65 replies to this topic

[Kjudoon]

Duke Nedo, on 13 October 2014 - 11:12 PM, said:

I have always played all game mode, perhaps not enjoying conquest every time, but really... you youngsters sound like spoiled brats to me sometimes. Perhaps I am just too old, but what happened to "adapting to circumstances" instead of "demanding to be able to dictate the circumstances"? I see the same when lecturing these days at the Uni, the new students to fail miserably at an exam complain that they should have gotten more points and should have passed instead of sucking it up and do it better next time. Ok, that's a far fetched comparison, but I get the same gut feeling when reading this.

The core problem is that the game is in development imo. We (hopefully) want more depth to tactical gameplay, more variation and more fun. The way I see it, conquest is an not-very-successful attempt at that. So, what we should do is to make it better, much better, instead of sulking and only playing deathmatch.

What could make conquest better?

The hotfix: Greatly reduce the time to flip the cap point. 50 secs could be ok to take it down, but the flipping part of it needs to be much faster.

True fix: Imo, conquest modes of game play are better suited when you have respawns, or when you can spawn units using resources. Now, I am not suggesting respawn, really I don't. In the single match mode we have now though, a better type of objectives would imo be utility points that you can capture, and when you own them you get benefits that help you fight the other team. It could be radar stations for intel, comm arrays for enabling air/arty strikes or something along those lines. It's not easy to create truly viable game modes when there is no respawn/resources since you can always win by shooting the other robots and that is ultimately what the teams will try to do. It will be interesting to see how the CW game modes plays out, hopefully they are fun and has the extra depth that is lacking currently.

Anyways, it would be nice if we could somehow turn this into: what can we do to improve the game modes instead. Only playing deathmatch is to step back into closed beta again imo.

N0MAD, on 13 October 2014 - 11:26 PM, said:

What this would do is just simply force people out of the game, many would just quit.

Nomad's right.

What is it that makes players here sound 'entitled'? Simple. Choice. Their money and their time is mobile and will go to the place they derive the highest entertainment value for their money, time or both. No one's required to play this game. Nor is this game the only choice on the block. If the game ceases to be enjoyable, they will just go elsewhere. That is why one must be responsive to the desires of the consumer in a consumer centered culture based on the purchase and use of a luxury like MWO, and believe you me, all MMO games are luxuries.

You may as well try to demand people enjoy eating caviar, fois gras or truffles. All are expensive luxuries that many people do not enjoy and consider inedible yet society thinks that they should be grateful to have them if given it and something's wrong with them if they don't.

Tincan Nightmare, on 13 October 2014 - 11:53 PM, said:

So your business model for PGI and MWO is basically 'pay us real money to be able to play the game how you want, or play for free and have no choice in how or what mode you play.'

It's one business model... Don't see it succeeding well though.

Edited by Kjudoon, 13 October 2014 - 11:57 PM.

[Duke Nedo]

Kjudoon, on 13 October 2014 - 11:55 PM, said:

You may as well try to demand people enjoy eating caviar, fois gras or truffles. All are expensive luxuries that many people do not enjoy and consider inedible yet society thinks that they should be grateful to have them if given it and something's wrong with them if they don't.

There is a subtle difference that this discussion was about though, that is that MWO becomes a better game if everyone plays the same game. The population is so small that it hurts balance when its divided by hard constraints.

The other thing is that, yes you can choose not to play, that has always been the case. What strikes me as different lately is that people do choose to pay and play, then make demands that the game should become what they demand it to be or they will stop paying and playing. If enough people do this we are going to a bad place imo.

Edited by Duke Nedo, 14 October 2014 - 12:09 AM.

[Elizander]

How about adding minor incentives for now?

First 3 wins in Team Queue with all modes selected:

Awarded per win:

• +1 random consumable (Airstrike, Coolshot 9x9, UAV, or Coolshot 6)
  
• +50 GXP
  
• +20% C-bill earnings (just because no one notices any promotional percentage number below 20%)

You can add similar rewards for teams that queue up with 3/3/3/3 or 1/1/1/1 or something similar to what they have suggested in NGNG a monthly ladder where only matches in 1/1/1/1 2/2/2/2 or 3/3/3/3 with all modes selected will count with appropriate rewards and recognition to teams that get high ranks at the end of the season.

