115 replies to this topic

[Hardin4188]

Deltron Zero, on 08 October 2014 - 07:00 AM, said:

Yeah, but the objective of killing the team goes beyond just killing the team. If you imagine these skirmish matches as part of a larger conflict, then you can begin to realize what eliminating the enemy force means. For instance, if you want to control the HPG Manifold, you need to destroy all mechs on the HPG Manifold. This makes a lot of sense to me.

I am not bashing Conquest, I have had many fun games of Conquest. I am just saying that you can't discount skirmish as making no sense because there are no objectives. (my original response was to somone thinking that skirmish was unrealistic)

There is no larger conflict until community warfare comes out. Until then these are unconnected single matches and I would like to play the game modes that I enjoy.

[Killstorm999999]

Hardin4188, on 08 October 2014 - 07:06 AM, said:

There is no larger conflict until community warfare comes out. Until then these are unconnected single matches and I would like to play the game modes that I enjoy.

I am also all for people selecting the modes they want to play. Nothing I have said has been against that idea.

All I am saying is that it does not make sense to discount skirmish because its objective is 'unrealistic'. It is perfectly valid in the context of a larger conflict, which we can safely assume is occurring, there is just no features to measure it or keep track of progress.

[Sprouticus]

Hardin4188, on 08 October 2014 - 07:06 AM, said:

There is no larger conflict until community warfare comes out. Until then these are unconnected single matches and I would like to play the game modes that I enjoy.

The differences between the game modes are pretty darn small. So small that honeslty I can't imagine anyone getting upset. Im not trying to discount your opinion, I just dont understand it.

Assault- skirmish with turrets (cap is REALLY rare)
Conquest- Skirmish with a timer and the chance one gorup will be stupid and have an entire slow lance go capping letting the others get killed)


Serious question Hardin, what mechs do you play most often?

Deltron Zero, on 08 October 2014 - 07:11 AM, said:

I am also all for people selecting the modes they want to play. Nothing I have said has been against that idea.

All I am saying is that it does not make sense to discount skirmish because its objective is 'unrealistic'. It is perfectly valid in the context of a larger conflict, which we can safely assume is occurring, there is just no features to measure it or keep track of progress.

i think his point is that skirmish reduces the tactical play options. Out of band (outside the gameplay) reasons for skirmish are great. But that doesn't help inside the actual game.

Mind you I disagree and think skirmish is fine. So is conquest. But that is my own personal opinion.

[Jeb]

Kutfroat, on 07 October 2014 - 12:44 PM, said:

in no online game ever the majority has read the forums. so all decisions "for" the community out of polls in the forum is most likely to cater towards the hardcore/competitive/tryhards. the forum is most likely the minority!

This... the forum posters, regardless of what we may want to believe, are usually not the majority of players...

[Hardin4188]

I play all weight classes, but I mostly play heavy. Catapults especially. If you think all three game modes are the same then that's probably why most people just swarm together anyway. It's a real shame how poor tactics are. It is especially bad though in skirmish mode where there is no clear objective except to kill everyone on the other team. No having to defend strategic spots or your base. Sure the base turrets can kill damaged mechs, but a well organized base rush can win.

Deltron Zero, on 08 October 2014 - 07:11 AM, said:

I am also all for people selecting the modes they want to play. Nothing I have said has been against that idea.

All I am saying is that it does not make sense to discount skirmish because its objective is 'unrealistic'. It is perfectly valid in the context of a larger conflict, which we can safely assume is occurring, there is just no features to measure it or keep track of progress.

Without the "base" there isn't a reason to be fighting in that area. Most of the maps are in different biomes. River City might be near Alpine Forest, but we aren't certain. So if we are fighting on one battlefield to get to the next one then they need more maps.

Edited by Hardin4188, 08 October 2014 - 07:24 AM.

[UnsafePilot]

Jeb, on 08 October 2014 - 07:16 AM, said:

This... the forum posters, regardless of what we may want to believe, are usually not the majority of players...

You can only work with the people who'll answer you. 100% representation or no vote at all doesn't work out in real life.

[Hardin4188]

UnsafePilot, on 08 October 2014 - 07:32 AM, said:

You can only work with the people who'll answer you. 100% representation or no vote at all doesn't work out in real life.

The original poll should have been advertised better. I didn't even know about it until yesterday.

