115 replies to this topic

[Mystere]

Zultor, on 24 December 2014 - 12:58 PM, said:

All good multiplayer games have systems in place to prevent this imbalance from occurring (or at least reduce it). MWO (pre-CW) added separate queues and ELO and it helped a little. Games like WoT prevent the size of groups so you can't have an entire side coordinated while the other side is PUGs or they force full groups only. As long as stuff like this is allowed to happen the CW game mode is relegated to being suitable for 12 man only groups. That is very unfortunate and should have been the case. In the long run it will hurt the game overall.

And that is the purpose of the non-CW queues (officially or unofficially, as I can't recall if PGI said anything to that effect).

Edited by Mystere, 24 December 2014 - 01:48 PM.

[Void Angel]

I'm American, actually. Europeans are weird.

[Deadmeat313]

I suggest a new mode, in addition to the existing Invasion mode. (I would actually prefer the existing mode's name be changed to Base Assault, or Fortress Assault.)

OPEN FIELD BATTLE

The map is rolling hills, with gullies and rock outcrops. Preferably temperate - with alternate climate versions to be added later.

The Attackers initial Mech wave deploys on the ground, a good distance away from the objective. Not by DropShip.

The Defenders start at their Mech Hangars, close to the Objective.

The map consists of a Main Objective - which functions like a Conquest style capture point. It is a HQ building/vehicle. It, and the surrounding area, are protected by turrets. Nearby is a generator, for the turrets. Further out is another generator, this one powers several Air Defence batteries in the nearby area (off map). There are no gates.

The defenders can receive reinforcements only while the Main Objective is in their hands. These reinforcements arrive through tunnels which are out at the back, approximately half the distance away from the Main Objective as the attackers Drop Zone is. The defenders do not get DropShips at all in this battle.

If the attackers capture the HQ then the defenders stop receiving reinforcements unless they can somehow re-capture it.

The Attackers cannot receive reinforcements while the Air Defence generator is operational. This is why Wave 1 arrives on foot. The idea is that the Attackers can go for the generator so that their DropShips can move in, or they could go all out for the HQ to try to deny the defenders their support. Or, they could split off a detachment to go for the gen while they put pressure on elsewhere. A major push from the opposite flank may be able to disable the turrets.

The Defenders can choose whether to attempt a defence of the AD generator, or to stick close to the HQ - and hopefully also protect the turret gen. If they are feeling brazen, they could pile out in full force to try to stop the attackers getting the AD gen - and could possibly wipe out the Attackers while they are unsupported.

The match would be 30 mins, and at time out the holder of the HQ would be the winner. There is a good chance that a successful attacking team will end the game early by killing the remaining defenders. If the defenders annihilate the attackers before they get the AD gen down, then thats also a short fight.

Design Points :
The generators should be carefully spaced from the main objective (HQ). The turret gen needs to be closer - but still far enough away to influence the defenders deployment. The AD gen is further out - and on the opposite flank from the turret gen. Both will have automated turret defences, but the AD gen should be harder to defend.

The defender spawn tunnels should be hard to camp. Maybe they are up on a shelf or well defended slope - with their own independently powered automated defences - so the attackers should suffer damage for approaching. (The area around the tunnels could even be declared Out Of Bounds to the attacking team - but that seems a bit heavy handed.)

The rest of the battlefield is open rolling terrain. Both teams are largely free in their deployment and movement decisions. The defenders will come under ERLL fire from the DropShips if they get too close to the attacker DZ, but otherwise they are free to go anywhere. Reinforcements for both sides will have some running to do to get to the HQ - though the defenders only need to go half the distance than that of the attackers.


What do you think?

D313

[Jman5]

Zerberus, on 24 December 2014 - 03:08 AM, said:

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.

I must have missed the sign that said "no fun allowed in community warfare".

You need a sizable population in order to keep the queues of 10 different factions running smoothly 24/7. This means making it as fun if not more fun than the base game.

This is coming from someone who has spent the last two years competing in community leagues such as RHOD, MRBC, MCW and several others. If the gameplay isn't rewarding and enjoyable, most teams will eventually burn out and gravitate toward gameplay that is fun. And if attack/counter-attack never gets beyond simply throwing dead bodies at generators, even the competitive teams will leave. Then those few left can enjoy sitting in empty queues for 10 minutes telling themselves how competitive they are.

Fun and competition are not mutually exclusive. Right now we need to work on making it more fun and interesting.

[Roadbeer]

Funny, the competitive teams said the same thing when Private matches were being formed and how the PUB queue would dry up.

The only queue I see drying up is the Private Match one, because outside of the "competitive" teams, nobody wants to play there for all the Epeen waiving.