[Kjudoon]

Duke Nedo, on 14 October 2014 - 12:08 AM, said:

There is a subtle difference that this discussion was about though, that is that MWO becomes a better game if everyone plays the same game. The population is so small that it hurts balance when its divided by hard constraints.

The other thing is that, yes you can choose not to play, that has always been the case. What strikes me as different lately is that people do choose to pay and play, then make demands that the game should become what they demand it to be or they will stop paying and playing. If enough people do this we are going to a bad place imo.

I've already invested a small amount into the game because I was desiring what was offered for my money. Since then I've been waiting on CW to make sure this is something I want to invest more money into for a game that will be something I desire to play for at least another year. This is accomplished by putting together things I want to do much like the other games I participate in do.

The player base is already small and won't grow by alienating the base that is already here by removing functions they had used and gotten accustomed to.

[Chrithu]

Why even have this topic again? The chance has passed. Just suck it up and wait for the next try on improving matchmaking.

There is absolutely no sense in debating whether half the player base should have been forced into an undesired gamemode or not.

It's not constructive in any way and all it will do is split this community once again over an absolutely unneeded flamewar that is about to start.

And while we make stupid threads like this one into hot topics: Constructive stuff like Livewyr's iniative to try and suggest good and thorough improvements for the unliked conquest mode or discussions in what way other than soft gamemode voting the matchmaker could be improved leave the front page and go unseen.

The community as a whole truely deserves the state of the game sometimes.

Edited by Jason Parker, 14 October 2014 - 12:20 AM.

[MrMadguy]

MauttyKoray, on 13 October 2014 - 06:32 PM, said:

People just can't be happy with a working system apparently. "Oh Noes! You can't disable playing a game mode!" Well, okay then maybe you should make makes that can play any mode and not just "LOLDPSDAKKAALLDAKILLALPHASPAMHEADSHOTTROLOLOL" mechs then? Maybe stop with the 'meta' crap builds and build versatility into your mech which -GASP- is a realistic thing in Battletech? Oh but wait I crossed the line because I brought up the content source of this game and now I'll get a bunch of hate responses because 'This isn't Battletech its a video game/Mechwarrior, go f yourself.' and what not.

That's good and all, but why consider it Mechwarrior if its not Battletech? In fact, that's part of the problem... You want to hit 100% heat? HAVE FUN MELTING YOUR FLESH OFF. You heard me. 100% heat should have a 66% chance to KILL THE PILOT, with a stacking bonus every overheat.

Back on topic: the soft game mode created some of the best skill comparison matches I have played since re-joining this game at the beginning of 2013. The only real thing I can think of is bad players and comp teams bitched about having to play with and against people of their skill level instead of having higher elo teammates to carry them or other comp team members to give them a challenge and not just let them roll.

But no, lets just go back to having uneven matches and everyone kitted out to spam the objective. Oh wait, I forgot the worst part. People have been bitching about having to 'do conquest' but Conquest 96% of the time that I've played it has just been a TDM, no objective completion.

