46 replies to this topic

[Sound19]

MischiefSC, on 21 January 2016 - 04:32 PM, said:

Actually being good at CW is a complex skillset though. It is focused on teamwork and positioning. If you end a match under 1500 damage you need to be wondering why. You need to be looking at what to improve, be that your deck, your piloting, positioning and your teamwork.

Your team being bad isn't an excuse. A coordinated 12man open rush is a good excuse. That's it.

If that isn't your attitude then you need to realize you're playing for planet's against people who do have that attitude, in some cases teams of people who are way more hardcore than that.

That's a "you" problem. That's not a game design problem. They are trying harder, working harder and putting in more effort to win. There is nothing available to them you don't have.

If your response to that is "Then the game developers need to cull out all the people who really try to win so I don't have to" Then the problem really, really is you.

There is already a quickplay queue for idontgiveaflyingfook matches. CW is supposed to be more than that.

Not sure if this was directed toward me, the OP, or not. But I have some points of disagreement: There's a bit of strawman & false-choice nestled in there.

My critique wasn't that I should still be competitive while being a slacker. What I'd written highlighted clearly the understanding that leadership and teamwork tends to make a vast difference in success rate, as does veterancy and preparation. My described experience is of someone who basically has veterancy(250 matches, excluding >100 that pre-date metrics), and a full understanding beforehand of the power of team play. This critique is not coming from one of the fresh Steam players. Nor is it an argument that the game should limit or take away elite units' sophistication, achievements and level of competition.

My complaint was that CW is the only means of accessing the broader MWO experience, one promised years ago, but the game mode is currently implemented in a very non-inclusive way. It is very natural that I(and almost anyone else) would want to play the CW game as early as possible, because what's written on the label says "The Real MWO, not just a string of pointless arenas". And it's not advertised as a Solaris team tournament.

However, the game's system is arranged such to encourage and reward fights that feature elite units against rabble. This is a system that appears to be tuned to encourage greatly imbalanced fights. Organized units have more incentive to attack. Disorganized individuals are more intuitively equipped to defend. And the seeds are sown for a bad experience.

I contend that this is not strictly necessary. I read people present this dynamic as a zero-sum game, where either it's for the loathsome casuals(and anti-socials, like me), or it's a mode for elite endgame competition. One or the other. This is a false choice. In a Venn diagram, the elite-endgame circle, and the icky-casuals circle ought to both exist within the big CW circle, and only intersect a little. The game mode has room to appease both at the same time. Elite units should be encouraged to do their thing, but people like me who wish to stay casual shouldn't be put into situations like a counter-attack against a 12-man, unless it's by choice. CW does not need to be a zero-sum tug of war between casual vs endgame.

You(or others?) highlighted earlier the fact that there's a few ways you can swerve and dodge such that you can avoid the landmines and pitfalls set in place to catch newcomers like me. I'm going to adopt your suggestions(when I recover my mood against MWO), and I will likely have a better time, even while avoiding joining a unit, and continuing to lose. There was some good ideas there. But you should consider that all the advice you listed to dodge pitfalls should not be necessary to hear from a random forumer, for each newcomer to adopt. Rather, the route and means of finding fun games in CW mode for a casual should be completely apparent, and the landmines should not be placed in the entry-way.

For those suggesting that "that's what quick-play is for," note that you're overlooking the fact that many players will see the two options, measure them, and find quick-play a strictly inferior game mode. Because it literally is: It has entirely less features, no context, no immersion, no goal or purpose, no pretty map, no stake in anything, no risk. Assuming quick play is fine for casuals is an argument that's not gonna work so long as CW does so much more(in theory). You will keep seeing people like me, and a large percent are going to bounce out of MWO as a result.

Anyhow... I'd seen the teaser of CW3. I'm hopeful. But having heard little about the design, and seeing the misfire currently in place, I'm also fearful that the next iteration won't fully address this dissonance between gaming motives. I hope forthcoming details will change my mood to enthusiasm.

[MischiefSC]

Sound19, on 21 January 2016 - 08:39 PM, said:

Not sure if this was directed toward me, the OP, or not. But I have some points of disagreement: There's a bit of strawman & false-choice nestled in there.

