115 replies to this topic

[Jman5]

Savage Wolf, on 23 December 2014 - 12:50 PM, said:

You don't know anything about how many would prefer death match over objectives or how many like objectives more. Only PGI has any data that might give any idea about this and they are still guessing. So don't assume you are the majority. We only know that on the forums, there are people of both groups, but the forums do not represent the entire playerbase.

I know that when I search under any game mode I get mostly skirmish, some conquest, and practically no assault (the game mode closest to CW).

Are you telling me you have more fun zerging generators than fighting mechs?

[Savage Wolf]

Jman5, on 23 December 2014 - 01:07 PM, said:

I know that when I search under any game mode I get mostly skirmish, some conquest, and practically no assault (the game mode closest to CW).

None of these modes are objective based. They are all variants of deathmatch.

Jman5, on 23 December 2014 - 01:07 PM, said:

Are you telling me you have more fun zerging generators than fighting mechs?

Yep. But I wouldn't mind doing both. Deathmatch alone seems very dull to me.

[Topper01]

Hey guys, i agree to threat opener: it's too bad having only invasion mode for CW. For me playing as a PUG on IS side it's more or less hopeless getting into the game. I know CW was planned from the beginning as 12vs12 team-game-mode, but honestly saying the way it end's up now is kind of boring. Even assuiming playing in a 12man team/clan would not make it better, because this rush-thing doesn't make any kind of fun.

I think the most people (like me) like the idea of CW, having now a goal to fight for, seeing how the IS map is changing day to day. Also the battles become much more interessting, because we can lead 4 mechs into it which give us 30min of fun instead of 3-7 (like in other gamemodes). I think this is the main idea/concept behind CW. The problem as of now, in my point of view: it does not reflect this "long-term-tactical-game-idea" with invasion game mode. It's just about "how to do the rush", it throws away all the gameplay elements away which makes MWO a great game.

I still like objective gameplay modes, but when there is obviously only one true tactic to win a match, which only works for 12man groups, rushing the base in 1-3 waves light mechs, than it's just a "niche-game" with a cool game-mode for more niche-gamers of the current playerbase.

I hope CW is extended with other game-modes or let's say other objectives which allows multiple tactics to win.

[WarHippy]

Galen Shannow, on 23 December 2014 - 12:16 PM, said:

Solaris? WOOT!

And seriously Warhippy? I'm trying to 'damage' CW? Give it a rest. I would like to see in CW the focus being on mech to mech combat not mech vs generator combat. I think the current setup could use improvement. Will it ever be perfect? Of course not! Is the current setup skewed? Yes.

Yes, seriously. This is the same nonsense that people were spewing before about assault and why we now have a piss poor excuse of a game mode called skirmish. The focus of CW is and should be winning regardless of how you get there. We are playing to win, and to take planets not just blow up mechs. That is why trying to constantly water down CW into just another version of the previous game modes is damaging to the over all feel and goal of CW. We don't need yet another skirmish mode. Wanting it to be more interesting is fine, but pleading for them to remove everything about it that makes it at least different if not more interesting than what we already had is really aggravating.

[Galen Shannow]

No one said remove everything that makes it different. Maybe my OP was too simplistic. There is just a lack of 'fun' in CW right now, especially on the attack.

Also be careful when you 'play to win' "regardless of how you get there". This is a game that people play for FUN. Once you lose sight of that then it starts to suck. Maybe not for you, but you'll be in the minority.

[Savage Wolf]

Galen Shannow, on 23 December 2014 - 02:02 PM, said:

No one said remove everything that makes it different. Maybe my OP was too simplistic. There is just a lack of 'fun' in CW right now, especially on the attack.

Also be careful when you 'play to win' "regardless of how you get there". This is a game that people play for FUN. Once you lose sight of that then it starts to suck. Maybe not for you, but you'll be in the minority.

Me and another have already made suggestions to how we can make sure to give a reason to fight defenders without removing the objectives. It can be done. Of course it requires PGI to listen and not continue to just tweak numbers that doesn't fix the problem.

Edited by Savage Wolf, 23 December 2014 - 02:07 PM.

[WarHippy]

Galen Shannow, on 23 December 2014 - 02:02 PM, said:

No one said remove everything that makes it different. Maybe my OP was too simplistic. There is just a lack of 'fun' in CW right now, especially on the attack.

