81 replies to this topic

[Impyrium]

1453 R, on 21 July 2014 - 04:21 PM, said:

Because this isn’t Call of Duty. Part of the ‘sim’ portion of MWO, as sickly and feeble as it is, is the fact that you have to be prepared to deal with adverse conditions during the fight. You cannot, and should not, be able to just up and say “NO I DUN’ WANNA” when the game presents you with a map option you aren’t specifically (over)built for. Trust me dood, we’re looking out for your best interests here. You want to see nothing but sub-270m sluggers in the smaller maps, or nothing but PPC snipers in the long maps, or nothing but laser/Surmboats in the cold maps? Give players the chance to discard any map that isn’t perfectly tuned for their specific, chosen environment, and you get rid of any reason to try and build a flexible, adaptable machine that can handle most any fight. Balancing goes out the window and we get nothing but a horrid snakepit of overspecialized garbage that would never work…except on the one, single map they play on 100% of the time. As for vetoing game modes? I used to play with all game modes enabled until very recently, when one of the most horrible Skirmish matches I’ve ever seen/heard of finally broke the camel’s back and made me disable the mode. In my defense, I knew long before they announced it that a pure-deathmatch mode with no secondary objective would be a complete disaster and rather actively dis-wanted it in the game to start with. I would be overjoyed if Skirmish was yanked from the game tomorrow never to return, because it’s an absolutely terrible idea that never needed to happen. That said…up until I spent fourteen and a half minutes getting chewed out by my own team for trying to organize a push into an entrenched enemy under the HPG, I still played it. Because a player in this game should be ready and able to deal with any situation put in front of him. Once again: this isn’t Call of Duty.

... you deserve a medal. Hit it right on the head.

[Joseph Mallan]

Sandpit, on 21 July 2014 - 03:36 PM, said:

you're remembering to add the maps with alternates together right?

Surprisingly... Yes I did!

[Be Rough With Me Plz]

1453 R, on 21 July 2014 - 04:21 PM, said:

Because a player in this game should be ready and able to deal with any situation put in front of him.

Once again: this isn’t Call of Duty.

You could also argue that pilots would know which planet they would be deployed to/garrisoned at and switch to a payload conducive to the planetary environment.

In the end, like you said, it's up to the individual pilot to come up with a payload that will be efficient in hot and cold maps and learn to manage heat efficiently instead of just popping alpha strikes. If a person wants to play an laser boat then they'll have to adapt their gameplay to deal with being inefficient/handicapping their team because they can't unleash their damage like they would on a cold map.

I'm not really in favor of being able to opt out of a map simply because one's payload/style of play isn't as efficient (read: Alpha friendly). But, I will agree that having a map veto with increasing penalties would be a good compromise for those moments (From a brawler's pov: 4 tarmulane followed by 4 therma followed by 2 Caustic followed by 3 Alpine) where you just really really don't want to deal with a map again.

Edit: It would be nice if real heat penalties were added (I think stjobe had a good image regarding this), heat dissipation values increased, and limiting a Mech's maximum heat threshold to the total heat generated from their payload's Alpha Strike. It would let people fire their weapons in a controlled manner individually and/or in groups while still allowing for that "OH **** ALPHAAAAAAAAA" moment before shutdown and ammo cooking. It would definitely make this game less FPS'y.

Edited by Be Rough With Me Plz, 21 July 2014 - 05:12 PM.

[Sandpit]

Be Rough With Me Plz, on 21 July 2014 - 04:57 PM, said:

You could also argue that pilots would know which planet they would be deployed to/garrisoned at and switch to a payload conducive to the planetary environment.

you could also argue that your team was ambushed on the way to whatever battlefield your command "wanted" to fight on.

[Be Rough With Me Plz]

Sandpit, on 21 July 2014 - 05:31 PM, said:

you could also argue that your team was ambushed on the way to whatever battlefield your command "wanted" to fight on.

True. You could also argue that in such an ambush the Mechs would probably drop already damaged/some Mechs not being able to drop at all. I also said that I share the poster's opinion that you shouldn't be able to opt out of maps, but it would be understandable for the option to exist.

Point is, whether you are on the yes or no side of an issue, the devs are usually gonna try to find some middle ground that will touch both the "casuals" and the lore-heads.

[Sandpit]

Be Rough With Me Plz, on 21 July 2014 - 07:05 PM, said:

True. You could also argue that in such an ambush the Mechs would probably drop already damaged/some Mechs not being able to drop at all. I also said that I share the poster's opinion that you shouldn't be able to opt out of maps, but it would be understandable for the option to exist.

Point is, whether you are on the yes or no side of an issue, the devs are usually gonna try to find some middle ground that will touch both the "casuals" and the lore-heads.

well, most would argue that they're going to cater to the casuals and competitive scene while the "loreheads" get tossed to the side, but that's neither here nor there.

This is what we know:

Map voting is coming
Continuing to vote a map down will have an escalating fee attached to it (don't know if that's cbills or MC though)

[Aresye]

It simply won't work.

In solo queue you have a mix of random players all running different loadouts. Everybody would just end up voting for whatever map their mech will do the best.