My critique wasn't that I should still be competitive while being a slacker. What I'd written highlighted clearly the understanding that leadership and teamwork tends to make a vast difference in success rate, as does veterancy and preparation. My described experience is of someone who basically has veterancy(250 matches, excluding >100 that pre-date metrics), and a full understanding beforehand of the power of team play. This critique is not coming from one of the fresh Steam players. Nor is it an argument that the game should limit or take away elite units' sophistication, achievements and level of competition.

My complaint was that CW is the only means of accessing the broader MWO experience, one promised years ago, but the game mode is currently implemented in a very non-inclusive way. It is very natural that I(and almost anyone else) would want to play the CW game as early as possible, because what's written on the label says "The Real MWO, not just a string of pointless arenas". And it's not advertised as a Solaris team tournament.

However, the game's system is arranged such to encourage and reward fights that feature elite units against rabble. This is a system that appears to be tuned to encourage greatly imbalanced fights. Organized units have more incentive to attack. Disorganized individuals are more intuitively equipped to defend. And the seeds are sown for a bad experience.

I contend that this is not strictly necessary. I read people present this dynamic as a zero-sum game, where either it's for the loathsome casuals(and anti-socials, like me), or it's a mode for elite endgame competition. One or the other. This is a false choice. In a Venn diagram, the elite-endgame circle, and the icky-casuals circle ought to both exist within the big CW circle, and only intersect a little. The game mode has room to appease both at the same time. Elite units should be encouraged to do their thing, but people like me who wish to stay casual shouldn't be put into situations like a counter-attack against a 12-man, unless it's by choice. CW does not need to be a zero-sum tug of war between casual vs endgame.

You(or others?) highlighted earlier the fact that there's a few ways you can swerve and dodge such that you can avoid the landmines and pitfalls set in place to catch newcomers like me. I'm going to adopt your suggestions(when I recover my mood against MWO), and I will likely have a better time, even while avoiding joining a unit, and continuing to lose. There was some good ideas there. But you should consider that all the advice you listed to dodge pitfalls should not be necessary to hear from a random forumer, for each newcomer to adopt. Rather, the route and means of finding fun games in CW mode for a casual should be completely apparent, and the landmines should not be placed in the entry-way.

For those suggesting that "that's what quick-play is for," note that you're overlooking the fact that many players will see the two options, measure them, and find quick-play a strictly inferior game mode. Because it literally is: It has entirely less features, no context, no immersion, no goal or purpose, no pretty map, no stake in anything, no risk. Assuming quick play is fine for casuals is an argument that's not gonna work so long as CW does so much more(in theory). You will keep seeing people like me, and a large percent are going to bounce out of MWO as a result.

Anyhow... I'd seen the teaser of CW3. I'm hopeful. But having heard little about the design, and seeing the misfire currently in place, I'm also fearful that the next iteration won't fully address this dissonance between gaming motives. I hope forthcoming details will change my mood to enthusiasm.

This has been an ongoing debate in a number of threads and as such my response wasn't entirely directed at you.

A agree largely with what you've said and can find little fault in most of your concerns. One thing CW sorely lacks is any means of training people for CW - most the skills and habits that may serve you well in quickplay are bad habits in CW.

The problems in the current system about not providing incentive for units to face units is one I've argued over repeatedly - I'm strongly in favor of your end of round bonus being derived more about who you fought than anything else. A 12man of an particularly large or skilled unit should be a more valuable enemy to defeat than a group of people from small units or pugs. That would incent units to hunt units. Currently that doesn't exist.

It's important to understand though that CW is content designed around teamwork. You are not just fighting in new maps for the same stuff; you are, in theory, fighting as part of a greater overall war between factions for control of worlds. This is a war of armies and not random, casual deathmatches.