Also be careful when you 'play to win' "regardless of how you get there". This is a game that people play for FUN. Once you lose sight of that then it starts to suck. Maybe not for you, but you'll be in the minority.

Fun is subjective, and there are a lot of people having fun the way it is now. As for losing sight keep in mind what some people find fun in games is winning. Why play if you are not at least trying to win? What is the point of just dropping mindlessly into the meat grinder? There are a lot of people looking for something more out of CW than mindless deathmatch.

[operatorZ]

WarHippy, on 23 December 2014 - 02:07 PM, said:

Fun is subjective, and there are a lot of people having fun the way it is now. As for losing sight keep in mind what some people find fun in games is winning. Why play if you are not at least trying to win? What is the point of just dropping mindlessly into the meat grinder? There are a lot of people looking for something more out of CW than mindless deathmatch.

I agree with the bolded part. I don't think advocating for more game modes in CW is the same as "mindless death match" or " not playing to win"....your exaggerating.

Adding a skirmish mode or assault or conquest to CW would do nothing more than give more options for players to enjoy themselves and have fun....it would not destroy CW by any means.

and as Mischief says above the organized groups will dominate those game modes too....I just don't think its a problem if they do...they cant play every game and there is plenty of room for pugs to have a an impact on CW

[GutterBoy5]

Because skirmish

Sucks

[Roadbeer]

[lsp]

It is deathmatch, this whole game is nothing but team deathmatch.

[Dagadegatto]

lsp, on 23 December 2014 - 07:15 PM, said:

It is deathmatch, this whole game is nothing but team deathmatch.

Roadbeer, on 23 December 2014 - 02:30 PM, said:

[EDIT]
I realize that was not a very constructive response, but I couldn't resist...

You actually have a valid point, killing the other team is very central to all 3 of the public game types. And I would certainly love to see the focus shifted away from kills and towards the objectives (point accumulation for Conquest and base capture for Assault). Something like on time out team with most points/healthiest base wins would be a start. Now that I think about it, I would love to see conquest with a drop deck like in CW

Edited by Dagadegatto, 23 December 2014 - 07:37 PM.

[MischiefSC]

If the attackers never shoot at you and you only shoot at generators, you're doing it way wrong.

Everyone ignores the simple fact that we've already had the 'CW Skirmish' game mode. We had it for a long time; it's exactly what pre-Elo gameplay was, only it limited groups to only 4 players per side. It was so horrible, so utterly broken and one-sided that PGI created an Elo system and eventually even broke up pug/premade queues because it was literally just premade groups farming pugs.

We've already had that game mode. It was horrible and was abandoned. Bringing it back and making it CW is not only a bad idea but a terrible idea.

Or are we saying we want to break up CW into pug/premade and Elo distributions? So, make the focus of CW, faction vs faction combat, utterly pointless? That you win and lose worlds based on only fighting equally divided groups of approximately your own skill, not which faction fields the best players in that theater at that time?

It would flat out turn into all the comp teams going Clans (because in straight skirmish they've got a significant advantage if it's 12man vs 12man) and farming everyone else. Matches will be settled (like they were before) by who has the biggest and best coordinated group. Groups won't drop until they're big enough and pugs will simply be focus-fired fodder.

We don't have to guess on this. We don't need to say 'we don't know that', because we absolutely do. We see it in the group queue right now to a lesser degree and we saw it in pre-Elo in exact form and function. There is no question about what that game experience is like - we know, we've already done it. It's like saying 'we should speed up PPCs and reduce their heat, that would be totally balanced and everyone would have more fun'. We already did that, it was terrible, we don't need to do it again.

It's like recommending a country go back to 'the gold standard' or any other bad policy idea that we've done before. It's not just bad, it's a bad we've done before, recognized as bad and went to great effort to get away from.

[Alex Warden]

well, i personally would vote against death match in CW... CW is faction WARfare... and war (especially in the MechWarrior Universe) is about objectives... there is no point in sending mechs to a deathmatch unless it´s about some honor-duel sh**...

i´d rather PGI implemented alot of different objective driven modes ... instead of what we already have the pub que for...

