185 replies to this topic

[Deathlike]

meteorol, on 28 July 2016 - 12:26 AM, said:

And non of that was any different with the old map, either. Pugs weren't able to line up correctly or respond to "threads that came out of nowhere" with the old map aswell.

Listen, I'm solo pugging 99% of my CW drops. I have been playing CW since the very first second, and i played a lot more CW than regular queue for large parts of my time spent with MWO since CW has been released. I played countless CW matches before the new map was released. I continued solo pugging after it was released. From my experience, the new map made zero difference.

PUGs get crushed because a shocking amount of them is unable to deal more 400 damage between 4 mechs, are unable to hit an atlas within 100m, and never learned the easiest concepts of this game (like torsotwisting). Reality is that there is a considerable amount of players in CW that is so bad you are basically playing 11v12 if you get them on your team. Often more like 7 vs. 9 or something like that, because both teams get them (in a pure pug vs. pug match)

Thinking the new map makes any notable difference in how good or bad pugs do (even in pure pug v. pug situations 48:11 rolls without a single word spoken on the winning team are not uncommon) is delusional at best, imo.

I have played WAY too many CW pug matches to believe the map makes a difference, honestly.

The map is the least of anyone's problems when you see an Atlas run away from mechs smaller than it (and I don't mean Lights).

You can't have players that don't even know the fundamentals of the game to be participating in FW. It's going to lead to bad experiences.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Mystere, on 28 July 2016 - 07:06 AM, said:

Go for broke. Integrate solo QP into CW.

How it should have been done in the first place. but with some thought behind it so as to not lose the QP flavor. (Hello Resource raids)

[Metus regem]

Johnny Z, on 28 July 2016 - 12:52 AM, said:

I am very disappointed that this game is taking so long to be built though. Also they should tell players whats going on because most replies on this subject are 2 years behind.

Not just that Johny, look back a few pages to when Paul our Balance Overlord came on, and admitted he made an error during the UAC/10 heat issue (namely UAC/s being able to Ghost Heat themselves), owning up to the mistake, and letting us know it was being fixed, everyone more or less said, "That's okay, everyone makes mistakes. And thanks for letting us know this is getting fixed in the next patch/Hot Fix."

I've been saying it for a while, PGI needs to communicate more with the player-base, not less. In a few other MMO games that I play, only the ones where the DEV team actually communicates with the players on a nearly daily basis, I might add, do I see little to no salt and vitriol being fired at the DEV team.

Hell rewind to after the PGI/IGP split, back when PGI was talking to us on a regular basis, the boards got better, now that they've gone stealth mode again, has it become a cesspool again. So if this round table is going to be a steep in the right direction, good. I just hope they don't let NGNG have total control over the questions, as I do not think NGNG has the best interests of MWO in mind.

And before anyone goes and calls me a white knight, I've been known to be rather scathing of PGI when they do dumb things, like the current implementation of FP/CW....

[Mystere]

meteorol, on 27 July 2016 - 10:18 PM, said:

What really holds CW back are the terrible, terrible maps. Some of the worst mapdesign i have seen in any game i played online, ever.

The current maps are fine. The problem is that they all follow the same basic design principles. As such, what we need are new and different types of maps.

By the way, throwing away existing maps is just simple waste.

[Wintersdark]

MischiefSC, on 27 July 2016 - 08:52 PM, said:

They would work like trials. No modules, cant spend XP on them, can't modify them. Why make an "alt army"? It's an insane hassle. You've got a period of trial matches where you get no rewards, you'd need 4 unit trials per person (the idea is that they'd be very expensive) and it would be easier to just change career from merc to freelancer then join the merc unit in question. A few million recruitment cost and you've got your full mastered decks.

Only real value would be helping new players get into FW and it would be a big expense.

Units being able to buy mechs and keep them as "unit trial mechs" with that units colors and paint would be insanely awesome.

