67 replies to this topic

[TWIAFU]

1453 R, on 07 October 2014 - 05:59 PM, said:

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.

So, in a team based, tactical game of combat, you prefer to choose game modes where you do not fight.

You want a fair and sporting match where you engage the enemy and one lone player ends the match for everyone. Maybe you want it so you do not engage the enemy but only the team with the fastest mech wins? Because that is fair, that is sporting.

Or maybe you prefer to play where you chase from cap to cap? Those are a blast! Especially where you never fire a round or see an enemy! THAT is sporting! That, of course, is fair too! Nobody gets delicate feelings hurt when you never see the enemy.

If you want fair and sporting, stay away from all combat games where you need to combat another human.

Combat in the 31st century. just like in the 21st, is neither fair nor sporting.

[Lupin]

I play Assault & Conquest (Most of my conquest matches end in conquest) as I do not want to play YET another shoot-em up, and like a few more options in tactics.

Sadly if we are not able to choose the games we want to play, why play. There are 1000's of shoot-em up games on the net.

[Chemie]

There is only one game mode. I don;t know why all the complaints.

[prizim]

if so many people hate conquest, why is it forced upon people? that is completely and utterly ridiculous.

[Willard Phule]

I hate this.

I hate that.

Me. Me. Me.

Y'know, I'll be the first to admit I know **** all about Conquest. I hate the game mode. I've been looking forward to the whole "Attack/Defend" that's supposed to get released as soon as the Canadians can figure out how to spell "Attack" and "Defend." It is what it is.

One thing that I've noticed is that the Elo spread is a lot smaller. I haven't had to hold the hands of new players as much. For that, I think it's a good trade.

[Odins Fist]

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

"The Sky Isn't Falling Because You Don't Get The Game Mode You Want."

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.

"The Sky Isn't Falling Because You Don't Get The Game Mode You Want."

And right now a Hot-Fix to get rid of that poorly conceived idea is inbound.

Have a swell day..!!

[Destructicus]

Odins Fist, on 08 October 2014 - 11:39 AM, said:

"The Sky Isn't Falling Because You Don't Get The Game Mode You Want."

And right now a Hot-Fix to get rid of that poorly conceived idea is inbound.

Have a swell day..!!

because people thought the sky was falling instead of trying to adapt.
Proof that if you ***** hard enough it will make a difference

[Odins Fist]

Destructicus, on 08 October 2014 - 11:43 AM, said:

because people thought the sky was falling instead of trying to adapt.
Proof that if you ***** hard enough it will make a difference

It was a poor idea, it was done away with for now...

Has nothing to do with adaptation, but EVERYTHING to do with customer satisfaction.

Have a swell day..!!!

Edited by Odins Fist, 08 October 2014 - 12:22 PM.

[IceSerpent]

Destructicus, on 08 October 2014 - 11:43 AM, said:

because people thought the sky was falling instead of trying to adapt.
Proof that if you ***** hard enough it will make a difference

Most people would rather fix a broken item than adapt to it being broken.

[endevite]

I would like to give a relational bit of information as to why this isn't a self entitled case of whining but a choice of entertainment not desired.

Say you get a movie ticket at a theater, they only have 1 screen, but 3 movies, a comedy, a romance, and an action movie. You want to watch an action movie, that is why you went to the theater in the first place, but many of the people at the theater wanted to see a romance, a movie you really don't want to see as you detest the type, if you knew it was going to be a romance, you wouldn't have gone, a comedy you could have tolerated, but the romance just isn't your thing. Well too bad, even though you acquired that ticket for the purpose of seeing an action movie, too many wanted to see the romance on the one available screen, you now have to watch a romance or not watch a movie at all and go home, was it worth going to the theater? Nope, waste of time, the entertainment value you wanted out of your time didn't exist.

This is no different, and it is why entertainment industries don't work this way. It will drive away those who don't want that specific entertainment. This game is entertainment, and many of those who partake in it, have a limited time to play during the day due to life's happenings. If all you get is something you don't find entertaining you simply will cease to partake in it.

This is why people didn't like it, something like this should have gone out in a mailer asking for full community votes and not just forum squatters. It's a pretty big deal, and has a pretty big effect on your choice of entertainment.

I hope that puts things into perspective for those who are angry at the reversal of the Matchmaker change.

Edited by endevite, 08 October 2014 - 12:37 PM.

[Appogee]

Apparently the sky did fall and as a result we're being put back in the system where I have to try (and generally fail) to carry 6 to 9 crap players to victory under the banner of "team averaged Elo".

That's progress for you.

Not.

Edited by Appogee, 08 October 2014 - 12:40 PM.

[Odins Fist]

endevite, on 08 October 2014 - 12:35 PM, said:

this should have gone out in a mailer asking for full community votes and not just forum squatters.
It's a pretty big deal, and has a pretty big effect on your choice of entertainment.

Exactly...

[Daflibble]

I agree that I rarely see the objective being played in PUG matches. I'd like to see the C-Bill and XP incentives for completing objectives over smashing each other up increased. I'd also rather they had more interesting objectives... but I guess I'll have to see what community warfare brings for that.

[Roland]

Skirmish lets me fight as I see fit.

Assault and Conquest limit my mobility to very small portions of the map.

I played with those limitations for years before skirmish was added. I have absolutely no desire to play with those limitations again.

Edited by Roland, 08 October 2014 - 01:07 PM.

[IceSerpent]

Roland, on 08 October 2014 - 12:52 PM, said:

Skirmish lets me fight as I see fit.

Skirmish and Conquest limit my mobility to very small portions of the map.

I played with those limitations for years before skirmish was added. I have absolutely no desire to play with those limitations again.

One of those "skirmishes" is supposed to be "assault"?

[Coolant]

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.

absolutely not ridiculous. I ONLY want combat. I was given that game type, ty PGI. Then I'm forced to play robo racers...not the game I was playing the past two years, or whenever they came out with Skirmish. My team's mechs vs. your team's mechs, my team's weapons vs. your team's weapons...kill or be killed. Not hold this piece of land for a few moments to win.

I never threatened to quit so your exaggeration is wasted on me. You are ranting just as bad as anyone else. I'm upset and have reason to be. But, it's mute point cause hotfix is changing it back. Thank you PGI.

[Roland]

IceSerpent, on 08 October 2014 - 12:57 PM, said:

One of those "skirmishes" is supposed to be "assault"?

Yep, the second one. Sorry. Fixed it.

[Coolant]

Mcgral18, on 07 October 2014 - 05:01 PM, said:

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.

had it today, thank you very much....we were up by a large margin in kill/death ratio. Don't say it doesn't happen cause it does, and being forced to play it isn't fun

[Destructicus]

Coolant, on 08 October 2014 - 01:06 PM, said:

absolutely not ridiculous. I ONLY want combat. I was given that game type, ty PGI. Then I'm forced to play robo racers...not the game I was playing the past two years, or whenever they came out with Skirmish. My team's mechs vs. your team's mechs, my team's weapons vs. your team's weapons...kill or be killed. Not hold this piece of land for a few moments to win.

I never threatened to quit so your exaggeration is wasted on me. You are ranting just as bad as anyone else. I'm upset and have reason to be. But, it's mute point cause hotfix is changing it back. Thank you PGI.

Exaggeration?
I guess you didn't see the rage then huh?

People thinking it's the worst thing in the world to play a different version of team death match is why it's ridiculous.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Yeah, theres a hell of a lot of whining since the yes crowd lost, I agree

Edited by Mechwarrior Buddah, 08 October 2014 - 01:10 PM.