86 replies to this topic

[Alistair Winter]

This is a sincere question, I'm open for actual sincere answers. It's not a rhetorical question.

Why aren't we getting new game modes?

Is it because people are mostly happy with Assault, Conquest & Skirmish as they are?

Does PGI feel that it's too difficult to come up with popular alternatives?

Are there no good alternatives that would work for MWO?

Are game modes simply far less important to the players relative to other issues, such as gameplay balance, map design, UI, etc?

Are they regarded as placeholders or will these be the game modes forever?



NOTE: I'm not asking about why we're not getting additional game modes. I'm asking why they're not replacing or changing the existing game modes.

[keith]

my guess they were waiting to see if voting was going to work. then have to think of a mode, then put it on what 10 maps?

[Sadist Cain]

I always thought "assault" was a placeholder from day 1. Alas it seems this is not the case.

[keith]

Sadist Cain, on 18 December 2015 - 04:25 AM, said:

I always thought "assault" was a placeholder from day 1. Alas it seems this is not the case.

assault is how the game was played during CB. so by placeholder u mean most of the game time....

[Alistair Winter]

Sadist Cain, on 18 December 2015 - 04:25 AM, said:

I always thought "assault" was a placeholder from day 1. Alas it seems this is not the case.

So did I. I'm not sure why I assumed it to be a placeholder, whether it's because they said it or because it's just a very simple and (IMO) poorly designed game mode compared to what other games have.

keith, on 18 December 2015 - 04:10 AM, said:

my guess they were waiting to see if voting was going to work. then have to think of a mode, then put it on what 10 maps?

I haven't hear them say anything about game modes lately. There was some talk about an asymmetrical game mode in public queue, but I think they went back on that.

[Viges]

Alistair Winter, on 18 December 2015 - 04:09 AM, said:

NOTE: I'm not asking about why we're not getting additional game modes. I'm asking why they're not replacing or changing the existing game modes.

Well that thread name is pretty misleading then tbh.

Regardless I think the answer is the same as about the maps. You can't sell them. That's how PGI thinks, they said it themselves. And this believe determines everything about this game.

keith, on 18 December 2015 - 04:32 AM, said:

assault is how the game was played during CB. so by placeholder u mean most of the game time....

You mean like the skill tree?

[Alistair Winter]

Viges, on 18 December 2015 - 05:04 AM, said:

Well that thread name is pretty misleading then tbh.

Not really. 'new' doesn't imply 'additional'. For the sake of brevity, I didn't include 'modified' or 'changed', but I put a fairly visible disclaimer in the actual post. That should be enough.

[Rhialto]

Would a LMS mode conceivable?

[Karl Streiger]

So new game modes?

Skirmtect the VIP?
Skriming of the Hill?
Skirmoop Mode fighting Bots
Skirmination

Are there Skimodes I'm missing?

Edited by Karl Streiger, 18 December 2015 - 06:22 AM.

[Sjorpha]

Last word as per town halls on that subject was that they have a new game mode done, but it's been held back for the new mode and map select system.

I guess either it wasn't as done after all or they don't want to throw out an untested mode just before holiday vacations, both seem possible.

[Almond Brown]

You mean like a "Capture the Flag" mode? Or "King of the Hill" mode? Well one could imagine trying to kill a 150kph Flag Thief and see how that makes every other Mech obsolete for that mode. And a new Map, or Alpine, could be used for a "King of the Hill" mode, but wait a minute, isn't that what "Alpine Skirmish" is now really...

Besides, 98% of MWO players play ALL the current modes as TDM. What is the point of new, modified modes that would just become more TDM by default? Any new mode made for 2% of the community is likely wasted time and resources.

Edited by Almond Brown, 18 December 2015 - 07:03 AM.

[Kotzi]

Alistair Winter, on 18 December 2015 - 04:55 AM, said:

So did I. I'm not sure why I assumed it to be a placeholder, whether it's because they said it or because it's just a very simple and (IMO) poorly designed game mode compared to what other games have.


I haven't hear them say anything about game modes lately. There was some talk about an asymmetrical game mode in public queue, but I think they went back on that.

Assault was a placeholder for another mode described as attack and defense as far as i remember.

