40 replies to this topic

[Ted Wayz]

Tarogato, on 27 February 2016 - 12:55 PM, said:

To me it sounded like none of that. It's a King of the Hill with the central point been a 1000m wide zone, and a secondary objective(s) to take if one team successfully camps the central zone. So imagine Terra Therma where the entire caldera counts as the zone. Instead of rushing for the caldera, you could rush for the secondary objective on the outskirts of the map to draw the camping team out of the caldera.

... just my impression.

That is what I heard too. But my fear it will be the caldera or the crater or typical Theta locations. I don't mind brawls but if I can't pick my map and mode this could get ugly quick. Secondary objective is no more than the soft caps we have now. A distraction but nothing more than a way to tell where people are. And people are imagining buildings, obstructions, etc. Think of the Thetas we have now. HPG has cover, how about the rest?

Instead of the secondary location they could just use the conquest locations and rotate the control points after X points are earned. Then everyone is moving, laying traps, etc. But people are right, let's wait and see. Not like we will have a choice to play it or not.

[Nightshade24]

MechaBattler, on 27 February 2016 - 12:02 PM, said:

Less than excited. Why can't our game modes be immersive? Why would standing in a square accomplish anything?

It's a game way of saying: hey, you have achieved ground superiority here. Area secured. We captured this place. It's ours not theres, etc.
taking the visual scare out and only leave the land mark/ facility there. and this happens all the time in IRL.
ranging from capturing/ occupying / liberating a town, settlement, city, or factory. To securing a cliff side/ ridge / hill or mountain/ etc.

The same mechanics was in MW4, and in contemporary games. You tell me how else you could show this without using the big circle of dominance?
OR on another topic: do tell me what game mode you would propose would be a better idea for a 4th game mode?

[keith]

well if its KOTH they "could" make it interesting. the secondary objectives could be additive things like an emp pulse on the hill, an arty strike, a scout drone that pop ups. all things already in the game where LIGHT mechs can go cap a secondary point and help a fight in the center. each of the secondary objectives takes different amount of time to cap. i have no idea how to code, but they have all the models and effects already done. this is a high hope....

[Deathlike]

Mcgral18, on 27 February 2016 - 12:15 PM, said:

I'm not too sure about the Damage mechanic at this point.

If you take damage, you stop capping for 3 seconds. ERLLs, Arty can stop caps from across the map...which isn't the worst thing, as some have good cover (aside from the base itself), but I'm imagining a trolling 3L or LOLcust with ERLLs.

Or a Light not able to cap, and the team just continually striking the base until they get there, and applying 0.01 damage with LPLs or what-have-you, ensuring the cap can't take place, period.

Trololocust OP, please nerf?

Base capping suppression would be easy.

BTW, Conquest actually used to have caps that could be paused by an opponent's enemy fire (very easy to see when you are capping and trying to fill the bar up).

I don't know when that stopped (besides when the cap accel stopped functioning for Conquest - is it fixed yet?), but the novelty will be short lasting, considering how the game generally functions.

Even the upcoming Conquest change only affects one specific aspect (12 dead mechs != win, cap win is only win), which generally doesn't affect the deathball mentality as much (less mechs to cap = less worries, in general, assuming caps are held at a 3-2 or 2-3 pace).

Edited by Deathlike, 27 February 2016 - 07:08 PM.

[MechaBattler]

Nightshade24, on 27 February 2016 - 03:51 PM, said:

It's a game way of saying: hey, you have achieved ground superiority here. Area secured. We captured this place. It's ours not theres, etc.
taking the visual scare out and only leave the land mark/ facility there. and this happens all the time in IRL.
ranging from capturing/ occupying / liberating a town, settlement, city, or factory. To securing a cliff side/ ridge / hill or mountain/ etc.

The same mechanics was in MW4, and in contemporary games. You tell me how else you could show this without using the big circle of dominance?
OR on another topic: do tell me what game mode you would propose would be a better idea for a 4th game mode?

So you're advocating standing in a square? If they actually went to the effort of making it seem you're securing a location. That would be a start. Instead we got a blinky color box to denote this.

Edited by MechaBattler, 27 February 2016 - 07:07 PM.

