183 replies to this topic

[N0MAD]

Rampage, on 08 September 2016 - 03:21 AM, said:

Russ all but said that the Long Tom is gone (eventually) and will be replaced by a intel/sensor advantage for the team that won the Scouting that is more in line with what a scouting mission should provide. Something along the lines of satellite sweeps that provide full map radar coverage and enemy sensor disruption over several seconds for the team with the Scouting victory.

wrong... it kills everyones sensors, listen to derek.. no advantage for the winner of the scout match,,

[Hotthedd]

ScarecrowES, on 08 September 2016 - 03:25 PM, said:

I've always found the aversion to respawns on principle to be silly at best, and self-defeating at worst.

There is a fundamental fact that the game modes PGI chose to incorporate into MWO, and the manner in which they've chosen to make them, ONLY work with respawns.

This statement is false.
Has any Assault mode game ever been won by cap?
Has any Conquest game ever been won by cap?
Has any Domination mode ever been won by occupying the center?
The answer to all three questions is YES, therefore those modes CAN work without re-spawns.

ScarecrowES, on 08 September 2016 - 03:25 PM, said:

There are two basic approaches to focusing the player's attention on playing the objective in an objective game mode, and neither of those allows for a win condition to result from merely killing the enemy team outright. The first approach is to deemphasize the importance of player life by making objectives so easy to achieve that not placing full attention right on those virtually ensures a loss. These modes tend to work with no respawns. The other approach is to deemphasize player life by giving each player alot of them, and making objectives extremely difficult to achieve, so that players will be more inclined to engage in a tug of war.

Actually there is a third option:
Make the rewards for winning by objective BETTER than winning by elimination.

ScarecrowES, on 08 September 2016 - 03:25 PM, said:

PGI chose game modes with hard-to-achieve objectives. Those modes need respawns. PGI chose to make killing the enemy team a valid win condition. There is no need to play the objective at all.

I'm sorry, but those objectives are not difficult.

ScarecrowES, on 08 September 2016 - 03:25 PM, said:

So we've always had 3 choices.

1) get used to 4 flavors of deathmatch
2) add respawns to existing game modes
3) introduce new or modified game modes with much easier objectives

Again, rewarding objective gameplay would give another choice.

ScarecrowES, on 08 September 2016 - 03:25 PM, said:

PGI has persisted in making objectives even harder to achieve in their game modes over the years, so it's unlikely they'd change course and suddenly make them easier. Some form of respawn system was inevitable... the drop deck system was by far the obvious choice here. This was, for want of better words, inevitable and necessary.

You have tunnel vision from your re-spawn crusade. Eventually, it is the only solution you see to anything.

ScarecrowES, on 08 September 2016 - 03:25 PM, said:

That traditional quick play might die may not be a bad thing, especially if respawns prove to make the QP modes actually work as anything more than deathmatch.

I hope MW:O attracts more players than it loses. (But we both know that won't happen)

ScarecrowES, on 08 September 2016 - 03:25 PM, said:

That people will cry over something people changed in the game... also inevitable.

It depends on the change.

ScarecrowES, on 08 September 2016 - 03:25 PM, said:

That the concept of reinforcements in a Battletech game is somehow not in keeping with the core of the series is... laughable.

Reinforcements, sure. Having a magic Leprechaun transport you instantly into another 'mech is... laughable.

[ScarecrowES]

Hotthedd, on 08 September 2016 - 03:38 PM, said:

Actually there is a third option:
Make the rewards for winning by objective BETTER than winning by elimination.

Unlikely to work as long as the core gameplay remains the same. How often would you imagine creating a reward system that runs contrary to the core mechanics of a game actually sways player participation in a positive direction?

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

smokefield, on 08 September 2016 - 02:51 AM, said:

was always broken. beef just proved it without question

the only way to prove anything to PGI

ScarecrowES, on 08 September 2016 - 03:47 PM, said:

Unlikely to work as long as the core gameplay remains the same. How often would you imagine creating a reward system that runs contrary to the core mechanics of a game actually sways player participation in a positive direction?

Idea:

Give people who participate on the PTS regular server rewards. IE MC, cockpit stuff, etc

[N0MAD]

3 months before the Bucket change another 3 months for rewards change..just lol...
Well they can sell Winter, Johny and some others 6 mech packs while they wait...

