108 replies to this topic

[Hans Von Lohman]

Does it seem odd to anybody else that there are not a lot of closer run games? It seems to me that the first team to score 2 or 3 kill over the enemy is the team that will win.

That leads to the majority of the match essentially being cleanup, and the team with the fewer players can only hope to score a moral victory by at least taking down a few more enemies so it isn't as one-sided.

It seems weird to me as I have been playing World of Warships a lot lately, and there the matches nearly always seem to be a lot closer run things. Especially with the ability to capture the enemy flag and win that way. Since we got base turrets I think I've seen can count base capture wins on one hand in total.

Edited by Hans Von Lohman, 28 May 2015 - 01:58 AM.

[MeiSooHaityu]

Well, being up 3 kills is almost like being up a lance. That's a huge number advantage.

I've seen those leads dissolve though. Sometimes the cost to get those kills is paid in big damage. Then some enemy players run and quickly take out those damaged mechs and maybe even take the lead. It is a rarer occurence, but I have seen it happen.

Normally when we go down 3 mechs and lose, it isn't after a few min of engagement, but early and by 3 mechs that didn't even break 100 DMG. Whether it's because they got separated by being too slow in a NASCAR maneuver or ran off on their own.

It really seems like the team with the highest number of sub 100 DMG players is the one that loses. Just an observation though.

[STEF_]

Man, how could be possible in other way?
I mean: a team is 3 mechs up, so it's a 90% win.

Would you like the instant random death of 3 mechs, so to balance the match again?

[ArchAngelWC]

I think a lot of times its the mental "ahh we lost" and then people stop playing smart..using cover and movement...so it turns into a steamroll...wheras if they buckled down they could possibly even the odds and make it into a game

[Alistair Winter]

Yeah, it kind of blows. But that's pretty much an inevitable consequence of 12 v 12, no respawn and relatively high TTK compared to other games. If instant kills were a factor in this game, then there would be a lot more unpredictability. A gauss sniper or a fast heavy mech would be able to take out a whole team, given a high enough skill disparity.

12 v 12 on small maps and high TTK ensures that individual skill is less of a factor.

8 v 8 will still make each death more significant, but at least the matches will last longer and TTK will be increased. But the biggest issue is the fact that the maps and game modes are basically meat grinders designed to funnel 12-man teams against each other. If there was more lance vs lance engagements, matches would last longer and - in my opinion- be a lot more entertaining.

MeiSooHaityu, on 28 May 2015 - 02:27 AM, said:

It really seems like the team with the highest number of sub 100 DMG players is the one that loses. Just an observation though.

I imagine there's strong correlation, but of course that doesn't say anything about causality. The team with the highest number of 0 kill players also tends to lose (though not always).

[sycocys]

Yes it bothers me that pug players have this steadfast refusal to work as a team or use the communication and grouping tools for anything other than cussing out the players and making very inappropriate comments to those that didn't carry them to a win.

Edited by sycocys, 28 May 2015 - 02:52 AM.

[TWIAFU]

Hans Von Lohman, on 28 May 2015 - 01:57 AM, said:

Does it seem odd to anybody else that there are not a lot of closer run games? It seems to me that the first team to score 2 or 3 kill over the enemy is the team that will win.

That leads to the majority of the match essentially being cleanup, and the team with the fewer players can only hope to score a moral victory by at least taking down a few more enemies so it isn't as one-sided.

It seems weird to me as I have been playing World of Warships a lot lately, and there the matches nearly always seem to be a lot closer run things. Especially with the ability to capture the enemy flag and win that way. Since we got base turrets I think I've seen can count base capture wins on one hand in total.

No, not odd at all. It is psychological.

[Joseph Mallan]

Hans Von Lohman, on 28 May 2015 - 01:57 AM, said:

Does it seem odd to anybody else that there are not a lot of closer run games? It seems to me that the first team to score 2 or 3 kill over the enemy is the team that will win.

That leads to the majority of the match essentially being cleanup, and the team with the fewer players can only hope to score a moral victory by at least taking down a few more enemies so it isn't as one-sided.