You don't need to join a unit. It helps if you join a unit with competitive-minded people but that's not going to make or break your ability to succeed. What will make or break your ability to succeed is your willingness and ability to communicate and coordinate with everyone else on your team in a drop. Teamwork creates synergy which provides a huge advantage. Coordination leverages individual exchanges of 4v1 instead of 1v1. The skill and familiarity with the gamemode to realize you are not 4 discrete mechs so much as your team is an accumulation of armor and potential damage to the enemy armor; hence drops going in waves. 4 waves of 12 is vastly more effective than a constant trickle of individuals.

If the teamwork experience isn't what you want then CW isn't what you want. That's not about 'elite units'. The actual legitimate 'elite units' in CW could all hang out in the same bar. The number of actual CW-active players in elite units could easily go out to dinner at the same place, though they might need a few tables. The large majority are miles and miles away from the title 'elite'.

However by being willing to play as a team they absolutely dominate those who don't. I pug almost exclusively in CW but still win close to 70% of my matches anymore. When I started in CW (beta 1) pugging was at best a 40% win rate. You learn to find and plug into existing teams, be a valuable contributor and really participate in what CW is supposed to be and it's a hell of a lot of fun.

You would be well served by looking at how you play as not 'this is how I play MW:O' but as a series of habits, both good and bad, and a collection of tools. Get the best tools and cultivate good habits while trying to mitigate bad habits. None of it is personal. Teams don't beat pugs because they love beating pugs or hate pugs or whatever. They queued up for a match, just like you. They clicked on 'attack' or 'defend', got into a match and played. They won or lost based on how well they played.

That's it. If you feel persecuted or picked on or like the system is designed to abuse you that's a mix of perception and approach. The system is designed to reward doing what wins. If you want to win, you do what wins. If you don't like doing that....

maybe it's not a fun choice for you. A lot of us really enjoy it though. You'll hear people saying 'you have to join a unit'. I disagree with that. I will say 'you need to be a good team player'. This game is team vs team. That's always been the case. That you can get away with not playing like that and still win in quickplay is a byproduct of PSR letting people do that and still end up winning in certain tiers. Without that shelter the reality of teamwork vs no teamwork shows its head.

Finally, keep in mind that a LOT of people in CW have more than 10x the number of drops you do. Some of us have 10k drops; maybe more. Many of us have over 1k drops in CW alone. You've got a big experience gap. Keep in mind that a lot of us have been through the same mentality you're in, kept with it, got better and now enjoy CW a lot. What you find fun is up to you but CW has a lot of fun to it, you just need to be honest with what it's about and if that's going to be what you enjoy.

[Sound19]

A lot of Great points in there.
Also some lousy points. You mentioned that your reply is directed to a broader audience, a response to a significant sentiment, so I'll not take it personally, though some of it is also worded towards me.

Starting with drop numbers - I was never intending to paint myself as highly experienced. Rather, that I am sufficiently experienced. 350+ drops is absolutely plenty. 1000 or 10,000 will yield even greater skill, refinement, and sophistication, but at that point it's far past starkly diminishing returns. My larger point is that I'm probably your average, somewhat veteran player, and I am a suitable demographic to begin getting into CW without experiencing significant skill shock versus other veterans. And I'm probably a suitably populous demographic for PGI to be concerned with when they're thinking about how to design the CW system. That's the point of mentioning my drops. I've seen people respond as if it's purely new players who are having this bad experience. That is false, QED.

You highlight my use of 'elite.' I'll definitely back off there, because I used the term extremely loosely. A better term would be "the many moderately competitive, organized, experienced units who are motivated by growing their skills and seeking challenges." Elite was an abbreviation for that idea. I'd ask that you instead focus on what I'm trying to communicate in that regard. This hypothetical category of players is an example of what I'm getting at when I mentioned gaming motives.

You've also emphasized the difference intrinsic to CW: This is an entirely team-oriented and objective-oriented game mode.
Yes! That's a huge part of why I'm interested in CW instead of Quick Play. But here you seem to be assuming that I(and likely many others) want to shoe-horn deathmatch duels into CW. Not at all - at that point, I wouldn't bother with it.