[Sprouticus]

Hardin4188, on 08 October 2014 - 07:19 AM, said:

I play all weight classes, but I mostly play heavy. Catapults especially. If you think all three game modes are the same then that's probably why most people just swarm together anyway. It's a real shame how poor tactics are. It is especially bad though in skirmish mode where there is no clear objective except to kill everyone on the other team. No having to defend strategic spots or your base. Sure the base turrets can kill damaged mechs, but a well organized base rush can win.

In solo play, simple tactics are the best. In group play you have room for more options. but asking pugs to coordinate without VOIP is just not viable. dont get me wrong, I would LOVE for more tactical options to be there. They just aren't right now.

I have seen exactly 1 base rush win in Assault in the last year. Most of the time it ends up that half the team fights and the other half sits on the base and they get taken apart piecemeal.

The reason the deathball works so often in MWO is that in MWO:
1) Numbers in general and concentraiton of firepower in particular win the day. It is more than multiplicative, it is actually some kind of polynomial curve in that the larger the numeric advantage, the greater the difference between damage done to damage taken and TTK goes down in an accelerating curve.
2) It is easier to fall back when you get hurt if you have an entire team to help protect you (see #1)
3) The nature of heat (4 mechs have 4x the heat pool as 1 mech exasurbates #1)
4) etc

(there are other facotrs, but i dont want to list them all)
When they raised the Time to cap on both Assault and Conquest, they effectively eliminated the tactical options for those game modes and made the deathball the best/only option.

Personally I would LOVE them to lower the cap requirements for Assault and force people to play defense again. I would LOVE a change in cap time to allow heavies and assault more weight in cap ability for conquest so they have more value capping. Or lower the cap time. Whatever, just change it from conquest=fast skirmish with a timer'


All of this is not the point. The point is the differnece between the game modes is really very limited and while everyone is welcome to their opinion, I thinnk in the end most people are just picking nits.

Hardin4188, on 08 October 2014 - 07:34 AM, said:

The original poll should have been advertised better. I didn't even know about it until yesterday.

I agree generally. Russ has indicated on twitter that this poll will hopefully be advertised on the ffront page of the login screen. That should be adequate for getting people a good chance.

[Hardin4188]

I've seen base caps win and I've seen the score limit reached in conquest. Even if you don't win by capping it still distracts the enemy and often makes them split up or makes them panic. Skirmish doesn't have this. It's just numbers.

[Karamarka]

yes stomps are natural

but riddle me this

Why do i keep getting obviously new players who just suicide into the enemy?

On Monday i was playing with heimdelight and edmeister in solo queue

than next game get a champion who just suicides in first 30 seconds

is that true spirit of norespawns? No thats juts a bad matchmaker putting new/bad players on a team to balance ELOS

[UnsafePilot]

Karamarka, on 08 October 2014 - 07:45 AM, said:

yes stomps are natural

but riddle me this

Why do i keep getting obviously new players who just suicide into the enemy?

On Monday i was playing with heimdelight and edmeister in solo queue

than next game get a champion who just suicides in first 30 seconds

is that true spirit of norespawns? No thats juts a bad matchmaker putting new/bad players on a team to balance ELOS

Given a lot of the posts here it was probably less new/bad players and more people trying to prove some kind of point about the mode change by suiciding instead of playing.

[Davers]

UnsafePilot, on 08 October 2014 - 07:48 AM, said:

Given a lot of the posts here it was probably less new/bad players and more people trying to prove some kind of point about the mode change by suiciding instead of playing.

QFT

[Rebas Kradd]

It seems like the group queue is tangibly benefiting from the change. Can we get some updated data on the solo queue?

[VixNix]

Sprouticus, on 08 October 2014 - 07:36 AM, said:

...deleted the rest as only asking about the below...

I agree generally. Russ has indicated on twitter that this poll will hopefully be advertised on the ffront page of the login screen. That should be adequate for getting people a good chance.

Has anyone seen the new poll?

[Roadbeer]

VixNix, on 08 October 2014 - 11:58 AM, said:

Has anyone seen the new poll?

Closed. Feature is being removed in a hotfix at 4 PM.

Like I've said, it wasn't a bad idea, it was just plagued with the Hell of Unintended Consequences.
Maths said you should have gotten an unwanted mode <20% of the time, but that's not what happened.

[VixNix]

Roadbeer, on 08 October 2014 - 12:01 PM, said:

Closed. Feature is being removed in a hotfix at 4 PM.

Like I've said, it wasn't a bad idea, it was just plagued with the Hell of Unintended Consequences.
Maths said you should have gotten an unwanted mode <20% of the time, but that's not what happened.

Thank you for the response.