46 replies to this topic

[Lolpingu]

Hotthedd, on 05 April 2015 - 07:59 PM, said:

Okay, None of that was aimed at you personally.

I didn't accuse you of thinking the game is stale. It was a generic "you". Most people feel like the game is stale and predictable.

As far as the rest, I was not speaking about your mistakes, and didn't mean to imply you made any mistakes. You simply lost the pug lottery on that one. I merely told you what I do in that situation, and never guaranteed it to work. I have been left in the Nascar dust in my Dire Whale too, it happens.

That being said, if I know that the enemy assault lance will always spawn in one place, better players will know it as well, and every match will be exactly the same. Intel may not always be the deciding factor, but it IS a factor.

Again, you're assuming that where the assault lance spawns also determines where the assault lance chooses to go (meaning that if the assault lance always spawns in the middle, it will always go down the same route), which is just not true, at least from personal experience.

Plus, think about it - if the assault lance spawns in the middle, it's going to join at least one of the adjacent lances (assuming that the PUG in question isn't silly enough to split in 3 directions, which, fortunately, it almost never is) - from there, the assault lance can basically dictate where the bulk of the team go - again, something that usually happens when the assault lance spawns in the middle.

Finally, even if my proposition DID make the game more stale, I think it's a fair compromise for the sake of balance and fairness. I want to know that when I go into a match, I can actually PLAY the game, which I couldn't in the situation described in the OP, and similar situations.

Cion, on 05 April 2015 - 08:07 PM, said:

This is a reasonable proposed solution, and much better than the complaints / rage threads of players.

I'd be willing to try it just to see if the complaints (not this thread) go down.

Personally, it doesn't matter to me, I've never complained when by CHOICE I forgo SPEED for FIREPOWER, and get killed, especially in a PUG.
*Can't have it all people, can't have it all... *

Your choice to compromise speed for firepower shouldn't be a factor that can seal your fate from the get-go. We're talking about a video game, not a real life war scenario. During a battle, if your slowness is what causes you to die, that's absolutely fine, but you should always have the option to even participate in that battle to begin with. It's only fair.

Yokaiko, on 05 April 2015 - 08:22 PM, said:

I vote remove River Sh1tty

Serious unreasoning hatred of that map.

I don't have a whole lot of love for River City either - it's tiny, and it has lots of invisible level geometry that you can get stuck on (thereby signing your own death warrant). However, the problem I described in the OP isn't necessarily one that applies exclusively to River City, which is why I'm trying to propose a more general solution.

Xmith, on 05 April 2015 - 10:26 PM, said:

I unchecked skirmish until I mastered my DWF. No problems once mastered. A little more speed is all you need.

I think some just don't pay attention which map and gamemode that dropped in. River City and HPG are 2 maps that require a mech to get going right at the gate. If you don't, you just might get mowed down by a hard push right.

You're missing the underlying issue here - your choice of 'mech shouldn't make certain parts of the game unplayable until you fulfill certain requirements. It's quite simply unfair.

The DW costs 17m+ on it's own - it's unreasonable to expect it to be partially useless until you buy it three times.

Team Chevy86, on 05 April 2015 - 10:43 PM, said:

Honestly... Its mainly the map itself. Its far too small for 24 massive stomping robots. if it were 8v8 (hint hint) the spawn points would be closer together... Or that's what i assume

Yeah. River City needs a serious overhaul, on many different ends.

Grey Ghost, on 06 April 2015 - 02:10 AM, said:

I've just made it a priority at the start to just converge towards wherever the Assault Unit is at, depending on the map. Which has worked out pretty darn well from my perspective. However if I'm in the Assault Unit all bets are off.

You are credit to team!

But seriously, It's unfortunately unreasonable to expect to get into a PUG with someone like you.

Vandul, on 06 April 2015 - 03:46 AM, said:

A trend that I am seeing more and more (and its a good thing) is that ECM light that comes over to the trudgers and provides them with an umbrella until they get into position. I do it when I am in my ECM mechs, and I ensure I thank every ECM pilot that does it when I am one of the disavowed four.