You also speak as if my dis-inclination to join a unit also means I would not follow leadership, or attempt to sometimes provide it. Also not true! There is a vast middle-ground between being on a TeamSpeak drop versus a 100% silent, text-less PUG. I reside in, and advocate for the middle ground, where the first things typed or spoken within seconds of the PUG drop is "Group up @ G7?" later followed by "2 incoming assaults right flank," and such. I call that teamwork. Competitive with a TeamSpeak drop with old buddies? No way - the synergy you talk about comes by enhancing your communication far past text chat. But it's still team-based play, with gradually increasing effectiveness. We(a hypothetical demographic I might represent) are still being true to the team-based intention of CW. So what you have presented there strikes me as part of the big strawman/false-choice in this debate(even though we're clearly mostly on the same side here).

My stance is that there's ways to design the system to facilitate that method of teamwork. Perhaps via mechanics, likely via more/better in-game tools, and certainly via even more official learning resources and tutorials. Completely silent and uncooperative newbies can be pulled into the fold via systems. Or they can be batted away like a tennis ball by the systems. Or they can get lucky, and talk to someone like you, and manage to find means to dodge the landmines in the entryway, but I posit that this isn't really a solution.

When you say that one's perspective and approach is the problem when they have a bad early experience in CW, this strikes me as just a lousy point. This assumes that they have expertise prior to the opportunity to get that expertise. Cart before the horse. Now, it's the case that someone who joins a unit right away in fact has access to that info and expertise. But again, that's non-inclusive. Nor is it entirely realistic: Many people will want to try CW(and have fun, win or lose) before they commit to anything. After the fact, what you say becomes absolutely true. But we're talking first impression here - the system must cater to the players. The players wont tend to cater to it initially, and that imposes an "I quit" tax, a result which we all agree is just awful.

In the end, I am going to probably go your route, and try to emulate your path and experience. But have no illusion: We are the minority, in that regard. We took the time, diligence, effort, and perhaps masochism to learn the hard road the hard way. Where others(most?) would bounce off, someone of our similar temperament persisted(maybe). And it absolutely does not need to be this way.

I just wish I could say that last sentence and follow it with a method, rather than with magic thinking: Somehow; there's a way!
But even if I had the idea, I am not the person to listen to in that regard, so meh.

Edited by Sound19, 21 January 2016 - 11:06 PM.

[Lupis Volk]

Leone, on 21 January 2016 - 06:20 PM, said:

The second, and probably more important for your consideration is FRR. They apparently use their faction hub and teamspeak more and seem most welcoming and newplayer friendly.

~Leone.

as a former steam noob i can attest to this. They are very helpful and willing to slow down to help those who learn slower (like me)

[MischiefSC]

If you're in CW for the teamplay, that's perfect. You're in the right place. There's a contingent of people however who hate the teamplay aspect. You'll recognize them by their response of '**** you' when you ask who wants to call the drop. I agree with everything you said on communication - the gap between top tier groups and everyone else is big enough that better communication really isn't going to help you beat them. Groups like 228 are going to walk all over you regardless. For the other 95% of your matches though you are absolutely correct; if your team is willing to communicate you've got a fighting chance at winning and with some practice will get down more often than you get beaten down. As to 'elite' and such I get what you mean just realize that those are loaded words here.

As to cart before the horse;

YMMV with CW. Hugely. It absolutely does put the players first; the point however is that it's there for players with a lot of experience in the game already. One of the big problems we've got right now is there's no way to to let people get a good intro to CW and learn the skills they need and what dropdeck they'll need without getting fed into the grinder for a while.

That, hopefully, is what CW 3 will help with.

That's why I said it has to do with your attitude and approach. It's not there to be fun and easy and engaging for someone learning to play the game. It's the shark tank. No PSR, no protection, no mercy. That's the appeal for some of us. You come into it with that attitude and you'll have a lot of fun. Does there need to be a way to get into CW and learn the ropes without getting fed into a wood chipper? Absolutely. However you get through the basics and it's all deep end with sharks and nasty beasties and uneven fights.

[Richter Kerensky]

There are a number of problems with how CW is designed and the amount of grind you have to go through just to build a decent drop deck is certainly one of them, even if you knew exactly what you wanted to bring.

