67 replies to this topic

[Asmudius Heng]

Scratx, on 08 October 2014 - 02:38 PM, said:

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.

This is the issue that does not get talked about enough because people only see the benefits of being able to choose the right mech for the mode/match.

There are so many negatives associated with it. The random element of the map and game mode actually makes you really think about your mech design, and in groups, the design of your entire team.

I remember doing an experiment when we ran 8 ECM Ravens on conquest before 3/3/3/3 etc and were undefetable. Partially that was due to terrible hit detection and ECM having no counters at the time but it highlights the issue.

We were able to create a highly specialised team that was PERFECT for one specific exact task. The community would very quickly detemine a new meta based on
- Maps
- Gamemodes
These would stifle play because there would be no random elements to break things up.

Randomness in a game environment is VERY important when customisation is involved. Randomness provides CHALLENGES to be overcome using the tools at your disposal. The less randomness the more stale and predicable things are.

Randomness can be highly frustrating this is true, but as long as you have tools to help you mitigate the randomness this is a metagame in itself.

As a single player bringing a specialised build means yes - you will hit games where you ar eon the back foot. So a single player might err towards something that might be workable in most situations - or they simply hve to be HAPPY to take that risk. Take your high heat monster but dont complain you got Terra Therma because you KNEW it was a possibility.

Groups mitigate the risk by taking specialised mechs but making sure they have different types to excel in different situations.

Risk mitigation of random elements is a core part of the pre drop meta game and in game strategy and problem solving challenges. did you bring mostly brawlers and hit alpine? No problem, how to use such a team to best advantage there are ways and its a new challenge.

Reduciung the random element, or allowing absolute reaction to random elements will make each game more stale, more predicable and less FUN.

This is a conversation that needs to be had because most people only see it from thier point of view ... i want to take what is most effective to ME ... without considering the fact everyone else is doing the same and not giving you the variety of challenges, builds, and opposition that make the game fun and exciting even if it is frustrating at times.

I dislike Assault greatly, i dont mind conquest but its got issues, Skirmish is my best bet simply because its simple and provides no constraints on mobility even if most people do not take advantage of it.

Yet i would still prefer to play ALL if assault was made better and less static with more interesting objective based play in the centre of the maps.

---

So please, do not hate on randomness of your drop map and mode - its one of the things that keep you going back to the mechlab and changing and fiddling around. It is a CORE part of what makes this game more exciting. Hell i might even start setting my game modes to ALL just to improve my variety as well.

[Neutron IX]

Those are pretty good points.

I do still wish they'd alter the objective to be more logical to actual warfare.

I do agree quite a bit with the idea of more rounded builds though.

[Asmudius Heng]

Rip Snorgan, on 08 October 2014 - 06:51 PM, said:

Those are pretty good points.

I do still wish they'd alter the objective to be more logical to actual warfare.

I do agree quite a bit with the idea of more rounded builds though.

Yes, what objectives do is a WHOLE other topic. I prefer optional objectives that actually give in game bonuses rather than game winning mechanisms. That way objectives are important to capture but they are in SERVICE to the mech seekign and killing aspect that always takes precendence. Objecitves hat provide AI support, sensors, artillery lots of things that could be done.

Non rounded builds are still fine too - but people need to realise that if they make an extreme build that is good on some maps and noth others, then they just need to accept the risks involved with taking such a build, the fun comes in working around your weaknesses and maximising your strengths once you hit dirt not just in the mechlab lined up to a particular situation.

Rounded builds is just risk mitigation

[Neutron IX]

Yeah, and truth be told, finding yourself in a sub-optimal battlefield position with gear that isn't quite "right" for the job at hand, feels pretty "real".

Trying to control 5 points while you build a certain resource to a certain level in the middle of all the craziness. Not so much.

Seriously, I'm telling you, simply remove the "750 Resources" thing, and just make it a "control 3 or more of the 5 points when time expires, or kill the enemy" as a win condition instead. You could still have lights roaming and probing for weak control points to see if they can sneak them from the enemy, while heavier units either attack or defend positions on the map. And teams would have to decide how many units to leave defending, and how many to assault with.

To me it feels like it preserves a lot of what makes Conquest "different", but makes it feel a little more "real" and "fun".

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

I hate conquest because I like playing assaults/heavies and conquest should really be renamed to "whoever kills the fast mechs wins"

[Kvaneal]

Conquest is the best game mode. Not because the games actually get to point caps. Those you almost never see. It is the best because the potential for point caps cause pilots to be mindful of the entire map, and be mobile. Instead of one blob skirmishing another blob, there are local skirmishes in multiple places. It's still skirmish, just a lot more active, requiring a great deal more Situational awareness.

Edited by Kvaneal, 08 October 2014 - 07:08 PM.

[Xigunder Blue]

I do not care much about modes myself. What I do not understand, unless it is a technical reason, is why can we not see the Mode and Map once a unit has been formed? Join a unit, show map and mode (I do not care if Pirhana wants to select or unit leaders or vote in an ad hoc PUG), then allow players in that unit to select their own mechs and loadouts (Is this a Lobby system of sorts?).

