44 replies to this topic

[zeves]

afther the resize they should go for a new engine

[LORD TSARKON]

I would love for 8 vs 8 to come back (either in quickplay or FW.. or both).

[Death Proof]

Honestly, Quick Play should not be 12v12 at all; that should be for Faction Play Invasion Mode only. Quick Play should definitely be switched back to 8v8.

sycocys, on 29 April 2016 - 08:10 AM, said:

8v8 was nice and all, but it was also boring because 1 person could literally carry the entire match.

I completely disagree; 8v8 is perfect for solo and pug groups BECAUSE a single player can carry the entire match. This makes the random nature of the Quick Play feel more balanced. In 12v12, it's too easy for the match to snowball into a 12 - 0 wipe if you're working with a random team. This simply isn't fun for the casual player, which is what Quick Play is supposed to be geared towards.

Also, if Invasion mode is the ONLY mode in the game that has 12v12, then more people that like the chaos of 12v12 will play it.

[SplashDown]

Mystere, on 29 April 2016 - 07:32 AM, said:

Devote more attention? I want PGI to get rid of it by integrating it's game modes into CW.

CW suks and now that russ has yet once again failed the majority of the community by removing solo que in CW i for one and im sure the majority of others will never play CW ever..as the player count for CW clearly shows...way to fail again PGI.

As far as a CTF mode in quick play...it sounds like it has potential..BUT im wondering how you think it should work? imo it seems pointless if all it takes is a light to run up and CTF.

[Adamski]

I would like it if PGI focused on Balance for a while so that every game mode benefits.

[Dino Might]

Quick play should remain as it is, or even just revert it to skirmish only (I don't care).

Private lobbies should have more user controls over the game type, special restrictions or modifications, and should reward cbills and xp based on certain conditions being met.

The reason to not do this is that some people would get around any restrictions you put in and "farm cbills and xp." To that I say, "who cares?" Spend $ to get more cbills and xp than you could in regular queue? Isn't that what they already allow with the store purchases?

I'd like to see large general chat lobbies and hubs where people can set up private lobbies with descriptions of the map/mode/restrictions and set who can/cannot join, more like old school online games. You get to filter through all the lobby offerings and decide which match you would like to play. If that doesn't interest you, you have quick play if you don't want to sort through the private lobbies.

[Barantor]

Davers, on 29 April 2016 - 07:17 AM, said:

People keep asking for a convoy type mission. Have you guys even thought about how that would work in MWO? How easy it would be to just rush and destroy the convoy (see Generators)? How fast would the convoy be moving and how does that fit in with the 15 minute time scale of the game? What would the route be, especially on smaller maps like Frozen City?

You solve that by making it where the enemy is trying to capture the convoy, not destroy it. If 50% of the convoy is destroyed it ends up in a tie. If for some reason the defenders try to destroy their own convoy, they take as much penalty as if they had shot up some teammates.

If the defenders get 50% of the convoy to the point then they win. Part of the convoy would have little tanks with medium lasers that could be destroyed.

Convoy would also travel at 80 kph so that assaults would be a detriment.

It's not hard to make these ideas work within MWO, but it is hard to get folks off of the idea that 'kill everything' is the best option.

[AnTi90d]

I hated MW4's CTF.

I'd be OK with them adding it.. if they lumped it with Conquest and separated them both from Quickplay, designating them their own button so I'd never have to bother with either of them.

[Aresye]

There's a fundamental flaw in everybody's line of thinking when it comes to different game modes and team sizes for games. Now please, repeat after me:

As long as every game involves 1 round, and 1 life, the preferred tactic will ALWAYS be to group together and eliminate the enemy team.

What's the point of adding a capture the flag and/or similar game mode if the underlying principle of having a single round and single life remains the same?

There is no point.

Here's exactly what will happen:
- Team A has a lance run around to capture the other team's flag.
- Team B sticks together and deathballs into Team A's 2 lances, wiping them out quickly with a 12-8 advantage.
- Team B spreads out with most of their players still alive, blocking any possible path Team A's remaining players can take.
- Team A's remaining lance is mopped up by Team B.
- gg

In order to actually play the objective (regardless if it's assault, conquest, domination, or CTF), you have to have players willing to risk themselves for the good of the team, or willing to stay out of the main fight, both of which in the current system will net them absolutely crap rewards and a very good chance of ruining their personal stats.

You see competitive teams play the actual objectives against other competitive teams because it isn't about the CBills and/or stats. It's all about the win, so you actually have players willing to risk themselves for the good of the team.

This isn't like the competitive queue for CS:GO. You aren't playing upwards of 30 rounds with the same team, where each player plays a vital role in the final outcome of the match. FW is the closest the game comes to team oriented, objective based gameplay, and what do we see? Nothing but complaints about having to play against teams that actually work together.

Casual players (for the most part) do NOT want to play as a team. They want to shoot stompy robots so they can increase their KDR, WLR, or tier. Teamwork has little to no impact on their own stats, and they have no problems ignoring what the drop caller calls if it doesn't align with their own personal goals. Playing as a team is literally counter-intuitive to them, and it's because the game is based on a single round, single life principle.