I'm making very diverse builds for my mechs. In fact I'm putting some intent and idea into every variant of certain mechs and try to make them as different, as possible. I use big engines, many heat sinks, various weapons. But it doesn't help to solve some problems, this game have.
1) Invulnerable lights. Sorry, they have enough advantage. Also having capping advantage - is too much from my POV. Let's face it - 80% of players in this game have 100-150ms pings. So you just can't develop game only for ideal "server in next room" conditions with only <20ms ping guys in mind - you can't make mechs with 100500kph speeds and "walking stick" hit boxes. Sorry, but lights are immune to 80% weapons in this game (almost all missiles and lasers + you need enormous amount of skill and luck to hit them with ballistics). And if they are using lag shield/JJs/ECM - they're becoming literally invulnerable. I won't play any modes, except Skirmish, till Spiders/Firestarters/etc lights and/or hitreg in this game wont be fixed.
2) Some maps have bad design/are unbalanced. I won't play other modes, while some maps are making some builds/variants/mech classes pointless. I've noticed, that most recent maps - are all light/medium favouring maps. I'm measuring maps' balance in good/balanced matches to bad/stomp matches ratio and the number of possible different tactics, this map have. If sometimes I have good matches on this map and sometimes bad - then it's ok, cuz it's just matter of RNG and luck. But when literally all matches on this map are stupid waste of time - then this map obviously by itself have terrible design. Also if map have only one stupid (and in most cases suicidal) tactic - then this map have bad design too. So what the point in playing other modes, then Skirmish, on this maps?
3) Weapon balance. Missiles are almost useless. SRMs have broken hitreg (yea, they're just passing through your target lol) and LRMs are lesser then 30% efficiency (~0 against lights). Lasers are almost useless. Sorry, but 5 medium lasers are overheating you after 2-3 alphas even with 20DHS. Yeah, it's 10 more tons (+ some extra tons from bigger engine) + 30 more slots (-engine slots). And I can fire some ballistics, like AC/5 or AC/10, for literally infinite and get just enormous amount of damage. What the point of playing "capping" modes, if you just can't defence yourself against "meta" builds?

[Aresye]

Game was far more enjoyable with the soft mode enabled. Games were actually balanced well, and it wasn't rare to see the score being neck to neck for the majority of the game.

Now it's back to the regular terribad matchmaker, losing 15+ games in a row, and being matched against large premades in small groups.

Good job whiners. You actually had a good matchmaker, and you threw it out for the same garbage we've been dealing with.

[Lily from animove]

Vassago Rain, on 13 October 2014 - 06:34 PM, said:

No one wants to capture one red square, let alone five.

I> like standing in squares, I can relax there. It's just a problem for people who want to stroke their epeen measuring their success in k/d and average dmg/match, which is no being catered by these modes.

Sure it would be better if we can choose the mode. But when this is done by sacrificing the the skillbalance in matchups, its definately not worth it. That is ruinign the lower skilled palyers gaming experience and that may make them leave the game. Which is the least thing MWO needs.

[El Bandito]

Conquest can burn in hell. People should stop shoving their own opinions into others' throats.

Edited by El Bandito, 14 October 2014 - 01:24 AM.

[Kilo 40]

El Bandito, on 14 October 2014 - 01:23 AM, said:

Conquest can burn in hell. People should stop shoving their own opinions into others' throats.

I disagree. now please stop shoving your opinion down our throats.

[Duke Nedo]

I really don't understand the hate for Conquest because you don't like to cap. If it's in the solo queue, just play it like Skirmish and you'll probably win, lol. The frustration I have with conquest is when half the team goes capping everything at once and you get rolled, that sucks, but that's more the players than the game mode really... if you can keep your team together, capping times are short and game play aggressive.

On some maps Conquest lead to better game play rather than worse in my experience. For example, River city usually doesn't turn into silly Indy 500 to rush assaults in the bad spawns like in Skirmish. For the same map, Assault is usually very slow and boring base-camping games around the citadel. On Crimson, Assault and Skirmish are usually much more defensive deep on the platform/saddle than Conquest. On some maps it has very little impact, like for example Alpine and Forest where the caps are within shooting distance of each other so that's really just skirmish with different spawns.

I don't know what the big deal is. Sure, conquest is not very well implemented, but in my opinion I have more boring, slow paced games with strange incentives on Assault. With strange incentives I mean that on Assault, if you win the initial engagement but just barely, say 6-4 or so, then the game mode makes you want to retreat back to base to defend if you want to win. That's just backwards.

Is this all about the rewards? Weren't they revised?

Edited by Duke Nedo, 14 October 2014 - 01:56 AM.

[Kavoh]

MauttyKoray, on 13 October 2014 - 06:32 PM, said:

People just can't be happy with a working system apparently. "Oh Noes! You can't disable playing a game mode!" Well, okay then maybe you should make makes that can play any mode and not just "LOLDPSDAKKAALLDAKILLALPHASPAMHEADSHOTTROLOLOL" mechs then? Maybe stop with the 'meta' crap builds and build versatility into your mech which -GASP- is a realistic thing in Battletech? Oh but wait I crossed the line because I brought up the content source of this game and now I'll get a bunch of hate responses because 'This isn't Battletech its a video game/Mechwarrior, go f yourself.' and what not.