[Rustycan]

cazidin, on 27 February 2016 - 08:45 AM, said:

Hot domination talk? I think that's a bit inappropriate for these forums.

*Facepalm*

[Davers]

Nightshade24, on 27 February 2016 - 03:51 PM, said:

It's a game way of saying: hey, you have achieved ground superiority here. Area secured. We captured this place. It's ours not theres, etc.
taking the visual scare out and only leave the land mark/ facility there. and this happens all the time in IRL.
ranging from capturing/ occupying / liberating a town, settlement, city, or factory. To securing a cliff side/ ridge / hill or mountain/ etc.

The same mechanics was in MW4, and in contemporary games. You tell me how else you could show this without using the big circle of dominance?
OR on another topic: do tell me what game mode you would propose would be a better idea for a 4th game mode?

How about an objective based game mode where, unlike Assault or Conquest, focusing on doing the Primary Objective is fun, rewarding, and not actually the best way to throw the game?

[Ted Wayz]

Davers, on 27 February 2016 - 07:19 PM, said:

How about an objective based game mode where, unlike Assault or Conquest, focusing on doing the Primary Objective is fun, rewarding, and not actually the best way to throw the game?

This.

Make Assault and Conquest fun and rewarding instead of forcing us to play them.

[ExplicitContent]

Tarogato, on 27 February 2016 - 12:55 PM, said:

To me it sounded like none of that. It's a King of the Hill with the central point been a 1000m wide zone, and a secondary objective(s) to take if one team successfully camps the central zone. So imagine Terra Therma where the entire caldera counts as the zone. Instead of rushing for the caldera, you could rush for the secondary objective on the outskirts of the map to draw the camping team out of the caldera.

... just my impression.

Sounds an awful lot like conquest mode at therma....

[Nightshade24]

MechaBattler, on 27 February 2016 - 07:07 PM, said:

So you're advocating standing in a square? If they actually went to the effort of making it seem you're securing a location. That would be a start. Instead we got a blinky color box to denote this.

Davers, on 27 February 2016 - 07:19 PM, said:

How about an objective based game mode where, unlike Assault or Conquest, focusing on doing the Primary Objective is fun, rewarding, and not actually the best way to throw the game?

Well Battler, it is rather hard to make players feel something if they do not want to or thought about it, or to do something without the aid of narrative/ ai to push you along...

Even if we have fully fledged escort missions with tanks and convoys going down a mountain pass road network and you are meant to be close support escorts in case the enemy comes all that will happen is 1 death ball goes towards the other deathball and that 1 light mech with artillery ruins the fun for the Skirmish version 7. If you remove all the players besides one and replace them with Ai's than you could have a more immersive experience. however currently that isn't a good idea for an MMO. however in the works for a single player campaign I heard.
I am not sure if there will be a big visible box telling you where to stand to dominate, however either way the mechanics is as advance as it will get by showing domination of an area/ sector.

Because Davers when it comes to a multiplayer game killing players is the funnest thing to do, doing the objective is just 'throwing in the game for other people'.

Look at War Thunder, the objectives include destroying enemy vehicles [scenarios: wartime ambulances, convoys, escorts, enemy army moving in to attack allied fortification or naval escorts ,convoys, destroyers/ fleet, etc.], destroying light enemy targets [AA, AAA, Artilly, Howitzers, Machine gun nests, etc], destroying enemy heavy targets [ pillboxes, light pillboxes, forts, etc], Or Destroying the strategic targets (airfields, aircraft carriers, full depo / factories/ "mini bases" also known as strategic target or bombing point, etc]... as well as destroying enemy spotters / recon / ai bomber formations/ enemy fighter bombers/ dive bombers/ etc.