In group queue it would fail spectacularly, for obvious reasons, most notably the fact you would have 12mans giving themselves a map advantage on top of the advantage of being in a 12man. ggclose

[Ted Wayz]

Instead can I get the option to change mechs to pick one that is better for the map? And maybe some mech lab time to pick camo?

ZOMG, map specific mechs!

[Sandpit]

Aresye, on 21 July 2014 - 07:19 PM, said:

It simply won't work.

In solo queue you have a mix of random players all running different loadouts. Everybody would just end up voting for whatever map their mech will do the best.

In group queue it would fail spectacularly, for obvious reasons, most notably the fact you would have 12mans giving themselves a map advantage on top of the advantage of being in a 12man. ggclose

I disagree. CoD runs a map vote system that works quite well. It prevents players having to play the same map 5 times in a row, prevents players from downvoting the same map over and over, and it's decided by majority. I've never seen an issue with the system there and you have loadouts that favor certain maps there as well

[Joseph Mallan]

Sandpit, on 21 July 2014 - 07:55 PM, said:

I disagree. CoD runs a map vote system that works quite well. It prevents players having to play the same map 5 times in a row, prevents players from downvoting the same map over and over, and it's decided by majority. I've never seen an issue with the system there and you have loadouts that favor certain maps there as well

So you don't defend/hold territory over time in CoD???

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 21 July 2014 - 07:56 PM.

[Sandpit]

Joseph Mallan, on 21 July 2014 - 07:56 PM, said:

So you don't defend/hold territory over time in CoD???

?? you mean like in a persistent campaign?

[Jacobei]

wow that is a baddy approach... You want to pick maps to suit your one build. Bad form.

[Joseph Mallan]

Sandpit, on 21 July 2014 - 08:01 PM, said:

?? you mean like in a persistent campaign?

Yeah. I never played CoD, so I'm not versed in its mechanics.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 21 July 2014 - 08:33 PM.

[Sandpit]

Joseph Mallan, on 21 July 2014 - 08:32 PM, said:

Yeah. I never played CoD, so I'm not versed in its mechanics.

Ahhh ok

No there's not a campaign online although there is an attack and defend mode where you advance and fall back. So you start on a beachhead and as you make your objectives you advance further inland to the next map and so on but that's one match.

2 maps come up.
Players can vote for the new map or keep same map or random each match. A map can't go more than twice in a row and then it gets cut from rotation for 1-2 rounds.

Which ever has most votes at end of timer is what you play. It's a nice system. Can't veto a map all the time and prevents a run on a map 5 times in a row.

But the lobbies can stay together after one match. So if you find a team you gel with you can stick together until people eventually come and go. It's not a random team all the time. It made for fun games. Meet new people have good sessions. Make some good rivalries.

For all its twitchy gameplay I had good times and made some good buddies.

[Hagoromo Gitsune]

MAP FILTER PL0S! CUZ Frozen Sh!tty is to boaring when it's too much.

Edited by Hagoromo Gitsune, 21 July 2014 - 10:24 PM.

[Johnny Reb]

What!! Why let players have a semi idea of the type of map they will drop in? Real current answer: so they drop.
Real makes sense answer: PGI cares less, that feature might be in Community Warfare. Just drop!

[Sandpit]

Johnny Reb, on 21 July 2014 - 10:39 PM, said:

What!! Why let players have a semi idea of the type of map they will drop in? Real current answer: so they drop.
Real makes sense answer: PGI cares less, that feature might be in Community Warfare. Just drop!

actually if PGI would do lobbies and such like CoD does, it would work really well here. Random teammates can click launch and drop into the lobby just like they do now. Solos in solos, groups in groups. After the match though you can stay in the same server if you want and any others that want can do the same. Any open slots left from players leaving that server are then filled and the match timer begins as soon as last person joins.

It adds a little cohesion since you're only going to be dropping with the same pool of players. I can only drop with Marik players. Mercs will drop with whatever faction they're currently contracted to and their merc mates. So you're going to eventually get familiar with the other people in your faction.

[Black Ivan]

With veto option PGI would suddenly find themself confronted with several maps being entirely boykoted because of bad design, so I don't believe to see this option anytime soon.

Many of the maps need a serious rework either.

[Sandpit]

Black Ivan, on 21 July 2014 - 10:55 PM, said:

With veto option PGI would suddenly find themself confronted with several maps being entirely boykoted because of bad design, so I don't believe to see this option anytime soon.

Many of the maps need a serious rework either.

that's why you prevent a map being voted down more than twice just the same as you can't vote FOR the same map more than twice. It ensures maps aren't completely cherry picked.

plus, if you want to play a map you can vote for that map jsut the same as the other 23 people can. majority wins.

[Thorn Hallis]

Sandpit, on 21 July 2014 - 02:28 PM, said:

I'm willing to bet if you actually look at your map stats it's a pretty even spread and rotation

How much will you bet?

Forest Colony 24
Frozen City 14
Caustic Valley 59
River City 27
Forest Colony Snow 37
Frozen City Night 28
River City Night 28
Alpine Peaks 66
Tourmaline Desert 58
Canyon Network 60
Terra Therma 64
Crimson Strait 65
HPG Manifold 59