163 replies to this topic

[Dassh]

The problem about the "thinking man's shooter" is on PGI's side. You can't ask people to do something what isn't the reasonable solution to reach a goal - especially in a competitve environment - just because it looks cool and "tactics-like".

Currently there is one one game mode where you needany kind of tactics and this is CW attack. Not even counterattack.
In every other game the best way to win is to eliminate the oppositing asap (even in conquest or counter...). To do this the best solution currently to just stick together in a huge deathball or solid firing line and focus fire on single targets. That's all about tactics, not so complicated. From this point all depends on how coordinated a team can execute this basic and simple formula. The only thing what don't make this repetitive and bland that there are newbies (and people with a lack of understanding) who just can't realise the best and easiest way to win.

So to make the game at any level tactial they have to redesign game modes. In CW attack mode placing the generators in distant parts of the base, not right next to Omega so the defenders can't defend it with a single 'ball/line. Designing Quickplay Assault as CW attack or similar. Changing Conquest in a way - it's just a quick idea... - that there are only 4 cap points at far away points of the map and you can cap them in 3 seconds if no enemy is within the borders (so even with a single light possible to outcap the enemy, not like now) and even if one team is eliminated the winner who has the most cap points at the moment (so even if you killed them, if you behind on cap points you lose). This would force tactics, braking up the team to smaller, task-oriented squads and so on.

But there are many other game modes what you can design. Just imagine the best and most famous gamemode for competitive FPS games and how it works: CTF (Capture the Flag). No, I do not want to see a CTF mode in MWo for many reasons but just see how it goes. You have to take the enemy's flag and bring back to your own flag what have to be in place at this moment to get a score. Players are respawning and total kills doesnt mean anything at the end so you just can't win this way. You have to defend your flag and at the same time attack to get the other one (so you need to organise defenders and attackers, it's much better than keeping in a big group), not to mention that you have to defend the flag carrier, especially if the enemy countered and got your flag before you could score, so you have to get back your own flag while kep your flag carrier alive. And so on and on and on. Just for Q3 CTF there are websites full of tactics, team setups, prefered weapons for roles and management of pick-up items on the map.
For MWO there are no such things since you can explain all the tactics for a newbie in 3 sentences anytime (he just won't listen and go Rambo...).

I hope you see where I'm coming from. As long as the easiest and best way to win a game is to kill all enemy asap teams will choose this tactic. And as long as the very best way to do this is to gang up in a ball/line and focus fire teams will do this.

We need game modes what force tactics and teamplay and not just give a btw perfectly function-less option for it.
If you or somebody feels like figuring out some teamplay-friendly gamemodes, my advice is that make multiple tasks what the team has to manage at the same time (attack/defend or hold/defend/move/etc multiple points at once or anything). And always examine that isn't it the best option still to just simply kill everybody (like this is the fault of current conquest).

You can't force "thinking men" to play sandbox and execute some delicate tactics when everybody who ever played team games (be it football, soccer, paintball or even video games like CS or Q3) can figure out in no time what is far the best way to win in the current state of MWO.
We need better game modes, that's all.

Edited by Dassh, 09 December 2015 - 10:53 AM.

[Anjian]

pwnface, on 09 December 2015 - 09:14 AM, said:

Actually it does if you are playing 12v12 premades in CW or on the competitive circuit. If you are just doing solo drops, you won't get to experience strategic depth very much. It takes team cohesion for anything strategic or tactical to happen.

Having close match ups require more strategy and tactics, if one team outskills the other by a large margin tactics aren't necessary at all.

I have played enough CW games that I am deathly bored of it all. In fact, I would stop and go play other games. This game rewards repeatability and thereby reinforces repeatability.

The problem with the game is that the tactics are fairly common. You see this map, you know where to go, what positions to hid in, what to do even if you are not told. You can already see where the game is going to end by how the players start the first three minutes. Then there is your metabuilds, your mobs and blobs, nascars and your firing lines.