[MischiefSC]

Richter Kerensky, on 22 January 2016 - 01:17 AM, said:

There are a number of problems with how CW is designed and the amount of grind you have to go through just to build a decent drop deck is certainly one of them, even if you knew exactly what you wanted to bring.

At least the trials are better. You can put a decent trial deck together on either side right now.

Also the payout is drastically higher - on a win you'll pull 600k to 1 million in CW now. You'll get over 300k on a ghost drop most the time. CW pays enough now to afford a deck if you're willing to put in a weekend at it. Also with the gimping of all the skill trees the value of a mastered deck vs one with just basics (only having 1 variant for example) is a lot smaller.

Not nearly as bad as it was.

[Richter Kerensky]

Another problem, which is a problem with the entire game and not just CW, is that PGI seems to buff and nerf things arbitrarily instead of leaving the well known 'good' mechs alone but increasing the power of the underwhelming ones, which would lead to a more interesting and diverse meta. This would also probably require a revamp of several weapon systems to be successful, though, and I'm not sure PGI is willing to go that far.

Like, why are Flamers and Machine Guns even in the game if they're going to be so spectacularly useless? Why are the AC/10 and LBX-10 AC so underwhelming? Why is the AC/2 complete garbage? Why don't LRMs and SSRMs home in on your mouse cursor instead of being a fire-and-forget lock-on system? (If they did that, they could significantly buff their speed and they might actually be useful!) Why do SRMs explode and deal no damage outside 270 meters when no other weapon does this?

I understand the answer to some of these questions is "it was like that in the tabletop game" but the goals of Battletech, the tabletop game, and an online competitive shooter are completely different. The online game shouldn't be a slave to systems originally intended to be resolved via rolling dice.

Edited by Richter Kerensky, 22 January 2016 - 01:40 AM.

[Leartes]

Sound19, on 21 January 2016 - 11:05 PM, said:

In the end, I am going to probably go your route, and try to emulate your path and experience. But have no illusion: We are the minority, in that regard. We took the time, diligence, effort, and perhaps masochism to learn the hard road the hard way. Where others(most?) would bounce off, someone of our similar temperament persisted(maybe). And it absolutely does not need to be this way.

Just liuke MischiefSC I mostly solo pug drop in CW. In the beginning I had the trash matches you described. Someone said "push now" I ran in and died with 100 damage. At the time I usually had 300-400 damage in my average quickmatch game and I often ended a CW with 500 damage. It was horrible. I lost all the time and I didn't understand what was going on.

I slowly improved to average something like ~800 damage. Then I had a few days off and I played a ton in that time. I started to recognize the good players in our faction and I was shocked. There were guys that did 2.5k damage every match. Even if we got rolled 48:10 or something. There was still this lone guy with 2.5k damage when everyone else had ~500. I started to follow these guys around, shoot what they shoot, try to not be in the way but generally learn where to go and where not to go. When I died I spectated the best players on our team. And it paid of. Now I pretty much always do 1.3 - 1.6k on a loss that goes to 40+ mechs. On wins I frequently break the 2k damage. And the most important thing.

It is always fun. Even if I know we have a horrible team right away (number of trial mechs, players wandering of on their own, no drop caller etc.), I know what to do to have a decent game. Even if we lose horribly, the game is fun for me if I know I have done well. That is, I didn't sit somewhere in the corner sniping and letting my team tank. I know I used my bodies well, I know got my shots on target. Isn't that the most important part? Trying to help the team as good as possible and knowing you did a decent job.

[Sjorpha]

@Sound19: I didn't read through all the posts, but you are absolutely correct that the mismatched incentives for attack and defend increases the amount of "pugstomps".

It's not only the reward structure that causes this but also the fact that pug teams are worse at attacking than defending since attacking requires a lot more coordination. So from the perspective of a solo pug, even if attacking reduces the chance of running into a unit, it also increases the chances of having a complete tactical failure on your team where everyone trickles in through the gates and dies.

I would personally say that the best matches for both units and pugs are those with a small group calling the shots on each side and with pugs filling out the teams, but there isn't much incentive for the units to split up like that since you always run the risk of running into another 12man and then you'll want to be a 12man on your side as well.

