93 replies to this topic

[Gyrok]

MauttyKoray, on 12 February 2016 - 04:27 AM, said:

1. Its the map objective...sorry? Not really...

2. No, haha...I'd rather get whatever mode than wait 10+ minutes for matchmaker. Besides, if we go back to that everyone will just cry about wait times again.

1.) It is forced upon people who hate the idea of standing in a laser fence to keep other people who like standing in laser fences from winning. Sorry...

2.) Actually, since the population is supposedly like 50 times larger than it ever was before, this should not at all be problematic. Besides, T1 wait times for heavy mechs are pretty high as it is...not like that will change much.

Almond Brown, on 12 February 2016 - 07:47 AM, said:

Hang on a minute. You want to just shoot Stompy Robots BUT if you have to wait 2 minutes for the Shooty Furball to come to you, that is not good enough either?

Your just Trolling now dude... be ashamed..

No...I want to shoot stompy robots...and I do not mind hunting for the enemy team. But standing around waiting on cap rushers is no different than standing in laser fences.

We might as well change the name to kick rocks warrior online since that is all you do when you are standing around doing nothing.

[Roadkill]

I don't miss it at all. In the matches I play, Assault and Conquest are just very minor variations on Skirmish in which you have to pay a very small amount of attention to one other thing... just in case.

Skirmish is definitely more free-wheeling because you can, like, do 2 FULL LAPS of NASCAR on rare occasions, but most of the time it's only about 180 degrees anyway. Assault just limits you to 180 degrees, and Conquest forces the rotation to happen differently on some of the maps.

But really all 3 modes are just "Deathball 4tW!" and basically play out like that every time.

The only matches that I even pay attention to the mode are when I'm bringing a slow assault... in those cases I vote against Conquest only because I want to be able to be mobile in Conquest if I'm going to play it.

[Gyrok]

Bud Crue, on 12 February 2016 - 08:40 AM, said:

OP,

Not sure what game you are playing, but I have been working on my lights of late and the only way I can seem to get a conquest match is if I get my vote modifier up to x10 or better. That might take a dozen matches. Otherwise its all skirmish, all the time. Heck even an assault match seems like a godsend sometimes.

I would take your luck...seriously...last night all I got was conquest and assault.

These were my matches:

TT conquest
Polar conquest
Alpine Assault
Bog conquest
caustic conquest
caustic assault
canyon conquest
frozen city conquest
bog assault
tourmaline conquest
colony conquest
river city conquest
tourmaline assault
canyon conquest
frozen city skirmish (last match of the night...after 2.5 hours)

[sycocys]

Gyrok, on 11 February 2016 - 08:13 PM, said:

I miss the days of just running skirmish. I play this game to shoot stompy robots...not to get base rushed or play conquest. Surely the population is big enough now we can bring it back without issue....right?

Every single mode is still just skirmish with a slightly different place to fight. Can't adapt to a slightly different location on the map?

[DivineEvil]

I don't even vote for the game mode anymore. It doesn't bother me what game mode people want more, I play any of it with appropriate considerations, and they do make difference in otherwise predictable movement patterns. Matchmaking is far quicker, and of all the issues MWO currently has, this one is just "an issue for somebody other than me".

[TheStrider]

The only time I selected which game type was during events that forced the issue.

Otherwise, I'm game for everything. Conquest == more cbills, it's rough I know...

[Gyrok]

TheStrider, on 12 February 2016 - 09:08 AM, said:

The only time I selected which game type was during events that forced the issue.

Otherwise, I'm game for everything. Conquest == more cbills, it's rough I know...

Not enough cbills to matter...and especially when games drag out because cap warriors, you are getting less matches in, so the few cbills extra you might get from a conquest victory are offset by the fact you can run an extra match in skirmish.

[Dan Nashe]

I haven't seen more than 1 assault or conquest in 20 where the winning team didn't get at least 8-10 kills. I can only recall one game we won without a kill lead, like 9-11, but the other team lost only because they were too terrified of dying to step on the base and slow the cap. They were all within 500 meters of it.

By definition if you're in conquest, someone wanted to play it.
This is better than pure rng because players preferences influence percentages. And better than single modes because it adds some variety and greatly helps balance matches. Splitting the game into 3 queues just so you can play only skirmish isn't worth increased queue times and decreased game quality.