It seems weird to me as I have been playing World of Warships a lot lately, and there the matches nearly always seem to be a lot closer run things. Especially with the ability to capture the enemy flag and win that way. Since we got base turrets I think I've seen can count base capture wins on one hand in total.

Attrition does that you know. The less you have to bring to the fight, the easier it becomes to roll you. It is the physics of battle. You may as well ask for the sun to set in the East.

[TWIAFU]

sycocys, on 28 May 2015 - 02:51 AM, said:

Yes it bothers me that pug players have this steadfast refusal to work as a team or use the communication and grouping tools for anything other than cussing out the players and making very inappropriate comments to those that didn't carry them to a win.

Spot on!

PUGs ask for and get, VOIP, Faction Chat, and LFG to make game easier to play and for them to make groups. Tools asked for, received, and not used.

Now PUGs want the team centric portion of the game, CW, to be made more PUG friendly so they do not have to fight groups in the group focused part of the game.

??

I have seen this happen recently, a group centric game forced to cater to and change to suit the solo player. That change ruined the game experience and dumbed it down below the lowest common denominator.

Those that enjoy other humans, like to game with them and friends, must stand up and fight tooth and nail to keep the group centric focus in CW and not let MWO become a solo game with a group option.

[Joseph Mallan]

ArchAngelWC, on 28 May 2015 - 02:38 AM, said:

I think a lot of times its the mental "ahh we lost" and then people stop playing smart..using cover and movement...so it turns into a steamroll...wheras if they buckled down they could possibly even the odds and make it into a game

It's part of the equation. But once my team kills one of your guys. we can double team another player, then either triple team or double team two. You see how it becomes easy to roll a team once attrition begins?

[Joseph Mallan]

TWIAFU, on 28 May 2015 - 03:39 AM, said:

I have seen this happen recently, a group centric game forced to cater to and change to suit the solo player. That change ruined the game experience and dumbed it down below the lowest common denominator.

This is not true. No DEV HAS to cater to any one group. All they have to do is be willing to accept the fall out. Personally I don't do blackmail. And this is what DEVs are caving to.

If you don't make the game MY way. I'll take my money elsewhere.

Cheapest form of bullying I ever saw. And designers cave. Cause they wanna make money.

If I were a designer, I'd rather my game fold than make it something other than what I envision it to be.

If you don't like the game. Walk away! Prove you have integrity.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 28 May 2015 - 03:48 AM.

[William Mountbank]

4 is my number. In all my thousands of MWO games, I've only ever seen two matches with a comeback win despite one team going 4 down, and one of those was my favourite ever match (Caustic, ASRM Cent-AH, a well chosen death run into the caldera turned out to be a win run).

It's still possible to (male chicken) up a 3 kill lead in pugland.

Edited by William Mountbank, 28 May 2015 - 04:23 AM.

[Mazzyplz]

3 kill lead is not a win.
even 5 kill lead you can make a comeback from. depends on who's dead.

if you can get some lucky shots on the enemy, get their back, cockpit, or blast a light mech with a big alpha - you can get 1-2 kills in an instant, player number advantage goes poof, although just the numbers don't really mean anything, 4 kit foxes are not the same as 4 stalkers


THE single most important thing you (or your team) have to do to make a comeback is not throw the towel.
often when one team is 3-4 kills up, the other team just throws the towel and makes a leroy charge or run away.
that's not a game issue, it's psychological

sometimes the match really is done, but often the team that is down 4 players just plain gives up, i see it every day several times a day - if the team has no good teamwork, i will also do it myself, go out in the open and shoot someone with an orange ct before going down

Edited by Mazzyplz, 28 May 2015 - 04:32 AM.

[mogs01gt]

Alistair Winter, on 28 May 2015 - 02:41 AM, said:

Yeah, it kind of blows. But that's pretty much an inevitable consequence of 12 v 12, no respawn and relatively high TTK compared to other games. If instant kills were a factor in this game, then there would be a lot more unpredictability. A gauss sniper or a fast heavy mech would be able to take out a whole team, given a high enough skill disparity.