Everyone in hedging their bets as it makes sense for them and the result is a worse game experience for everyone, it's a kind of prisoners dilemma.

That said IMO it has improved slightly in the last month, right after steam launch it was an absolute mess of a stompfest. Now there are actually a fairly decent chance of getting many unit vs unit fights each time I play. So a part of this problem is due to the influx of newbies testing the gamemode and causing massive imbalance, it's slowly settling down as people leave, improves or joins units, but of course the problem that stem from design flaws remains.

[MischiefSC]

Richter Kerensky, on 22 January 2016 - 01:39 AM, said:

Another problem, which is a problem with the entire game and not just CW, is that PGI seems to buff and nerf things arbitrarily instead of leaving the well known 'good' mechs alone but increasing the power of the underwhelming ones, which would lead to a more interesting and diverse meta. This would also probably require a revamp of several weapon systems to be successful, though, and I'm not sure PGI is willing to go that far.

Like, why are Flamers and Machine Guns even in the game if they're going to be so spectacularly useless? Why are the AC/10 and LBX-10 AC so underwhelming? Why is the AC/2 complete garbage? Why don't LRMs and SSRMs home in on your mouse cursor instead of being a fire-and-forget lock-on system? (If they did that, they could significantly buff their speed and they might actually be useful!) Why do SRMs explode and deal no damage outside 270 meters when no other weapon does this?

I understand the answer to some of these questions is "it was like that in the tabletop game" but the goals of Battletech, the tabletop game, and an online competitive shooter are completely different. The online game shouldn't be a slave to systems originally intended to be resolved via rolling dice.

I would say the underlying problem is that instead of balancing the game they went to quirks. So you've got pretend balance in certain mechs with specific loadouts in specific situations....

which is to say no real balance at all. The tech still isn't balanced. The mechs themselves sure as **** are not balanced. Bads are still bad, substandard still just as bad. So you do give them all quirks to make pretend balance?

Remove all quirks. Balance tech. Then use mobility and structure quirks to bring mechs with bad designs and hardpoints and hitboxes up to the same standard.

There should be no weapon quirks on pretty much anything. Positive or negative. Give the Onion structure quirks to make up for lowslung weapons and fix the hitboxes so if it's not packing missiles it doesn't have the huge side torsos.

That's not what we're going to get though. We're going to get pretend balance and that's it.

[Wolfways]

Richter Kerensky, on 22 January 2016 - 01:39 AM, said:

Why don't LRMs and SSRMs home in on your mouse cursor instead of being a fire-and-forget lock-on system?

And why do people keep saying that LRM's are fire-and-forget when they aren't, but should be?

[MischiefSC]

Leartes, on 22 January 2016 - 01:59 AM, said:

Just liuke MischiefSC I mostly solo pug drop in CW. In the beginning I had the trash matches you described. Someone said "push now" I ran in and died with 100 damage. At the time I usually had 300-400 damage in my average quickmatch game and I often ended a CW with 500 damage. It was horrible. I lost all the time and I didn't understand what was going on.

I slowly improved to average something like ~800 damage. Then I had a few days off and I played a ton in that time. I started to recognize the good players in our faction and I was shocked. There were guys that did 2.5k damage every match. Even if we got rolled 48:10 or something. There was still this lone guy with 2.5k damage when everyone else had ~500. I started to follow these guys around, shoot what they shoot, try to not be in the way but generally learn where to go and where not to go. When I died I spectated the best players on our team. And it paid of. Now I pretty much always do 1.3 - 1.6k on a loss that goes to 40+ mechs. On wins I frequently break the 2k damage. And the most important thing.

It is always fun. Even if I know we have a horrible team right away (number of trial mechs, players wandering of on their own, no drop caller etc.), I know what to do to have a decent game. Even if we lose horribly, the game is fun for me if I know I have done well. That is, I didn't sit somewhere in the corner sniping and letting my team tank. I know I used my bodies well, I know got my shots on target. Isn't that the most important part? Trying to help the team as good as possible and knowing you did a decent job.

Pretty much this.