But you know what happens in those games? People who go ground attack are often seen as being a waste of space on the team as they are not killing enemy player vehicles. Even then quite a few people claim it isn't fun to ground attack (over half the population of WT) and the main reason is they are not players, in a 16 vs 16 game of players and bunch of ai's, killing an ai doesn't feel as awarding as killing a player (maybe due to the fact you know you didn't ruin someones day on the other side of the computer?) and when you get killed by an ai you feel like you got cheated.
A minority in the game [such as myself] do have fun in ground attack, however even more find strategic bombing of targets such as airfields even more boring even though It is one of the hardest things to do and just simply being above the enemy airfield still alive with flak smothering you and enemy fighters chasing after you is enough to get my adrenaline pumping let alone actually bombing and destroying the airfield (which is a victory condition).
Funny enough... bombing the airfield will be just like in the upcoming patch assaulting the enemy base of turrets and barriers and capturing it or in CW destroying omega generator... People get pissed they didn't kill literally every enemy there is however you did the objective and won...

Likewise on the bomber situation being an LRM boat also gets the same kind of response and attitude in MW: O- where a large majority of people in MW: O think LRM'ing isn't fun even though I personally consider it (when done right) is the hardest thing to do but most vital.

In WT in some cases some missions have very detailed and immersive objectives but due to a combination of peer pressure and knowing there are enemy player targets out there it makes the experience worse. This is the problem with MW: O.
Even though next patch is aiming to make the base an actual thing to assault and not just walk into... you are still not pleased with what is essentially one of the most immersive aspects of MW2, MW3, and MW4... sieges and assaults.
What's the difference here?... there is 11 other players who want to kill other players and think of people killing ai's as people "farming" or wasting ammo...

PGI is in a rather hard situation and it is really hard to make something "fun" when many choose not to.

I personally have fun with the current conquest however it's mainly because of the capture points you get battles that otherwise will never happen in skirmish or assault.

[Nightshade24]

ExplicitContent, on 27 February 2016 - 07:58 PM, said:

Sounds an awful lot like conquest mode at therma....

Would sure mix things up if the main domination point was actually the large volanic fields instead of the centre.

[Davers]

Nightshade24, on 27 February 2016 - 09:04 PM, said:

Look at War Thunder

WT is a good example of objectives done right. Destroying ground targets doesn't send you off to some far corner of the map. It puts you right in the middle of the action. Destroying the targets, especially multiple targets on each attack run, is fun and challenging. It also provides experience for other game modes when the ground targets are also players in tanks.

It's funny that we had turrets on bases before and people didn't seem to like them so they were removed. Now it seems they are coming back, and MUST be destroyed and the base capped to win the game. So People will have to "waste" their ammo on them now.

[MrMadguy]

Tarogato, on 27 February 2016 - 12:55 PM, said:

To me it sounded like none of that. It's a King of the Hill with the central point been a 1000m wide zone, and a secondary objective(s) to take if one team successfully camps the central zone. So imagine Terra Therma where the entire caldera counts as the zone. Instead of rushing for the caldera, you could rush for the secondary objective on the outskirts of the map to draw the camping team out of the caldera.

... just my impression.

I agree. I imagine it as "King of Hill" too. Your worst nightmare will materialize - every map will be played like Therma and Alpine.

[Ted Wayz]

Nightshade24, on 27 February 2016 - 09:04 PM, said:

In WT in some cases some missions have very detailed and immersive objectives but due to a combination of peer pressure and knowing there are enemy player targets out there it makes the experience worse. This is the problem with MW: O.
Even though next patch is aiming to make the base an actual thing to assault and not just walk into... you are still not pleased with what is essentially one of the most immersive aspects of MW2, MW3, and MW4... sieges and assaults.
What's the difference here?... there is 11 other players who want to kill other players and think of people killing ai's as people "farming" or wasting ammo...

Much of what you say I fully support and have suggested as an alternative to our current CW. I think Conquest and Assault work better as preludes to final battles in CW. Taking a planet should take at least a week if not weeks with a tug of war in the middle. Skirmish could work into the mix but it works better as quick play.

And if PGI brought back salvage into CW and you could withdraw at a certain point in a match, and if resource and position denial were important, then killing and tactics take on a different perspective.

Maybe someday.

[N a p e s]

Monkey Lover, on 27 February 2016 - 08:33 AM, said:

I still can't believe they didnt say anything about the archer bay doors. Maybe the "all new something we haven't done before" isn't going to happen.

Well the doors are actually composed of 2 sections which actuate to open. Maybe that's what Russ was referring too...?