Wouldn't be as good as owning your own (need to own to get pilot skills, and it seems very reasonable to have no modules on unit trial mechs, so that too) but it would REALLY help units get new players to a point where they can be running an appropriate drop deck (even if not at 100% due to pilot skills/modules). Otherwise, a brand new player has a long grind to even get the desired 4 mechs, let alone getting them mastered.

This is a genuinely great idea.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Mystere, on 28 July 2016 - 07:27 AM, said:

The current maps are fine. The problem is that they all follow the same basic design principles. As such, what we need are new and different types of maps.

By the way, throwing away existing maps is just simple waste.

The problem with existing maps is they are too small. too shallow and all designed as if we were playing a moba

[Mystere]

Deathlike, on 27 July 2016 - 10:21 PM, said:

In context, matches favor defense when both teams are evenly matched. You have funnels, turrets, and pretty much stuff in the way for the attackers. I agree with the overall sentiment that the defense have the advantage.

It's more of a skill/understanding mismatch that happens a lot by design. If PUGs knew where to line up properly (know where the chokepoints are, etc etc.), they wouldn't be rolled the way they do.

I really think attacking a base should be harder, and even some much harder. The basic principle is that a faction that loses an imposing fortress deserves a tough time taking it back, and an even tougher time taking back the planet.

Edited by Mystere, 28 July 2016 - 08:02 AM.

[Deathlike]

Mystere, on 28 July 2016 - 07:33 AM, said:

I really think attacking a base should harder, and even some much harder. The basic principle is that a faction that loses an imposing fortress deserves a tough time taking it back, and an even tougher time taking back the planet.

They don't need that much assistance doing that though. The map in itself already funnels people into easily accessible firing lanes, which when you have teams of equal skill involved... you are already ahead as a defender (unless you totally screw up).

[DaFrog]

Carl Vickers, on 26 July 2016 - 04:36 PM, said:

If you stopped ejecting, the team you are with wont get clubbed as much.

the thing you need to know, even when I eject, I still rack up top 3 most damage. ;-)

[Metus regem]

Mystere, on 28 July 2016 - 07:33 AM, said:

I really think attacking a base should harder, and even some much harder. The basic principle is that a faction that loses an imposing fortress deserves a tough time taking it back, and an even tougher time taking back the planet.

I'd also change the deployment system a bit, having the defenders come out from underground bunkers, rather than drop ships.

Also the base layouts are just... not that well thought out. They have critical locations, that are poorly protected, I'm talking about the gate generators, turret generators and the orbital gun.

[Mystere]

Jables McBarty, on 28 July 2016 - 07:03 AM, said:

At a basic level, I'm of the mind to just keep all existing game modes as-is, and ask PGI to develop more varied maps, and if possible, modes. They'll never get everything "perfect" but if people have another toy they like better, they might complain less.

This, a thousand this. MWO players have this extremely annoying habit of demanding something they don't like removed asap, no questions asked, their way or the highway, without even first bothering to think that the solution probably lies in expansion, not elimination. <smh>

[Uncle Stickyfinger]

I like the idea of a premade "trial mechs" for people to use in fp, but isn't that something that could be done by PGI not the units? When you join a faction, you could be assigned a premade dropdeck representing the typical mechs for your faction that has tooltips explaining how it is meant to be used and could be played in QP to make players familiar with them? This would let newe players get "free" mechs for joining a faction, would make them peruse the houses/clans more closely as they scope out the goodies, and would end up learning the mechs they will be FP dropping in.

[Davers]

I doubt the 'House Trial Mech' idea will take off with PGI. I don't think it will attract players to CW either.

[Mystere]

Oderint dum Metuant, on 28 July 2016 - 07:33 AM, said:

The problem with existing maps is they are too small. too shallow and all designed as if we were playing a moba

So have new maps that are bigger, much bigger, then tie them to one or more other game modes.

At this point in time, throwing away any of the existing maps and game modes is just wasting time, effort, money, and other very limited resources.

Edited by Mystere, 28 July 2016 - 08:03 AM.