Never happened to me, unfortunately.

Mystere, on 06 April 2015 - 06:00 AM, said:

This needs to be a player-based solution, and not a call for PGI to do something.

MWO is supposed to be a team-oriented game. As such players should be doing their part.

It's very difficult to apply a team-based solution here, because people don't actually CARE about eachother in PUGs, since many of them lack the foresight to understand that staying together and using teamwork gets them more money in the end. You would need a short-term reward - something that encourages mechs to get close to assaults by appealing to their wallet.

Perhaps give mechs a certain amount of c-bills every x seconds they spend in certain proximity to a friendly assault mech. Something like the 'lance in formation' bonus, only... you know... not completely negligible. A 1000cb bonus for every 20 seconds you spend near 2 or more assault mechs sounds like a reasonable incentive to me.

The problem with this is... well... PGI probably don't want to give us any more c-bills, because of the F2P model and all that.

As for appealing to people's morals and logic in PUGs? yeah, straight away, you can see the problem in that.

Edited by Lolpingu, 06 April 2015 - 06:34 AM.

[Mystere]

Lolpingu, on 06 April 2015 - 06:15 AM, said:

Finally, even if my proposition DID make the game more stale, I think it's a fair compromise for the sake of balance and fairness. I want to know that when I go into a match, I can actually PLAY the game, which I couldn't in the situation described in the OP, and similar situations.

I don't think "fairness" and "balance" are issues for the very simple reason that both teams drop under the same conditions. And on a personal level, one should know the risks of dropping with an assault and act accordingly.

Lolpingu, on 06 April 2015 - 06:15 AM, said:

You are credit to team!

But seriously, It's unfortunately unreasonable to expect to get into a PUG with someone like you.


It's very difficult to apply a team-based solution here, because people don't actually CARE about eachother in PUGs, since many of them lack the foresight to understand that staying together and using teamwork gets them more money in the end. You would need a short-term reward - something that encourages mechs to get close to assaults by appealing to their wallet.

I really don't think PGI should compensate and dumb the game even more because of these so-called "lowest common denominator" players.

[Lolpingu]

Mystere, on 06 April 2015 - 06:40 AM, said:

I don't think "fairness" and "balance" are issues for the very simple reason that both teams drop under the same conditions. And on a personal level, one should know the risks of dropping with an assault and act accordingly.

They clearly are, since I died seconds into the match, completely unable to do anything to prevent my death. Additionally, the enemy assault lance could have consisted of faster assaults, meaning that they could have been placed in a more favorable position than me even if they spawned on the edge, because they had more speed, so no, they teams didn't necessarily spawn under the same conditions.
I couldn't "act accordingly" - my fate was sealed from the get-go. I didn't die because I didn't trade fire efficiently or because I got too exposed - I died because I spawned on the very edge and couldn't get away fast enough.
Must I remind you that this is a game? a game is designed to be played, something that was, and is, clearly denied to me in such scenarios.

Mystere, on 06 April 2015 - 06:40 AM, said:

I really don't think PGI should compensate and dumb the game even more because of these so-called "lowest common denominator" players.

There's a significant difference between making a game more accessible and user-friendly, and dumbing a game down. Encouraging teamwork via c-bill rewards, or placing assaults in suitable starting positions, isn't dumbing the game down mechanically. The combat is still the same, it's just initiated in fairer conditions for those who have been getting it in very unfair conditions prior to such a fix being made.

Edited by Lolpingu, 06 April 2015 - 07:33 AM.

[Cion]

Quote (sorry lame format, phone) :Your choice to compromise speed for firepower shouldn't be a factor that can seal your fate from the get-go. We're talking about a video game, not a real life war scenario. During a battle, if your slowness is what causes you to die, that's absolutely fine, but you should always have the option to even participate in that battle to begin with. It's only fair.

/quote.

Even if what you said about a choice sealing your fate at the beginning of a match (which I disagree with this statement) you still mentioned that it is a choice.

