259 replies to this topic

[Catho Sharn]

I'd be curious to know what the current drop selections look like. Surely PGI has those numbers available? My guess is they're heavily weighed toward Skirmish / Assault. I don't think using player choice to select mode does anything but reduce the variability of matches, which leads to boredom, when every match is Skirmish.

As for maps, if you let the players choose, you may as well just remove Terra Therma from the rotation. I don't know anyone that likes that map.

[Myke Pantera]

Evil Ed, on 21 September 2014 - 11:30 PM, said:

No. If I play conquest in my TDK or Locusts I don't want to be dumped in yet-another-the-team-that-has-teh-most-Timberwolfs-or-Direwolf-will-win-match. There are good reasons why people deselect certain game modes.

I understand that and i also run Locusts on Conquest only. How would you feel if you could select 1 out of 2-4 mechs (from the same weight-class) right at the start of the match, once you know the map AND gamemode. So you could take an ember or jenner in case you drop Skirmish/Assault, and stick with the locust in case you get Conquest.

[Bulvar Jorgensson]

Why are we even having this Debate...........??????

Change the Game MODES.....Using and keeping to those three game modes is Strangling this game more than anything else.

Have a poll that asks players would you prefer Mission BASED Games I bet you will get close to 100%.

PGI start thinking more about game play...rather than keep re-hashing the same old Stuff, game mode wise.

Players are getting sick fed up with running round the houses or in this case the maps.

[Bilbo]

I suppose it's about time I played Assault mode again anyway.

[Gorgo7]

I am unhappy with the idea of wishing for an Assault or Skirmish map and ending up on a Capture board. When I play capture I bring the loadout on a mech that I feel would be most beneficial. It is not the same as a build for Assault.
I'm not interested in participating in this experiment.

Go directly to map selection as an experiment instead.

Cheers.

Edited by Gorgo7, 22 September 2014 - 06:01 AM.

[Mogney]

Yes to game mode voting, no thanks to map voting, I would get tired of the same 3 maps over and over and over.

[RG Notch]

If I am forced to play a mode I don't wish, while I won't quit or suicide, I certainly will play "aggressively" and probably die quick. So these "better" matches aren't going to feel that way for my team.

[TexAce]

I would say yes to maps

but at the current state I would say NO to the game mode. Because I despise conquest and only play it when Im in the right mood to hunt lights in my kintaro.

I would only vote yes if we could decide a mech for every mode, so wherever we drop we at least can pilot a mech we like to play in that mode.

Edited by TexAss, 22 September 2014 - 06:23 AM.

[AssaultPig]

Skirmish and assault mode are awful. They're boring, passive snipe-fests and I don't want to have to play them when dropping solo.

Map voting would be excellent, however

Edited by AssaultPig, 22 September 2014 - 06:22 AM.

[Flyby215]

I chose no. Contrast to many others I tend to believe Conquest is far and away the best mode, mostly because conquest forces a fight, and punishes inaction and/or camping.

More often than not, playing assault or skirmish turns into a waiting game (especially on Alpine or River City) just waiting for one team to make a mistake then run out the timer.

Conquest is fast action, requiring planning, thinking, opening maneuvers, etc. Unfortunately, seeing how it is less popular (least popular among the people I play with anyway), I am very concerned that if we allow for a "voting" procedure, I will never again (or at least very rarely) play my favourite game mode.

[Mechteric]

AssaultPig, on 22 September 2014 - 06:21 AM, said:

Skirmish and assault mode are awful. They're boring, passive snipe-fests and I don't want to have to play them when dropping solo.

Map voting would be excellent, however

Conquest mode is practically the same as skirmish in nearly all the maps anyway. (Small maps and long cap times...)

Edited by CapperDeluxe, 22 September 2014 - 06:29 AM.

[AssaultPig]

CapperDeluxe, on 22 September 2014 - 06:29 AM, said:

Conquest mode is practically the same as skirmish in nearly all the maps anyway. (Small maps and long cap times...)

I don't know how skirmish/assault typically go for you in the pub queue, but when I play them they typically involve both teams staking out whatever high-cover area they start near and then waiting. The losing team is the one whose mechs get bored first, because they give up cover and die. I had a game on frozen city the other day where both teams sat on their side of the drop ship for 10+ minutes; playing smart results in boring, passive matches.

At least on conquest there is incentive to split up and/or be aggressive.

