52 replies to this topic

[MauttyKoray]

Yosharian, on 07 November 2015 - 03:58 AM, said:

Well obviously, what I meant was that I need to clarify in order for my opinion not to be dismissed out of hand.

Its not that you had to clarify, but thank you for sharing your opinion. Its true that not everyone likes just the pure TDM style matches, and even I enjoyed Conquest occasionally to break up the monotony of it. However with the voting system I've only played Conquest maybe two or three times, and it usually ends up with being in a mech simply designed for the TDM style games.

Hopefully with this voting system, new game modes can be put in without worry of dividing the queue. That was the previous reason for the lack of game modes we had, and now with the voting system its a single, giant pool that we no longer have to worry about.

[Xetelian]

I miss conquest but can live with game mode voting because I had all 3 selected anyway so I didn't care which I was dropped into.

The map voting is the problem in my eyes.

However I can see why people wouldn't like skirmish, its bland TDM. In assault 1 light can run to the base and cause half a team to run back and that little bugger just split the enemy team in half and we win.

Sometimes only 1 light goes back and they have an epic dog fight, sometimes that light is me.

Conquest at least gave me an objective outside the TDM monotony.

[WarZ]

The biggest issues with skirmish simply are:

It only encourages:

- Go as big as possible, with best possible alpha.
- Deathball only - seriously don't even think about flanking away from the team.
- Whoever gets to the better camping spots first wins. Usually.
- Little to no team movement or manuevering once combat starts.

Lame because:

- Small area camping. Most of the map gets completely unused.
- Absolutely no variety in gameplay. I mean really, every match plays almost identical.
- Flanking means little to nothing, and mostly just a detriment to team.
- Brawling is discouraged, until most mechs are pretty much wrecked.
- Effective build variety is signficantly reduced. Aka, F your fun builds.
- Therefore highly promotes meta only builds.
- Rarely will you ever get a 1v1 or lance on lance fight. Practically never.

Conquest encourages the most variety of any game mode we play. Sure it is mostly deathball, but other things still happen. Enough that it doesn't feel like the exact same sequence events every round.

Skirmish is just for the laziest of the lazy. It promotes the worst behaviors in this game.

[MauttyKoray]

WarZ, on 07 November 2015 - 12:52 PM, said:

The biggest issues with skirmish simply are:

It only encourages:

- Go as big as possible, with best possible alpha.
- Deathball only - seriously don't even think about flanking away from the team.
- Whoever gets to the better camping spots first wins. Usually.
- Little to no team movement or manuevering once combat starts.

The problems are somewhat caused by core game mechanics though. An insanely high heat cap allows massive alphas it shouldn't, rather we should have a lower cap and properly balance heat dissipation so that laser would fire more often instead of all at once. It would then bring lasers into line doing DPS instead of Alphas while the ballistics have the high single shots but at a massive cost in tonnage and limit of ammunition.

Good balance of the weapons would allow durability to be lowered and make it so flanks and other such tactics would be viable. Being a good pilot would trump being in a heavy over a light. (outlying lights not counted...those would suffer/balance from the heat change though)

[Chrome Magnus]

Yosharian, on 07 November 2015 - 03:49 AM, said:

TL;DR: Skirmish is too chaotic and unstructured - I prefer Assault for its strategy and increased likelihood of some kind of coordination between pugs. I'm not going to play the game if I'm forced to play game modes I detest.

heh assault rarely has anymore strategy and usually plays out just like skirmish . The biggest real reason I see folks preferin assault is they are impatient and like the fact that they don't have to worry about waiting for a guy who's griefing (rare) or daring to continue the fight after they've died.

[fat4eyes]

There's structure even in skirmish, and it's usually dictated by the terrain. In maps that have a tactically dominating central feature (the peak at Alpine and the center of Terra Therma), it plays like a game of king of the hill, with the team that gains and retains control usually winning. In more open maps (like Canyon and Tourmaline), its usually a positioning game, with most of the fight happening in the center but is actually decided by who controls the surrounding features. The team that can put their enemy in an immobilizing crossfire usually wins. And in maps with a lot of cover (all the city maps), it becomes a flanking guessing game, where the team that guesses correctly when and where to flank usually wins.

