46 replies to this topic

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

MechaBattler, on 20 December 2014 - 05:10 PM, said:

Russ said they wanted to use Skirmish as like the staging ground fight. The attacker has to win in skirmish mode to successfully land his forces I guess. And then it goes to gate fighting.

Honestly it needs more game modes. And while some people may hate skirmish, it can have it's place, but we also need other things. A city siege mode would be interesting. Not sure what it would entail. But it'd be interesting nonetheless.

It needs more MAPS, to begin with. Let's get maps settled in, THEN we can move to more gamemodes.

We need more maps to represent more types of planets. more jungle/swamp, desert, a beachfront attack could be interesting.

And just think, not too far from now we need to have a big fight with rolling hills for Tycross.

Maps, are key, with more ways to the objective, more creative ways to attack/defend.

At the end of the day, variety is the spice of life, and without variety, there will be an issue. but we're what, 2 weeks into CW now? And it's in Beta? things are going to be slow going... for good reason, this is still a test, and we're still hammering things out.

[Mystere]

MischiefSC, on 20 December 2014 - 05:19 PM, said:

You want to add skirmish to the mix with no respawns that's fine but you need to be absolutely clear on the fact that they'll be ruthless, one sided stomps of premades vs pugs. Absolute and complete and total. There's no bridging that gap. We already know that. Being in a group and knowing that we'll absolutely and completely face-roll every pug or mostly-pug team we play isn't something I look forward to and it means I'd only drop CW when my group is on or I can sync-drop with allied groups because in those Skirmish matches it will be 100% decided by who's got the most folks on comms, with a handful of exceptions.

Hence... not a fan of the idea. Pugs won't come play because they'll get brutally stomped in ways that make the current lopsided matches seem tame. Nothing like regular 48-0 matches to make people leave CW completely. Teams won't play as often because it'll effectively be a 12man queue; come with 12 or stay home.

A Skirmish mode in a large and highly urban environment with lots of ambush points should help the smarter/nastier PUG players go against a 12-man. The idea is to have a map that promotes guerrilla tactics by so-called "heroes".

[jackal404]

Based on my limited experience thus far - I would prefer to see the Counter-Attack just go away for right now.

The Invasion mode is based upon an attacker and a defender - each with the goal of either defending the planet or capturing the planet.

Just let it be at that for now, and focus on adding other game modes that make sense. IMO, flipping the defender to the attacker and calling it Counter Attack is frustrating.

[MischiefSC]

Mystere, on 20 December 2014 - 07:20 PM, said:

A Skirmish mode in a large and highly urban environment with lots of ambush points should help the smarter/nastier PUG players go against a 12-man. The idea is to have a map that promotes guerrilla tactics by so-called "heroes".

Really? It'll turn into a slaughter and you know it. 12man on coms coordinating against pugs in an area where it's hard to see targets? There isn't a fix for that with Skirmish. For flat out killing being on a 12man trumps everything else. Even a 6man. Remember in 8man days with 1-4s in queue without Elo? You could run with 3 derping buddies in a 4man and still win 80% of the time. A 6man and 6 pugs with roflstomp 12 pugs almos every time and you know that.

[Alistair Winter]

Please no. Like I said in another thread, I wasn't quite aware of how stale the old game modes had grown until I tried a public match again. Oh. My. God.

I'd rather see them do something like Capture the Flag or Plant the Bomb or Hostage Rescue, adapted for MWO. Use armoured trucks or hovercraft to represent the Flag / Bomb / Hostage. Those game modes would all make scouting and information warfare more important than any game mode we've seen, because you'd want to identify the location of the objective.

Better yet, try a game mode with (gasp!) multiple objectives, so everyone's not trying to do the same thing and figuring out a way to deathball their way to victory.

But not Skirmish, Assault or Conquest. I beg you. I'll play this one game mode for a year, if I have to. At its best, it involves a lot of tactics and unpredictable maneuvers. At its worst, it's basically skirmish with turrets.

Edited by Alistair Winter, 20 December 2014 - 07:46 PM.

[DELTA111]

If they removed the 11 zones graphic and just had the percentage in terms of planet control they could have 12 v 12 "meeting engagement" skirmishes that are only worth 2% or so of planet control. Then they could use 1 of the skirmish maps for whatever the climate of the planet is. This would be fantastic. I want to play CW but the battle concept as it stands isnt so appealling. Also where is a faction score that shows overall planets lost battles won etc. Surely that is what we are playing CW for. Yes I am a solo player but I dont need to join a unit to have them demonstrate the same tactical inadequacy that can be found in PUG matches.

Edited by DELTA1111, 20 December 2014 - 09:45 PM.

[Deathlike]

Alistair Winter, on 20 December 2014 - 07:45 PM, said:

Please no. Like I said in another thread, I wasn't quite aware of how stale the old game modes had grown until I tried a public match again. Oh. My. God.