Most games are not even close enough to make luck and tactics matter. There are a few games that are deathly close --- I have played games where our team won by the one or two seconds (conquest), or forced comebacks to victory when I though we were assured to lose. But close games need to be a majority, not a minority.

Want strategy and tactics? It needs to vary every game. It needs to punish predictability. It needs to punish "formula" players. It needs to punish formula tactics. It needs to turn your meta from winning in one game, to disastrously losing in another. It needs to have no comfort zone. It needs to make roles matter. It needs large maps with multiple avenues of attack, multiple areas of defense. It needs an unpredictability that when you think you and your team is winning, the odds are suddenly reversed, and the fight seesaws from one side to another. It needs to do these things as common enough that it is the norm of the game, rather than the exception.

Edited by Anjian, 09 December 2015 - 11:42 AM.

[LORD ORION]

sycocys, on 08 December 2015 - 05:58 PM, said:

Then why to people B&M for 10 minutes when you try to do something less mindless than just waddle to the center of the map and hide play peek a boo?

Honestly there's a point where the players take the strategy out of the game all on their own, they don't even need PGI's help. Big open maps with multiple attack/defending routes and areas and all you do is walk to the center or cry about how others didn't follow you.

Oh I so miss 8v8 and a single queue where you actually had to try something different because you had no clue whatsoever what was coming your way or from where.

It's why alot of us hate the queue games and play CW almost exclusively.

Join a unit and play CW as 12 man drops.

One of the best games I've had was during TurkeyAid2... -MS- vs PL.
They smashed us 12-3 in the 1st wave with a surprise overrun.
To recover we had to use every trick in the book, from baiting the enemy to protect the wrong gate, to sacrificial time wasting volunteers that allowed the others to complete objectives.
The drop commander had to think, and so did the lances in order to turn defeat into victory.

Out of curiosity, did you run with a 12 man drop during TurkeyAid2? Alot of units were open to anyone during the entire event to drop with experienced CW players. The gameplay in CW with units is much better than the queue games by a long shot.

[Sandpit]

LORD ORION, on 09 December 2015 - 11:50 AM, said:

It's why alot of us hate the queue games and play CW almost exclusively.

Join a unit and play CW as 12 man drops.

One of the best games I've had was during TurkeyAid2... -MS- vs PL.
They smashed us 12-3 in the 1st wave with a surprise overrun.
To recover we had to use every trick in the book, from baiting the enemy to protect the wrong gate, to sacrificial time wasting volunteers that allowed the others to complete objectives.
The drop commander had to think, and so did the lances in order to turn defeat into victory.

Out of curiosity, did you run with a 12 man drop during TurkeyAid2? Alot of units were open to anyone during the entire event to drop with experienced CW players. The gameplay in CW with units is much better than the queue games by a long shot.

True story
last night we were dropping pub style in a 6man and we had our light lance run off, get into a fight, while we're calling out rendevous points and enemy locations, and never said a word.

Then their lance leader starts QQing in team chat about how our team sucked because we didn't run off to help him and the 3 other lights take down 2 medium mechs instead of pushing on the main force while they were down numbers and using that advantage. When I responded with, "Why didn't you say something and let us know?" (keep in mind these guys never said a word, never typed anything, never let us know they were in a fight, nothing)

His response?
Watch your mini map you noob. Your team sucks. Get gewd.

....
really?
You rambo off on your own without a word, never relay any information (much less that you've got a couple of mechs in your location) and expect everyone to read your mind and shift to your position?

THAT'S the kind of player that gets on here and QQs about premades, unfairness, etc.

[sycocys]

I prefer CW - as far as it is more organized. The maps make me sick after a couple rounds, they are just boring all designed to be the same exact game over and over again. At least in the standard maps we have some options available to us - especially the nice sized ones like Forest Colony - but they are honestly still far too small for as fast as mechs move along.