Edited by AssaultPig, 22 September 2014 - 06:34 AM.

[CarnageINC]

I have not read everyone's comments and I'm sure this has been said already. But I wanted to give my opinion that if you can vote for maps this could be disastrous IMO.

In the group cue you know you will see large groups make customized builds for specific maps and then be able to control the vote since they are working together. So if your in a 2-4 man group your at the mercy of larger units. If you have map votes for PUG matches, you will see the same things, specific builds for certain maps and players will only vote to get that map. I suspect in pug matches that if there is spot open for a match on their map they will be placed into it.

Soon you will see the same few maps over and over and over. Do I like all the maps...nope. But the current setup has some variety and tests pilots skills, tactical placement and heat management in a wide range of scenarios.

I agree with trying to fix MM but map voting is not going to do that. It will just create another kind of problem IMO.

Edited by CarnageINC, 22 September 2014 - 06:43 AM.

[Tetra One]

I voted no, because as much as i want balaced matches, i do not like playing assault, where movement is limited by aimbotting turrets...

Whats worse when we have selected any (solo or group), in my expierience around 50% of matches are assault, and 25% equally divided between skirmish/conquest...

IMO assault is especially bad on maps that it limits movement the most like river city and caustic (especially in solo q)...
Im saying this as someone who played assault exclusively before

Since by the votes it seems we might loose the ability to choose mode, please make it fairly distributed among the 3 modes so on average we get around 33% of each mode (again im saying this because the second we allow assault game mode its 50% assault matches)...

Whats most sadening about all this is the fact that it seems there arent enough players to allow balanced matches without restricting game mode...hope it gets better

Thank you

[Cerlin]

I hope this comes into play. Better matches are required especially for the bigger group sizes. Getting rolled by 12 mans when I am in a two man is never very fun.

[Redshift2k5]

It sounds like an experiment worth trying! If we can see better matching of player skill, I think that will be better for everyone, rookies and skilled players alike. If it does not increase well-matched teams, then it can't really be any worse.

Having 3333 means teams almost always have 2-3 lights so Conquest is a different dynamic now than it was with free for all weight (where a typically heavier team would avoid Conquest because light-centric teams would be aiming for Conquest whee they have an edge)

When I really think about it, having a good matchup of teams is more important than the gamemode, let's try it!

[Gumon Choji]

Ahoy.

I am in the minority and dislike skirmish. The fact every time I group up I only get to play that one mode is tiresome. The idea that my pug matches could be voted to only playing that mode is not fun. I play for fun. This is a game. Games must be fun. As a side note I wish there were some silly games to play when waiting for a match. Something like destroy the tanks. Run in your giant war machine and feel like it a giant stompy robot. A little locally hosted tank smash where you and your group in a drop team up to see who smasshes the most tank drones befor being linked to the real match. all you can win would be cred from your team. But feel like a big mech even in a locust.

[Rizzelbizzeg]

Conquest needs the time to cap turned down so that it feels different from the other game modes. Encourage moving around more than sitting in a box for 3 minutes.

Otherwise, yea, that sounds good.

[Karl Streiger]

Life is not a picnic.
I never select a game mode - Why people want to take the best Mech for a task.

Its simple - if you can't choose the other can't choose either (so no one has a disadvantage - although both may think that the other side has the advantage.

On the long run it may help to develop new tactics and to see different load outs. If you don't know about your mission, the terrain and the enemy and also you hardly know anything about the group you launch with - you will randomly win or loose.
Again fair enough

[Charles Seneca]

Absolutley not. This would be a game breaker for me.

Assault mode is utterly boring and ill thought out. Have one base for one side to defend and the other to capture and you'd have a mode worth playing. But that would prolly be too complicated to implement.

Conquest + random maps (and therefore map sizes) is a pain in the ass for slower mechs, especially when pugging on bigger maps. I'd simply disconnect and try again. Sorry people, I'm simply not going to play a game I don't want to play.

I'd be all for map voting though. Never having to play River City Night again would be a bonus and the devs might learn to give the community what they want - instead of forcing them to participate in crap they don't want.

Oh hang on, all those yes votes are going to mean the latter. So apparently the devs think (the majority of players too - god help us) that:

FUN = Being forced to do something you don't want to do.

I can only conclude that 80% of the players of this game are totally insane and the 20% of sane players such as myself should go and find something better to do...