50 replies to this topic

[Kreytose]

Simple solution,..give us BACK the OPTION to choose what kind of matches we want to play. Otherwise,....thoise that get a mode they don't want will either d/c or not care and suicide out.

[Coolant]

sorry but the OP can't prevent anyone from posting because they don't like what they are gonna say. I will keep it on topic which is Conquest. I hate playing on Conquest and yet I get a couple every night. I can say "It's just not fair I can't play Skirmish every match!!" just like you can. I've already posted in multiple threads specifics about why I don't like Conquest. However, this next patch Russ has said he is upping the rewards overall and specifically for capping. I might vote for Conquest or Assault more if it's substantial. It will need to be very substantial, very noticeable.

[MechWarrior3671771]

"I can say 'It's just not fair I can't play Skirmish every match!!' just like you can."

I'm not saying that. I'm saying I am willing to play Skirmish around 33% of the time if I am allowed to play Conquest 33% of the time. Right now, I'm getting Skirmish 60, Assault 30 and Conquest 10%.

And its boring me to death.

There are lots of players like me, they don't mind playing Skirmish, but not all the time. You'll notice how many when we leave and your Skirmish wait times go back to worse than before the patch.

[Jacobei]

ChronoBear, on 07 November 2015 - 11:07 AM, said:

Your opinion is valid however I disagree with your points

I like the voting as many games allow voting and not just shooter/sims, but I feel the voting should be weighted somehow.
Like if the last 5 matches were skirmish it would take an act of god for conquest or assault to not be the next game-mode.
I don't have enough game design knowledge to figure our how to do that, but that is what I would like some sort of script / procedure that takes into account game mode choice and helps even out the selection.

Your points on "What the game has degraded to" have little to do with game mode. Balance and lack of systems to keep weapons and alpha-strikes down, has lead to the game-play you see. I must read like a broken record but a CoF and a Meaningful Heat-scale with penalties would fix all of the points you mentioned.

I find a decrease in these things in Conquest.

for example:

Conquest decreases the chance of a firing line - shoot them in the face and poke match.

1. LRMs have a harder time because they can't just stand behind the line the whole match
2. Jump shooting decreases for the same reason moving and less set positioning
3. Alpha strikes are always present but Conquest often creates a 4v4 style - which they are looking at (roles eyes) but its more free to be a 6v4 or 5v5 or what ever (open playing style compared to a structured 4v4) Anyway my point here is alphas are more dangerous in smaller group combat because overheating is a bigger risk.
4. Conquest punishes MWO players that build to only skirmish! AKA all front armor. You have to move around and there is increased chance to be caught by a light if you are bad.

Conquest is not just about Mech armor and Alpha strick/cooldown. It separates real pilots that know their position on the battlefield in a moving style of combat. It promotes teamwork because its often smaller group engagements and teamwork on a higher level to take caps and fight in the right place on the map. Not just random or just to win spot.

This is my take on conquest. My point is MWO is ruining what I think is a higher level of tactical mech combat for pugs. Its the most fun and now I never get to play it!

Edited by Jacobei, 07 November 2015 - 12:35 PM.

[Darian DelFord]

Jacobei, on 07 November 2015 - 10:47 AM, said:

I know - but I figured to make change we should say something.

You right if it was forcing them to Terra Therma - Conquest they would burn PGI hard LOL

My Jenner would own you on Terra Therma Conquest little one :>

[Idealsuspect]

TWIAFU, on 07 November 2015 - 11:19 AM, said:

Good Conquest maps are the ones where most of your team/group are in Lights and rush cap everything and get it won in a couple minutes.

Enemy does not even get to fire a shot.

Lol cappers team lose everytime...
If it isn't a troll post it's only non-aware/beginner/rager post xD
Nothing un-expected from ya in fact. A team full of sort twiafu players must lose everytime ^^ specially on conquest.

[Darian DelFord]

Jacobei, on 07 November 2015 - 12:28 PM, said:

I find a decrease in these things in Conquest.

for example:

Conquest decreases the chance of a firing line - shoot them in the face and poke match.

1. LRMs have a harder time because they can't just stand behind the line the whole match
2. Jump shooting decreases for the same reason moving and less set positioning
3. Alpha strikes are always present but Conquest often creates a 4v4 style - which they are looking at (roles eyes) but its more free to be a 6v4 or 5v5 or what ever (open playing style compared to a structured 4v4) Anyway my point here is alphas are more dangerous in smaller group combat because overheating is a bigger risk.
4. Conquest punishes MWO players that build to only skirmish! AKA all front armor. You have to move around and there is increased chance to be caught by a light if you are bad.

Conquest is not just about Mech armor and Alpha strick/cooldown. It separates real pilots that know their position on the battlefield in a moving style of combat. It promotes teamwork because its often smaller group engagements and teamwork on a higher level to take caps and fight in the right place on the map. Not just random or just to win spot.

This is my take on conquest. My point is MWO is ruining what I think is a higher level of tactical mech combat for pugs. Its the most fun and now I never get to play it!

Seriously if you think those are your talking and counter points you have a butt ton to learn about conquest.

so laughable I can not even stop to type

[TLBFestus]

Jacobei, on 07 November 2015 - 09:18 AM, said:

If you don't like conquest matches for personal reason that most likely fit around your mech and playing style - You have no reason to post here. It will be breaking the forum rules and will be reported. Please stay on topic (Conquest we want it back - fix voting system is ruining the visitor experience)

You are essentially saying "Don't post here if you don't agree with me".

So report away, as that is simply the dumbest comment I've read on these forums for a long while.

Edited by TLBFestus, 07 November 2015 - 10:09 PM.

[Autofire55555]

First off, yes people can disagree with you.