I'd rather see them do something like Capture the Flag or Plant the Bomb or Hostage Rescue, adapted for MWO. Use armoured trucks or hovercraft to represent the Flag / Bomb / Hostage. Those game modes would all make scouting and information warfare more important than any game mode we've seen, because you'd want to identify the location of the objective.

Better yet, try a game mode with (gasp!) multiple objectives, so everyone's not trying to do the same thing and figuring out a way to deathball their way to victory.

But not Skirmish, Assault or Conquest. I beg you. I'll play this one game mode for a year, if I have to. At its best, it involves a lot of tactics and unpredictable maneuvers. At its worst, it's basically skirmish with turrets.

I would even like a simple VIP/Escort mode in CW. Ever played CounterStrike with that VIP mode (although, we don't want to cripple his options, if anything buff his overall armor) and go through checkpoints or something on a map...

It could work with some effort on PGI...

[Alistair Winter]

Deathlike, on 21 December 2014 - 12:44 AM, said:

I would even like a simple VIP/Escort mode in CW. Ever played CounterStrike with that VIP mode (although, we don't want to cripple his options, if anything buff his overall armor) and go through checkpoints or something on a map...
It could work with some effort on PGI...

This is the sort of stuff I'm waiting for, that will make me want to spend more money on the game. New content.

[Mystere]

MischiefSC, on 20 December 2014 - 07:33 PM, said:

Really? It'll turn into a slaughter and you know it. 12man on coms coordinating against pugs in an area where it's hard to see targets? There isn't a fix for that with Skirmish. For flat out killing being on a 12man trumps everything else. Even a 6man. Remember in 8man days with 1-4s in queue without Elo? You could run with 3 derping buddies in a 4man and still win 80% of the time. A 6man and 6 pugs with roflstomp 12 pugs almos every time and you know that.

Didn't people predict that "organized" groups would totally annihilate any and every PUG group in CW? And yet we now see PUGs able to hold their own, at least on defense. Why do you think that is happening?

Also, a crowded urban environment where there are few opportunities to focus fire and a lot of opportunities to be ambushed looks to me like a nice place for good solo players to shine. Heck, even a greenhorn who knows how to hide and can shoot someone in the back at 100m or less is capable of giving experienced players a bad day.

[MischiefSC]

Mystere, on 21 December 2014 - 01:18 AM, said:

Didn't people predict that "organized" groups would totally annihilate any and every PUG group in CW? And yet we now see PUGs able to hold their own, at least on defense. Why do you think that is happening?

Also, a crowded urban environment where there are few opportunities to focus fire and a lot of opportunities to be ambushed looks to me like a nice place for good solo players to shine. Heck, even a greenhorn who knows how to hide and can shoot someone in the back at 100m or less is capable of giving experienced players a bad day.

The only thing keeping organized groups from crushing pugs is objective based maps. I've rolled large groups of famous orgs in your same faction with nothing but pugs by playing the shell game on Sulfur. The best of us was flat out no match in combat for the least of them, I don't argue that at all. What we did do however was out-maneuver them and pull them into 3-on-1 fights or pull them away from the turrets and gens we were clearing. We won but it was absolutely not because we could out-fight them, it's because most of the top-tier competitive groups are incredibly proficient at putting mechs in the dirt - not so much at playing to the map or the objectives.

So drop a comp 12man against 12 pugs on River City. How is that going to play out?

You already know. 12-0. The same as it's always played out. The same as 4mans in the 8v8 queue used to work out before Elo.

Because, again, no Elo in CW - nor should there ever be. I love Elo in the pug/group queue. You know that. Everyone should, I've written enough dissertations on it. Without it though any sort of 'skirmish' mode in CW is going to be 10x worse than anything people are dealing with now.

Urban environment or not it doesn't matter. Com teams will flat out cold killing dominate pugs in a pure-combat match mode. That is exactly why the queues were split - people got sick of getting rolled again and again and again, and that was with Elo. Prior to Elo people had 90%+ win/loss rates and that was just running 4mans in the 8man queue without Elo.

Maps don't affect that. Game mode does. Invasion needs to be focused away from Skirmish-style play. That is the best balancing factor for the lack of Elo you can have.

[Mystere]

MischiefSC, on 21 December 2014 - 01:28 AM, said:

So drop a comp 12man against 12 pugs on River City. How is that going to play out?

All I am looking for is a single Skirmish-type mode fight in a highly urban environment. And this is how you can set it up:

1. Replace the current puny RIver CIty with a partially war-torn version of this:


2. Attackers have a time limit to take the city by killing all defenders.
3. Defenders just need to run the time out and not necessarily kill all attackers.
4. Adjust drop tonnage and/or number of waves for both sides as needed.

And the whole point is adding variety. Not everything should be "Destroy that cannon!" and nothing else. A Skirmish-style mode should logically be part of the mix.

And so may I ask, what other game modes and maps do you want to be included as part of the "counterattack" scenario? Surely it can't be just the current "Destroy that cannon!" set up and nothing else, right?