What people really, really seem to miss is that CW is like learning MW:O all over again. The skills that serve you in Quickplay are bad habits in CW. When you learn to work with your team, help them stay alive which in turn helps you, mutual support and coordination you find yourself doing better on average than you do in quickplay. It play better and is a lot more fun.

Where I talked about attitude being important. Most of us started out trying to use what we already knew and got really frustrated. When you step back, realize that it's a whole new set of skills and you need to work to pick them up and run good mechs, focus on teamwork to a degree that even the group queue doesn't require.

It's a whole new sort of GIT GUD. The people who try to play it like pug queue really suffer in CW. Sounds like Sound19 has the right mentality and hopefully will end up a new CW regular. We'll see.

[Jerry Beard]

Said it before and I will say it again. The game needs something in between Fast Play and CW to start to get folks ready for the full CW. I agree that CW is hardcore and I do like the idea but the jump is just to hard. If you spend months playing in the fast play ques all you will be is good there then you jump to CW and Blamo! You get stomped more times than not because it is a totally different game in play styles. What is need is a step or 2 to get folks into the right mind frame and to help them acquire the skills needed to play in CW 's full blown 12 man matches. The Scouting thing (4man) thing coming soon is I think the best place to start. Those pugging it should only be allowed to start in CW there. It will start teaching them the foundations of teamwork and communication needed to compete in CW. A minimum set of matches should have to be played there before one could become eligible for 12 man CW drops. IMO the next step after scouting would be 8 vs 8 drops for smaller units who can't field full 12 man drops or for groups of casuals. Something like a dropzone assault and hold and defense. It would further enforce skills needed and teach even more teamwork and allow smaller units as they grow a chance to take place in 12 man drops for planet assaults and defense. It would allow everyone a chance to get immersed in CW teach them the skills needed and allow everyone their spot in it. Smaller groups and pugs could still play CW but would have the minimal effect on the map as they should. It would allow the game mode to be much more immersive and give it a depth it sorely lacks at the moment. It would in the end give everyone something to shoot for and a reason to keep playing and improving..

Edited by Jerry Beard, 22 January 2016 - 06:23 AM.

[Kuritaclan]

Jerry Beard, on 22 January 2016 - 06:20 AM, said:

Said it before and I will say it again. The game needs something in between Fast Play and CW to start to get folks ready for the full CW. I agree that CW is hardcore and I do like the idea but the jump is just to hard. If you spend months playing in the fast play ques all you will be is good there then you jump to CW and Blamo! You get stomped more times than not because it is a totally different game in play styles. What is need is a step or 2 to get folks into the right mind frame and to help them acquire the skills needed to play in CW 's full blown 12 man matches. The Scouting thing (4man) thing coming soon is I think the best place to start. Those pugging it should only be allowed to start in CW there. It will start teaching them the foundations of teamwork and communication needed to compete in CW. A minimum set of matches should have to be played there before one could become eligible for 12 man CW drops. IMO the next step after scouting would be 8 vs 8 drops for smaller units who can't field full 12 man drops or for groups of casuals. Something like a dropzone assault and hold and defense. It would further enforce skills needed and teach even more teamwork and allow smaller units as they grow a chance to take place in 12 man drops for planet assaults and defense. It would allow everyone a chance to get immersed in CW teach them the skills needed and allow everyone their spot in it. Smaller groups and pugs could still play CW but would have the minimal effect on the map as they should. It would allow the game mode to be much more immersive and give it a depth it sorely lacks at the moment. It would in the end give everyone something to shoot for and a reason to keep playing and improving..

You mean something like a 4 vs 4 with a second time respawn and let's say a tonnage Limit of 80. That would be glorious to get a transit zone to CW for new players.

Edit and next time don't produce a wall of text. Not everybody is willing to read such a block!

Edited by Kuritaclan, 22 January 2016 - 07:55 AM.

[Speedkermit]

Sound19, on 21 January 2016 - 08:39 PM, said:

Not sure if this was directed toward me, the OP, or not. But I have some points of disagreement: There's a bit of strawman & false-choice nestled in there.