Most of us are very happy NOT playing against Call of Battlehaio kiddies, and even enjoy loosing when it was a good match and the other team shows sportsmanship. Something that is apparently VERY rare amongst the competitive teams. It's the casual units fighting the casual units that is what's fun, and what will keep CW alive, not a dozen "competitive" teams who metahump their way to victory.

And if you don't know what I mean by sportsmanship, then your parents did a huge disservice to humanity.

[Roland]

MischiefSC, on 23 December 2014 - 11:25 AM, said:

The tactics of killing mechs are far more simple than objective based matches

This is not even remotely true.

[Alex Warden]

Roadbeer, on 24 December 2014 - 06:44 PM, said:

Most of us are very happy NOT playing against Call of Battlehaio kiddies, and even enjoy loosing when it was a good match and the other team shows sportsmanship. Something that is apparently VERY rare amongst the competitive teams. It's the casual units fighting the casual units that is what's fun, and what will keep CW alive, not a dozen "competitive" teams who metahump their way to victory.

quote because i love you ...no ****

[Tarl Cabot]

Galen Shannow, on 23 December 2014 - 09:06 AM, said:

This is the point. I have no problems with objective based battles. It's objective based battles that detract from the core gameplay that are the problem.

There is also no reason why skirmish can't be part of CW, the objective is the planet remember? You win the skirmish you get a bit of the planet. That is enough of an objective right there.

You can have skirmishes if you like, especially if you are attacking Clans, just make them come out of their cage. I had one game where they were locked on every vantage point and we could not get a go to hammer the generators on icefield map. We finally got the gates opened (I suicided in a jenner) but no rush in. We eventually sniped at each other til they got bored and started pushing out. The game ended with only 2 of their mechs left standing, one with only one leg left and missing side torso, the other with both arms missing.

[Khobai]

I think all four game modes should be included in CW

However assault needs a complete revamp because it feels like a beta tester gamemode.

Conquest also needs a revamp.

[MischiefSC]

Roland, on 24 December 2014 - 06:50 PM, said:

This is not even remotely true.

So you're saying that it's just as easy, if not easier, for a group of pugs to beat, say, a Lords 12man in the group queue with no Elo than it is to beat them in CW?

Seriously? You're smarter than that Roland. Objectives require flexibility in the field. One thing I like about Skirmish is the focus on only a single factor - killing the enemy. This only works however with Elo and split pug/premade queues.

You remember what pre-Elo matches where half of any team could be a team on coms and how incredibly one-sided that is.

There is absolutely no factor involved in Skirmish that does not also exist in Invasion gamemode - no trick, tactic, or technique that can be applied in Skirmish that does not also exist in Invasion. The difference is that *IN ADDITION* to those you've got the objectives. They are significantly more involved than standing on a square for 60 seconds.

Success in CW generally involves mixing all those tactics together. If you're a coordinated 12man group you can still absolutely leverage mech killing tactics in defense or attack; I've been in plenty of attack drops where we absolutely focused on killing the enemy and ran it down to 48 dead defenders before destroying generators.

The difference however is that you've also got the other objectives that you can use to manipulate the other teams ability to use straight mech killing tactics to win.

Flat out the difference is that a decent group of pugs can and do beat 12man groups consistently and regularly in CW, which they absolutely could not and would not in a Skirmish map environment.

Besides. Make it Skirmish style combat and what do you get? Lords vs pugs - pugs drop 12 lights and scatter for 30 minutes. Good luck finish up that one. With 0.001% odds of IS pugs straight out rolling 4 sets of mechs out from under a Lords 12man, why not go for the tie and 30 minutes wasted? That will be a wonderful ragefest.

That and, without question, people will do the same thing they did in 8v8 pre-Elo - drive to get an Elo system and Pug/Premade queues, because groups will farm 99.999% of pugs and smaller groups and you'll let those two factors into CW.

May as well close CW up and just make Invasion a game mode for pug/premade queues and keep general track of wins by faction on a leaderboard.

Non-Skirmish game-mode is what makes CW work with mixed pug/premade, no Elo environments. It is exactly what balances out focused fire and straight mech killing coordination. Without that factor we're just running full circle to what got us Elo and split queues. Great things; the game needs them, but not in CW.

[Mystere]

Khobai, on 24 December 2014 - 08:00 PM, said:

I think all four game modes should be included in CW

However assault needs a complete revamp because it feels like a beta tester gamemode.

Conquest also needs a revamp.

Combine Assault and Skirmish into something just like invasion but without the cannon generators, and make it a kill-or-be-killed win condition with defenders winning on timeout. And, yes, I want it to be much harder for the attacker.

Why, you may ask? Because if the enemy does manage to take your base from you, you're going to have to fight tooth-and-nail to get it back. <maniacal >

Edited by Mystere, 24 December 2014 - 08:41 PM.

