77 replies to this topic

[Lukoi Banacek]

Harathan, on 03 February 2015 - 12:02 PM, said:

So just public queue with a map then.



Well yeah. Half of us want CW, the other half want public queue with a map.

Oh I'd loooove CW. I do not want Player controlled factions however.

[MischiefSC]

This is just something you got to accept. PGI is giving us the impression of a big "faction vs faction war" but it is not and never will be by the sounds of it. It's group queue with no Elo and lets you stomp pugs in premades. Factions are irrelevant save on clan vs is deciding mech types you can bring. "Factions" are in truth both mindless and pointless. We actually threw a monkey wrench in with wanting to be faction units. PGI would clearly be happiest if we were all mercs who just chased cbill and lp bonuses.

Cw is, in truth, just a big team death match with a "map". There seems to be no real interest beyond that. Would love to be wrong but they have been clear.

The best agreements can be is unofficial understandings between large merc units. Cw is designed to undercut any long term investment in your faction or, really, any long term results or consequence.

Amazingly PGI seems to be building a game the players shouldn't care about. It's like building explosives into the foundation of your house. Why leave anything to chance I guess?

[Yokaiko]

Don't know what front you are on that is all pugs and groups like that, I'd say at least 3/5th of the games I play in a team are team vs team the only time I see a lot of pugs is when pugging.

If fact today in the two games that I played before 1) was a pug (us) defeating a 12 man, and the 2) was a pug vs pug slughter (they won). I've said it before people are either being over-dramatic, or simply have the worst luck either.

Either way, its not the kiddie pool, you know what the odds are if you drop solo against a group. So if it bothers you that much, get grouped.


Why is this hard?

Edited by Yokaiko, 03 February 2015 - 02:18 PM.

[Kjudoon]

Harathan, on 03 February 2015 - 12:02 PM, said:

So just public queue with a map then.



Well yeah. Half of us want CW, the other half want public queue with a map.

Yep. Just a big ole PQ with respawn and maps for bragging rights. Been saying this since day 2. Took me a day to realize that's really what I was seeing.

This will not change either till PGI comes out with Phase 3: Logistics. They better be very quick about it too, because Joseph Mallen nailed it as well. This community IS toxic to itself. Incredibly so.

[Roadbeer]

Kjudoon, on 03 February 2015 - 03:12 PM, said:

This community The Internet IS toxic to itself. Incredibly so.

Fixed that for you.

[oldradagast]

Kjudoon, on 03 February 2015 - 03:12 PM, said:

Yep. Just a big ole PQ with respawn and maps for bragging rights. Been saying this since day 2. Took me a day to realize that's really what I was seeing.

This will not change either till PGI comes out with Phase 3: Logistics. They better be very quick about it too, because Joseph Mallen nailed it as well. This community IS toxic to itself. Incredibly so.

If they want CW to be anything more than a pointless PUG stomp, where the most one can hope for is to be doing the stomping (which is also boring, at least for mature adults who don't need validation from a video game), they'll need to add a lot more to it. Some ideas include:

1) Logistics: What if winning or losing meant something other than gaining pixels on a map? Now, the old R&R system was a mess, at least from what I've heard... any game system that can set things up so it is more economical NOT to play has problems... but it would still bear some investigation to see if there was some way to offer an economic side to CW.

2) Interlinked missions. What if success on Mission 1 changed the options on mission 2? Heck, games as far back as Warcraft had different branches in their mission paths for success and failure. I'm not saying this would be easy to pull off, but the concept would add a continuous dimension to CW and make it feel more like a war vs. pointless skirmishes over and over again.

3) Vastly expanded missions and maps: Create maps with variable objectives - search and destroy, rescue missions, guard a convoy, etc. If done right, these would provide far better dynamic interaction and game play vs. "hide in the base and shoot targets" or "rush the generator over and over again."

The sky is the limit... but only if the goal is more than getting people to grind the latest meta mech so they can feel good about themselves while pot-shotting targets wandering through an obvious kill zone that shouldn't even be on a properly designed map in the first place.

Edited by oldradagast, 03 February 2015 - 03:51 PM.

[Bigbacon]

as of right now it is pretty much just ERLL warfare...with some PPC for good measure.