It is obvious that the company knows we desperately need more maps. Perhaps they could use some ideas for new types of map. For example:

A rolling plain with a few rills and rifts. In the center is a very large building with multiple entrances, multiple floors, some without walls and a rooftop with broken concrete 'boulders' and scrubby trees etc. Taking the building as an Assault Mode.

Another open area filled with rainforests, water holes and a central ziggurat. This building has a circular roadway spiraling around upward with numerous entrances into interior floors. Massive square 'temple' on roof, large room with numerous pillars. Assault, Skirmish and Conquest Modes combined.

Large square area on surface of a asteroid with mountains. Some routes through mountains but two large cave entrances and several smaller entrances to extensive cave networks on more than one level, like a mine. Cave ins possible. Assault or Skirmish type Mode.

Extensive field with many boulders. Spots within those strewn boulders have turrets. Numerous turrets. Players have to destroy as many turrets as possible as well as destroying opponents who may already have taken a turret. Once down that side gets credit for turrets regardless of final outcome. Destroy a mech with more than one turret credit and player gets another credit. Even losing side gets credit for turrets they have destroyed. Conquest type Mode.

Junkyard dog battlefield. A gigantic scrapyard filled with wrecks and metallic debris. Only sensors that work are line of sight. No ranged warning, visual only. Lanes, open areas, stable and unstable mounds of wrecked ships, mechs, vehicles etc...Good brawling Skirmish area.

Lets us first know or determine the Mode and Map. Let us then select our mechs and loadouts. Then provide some more inventive maps to play on. As a retired game designer I can come up with so many ideas and I am sure your designers are even better. So show us.

[SweetJackal]

Asmudius Heng, on 08 October 2014 - 06:48 PM, said:

[Snip]
So please, do not hate on randomness of your drop map and mode - its one of the things that keep you going back to the mechlab and changing and fiddling around. It is a CORE part of what makes this game more exciting. Hell i might even start setting my game modes to ALL just to improve my variety as well.

Well, aside from being able to take a map or two and say "Never match me on it again" I agree that the random map selection is a good thing. There is a huge difference between a random map rotation where players can force a map to be excluded from the list and a map list where players vote what is next. Voting for the next map is actually kinda bad, only need to look to Source Engine games to see the problems with it, a very small pool of maps constantly picked over and over, out of 30+ maps only 4 at most get played on those servers.

Still, the old process outline that PGI was aiming for before of "Ready upto 4 mechs, queue, get dropped into Pre-Match Lobby, Map and Mode revealed, Pick your one mech to drop in" keeps that random element, forces players to play on different maps and doesn't leave you in the "I got my Brawler stuck on Alpine, FML" situation. Allows some specialized builds while still encouraging diversity.

[Asmudius Heng]

Rip Snorgan, on 08 October 2014 - 07:03 PM, said:

To me it feels like it preserves a lot of what makes Conquest "different", but makes it feel a little more "real" and "fun".

Conquest is basically a time pressure game right now. Capping points forces the enemy to change position and react to stop losing due to cap out. The actual cap points are not that important to actually win by, what they serve to do is force dynamic changes to situational changes. Assault without turrets used to do this in a binary way - hold the line or return to base being the only options. Skirmish provides many potential ways to attakc and counter attack, but generally falls short of the premise, conquest does succeed at driving less static behaviour.

However it fails to live up to the name 'conquest' which feels like it should be about territory control not a capping merry go round. I do not know if PGI planned for the time pressure mechanic to be the driver or if they actually thought that people would play to the objectives primarily and win by cap out. The problem being is there is no incentive to defend a point ...

SuckyJack, on 08 October 2014 - 07:14 PM, said:

Well, aside from being able to take a map or two and say "Never match me on it again" I agree that the random map selection is a good thing. There is a huge difference between a random map rotation where players can force a map to be excluded from the list and a map list where players vote what is next. Voting for the next map is actually kinda bad, only need to look to Source Engine games to see the problems with it, a very small pool of maps constantly picked over and over, out of 30+ maps only 4 at most get played on those servers.

Still, the old process outline that PGI was aiming for before of "Ready upto 4 mechs, queue, get dropped into Pre-Match Lobby, Map and Mode revealed, Pick your one mech to drop in" keeps that random element, forces players to play on different maps and doesn't leave you in the "I got my Brawler stuck on Alpine, FML" situation. Allows some specialized builds while still encouraging diversity.

Yes that makes sense too. Limited ability to react to randomness is also fine as long as it does not give too much leeway. There can be a balance found between player reaction and in game randomisation to encourage a varied and less stagnant meta.

Xigunder Blue, on 08 October 2014 - 07:12 PM, said:

I do not care much about modes myself. What I do not understand, unless it is a technical reason, is why can we not see the Mode and Map once a unit has been formed? Join a unit, show map and mode (I do not care if Pirhana wants to select or unit leaders or vote in an ad hoc PUG), then allow players in that unit to select their own mechs and loadouts (Is this a Lobby system of sorts?).

