227 replies to this topic

[Sandpit]

Valdherre Tor, on 22 December 2015 - 10:04 PM, said:

Sigh......Are you butt hurt? It sounds like you run a STD 200 / 34.8kph in your 100ton assault and think its good.

You are right though this is a team game and bringing slow mechs can hurt you team if your teammates are all in fast mechs and you are the only slow one. Why should they slow down and suffer because of your mistakes in the mech lab?

see above sparky.
I'm not the one who started a topic on the forums QQing about "slow" mechs and the "correct" way to build them. If we're talking "butt hurt" I might look more in that direction though

[Robot Kenshiro]

WarHippy, on 22 December 2015 - 12:54 PM, said:

No. I do not like skirmish, and voting has already watered down the game modes I actually like when I actually get to play them. Respawns on assault and conquest would just be the coup de grace for those game modes as far as I am concerned. There are ways to make those game modes better and the objectives mean something other than resorting to mindless respawn nonsense.

Well ok. So if the objective in conquest is cap 750 resources and in assault is to cap the base the ONLY reasonablr and sensible way to do it without respawns is to up the cbill income. And not by just a few thousand either. Im talking double or triple earnings for a win on max capture of resources/base. Which would be great for those whoe want cbills. Itll make em think better I guess. But this is only for the like minded ppl. Ppl who dont really care will still result in open deathmatch in all 3 game modes.
I have no idea why PGI do not give better incentives for these game modes. Skirmish is skirmish...destroy the enemy get meh cbills.
Conquest and assault should earn more as there is more work to them. Right now those game modes are rubbish. You all know they are. Theres only certain games that they hold some form of value... 90% of the time in conquest or assault its just another skirmish mode.

[KuroNyra]

Bishop Steiner, on 22 December 2015 - 10:48 PM, said:

Sure and everyone else can say the same thing for not wanting to wait for him.

But they lose the right to complain against him if THEY leaved him behind.


If you know a guy is slow and need protection but pack a heavy firepower. You have the choice of protecting him and make him usefull. Or let him alone. But for the second solution: YOU are responsible for leaving him alone. YOU are the one who take the decision to leave him vulnerable.
So YOU lose the right to complain against him.

[KinLuu]

KuroNyra, on 23 December 2015 - 04:50 AM, said:

But they lose the right to complain against him if THEY leaved him behind.


If you know a guy is slow and need protection but pack a heavy firepower. You have the choice of protecting him and make him usefull. Or let him alone. But for the second solution: YOU are responsible for leaving him alone. YOU are the one who take the decision to leave him vulnerable.
So YOU lose the right to complain against him.

But it is always the slug player that complains.

[Clownwarlord]

Know your team and their mechs and by doing so you know how fast they can move and that a 100 ton mech can't move like a light mech.

[Ihasa]

MrJeffers, on 22 December 2015 - 07:24 AM, said:

A simple 'Form up on the assault lance' in chat at the beginning of the match usually works wonders.

Until and unless, of course, the puggies say No, if they even heard/listened at all. Then all bets are off.

[Hotthedd]

Khobai, on 22 December 2015 - 07:15 AM, said:

dire wolf has locked engine. derpa derp derp.

what would fix this **** is if they added respawns to the game. the one-life gamemodes are the whole problem. they cause deathballing/nascaring/repetitive boring play. No one is willing to take risks or do anything differently because they only get one life. So the game ends up being repetitive and boring.

even world of tanks has respawns now because they realized one-life gamemodes cause huge problems. MWO needs a ticket-based gamemode like battlefield's conquest gamemode.

Basically... have two bases and three capture points. Both teams start with like 8000 tickets and when a mech on your team dies you lose tickets equal to its tonnage and they get to respawn. Capping the points would bleed the enemy team of tickets. First team to run out of tickets loses. And also destroying the enemy base would win you the game outright. Having base destruction as a win condition allows for upsets since the losing team can still win the game by pushing the enemy base.

Khobai, is your solution to every single issue to "add re-spawns"?

MW:O would lose players over adding mid match re-spawns, and it would only magnify the difficulties of the match maker. (Right now a really bad player can only cost a team 100 Tons) OR in "Dropship" mode it would be a grind barrier for new players.

Founders paid good money to fund this game, and not having arcade-y re-spawns was one of the earlier promises made in order to get their money.

[Bishop Steiner]

KuroNyra, on 23 December 2015 - 04:50 AM, said:

But they lose the right to complain against him if THEY leaved him behind.


If you know a guy is slow and need protection but pack a heavy firepower. You have the choice of protecting him and make him usefull. Or let him alone. But for the second solution: YOU are responsible for leaving him alone. YOU are the one who take the decision to leave him vulnerable.
So YOU lose the right to complain against him.