12 v 12 on small maps and high TTK ensures that individual skill is less of a factor.

8 v 8 will still make each death more significant, but at least the matches will last longer and TTK will be increased. But the biggest issue is the fact that the maps and game modes are basically meat grinders designed to funnel 12-man teams against each other. If there was more lance vs lance engagements, matches would last longer and - in my opinion- be a lot more entertaining.


I imagine there's strong correlation, but of course that doesn't say anything about causality. The team with the highest number of 0 kill players also tends to lose (though not always).

this x 100!!! This game needs more lance vs lance combat!

This issue is more on which mechs you lost. 3 lights, well who gives a ****. 3 Assaults, whether they are 100t's or not,it hurts!

Edited by mogs01gt, 28 May 2015 - 04:38 AM.

[Jetfire]

MeiSooHaityu, on 28 May 2015 - 02:27 AM, said:

It really seems like the team with the highest number of sub 100 DMG players is the one that loses. Just an observation though.

Bingo, if you have a bunch of players doing sub 100 dmg you cannot win with any real odds. I think the issue comes largely from the MM using average team ELO instead of tiered ELO like Starcraft 2 for example. The std dev on the team ELO is far larger on the losing team typically.

Edited by Jetfire, 28 May 2015 - 04:43 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

mogs01gt, on 28 May 2015 - 04:36 AM, said:

this x 100!!! This game needs more lance vs lance combat!

This issue is more on which mechs you lost. 3 lights, well who gives a ****. 3 Assaults, whether they are 100t's or not,it hurts!

Do you mean 4 on 4 or the 3 lances working in unison?

Cause if you think 12 on 12 ends lopsided... Imagine how fast it'll be when 4 shiv 1.

[Violent Tendencies]

TWIAFU, on 28 May 2015 - 03:39 AM, said:

Now PUGs want the team centric portion of the game, CW, to be made more PUG friendly so they do not have to fight groups in the group focused part of the game.

I have seen this happen recently, a group centric game forced to cater to and change to suit the solo player. That change ruined the game experience and dumbed it down below the lowest common denominator.

Those that enjoy other humans, like to game with them and friends, must stand up and fight tooth and nail to keep the group centric focus in CW and not let MWO become a solo game with a group option.

I disagree....This is not a group centric game, but a solo game in which advantages and success probability are greatly improved through cooperative teamwork.

[H Seldon]

Had a funny match yesterday. I drive assaults 97% of the time. Was playing in the bog in a DW and the faster mechs just took off. So of course the assault lance tried to keep up. We got flanked by lights and mediums. It was around 6 mechs. I called for help and launched a UAV. Not one came back. The king crab that was with me got taken out fast. I took out one of the mediums but only did 187 damage. I complained on chat that you don't leave your assault lance behind especially when they are getting flanked. That I average 450 in the mech but only did 187, so a lot of damage was left unused. The response I got back was "Don't play a DW". We lost the match 3-12. I agree with MeiSooHeityu, it's the number of mechs that do sub 100 damage, or an assault that does less that 200, that seems to shift the match to a loss.

[mogs01gt]

Joseph Mallan, on 28 May 2015 - 04:47 AM, said:

Do you mean 4 on 4 or the 3 lances working in unison?
Cause if you think 12 on 12 ends lopsided... Imagine how fast it'll be when 4 shiv 1.

lance vs lance so 4 mechs vs 4 mechs.

More or less how battlemech battles went in the novels. Lances vs lances spread across a large area but for MWO make each lance have each weight class. Randomized spawns also. I think if it was lance vs lance, faster Assaults might have chance since they could possibly out maneuver the heavy mechs. Much easier said then done obviously.

[Joseph Mallan]

mogs01gt, on 28 May 2015 - 04:51 AM, said:

lance vs lance so 4 mechs vs 4 mechs.

More or less how battlemech battles went in the novels. Lances vs lances spread across a large area but for MWO make each lance have each weight class. Randomized spawns also. I think if it was lance vs lance, faster Assaults might have chance since they could possibly out maneuver the heavy mechs. Much easier said then done obviously.

That'll end in 2 minutes.