Here's why I disagree. Choosing to min / max on certain characteristics of a mech (speed, firepower, durability) and then having issues because you got hit on your weak characteristic is not logic or balanced.

A 48 kph complaining about being picked out and destroyed by a light is along the same lines as a 174 kph mech complaining he got taken out by one shot. Both players took those risks by CHOICE in exchange for a maxed out benefit. Sure a Dire Wolf sucks at positioning itself and even getting to the constantly changing battle front, but give that Dire Wolf a clear line of sight vs ANY other mech in the entire game and they will outgun the enemy. You never see Dire Wolf pilots complaining that they shred through an assault mech's armor in 15 seconds.

Furthermore, your fate in a match is automatically decided. You can call for help. You can do a counter clockwise rotation. You can group up w other players. Etc. Do your teammates always respond? No. Is it enfuriating? Yes, it can be. But it still is possible.

I like versatile mechs, especially when I pug. Although I have 100 tonners i usually don't pug in them because they are too situational. Sometimes they wreck face, others they fall as you described.

Any battlefield, real or game, is malleable changing, dynamic. Fail to adapt and prepare to fail.

Just sharing my viewpoint man, no rage at you intended. I've seen spectacular 48 kph pilots. Some even force the enemy to play by their rules.

Gl dude

[Mystere]

Lolpingu, on 06 April 2015 - 07:21 AM, said:

There's a significant difference between making a game more accessible and user-friendly, and dumbing a game down. Encouraging teamwork via c-bill rewards, or placing assaults in suitable starting positions, isn't dumbing the game down mechanically. The combat is still the same, it's just initiated in fairer conditions for those who have been getting it in very unfair conditions prior to such a fix being made.

In all honesty, and with all due respect, I call reducing the risks associated with choosing to drop in an assault dumbing down the game.

[Sjorpha]

Leaving big tonnage behind is always a stupid move, and stupid moves like that comes from bad communication.

I'm not sure how much moving around spawn points would help, it's quite possible to be left behind in the center spawn point as well. but in my experience asking nicely over VOIP and chat for the team to remember protecting the assaults and other tactical stuff works quite well. Most people welcome communication and coordination, but are just too shy to speak up first. I've been experimenting with speaking up and staying silent, and just taking that first step makes a huge difference.

Last night for example there was a D-DC speaking up declaring that he was going to lead a push for whoever wanted to join in, match won in 3 minutes.

[Lolpingu]

Cion, on 06 April 2015 - 08:38 AM, said:

Quote (sorry lame format, phone) :Your choice to compromise speed for firepower shouldn't be a factor that can seal your fate from the get-go. We're talking about a video game, not a real life war scenario. During a battle, if your slowness is what causes you to die, that's absolutely fine, but you should always have the option to even participate in that battle to begin with. It's only fair.

/quote.

Even if what you said about a choice sealing your fate at the beginning of a match (which I disagree with this statement) you still mentioned that it is a choice.

Here's why I disagree. Choosing to min / max on certain characteristics of a mech (speed, firepower, durability) and then having issues because you got hit on your weak characteristic is not logic or balanced.

A 48 kph complaining about being picked out and destroyed by a light is along the same lines as a 174 kph mech complaining he got taken out by one shot. Both players took those risks by CHOICE in exchange for a maxed out benefit. Sure a Dire Wolf sucks at positioning itself and even getting to the constantly changing battle front, but give that Dire Wolf a clear line of sight vs ANY other mech in the entire game and they will outgun the enemy. You never see Dire Wolf pilots complaining that they shred through an assault mech's armor in 15 seconds.

Furthermore, your fate in a match is automatically decided. You can call for help. You can do a counter clockwise rotation. You can group up w other players. Etc. Do your teammates always respond? No. Is it enfuriating? Yes, it can be. But it still is possible.

I like versatile mechs, especially when I pug. Although I have 100 tonners i usually don't pug in them because they are too situational. Sometimes they wreck face, others they fall as you described.