My critique wasn't that I should still be competitive while being a slacker. What I'd written highlighted clearly the understanding that leadership and teamwork tends to make a vast difference in success rate, as does veterancy and preparation. My described experience is of someone who basically has veterancy(250 matches, excluding >100 that pre-date metrics), and a full understanding beforehand of the power of team play. This critique is not coming from one of the fresh Steam players. Nor is it an argument that the game should limit or take away elite units' sophistication, achievements and level of competition.

My complaint was that CW is the only means of accessing the broader MWO experience, one promised years ago, but the game mode is currently implemented in a very non-inclusive way. It is very natural that I(and almost anyone else) would want to play the CW game as early as possible, because what's written on the label says "The Real MWO, not just a string of pointless arenas". And it's not advertised as a Solaris team tournament.

However, the game's system is arranged such to encourage and reward fights that feature elite units against rabble. This is a system that appears to be tuned to encourage greatly imbalanced fights. Organized units have more incentive to attack. Disorganized individuals are more intuitively equipped to defend. And the seeds are sown for a bad experience.

I contend that this is not strictly necessary. I read people present this dynamic as a zero-sum game, where either it's for the loathsome casuals(and anti-socials, like me), or it's a mode for elite endgame competition. One or the other. This is a false choice. In a Venn diagram, the elite-endgame circle, and the icky-casuals circle ought to both exist within the big CW circle, and only intersect a little. The game mode has room to appease both at the same time. Elite units should be encouraged to do their thing, but people like me who wish to stay casual shouldn't be put into situations like a counter-attack against a 12-man, unless it's by choice. CW does not need to be a zero-sum tug of war between casual vs endgame.

You(or others?) highlighted earlier the fact that there's a few ways you can swerve and dodge such that you can avoid the landmines and pitfalls set in place to catch newcomers like me. I'm going to adopt your suggestions(when I recover my mood against MWO), and I will likely have a better time, even while avoiding joining a unit, and continuing to lose. There was some good ideas there. But you should consider that all the advice you listed to dodge pitfalls should not be necessary to hear from a random forumer, for each newcomer to adopt. Rather, the route and means of finding fun games in CW mode for a casual should be completely apparent, and the landmines should not be placed in the entry-way.

For those suggesting that "that's what quick-play is for," note that you're overlooking the fact that many players will see the two options, measure them, and find quick-play a strictly inferior game mode. Because it literally is: It has entirely less features, no context, no immersion, no goal or purpose, no pretty map, no stake in anything, no risk. Assuming quick play is fine for casuals is an argument that's not gonna work so long as CW does so much more(in theory). You will keep seeing people like me, and a large percent are going to bounce out of MWO as a result.

Anyhow... I'd seen the teaser of CW3. I'm hopeful. But having heard little about the design, and seeing the misfire currently in place, I'm also fearful that the next iteration won't fully address this dissonance between gaming motives. I hope forthcoming details will change my mood to enthusiasm.

If I may?

Perhaps PGI should completely rework CW, but also make it the ONLY game mode?

[WANTED]

Great post by the OP. Intelligent, well thought out statements and observations. I can't speak as an expert in CW. I'm more like the bottom tier CW at the moment. I'm working at it but CW is quite a time sink. Also by the time I get on, there might be 1 drop for me at night before it goes to ceasefire. Really I would love to get more CW practice or training but I usually just pug drop when events occur as I can get into the quickest games and rewards that way. I'm hoping PGI is working on a training module for CW cause it is sorely needed.

[Richter Kerensky]

Wolfways, on 22 January 2016 - 03:50 AM, said:

And why do people keep saying that LRM's are fire-and-forget when they aren't, but should be?

Because you point your mouse cursor in the general direction of an enemy Dorito and wait a couple of seconds to get a lock, then you shoot them and you can't do anything to alter their trajectory once they've been launched?

[Sound19]

Speedkermit, on 22 January 2016 - 09:16 AM, said:

If I may?

Perhaps PGI should completely rework CW, but also make it the ONLY game mode?

Personally, I think this would have been best. But that's practically a whole new game, and I guess we can't let the perfect get in the way of the good.

[Uldred]

No matchmaking, no mercy, no competition!