28 replies to this topic

[Triordinant]

Alistair Winter, on 20 June 2016 - 06:31 AM, said:

No, game modes that encourage mech combat would encourage the behavior most people are here for. When your game mode has a way to win quickly and without casualties, but punishes you for winning that way, it's bad game design.

So if the vast majority of players are here for 'mech combat, then logic dictates that all game modes with some form of capping should be removed from the game.

[Khereg]

Let me try a different tack on why a base rush isn't the ideal way to win...

We're playign the game for entertainment. Entertainment that comes mostly in the form of shooting mechs and (hopefully) avoiding getting shot while doing it. However, shooting mechs is still a one-dimensional a path to victory as a base rush (although more satisfying to most people, I would think). So, we have other game modes that reward more strategic play as a secondary consideration.

However, I'd submit that the "best" games combine multiple elements and don't overly reward either sneaking around or raw brute force. Now, in skirmish, there is no other objective, so brute force it is. However, for conquest and assault, the objectives are important. However, they aren't as important as the mech shooting, but are more the added flavor to the dish (IMHO anyway).

So, pure cap wins without a shot being fired make for generally poor game play and shouldn't be overly encouraged. Some fighting needs to happen in each match, IMHO, but capping is certainly a legit win.

Now, are the rewards properly balanced for one style of win over the other? Maybe not perfectly, but I wouldn't want to see pure cap wins yield high match scores. I certainly don't see that as a "perfect" win by any stretch.

Edited by Khereg, 20 June 2016 - 09:05 AM.

[Mystere]

Khereg, on 20 June 2016 - 09:02 AM, said:

So, we have other game modes that reward more strategic play as a secondary consideration.

And this is where most people seem to get it wrong -- apparently even PGI given the game's reward system. The objectives should be the primary consideration. But because we have, for all intents and purposes, nothing but a strictly one-dimensional arena shooter ... well you can figure out the rest. <smh>

Khereg, on 20 June 2016 - 09:02 AM, said:

Now, are the rewards properly balanced for one style of win over the other? Maybe not perfectly, but I wouldn't want to see pure cap wins yield high match scores. I certainly don't see that as a "perfect" win by any stretch.

“The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.”

Sun Tzu, The Art of War

Edited by Mystere, 20 June 2016 - 09:15 AM.

[Khereg]

Mystere, on 20 June 2016 - 09:10 AM, said:

And this is where most people seem to get it wrong -- apparently even PGI given the game's reward system. The objectives should be the primary consideration. But because we have, for all intents and purposes, nothing but a strictly one-dimensional arena shooter ... well you can figure out the rest. <smh>

“The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.”

Sun Tzu, The Art of War

Yeah, but in light of my main assertion:

Quote

Entertainment that comes mostly in the form of shooting mechs and (hopefully) avoiding getting shot while doing it.

We're just going to have to disagree. I don't show up to just run to a point and hope the other team isn't smart enough to stop me, I signed up for for robot on robot violence. I'll maintain that most other people did too. So, in terms of getting it wrong, player motives and drivers are where I think you're missing it.

Sun Tzu was concerned with preserving the strength of his armies for future engagements. I'm a big fan generally, but it's not applicable here.

Edited by Khereg, 20 June 2016 - 09:24 AM.

[Yellonet]

Alistair Winter, on 20 June 2016 - 02:43 AM, said:

I've just repeat what I've said countless times.

MWO is the only FPS games I've played where neither the players nor the devs are actually encouraging flawless victories. If you can win the match immediately, without taking any casualties, then the devs will punish you (smaller rewards) and the other players will moan at you.

Does that sound like good game design?

Yes it's bad, but at least there is a new assault mode coming which sounds interesting. I hope they change the domination mode as well.

[Mystere]

Khereg, on 20 June 2016 - 09:22 AM, said:

Sun Tzu was concerned with preserving the strength of his armies for future engagements. I'm a big fan generally, but it's not applicable here.

And which is why I said:

Mystere, on 20 June 2016 - 09:10 AM, said:

But because we have, for all intents and purposes, nothing but a strictly one-dimensional arena shooter ...

Yellonet, on 20 June 2016 - 09:41 AM, said:

Yes it's bad, but at least there is a new assault mode coming which sounds interesting. I hope they change the domination mode as well.

PGI really has to decide whether or not they are still sticking to their "minimally viable product" mentality.

This game still reeks of it.

[Dino Might]

Mystere, on 20 June 2016 - 06:53 AM, said:

I will repeat a slightly modified version of what I have been saying with regard to Assault mode for four years now:

Defend your ******* base!

If you do so, you get the fight you are all desperately thirsting for.

I really want base cap to be a dominant strategy, which would force defense of the base. It would make the game so much more interesting to be faced with a choice (attack or defend? split forces? scout which attack vectors?). Right now, because rewards are so paltry, nobody goes for the cap, and every match is skirmish. If base cap gave great rewards, we would see a lot more interesting play than, "mash w, occasionally turn left." Seriously, my w key has the lettering worn off of it from this game while the a, s, and d are still almost fresh.

Now, that being said, nobody is really excited when they pay hundreds of dollars to go see a fight and this happens:

So, it's on US to prevent the quick base cap win. We should have to keep our guard up and decide when/how to strike rather than (as I saw so many times in entry level boxing) just have kids swinging wildly at each other with no regard to protecting their vital areas.

[RussianWolf]

Alistair Winter, on 20 June 2016 - 06:31 AM, said:

No, game modes that encourage mech combat would encourage the behavior most people are here for. When your game mode has a way to win quickly and without casualties, but punishes you for winning that way, it's bad game design.

Imagine if everyone started booing and hissing if a chess player won a match in 10 moves or if a heavyweight boxer won by knockout after throwing a single punch? Doesn't happen. Good games, good competitions, good sports are designed to be won.

taking it that you never heard of people complaining about Tyson fights back in the day. I know quite a few people that stopped paying to watch his fights.


Make base caps more valuable and you may wind up with both sides camping. boring or one side camping and the other sending a small force that dies quickly then the 12 man comes for the remaining 8....

No, if you want base defense. Make it similar to CW in that one side defends and the other side attacks. no respawns though. no corridor maps.

Edited by RussianWolf, 20 June 2016 - 10:03 AM.

[Lykaon]

Widowmaker1981, on 20 June 2016 - 06:49 AM, said:

Do you really want people playing zoom farm the base cap mode for super fast cbills? because thats what you get if you give good rewards for early base caps.

For assault, id be fine with caps being rewarded strongly if bases only became cap-able after say 7 mins of game.

What is needed is a complete overhaul of assault mode.

It should never have been a game mode won by getting to a specified spot and standing there unopposed long enough to slowly tick down the "WE WIN" timer.

If assault was an actual assault where specified objectives needed to completed in order to "capture" the enemy base then we wouldn't have zero combat matches as a viable means of winning assault mode.