And he loses the right to complain about getting left behind if he always insists on bringing a sloth. See how that works both ways?

And I don't see legions of Topics stating "Hey Fat Guy ...learn to keep up with us!".

Wonder why that is?

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 23 December 2015 - 09:28 AM.

[WarHippy]

Bishop Steiner, on 23 December 2015 - 09:24 AM, said:

And I don't see legions of Topics stating "Hey Fat Guy ...learn to keep up with us!".

Wonder why that is?

Probably because instead of complaining about the fat guys keeping up they complain about the derpy teammates the MM gives them with Assault mechs doing less than 200 damage, and them being oblivious to the fact they are part of the problem.

Wonder why that is?

Point being is everyone shares some of the blame because most are just pointing fingers instead of working together.

[Bishop Steiner]

WarHippy, on 23 December 2015 - 09:38 AM, said:

Probably because instead of complaining about the fat guys keeping up they complain about the derpy teammates the MM gives them with Assault mechs doing less than 200 damage, and them being oblivious to the fact they are part of the problem.

Wonder why that is?

Point being is everyone shares some of the blame because most are just pointing fingers instead of working together.

Oh, I fully agree. It's always a matter of if X happens, it's Zs fault.

My comment remains the same as when the OP posted. You know it's going to happen, you know what to expect, and you still choose to be stubborn and take a ride that can't keep up. Teammates might indeed be derps (though on some maps there are reasons to move to spots fast) but so is the OP if knowing what he knows, he still chooses to drive the slowest thing possible in those scenarios.

And I see people blame PGI for the spawn point... but there is a counter to that.... the reason the Assaults spawn so far from Candy Mountain was to try to get players to break their psychological addiction to that being the only place to fight on Alpine.
That lower south eastern portion of the Map where on of the Assault Lances spawns? Is actually a better terrain to fight on... in that instance if players were anythign but Lemmings, they would flock to protect their assaults then hold that section, which is conveniently out of range of the Mountaintop... so if the enemy takes it.... so what?

Moral of the story to me? Most players, no matter what Epeen Tier, are stubborn, selfish and really don't think anything through.

[Khobai]

Quote

Khobai, is your solution to every single issue to "add re-spawns"?

respawns exist in other games for a reason. and the reason is to avoid MWO's problems.

[GrimRiver]

The only answer I can give is give up an higher engine for a lower one and pack much more firepower so when you get cornered you can at least put the hurt on them, assaults are slow anyway so whats a loss of 4/8kph if it means you can pack more weapons to better defend yourself.

This answer is mostly for IS mechs but for clans...well there is not much you really can do except speed tweak or get a faster clan mech.

[Bishop Steiner]

Khobai, on 23 December 2015 - 09:54 AM, said:

respawns exist in other games for a reason. and the reason is to avoid MWO's problems.

cool...so people who need boring vanilla generic respawns have plenty of options to play. Have fun with those.

[Barantor]

Sandpit, on 23 December 2015 - 01:11 AM, said:

here's teh thing.

how exactly is it a handicap?
Those mechs aren't asking you to stand next to them holding their hand. They're simply asking you to stop stretching out so far in front so that when the inevitable heavy mechs from the opposing team come smashing into our flanks, it's not the long range support mechs trying to get locks, spread missile barrages, keep the enemy herded into the right direction, that get rolled up on by the short range heavy and assault mechs.

Please explain to me how you having to hold up in "E4" for 30 seconds while the ENTIRE team groups and starts forming firing lines, is somehow a "handicap"

Please explain to me why if there isn't a brawl going within the first 3 minutes of a 15 minute match, it's a "handicap" top not be charging in ala leeroy.

Got news for you players that fit into that mold I just pointed out, you quite simply are not going to excel in this game until you understand the fallacy of the very nature of your argument.

The very fact that you would in ANY way have ANY thing to say to anyone that suggested you should abandon, leave, or otherwise sacrifice up to 1/3 of your entire team and, in most cases, about 60-70% of the ENTIRE team's firepower, because you think having to hold up in a forward position for 30 seconds while the big guys get caught up and set up is a "handicap" explain VOLUMES to exactly why you won't excel in this game long-term.

TL;DR

Opinion matters for zilch here.
Players that coordinate as a team will go much further much faster than players who QQ about "slow" mechs being a "handicap"

I'm fine with my slow mech I take my lumps.

Handicap on some maps because you are more than a quadrant away from any of the team and putting it on an exposed flank.

Caustic skirmish has one spawn area raised on a hill with little cover and a large open field between you and any allies. Literally dumb to drop there with an assault mech, but you don't get to pick drop points so I consider it a handicap to being able to play anything that isn't fast.

Let's be honest, a lot of the quick play could change dramatically if they let us pick which mech and which drop location after seeing the map. Assaults would want a lot more cover and lights would want to be closer to the enemy team to spot, harass, snipe and cause chaos.