Quote

Besides, 98% of MWO players play ALL the current modes as TDM. What is the point of new, modified modes that would just become more TDM by default? Any new mode made for 2% of the community is wated time and resources.

Because there is no other incentive to do anything else than killing. Splitt up in conquest to cap and you get steamrolled. Cappoints not far enough away. Capping in assault without fighting is less rewarded. Make those objectives worthwhile to cap. Any advantages so you have to decide to cap or go for kills.

Edited by Kotzi, 18 December 2015 - 06:50 AM.

[DjPush]

They have mentioned that a new game mode is in the works as well as a P v E mode. I think they are focusing on phase 3 of CW first. Once they get that out of the way, we will probably hear more about this.

[Almond Brown]

Kotzi, on 18 December 2015 - 06:46 AM, said:

Assault was a placeholder for another mode described as attack and defense as far as i remember.

Because there is no other incentive to do anything else than killing. Split up in conquest to cap and you get steamrolled. Cap points not far enough away. Capping in assault without fighting is less rewarded. Make those objectives worthwhile to cap. Any advantages so you have to decide to cap or go for kills.

So in essence, any new mode would have to be "financially" viable to the players and it would be assured that ALL Weight classes and Chassis would also be viable in said modes?

Tough ask for those who play only one weight class and are already pissed off they "have to" play Assault and Conquest on the rare occasion now with Voting in. See recent thread(s) about always Going Left Right...

Edited by Almond Brown, 18 December 2015 - 09:19 AM.

[Kotzi]

Just make it interesting. For example, why upgrade the maps in size without placing anything in it so that people dont go the closest way to get to the fight? Make things interesting so that nobody cares how much the reward is, or less at least. Just planting 2 Bases on each map saying ye, its not skirmish anymore without changing anything else is no other gamemode imho.

[WarHippy]

Alistair Winter, on 18 December 2015 - 04:09 AM, said:

This is a sincere question, I'm open for actual sincere answers. It's not a rhetorical question.

Why aren't we getting new game modes?

Is it because people are mostly happy with Assault, Conquest & Skirmish as they are?

Does PGI feel that it's too difficult to come up with popular alternatives?

Are there no good alternatives that would work for MWO?

Are game modes simply far less important to the players relative to other issues, such as gameplay balance, map design, UI, etc?

Are they regarded as placeholders or will these be the game modes forever?



NOTE: I'm not asking about why we're not getting additional game modes. I'm asking why they're not replacing or changing the existing game modes.

I would have less of an issue with crappy voting if the game modes were actually worthwhile, but then again if they were worthwhile we wouldn't need voting. The problem boils down to how much effort the devs are willing to put into making the modes better, but that doesn't seem to be something they particularly care about. It was easier to just force everyone into mediocre game modes with voting than actually putting forth a little effort.

[Mystere]

As I have been saying in other threads, the public queues should be retired and instead distributed to the Training Academy and some Solaris-like mode.

For crying out loud, the public queues are supposed to have just been fillers, not "the game" -- just like all the other fillers that have become "major features". <msmh>


<msmh - massively shaking my head>

[Rhaythe]

Our severe lack of gamemodes is why this game feels so stale - not because of 'content' or maps.

I thought I had heard that Assault would become a sort of "Community Warfare lite" mode, with attackers and defenders in a king-of-the-hill-area spot. But that was some time ago.

This game needs to rip off of "Rush" from Battlefield, pronto. Advancing lines and objectives in CW would be excellent.

[STEF_]

Rhaythe, on 18 December 2015 - 08:08 AM, said:

Our severe lack of gamemodes is why this game feels so stale - not because of 'content' or maps.

I thought I had heard that Assault would become a sort of "Community Warfare lite" mode, with attackers and defenders in a king-of-the-hill-area spot. But that was some time ago.

This game needs to rip off of "Rush" from Battlefield, pronto. Advancing lines and objectives in CW would be excellent.

With more game mode, more variety, but still an empty grinding box.

We need content.

[Mystere]

Stefka Kerensky, on 18 December 2015 - 08:11 AM, said:

With more game mode, more variety, but still an empty grinding box.

We need content.

We need this.

Edited by Mystere, 18 December 2015 - 08:16 AM.