[ScarecrowES]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 08 September 2016 - 03:52 PM, said:

Idea:

Give people who participate on the PTS regular server rewards. IE MC, cockpit stuff, etc

They absolutely should. I think there were only a couple hundred of us who tested ED PTS1. Much fewer for PTS2. There were like... what? 12 of us on PTS3?

Of course, if they'd actually put something on the PTS worth testing, that'd go a long way too. I'm fairly certain at this point that they don't do any internal testing of their own systems. I'm a bit tired of testing half-baked ideas for no reward.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

ScarecrowES, on 08 September 2016 - 03:59 PM, said:

They absolutely should. I think there were only a couple hundred of us who tested ED PTS1. Much fewer for PTS2. There were like... what? 12 of us on PTS3?

Of course, if they'd actually put something on the PTS worth testing, that'd go a long way too. I'm fairly certain at this point that they don't do any internal testing of their own systems. I'm a bit tired of testing half-baked ideas for no reward.

there was a term they threw around in beta called "beta fatigue" I think it happens to testers as well

[Wintersdark]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 08 September 2016 - 02:31 PM, said:

For group queue, it has a good possibility to raise the c-bills per hour (group queue wait times can be long at times), for solo queue, not so much. Considering you would have to play with mechs within the same tech base, it will definitely fill a different role though so I don't really know that many people will go flocking to CW even with this change.

Yeah, I can see that. After all, the group queue basically doesn't have a match maker either given its nature. I can possibly see the group queue just migrating to CW as a result, maybe. Probably better off that way to be honest.

But the solo queue emptying out to the point where it's unusable because everyone goes to FP is a very stupid complaint. It's not going to happen. And hell, I'm even one who thinks QP matches should all contribute to FP too (though that isn't going to happen either).

But what really gets my goat about Hotthead's argument is that it's a bad to make FP better because then people won't play QP anymore. That's the most backwards ignorant thing I've heard on these forums, and that's really a high bar.

"Oh, don't make that game mode better, or people will play it!"

God damn. How do you even respond to that?

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Wintersdark, on 08 September 2016 - 04:13 PM, said:

God damn. How do you even respond to that?

You don't (feed the troll)??

[Wintersdark]

N0MAD, on 08 September 2016 - 03:33 PM, said:

wrong... it kills everyones sensors, listen to derek.. no advantage for the winner of the scout match,,

I think it's pretty likely that you misunderstood or he misspoke, because that's just silly. It's the highest level of reward for winning in scouting, it's supposed to be a strong advantage.

Have a link to where he explicitly says it affects both teams? Because I definitely didn't hear that.

[Davers]

What's funny is how the new ECM thing will be most useful in the regular game modes, and pretty weak in the actual FP modes.

[Wintersdark]

ScarecrowES, on 08 September 2016 - 03:59 PM, said:

They absolutely should. I think there were only a couple hundred of us who tested ED PTS1. Much fewer for PTS2. There were like... what? 12 of us on PTS3?

Of course, if they'd actually put something on the PTS worth testing, that'd go a long way too. I'm fairly certain at this point that they don't do any internal testing of their own systems. I'm a bit tired of testing half-baked ideas for no reward.

it's really tough when they launch on event weekends too. That's so stupid. As it stands the pts's only reliably get matches for one evening, if people are doing something else, then they don't get to test it at all. I know I was busy for much of the evening for PTS3, only got half a dozen matches in. Disappointing as I'd have liked to get more formal testing done.

[ScarecrowES]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 08 September 2016 - 04:09 PM, said:

there was a term they threw around in beta called "beta fatigue" I think it happens to testers as well

I think that PGI uses their test system much different than any other game I've experienced... and I've been both beta-tester and revision-tester in a LOT of games.

Most of the time, if you're testing revisions to a live game, those revisions are already polished and near complete. They're fully formed and almost ready for prime time... they just need to be stress-tested and probed for weaknesses and exploits.

In PGI's case, it seems more like... "We made a thing. We have no idea what it does yet, and we're hoping you can tell us. Just... you know... fool around with it for a bit and let us know what you want us to do with it. We will likely ignore most of you and just listen to the one guy who sends us a video link on Twitter."

ED, as a system, is nowhere NEAR where it needs to be for us to be testing it. It's so far away from even the principles PGI has described as hallmarks of the system, you have to wonder if they even tested it themselves first. I remember as soon as they posted the initial system write-up, before the thing even made it onto the PTS, I went... "Uh oh, there's a gauss exploit in there." We didn't even need to PLAY it to see that exploit. How did PGI not see this when they've been working on the system for months?

