71 replies to this topic

[XX Sulla XX]

OK question. If CW was less of a time investment would you play more. So you could play a match closer to normal match times would you do that?

The reason I ask I get the feeling a lot of people do not like setting aside that much time when many times matches are very one sided.

[Johny Rocket]

Yes, I like the maps more and like the length of matches to but hate the wait time to drop. Its freaking ridiculous to wait 15-30 min for a match.

[Macksheen]

Yes.

[Xetelian]

Yes. If it was 15-20 instead of 30 minutes I'd be happy.

[Coolant]

yes i would play more, absolutely....

[Alistair Winter]

No, probably not. I just fundamentally don't enjoy the way the CW matches are played. If you play to win as the attacker, you have to zerg rush generators and basically just accept that death is inevitable, often to the point of ignoring the mechs shooting you point blank in the face. If you don't play to win and just try to make it a fun game, it's still hard to enjoy just because the odds are so severely stacked against you due to the terrain and the way the maps are designed. Unless the defenders are really outclassed, it ends up as a meat grinder.

At its very best, at its very finest, CW plays like a game of Assault / Skirmish.

So I'll just play Assault / Skirmish.

[Mystere]

I'd rather have shorter waiting times than shorter battles.

[Stealth Fox]

I like the long missions, I just hate the equally long wait to drop on them.

[Kilo 40]

The only thing stopping me from playing CW, is that it's not fun unless you are in a large group, and you enjoy light rushes and spawn camping.

When its fun, then I'll play.

[One Medic Army]

Tractor Joe, on 22 April 2015 - 03:33 PM, said:

Yes, I like the maps more and like the length of matches to but hate the wait time to drop. Its freaking ridiculous to wait 15-30 min for a match.

This exactly.

It's not the match length that kills me, it's how long I spend reading a book/watching TV waiting for an actual match.

[rolly]

XX Sulla XX, on 22 April 2015 - 02:32 PM, said:

OK question. If CW was less of a time investment would you play more. So you could play a match closer to normal match times would you do that?

The reason I ask I get the feeling a lot of people do not like setting aside that much time when many times matches are very one sided.

No. I'd rather play a longer battle with less que time but more tactical team play and secondary/additional objectives. Not this silly Generator rush stuff. I'd rather spend more time engaging with the "Community", not less.

[Cabbage Merchant]

Yes. I'm so busy with work, school, and family life that I'm lucky if I get 1-2 hours of game time a week. As is I'm lucky if I can drop into 3 CW matches in that time. I enjoy playing CW (even if I get stomped pretty often), but the time investment per match is just too darn high!

[Burktross]

Alistair Winter, on 22 April 2015 - 04:51 PM, said:

No, probably not. I just fundamentally don't enjoy the way the CW matches are played. If you play to win as the attacker, you have to zerg rush generators and basically just accept that death is inevitable, often to the point of ignoring the mechs shooting you point blank in the face. If you don't play to win and just try to make it a fun game, it's still hard to enjoy just because the odds are so severely stacked against you due to the terrain and the way the maps are designed. Unless the defenders are really outclassed, it ends up as a meat grinder.

At its very best, at its very finest, CW plays like a game of Assault / Skirmish.

So I'll just play Assault / Skirmish.

Amen.

[Lyoto Machida]

Mystere, on 22 April 2015 - 04:54 PM, said:

I'd rather have shorter waiting times than shorter battles.

This. Also, I'd prefer CW to be more fun before I actually start playing it again.

[Mystere]

Alistair Winter, on 22 April 2015 - 04:51 PM, said:

No, probably not. I just fundamentally don't enjoy the way the CW matches are played. If you play to win as the attacker, you have to zerg rush generators and basically just accept that death is inevitable, often to the point of ignoring the mechs shooting you point blank in the face.

And yet I have seen groups play to win via attrition. But then again those players know how to shoot.

Alistair Winter, on 22 April 2015 - 04:51 PM, said:

If you don't play to win and just try to make it a fun game, it's still hard to enjoy just because the odds are so severely stacked against you due to the terrain and the way the maps are designed. Unless the defenders are really outclassed, it ends up as a meat grinder.

Then I guess you're not going to like this.

[GenghisJr]

Yes. The outcome of the match is often clear early but the game can drag on for another 15 minutes

[Stealth Fox]

Mystere, on 22 April 2015 - 06:09 PM, said:

And yet I have seen groups play to win via attrition. But then again those players know how to shoot.

DERP rolls in and does attrition no matter what.

[Romeo Deluxe]

Look at my signature.

Cut the wait time to 10 minutes. If there is no opposition this will get the dam ghost drop out of the way faster.

Actually I'm not 100% clear on how the wait time works. I recall seeing someone say that the game picks the fight over only one node on the planet. Thus only one match going on for the planet at a time. They should experiment and allow multiple matches, start with 4 or 5 and see how that affects the wait times.

Since Mystere is self advertising so will I here.

Edited by Romeo Deluxe, 22 April 2015 - 07:00 PM.

[Lunatic_Asylum]

Back in the day, we waited for a small computer game to load for 13 minutes. Waiting is nothing compared to the fun one gets.

[Stealth Fox]

lunticasylum, on 22 April 2015 - 08:24 PM, said:

Back in the day, we waited for a small computer game to load for 13 minutes. Waiting is nothing compared to the fun one gets.

Back in the day, games didn't have bugs (not unless you didn't want to kill your company), had the programers heart and soul poured into it, and ooozed life and feel.

MWO? ..not so much.