I want it to be better, not have folks just saying "don't play that then" because that is a failure of the game system, not a failure of the player.

I like when there isn't a brawl in the first 5 minutes, but the lore nerd/simulation nerd in me screams internally when half our team has short range weapons and we have to deal with alpine. Nobody would do that, it's like dropping Abrams tanks into a swamp and expecting victory.

As far as OP though, you end up having to take your lumps when piloting an assault, as frustrating as it currently is.

[Khobai]

Quote

cool...so people who need boring vanilla generic respawns have plenty of options to play. Have fun with those.

Ive already explained how respawns would result in less boring, less vanilla games.

one-life gamemodes = everyone is scared of dying, too afraid to take risks and try new things, and always doing the exact same safe strategy of deathballing in preset locations on every map.

The game has deteriorated into that precisely because theres no respawns. As long as there are no respawns the game will be banal, stagnant, and repetitive. Thats an irrefutable fact. Especially since other game developers realized this DECADES ago when respawn was first invented.

Edited by Khobai, 23 December 2015 - 10:22 AM.

[Barantor]

Bishop Steiner, on 23 December 2015 - 10:08 AM, said:

cool...so people who need boring vanilla generic respawns have plenty of options to play. Have fun with those.

I'm fine with taking out quick play as it exists entirely and replacing it with a different mode of faction play with only one mech you choose at the map screen out of four, but random map/mode quick play is definitely not some paragon of virtue in gaming and should not be held up like one.

Those other 'vanilla generic' games have everything that PGI wants though, e sports, large communities and plenty of social media/streaming exposure. This game is honestly already different enough with the mech building and lore aspects that the current quick play game mode feels very 'thrown together' or dare I say it "minimum viable product".

[Nostromodamus]

With no respawns and objective-based gameplay, Counterstrike became one of the most successful online franchises ever.

Those things don't necessarily hold a game back.

[Barantor]

Hotthedd, on 23 December 2015 - 05:26 AM, said:

Khobai, is your solution to every single issue to "add re-spawns"?

MW:O would lose players over adding mid match re-spawns, and it would only magnify the difficulties of the match maker. (Right now a really bad player can only cost a team 100 Tons) OR in "Dropship" mode it would be a grind barrier for new players.

Founders paid good money to fund this game, and not having arcade-y re-spawns was one of the earlier promises made in order to get their money.

...yet we have respawns in a whole mode that has the most lore and was promised the longest.

You are confusing instant respawns with the same thing that Faction Play does with it's system.

There is a middle ground of having the dropships just like we do now. It is a lot of work for PGI and I don't know if they see the value in it, so we have what we have.

CelticCross, on 23 December 2015 - 10:23 AM, said:

With no respawns and objective-based gameplay, Counterstrike became one of the most successful online franchises ever.

Those things don't necessarily hold a game back.

Counterstrike happens in sequential rounds of play though, which is something that MWO doesn't really do either.

Look at EA with Battlefield, I would love to do MWO on a scale that BF2 had with objectives based on ticket counters and not just super kill. It would even make more sense in the lore since you would have objectives worth throwing battlemechs at.

All I know is I still have friends who love the mechs and building, but hate the actual play of this game and won't touch it.

[Morggo]

Barantor, on 23 December 2015 - 10:21 AM, said:

I'm fine with taking out quick play as it exists entirely and replacing it with a different mode...

Why does it keep coming back to "removal?"
It was one of the founding principles the game wouldn't have respawn if I understand correctly. It's one of the things that was originally desired. I get that can sometimes hold a game in a more niche market (but MWO is that anyhow, but it's a damn fine niche imho). I get that times change, and today there is a market for more arcade-y style games (see the huge pile of respawn based games).

If the only way to attract and retain a larger player base is having (to me anyway) a boring, unchallenging-doesn't-matter-if-I-die modes fine. But I still believe there must be other ways to introduce or foster more objective style matches. So sure, add a check box to the current solo queue that says "Repawn Y/N" and run it with two matchmakers but just drop the whole "it's respawn or death" since there are plenty of us that enjoy the challenge and would absolutely dread respawn (ticket system or no, same result.. you don't really have consequences to not managing your limited resource aka your one mech and ammo).

edit - and yes, I know faction play is a form of respawn. And I like how it is done but I also really like the one-life-pugland.

Edited by Morggo, 23 December 2015 - 10:43 AM.

[fogsworth]

Alistair Winter, on 22 December 2015 - 06:52 AM, said:

Ah, another thread about assault mechs getting left behind.

It's a story that never ceases to be relevant. Like treachery, lust for power or forbidden love between cousins.

The timeless story of Raveno and Jaegermech.