67 replies to this topic

[Destructicus]

Does it really matter when very rarely does anybody actually play the objective?
Duking it out and farming damage yields better rewards regardless of the game mode.
When there is an bigger difference between game modes I may change my tone but a lot of this "I want a refund/ I will alt+f4 if I get conquest/ I'm never playing again,/ Imma play SC because I lack the simple ability to play more than one game at a time/ I'm mad ect." stuff is ridiculous.

Edited by Destructicus, 08 October 2014 - 12:55 AM.

[Ultimax]

Destructicus, on 07 October 2014 - 04:59 PM, said:

Does it really matter when very rarely does anybody actually play the objective? Everybody knows that just duking it out yields better rewards.
When there is an bigger difference between game modes I may change my tone but a lot of this "I want a refund/ I will alt+f4 if I get conquest/ I'm never playing again,/ Imma play SC because I lack the simple ability to play more than one game at a time/ I'm mad ect." stuff is ridiculous.

If so many players dislike a mode like conquest, perhaps there is a problem with conquest?


Actually my main issue with it is that on a PUG team you get people doing all manner of idiotic stuff - not reading the situation at all and either continuing to fight when capping is better or trying to cap when you should be helping turn the tide of a close fight (or the worst, lances running off in different directions at the start - that always works out well).


Conquest takes the ability of PUG teams to go full derp mode and turns it up to 11.

Edited by Ultimatum X, 07 October 2014 - 05:02 PM.

[Mcgral18]

I'm not sure I've had a single conquest map end in a cap result in the past week.


People are crying for the sake of crying.

[1453 R]

Sure.

My issue isn't with the game mode selection itself, if it were just about the game itself I can, and for quite some time did, play all three.

The problem is that player behavior takes a right-angle nosedive in Skirmish mode. I cannot stand the petty, mean-spirited, and constant trollgriefery that occurs in a mode with no way to force a game conclusion beyond destroying the enemy team. It ruins one of my favorite maps (HPG), and if I never spent nine minutes playing hide-and-seek with an unarmed ECM Spider again, it'll be about five Skirmish games too soon.

Players in Skirmish are players who are complete bassholes and I don't wish to play with them. If they want to pull that toxic bullscheissen in Assault or Conquest, I can dispute the point with them via threatening caps. Removing that option has bothered me a great deal, especially since Assault and Conquest have effectively disappeared from the drop queue as of today.

[WM Jeri]

Destructicus, on 07 October 2014 - 04:59 PM, said:

Does it really matter when very rarely does anybody actually play the objective?
Duking it out and farming damage yields better rewards regardless of the game mode.
When there is an bigger difference between game modes I may change my tone but a lot of this "I want a refund/ I will alt+f4 if I get conquest/ I'm never playing again,/ Imma play SC because I lack the simple ability to play more than one game at a time/ I'm mad ect." stuff is ridiculous.

Yea it matters consumerism is about folks picking what they want. Having choice was just fine, restricting choice is driving me elsewhere, I hate the other two game modes from the one I play that much. It was capricious and arbitrary to do a poll to begin with that is not representative of the playerbase as a whole.

Everyone had the ability to choose to play how they wanted now we don't. I will vote with my dollars and my presence. Seems SOE is making a new Zombie game maybe will give that as shot.

[Asmudius Heng]

PGI are damned if they do or damned if they dont on this.

If splitting the buckets has made matchmaking horrific and they have proof of this based onbad Elo match ups, terrible tonnage difference etc they need to do something.

The game might just not have enough players to support player chosen modes.

Now i love skirmish its all i usually play, but i am willing to see how this goes - as long as they look into actually fixing the issues with conquest and assault at some point. I am also happy to let them experiment. If this does not ACTUALLY make much of a difference to wait times, better balanced matches etc I hope they revert it and i would be happy for them to do so.

I dont think we can blame them for trying a new angle, though i wish they stated this was an experiment and were simply watching to see how this changed the MM and player behavior etc

[Lil Cthulhu]

I came here to shoot at mechs, not stand in a square.

[Sprouticus]

Mystere, on 07 October 2014 - 05:17 PM, said:

From other threads:





I'm still deciding whether or not to include a fourth friend: Banzai!

I just dont see much of a difference between the modes. Not being snarky, they all just play pretty much the same (except when one lance wanders off on their one in Conquest to cap and leave the other 2 to get rolled). Aside from that (which honestly doesnt happen much) it is still pretty much deathmatch vs deathmatch.

**Pretty much. I did have 1 match in the last week end in points for conquest.

[Eddrick]

It could be like it was before and not even have a vote on the game mode. It makes me wonder what these people were like before we even got the ability to choose.

[Josef Nader]

Lil Cthulhu, on 07 October 2014 - 05:21 PM, said:

I came here to shoot at mechs, not stand in a square.

Congrats, you can do both, as most mechs will either be trying to stand in your square or heading towards predictable squares where you can go shoot them.