SNIP

Lets us first know or determine the Mode and Map. Let us then select our mechs and loadouts. Then provide some more inventive maps to play on. As a retired game designer I can come up with so many ideas and I am sure your designers are even better. So show us.

As a game designer maybe you could critique my post about how randomness will actually help the game because i am quite convinced that allowing total control of conditions creates a less interesting metagame and less fun in game challenges. Or did you mean level designer as you talked about levels and maps more?

Right now units can make a private match and choose all conditions mind you.

[SkitterPopper]

Scratx, on 08 October 2014 - 02:38 PM, said:

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.

Ofc i would and i should be able to! Not being able to choose the gamemode i want to play is just simply ridiculous.. or map.. And it's the first game i ever played where im unable to.. And now.. it seems like whenever i want to play with my light mech the game picks conquest mode for me most of the times.. the only gamemode i really don't like.. If so.. this will eventually make me stop to wanna play with this mech.. I don't know why in this game the idea of personal choise of gamemode or map is viewed the way it is.. Ofc you should not be able to just pick one or two maps every single time but gamemode? comeon.. You should always have the possibility to choose the type of gameplay that you prefer to atleast some extent..

[stjobe]

Dude, you're replying to a nine month old post...

Also, see that little green triangle right next to the "PLAY NOW" button?

Click it and deselect any game modes you don't like.

[PurpleNinja]

There is really no reward for playing the f****** objective. So back in the day when I was forced to play anything other than skirmish, all games were just a deathmatch unless the last mech standing on one side was shut down in a corner.

There's no point in having objectives if everyone is going for the kill.

[LORD ORION]

I played Assault and Skirmish in the pug queues.

I'm going to remove Assault for pugging after the removal of the turrets, because I've seen too many lights cap the base now and too many people throw fits into the next match.
I didn't mind base cap tactics when the turrets were there to slow the enemy down a bit.

Conquest is always a terrible mode because of the cbill nerf on it for combat activities.

I'm also not a big fan of Skrmish either in the pug queue because at least one in 5 games there's a damn spider who powers down.

So yeah, I guess I dislike all the pug modes now for various reasons. (though sometimes I need to grind or just want a quick match)

Play in the group queue or CW if you want to have a better experience (I know not everyone wants to join a unit)

[bad arcade kitty]

LORD ORION, on 13 July 2015 - 02:51 PM, said:

Conquest is always a terrible mode because of the cbill nerf on it for combat activities.

wut

conquest statistically is the most rewarding mode

Edited by bad arcade kitty, 13 July 2015 - 04:36 PM.

[Roadkill]

I don't hate any of the game types. What I hate is getting stuck in Conquest with a Mech that goes 64 kph or less. I wan't 70+ minimum for Conquest, with 80+ preferred.

So I generally drop with Conquest disabled, because I tend to jump around between Mechs depending on my mood.

[badaa]

people

[CDLord HHGD]

The only one I do not like is Conquest on Alpine because the bases are so close to each other. What's the point?? Spread them back out like they were originally.

[MeiSooHaityu]

I don't hate any of them. I set my gamemode search to random and play whatever I get.

I wouldn't mind seeing more work done on Assault. Maybe something that felt like both sides trying to attack each other's base while defending their own. I think the turrets were kinda crappy, so I didn't mind seeing them go. Still, I think cap rushes are a tad too easy and common. let's add some objective to accomplish instead of just standing in a square (or runnning in circles in that square).

Other modes are what I expect and play how I think they should, so I have no complaints.

cdlord, on 14 July 2015 - 06:08 AM, said:

The only one I do not like is Conquest on Alpine because the bases are so close to each other. What's the point?? Spread them back out like they were originally.

I agree, the cap points are weird. There are 3 practically in a line in the low end of the map with one in the low end base and one WAY out by itself in the high base.

Alpine is just a mess anyway. I hope it is the 3rd map that gets redone. I voted Forrest Colony instead of Alpine only because it is so small and murky and just dark and sad .

[Joseph Mallan]

AssaultPig, on 08 October 2014 - 02:39 PM, said:

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.

Sorry Are you saying it is bad to fight from a advantageous position?

I'll fight under all teh scenario conditions. Just gimme a mission.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 14 July 2015 - 08:11 AM.

[Sjorpha]

I actually like the existing game modes well enough as they are now.

I would like to see some more complex ones with more dynamic objectives added, such as escort missions, sabotage (maybe planting bombs in structures, and trying to disarm them before exploding?) and some assymetric attack-defence setups. Maybe some information gathering objective where you need to manouver light mechs in range of a base to hack radio transmissions or something.

What I don't like is how kills and damage is rewarded more cbills than taking objectives, it should be the other way around. Objectives should be primary for both win and rewards. The current system rewards farming mechs before taking objectives, that's bad design.