19 replies to this topic

[Naduk]

seen a lot of QQ about the game modes lately
there have been changes and there will be growing pains

but the most common thing i see is "we have to do things after all the enemy are dead"

well chances are is exactly the same thing you should of been doing before all the enemy died and that i believe is the problem
players are acting like pit fighters not a military force, the game gives them far to much ability to focus on, people act like this because they can

we should not know if all the enemy have been killed
just like we dont know what mechs they brought

would the removal of this knowledge make modes like domination work better ?
is there a ecm spider lurking about ? is there a lance of Assaults still on their way ?
who knows , better cap that objective while you can

would such a small change have any real impact on game play and peoples mind sets ?

[Aetes Nakatomi]

Certainly interesting, would we get any notification of kills, so people could still see when they personally get a kill?

[Impyrium]

I'm not sure if I'm for or against this idea, but certainly it's got some merit. Could easily fit quite well into the info warfare idea that's been floating around forever, requiring a held lock for some time to 'scan' an opponent and have them visible on the player board.

[QuantumButler]

I'm sorry you think people shouldn't want to fight robots in a game about robots shooting robots.

Do you know why people don't play the objectives? Because sitting in a colored geometric shape, possibly multiple ones, for extended periods of time, IS NO GODDAMN FUN AT ALL, whereas giant stompy robots shooting lasers at eachother is.

Maybe if the objectives were fun or challenging but it's all just running to a colored gemetric shape, so the vast majority give zero ****s.

Edited by QuantumButler, 21 March 2016 - 03:39 PM.

[Malleus011]

The idea of 'Fog of War' would certainly help all the game modes. What if you didn't know how many enemy 'mechs were KIA? What if you weren't even sure how many there were at all?

That's one of the problems with 12 man drops and 3/3/3/3 ... you spot three mediums, and that's probably all of them. More unknowns makes for more interesting battles.

And ... *gasp* ... would promote role warfare.

[Impyrium]

QuantumButler, on 21 March 2016 - 03:36 PM, said:

I'm sorry you think people shouldn't want to fight robots in a game about robots shooting robots.

Do you know why people don't play the objectives? Because sitting in a colored geometric shape, possibly multiple ones, for extended periods of time, IS NO GODDAMN FUN AT ALL, whereas giant stompy robots shooting lasers at eachother is.

Maybe if the objectives were fun or challenging but it's all just running to a colored gemetric shape, so the vast majority give zero ****s.

Being non-constructive 101?

What is it with people that seem to assume that every thread that is considering how to modify, expand or enhance game objectives is out to stop you from shooting other giant robots? It should be obvious that regardless of objectives, you will be shooting at other people.

[Troutmonkey]

Interesting, but ultimately would be frustrating the majority of the time. You think people hate squirrelly lights now?

[Triordinant]

Bring back mode selection. Let those who want to play objective-based modes play them and those who want Skirmish can play Skirmish. That way all 24 players in a given match are there because they chose to be and not because they were outvoted and are now pissed off and might even DC.

[Amsro]

Only changing the game modes entirely will make people play the objectives.

Standing in a box or circle is not exciting. This isn't 1990, we have the technology.

Even CW is boring, PGI needs some help in the game mode department.

[Troutmonkey]

Amsro, on 21 March 2016 - 04:12 PM, said:

Only changing the game modes entirely will make people play the objectives.

Standing in a box or circle is not exciting. This isn't 1990, we have the technology.

Even CW is boring, PGI needs some help in the game mode department.

I don't mind the objectives, but they need to fix the fact that 90% of the time it's easier to simply kill everyone and then play the objectives

[QuantumButler]

Troutmonkey, on 21 March 2016 - 04:25 PM, said:

I don't mind the objectives, but they need to fix the fact that 90% of the time it's easier to simply kill everyone and then play the objectives

As it has been repeatedly state, it's it's not "Easier" to do that, it's just not fun except for a select few old men, people play games for fun.