[Wulfen]

AnTi90d, on 28 July 2016 - 12:58 AM, said:

(Foreward: Kurita has zero units that can form 12-man groups, so if you see a Kuritan group, it's either mercenaries, a PUG from our Teamspeak, or one small Kuritan group among skittles. Literally, all Kurita can do is PUG in one form or another.)

(First of all, I personally find this very sad. As a predominantly light pilot and fan of the earlier fiction, Kurita was a natural choice based on the lore. Hell, I still haven't chosen a faction.)

I only play QP. I toyed with the idea of looking for factions and units that I could be a part of for FP, but in the end this went even beyond bad maps and invasion design (or maybe this was a side-effect). The faction forums were full of advice, and it basically referred to the same sorts of drop decks and tactics that didn't interest me. I don't want to get stuck in the same heavy mech, and drop on a planet, and then sit at a chokehold. Watching replays, it just didn't look fun.

I'm supposedly the QP player that needs to be enticed to head into FP. Telling me to master the same mechs and make a dropdeck of the exact same heavy mechs as everyone else will never do that.

Scouting mode goes some ways towards that, but I would love to see bigger maps where every class of mech can be used in their designated roles. I know it's only a dream at this point, but imagine a couple of companies on each side.

[Mystere]

Deathlike, on 28 July 2016 - 07:35 AM, said:

They don't need that much assistance doing that though. The map in itself already funnels people into easily accessible firing lanes, which when you have teams of equal skill involved... you are already ahead as a defender (unless you totally screw up).

The idea is that some bases, or even entire planets, are harder to take than others. If a faction loses one of those, then it should have a hell of a hard time taking it back.

In addition, give such planets bonuses for the faction and units holding them. In that way, owners would really want to keep them, and invaders would really want to take them.

Currently, each planet is exactly the same in terms of effort and rewards.

[Uncle Stickyfinger]

Davers, on 28 July 2016 - 07:54 AM, said:

I doubt the 'House Trial Mech' idea will take off with PGI. I don't think it will attract players to CW either.

Oh, my bad. nevermind then.

[Deathlike]

Mystere, on 28 July 2016 - 08:01 AM, said:

The idea is that some bases, or even entire planets, are harder to take than others. If a faction loses one of those, then it should have a hell of a hard time taking it back.

In addition, give such planets bonuses for the faction and units holding them. In that way, owners would really want to keep them, and invaders would really want to take them.

Currently, each planet is exactly the same in terms of effort and rewards.

It has the same tonnage requirements as well.

There is no variation.. there is just one minimally viable option.

[Wintersdark]

Mystere, on 28 July 2016 - 07:55 AM, said:

So have new maps that are bigger, much bigger, then tie them to one or more other game modes.

At this point in time, throwing away any of the existing maps and game modes is just wasting time, effort, money, and other very limited resources.

Absolute agreement here.

I'd far rather have 10 maps, 5 of which are silly MOBA maps, and 5 great maps, than just 5 great maps.

Having to fight in inconvenient places is a fact of military life, after all! More variety is simply better, throwing away early maps is dumb.

You could modify them, but in the same way that Alpine was kept and Polar Highlands added, the changes to make a map like Sulphuric Rift good are so extreme that you may as well make a new map. It's not like, say, River City where the fundamental map remains the same and more is added to the outside.

[Mystere]

Wintersdark, on 28 July 2016 - 08:29 AM, said:

Absolute agreement here.

I'd far rather have 10 maps, 5 of which are silly MOBA maps, and 5 great maps, than just 5 great maps.

Having to fight in inconvenient places is a fact of military life, after all! More variety is simply better, throwing away early maps is dumb.

You could modify them, but in the same way that Alpine was kept and Polar Highlands added, the changes to make a map like Sulphuric Rift good are so extreme that you may as well make a new map. It's not like, say, River City where the fundamental map remains the same and more is added to the outside.

I never really quite understood why players keep insisting on having a "perfectly balanced" map (whatever the hell that is supposed to mean), or that both sides always have to be equal, in a war game.