[meteorol]

In a no respawn environment, every gamemode they come up with will just end up as a different variation of TDM. You will always be able to play the objective after you murderballed the enemy team during the first 3 minutes of a match. Once the enemy team is down like 9:1, they have little to no chance of winning via the secondary (soon to be "primary") objective.

So why would there be any hot discussions? The new mode will come down to TDM, just like the gamemodes we have right now. In a no respawn environment, killing the enemy team quickly will always be the easiest way to win the match. Lets not lose track of what MWO really is: a 12v12 arena vehicle combat shooter. Within this frame, you will never have anything but TDM if you avoid using respawns.

[Nightshade24]

Davers, on 28 February 2016 - 04:47 AM, said:

WT is a good example of objectives done right. Destroying ground targets doesn't send you off to some far corner of the map. It puts you right in the middle of the action. Destroying the targets, especially multiple targets on each attack run, is fun and challenging. It also provides experience for other game modes when the ground targets are also players in tanks.

It's funny that we had turrets on bases before and people didn't seem to like them so they were removed. Now it seems they are coming back, and MUST be destroyed and the base capped to win the game. So People will have to "waste" their ammo on them now.

What about Ruhr where the ai He 111's are what... 17 km away from the actual battlefield?
Also many people hate how the mission objective is in the middle of the map as Fighters naturally go to the middle and the attackers / tactical bombers are forced to go there as well, denying them the ability to do anything due to the fact they do not have air supremacy (and air supremacy is a game over condition so when this is achieved the attackers can't attack as the game is over). I should also mention some objectives are literally impossible at least in RB.

Ie Destroying the airfield when you have to kill 3 (or more) "mini bases". The thing is on some maps with 4 bombers it takes 50 minutes to finish doing that objective before you can go for the main airfield such as normandy or spain maps. 60 minutes is the game cap so before you reach that enemy airfield even further away than the "mini base" the game ends.

That's like giving a conquest score requirement of say 10,000 even though the game will end before it hits 3000 at best.


I should also tell you in WT killing ai's in aviation missions isn't the same as when they are player ones in ground forces missions. for eg in a Mosquito tsetse you can kill a tank over a km away accurately in aviation, meanwhile in ground forces it's harder to hit tanks and when you do you do not 1 shot kill them... you can unload your whole ammo belt onto him but the nature of ground attackers makes it very hard to get kills with a main cannon.

[Khobai]

Domination sounds like the exact opposite of what we asked for in a new gamemode.

Instead of an intelligent gamemode which requires actual strategy... we get one capture point in the center? Its basically a re tard meat grinder. derpa der re tard dash to the center for a huge brawl.

Quote

In a no respawn environment, every gamemode they come up with will just end up as a different variation of TDM.

This. Without respawns everything is just skirmish or a variation of skirmish. Even CW is just an extension of skirmish. Because its easier to run the team out of lives first then complete the objective.

We need a gamemode with ticket based respawns. Where completing objectives actually takes priority over just killing the enemy team. And where winning by attrition is actually a secondary win condition rather than the primary win condition.

Edited by Khobai, 28 February 2016 - 08:22 PM.

[cazidin]

Khobai, on 28 February 2016 - 08:15 PM, said:

Domination sounds like the exact opposite of what we asked for in a new gamemode.

Instead of an intelligent gamemode which requires actual strategy... we get one capture point in the center? Its basically a re tard meat grinder. derpa der re tard dash to the center for a huge brawl.

I'll reserve judgement until one week after its implementation. PGI has made a few mistakes in the past but the last few mechs have been great, the quirkening II had a few errors but was a good step forward, they fixed Flamers AND maybe, just maybe, in the April patch they'll improve PPCs and LBXs.

It could be terrible but I'll give them A chance.

[MauttyKoray]

Monkey Lover, on 27 February 2016 - 08:33 AM, said:

I still can't believe they didnt say anything about the archer bay doors. Maybe the "all new something we haven't done before" isn't going to happen.

What are you talking about? The doors? They were confirmed as a separate entity from the torsos and would be 'destroyed' after their damage threshold was taken. Exact details on if this damage counts when they're closed and 'soaks' up the damage for the STs during that time before they are destroyed is unknown.