Want to inspire teamwork and objective based gameplay outside of competitive/league play? Introduce: RESPAWN

Now players are actually forced to play a longer game. Now the actual objective has a vital role on the outcome. Now the game is no longer, "Stick together and press W for WIN, worry about objectives later."

Of course, the anti-respawn brigade and BT fanatics are going to vehemently decline even the mere mention of the word "respawn," even if we're talking respawn only in terms of a CS:GO style multi-round, "best of ____ rounds," style. They somehow expect that players will magically feel inspired to play the objective and/or sacrifice their life for the good of the team, but that will never happen as long as everything is based on a single round, single life system.

It doesn't matter what game mode it is. As long as the single round, single life system is in place, the preferred tactic will ALWAYS be to deathball in superior numbers.

[GRiPSViGiL]

Triordinant, on 29 April 2016 - 02:30 AM, said:

Maybe now that CW is a "done deal" they just might...

What does this mean? isn't there a phase 4 for them to screw up?

[Mystere]

Adamski, on 29 April 2016 - 10:21 AM, said:

I would like it if PGI focused on Balance for a while so that every game mode benefits.

Considering how much time, effort, and other limited resources PGI seems to have poured on "balancing" much to the detriment of still missing or broken features, I say they should quit for a long time and do the latter for a while.

[Barantor]

Aresye, on 29 April 2016 - 10:49 AM, said:

It doesn't matter what game mode it is. As long as the single round, single life system is in place, the preferred tactic will ALWAYS be to deathball in superior numbers.

Only if there is the possibility of a win with the elimination of the enemy. Remove that as an option and the playstyle will be different.

This isn't something people would like though and it would be hated.

We would get "But we killed all of them!" to which the answer would be "but you didn't complete the objective".

It is already appearing in scout mode with folks complaining that the enemy is 'running onto the cap to end the game'. The problem is if they had to wait then the defenders would just camp the extract point...

It is because this game has done nothing but 'kill mode with or without options' that folks are so used to it. Doesn't matter if you had respawns, people camp the respawns because when those run out they win... even if they could end it very quickly with an optional win condition.

Timed matches, matches where there is only a non-kill objective will be the way to improve this game, doesn't matter if there are respawns or not.

[Ghogiel]

Aresye, on 29 April 2016 - 10:49 AM, said:

They want to shoot stompy robots so they can increase their KDR, WLR, or tier.

The question is, what am I supposed to be doing if not increase W/L (by extention KDR and tier)?

[Mystere]

Barantor, on 29 April 2016 - 11:03 AM, said:

Only if there is the possibility of a win with the elimination of the enemy. Remove that as an option and the playstyle will be different.

This isn't something people would like though and it would be hated.

We would get "But we killed all of them!" to which the answer would be "but you didn't complete the objective".

It is already appearing in scout mode with folks complaining that the enemy is 'running onto the cap to end the game'. The problem is if they had to wait then the defenders would just camp the extract point...

It is because this game has done nothing but 'kill mode with or without options' that folks are so used to it. Doesn't matter if you had respawns, people camp the respawns because when those run out they win... even if they could end it very quickly with an optional win condition.

Timed matches, matches where there is only a non-kill objective will be the way to improve this game, doesn't matter if there are respawns or not.

Alternatively, giving zero c-bills and XP for killing and a lump of coal for losing would be a good start.

[demoyn]

Ghogiel, on 29 April 2016 - 07:42 AM, said:

Because when they don't we get faction play?

*shudders*

At least you can decline to play Faction Warfare. I know my blood pressure goes up every time I see conquest and dominion as my only quick play options in the voting screen (and assault is inferior also, but at least it gives the same rewards and at my tier rarely draws away the dreg players).

[Aresye]

Barantor, on 29 April 2016 - 11:03 AM, said:

Only if there is the possibility of a win with the elimination of the enemy. Remove that as an option and the playstyle will be different.

Then teams will just simply kill the enemy and then go for objectives, because waiting around for 5min watching a team cap on Conquest was a totally awesome and immersive experience.

Mystere, on 29 April 2016 - 11:44 AM, said:

Alternatively, giving zero c-bills and XP for killing and a lump of coal for losing would be a good start.

MechWarrior without the "war" part of it. Sounds amazingly fun. I've always wanted to play MechWarrior: Speed Racer. </s>

[bLeeat]

Aresye, on 29 April 2016 - 10:49 AM, said:

There's a fundamental flaw in everybody's line of thinking when it comes to different game modes and team sizes for games. Now please, repeat after me:

As long as every game involves 1 round, and 1 life, the preferred tactic will ALWAYS be to group together and eliminate the enemy team.

What's the point of adding a capture the flag and/or similar game mode if the underlying principle of having a single round and single life remains the same?

There is no point.

Here's exactly what will happen:
- Team A has a lance run around to capture the other team's flag.
- Team B sticks together and deathballs into Team A's 2 lances, wiping them out quickly with a 12-8 advantage.
- Team B spreads out with most of their players still alive, blocking any possible path Team A's remaining players can take.
- Team A's remaining lance is mopped up by Team B.
- gg

In order to actually play the objective (regardless if it's assault, conquest, domination, or CTF), you have to have players willing to risk themselves for the good of the team, or willing to stay out of the main fight, both of which in the current system will net them absolutely crap rewards and a very good chance of ruining their personal stats.