Only ran 2 pugs for Tuk, both were early and no one I knew was online. Otherwise it was 6-12 only with the under numbers when OLD was waiting for people to get online. Units I ran with were: OLD, SO, ISEN, 1stH and a few matches with a mixture of the top 10 or so units.

[Sandpit]

LORD ORION, on 09 December 2015 - 11:50 AM, said:

uriosity, did you run with a 12 man drop during TurkeyAid2? Alot of units were open to anyone during the entire event to drop with experienced CW players. The gameplay in CW with units is much better than the queue games by a long shot.

I found that we did fairly well from about 4man on up to 12 during the event. Our biggest and most lopsided losses came from organized 12mans but some of our best wins came against those same units. It's simply a matter of teamwork and coordination more than anything else.

Individual skill is almost negligible in this game because no matter how good you are individually, if you can't work within your team's abilities you're just setting your entire team up for failure.

Another example of this kind of mentality?
"Hey guys, your fatties are on the slow side, wait up for us before pushing, moving out, etc. please"

common response from those types of players?
Get better at the game and build faster mechs. and nonsense like that.

Those types of players are perfectly suited for the solo queue and quite often are the ones raging on the forums about how "unfair" CW is.

[Lynx7725]

Sandpit, on 09 December 2015 - 12:24 PM, said:

Those types of players are perfectly suited for the solo queue and quite often are the ones raging on the forums about how "unfair" CW is.

Knock it off. We don't want them either.

[MrJeffers]

Anjian, on 09 December 2015 - 11:37 AM, said:

I have played enough CW games that I am deathly bored of it all. In fact, I would stop and go play other games. This game rewards repeatability and thereby reinforces repeatability.

The problem with the game is that the tactics are fairly common. You see this map, you know where to go, what positions to hid in, what to do even if you are not told. You can already see where the game is going to end by how the players start the first three minutes. Then there is your metabuilds, your mobs and blobs, nascars and your firing lines.

Most games are not even close enough to make luck and tactics matter. There are a few games that are deathly close --- I have played games where our team won by the one or two seconds (conquest), or forced comebacks to victory when I though we were assured to lose. But close games need to be a majority, not a minority.

Want strategy and tactics? It needs to vary every game. It needs to punish predictability. It needs to punish "formula" players. It needs to punish formula tactics. It needs to turn your meta from winning in one game, to disastrously losing in another. It needs to have no comfort zone. It needs to make roles matter. It needs large maps with multiple avenues of attack, multiple areas of defense. It needs an unpredictability that when you think you and your team is winning, the odds are suddenly reversed, and the fight seesaws from one side to another. It needs to do these things as common enough that it is the norm of the game, rather than the exception.

I've got news for you - Close games are where strategy and tactics *FAILED*. The reason that most games are not close is because of either superior tactics on the winning side, or the lack of any tactics on the losing side. Close matches are a collection of failed tactics on both sides in most cases, not because of some balance between the forces.

[Sandpit]

Lynx7725, on 09 December 2015 - 12:29 PM, said:

Knock it off. We don't want them either.

lol well then tell them to stop QQing about groups and CW

[Dassh]

Sandpit, on 09 December 2015 - 12:15 PM, said:

His response?
Watch your mini map you noob. Your team sucks. Get gewd.

....
really?
You rambo off on your own without a word, never relay any information (much less that you've got a couple of mechs in your location) and expect everyone to read your mind and shift to your position?

THAT'S the kind of player that gets on here and QQs about premades, unfairness, etc.

At least their had an idea about that there supposed to be a team somewhere. i had some games what felt like working in a kindergarten. You know like: We are going to the Alpha gate kids, that is the left one there. So come on, don't get lost, yes, even you there with that TDR turn around, this way. Ok kids, we will go in, hold hands and don't chicken out right at the gate. Don't shoot each others back, mommy doesn't like it...