[Budor]

I am not really bothered with the change, if it makes for better matches than so be it, playing assault from time to time wont kill me

[Asmudius Heng]

Eddrick, on 07 October 2014 - 05:26 PM, said:

It could be like it was before and not even have a vote on the game mode. It makes me wonder what these people were like before we even got the ability to choose.

There was constant bickering on the forums about people who hate capping like it was somehow evil - then there were those who QQed about a fantasy that every game of skirmish ended with hunting down a shut down light in a corner of a map.

So this will start again and that sucks, but as i said i think PGI have to experiment and some people need to grow up and adapt a little. I mean i hate assault but i still prefer Assault with a balanced match up than skirmish where the Elo or weight match up is so screwy you get swamped by 5 Daishis (yes i had a game with 5 of them and we only had 2 assaults ...)

[Hotice]

I don't like conquest mode as well. Turned it off as soon as I was informed on how to do it. Not sure why PGI is forcing us to play a mode that we don't like to play. I don't mind wait extra long for a mission but playing a mode I don't want to play by force is just a bad idea.

I started to play this game a month ago. I've spent around $150 so far, if this kind of decision is a norm in this game, then this is not the game that I want to play at all. We play for fun after all. Force us to play a game mode that we clearly choose to turn off is not very smart.

[1453 R]

Asmudius Heng, on 07 October 2014 - 05:35 PM, said:

There was constant bickering on the forums about people who hate capping like it was somehow evil - then there were those who QQed about a fantasy that every game of skirmish ended with hunting down a shut down light in a corner of a map.

Not true at all.

Some Skirmish games end with one team getting a single kill within the first minute of a match, then parking themselves somewhere they can't easily be attacked and spending the next fourteen minutes spewing toxic garbage in all-chat and hooting about how incredibly awesome a set of strategic and tactical masterminds they are and how impossibly stupid the enemy team is for allowing the situation to happen.

[Kaptain]

My problem with conquest is not the conquest, its the rewards. Conquest rewards less, far less.

[LordKnightFandragon]

I hate Assault cuz its simply a trick to make you think its an objective based game mode. So, what happens is 3 mechs go here, 2 mechs go here and the team that realizes that the game is won simply by killing the enemy bunch up and kill off the enemy team 2 at a time lol.......

Conquest.....much the same thing, except there is a base with turrets on it.......in the end, the game is best played and only really is played like a Skirmish....

[Kilo 40]

1453 R, on 07 October 2014 - 05:46 PM, said:

Not true at all.

Some Skirmish games end with one team getting a single kill within the first minute of a match, then parking themselves somewhere they can't easily be attacked and spending the next fourteen minutes spewing toxic garbage in all-chat and hooting about how incredibly awesome a set of strategic and tactical masterminds they are and how impossibly stupid the enemy team is for allowing the situation to happen.

I remember what he's talking about but your story I've literally never heard of, let alone encountered myself.

[Kassatsu]

Of the matches I've played today... I've lost every single one in a 0 or 2-12 stomp.

That's actually worse than it was before - Sometimes it might have been 3-12 or I might even be lucky enough to get on the team that's doing the stomping.

I should also note, of all of my matches, with nothing but skirmish checked (yeah, I'm one of those "players who are complete bassholes", because ignorant blanket statements always end well, right?), I've had ONE actual skirmish match.

EDIT: OKAY I LIED I JUST ACTUALLY WON A MATCH ON SKIRMISH FINALLY... That makes something like 10 games, 2 on the mode I voted for, all ten of them complete stomps. Which is fine, once a team loses 3-4 mechs it's pretty much over at that point anyways - Less guns to shoot the enemy with, fewer targets for the enemy to shoot at encouraging focus unintentional focus firing... But it's actually worse now!

Edited by Kassatsu, 07 October 2014 - 06:05 PM.

[Xenon Codex]

I don't get this animosity either. I have always had all modes selected and just don't see that much difference between them. I never cringe when a certain mode comes up, unlike certain maps. Of course, I rarely play an assault and when I do it's a fastish one (i.e. XL380 Battlemaster). At least in my medium mech queue, they all play pretty similar and I like the limited variety, especially conquest on Alpine or Therma instead of the same-old skirmish tactics. And you can be damn sure I don't just "stand in a square" when conquest comes up, that's just silly talk.

[1453 R]

Kilo 40, on 07 October 2014 - 05:51 PM, said:

I remember what he's talking about but your story I've literally never heard of, let alone encountered myself.

I'm speaking of a very specific game on HPG, normally one of my favorite maps, which was so incredibly atrocious that it's what forced me to disable Skirmish from my drop selection in the first place. it very nearly drove my brother to quit the game entirely, and it did cause us both to drop MWO for the rest of the night in which that game took place.

Every single one of my "Worst MWO Memories" matches - every single one of them - has occurred in Skirmish, and most of them have occurred explicitly because of Skirmish's lack of a ready means to force a game's conclusion.

People who play Skirmish by preference have no interest in fair or sporting matches. They're out there to make their opponents miserable, and prefer the mode in which those opponents have no way or means of disputing or disrupting that desire for misery on the part of their opponents. I have no desire to feed their trollgriefery, and thusly no desire to play Skirmish.