67 replies to this topic

[Molossian Dog]

Reward is a strong word here.

[Lefty Lucy]

Squally160, on 08 October 2014 - 03:01 PM, said:

Conquest is the mode that rewards NOT fighting.

"They are at theta"
"ignore them, cap everything else"

"they are coming for us!"
"split up and go cap points, ignore them"

You have no idea how to play conquest.

[Grendel408]

Actually... Anarcho has a very good point. Founder tag or not... it's true, you cannot please everyone. Devs need some new game modes and to modify the current ones... Some maps are entirely too small for certain modes, like River City and Forest Colony, and Frozen City... they were great for 8v8 for any mode... 12v12 is just too much because folks tend to just rush in toward each team... whoever clumps up into a ball of hate usually tends to win. Other maps... cap points too close (Alpine Peaks)... areas of maps that never get fought over are just forgotten.

[Penance]

Honestly, I've never been a fan of the modes...or at least the lack of differentiation between them. Sure, they're different on the surface, but they all boil down to being death matches a good portion of the time. not that i've never won by cap in conquest, but it's usually team death.

Skirmish, is probably the mode the game should've started with. It's straight up TDM. simple and pure. Perfect for Mechwarrior. I have no problems with it, nor how it's played. people will play to their mechs strengths and weaknesses. Oh, my one problem is that there needs to be a rendering of a drop ship...i mean, how did we get there!?

At the end of a Conquest round I see points issued for capping, but I'm not really sure what that is taking into account, one cap, all caps, just winning by cap? Nonetheless, I'd like more of a Battlefield approach to how points are awarded in conquest. Points for capping, points for neutralizing, and of course, for kills. Battlefields system rewards players for playing the objectives for the most part, of course how blueberries play is another issue, same with teammates here. I guess some players just need more incentive to PTFO. in the end, players will do what will get them the most points to help alleviate the grind. So, if in a mode where capturing a point should be the primary goal, if a player gets nothing for that, but gets points for killing mechs, what will most players do? So, points should be gained for every cap, and point neutralization. i only suggest the battlefield approach, as it works for the most part. DICE pretty much created the mode, and have had a decent amount of success with it. Success is emulated.

I hope that Capture the Flag is added. I think this would be an incredibly fun mode for light mechs only, but of course could be fun all around, but especially for lights.

I'd also like some kind of "Dropship Assault" mode. Dropships are a huge part of the MW / BT universe, so one team attacks (maybe with some more players on it), and another defends (with fewer, but the DS has AI guns or something similar), attackers have to basically just damage the DS, destroy its engines, turrets, landing legs, etc.

Edited by Penance, 08 October 2014 - 03:09 PM.

[Gremlich Johns]

Assault should be aggressor/defender. I mean, there are two definitions of assault in play here.

• MIL.
  
  • a sudden attack upon a fortified place
    
  • the close-combat phase of an attack

Since we know that, ignoring the pump defenses, assault is just skirmish (definition 1.b. above).


However,....

Put a dropship on one DZ and have the opposing team required to take out not only the defending mechs, but all of the missile/laser/ballistic defenses (or a single command node for the defenses to shut them down) as well.

Of course, some will cry about such a mode.

Edited by Gremlich Johns, 08 October 2014 - 03:04 PM.

[Squally160]

Lefty Lucy, on 08 October 2014 - 03:02 PM, said:

You have no idea how to play conquest.

Really? because when our group leader drops us into one on accident, once we are all done raging, we almost always win.

doing exactly that.

[Bishop Steiner]

Squally160, on 08 October 2014 - 02:49 PM, said:

I play skirmish. Out of all the game modes, its the only complete one.

Conquest: Merry -go-round with no reason to go around.
Assualt: Both teams are defenders, there is no assaulting side.
Skirmish: TDM, as advertised.

So, the most tactically braindead mode, TDM is complete. Well, that would be because it requires nothing.

[Alienized]

Lefty Lucy, on 08 October 2014 - 03:02 PM, said:

You have no idea how to play conquest.

counts for too many people... it forces people to play not only straight forward. if they do, they lose because they couldnt gather enough points and didnt kill fast enough. you gotta learn when to stop killing and start capping, when to break out of a fight to go for the higher goal.
because all your damn fighting is worthless if you dont order your lights to cap/decap and make that battle a win. at that gamemode, lights can do what lights should do while assaults should go for the straightest line into the battle. and thats what a assault should do at all. in fact, conquest is the only gamemode where the classes have to do what their job is to be successfull.

Edited by Aliisa White, 08 October 2014 - 03:08 PM.

[101011]

Squally160, on 08 October 2014 - 03:01 PM, said:

Conquest is the mode that rewards NOT fighting.

"They are at theta"
"ignore them, cap everything else"

"they are coming for us!"
"split up and go cap points, ignore them"

Yeah...option A, while valid, will pretty much never actually happen. Seriously. Drop conquest 25 times (without having the overwhelming majority of players on comms) and tell me exactly how many times your entire team avoids combat. Option B is just stupid. Any team trying to do that would get rolled, for the exact same reasons that a team splitting up in five directions in skirmish would get rolled. Perhaps you do not like conquest, that is fine. Using piss poor strategies and claiming that they are the norm is ignorant, however, just as ignorant as me saying that all Assault rewards is people sitting on their base the whole match and waiting for the other guys to make a move.

Edited by 101011, 08 October 2014 - 03:10 PM.