Any battlefield, real or game, is malleable changing, dynamic. Fail to adapt and prepare to fail.

Just sharing my viewpoint man, no rage at you intended. I've seen spectacular 48 kph pilots. Some even force the enemy to play by their rules.

Gl dude

First off, as I said before, you have no choice for engine in a Dire Wolf. This being a constant factor that completely destroys your experience in half of the matches you go to is absurd, imbalanced and completely unfair.

A balanced, fair game shouldn't have mechs that are unplayable half the time, regardless of how you play it or how you kit it out.

The game should be playable REGARDLESS of which mech you choose, as long as you don't do something ridiculous such as fitting your mech with a really poor engine or loading it with guns without enough ammo/heat dissipation, but the former is clearly not something that you can do in a Dire Wolf. Hence, it is completely unfair that the very fact that you chose to play a certain mech, is going to deny you the very ability to play the game. All mechs should be playable as long as they are fitted reasonably.

Also, it appears that you didn't OP, as I very clearly mentioned that nothing I did or could have done would have saved me in that scenario or similar scenarios, because I tried everything. The fact that no amount of skill would save me in this kind of scenario is ridiculous. At the end of the day, if your team is terrible, you're gonna die one way or another, but just the fact that I didn't even get a chance to put up a fight and extend my lifespan at least to a degree, is disgusting.

Am I seriously the only one here who believes that dying an unavoidable death at the start of a match is unfair?

Also, do you honestly believe that DWs don't suffer from enough problems as it is?
They are the single biggest firepower magnets in the game - you can always rely on every mech on the enemy team to instantly redirect their fire at you once you even expose so much as a pixel of yourself, if you're in a DW.
The CT is massive and is easily visible from every side, meaning that it gets damaged a lot faster than the CT of a King Crab or an Atlas, plus, your weapons are mounted very low, so you usually have to expose most of your mech when you crest, further exposing yourself to fire.

Couple the above with the fact that it is really slow, and you have yourself the single squishiest mech in the game. Actually putting that firepower to use in a situation where you're not taking massive amounts of return fire is very difficult, which is quite enough of a balancing factor, and unavoidable deaths at the start of a match simply breaks that balance.

Mystere, on 06 April 2015 - 08:46 AM, said:

In all honesty, and with all due respect, I call reducing the risks associated with choosing to drop in an assault dumbing down the game.

But you're missing the point - this risk is unavoidable. There's no way you can use your skill and experience to avoid it.

When you're playing a light mech, you minimize the risk of dying quickly due to a lack of armor, by staying mobile and twisting your mech around to spread incoming fire evenly.

When you're playing an assault, you minimize the risk of taking too much return fire when trading because you couldn't take cover quickly, by poking out to fire without exposing yourself to too many mechs.

When you're loaded with energy weapons, you minimize the risk of overheating by exercising trigger discipline and not putting yourself in fights with mechs that have a lot of sustained firepower.

When you're in a slow mech, you minimize the risk of being overrun seconds into the game, by... what exactly?

Point being - when there's a risk, there should be a way to reduce that risk via skillful play. Here, skill isn't going to save you. Yeah, you can communicate with your team, but that's unrelated to skill - it's related to the collective competence of your team, which is a matter of pure luck, which, again, is something that your ability to actually play the game, shouldn't depend on.

Sjorpha, on 06 April 2015 - 08:55 AM, said:

Leaving big tonnage behind is always a stupid move, and stupid moves like that comes from bad communication.

I'm not sure how much moving around spawn points would help, it's quite possible to be left behind in the center spawn point as well. but in my experience asking nicely over VOIP and chat for the team to remember protecting the assaults and other tactical stuff works quite well. Most people welcome communication and coordination, but are just too shy to speak up first. I've been experimenting with speaking up and staying silent, and just taking that first step makes a huge difference.

Last night for example there was a D-DC speaking up declaring that he was going to lead a push for whoever wanted to join in, match won in 3 minutes.