[Roland]

You suggested that the tactics involved in killing mechs was simpler than the tactics involved in objective based gameplay.

This is not at all supported by reality.

Killing mechs requires an infinitely deep set of tactics and counter tactics, limited only by the skills of your team and your opponents.

The simplistic objectives available in mwo don't even scratch the surface of that kind of depth. They are ridiculously simple by comparison. And their effect is not additive. That is, the objectives do not provide you with all of the complexity of combat based outcomes, plus additional complexity, as some would erroneously argue. They actually reduce the complexity of the game by dramatically reducing the potential paths to victory in terms of mobility across the terrain.

To the naive, who perceives attrition based outcomes as something simple, this is hard to grasp, because they aren't really aware of what leads one team to kill another. But if you actually understand what happens during combat, then the complexity involved in movement becomes apparent. This is why military trainers specifically record and analyze things like troop movement in armor battles.

Turns out, when two good teams are playing, "killing mechs" is anything but simple.

Now, to answer your question about whether it will be easier for a competitive team to beat a bunch of noobs in one mode vs. The other? It's an empty question... As their victory will basically be trivial in both cases. The pubbies are just meat in such a game. As they will be in any skill based competition.

But really, that's how it should be. If you come up with some game mode where the disorganized bads somehow have a chance to win against highly skilled and organized players, that would just mean that you have removed all so from the game and reduced it to mostly luck based.

[MischiefSC]

Roland, on 24 December 2014 - 08:44 PM, said:

You suggested that the tactics involved in killing mechs was simpler than the tactics involved in objective based gameplay.

This is not at all supported by reality.

Killing mechs requires an infinitely deep set of tactics and counter tactics, limited only by the skills of your team and your opponents.

The simplistic objectives available in mwo don't even scratch the surface of that kind of depth. They are ridiculously simple by comparison. And their effect is not additive. That is, the objectives do not provide you with all of the complexity of combat based outcomes, plus additional complexity, as some would erroneously argue. They actually reduce the complexity of the game by dramatically reducing the potential paths to victory in terms of mobility across the terrain.

To the naive, who perceives attrition based outcomes as something simple, this is hard to grasp, because they aren't really aware of what leads one team to kill another. But if you actually understand what happens during combat, then the complexity involved in movement becomes apparent. This is why military trainers specifically record and analyze things like troop movement in armor battles.

Turns out, when two good teams are playing, "killing mechs" is anything but simple.

Now, to answer your question about whether it will be easier for a competitive team to beat a bunch of noobs in one mode vs. The other? It's an empty question... As their victory will basically be trivial in both cases. The pubbies are just meat in such a game. As they will be in any skill based competition.

But really, that's how it should be. If you come up with some game mode where the disorganized bads somehow have a chance to win against highly skilled and organized players, that would just mean that you have removed all so from the game and reduced it to mostly luck based.

Well aware. The point though is that the current Invasion game mode absolutely includes *all* of that. You can (and I often do) win matches on attrition.

The point is that it's more than that. Sometimes you play against a team you absolutely are not going to beat on attrition - your team lacks the skills to do so. So then what? You just... lose? Why bother? That's the fundamental issue that killed pre-Elo 8v8 with 4mans in it.

Disorganized bads have no chance of winning against organized, skilled players. No matter the game mode. The point though is that there are more skills to MW:O than point and click. A viable skill, absolutely. Just not the only one. Running the shell game on attack, setting up the right firing lines on defense. These are critical skills and ones you can (with a willing group of folks) set up in CW that are not really viable on a Skirmish only game match. Straight combat, especially with respawns, inspires the sort of pug play we have in the pug queue. People play like they do in pugs specifically *because* there are no clear coordination rewards - only doing damage and getting kills.

That is what CW rewards. Playing as a team, focusing to objectives and sticking to the plan gives everyone a reward, more than just hanging back, trying to run up damage and kills. A skirmish mode would destroy that.

I beat organized teams with pubbies all the time. They win regularly. Marik/Davion line is full of games that are 50 or 60% pubbies and they are pretty badass and know how to play to the team. Go to the Clan border... not so much.

It's not about pugs vs groups in CW. It's about team players vs non-team players. There are plenty of 4-6mans who don't play to the team and are worse than the pugs they're dropping with. They may get damage/kills but cost the match.

Edited by MischiefSC, 24 December 2014 - 10:46 PM.

[operatorZ]

operatorZ, on 24 December 2014 - 09:19 AM, said:

but I am not talking about total meaningless deathmatch....Invasion is &quot;deathmatch with objectives&quot; just like conquest is &quot;deathmatch with objectives&quot;. Ignoring the zerg rush...... the only way you get to your objectives is to win at least a portion of the &quot;deathmatch&quot;. If you fight a battle for a planet..one battle ....and you win by accomplishing the objectives by deathmatch or generators; than you have won one section of that planet....how is this not contributing to the overall strategy of CW ? It's always a deathmatch in some form..every single time.