[Impyrium]

QuantumButler, on 21 March 2016 - 04:29 PM, said:

As it has been repeatedly state, it's it's not "Easier" to do that, it's just not fun except for a select few old men, people play games for fun.

Easier might not be the right term but it's certainly more effective. Killing off a 'mech lowers the enemy team's combat ability by 1/12 permanently. Killing all of them stops any resistance to completing objectives and thus will always be the more important objective.

[Mystere]

I think it's time to switch to a winner-takes-all reward system, with the added rule that failing to meet objectives results in a loss or tie.

[Troutmonkey]

Mystere, on 21 March 2016 - 05:04 PM, said:

I think it's time to switch to a winner-takes-all reward system, with the added rule that failing to meet objectives results in a loss or tie.

It's not player behaviour that's at fault here, it's the modes themselves. All such a system would do is punish the better team and be frustrating for everyone.

In the case of domination it would make the first team to arrive have a massive advantage in that they can't lose, even if they lose ...

Edited by Troutmonkey, 21 March 2016 - 05:11 PM.

[QuantumButler]

Troutmonkey, on 21 March 2016 - 05:10 PM, said:

It's not player behaviour that's at fault here, it's the modes themselves. All such a system would do is punish the better team and be frustrating for everyone

What such a system would actually do is make everyone vote for Skirmish all the time, except for jokeers like Mystere here who would occasionally ruin everyone else's fun by blowing his 12x multiplier on a terrible mode.

[Wolfways]

QuantumButler, on 21 March 2016 - 05:12 PM, said:

What such a system would actually do is make everyone vote for Skirmish all the time, except for jokeers like Mystere here who would occasionally ruin everyone else's fun by blowing his 12x multiplier on a terrible mode.

You mean like how the short attention span crowd currently spoil my fun by voting for the most pointless mode (Skirmish) nearly every match, and I rarely get to see the few decent maps because of players who don't think that they should be forced to walk anywhere?

[SuomiWarder]

I think maybe PGI should allow a player to select "only skirmish" or game mode vote for a while and see what happens. If the only skirmish folks make the other que too small to be viable then I hate to say it but maybe PGI needs to give up on alternative game modes and focus on Community Warfare. If there is a big set of players willing to play other game modes then so be it - see what can be done to improve and expand the non skirmish game modes.

[Troutmonkey]

SuomiWarder, on 21 March 2016 - 05:29 PM, said:

I think maybe PGI should allow a player to select "only skirmish" or game mode vote for a while and see what happens. If the only skirmish folks make the other que too small to be viable then I hate to say it but maybe PGI needs to give up on alternative game modes and focus on Community Warfare. If there is a big set of players willing to play other game modes then so be it - see what can be done to improve and expand the non skirmish game modes.

Do you think that the Skirmish players would ever want to go back to a combined queue? no, they'd rather everyone suffer the skirmish queue than allow for reasonable search times for everyone else. Splitting the public queue is always a bad move

Edited by Troutmonkey, 21 March 2016 - 05:40 PM.

[Naduk]

Dingo Red, on 21 March 2016 - 03:33 PM, said:

I'm not sure if I'm for or against this idea, but certainly it's got some merit. Could easily fit quite well into the info warfare idea that's been floating around forever, requiring a held lock for some time to 'scan' an opponent and have them visible on the player board.

mmm thats a good idea
hadnt even thought of that

i think the biggest challenge we face with the alt modes is that none of them are designed with no-respawn in mind
they can be made to work, but as we have seen over the years there is not a huge amount of wiggle room with designs like conquest, assault and even dom to an extent are classic FPS modes that try to simulate a battle of thousands of soldiers with only 32-64 players
we know these modes work amazing in a respawn mode
but thats just not mechwarrior

so what will work for us ?
i think limiting the intel is a good start , being able to earn it would make sense too
perhaps the information could decay over time ?

[Mechteric]

If they were to add a hardcore mode, that would be an interesting extra feature they could add for that mode. But I don't see it being something they should put in the normal puglandia queue.