I've made it pretty clear that attempts to communicate with my team in hopes of them covering me so as to allow me to actually reach a point where I can put my massive firepower to use against the bulk of the enemy team, have generally resulted in failure. I tried both text chat and VOIP, neither of which made a difference in most cases.

Hence, I'm convinced that there needs to be a mechanical change to the game that accounts for the sheer obliviousness of some PUGs, to prevent ridiculous situations like the one described in the OP.

Edited by Lolpingu, 06 April 2015 - 09:27 AM.

[topgun505]

That's not as bad as it can get.

Alpine. Lance of assault mechs spawns at the far SE spawn point. I have literally witnessed games where the match was effectively already over by the time the assaults had reached the main hill and were just starting to get into a position where they could join the fight.

The spawn points (on all maps) need to be made closer to each other. Period. There's no reason they need to be a full 3+ grids apart.

[Lolpingu]

topgun505, on 06 April 2015 - 09:02 AM, said:

That's not as bad as it can get.

Alpine. Lance of assault mechs spawns at the far SE spawn point. I have literally witnessed games where the match was effectively already over by the time the assaults had reached the main hill and were just starting to get into a position where they could join the fight.

The spawn points (on all maps) need to be made closer to each other. Period. There's no reason they need to be a full 3+ grids apart.

Also a reasonable solution. Maybe if the teams spawn closer together, they will also feel more inclined to stay together.

[Mystere]

topgun505, on 06 April 2015 - 09:02 AM, said:

That's not as bad as it can get.

Alpine. Lance of assault mechs spawns at the far SE spawn point. I have literally witnessed games where the match was effectively already over by the time the assaults had reached the main hill and were just starting to get into a position where they could join the fight.

The spawn points (on all maps) need to be made closer to each other. Period. There's no reason they need to be a full 3+ grids apart.

Then don't race for and fight on that darned hill. Alpine Peaks is a huge map, and yet a large chunk of the player base seem to be hypnotically drawn to it like zombies smelling brains.

[Mystere]

Lolpingu, on 06 April 2015 - 08:57 AM, said:

But you're missing the point - this risk is unavoidable. There's no way you can use your skill and experience to avoid it.

And you're missing my point that the risk is totally avoidable by teamwork, in a game designed for teamwork, and billed as a "thinking person's" shooter that requires teamwork to win. That players intentionally chose not to use teamwork is not PGI's fault.

Free-for-all Solaris mode just can't come soon enough. May all the John James Rambo's hopefully confine themselves and knock their socks off in that mode.

Titus Pullo would approve:

Edited by Mystere, 07 April 2015 - 07:45 AM.

[Lolpingu]

Mystere, on 06 April 2015 - 10:06 AM, said:

And you're missing my point that the risk is totally avoidable by teamwork,

...Which doesn't happen most of the time in PUGs.

If you can't adapt the player to the game (which you can't in PUGs), you need to adapt the game to the player.

The fact of the matter is, I get into matches where I die unavoidable deaths because my team didn't listen to me and they didn't use their Mk. I Brain to realize that their assaults need help and that if they save them from dying, the assaults can provide a lot of fire support and win the game. Nothing I tried to do on my end forestalled my death.

My life shouldn't hang solely on the whims of those people. The game requires teamwork, but at the same time, the dependence on teamwork is a bit too excessive, and I've already explained why.

Dying an unavoidable death early into the match is unfair, PERIOD.

Just as a game-breaking bug would prevent you from being able to play the game, so does this.

[HammerForge]

Actually, I have found that if I bother to use the VOIP, Pugs at my level generally follow. They seem to understand more that this is a teamwork game than you are giving them credit for. Simply either type before the match or over voip tell them you are a slow assault and on the smaller maps may need fire support to reach them since you have been getting jumped by lights lately in matches. if you get a group of bad pugs, your death is unavoidable either way.

Also if this is happening when you spawn near the jump ship in river city, throw out the plan to go in the tunnel with one of you walking backwards so that there is a rear guard, if you get jumped there is limited avenues of attack and retreat allowing you to more freely defend from the quick agile lights and bring your massive firepower down on them.