It is frustrating losing because your team doesn't understand that in every game mode, the best way to win is to get the mech lead first. And to not all rtb to hunt a squirrel. But squirrel chasing is a big problem in skirmish too.

The only time rushes are a problem is when a team brings 8 lights. Which won'won't happen because most games are skirmish. Mixing the modes keeps everyone honest.

[Narcissistic Martyr]

I like conquest and I get to play it more than 1/10 matches now so no, no I don't.

[Haakon Magnusson]

Nope, I find that being able to play all game modes well is good for you...

[Pathos]

I enjoy playing all three matches. It's even better when it turns into Conquest on Polar Highlands. The salt from those in slow, specialized close range builds melts all the snow.

[TheStrider]

Gyrok, on 12 February 2016 - 09:20 AM, said:

Not enough cbills to matter...and especially when games drag out because cap warriors, you are getting less matches in, so the few cbills extra you might get from a conquest victory are offset by the fact you can run an extra match in skirmish.

Same argument can be made for Skirmish. Last guy in a fast mover runs away for 5+ minutes killing nothing.

In fact, I see the 'long game delay' more often in Assault and Skirmish than in Conquest.

[AssaultPig]

conquest is nice because it keeps people from camping (or at least, makes the campers lose.) Killing mechs will always be the way to win unless they implement some kind of respawn and so it is on conquest, but at least there's some incentive to push. Used to play conq all the time when solo, wish I still could.

the dueling banjos routine between 'conquest sucks' and 'conquest is the same as the other modes' is always good for a chuckle

[Triordinant]

Long wait times in the public group queue were the only reason they put up map/mode voting. Russ himself said the population more than doubled since Steam so there's no reason for it now. Hell, if the group queue was having a problem why screw the solo queue up with map/mode voting as well? That was stupid. We should go back to random maps and players being able to select their game mode. I've played this game since Closed Beta but map/mode voting finally made me stop.

[Ace Selin]

This is how i see the game modes....
Skirmish is all about killing enemy mechs.
Assault is all about killing enemy mechs.
Conquest is all about killing enemy mechs.

Pretty much thats how it works out 95% of times in matches i play, so im fine with how things are at present.

[Gyrok]

TheStrider, on 12 February 2016 - 10:44 AM, said:

Same argument can be made for Skirmish. Last guy in a fast mover runs away for 5+ minutes killing nothing.

In fact, I see the 'long game delay' more often in Assault and Skirmish than in Conquest.

Seriously?

Most of my skirmish matches are over in less than 5 minutes, and if I was gambling, I would bet less than 3 minutes on maps with close spawns (canyon/caustic/frozen city/bog/terra therma)

[patataman]

I miss unselecting skirmish. It's tolerable with the vote multipliers, but sometimes i still get a lot of skirmish matches in a row, get bored, and in the end i decide to spend my entertainment time playing a different game or watching a movie for that day.

[SkyHammyr]

We weren't playing Conquest when you were stunning us with your 62 Match Score last night and your p*ssy tirade afterward, Chump.

Edited by SkyHammyr, 12 February 2016 - 02:47 PM.

[phulcrum]

Based on the bitching, moaning and toxic behavior we had to put up with from Gyrok the one game we were matched together last night it seems like he wants to play TurretWarrior: Online where everyone runs to the same spot on every map and sits there waiting for an enemy to get impatient, poke out and get sniped to death.

If you want this kind of gameplay why don't you find yourself 11 other players and go do CM? If you get so pissed that your team doesn't blindly follow you to whatever area you want to camp in why don't you get a unit and lead them yourself instead of playing in the queue solo? If you get so pissed that us non-tier1 players are getting matched with you find 11 other tier 1 players to play with and stop hitting the queue solo.

Regardless of what you do I believe you should unbind your chat buttons. Being toxic to your team because you ran off by yourself and got killed instead of staying with and supporting your team doesn't help anyone.

[Trauglodyte]

SO, am I to take this as you're one of those people who don't want to play objectives and, thusly, treat every game as Skirmish w/ something that you could do but you and everyone else won't?