67 replies to this topic

[Scratx]

Actually, the bigger problem is the inability of a lot of people to accept the idea that they shouldn't be able to bring optimized mechs to certain match/map types without running the risk of going into a match or map that doesn't cater to that mech build. They won't accept the idea of going with slightly more rounded builds in order to not be caught off-guard, and don't relish the challenge when they are.

I suppose a lot of them would be happy if they could always select both mode and map, hyper-specialize in stomping people there and never go anywhere else.

[AssaultPig]

At least in conquest there is some incentive to do something other than ball up and sit in the most defensible position possible. It's not a strong incentive and deathball still works well on smaller maps, but at least the incentive is there.

Conquest tends to lead to small engagements, which means you're less likely to get randomly primaried by two pinpoint mechs and that lights and mediums are more likely to be effective.

[Eddrick]

I'm fine with all 3. But, if I had to pick one I like the least: Assault Mode. It turns out to much like Skirmish.

I don't mind Conquest at all because it is not one dimentional like Skirmish.

Skirmish doesn't bother me because it does exactly what it is suppose to do. A Team Deathmatch.

[aniviron]

Chemie, on 08 October 2014 - 01:13 PM, said:

because they are all the same game mode

See, and this is why I was fine with the game mode selection being flexible. For all the wailing and moaning about conquest, 90% of the games end in everyone on one team dying anyway, so just bring your whale, it's not going to be any less useful. The game modes bring nothing new to the table, so I'd rather have a closer match Elo-wise.

[Solomon Ward]

I have all modes checked all the time.

Yes that means Conquest with a Direwolf.

That said Assault is the one i dislike the most.
Especially the River City abomination.

[Jetfire]

Assault: With current turret implementation I actually kinda like Assault a lot compared to its original version.

Skirmish: I really cannot argue with a straight fight, it is raw and visceral.

Conquest: I want to like this mode BUT a few things bother me about it.
1. Rewards for capping are uninspiring
2. No counter fast lights other than other fast lights: Make the Drill rigs destructible with High health, like 2000 or so. Give the assaults something to destroy if they can't run to it fast enough.
3. Match can hit an unstoppable inertia point where remaining mechs are too far away to recap enough way too soon in the match. I think #2 + a few more total wells could solve that problem.
4. No incentive to not just roll around like a big blog (this should be the match type that encourages splitting up by lances) I think more wells could do this, have to split up to cap enough to make a cap win possible.

I am not sure that covers it all but it seems like a decent start.

[Kain Demos]

I guess Skirmish is my least favorite mode which is probably because I lose the most in it. It is my only game mode where my W/L is less than 1:1 (it is .97, well under my overall average) but I still have always queued for all three modes. If you wonder why it is because I want the shortest time in between pops even though it has been tempting to only choose conquest because of my W/L ratio in that mode.

That being said, this is what I think of the three modes:


Skirmish: It is possible for the last guy to run/hide and you can't just say "**** him" and cap to force his hand. I don't like hunting down that last powered down/ECM light on some of the bigger maps. Simplistic and seems to have the most lopsided matches and least amount of comebacks.

Assault: Turret AI seems very inconsistent. Sometimes it seems they never open up and then other times I find them LRMing me at 1000m.

Conquest: Does NOT make sense on the smaller maps.

Edited by Kain Thul, 08 October 2014 - 03:19 PM.

[AlphaToaster]

Hate is such a strong word. I don't hate any of the modes.

I do not like it when I'm in a mech with Cap Accelerator and the mode is Skirmish.

I do not like it when I am in a slow mech and the mode is conq or assault.

Not so much that I don't like the modes, but it's more like I prefer to choose my mech modules and loud out based on the mode(s) I have selected at the time. It's the closest thing to role warfare this game currently has.

[DevilCrayon]

I really hate Assault on River City. The map's too small, the bases are too close together and it's too often a boring snipefest around the Citadel.

Other than that, I like the small bit of variability I get from dropping for Any most of the time.

[Belkor]

SuckyJack, on 08 October 2014 - 12:58 PM, said:

The most recent poll shows a pretty even split between keeping and discarding the new Voting System for the MM but once one takes out the percentage of players that do not have a problem with a certain game more and don't have a strong desire to avoid it out of the Keep It votes then we see a significant portion of players that hate a game mode hate it enough to never want to see it again no matter the cost.

So instead of talking about MM and what can be done to ease it's load let's instead collect what players don't like about certain game modes and what you would like to see changed or reexamined.

Please post your thoughts and opinions, discussions are welcome! Personally I am not in strong opposition to any game more but I would like to see the turrets in Assault reexamined as well as the cap times for Conquest.