But always, and I mean ALWAYS, ESPECIALLY when in a slow assault, start moving the second the match begins, but you should even if not. The small maps you can quickly get jumped, where as the large maps you might not get to the fight quickly enough.

As for this game relying too much on teamwork, yes, it does rely quite heavily on it, and I am sorry you feel that it is too much, but that is where the game is, and in my opinion where it should be. War is not a one person game. You need to better voice this in your matches if your team is leaving you high and dry often.

[Hotthedd]

What you described is not a game-breaker.

A MATCH breaker, sure. And it sucks to be on a bad team, but you have to accept the risk in an Assault that you might get left behind by a bad team the same way a light takes the risk he might get one-shot EVERY TIME HE DROPS.

I'm sorry this happened to you, but it is part of the game, and does not need to be changed.

[Mystere]

Lolpingu, on 06 April 2015 - 11:44 AM, said:

...Which doesn't happen most of the time in PUGs.

If you can't adapt the player to the game (which you can't in PUGs), you need to adapt the game to the player.

The fact of the matter is, I get into matches where I die unavoidable deaths because my team didn't listen to me and they didn't use their Mk. I Brain to realize that their assaults need help and that if they save them from dying, the assaults can provide a lot of fire support and win the game. Nothing I tried to do on my end forestalled my death.

My life shouldn't hang solely on the whims of those people. The game requires teamwork, but at the same time, the dependence on teamwork is a bit too excessive, and I've already explained why.

MWO is supposed to be a team-oriented. It is designed to allow the better team to win, and more often than not, that is what happens. And there is a really good reason why I like posting that video above.

Lolpingu, on 06 April 2015 - 11:44 AM, said:

Dying an unavoidable death early into the match is unfair, PERIOD.

Just as a game-breaking bug would prevent you from being able to play the game, so does this.

I think your definition of what is "fair" is radically different from mine. As such, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[Almond Brown]

The issue may be more local than the OP gives it credit for.

You know what Map your on while the Teams load.
You know what Mech your driving.
You apparently know where your Lance will be dropped (based on weight of said Mech your driving)
Then there is the "Enemy Drop placement"

Using the Map and the TDM (Skirmish) Match mode we have this.

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...rivercity&m=tdm

Even at 48kph, one should be able to move to safety from the Airport before the 2 Lances the OP speaks of gather and swarm that area. If I had advise to give, I would offer this. One should reset ones Weapons Groups and other general farting about until "after" leaving the Airport area with your, just slightly faster, Assault based friends.

Edited by Almond Brown, 07 April 2015 - 09:01 AM.

[Rollup]

HammerForge, on 07 April 2015 - 06:13 AM, said:

But always, and I mean ALWAYS, ESPECIALLY when in a slow assault, start moving the second the match begins, but you should even if not. The small maps you can quickly get jumped, where as the large maps you might not get to the fight quickly enough.

This^
Seconds count.

[Lolpingu]

HammerForge, on 07 April 2015 - 06:13 AM, said:

Actually, I have found that if I bother to use the VOIP, Pugs at my level generally follow. They seem to understand more that this is a teamwork game than you are giving them credit for. Simply either type before the match or over voip tell them you are a slow assault and on the smaller maps may need fire support to reach them since you have been getting jumped by lights lately in matches. if you get a group of bad pugs, your death is unavoidable either way.

Also if this is happening when you spawn near the jump ship in river city, throw out the plan to go in the tunnel with one of you walking backwards so that there is a rear guard, if you get jumped there is limited avenues of attack and retreat allowing you to more freely defend from the quick agile lights and bring your massive firepower down on them.

But always, and I mean ALWAYS, ESPECIALLY when in a slow assault, start moving the second the match begins, but you should even if not. The small maps you can quickly get jumped, where as the large maps you might not get to the fight quickly enough.