[Sandpit]

Dassh, on 09 December 2015 - 12:38 PM, said:

At least their had an idea about that there supposed to be a team somewhere. i had some games what felt like working in a kindergarten. You know like: We are going to the Alpha gate kids, that is the left one there. So come on, don't get lost, yes, even you there with that TDR turn around, this way. Ok kids, we will go in, hold hands and don't chicken out right at the gate. Don't shoot each others back, mommy doesn't like it...

I spend every day at work doing this kind of stuff. It's second nature to me lol

[Mystere]

Anjian, on 09 December 2015 - 11:37 AM, said:

I have played enough CW games that I am deathly bored of it all. In fact, I would stop and go play other games. This game rewards repeatability and thereby reinforces repeatability.

The problem with the game is that the tactics are fairly common. You see this map, you know where to go, what positions to hid in, what to do even if you are not told. You can already see where the game is going to end by how the players start the first three minutes. Then there is your metabuilds, your mobs and blobs, nascars and your firing lines.

Most games are not even close enough to make luck and tactics matter. There are a few games that are deathly close --- I have played games where our team won by the one or two seconds (conquest), or forced comebacks to victory when I though we were assured to lose. But close games need to be a majority, not a minority.

Want strategy and tactics? It needs to vary every game. It needs to punish predictability. It needs to punish "formula" players. It needs to punish formula tactics. It needs to turn your meta from winning in one game, to disastrously losing in another. It needs to have no comfort zone. It needs to make roles matter. It needs large maps with multiple avenues of attack, multiple areas of defense. It needs an unpredictability that when you think you and your team is winning, the odds are suddenly reversed, and the fight seesaws from one side to another. It needs to do these things as common enough that it is the norm of the game, rather than the exception.

CW can become boring because it's just attack/defense and counterattack with a simplistic "take the planet by holding 51% of slots" campaign system. We need more depth and imaginative game modes.

[Mystere]

MrJeffers, on 09 December 2015 - 12:31 PM, said:

I've got news for you - Close games are where strategy and tactics *FAILED*. The reason that most games are not close is because of either superior tactics on the winning side, or the lack of any tactics on the losing side. Close matches are a collection of failed tactics on both sides in most cases, not because of some balance between the forces.

In all due fairness, that is apparently not a simple concept to grasp. Otherwise, we will not have masses of people declaring that close games are a very good indicator of balance.


Edit: missing "of".

Edited by Mystere, 09 December 2015 - 01:34 PM.

[MischiefSC]

Mystere, on 09 December 2015 - 12:54 PM, said:

In all due fairness, that is apparently not a simple concept to grasp. Otherwise, we will not have masses of people declaring that close games are a very good indicator balance.

You both hit a good point. The reality is that most people want the game to play like a single player game. They want all the enemies to be level scaled to them and, coincidentally, all designed to lose to the player regardless of what build or design being run.

One sided stomps are a byproduct of people making people decisions. Matches where almost everyone on each side dies is a product of both teams playing like 12 individuals and not 2 teams of 12. A lot of 1v1 fights instead of actual team vs team.

We really just need 24 mech deathmatch. That's going to make the most people the happiest.

[Sandpit]

MischiefSC, on 09 December 2015 - 01:39 PM, said:

You both hit a good point. The reality is that most people want the game to play like a single player game. They want all the enemies to be level scaled to them and, coincidentally, all designed to lose to the player regardless of what build or design being run.

One sided stomps are a byproduct of people making people decisions. Matches where almost everyone on each side dies is a product of both teams playing like 12 individuals and not 2 teams of 12. A lot of 1v1 fights instead of actual team vs team.

We really just need 24 mech deathmatch. That's going to make the most people the happiest.

DUnno about 24 but setting up an FFA mode (which I really think is that new mode PGI has been hinting at) would be great. I think everyone has those moments where they'd really like to just drop in their favorite mechs and bash others totally on their own.
Make it the Solaris Games and there you go. Offer everything from FFA to 2v2 and up. (No 1v1, use private matches, too easy to game the system)

They could also incorporate Trials on the clan side of things and use the same format instead of calling it the Solaris Games.