[MischiefSC]

Mystere, on 21 December 2014 - 09:33 AM, said:

All I am looking for is a single Skirmish-type mode fight in a highly urban environment. And this is how you can set it up:

1. Replace the current puny RIver CIty with a partially war-torn version of this:


2. Attackers have a time limit to take the city by killing all defenders.
3. Defenders just need to run the time out and not necessarily kill all attackers.
4. Adjust drop tonnage and/or number of waves for both sides as needed.

And the whole point is adding variety. Not everything should be "Destroy that cannon!" and nothing else. A Skirmish-style mode should logically be part of the mix.

And so may I ask, what other game modes and maps do you want to be included as part of the "counterattack" scenario? Surely it can't be just the current "Destroy that cannon!" set up and nothing else, right?

I'm game with that but I'd say add like 10, I mean a full 10, turret defended objectives and pay out to each side based on how many are left. Each objective is worth a 0.5% shift in map value so destroying 5 of them only gets you a 2.5% change in planet control.

A skrimish map would turn into a bug hunt and I'm not sure how fun that is for both sides either. I get the intent - I do and to a degree I agree. There needs to be more map modes. A mobile objective would be cool too. A mix of objectives and kills and needing to hit a certain point on BOTH for the win is cool. Like kill 30 defenders PLUS objectives.

Just again realize that groups will dominate combat objectives completely. That's why we MW:O has evolved into 2 queues.

[Mystere]

MischiefSC, on 21 December 2014 - 09:59 AM, said:

Just again realize that groups will dominate combat objectives completely. That's why we MW:O has evolved into 2 queues.

MWO has evolved into 2 queues because some very vocal people just refuse to admit that organization and communication are key to winning. These same people would rather turn a pure PVP game into a game in which one plays the "Hero of Ferelden".

[MischiefSC]

Mystere, on 21 December 2014 - 10:42 AM, said:

MWO has evolved into 2 queues because some very vocal people just refuse to admit that organization and communication are key to winning. These same people would rather turn a pure PVP game into a game in which one plays the "Hero of Ferelden".

The problem is that teamwork and focus fire are overwhelming advantages. Not everyone wants to play in a group all the time though and so you are left with 2 options -

1. make the game unplayable in total for a majority of players

or

2. make concessions or split environments so more people have fun in the game.

Think of the pug queue as being a funding source for CW. People play that, have fun, buy whatever mechs they want, heros, etc. and that money is then used to make things like CW for those of us who enjoy group play.

[Prussian Havoc]

Jman5, on 20 December 2014 - 01:00 PM, said:

Your faction just assaulted the enemy base in the region. It's fierce fighting busting down gates, turrets, and finally that big anti-orbital gun. You have a smoked out shamble of a base and a sketchy supply-line with all the fighting going on around the planet.

So wouldn't it make sense that when the defenders of the planet send in their counter-attack the base is still in disrepair? Gates still down, turrets still blown to smithereens, Orbital Cannon generator lying in a million pieces on the ground.

The counter-attackers aren't looking to blow up their own base. They are looking to take back their territory by rooting out the enemy forces.

Counter-attack objective should be Skirmish: Kill the enemy forces. The team with the most kills is the victor.

From a purely player-driven experience, I think this injects the much needed "fun" for Mechwarrior Online. Teams will suicide-rush a generator because it helps them win planets, not because shooting a defenseless building is inherently exciting. By creating a space in community warfare where it's simply "kill the enemy team", you enhance the overall experience for everyone.

So just to illustrate how it would work. Spawns are the same as before. Turrets and generators are removed, the gates are both open, while dropships still act as anti spawn-camping.

As long as there was some means to greatly discourage Drop Zone camping, I would be in favor of Hold AND Counterattack missions being conducted solely as a Skirmish or with base defenses set variously between 20% and 50% or maybe every other turret back to 80% or more.

But this change would greatly inhibit IS forces from being able to conduct Hold Action.

[KraftySOT]

No

[Roadbeer]

KraftySOT, on 21 December 2014 - 02:08 PM, said:

No

Took the word right out of my mouth

[Felicitatem Parco]

Lots of people in this thread want to see local defenders attacking their own assets, such as their own orbital Gauss cannons and their own bases, that have been destroyed already by the enemy.

This makes no sense to me.

If I am a local defender, my objective would be to destroy the occupying force, or their ability to deploy reinforcements...

THEREFORE

CounterAttack should be a gamemode where you attack the enemy's Mobile Command Posts and/or Communications Grid... not your own wrecked and useless equipment!

Edited by Prosperity Park, 21 December 2014 - 02:45 PM.

[Davers]

I feel this game needs more objective based game modes. So far Attack/Defend is the only game mode where 12 lights OR 12 Assaults are both valid choices.

[Milocinia]

Skirmish as it is in CW, no way.

However I do think a different game mode in-between the attack and defend cycles would be a nice idea. So after the attackers have taken a required number of wins, before it switches to the defenders counter-attacking there would have to be a required number of wins in a skirmish type game mode for the attackers.

As a basic idea I think it has some merit.