[Harathan]

Roadbeer, on 03 February 2015 - 03:27 PM, said:

Fixed that for you.

Not all of it is toxic. A lot is, but not all.

[N0MAD]

MischiefSC, on 03 February 2015 - 02:12 PM, said:

This is just something you got to accept. PGI is giving us the impression of a big "faction vs faction war" but it is not and never will be by the sounds of it. It's group queue with no Elo and lets you stomp pugs in premades. Factions are irrelevant save on clan vs is deciding mech types you can bring. "Factions" are in truth both mindless and pointless. We actually threw a monkey wrench in with wanting to be faction units. PGI would clearly be happiest if we were all mercs who just chased cbill and lp bonuses.

Cw is, in truth, just a big team death match with a "map". There seems to be no real interest beyond that. Would love to be wrong but they have been clear.

The best agreements can be is unofficial understandings between large merc units. Cw is designed to undercut any long term investment in your faction or, really, any long term results or consequence.

Amazingly PGI seems to be building a game the players shouldn't care about. It's like building explosives into the foundation of your house. Why leave anything to chance I guess?

Wow bro what happened to you? month ago an previously you were saying CW was the best thing since ..well ever and was the savior, what has happened to you?

[Harathan]

N0MAD, on 03 February 2015 - 04:23 PM, said:

Wow bro what happened to you? month ago an previously you were saying CW was the best thing since ..well ever and was the savior, what has happened to you?

I dunno about Mischief, but was did it for me was not the realization that CW is just pub queue with a map, but realization of the astonishing number of people who not only want no more from CW than that but are actively hostile to the idea of a game mode with actual depth.

[Ax2Grind]

Harathan, on 03 February 2015 - 04:30 PM, said:

I dunno about Mischief, but was did it for me was not the realization that CW is just pub queue with a map, but realization of the astonishing number of people who not only want no more from CW than that but are actively hostile to the idea of a game mode with actual depth.

Who are these mysterious haters?

Most folks posting in these forums want more depth. We just don't all agree to what that looks like.

[Kjudoon]

oldradagast, on 03 February 2015 - 03:50 PM, said:

If they want CW to be anything more than a pointless PUG stomp, where the most one can hope for is to be doing the stomping (which is also boring, at least for mature adults who don't need validation from a video game), they'll need to add a lot more to it. Some ideas include:

1) Logistics: What if winning or losing meant something other than gaining pixels on a map? Now, the old R&R system was a mess, at least from what I've heard... any game system that can set things up so it is more economical NOT to play has problems... but it would still bear some investigation to see if there was some way to offer an economic side to CW.

2) Interlinked missions. What if success on Mission 1 changed the options on mission 2? Heck, games as far back as Warcraft had different branches in their mission paths for success and failure. I'm not saying this would be easy to pull off, but the concept would add a continuous dimension to CW and make it feel more like a war vs. pointless skirmishes over and over again.

3) Vastly expanded missions and maps: Create maps with variable objectives - search and destroy, rescue missions, guard a convoy, etc. If done right, these would provide far better dynamic interaction and game play vs. "hide in the base and shoot targets" or "rush the generator over and over again."

The sky is the limit... but only if the goal is more than getting people to grind the latest meta mech so they can feel good about themselves while pot-shotting targets wandering through an obvious kill zone that shouldn't even be on a properly designed map in the first place.

1. That's been my point from Day 2.

2. Never going to happen. That involves PvE writing and storylines. Something PGI does not have the skill for.

3. Missions aren't part of the game. They threw that out when they abandoned role warfare with all powerful assault lights and maps the size of postage stamps or made with an arena mentality and single points of interest to fight over. Maps are. So you will get maps. Problem is they will all just be bigger versions of Forest Colony.

Roadbeer, on 03 February 2015 - 03:27 PM, said:

Fixed that for you.

Hmmm.... MOST of the Internet, I'd agree. Not even pouring Coke into the servers will stop that.

[Lukoi Banacek]

Harathan, on 03 February 2015 - 04:30 PM, said:

I dunno about Mischief, but was did it for me was not the realization that CW is just pub queue with a map, but realization of the astonishing number of people who not only want no more from CW than that but are actively hostile to the idea of a game mode with actual depth.

Oh I think this is completely incorrect.