What I like about conquest, though, is that it forces players to fight in places they usually ignore. Alpine conquest matches usually happen around the Theta cap point in death valley, when in other game modes players would avoid that area because it is way too open to fire from the slope leading up the the peak.

Edit: grammar

Edited by fat4eyes, 07 November 2015 - 02:49 PM.

[MauttyKoray]

Game modes with an alternate objective add flavor into an otherwise singularly bland game. While I know many people prefer a single game mode, or two (Skirmish/Assault) since they're very close in play, I prefer playing Conquest to break up the monotony of purely killing other players. Now that the map voting system is in place, I'm actually hoping more game modes are added to further vary gameplay.

[Cupid and Psyche _]

I agree with you, but I feel that Skirmish fits the more quick-paced style that MWO has.

It fits under the larger problem (in my opinion) that MWO lacks a simulator feel to it. The current system can be a bit too fast-paced for my taste. Pace of gameplay is one factor that MWLL does better (though, MWLL has a lot of problems too).

[MauttyKoray]

T r a n q u i l i t y, on 07 November 2015 - 03:01 PM, said:

I agree with you, but I feel that Skirmish fits the more quick-paced style that MWO has.

It fits under the larger problem (in my opinion) that MWO lacks a simulator feel to it. The current system can be a bit too fast-paced for my taste. Pace of gameplay is one factor that MWLL does better (though, MWLL has a lot of problems too).

I feel most of the problem with the fast-paced feel is that the TTK is too low. Large alphas need to be dealt with somehow that allow the game to still keep its feel while preventing low TTK pinpoint.

[DeaconW]

Fenrisulvyn, on 07 November 2015 - 06:02 AM, said:

And please stop with the "Skirmish is hardcore mode". Skirmish is MWO dumbed down. Its for people who don't want to focus on more than one than objective at once. Its Easy Mode - the proof being that the same people who vote Skirmish are also voting for the coldest map for their meta-laser vomit builds. Its the simplest game mode.

I like the different modes for variety....but you are correct and so is the OP...Skirmish-only is for COD-kiddie types. But this is par for the course: If PGI hadn't screwed up the game originally with so many bad changes and bad faith they wouldn't have such a dwindling user base that essentially forced them to do this to improve que times. THAT is the real problem here. Talk about having the golden goose and strangling it...but I digress...

[Mystere]

Triordinant, on 07 November 2015 - 10:20 AM, said:

Does that mean you lost? Or did you mean to say "kicked IS behinds". Reminds me of this scene:

Of course we won. We're CJF PUGs.

[Madrummer]

lol
I read through three pages of love/hate relationships with this game, but what I think it boils down to is frustration with repetition. A little break in the monotony would help, which is why I proposed my Missions gameplay mode in here. http://tinyurl.com/mwomissions I think it'd help us to shake things up a bit.

However, I gotta say....I still <3 Skirmish

[Jacobei]

WarZ, on 07 November 2015 - 12:52 PM, said:

The biggest issues with skirmish simply are:

It only encourages:

- Go as big as possible, with best possible alpha.
- Deathball only - seriously don't even think about flanking away from the team.
- Whoever gets to the better camping spots first wins. Usually.
- Little to no team movement or manuevering once combat starts.

Lame because:

- Small area camping. Most of the map gets completely unused.
- Absolutely no variety in gameplay. I mean really, every match plays almost identical.
- Flanking means little to nothing, and mostly just a detriment to team.
- Brawling is discouraged, until most mechs are pretty much wrecked.
- Effective build variety is signficantly reduced. Aka, F your fun builds.
- Therefore highly promotes meta only builds.
- Rarely will you ever get a 1v1 or lance on lance fight. Practically never.

Conquest encourages the most variety of any game mode we play. Sure it is mostly deathball, but other things still happen. Enough that it doesn't feel like the exact same sequence events every round.

Skirmish is just for the laziest of the lazy. It promotes the worst behaviors in this game.

I totally agree with this !!

I am a bit worried these changes fit their marketing strategy. Big mechs cost more MC, they can focus on new mechs/items, less on new maps (if so little of the map is used), and limits the requirement to management balancing.

Edited by Jacobei, 07 November 2015 - 04:28 PM.