As long as forces are taking and holding ground; the loss of all or none of your mechs has a purpose....it does &quot;further your factions cause&quot;...by definition

And there are plenty of examples of &quot;deathmatch&quot; between opposing forces in lore so lets not go there...battles wouldn't end until all other mechs in the battle were destroyed or captured...in fact if anything destroying the gauss cannon without doing this is way more unrealistic than destroying all opposition and then taking the objective...

Also, actual military strategy concerning preservation of forces has no bearing in the current game setup...

if PGI instituted real role playing for CW where your mechs were your personal mechs with an economy, salvage and money than what your talking about makes more sense...but we aren't there right now.

Nice words .....but my point still stands,

yes...killing the enemy is an objective

And no...this isn't real military strategy nor even close to it....

So save the Sun Tzu...and the exaggerated methodology ....if you can't say it clearly...don't

[Roadbeer]

operatorZ, on 24 December 2014 - 10:46 PM, said:

Nice words .....but my point still stands,

yes...killing the enemy is an objective

And no...this isn't real military strategy nor even close to it....

So save the Sun Tzu...and the exaggerated methodology ....if you can't say it clearly...don't

No, it isn't.

Until the mission objective reads "Destroy X number of mechs" when attacking, my objectives remain the same, any mechs destroyed along the way is just a happy accident.

The only time destroying mechs are my objective are when they come knocking on the door to my base, and it is my objective to repel them.

Why is this concept so foreign to some people?

[operatorZ]

And this slippery slope argument is getting tired and worn out...."can't have skirmish because it'll mean the end of CW" really?

You don't think there is a little bit of exaggeration there?

Not all?

Oooooooh K

[Roadbeer]

operatorZ, on 24 December 2014 - 10:53 PM, said:

And this slippery slope argument is getting tired and worn out...."can't have skirmish because it'll mean the end of CW" really?

You don't think there is a little bit of exaggeration there?

Not all?

Oooooooh K

No, we can't have skirmish mode because it sucks.

Nothing else needs to be said.

The only objective in Skirmish mode is to prove who is the least derpy of the derps.

MURDERBALL....HOOOOOOO!

Edited by Roadbeer, 24 December 2014 - 10:55 PM.

[The Flying Gecko]

Cw mode IS deathmatch.

Oh sure you COULDshoot the generators, but why bother? The damage doesn't count towards your match score, the 1,000 cbills you get IF you get the killing blow on a turret is negligible (although taking out the turrets will help your death-match game). The 50k and 50 Loyalty Points for a win is pocket change.

If you plan a co-ordinates assault on the objectives, you'll probablyLOSE MONEY on consumables.

You get more rewards for fighting to the death and losing then going for the objectives and winning. After all, I'm a mercenary so.... (WARNING! VIDEO CONTAINS PROFANITY!)

https://www.youtube....G7aQTHA#t=2m42s

[operatorZ]

Roadbeer, on 24 December 2014 - 10:49 PM, said:

No, it isn't.

Until the mission objective reads &quot;Destroy X number of mechs&quot; when attacking, my objectives remain the same, any mechs destroyed along the way is just a happy accident.

The only time destroying mechs are my objective are when they come knocking on the door to my base, and it is my objective to repel them.

Why is this concept so foreign to some people?

The concept is not foreign....the idea that killing the enemy is not even essential or needed to obtain ANY objectives is....

"And no coordination or skill is needed for killing the enemy...just shooting generators...and we don't even have to shoot the enemy because if I'm not defending I don't even have to kill the enemy......"

That's what I get from your post...sorry...could be I'm tired and not reading correctly

Roadbeer, on 24 December 2014 - 10:54 PM, said:

No, we can't have skirmish mode because it sucks.

Nothing else needs to be said.

The only objective in Skirmish mode is to prove who is the least derpy of the derps.

MURDERBALL....HOOOOOOO!

Yes because that equates exactly....."nothing else needs to be said" ...I guess if you don't like shooting the enemy....

[Roadbeer]

operatorZ, on 24 December 2014 - 10:59 PM, said:

The concept is not foreign....the idea that killing the enemy is not even essential or needed to obtain ANY objectives is....

"And no coordination or skill is needed for killing the enemy...just shooting generators...and we don't even have to shoot the enemy because if I'm not defending I don't even have to kill the enemy......"

That's what I get from your post...sorry...could be I'm tired and not reading correctly





Yes because that equates exactly....."nothing else needs to be said" ...I guess if you don't like shooting the enemy....

I'm betting you always run to the PUGZAPPER in Terra Derpa too