That's good and all, but why consider it Mechwarrior if its not Battletech? In fact, that's part of the problem... You want to hit 100% heat? HAVE FUN MELTING YOUR FLESH OFF. You heard me. 100% heat should have a 66% chance to KILL THE PILOT, with a stacking bonus every overheat.

Back on topic: the soft game mode created some of the best skill comparison matches I have played since re-joining this game at the beginning of 2013. The only real thing I can think of is bad players and comp teams bitched about having to play with and against people of their skill level instead of having higher elo teammates to carry them or other comp team members to give them a challenge and not just let them roll.

But no, lets just go back to having uneven matches and everyone kitted out to spam the objective. Oh wait, I forgot the worst part. People have been bitching about having to 'do conquest' but Conquest 96% of the time that I've played it has just been a TDM, no objective completion.

What's not realistic with boating? You say realistic, but if a mechwarrior was told with absolutely 100% certainty that he would be going into a combat zone where he will NEVER fight or encounter anything but another mech than why wouldn't he equip himself with the most effective arsenal for mech to mech combat? Why would I run around with a machine gun, flame, couple small lasers, other small force/AP/AT/Anti-building equipment instead of just packing another anti mech weapon? They wouldn't waste the slots on it, why should we?

You do know the life support and all that fancy equipment they DIDN'T include to be crit in our cockpits (this is a GOOD thing for us) is for just the reasons you stated? In what world of yours does battetech cook the pilot alive from heat? Im looking at my chart and all I see are modifiers, ammo explosions and shutdowns. Hmm.

If you have a force on force and you have the optional objective of engaging the enemy force (forces will ALWAYS be even) head on or potentially splitting yourselves up/putting yourselves in a bad position for a "primary" objective that gives you no benefit whatsoever, the force on force will always be the best choice.

Edited by Kavoh, 14 October 2014 - 02:01 AM.

[El Bandito]

Kilo 40, on 14 October 2014 - 01:45 AM, said:

I disagree. now please stop shoving your opinion down our throats.

Clearly you have no idea what shoving one's opinion is all about.

This is shoving one's opinion onto others.

MauttyKoray, on 13 October 2014 - 06:32 PM, said:

Well, okay then maybe you should make makes that can play any mode and not just "LOLDPSDAKKAALLDAKILLALPHASPAMHEADSHOTTROLOLOL" mechs then? Maybe stop with the 'meta' crap builds and build versatility into your mech which -GASP- is a realistic thing in Battletech? Oh but wait I crossed the line because I brought up the content source of this game and now I'll get a bunch of hate responses because 'This isn't Battletech its a video game/Mechwarrior, go f yourself.' and what not.

That's good and all, but why consider it Mechwarrior if its not Battletech? In fact, that's part of the problem...You want to hit 100% heat? HAVE FUN MELTING YOUR FLESH OFF. You heard me.

My comment regarding Conquest was not directed at anyone. That's the difference.

Edited by El Bandito, 14 October 2014 - 02:30 AM.

[Mawai]

MauttyKoray, on 13 October 2014 - 06:32 PM, said:

...

Back on topic: the soft game mode created some of the best skill comparison matches I have played since re-joining this game at the beginning of 2013. The only real thing I can think of is bad players and comp teams bitched about having to play with and against people of their skill level instead of having higher elo teammates to carry them or other comp team members to give them a challenge and not just let them roll.

But no, lets just go back to having uneven matches and everyone kitted out to spam the objective. Oh wait, I forgot the worst part. People have been bitching about having to 'do conquest' but Conquest 96% of the time that I've played it has just been a TDM, no objective completion.

If you noticed an improvement ... you were ONLY playing in GROUPS. There was NO difference in matchmaking in the SOLO queue. IF this is the case then you should petition PGI to put the feature back into the group queue since it actually improved things there.

If you were playing in the solo queue ... any improvement you noticed was just luck.

Edited by Mawai, 14 October 2014 - 02:49 AM.

[Kilo 40]

El Bandito, on 14 October 2014 - 02:29 AM, said:

Clearly you have no idea what shoving one's opinion is all about.