Anyway, I think all they need to do is up the rewards on Conquest until it is profitable enough that there's about an even number of players wanting to play each.

In some ways I wish they could do away with Skirmish, but it was so widely requested. The thing is that it holds less tactics and allows for just one win condition: dominance. Unlike the other two gamemodes, you can NEVER have a 1 to 4 victory in Skirmish. It's still really unlikely, but I've never seen a single guy take out a lance while I have seen lone stragglers get that cap that lead us to victory.

Edited by Autofire55555, 07 November 2015 - 02:24 PM.

[Elizander]

Idealsuspect, on 07 November 2015 - 01:44 PM, said:

Lol cappers team lose everytime...
If it isn't a troll post it's only non-aware/beginner/rager post xD
Nothing un-expected from ya in fact. A team full of sort twiafu players must lose everytime ^^ specially on conquest.

Well I was in alpine and then I saw 3 nodes being capped by the enemy at the start. Told my team:

"THE ENEMY TEAM SPLIT UP TO CAP. ALL GO CENTER AND KILL WHOEVER IS THERE BEFORE THEY REGROUP!"

Or something.

We won.

Overwhelmingly.

I had fun.

[Jacobei]

Fenrisulvyn, on 07 November 2015 - 11:46 AM, said:

"I can say 'It's just not fair I can't play Skirmish every match!!' just like you can."

I'm not saying that. I'm saying I am willing to play Skirmish around 33% of the time if I am allowed to play Conquest 33% of the time. Right now, I'm getting Skirmish 60, Assault 30 and Conquest 10%.

And its boring me to death.

There are lots of players like me, they don't mind playing Skirmish, but not all the time. You'll notice how many when we leave and your Skirmish wait times go back to worse than before the patch.

This is all true.

I will give them time to fix this mistake but if they don't asap - I will find a game I enjoy.

I simple don't enjoy skirmish every match. And at this point because is so commonly skirmish that is all anyone is fitting for anyway and Conquest matches are just skirmish middle point now as people that hate conquest are force to play them RARLY. Fix that and they will cry.

The only people with a valid point is that conquest has a low reward return. But PGI the people complaining and want it back NEVER cared about that - they play that game mode because they think its the most fun...

Maybe PGI sees profit in a first person shooter with play to win for a time mechs that enter the same very basic (fire return fire - skirmish) playing style. I am sure its both the easiest money making platform and easy to manage. Just spit out new pay to win mechs suited for the firing line. Obiously this fits you current money making strategy of bigger mechs costing more MC. It fits the plan.... But we wanted more freedom, more game play options, not more items and limited game play.

Edited by Jacobei, 07 November 2015 - 04:14 PM.

[Sug]

I've never played any game with a mode like Conquest that worked without respawns. It's just not a good mode for mechwarrior.

Maybe let us vote for maps but bring back the ability to select the game modes we queue for.

Edited by Sug, 07 November 2015 - 04:21 PM.

[Madrummer]

I agree that pretty much every mode is "Skirmish until I can't find the enemy, then hit the point until they come to me." Is, or is degrading to, anyway. That's why I proposed this http://tinyurl.com/mwomissions Missions Gameplay mode with a voting system and reverting the randoms back to...well....randoms!

[Jacobei]

Sug, on 07 November 2015 - 04:19 PM, said:

Maybe let us vote for maps but bring back the ability to select the game modes we queue for.

Yea....

[Zordicron]

OP post is irrelevant, my first 6 matches after patch went live: 3 conquest, one on terra therma even.
Only one Skirmish mode, and it was on Canyon.

The talk about "I only ever get" is just a lie so far as I can tell perpetuated by a minority that is butthurt over the change. Voting could use some improvements(and it is getting some) but IMO it is fine and should stay.

For the record, I enjoy all the game modes, conquest included, and have had a mix of them so far. If anything, Assault mode has come up less then conquest for me.

[Jacobei]

Eldagore, on 07 November 2015 - 10:07 PM, said:

by a minority that is butthurt over the change.

Why should anyone and WHY do you think people are getting butthurt. This is not a nerf? Please explain.

Eldagore, on 07 November 2015 - 10:07 PM, said:

by a minority that is butthurt over the change.

Why should anyone and WHY do you think people are getting butthurt. This is not a nerf? Please explain.

[Kira Onime]

Jacobei, on 07 November 2015 - 09:18 AM, said:

• All front armor (no need for back armor if your just popping out every match on a firing line)
  
• LRM boats for the win

.... are.... are you serious?

[Ihasa]

The message I take from the voting whiner threads/posts is "Don't listen to the vocal minority. They're bad for the game! I refuse to play on <game mode> and now that we have voting and the majority wins i have to play <game mode> that most people vote for. Make the game according to my special snowflake needs since I'm being vocal or I'm leaving!" Hippocrates. What a community. Astounding.

Edited by Ihasa, 07 November 2015 - 10:19 PM.

[Madcap72]

Ihasa, on 07 November 2015 - 10:18 PM, said:

The message I take from the voting whiner threads/posts is "Don't listen to the vocal minority. They're bad for the game! I refuse to play on <game mode> and now that we have voting and the majority wins i have to play <game mode> that most people vote for. Make the game according to my special snowflake needs since I'm being vocal or I'm leaving!" Hippocrates. What a community. Astounding.

The best part is, when they don't have people agree with them, they turn around and call the community "toxic". LOL

[Sylonce]

Just from personal experience, but 9/10 times, winning in conquest is more or less goes to the team that can skirmish. I have to admit, I am not a big fan of conquest, but that is mostly because people try for the objectives, gets separated, and then gets steam-rolled by the team that intends to simply crush the other team to pieces.

Don't get me wrong. If you like conquest, I'm cool with that. I'm also cool if the op's opinion on the voting system. I just don't agree with the reasoning.