Solaris is still on the plate, so i am sure there will be deathmatches WITH something more behind it at some point, but imho, CW is not meant for blind mass clashes

just because some ppl refuse to think about tactics and gameplay beyond dashing out as much damage as possible doesn´t mean we should degrade this gamemode to just that... there is reason why i rather wait 30 minutes than playing 3 matches in publics in the same time...

let´s improve CW, not degenerate it...

Edited by Alex Warden, 23 December 2014 - 09:39 PM.

[operatorZ]

MischiefSC, on 23 December 2014 - 07:44 PM, said:

If the attackers never shoot at you and you only shoot at generators, you're doing it way wrong.

Everyone ignores the simple fact that we've already had the 'CW Skirmish' game mode. We had it for a long time; it's exactly what pre-Elo gameplay was, only it limited groups to only 4 players per side. It was so horrible, so utterly broken and one-sided that PGI created an Elo system and eventually even broke up pug/premade queues because it was literally just premade groups farming pugs.

We've already had that game mode. It was horrible and was abandoned. Bringing it back and making it CW is not only a bad idea but a terrible idea.

Or are we saying we want to break up CW into pug/premade and Elo distributions? So, make the focus of CW, faction vs faction combat, utterly pointless? That you win and lose worlds based on only fighting equally divided groups of approximately your own skill, not which faction fields the best players in that theater at that time?

It would flat out turn into all the comp teams going Clans (because in straight skirmish they've got a significant advantage if it's 12man vs 12man) and farming everyone else. Matches will be settled (like they were before) by who has the biggest and best coordinated group. Groups won't drop until they're big enough and pugs will simply be focus-fired fodder.

We don't have to guess on this. We don't need to say 'we don't know that', because we absolutely do. We see it in the group queue right now to a lesser degree and we saw it in pre-Elo in exact form and function. There is no question about what that game experience is like - we know, we've already done it. It's like saying 'we should speed up PPCs and reduce their heat, that would be totally balanced and everyone would have more fun'. We already did that, it was terrible, we don't need to do it again.

It's like recommending a country go back to 'the gold standard' or any other bad policy idea that we've done before. It's not just bad, it's a bad we've done before, recognized as bad and went to great effort to get away from.

Whoa whoa whoa...slow your roll...hyperbole much?

Unless I am crazy ......which I might be....how would boreal vault play out any different in CW if you removed the generators and the gun and the turrets and let "12 v. 12" to the death happen? The best team would win....just like what happens RIGHT NOW IN CW....so how is that going backwards? If this is "hard mode" and it is for " units or teams" why do we care if the pugs get stomped in CW? It's happening right now......and I'm a pug and I don't mind.

Right now anybody that wants to CW can right? Just like pug que.....
Right now teams and units dominate CW right? Just like old pug que....
This isn't for the kiddies....if they can't handle it ....oh well
But trying to equate instituting a " skirmish" mode with going backwards in time.....mmmmmm stretch

I logically see no way that having different game modes in CW changes anything...at all....ever.

However, I may not quite understand your point so feel free to elaborate.

Edited by operatorZ, 23 December 2014 - 10:57 PM.

[MischiefSC]

operatorZ, on 23 December 2014 - 10:56 PM, said:

Whoa whoa whoa...slow your roll...hyperbole much?

Unless I am crazy ......which I might be....how would boreal vault play out any different in CW if you removed the generators and the gun and the turrets and let "12 v. 12" to the death happen? The best team would win....just like what happens RIGHT NOW IN CW....so how is that going backwards? If this is "hard mode" and it is for " units or teams" why do we care if the pugs get stomped in CW? It's happening right now......and I'm a pug and I don't mind.

Right now anybody that wants to CW can right? Just like pug que.....
Right now teams and units dominate CW right? Just like old pug que....
This isn't for the kiddies....if they can't handle it ....oh well
But trying to equate instituting a " skirmish" mode with going backwards in time.....mmmmmm stretch

I logically see no way that having different game modes in CW changes anything...at all....ever.

However, I may not quite understand your point so feel free to elaborate.

If it were the same, why ask for Skirmish? There's a huge difference between Skirmish and Invasion. Hence why some people want to change Invasion to be Skirmish.