This is shoving one's opinion onto others.



My comment regarding Conquest was not directed at anyone. That's the difference.

No. That is someone in need of a Valium.

But his opinion isn't being "shoved" at anyone anymore than your opinion is, or mine for that matter.

[Willard Phule]

Please try to keep in mind that if you play in the Solo Queue exclusively, you mean NOTHING to PGI.

Their focus is on the organized group players. They do whatever they can to cater to the demands of the group players....not the solo ones. We're expected to "get good" and join a group...not continue to play in the "tutorial queue."

That being said, you can blame the Group players for getting rid of the soft game mode.

You see, Elo doesn't mean much to them. They get their groups together for some kind of league match and do their thing. They're going to bring whoever they want...and ultimately, their Elos don't much matter.

In the Solo Queue, the Matchmaker has been given free reign to put whoever it wants into any given match....we've all seen it. "Carrying noobs" and such.

It stopped with the soft game mode...at least in the solo queue. But, the group players whined about getting thrown into a game mode that didn't play into their league match. So, we must cater to the group players...they're the one steady source of income to PGI. Screw those idiots in the Solo Queue...their opinion doesn't matter at all.

Which is why we, the unwashed and unwanted, do our level best to make sure that every single match in the solo queue is as derptastic as we can make it. When the all mighty Group Players come slumming to the Solo Queue to beat baby seals, we make sure they have to work for every single point of damage they cause. Because we're the tutorial...we're the training ground...every one of us is supposed to be a slack jawed mouthbreather. We might as well act like it.

[Jonny Taco]

"soft" selector was stupid, the increase in conquest payout however was not.

[Vassago Rain]

Duke Nedo, on 14 October 2014 - 01:54 AM, said:

I really don't understand the hate for Conquest because you don't like to cap. If it's in the solo queue, just play it like Skirmish and you'll probably win, lol. The frustration I have with conquest is when half the team goes capping everything at once and you get rolled, that sucks, but that's more the players than the game mode really... if you can keep your team together, capping times are short and game play aggressive.

On some maps Conquest lead to better game play rather than worse in my experience. For example, River city usually doesn't turn into silly Indy 500 to rush assaults in the bad spawns like in Skirmish. For the same map, Assault is usually very slow and boring base-camping games around the citadel. On Crimson, Assault and Skirmish are usually much more defensive deep on the platform/saddle than Conquest. On some maps it has very little impact, like for example Alpine and Forest where the caps are within shooting distance of each other so that's really just skirmish with different spawns.

I don't know what the big deal is. Sure, conquest is not very well implemented, but in my opinion I have more boring, slow paced games with strange incentives on Assault. With strange incentives I mean that on Assault, if you win the initial engagement but just barely, say 6-4 or so, then the game mode makes you want to retreat back to base to defend if you want to win. That's just backwards.

Is this all about the rewards? Weren't they revised?

People don't like conquest, and we stay away from it. Yet suddenly someone got the bright idea that it'd be great to force everybody who doesn't like the mode to play it.

What did you people think was gonna happen?

[Duke Nedo]

Still think there was a lot of drama. If nobody likes it, then it would not be voted for and you would see it how often was it? Once in 25 games if I remember correctly? If people actually do like it and select it, perhaps it isn't that bad after all. Sort of self-regulatory.

Could the reason be that it was less predictable in regard to mech loadout optimization and was less farmable for cbills? ^^ The cbill part was buffed and if you would have to wait longer to find a match with hard selection there's another cbill sink...

It's not surprising though that people scream when something they had was taken away, that's human nature... not sure it was best for the game in the long run though. Wish they had spent that time wasted on patching and rolling back on tweaking the game modes and spawn points instead. Anyways, no big deal, I'll continue to play all game modes and do my best to enjoy all game modes.

[Satan n stuff]

MauttyKoray, on 13 October 2014 - 07:16 PM, said:

I absolutely DESPISE conquest Alpine. Only map/mode I actually hate to play. The north west and south east areas of alpine have PERFECT areas for a cap point, but there are 3 point within shooting distance of one another? What?

This is where they used to be located. Moving them wasn't an improvement in my opinion.