As for this game relying too much on teamwork, yes, it does rely quite heavily on it, and I am sorry you feel that it is too much, but that is where the game is, and in my opinion where it should be. War is not a one person game. You need to better voice this in your matches if your team is leaving you high and dry often.

Another one of you people who didn't bother reading the OP before replying. I've already mentioned that I did everything that was in my power to save myself (including everything that was suggested in the replies), and still died. Please stop emphasizing how important it is to communicate with your team - on top of the fact that you're preaching to the converted, you're also not providing advice that actually works, at least not for me.
If you're getting competent PUGs, that's great - unfortunately, I'm not, and it's preposterous that my very ability to even play the game is decided by a roll of the dice.
I keep mentioning how it's absolutely fair that if your team is incompetent, you're going to die in a battle no matter what - but at the very least, your participation in that battle can give you SOMETHING - a kill, some damage, some way to apply your skill to the game, even if it's a lost game. I've had plenty of matches where I died either because the enemy team was better than my team and we got overwhelmed, or where I simply played like an idiot.
I'm completely fine with those kinds of deaths, because in the former, I can still do well if I play skillfully (hell, I had several losses where I ended up doing 1000+ damage), and in the latter, that death is completely my fault. In both of these scenarios, skill is very much a deciding factor.

In contrast, a death that is caused solely by one's choice of mech, regardless of how one plays it, has nothing to do with skill.

It IS a team-based game. However, the people here appear to see things in a purely black-and-white manner - the game is either purely team-based, or it's not team-based at all, any any small tweak that SLIGHTLY reduces team dependence (in order to make one's choice of mech/mech class slightly less determinal to their ability to play the game), is going to completely disincentivize teamwork, thereby dumbing the game down and destroying it.

Hotthedd, on 07 April 2015 - 06:28 AM, said:

What you described is not a game-breaker.

A MATCH breaker, sure. And it sucks to be on a bad team, but you have to accept the risk in an Assault that you might get left behind by a bad team the same way a light takes the risk he might get one-shot EVERY TIME HE DROPS.

I'm sorry this happened to you, but it is part of the game, and does not need to be changed.

The part of the game that includes actual gameplay exists almost solely within the confines of matches, unless you consider the training grounds and the loadout screen to be gameplay.
Hence, if you are denied the ability to play in matches, you are, for the most part, denied the ability to play the game, by being unavoidably killed at the start of the match. Unless, of course, you're running premades, but the game should be playable regardless of one's choice of company.

Also, it being a part of the game justifies it staying in the game? that's a textbook appeal to tradition.
Would you also like broken map hitboxes, getting stuck on invisible level geometry and broken hit detection on some mechs that allows light mechs to survive an alpha from an assault, straight into their rear CT (because the hits didn't register for whatever reason), to stay in the game because they're currently parts of the game?

Mystere, on 07 April 2015 - 07:49 AM, said:

MWO is supposed to be a team-oriented. It is designed to allow the better team to win, and more often than not, that is what happens. And there is a really good reason why I like posting that video above.

I wasn't killed because the enemy team was necessarily better than my team. The match I described in the OP actually ended up being won by my team, probably because the fast mechs on my team did the same thing that the enemy team did, but better.
I was killed because I was placed in circumstances that are completely and utterly unfitting for an assault mech, particularly one of the slowest assault mechs in the game.
This also leads me to another point - there's not enough of a disincentive for people to leave their assaults behind. Leaving your assaults behind doesn't mean an automatic loss, and I saw several matches end up with a victory from my team even though all the dire wolves, king crabs and atlases were left to die by all the nascar racers.
So in this regard, teamwork is optional - you don't HAVE to keep them alive to win a match, as long as the enemy team is trying to do the same thing, but you're doing it better.

So there - your precious concept of teamwork gets trampled on a regular basis, and people get away with it.

Mystere, on 07 April 2015 - 07:49 AM, said:

I think your definition of what is "fair" is radically different from mine. As such, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.

