23 replies to this topic

[Asmudius Heng]

So we are back full circle.

Remember when we only had assault? There were people wanting straight deathmatch (Skirmish) who were almost ridiculed with people telling tales of griefing that would happen while skirmish supporters pointed out the flaws in Assault.

Then we got skirmish, and it got silly with people taking lances of ECM lights (with SSRMs back then) and winning without fighting just rushing and fleeing. Then things changed a bit and there was little reward for capping too.

We got skirmish and now three game modes were there and people had their favorites and ones they hated. The forums used to be awash with people complaining about game modes and then they allowed us to select game modes.

The forums went dead about game modes as people segregated themselves to their preferred modes. there was peace - but at the cost of ever addressing the WHY people were so against certain game modes and so the game modes seemed to be considered a finished product.

Then the matchmaker became even more complex, i assume numbers have dwindled and we have a system where the game mode buckets are becoming problematic - queue the latest patch and a return to the old bickering.

I wanted to explore the actual IDEA of these game modes and what sort of games are supposed to be like on them compared to what they are to open up a discussion about possible change.

Some people will NEVER like a game mode but as long as we minimize the amount of those people we actually could make a more interesting and diverse game.

I will admit my bias right here also even though i am trying to be fair on all modes. I like skirmish, i am meh on conquest, and i dislike assault as they currently stand.

----

Skirmish

Pros:
- Dynamic manoeuvring warfare not hindered by objectives.
- Can use more of the map if players choose to create different ways of attacking and defending
- Elegant in simplicity

Cons:
- Some potential to grief with no 'tie breaker' mechanic
- Lacking in purpose apart from killing mechs
- Does not provide rewards beyond mech killing and winning which can be seen as reduced role warfare.

Skirmish is my preferred mode for the reasons stated. However it does tend to favour heavies and assaults very often as well as some top teir lights. Mobility is important, but its better to move as a group which generally means you need to cut down to the speed of the slowest anyway.

Lances of meds can actually do decent flanking pushes etc but overall the game caters to those on comms to help with moving large groups around to best effect. There is less 'common language' which conquest and assault have where everyone kind of knows the drill and is set by the objectives. Skirmish objectives are player set - move here for best situational advantage for instance.

How to fix:
Skirmish would benefit incredibly from VOIP and Commo-Rose and communications map tools. I would also suggest OPTIONAL objectives but i think that should be for other modes anyway. The simplicity of fighting over a large area of terrain is what skirmish is ABOUT, but it is frequently let down by bad in game communications IMO. The mode itself does not need much - just the supporting features.

Conquest

Pros:
- Gives a set of objectives central to the battle.
- Forces people to move or be capped out providing some level of dynamic maneuvering.
- Adds a time pressure element to the game, you cannot just sit back or you run the risk of being capped if you are losing on the countdown

Cons:
- Objectives frequently ignored
- No real incentive to cap apart from forcing the enemy to respond, no rewards for cappers
- Games sometimes lead to a merry go round race due to lack of defense.

I WANT to like conquest. However the simplistic way they put this in defeats the purpose of the gamemode. The only thing i really like is when capping is used as a way to force the enemy to move and take points creating different ways of fighting depending on where everyone is aiming at what points. there is a TIME PRESSURE element which was a breath of fresh air after the stagnant Assault mode games and before skirmish.

This game mode SCREAMS at me to be about territory control. Choosing where to attack and defend to try to hold the best advantage to win via points, or to force the enemy to commit in a bad position. What actually happens in a deathball with lights running around trying to get a few caps.

How to Fix

This is a tough one because it could develop in many ways but here is my take.
Capping matrix. All points are interlinked with each other. If you capture a point it opens up the option to capture the next ones it is linked to. If you do not have a clear line to capture you can only turn that point neutral. This way getting behind the enemy lines has a benefit to disrupt the enemy not just create a messy battlefield with no clear front lines.

I would be interested in adding turrets to each point even but that has pros and cons to it not outright positives. The problem if no one wanting to defend multiple points is a problem it might address though.

You also need to make capping the points a bit faster, and give better rewards for capping and for defending somehow. Make it rewarding to play to the objectives, stop the merry go around, and make capping fast enough that a murderball might fail if they get outcapped.

Also, the centre point needs to be the hardest to cap and defend not the easiest, the matrix means you might need to capture 2 other points before you open up the centre point otherwise people murderball the centre and would then have all capping options.