I think the vast majority want something that adds depth. That brings Loyalist units and Mercs into very different functions, with distinct pros and cons. That adds logistical considerations, economic considerations, diplomacy options etc.

What we don't want is player controlled factions, which several folks on these forums seem to think they are entitled to or defines "depth."

You can add depth, without having players running the factions. Very easily in fact. Given PGI's size, speed at implementation etc, I'm not shocked that we have a very shallow experience currently, and I certainly hope that changes in the future. I'm hopeful that it will. Don't confuse folks not wanting player overlords with not wanting depth to the game.

[Molossian Dog]

Who says you can´t have player participation without completely handing over faction control to a dark camarilla of self entitled player overlords?

The simple differentiation between "what should be done" and "how should it be done" alone suffices for that.

Sidenote: There is no need for every mission to inevitably be about gaining or loosing a whole planet. But this goes into the region of "missions" and yeah apparently we can´t have that.

[Alexander Steel]

If you think people violating NAPs and the like are bad now, wait until PGI actually makes owning and putting your tag on a planet worth something. People are giving units trying to play at running their faction the finger now over dots on a map and tags that give them no benefit. Think on that...

[Lukoi Banacek]

Alexander Steel, on 03 February 2015 - 04:51 PM, said:

If you think people violating NAPs and the like are bad now, wait until PGI actually makes owning and putting your tag on a planet worth something. People are giving units trying to play at running their faction the finger now over dots on a map and tags that give them no benefit. Think on that...

I look forward to planetary tagging conferring some minor benefit to units. It will inspire competition, trickery, subterfuge, vicious fighting etc etc. There's enough trash talk and sparring now while the tags mean nothing.

[Molossian Dog]

Alexander Steel, on 03 February 2015 - 04:51 PM, said:

...People are giving units trying to play at running their faction the finger now over dots on a map and tags that give them no benefit. Think on that...

Done.

It is going to be hilarious.

Edited by Molossian Dog, 03 February 2015 - 04:56 PM.

[N0MAD]

Lukoi Banacek, on 03 February 2015 - 04:44 PM, said:

Oh I think this is completely incorrect.

I think the vast majority want something that adds depth. That brings Loyalist units and Mercs into very different functions, with distinct pros and cons. That adds logistical considerations, economic considerations, diplomacy options etc.

What we don't want is player controlled factions, which several folks on these forums seem to think they are entitled to or defines "depth."

You can add depth, without having players running the factions. Very easily in fact. Given PGI's size, speed at implementation etc, I'm not shocked that we have a very shallow experience currently, and I certainly hope that changes in the future. I'm hopeful that it will. Don't confuse folks not wanting player overlords with not wanting depth to the game.

Logistics in a universe where short jumps should takes days, long jumps weeks? when planets are being attacked every 8 hours? .
Economy with most players owning dozens of mechs each and tens if not hundreds of millions in currency?
Diplomacy with units being able to change factions at will and able to play multiple accounts for different factions at the same time.
Well good luck with that.

[Kjudoon]

Alexander Steel, on 03 February 2015 - 04:51 PM, said:

If you think people violating NAPs and the like are bad now, wait until PGI actually makes owning and putting your tag on a planet worth something. People are giving units trying to play at running their faction the finger now over dots on a map and tags that give them no benefit. Think on that...

That's the one thing that will alienate the "I don't want consequences but want respawn" minority of the MWO population.

I fail to see this a bad thing if they rage quit, because far more will come in.

N0MAD, on 03 February 2015 - 04:59 PM, said:

Logistics in a universe where short jumps should takes days, long jumps weeks? when planets are being attacked every 8 hours? .
Economy with most players owning dozens of mechs each and tens if not hundreds of millions in currency?
Diplomacy with units being able to change factions at will and able to play multiple accounts for different factions at the same time.
Well good luck with that.

It's a variant of the economic principle of dealing on a scarcity of resources. You either control it's distribution by price or by rationing. In the case of something based on distance and time, you have to either limit range, or you have to charge increased jump costs.

Of course, you need to put units and players into the map as assets with movement rules and other limitations.

[Alexander Steel]

Molossian Dog, on 03 February 2015 - 04:55 PM, said:

Done.

It is going to be hilarious.

I'm imagining the level of butthurt over it will be..... I can't help myself... OVER 9000!!!!