Annoying.

Beta-testing is one thing... being a lab rat is a bit different.

[ScarecrowES]

Wintersdark, on 08 September 2016 - 04:21 PM, said:

it's really tough when they launch on event weekends too. That's so stupid. As it stands the pts's only reliably get matches for one evening, if people are doing something else, then they don't get to test it at all. I know I was busy for much of the evening for PTS3, only got half a dozen matches in. Disappointing as I'd have liked to get more formal testing done.

Launching on possibly the best event weekend we've ever had, and NOT have it tie in to the PTS was a bone-headed move. They could have had thousands of discreet players testing... gotten some real feedback even from people who have no vested interest in the debate. I've noticed that there are a LOT of long-time players and forum warriors who haven't stepped foot in the PTS because they really just do NOT care. Their opinions are as valid, if not more so, than many of the flightly folks doing the actual testing right now, but their participation is decidedly NOT encouraged.

[Mystere]

Hotthedd, on 08 September 2016 - 02:18 PM, said:

If you cannot see how this makes re-spawn the default mode, then I cannot help you

Except for the fact that it will be a ghost town, sure, because...

So, why would people play QP? To be in the kiddie pool? Well, that's not for me. either.

Quick play also has no incentive to play it. Why not allow QP matches to still affect the Faction map, but not have re-spawns?

There are ways to do it. I made a suggestion thread about it a week ago. http://mwomercs.com/...__fromsearch__1 Killing the BattleTech element of MW:O, will not work.

Considering QP was supposed to be only a temporary measure and not the game, I'm not shedding a tear for its demise ...

Edited by Mystere, 08 September 2016 - 04:35 PM.

[Mystere]

Hotthedd, on 08 September 2016 - 03:38 PM, said:

Reinforcements, sure. Having a magic Leprechaun transport you instantly into another 'mech is... laughable.

That's true if and only if you're taking the very literal interpretation of what is supposed to be an abstraction.

[Mystere]

Davers, on 08 September 2016 - 04:20 PM, said:

What's funny is how the new ECM thing will be most useful in the regular game modes, and pretty weak in the actual FP modes.

Well, that's what masses of crybabies loudly whining does.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

ScarecrowES, on 08 September 2016 - 04:27 PM, said:

How did PGI not see this when they've been working on the system for months?

Much like the number of times they lied about working on CW they probably havent

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

ScarecrowES, on 08 September 2016 - 04:31 PM, said:

Their opinions are as valid, if not more so, than many of the flightly folks doing the actual testing right now, but their participation is decidedly NOT encouraged.

really makes you wonder WHY PGI are like this. Theyve NEVER given a **** about what the ppl who are actually doing the work and want **** fixed, and seem to cater to the Twitter crowd that might not even play

Mystere, on 08 September 2016 - 04:35 PM, said:

Considering QP was supposed to be only a temporary measure and not the game, I'm not shedding a tear for its demise ...

as was the XP system... hm what else

Mystere, on 08 September 2016 - 04:45 PM, said:

Well, that's what masses of crybabies loudly whining does.

Then again, it was "working as intended" for what, three, six MONTHS before PGI bent their proud necks and admitted there may be a flaw

[Johnny Z]

Hotthedd, on 08 September 2016 - 12:28 PM, said:

Russ did.
The relevant part is from 37:50-41:20.

I will be the first to say it is doomed to failure.
I will come back in a few months to say "I told you so."

I'm so glad you used those words.

Back before faction play was out in any form many players asked for lobbies and that 12 man/guilds teams would be the driving element behind faction play.

I, yes me, pointed out that relying on 12 man teams to drive faction was a mistake and "it would be nearly impossible to get 12 man teams together for this", those are my words on the subject.

So now players and the game find themselves in a situation where its all being changed to make it work for the match maker to build off.

So heres me saying "I told you so" now.

After saying all of that, lobbies may still be used some day or may continue to be used and that being already done is a good thing going forward. Again until this is working and live or on test the details wont be known so no panic.

Also this isn't about right or wrong, the lobbies resulted in long wait times for players to get into matches, the BIGGEST complaint by far about faction play and now that complaint is being dealt with.

Like I already said, logistics, more maps and modes, addition of lore/story would NOT have solved the
'buckets/match maker/lobbies" situation anyway. So now when those elements are added, its onto a platform that works.

Edited by Johnny Z, 08 September 2016 - 05:28 PM.