I don't play the game to run around capping. I play the game to blow up mechs.

[Variant1]

-skirmish is perfect and fine
-assault need perhaps more content (like tanks and aircraft) or at least more than 2 types of turrets
-conquest is by far the most confusing, cap points or go tdm(which is much easier than capping).

Perhaps the real problem might be the lack of game modes or not. Maybe add a vip, capture the flag or a free for all game mode.

[Bilbo]

Belkor, on 08 October 2014 - 03:43 PM, said:

I don't play the game to run around capping. I play the game to blow up mechs.

I don't play the game to stand behind a hill/ridge/rock for 5 minutes.

[Slepnir]

Mode wise I prefer mission objectives and alternate win options, also since all my mechs are fast(slowest assault I have does 71kph, its only that slow because I can't change engines on a warhawk) I am just as happy with conquest or assault.

I cannot count the number of times I have used cap points or bases to force desired enemy behavior or win the match even after my team is annihilated because the enemy team is ignoring the alternative objectives.

Skirmish I detest there is no point to it. your forced to death ball in order to avoid getting mangled by the enemy deathball. and if you try to go all guerilla tactics the enemy and sometimes you own team goes all ape$&#$ on you for "wasting time"

militaries dont fight against each other just to fight
there needs to be objectives for each side. right now that's conquest and assault mode, hopefully alot more when CW gets off the ground.

[SweetJackal]

Updated the original post with the following:

SuckyJack, on 08 October 2014 - 12:58 PM, said:

Update: Appears my assumptions were wrong on the cause. Looks like a Pre-Game lobby that showed the map and mode and let you pick your mech would alleviate some of the negativity to the voting system. Though for 3x4 modes would likely mean picking up to 4 of the same weight class.

Not that this would fix the problem 100% but it seems to be a stronger direction with the discussion so far than changing up the game modes.

[Haipyng]

Hate is too strong of a word. I like all modes, but prefer conquest or assault. They add an extra dimension to the game. What bugged me was trying to get into a game mode with a specific mech/ load out. It also further diluted the pool of players wanting to play were or equipped for that game type. The result is every game became more like skirmish.

[3rdworld]

Generally avoid assault.

Only play assault if I want to post some really high scores or for a win based tournament. The vast majority of the people I consider good never play assault, so it is quite easy to pug. By easy I mean it is like clubbing baby seals easy, 1000 damage is just "okay", easy.

Pro tip to people that complain about the MM and getting stuck against people that are really good at the game.

Play assault, most really good units don't play it.

Edited by 3rdworld, 08 October 2014 - 04:46 PM.

[Lord de Seis]

I am extremely frustrated that this change will be rolled back, I found the game experience far more enjoyable on Tuesday evening then I have had in a while. If the vote is now more even where were all of these people before when the original vote was up? Oh thats right not on the forum discussing how the game could be improved.

Why does this have to be solved with a hotfix? Could it not be tested out for 2 weeks until the next patch?

Edited by Lord de Seis, 08 October 2014 - 04:55 PM.

[Belkor]

Bilbo, on 08 October 2014 - 04:11 PM, said:

I don't play the game to stand behind a hill/ridge/rock for 5 minutes.

Sounds exactly like something you cap sissies would do.

[TheMadTypist]

I've been avoiding Conquest mainly because most of the actions pay out less, and unless the match runs long the cap point credit doesn't really make up the difference. On top of that, capture points take forever to switch sides, so the field is relatively static even if the dominant team isn't being particularly reactive on the defense. If points switched faster and I felt the payout was as good as the other modes, I'd probably be happier dropping there.

[Neutron IX]

I actually don't mind Conquest at all, though of the 3 current game modes, it's generally my least favorite.

Partly it's because, in what is for all intents and purposes, a Military Sim, it's the mode that feels the least immersive or "actual mission" based.

I just try to picture an actual modern battlefield with 5 "control points" and a battlefield full of combatants running in all sorts of directions trying to decide whether to go for a control point or engage an enemy.

I actually think Conquest could be vastly improved if they dropped the "resources" entirely, and made it simply a "whoever controls the most points at end, or destroys the enemy" instead. It could lead to more strategy and less running around chaotically trying to beat a timer.

That being said, I do play it from time to time, but when I do, I select very specific mechs and builds, that are tailored a bit more for speed and/or capping.

My only real beef with the "voting" system was having my slow builds dropped into Conquest. Outside of that I had no problems with it, and actually did perceive a more balanced ELO matching over the last day and a half I think.