This just looks like a false dilemma to me.
The failure state in a game should always be avoidable by skill and experience, at least to a degree. When you have a game that leaves you in a failure state which couldn't have been avoided or forestalled by one's skill or experience, you have things like I Wanna Be the Guy and Unfair Mario - if you don't know those games, they are basically platformers where you constantly die to invisible traps, with no conceivable way to have been aware of their existence prior to dying to them. Yeah, try to play those games without getting a stroke.

Almond Brown, on 07 April 2015 - 08:59 AM, said:

The issue may be more local than the OP gives it credit for.

You know what Map your on while the Teams load.
You know what Mech your driving.
You apparently know where your Lance will be dropped (based on weight of said Mech your driving)
Then there is the "Enemy Drop placement"

Using the Map and the TDM (Skirmish) Match mode we have this.

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...rivercity&m=tdm

Even at 48kph, one should be able to move to safety from the Airport before the 2 Lances the OP speaks of gather and swarm that area. If I had advise to give, I would offer this. One should reset ones Weapons Groups and other general farting about until "after" leaving the Airport area with your, just slightly faster, Assault based friends.

Well, as I've mentioned before, River City wasn't the only map where things like this happened. I remember a game on Viridian Bog, where my team rushed ahead and my DW (who spawned right on the edge) was torn apart by 3 light mechs, and my team of course couldn't care less, despite the fact that I kindly asked them not to abandon me at the start of the match, and then asked them to help me when I was attacked by light mechs.

Rollup, on 07 April 2015 - 09:04 AM, said:

This^
Seconds count.

What does it take to convince you people that I've literally done everything in my power to potentially increase my chances of survival, and still died?

No amount of skill or tactics would save me in such a scenario. I'm dead on arrival. Right at the start of the match, I turned to starboard and tried to steam as fast as I could towards the upper city, away from the landing pad. Perhaps I would have survived if a massive aerospace bomber/dropship/whatever that thing is wasn't blocking my way (thereby forcing me to go around, giving the enemy team enough time to reach me), but there it is.

The only mistake I've made in that match was picking the DW to begin with, which, in the current confines of the game, leads me to the conclusion that I shouldn't play the DW to begin with, not in PUGs.

This, however, brings us back to the (quite rhetorical, in my opinion) question of whether or not your ability to play a mech should depend solely on who you choose to play with.

Edited by Lolpingu, 07 April 2015 - 10:45 AM.

[Mystere]

Lolpingu, on 07 April 2015 - 10:22 AM, said:

The failure state in a game should always be avoidable by skill and experience, at least to a degree.

Allow me to clearly illustrate the fundamental source of our difference by modifying your own words:

The failure state in a team-based game should always be avoidable by the team's skill and experience.

As such, your death can be attributed to your team's failure to act like one. And in my opinion, that's how it should be.

[Lolpingu]

Mystere, on 07 April 2015 - 11:02 AM, said:

Allow me to clearly illustrate the fundamental source of our difference by modifying your own words:

The failure state in a team-based game should always be avoidable by the team's skill and experience.

As such, your death can be attributed to your team's failure to act like one. And in my opinion, that's how it should be.

But the team still consists of people, each with their individual levels of skill at the game.
Teamwork simply means people making eachother's skillsets work in tandem. Teamwork IS in fact a function of the skills of the players in that team.
When certain people in the team are denied the opportunity to play and to mix their skills in with the rest of the team, the team's performance is damaged as a direct result because less skill is being applied to the overall output of the team.

By being denied the ability to play the game from the very get-go, I can't apply my mech and my skillset in order to support the team. The option to exercise teamwork is denied to me.

Hence, a game that's supposedly all about teamwork, is actively denying certain people teamwork, in addition to making teamwork optional, as I've demonstrated before. (something which you apparently chose to completely ignore)

Hell, I'd even say that it discourages teamwork through the sheer unreliability of PUGs.
Admit it or not, you're going to trust your team less and less the more terrible matches you had before, where your team have proven themselves to be completely untrustworthy.

Edited by Lolpingu, 07 April 2015 - 12:44 PM.