Assault

Pros:
- Has an obejctive
- Has a common language everyone understands in regards to where to move, attack and defend

Cons:
- Static, stagnant gameplay because the cap points have too much gravity
- Turrets make capping by force the only real option
- Capping rewards are pretty minimal

Assault is in my personal opinion highly flawed. What it tries to do is create a symmetrical game where there is a battle line but one that could collapse and allow the enemy to spill through and capture a vital objective - but you also have the same prize you need to protect.

What happened in reality was initially stealth caps followed by moaning and gnashing of teeth, or people just ignoring the caps and playing it like a static game of skirmish because you cannot move too far or you will get capped. Adding turrets meant stealth caps stopped mostly - instead of the panicked RTB! in chat and the team splitting into hold the line and cleaning up the cappers and hoping the enemy did not push the front at the worst time - you just leasurly strolled back to base as the enemy tried to take out the turrets in time.

Neither one was good though.

The problem however was never the cap points really, it was what was happening in the midfield which was just a static boring mess. Cant flank or they might rush your base, or it turns into a race to rush the base while you sent a fast mover back to sit on your own base and sacrifice himself to slow down the enemy cap - it was silly.

How to Fix

The midfield on Assault DESPERATELY needs objectives. I have already written up a post about this but the basics are that:
1. You must capture a mid point obejctive to be able to open up the main base to attack.
2. If you control 2 objectives you may cap the base at a much faster rate.
3. If you control all 3 midfield objectives you can cap fast, but you have a count down timer to win unless the enemy take back a single point.

What this does is provide a large range of roles on the midfield. You can defend your base but risk being territory controlled. You can push a single point then rush through a capping team. Or you can try to control a few points and have a smaller capping team go for a final cap. Or you can just kill each other, but at least there was a meaningful fight in the middle of the map.

---

Anyway, rather than bitching about game modes lets discuss them again. It is low on PGI priority i am sure but i think it needs to be looked at.

What are your thoughts

[Zimmy]

the new game modes stink now I can not have the mode I want to chose I do not want be shoved into a game becore I will make up the numbers

Edited by Zimmy, 07 October 2014 - 07:14 PM.

[Lefty Lucy]

Asmudius Heng, on 07 October 2014 - 07:08 PM, said:

[color=#959595]- Dynamic manoeuvring warfare not hindered by objectives.[/color]

Yeah, tournament play shows that to be the load of hogwash it really is. Skirmish rewards one team setting up in a defensible position first, then never leaving. This leads to matches that go 15 minutes with no real engagement until one team gets desperate at the end.

Skirmish is a totally brain-dead game mode that does not reward maneuver warfare at all.

[ShinobiHunter]

Interesting thoughts, and bravo for coming up with an actual plan . I could see this possibly working.

[ShinobiHunter]

Lefty Lucy, on 07 October 2014 - 07:18 PM, said:

Yeah, tournament play shows that to be the load of hogwash it really is. Skirmish rewards one team setting up in a defensible position first, then never leaving. This leads to matches that go 15 minutes with no real engagement until one team gets desperate at the end.

Skirmish is a totally brain-dead game mode that does not reward maneuver warfare at all.

I have to disagree. It can be that way by times, but (at least in my ELO level) it is not very common. There is a lot of jostling for better line of sight, flanking, etc. in the games that I play.

Then again this is just my personal experience...

Edited by ShinobiHunter, 07 October 2014 - 07:28 PM.

[Darth Futuza]

I would suggest fixing Conquest by a few things:

• Far more significant rewards for capping
  
• Possibly add respawning into it so that a win MUST be done via capping
  
• Collecting resources should do SOMETHING. For example: allow you to refill arty strikes, or repair damaged components, or respawn dead mechs, something. Not all of those ideas probably, but something along those lines.
  
• Resource Capture Points should spawn RANDOMLY on the map, so that every time you play they are in a different spot. If this would be impossible or look silly (suppose one spawns inside a building...that's no good), then maybe they spawn in several different possible locations and those locations are randomized.
  
• Allow heavier classes to capture points faster then lighter classes. Atlas has faster cap rate then a light.
  
• Adjust capture times, so it isn't so slow.

[Lefty Lucy]

ShinobiHunter, on 07 October 2014 - 07:26 PM, said:

I have to disagree. It can be that way by times, but (at least in my ELO level) it is not very common. There is a lot of jostling for better line of sight, flanking, etc. in the games that I play.

Sure, but that's only in PUG queue or among teams with poor organization in Team queue. Neither of those are indications of what the game mode actually encourages.