[sycocys]

Solaris will unfortunately get postponed and screwed up because Russ has this ridiculous belief that you need to have the meta score tracking system in place (map for CW, brackets for Solaris) before you actually make the game mode, much less deliver it in a fashion that people actually want to play it more than a few times.

[LordNothing]

SaltBeef, on 09 December 2015 - 03:11 AM, said:

But the issue with that is everyone from Maine to Tokyo can listen in on your CB conversation.
I just read an article that smartphones will be phased out by 5 yrs time for Artificial Intelligence Devices.

it is possible to hide a data channel in audio or scramble audio with some signal processing voodoo. besides i dont think they know how to speak cat.

[Anjian]

MrJeffers, on 09 December 2015 - 12:31 PM, said:

I've got news for you - Close games are where strategy and tactics *FAILED*. The reason that most games are not close is because of either superior tactics on the winning side, or the lack of any tactics on the losing side. Close matches are a collection of failed tactics on both sides in most cases, not because of some balance between the forces.

Nope. You get close games, when both teams know how to play right.

In true strategy games, there is no such thing as "superior" tactics, because every tactic can be countered, and there is no absolutism in tactics. In other words, there should not be any inferior or superior tactics, just the right tactic for the time and the place.

Just like in chess, there is always variance.

I play some other games than MWO, and wonder why in some of those games, fortunes always shift from one side to another then back again, why victory is never assured even down the last one, two or three players, and its never over until its over. And I wonder why for these games, these seems to be the norm rather than the exception. So I keep wonder whats the mechanics that keep them these way. So I studied these games, searching for common characteristics and principles.

It starts with one principle. They look deceptively easy, but are very difficult to master. Even for players with several thousands of plays under their belt.

These games simply do not let themselves be mastered.

Everything is countered by another thing. There are no absolute formulas for winning. Not even...*gasp*...superior "teamwork".

The best laid plans are constantly turned to disasters once counters are seized upon, and fights turn savage as each side relentlessly grapple from disaster.

[pwnface]

Anjian, on 09 December 2015 - 11:37 AM, said:

Most games are not even close enough to make luck and tactics matter. There are a few games that are deathly close --- I have played games where our team won by the one or two seconds (conquest), or forced comebacks to victory when I though we were assured to lose. But close games need to be a majority, not a minority.

This is kind of up to the players to make it happen. Due to the way combat loss grouping works in this game, losing mechs early gives one side a significant advantage and makes having close games really difficult. I think the matchmaker does as good a job as it can, but it isn't realistic to have every game or even the majority of games be super close.

Anjian, on 09 December 2015 - 11:37 AM, said:

Want strategy and tactics? It needs to vary every game. It needs to punish predictability. It needs to punish "formula" players. It needs to punish formula tactics. It needs to turn your meta from winning in one game, to disastrously losing in another. It needs to have no comfort zone. It needs to make roles matter. It needs large maps with multiple avenues of attack, multiple areas of defense. It needs an unpredictability that when you think you and your team is winning, the odds are suddenly reversed, and the fight seesaws from one side to another. It needs to do these things as common enough that it is the norm of the game, rather than the exception.

Again this is up to the players to do. If you know the enemy team is going to employ a tactic, create a counter to their tactic and beat them. There isn't always 1 tactic that is going to win every time. Be dynamic, surprise your enemy, do something unusual that will get you the win.

[pwnface]

MrJeffers, on 09 December 2015 - 12:31 PM, said:

I've got news for you - Close games are where strategy and tactics *FAILED*. The reason that most games are not close is because of either superior tactics on the winning side, or the lack of any tactics on the losing side. Close matches are a collection of failed tactics on both sides in most cases, not because of some balance between the forces.

Well, I'm not sure this is entirely accurate. If you are playing against another team that has superior raw talent, you can get an advantage by using a superior tactic but still only win a close match. In any case, tactics and strategy are an important part of MWO unless you are being a solo rambo PUG.