You see competitive teams play the actual objectives against other competitive teams because it isn't about the CBills and/or stats. It's all about the win, so you actually have players willing to risk themselves for the good of the team.

This isn't like the competitive queue for CS:GO. You aren't playing upwards of 30 rounds with the same team, where each player plays a vital role in the final outcome of the match. FW is the closest the game comes to team oriented, objective based gameplay, and what do we see? Nothing but complaints about having to play against teams that actually work together.

Casual players (for the most part) do NOT want to play as a team. They want to shoot stompy robots so they can increase their KDR, WLR, or tier. Teamwork has little to no impact on their own stats, and they have no problems ignoring what the drop caller calls if it doesn't align with their own personal goals. Playing as a team is literally counter-intuitive to them, and it's because the game is based on a single round, single life principle.

Want to inspire teamwork and objective based gameplay outside of competitive/league play? Introduce: RESPAWN

Now players are actually forced to play a longer game. Now the actual objective has a vital role on the outcome. Now the game is no longer, "Stick together and press W for WIN, worry about objectives later."

Of course, the anti-respawn brigade and BT fanatics are going to vehemently decline even the mere mention of the word "respawn," even if we're talking respawn only in terms of a CS:GO style multi-round, "best of ____ rounds," style. They somehow expect that players will magically feel inspired to play the objective and/or sacrifice their life for the good of the team, but that will never happen as long as everything is based on a single round, single life system.

It doesn't matter what game mode it is. As long as the single round, single life system is in place, the preferred tactic will ALWAYS be to deathball in superior numbers.

what kind of garbage lie is this ? coming from a person whos only competitive experience is from mwo? the only reason death ball is a thing in mwo is because repeat after me ,THERE IS NO INCENTIVE TO TEAM PLAY. these small arena maps,game only rewards damage,lights run around and do more damage and tank more than assassults. still waiting for info and lance play. if maps were bigger a deathball team would lose everytime to a team that communicates/lance play/infowar. quick play seems to still be in,beta nothings changed. same game play, same cheese boats,pretty much same maps.whats changed? and i cant stand cw, if i dont like deathballing and cheese botas why would i play cw?

[Coolant]

I think the opposite, make matches more than 12v12, make it feel more like war. I don't know who these people are that are asking for 8v8, but I've never heard anyone in my unit asking for that.

[Aresye]

Here's an idea for Conquest using respawns:
- Each player gets 4 mechs.
- Both teams start with 1000 points. Capping points will subtract points from the other team and add them to your team.
- First team to lose all their points or mechs loses.
- First spawn cannot be changed. Subsequent spawns will drop the player/s in a location that is at least 800m from the nearest enemy, or (if that cannot be achieved due to map layout), drop the player/s in a location with the fewest enemies around (think opposite of the long tom mechanic).
- Any players in the same lance that die within the same window will spawn together just like in FW.

Now imagine how much more exciting this is. You can't just deathball the other team and worry about caps later, because the respawns could just continue playing the cap game, quickly depleting your team of all your points. At some point, you HAVE to split up.

Now you've introduced TACTICS. Does your team try and hold 3 caps with 4 players on each? Does the enemy team form up and try to deathball one of those points to overwhelm its 4 defenders? Do you let the 4 defenders die and lose control over 1 cap, or do you call mechs over from the other 2 caps at the risk of potentially losing them?

You've also got roles now:
- Assaults, slow heavies, and legged mechs can hold caps.
- Heavies can play the rotator position and flip between 2 close cap points as needed.
- Mediums can play skirmishers and faster reinforcements to more distant points.
- Lights can scout out enemy group sizes and movement, try to sneak and/or gang up on solo assaults holding individual points to take them, or take undefended points.

[Mystere]

Aresye, on 29 April 2016 - 12:18 PM, said:

MechWarrior without the "war" part of it. Sounds amazingly fun. I've always wanted to play MechWarrior: Speed Racer. </s>

War is not always about killing. Otherwise, PBY Catalinas would have been heavily armed for dogfights and bombing runs.

bLeeat, on 29 April 2016 - 12:41 PM, said:

what kind of garbage lie is this ? coming from a person whos only competitive experience is from mwo? the only reason death ball is a thing in mwo is because repeat after me ,THERE IS NO INCENTIVE TO TEAM PLAY. these small arena maps,game only rewards damage,lights run around and do more damage and tank more than assassults. still waiting for info and lance play. if maps were bigger a deathball team would lose everytime to a team that communicates/lance play/infowar. quick play seems to still be in,beta nothings changed. same game play, same cheese boats,pretty much same maps.whats changed? and i cant stand cw, if i dont like deathballing and cheese botas why would i play cw?

Actually, quick play was supposed to have been just a mere filler until CW was ready. But lo and behold it is now a "major" feature.

Edited by Mystere, 29 April 2016 - 01:06 PM.