[Russ Bullock]

New command chair post leading to a feedback thread with a poll, make sure everyone learns about this and votes.

http://mwomercs.com/...me-mode-voting/

[Asmudius Heng]

Lefty Lucy, on 07 October 2014 - 07:18 PM, said:

Yeah, tournament play shows that to be the load of hogwash it really is. Skirmish rewards one team setting up in a defensible position first, then never leaving. This leads to matches that go 15 minutes with no real engagement until one team gets desperate at the end.

Skirmish is a totally brain-dead game mode that does not reward maneuver warfare at all.

While at the very highest end of competition i can see how that might pan out but I think that all game modes can be 'broken' by people who put their mind to it. In regular games in the group queue i do not see this.

Also, those who sit still are prone to being hit by artillery. Generally i see a lot of flanking, jostling for position etc and those who sit still often get outpositioned and outsniped

Some of this is down to other elements of balance in the game too mind you.

I have never seen a match as you describe except perhaps once on Tourmaline but really it was our teams fault we didnt dislodge them more than thier tactical brilliance

Russ Bullock, on 07 October 2014 - 07:30 PM, said:

New command chair post leading to a feedback thread with a poll, make sure everyone learns about this and votes.

http://mwomercs.com/...me-mode-voting/

Thanks Russ, though this is more about looking at the pros and cons of each mode and looking for community feedback for possible improvement. That way people might not be so annoying in dropping in certain game modes

Will vote though once i actually get to play under the new system enough

[Scratx]

Can I propose an alternative way Skirmish could work?

Let's be frank, Skirmishes' big problem is that there is no tie-breaking method. If the last enemy is an ECM spider and you have a lance of dire wolves, the only way you'll end the match early is if the Spider is actually trying to fight instead of running and hiding. This example I cannot even say is tongue in cheek, because it happens quite a bit.

So, how about this. Both teams start with a number of tickets. The tickets start draining from the team that has lost more mechs, and does so by the difference of mechs between the two teams. So, a 10-6 kill score at a point in the match means the losing team is losing 4 tickets per second. I'm not sure how many tickets would be appropriate, but the key idea is that if a team gets stomped, the last guy can't hold everyone else hostage for long. The tickets will simply run out and award victory. Moreover, this plays into the idea that a skirmish isn't necessarily a fight to the death, but a battle for superiority.

Wouldn't this play into that idea?

[Asmudius Heng]

Scratx, on 07 October 2014 - 07:37 PM, said:

Wouldn't this play into that idea?

I question how often a light holds up a game for that long to be honest. I know it sometimes happens, but is the amount that this happens REALLY detracting from all the other games?

I think if the light is engaging and actually trying to hit and run then i have no problem thats not a big issue. How many lights actually go and hide though and deliberately grief i think would be fairly minimal.

Adding an end of game time pressure feels a little redundant when matches only last 15 minutes. Lights are not lag shielded to a huge degree anymore either so thats not as big an issue.

So - personally i am against it, but i am trying not to be dismissive of the idea, i just wonder if it is adding complexity to solve a problem that is quite minimal.

I only play skirmish and i hardly EVER see what you describe is all, or when it happens the light generally gets taken down without too much time spent hunting. - just what i see

[Zolaz]

ShinobiHunter, on 07 October 2014 - 07:26 PM, said:

I have to disagree. It can be that way by times, but (at least in my ELO level) it is not very common. There is a lot of jostling for better line of sight, flanking, etc. in the games that I play.

Then again this is just my personal experience...

All it takes is one Lance saying they wont move and that they are holding position X ... you can either support them,watch em die or watch your lance get rolled by their entire team because 4 mechs are hiding.

Id rather get rolled than wait 15 min for the other team to walk into your perfect firing line.

[Asmudius Heng]

Zolaz, on 07 October 2014 - 07:47 PM, said:

All it takes is one Lance saying they wont move and that they are holding position X ... you can either support them,watch em die or watch your lance get rolled by their entire team because 4 mechs are hiding.

Id rather get rolled than wait 15 min for the other team to walk into your perfect firing line.

That is not just a skirmish problem though.

If a lance decides on a bad course of action in ANY game mode they will die if unsupported.

All game modes benefit from better comms - skirmish most of all since there is less common objectives as stated in my OP.

[Darth Futuza]

Russ Bullock, on 07 October 2014 - 07:30 PM, said:

New command chair post leading to a feedback thread with a poll, make sure everyone learns about this and votes.

http://mwomercs.com/...me-mode-voting/

Thanks, I hope you read over the suggestions in this thread though. (Also can we get a link in the patcher, like the RSS feed to your poll so more people are aware of it?)

[Wintersdark]

I hate skirmish as well. The higher the Elo it seems the more static the game becomes - its all about scoring that first kill then collapsing into a strong defensive position and waiting.