[Dashwood Fox]

Just played 18 matches so far today with Conquest as the only preference and still have yet to play Conquest. I say change it back. I'd rather wait an extra few minutes than be shoehorned into 1 game mode. I like and play all the game modes but some nights I have a preference for one over the others.

[Joanna Conners]

Lefty Lucy, on 08 October 2014 - 02:43 PM, said:

Improved match making is important to maintaining a player base. A large portion of the playerbase will be upset with *any* change to the game. Over half of us liked the change, and the other half might have learned to play something other than death match if you'd actually stuck with your guns for two weeks.

As opposed to your half learning to deal with it? Why is it the side you disagreed with must be forced to "deal with it"?

Let people play what they want to play.

[Alistair Winter]

Lefty Lucy, on 08 October 2014 - 03:00 PM, said:

Assault mechs are perfectly useful in conquest.

That is not the point I was making at all. My point is that you've just done what countless forum-dwellers have done before you.
When people say "I don't want to pilot medium mechs in Dropship mode, I want to drop 4 different light mechs", others reply "I guess you'll just have to learn how to play medium mechs." Well, learning has nothing to do with it. It's just a preference.

Just because I don't like to play x mech or y build or z gamemode doesn't mean I have to learn how to do it.

Learning has nothing to do with being forced to play a gamemode you don't like. I assume you don't believe that you need to learn to play deathmatch in order to appreciate it, so there's no need to imply that other people need to learn to play conquest.

[Penance]

Dashwood Fox, on 08 October 2014 - 03:09 PM, said:

Just played 18 matches so far today with Conquest as the only preference and still have yet to play Conquest. I say change it back. I'd rather wait an extra few minutes than be shoehorned into 1 game mode. I like and play all the game modes but some nights I have a preference for one over the others.

Oh man, I have a really hard time getting to 4 matches now.

Edited by Penance, 08 October 2014 - 03:16 PM.

[Alistair Winter]

Aliisa White, on 08 October 2014 - 03:07 PM, said:

because all your damn fighting is worthless if you dont order your lights to cap/decap and make that battle a win.

When I'm forced to play Conquest, the only thing I care about is getting kills and doing damage. I could care less about victory conditions, I'm not standing on a square for any kind of C-bill or XP reward.

So all my fighting is worthless to my teammates who want to win. I don't care about the win. I'm playing this game to have fun. I make my own victory conditions.

[Alienized]

and thats also one of the problems this whole game has.

egoism.

this is a teamgame and not a selfish egotrip.

if i played bad, wont get many points btu have the chance to win it for those that did good then i at least try that and dont give a damn about my points.

[Dashwood Fox]

Also on that note; stomps still occur at about the same frequency.

[Intelekt]

No offense but I play with a group of 10-12 at all times, with close to 60 members we always have large groups, and there are ZERO players who thought this change was a positive thing, so I am struggling to find out where all these nonsensical statistics are coming from...

Lances and groups are formed with a specific game type in mind, and planned as such. To everyone saying "just suck it up and play", you clearly miss the nuance of the game, and that efficient tonnage for once game type is CERTAINLY not the same for another.

The matches were no better balanced, and we were regularly forced into playing modes we do not queue for, nothing positive came from the attempt to make this change, and a day later we are reverting back. Whoever said the modes need to be fixed hit it on the head, why fool with the matchmaker when the maps / modes are the real issue..

Half of the maps are very poorly done and need real work to maintain some sort of flow of battle, the culprits are all maps that regularly cause stagnation. Terra Therma, Alpine peaks, maps with multiple paths all leading essentially nowhere..

Point being, balance the MECHS, MAPS, TYPES, all before messing with a matchmaker.. Introducing the Clan mechs gives plenty of room for experimenting with balance, and since we are now pitted against each other (IS v Clan), how about make the two sides a bit more even or give us access to each others weapons and modules..

[MonkeyCheese]

Lefty Lucy, on 08 October 2014 - 02:43 PM, said:

Improved match making is important to maintaining a player base. A large portion of the playerbase will be upset with *any* change to the game. Over half of us liked the change, and the other half might have learned to play something other than death match if you'd actually stuck with your guns for two weeks.

Regardless of how good the intentions are pissing off such a large number of players and forcing them to play game modes they refuse to play is not a good thing in MWOs current state after so many have quit due to reasons like 3pv and clans and so on in the past.

Although I don't care what game mode I play these days I 100% understand the other side. My old archived stats are like 2000 conquest 100 assault because back then if refused to play circle the map or instacap assault mode.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

MisterPlanetarian, on 08 October 2014 - 02:52 PM, said:

I quite enjoy conquest but not in Slow fatass direwhales. Getting a Veto function in would be great.

Yup; I just dropped into it with one so Ill be waiting till tomorrow to play given that they didnt remove this at 4PM like Russ said they were

Dashwood Fox, on 08 October 2014 - 03:09 PM, said:

Just played 18 matches so far today with Conquest as the only preference and still have yet to play Conquest. I say change it back. I'd rather wait an extra few minutes than be shoehorned into 1 game mode. I like and play all the game modes but some nights I have a preference for one over the others.

Supposedly they ARE changing it back. It was supposed to be at 4 pm but that didnt happem

[Kirkland Langue]

Squally160, on 08 October 2014 - 02:45 PM, said:

I refuse to play half-hearted game modes.

Sorry.

Umm, how can you say that with a straight face while playing MWO at all?