers on Alpine Peaks.

those campers lack the imagination to do anything creative...You can ask anyone who has ever played with me, I refuse to camp that spot or any spot, i run and gun all day long...on alpine i have devised ways to make them regret that hill....I suggest the more Intelligent players do the same...Camping is not a strategy, it is the lack thereof. The only time camping is a valid tactic is if you are greatly outnumbered and are using the terrain to create a pinch point, or meat grinder if you will to kill the enemy team with as little chance of death yourself, and that is it.....aside from that...all camping does is allow the other team to figure out a way to surround you and hit you from all angles effectively decimating your clueless team

[GreyGriffin]

Spawnsalot, on 22 April 2014 - 02:55 AM, said:

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

This is really the heart of my feelings on the matter.

[Pygar]

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

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.

Eh, I think the only reason that variety exists is because people wander around aimlessly looking for targets who are also wandering around aimlessly. Having said that, Skirmish mode isn't bad...it's just some people just want to blow things up and not think about it very hard, and Skirmish is the mode that best allows that- I don't think they should change anything about it.

The mode I would like to see changed or like to see some variant modes created off of is Assault- it isn't terrible the way it is now, but they could do a couple things to make it more exciting and stand out more from the other 2 modes.

[Trauglodyte]

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

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.

So, you think that Conquest is too slow, Assault is boring cause of turrets, and Skirmish is perfect? Oye, Grey, you're killing me here. Skirmish is the game mode for mental midgets that don't want to do anything other than shoot stuff. The problem, though, is that maps are boring and the game modes leave everything to be desired. When you have artists and designers that create landscapes where only 30% gets used, you've got a problem. And when people would rather shoot other mechs than run around and stand in a square, you're in trouble.

[GreyGriffin]

Trauglodyte, on 22 April 2014 - 01:31 PM, said:

So, you think that Conquest is too slow, Assault is boring cause of turrets, and Skirmish is perfect? Oye, Grey, you're killing me here.

That is exactly what I did not say.

Right now Skirmish is the best game mode because you use more than 30% of the map, rather than line up in your WW1 building-sized trenches. It is more fun to play because it is dynamic and in motion, even if that motion is just brownian PUGs. Maps are approached from different angles, and engagements often run the length and breadth of the map without crashing into a wall of turrets or grinding to a halt because of an awkwardly paced point counter.

What I want to explore is really why this happens and if the positive gameplay experience can be rolled forwards into new game modes.

Don't get me wrong, Skirmish is a bad game mode. The inevitable foxhunt is frustrating for both teams, with no victory or defeat valves. The lack of objectives can often make it seem listless, and it lacks any lateral strategic element that can turn the game aside from the broad strategy of maneuver. But, to me, the poorly executed mechanics of the other mode seem to chain the game down rather than elevate it, and that is a problem I'd like to see resolved.

I frankly didn't expect to be taking the side of the argument that Skirmish outplayed Assault or Conquest. But that's my feeling on the matter.

So what are the problems and how could they be addressed?

[Davers]

Now don't get me wrong; I like Skirmish. For all the 'freedom of movement' available, it never seems to be utilized. At least in Conquest on Alpine you have that question, 'will the other team's Alpha lance contest us for Gamma?' before the rest of the match plays out it's usual way.