People talk about Conquest "merry go round" matches - its been my experience on a number of maps that Skirmish is far worse for merry-go-round play when its not being static - both teams rotate around a central feature, and the less organized and/or slower team gets picked apart. I understand the strategy, but its no less annoying or really any different.

Conquest at least complicates games. You can't _only_ worry about killing, as you need to get and maintain a cap lead AND kill. It leads to much more dynamic and interesting matches, because everything that can happen in a skirmish match, for example, can happen in conquest.... But with more variables. Also, Conquest gets real, serious time pressure
Not just "wait out the clock" but moment to moment pressure to get an maintain a point lead Just In Case.

Assault is, as you said, broken and stupid. Basically, it's just Skirmish now, with even more incentive for passive play (defensive turrets give everyone a reasonably strong defensive position to fall back to that also protects them from suffering a cap loss, so you needn't even worry about that.

The real problem with conquest is that the rewards are terrible. As such, every conquest match is just lost cbills.

[Eddrick]

Russ Bullock, on 07 October 2014 - 07:30 PM, said:

New command chair post leading to a feedback thread with a poll, make sure everyone learns about this and votes.

http://mwomercs.com/...me-mode-voting/

+1 on the timely response.

[Asmudius Heng]

Wintersdark, on 07 October 2014 - 07:59 PM, said:

I hate skirmish as well. The higher the Elo it seems the more static the game becomes - its all about scoring that first kill then collapsing into a strong defensive position and waiting.

Not disagreeing completely, but i still believe that static play means you are prone to being outflanked etc.

Conquest is not just the merry go round but also the same murder ball problem as well - its my second fave mode but i would like to love it much more.

I just have never seen overly defensive actions in skirmish, most of the time the more static team seems to lose from my experience. When i see the hardcore teams face off against me usually i see big pushes backed up by massive amounts of arty also.

I think the siege mentality may be done by organised groups more since they know the enemy do not have the co-ordination to work together for an effective counter attack. Which plays to my idea that many skirmish problems can be overcome by better communication tools.

I am happy to play conquest tbh but assault is the one that needs the most love IMO i think we can agree on that.

[Wintersdark]

Yeah. I dislike skirmish, but not because of flaws in the game mode so much as I don't like the linear nature of the battles - I like multiple paths to victory and the complex tactics that can result, often swinging a match that looked one sided.

Skirmish, as a game mode, is just fine and great for people who want that.

IMHO, Conquest is also fine in implementation. It plays as it should, really, its just that its rewards are awful.

And, yeah, I'm definitely on board with assault just being broken. If one game mode needs serious consideration from a design angle, its assault.

[Asmudius Heng]

Wintersdark, on 07 October 2014 - 08:19 PM, said:

Yeah. I dislike skirmish, but not because of flaws in the game mode so much as I don't like the linear nature of the battles - I like multiple paths to victory and the complex tactics that can result, often swinging a match that looked one sided.

Skirmish, as a game mode, is just fine and great for people who want that.

IMHO, Conquest is also fine in implementation. It plays as it should, really, its just that its rewards are awful.

And, yeah, I'm definitely on board with assault just being broken. If one game mode needs serious consideration from a design angle, its assault.

My dream is actually skirmish mode but with optional objectives dotted around the map that give in game assets and bonuses so you not only fight where you want, but you have additional reasons to take territory to gain extra stuff like scanning assets, or additional artillery etc etc.

However i hesitated to add that as it might just confuse the issue - i feel skirmish has a place in the line up of all modes, if the others were better, or there were more i would be happier in playing anything for variety

[Lefty Lucy]

Asmudius Heng, on 07 October 2014 - 08:14 PM, said:

Not disagreeing completely, but i still believe that static play means you are prone to being outflanked etc.

Conquest is not just the merry go round but also the same murder ball problem as well - its my second fave mode but i would like to love it much more.

I just have never seen overly defensive actions in skirmish, most of the time the more static team seems to lose from my experience. When i see the hardcore teams face off against me usually i see big pushes backed up by massive amounts of arty also.

I think the siege mentality may be done by organised groups more since they know the enemy do not have the co-ordination to work together for an effective counter attack. Which plays to my idea that many skirmish problems can be overcome by better communication tools.

I am happy to play conquest tbh but assault is the one that needs the most love IMO i think we can agree on that.

Being "outflanked" means absolutely nothing against an organized defense.

I'm talking about tournament play where it's two organized teams fighting one another. That's where the real weakness of the game mode is revealed. If you do manage to get dislodged from a defensible position it just means that you got outplayed so badly it wasn't even funny.