

Can We Have A Tutorial For The Game Modes? Or More Obvious Objectives Please?
#1
Posted 28 May 2016 - 03:05 PM
I's happening a lot on Domination, people don't care for the circle. Just, this time, it was worse than usual.
http://plays.tv/s/KocYz7fVFWdZ
But to be honest, it happen a lot in conquest too, when nobody cap zones, and even on assault, where, often, people don't defend their base... At all... It's under cap and nobody care...
We really need a tutorial for the game modes... Seriously... Or the objectives to be made way more obvious.
#2
Posted 28 May 2016 - 03:48 PM
It's not that the giant green circle on your mini-map isn't obvious enough, it's that the easiest way to win Domination is to nearly ignore the circle.
#3
Posted 28 May 2016 - 03:48 PM
Honestly, aren't all of the game modes straightforward? Domination - Take or defend base. Kill your enemies. Conquest. Take or defend a majority of the bases. Kill your enemies. Skirmish. Kill your enemies.
#4
Posted 28 May 2016 - 04:00 PM
That's the story of MWO in a nutshell, I'm afraid.
Edited by Mystere, 28 May 2016 - 04:01 PM.
#5
Posted 28 May 2016 - 04:23 PM
#6
Posted 28 May 2016 - 04:59 PM
#7
Posted 28 May 2016 - 05:31 PM
#8
Posted 28 May 2016 - 05:33 PM
JediPanther, on 28 May 2016 - 05:31 PM, said:
The PSR too is based on damage. So...
#9
Posted 28 May 2016 - 06:07 PM
Best use for objectives is that they prevent long drawn out hiders at the end.
#10
Posted 28 May 2016 - 08:29 PM
You need to be in the green circle and not be getting shot at to drain the timer. New players run straight in and become easy cannon fodder.
Conquest - you only really need to get 2 maybe 3 caps and then killz will win more predictably. If the enemy lets anything but lights cap friendly deathball will usually beat enemy deathball (note same applies to have someone guard a base)
Yes folks can win on objectives, but do not hold your breath. The objectives just change up the tempo and domination does allow short and medium range mechs from being paper weights on the team.
#11
Posted 28 May 2016 - 09:17 PM
Skirmish:Shoot the red team's mechs
Conquest: Ignore the objectives and shoot the red team's mechs (except on TT and PH)
Assault: Ignore the objective and shoot the red team's mechs
Domination: Go to big screen circle, that's where red team's mechs will be. Then shoot them.
FW Attack: Ignore the objectives and shoot the red team's mechs
FW Defense: Ignore the objetives unless the enemy is trolling with an objective rush because they're bored or trying to get the unit name on the planet. Regardless, shoot the red team's mechs.
FW Counter Attack: Ignore the objectives, all you really need to do is shoot the red team's mechs.
FW Scouting mode: Either bring a group of very fast mechs and rush all over grabbing intel bits or bring 4 mediums and kill the red team's mechs.
Ok any questions? No? I thought not.
Edited by Narcissistic Martyr, 28 May 2016 - 09:18 PM.
#12
Posted 29 May 2016 - 02:29 AM
Depending on the player's answers, they will be met with either "congratulations, you shouldn't play this game." or "You'll fit right in, buddy."
Now, I don't think I need to tell you which answers are the ones they need to play MWO.

#13
Posted 29 May 2016 - 03:19 AM
Helene de Montfort, on 28 May 2016 - 03:05 PM, said:
I suspect it's not that most people don't know the game modes, it's that game mode rules usually don't matter to the outcome of a match.
For example, I think I've seen more games lost in Conquest because half the team focused on capping instead of fighting, than I have seen games lost because teams focused on fighting instead of capping.
I'd like to see the modes matter more. But unless PGI changes the reward system, they'll all be essentially different flavors of deathmatch.
Unfortunately, PGI don't care, as usual. Latest example is Scouting in FP, where capturing an intel point is supposed to be the goal ... yet players only earn 1000 CBills per beacon. It's far more profitable to just kill the enemy.
#14
Posted 29 May 2016 - 04:03 AM
I rather walk around and shoot mechs. Much more fun.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users