Skirmish works because of Elo and pug/group queue. Invasion in CW works because it allows people to win via coordination and tactics, not just focusing fire. The two don't cross.

[Zerberus]

Jman5, on 23 December 2014 - 12:42 PM, said:

I feel like some people are missing the problem. People want to have fun while participating in community warfare. You can tell them to just go play the other gamemodes, but those have zero consequences from game to game. They want to make an impact on the CW map without just generator rushing or turning defense into how many legs can your team can snap off in 30 seconds.

If people want to have unadulterated "fun" in what is, in essence, the actual competitive part of the game, they are in for a rude awakening. In any game, ever. Because it is almost always the less skilled "casual" crowd that complains about the competitive scene not being "fun". This is because their "fun" has nothing at all to do with the actual point of teh game and everything to do witzh participation and looking cool.

If you think a scrimmage match against the Minnesota Vikings in your local park is going to be "fun", you`re dead wrong. It`s going to be a slaughter, and it`s very likely some of your bros will actually get seriously injured.

And then you complain it`s not "fun" this way, and explain why.

And all of the vikings say "Yeah, maybe, if you say so, but there is absolutely nothing about that in any rulebook , anywhere. I though we were playing football, not BarbieBounce? If you want your own rules, maybe you should go make your own game."

The entire situation with CW is absolutely no different. Untrained casual pugs that took a 2 year break going up against experienced units that have been slugging it out for the last 2 years in community leagues, complaining about why their not capable opf taking on an entire unit by themselves.

While actual community warfare rages, those too inept to compete on any reasonable level turn teh forums into Community Whinefare. Sounds exactly like what those of us that can and do understand CW expected to happen all along.... The units continue fighting, and the eunuchs continue whining.

Edited by Zerberus, 24 December 2014 - 03:09 AM.

[L A V A]

Farix, on 23 December 2014 - 07:45 AM, said:

Some people just can't handle objective based gameplay.

"Destruction of the enemy's military forces is in reality the object of all combats." - Clausewitz - On War

[Jack Corban]

Galen Shannow, on 23 December 2014 - 06:41 AM, said:

I applaud the adding of a new game mode to CW however I believe the main problem with 'invasion' is that it stops the game from being mech on mech.

I play this game to shoot at big robots and be better than the other guy, not to rush a generator and shoot it until it blows up. The invasion mode is a good example of 'the enemy gate is down', narrowly focusing on an objective to win the game while effectively ignoring the enemy.

Frankly it's bleeeeeping boring. We won a match on the hot map , I did a total of 400 dam with 4 mechs (I led the way on two charges ...I'm not THAT sucky thankyouverymuch), but yay we won! Snooooorrreeeee.

Playing defense is better cause I get to shoot mechs but it feels like playing a tower defense game, hopefully you have enough mechs/turrets set up to stop the rush before they get to your base. More fun than attacking but almost feels like PVE.


Now you CAN win as the attacker by defeating the enemy forces but lets face it , this is a difficult task. Defenders have 2 or 3 natural chokepoints to stop you at, they have turrets to assist them, better cover and close spawn points. You need a super organised group with the right meta (or a completely crap PUG group opponent) to pull this off (in 30 minutes no less).
The difficulty level is simply to high.


Give us DM matches on regular maps with a different spawn mechanism or something else. I want to shoot mechs not rush generators.

Or howabout not opening up the generators until the defender has less than 12 mechs. That might make for interesting living.

I don't know if i want Assault,Conquest and Skirmish in Community Warfare.

I will leave this here maybe that is more to your liking aswell.

Edited by Jack Corban, 24 December 2014 - 04:54 AM.

[Killstorm999999]

xLAVAx, on 24 December 2014 - 04:45 AM, said:

"Destruction of the enemy's military forces is in reality the object of all combats." - Clausewitz - On War

Indeed.

I would say all victory conditions in MWO should be the destruction of the enemy team, with objectives providing the holder distinct and unique advantages which make the destruction of the enemy team all the more likely. Woe betide the team foolish or brave enough to ignore the objectives!

Only convoy missions should have an objective that is unrelated to killing the enemy team, but even then, suffering too many loses should still result in a defeat even if the convoy makes it (or fails to make it) to wherever its going.

Edited by Deltron Zero, 24 December 2014 - 05:27 AM.