162 replies to this topic

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Khobai, on 21 March 2017 - 01:47 PM, said:

I didnt say make assault capture points secondary objectives. capturing the other teams base should be the primary objective in assault. because the whole point of assault should be to assault the other teams base.

assault's secondary mission could be something like controlling a repair bay or ammo cache in the center of the map. or controlling an airbase/artillery base that lets you call in extra arty/airstrikes. or controlling a satillite uplink tower that broadcasts the enemy's position. etc...

This is you not understanding how assault used to play when it was the only game mode for comp. Something at the center of the map is pointless in assault because that is the point of no return (so any static resource is pointless). It is the point of no return because at that point you have to commit to a push on the enemy base because chances are you are either facing the entire enemy team, or the enemy did a split has a contingent headed towards your base (in which case the best path is forward).

Khobai, on 21 March 2017 - 01:47 PM, said:

the point of a secondary objective is that its optional and not a win condition in of itself, but completing it will help you win the primary objective. you seem to be confused what a secondary objective is.

Sure, but doing that requires you UNDERSTAND how it is played and create secondary objectives the are supplemental to that gameplay rather than antagonistic.

Khobai, on 21 March 2017 - 01:47 PM, said:

and like I said the secondary mission would be OPTIONAL. you can decide not to do it and focus on the primary mission of just killing the other team. and having an extra atlas on your side is certainly going to help you attack the team thats camping.

If you can't control it, it won't help, but that is ignoring the problem with this: It encourages static gameplay, that's the reason why skirmish was replaced in conquest in comp.

[Khobai]

Quote

This is you not understanding how assault used to play when it was the only game mode for comp. Something at the center of the map is pointless in assault because that is the point of no return

which is why assault needs respawns IMO. without respawns the easiest way to win will just be to kill the other team and not capture the other teams base; it will degrade into skirmish like most other gamemodes without respawns

as long as killing the other team is the easiest way to win gamemodes then no other primary objective will ever matter. that is why most of the other gamemodes are just fail variations of skirmish and not truly unique gamemodes.

the whole reason other games have respawns is so they can have primary objectives other than just killing the enemy team. if MWO wants to have more diverse gamemodes it needs to explore adding respawns to those gamemodes. bigger maps would help too. without respawns, skirmish aka deathmatch might as well be the only gamemode.

secondary objectives would also matter more with respawns. since games would be more attrition based and won by little victories adding up. instead of one decisive fight like it is now.

Edited by Khobai, 21 March 2017 - 02:32 PM.

[Mystere]

Khobai, on 21 March 2017 - 02:24 PM, said:

which is why assault needs respawns IMO

without respawns the primary objective will just be to kill the other team not capture the other teams base

it will degrade into skirmish like most other gamemodes without respawns

Heck, why is an "Assault" even symmetrical in the first place, and -- worst of all -- in all aspects (i.e. numbers, victory conditions, positioning, etc.)?

Edited by Mystere, 21 March 2017 - 02:28 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Khobai, on 21 March 2017 - 02:24 PM, said:

it will degrade into skirmish like most other gamemodes without respawns

as long as killing the other team is the easiest way to win gamemodes then no other primary objective will ever matter

This is you missing the point. That's the ENTIRE point of no respawn primary objectives (that don't involve killing the enemy team). The only difference is that good primary objectives are intended to keep the battle dynamic and allow pressure to be applied against static teams by a win condition. Primary objectives in no respawn game modes shouldn't be won often through them (because that would be boring, people came here to shoot stompy robots), BUT they should discourage static gameplay.

Khobai, on 21 March 2017 - 02:24 PM, said:

the whole reason other games have respawns is so they can have primary objectives other than just killing the enemy team.

Correct, because it would be a boring grind otherwise (see skirmish in FW), keeping in mind in games with respawn, the ONLY primary condition doesn't involve killing the enemy team at all. The reason that is acceptable is those primary objectives will force plenty of engagements such that you would get to shoot plenty of stompy robots in the game.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 21 March 2017 - 02:33 PM.

[Khobai]

Quote

This is you missing the point. That's the ENTIRE point of no respawn primary objectives

except having other primary objectives doesnt work. period. because killing the enemy team is always easier than the other primary objective. it just degrades to skirmish.

Quote

Primary objectives in no respawn game modes shouldn't be won often through them

then every gamemode might as well just be skirmish.

because having primary gamemodes that you shouldnt win through is effectively the same thing as skirmish.

that is why every gamemode we have now feels like a bad variation of skirmish. it is why the game gets so repetitive and boring.

also having respawns doesnt mean you cant shoot stompy robots. it actually means you get to shoot even more stompy robots. because games with respawn are generally won through attrition and depleting the other team of reinforcement tickets first. and with secondary objectives they would have much more variation and immersion.

I guess if all you want to play is skirmish over and over then you have no problems with how the game is now. but I need more than that for this game to keep me interested.

Edited by Khobai, 21 March 2017 - 02:42 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Khobai, on 21 March 2017 - 02:35 PM, said:

except no respawn primary objectives dont work. period. because killing the enemy team is always easier than the primary objective.

Don't work how? Have you played conquest in comp? Sure some maps they don't work because they are too small (which is unfortunate) but they do allow teams to apply pressure on teams that are playing static/passively and that's EXACTLY what they are there for. Again, you shouldn't expect to win using them often, BUT you should expect them to apply pressure and force a passive team to be more active.

Domination is a weird game mode in how it is played but it definitely requires active play (even if it encourages pushing a little more than I would like).

Assault is probably the worst objective game mode outside of escort, since it creates a bit of a mexican stand-off on who will push or try to make a base run with a flanking force (since you will guard your mid-field before committing to one strat or the other).

Khobai, on 21 March 2017 - 02:35 PM, said:

then every gamemode might as well just be skirmish.

because having primary gamemodes that you shouldnt win through is effectively the same thing as skirmish.

SMH, whatever you want to think Khobai. The rest of us who know better will just continue to tell you don't know what you are talking about.

Khobai, on 21 March 2017 - 02:35 PM, said:

also having respawns doesnt mean you cant shoot stompy robots.

Where did I imply that? Good respawn game modes encourage engagements on their own which is why many don't have wave limits like we do (the only way to win is through objectives).

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 21 March 2017 - 02:44 PM.

[Weeny Machine]

Kiran Yagami, on 21 March 2017 - 06:16 AM, said:

Escort is just a god awful game mode. It takes the worst aspects of this game and puts them all into one match. Bad AI, bad maps, and the reminder that Frozen City used to be good. Now it's garbage. Why do maps need to be so freakin' big? So teams can NASCAR and never actually see one another? You can play Assault on Polar Highlands and never even see the enemy before the game ends. Both teams take right turns, whoever gets to the enemy base faster wins. No shooting required. Alpine Peaks domination? If you have the sh!t spawn and no lights, that game is over in 60 seconds. Again, no shooting required. Frozen City? Oh boy, it's like Polar with cover, but again, it's big enough that teams can run around each other and never fire a shot. When did we decide that Mechwarrior wasn't about shooting enemy mechs? Should we rename the game Gran Mechismo Online?

The problem is not that the maps are big. The problem is that nearly all maps are concipated that way that snipers have a clear advantage. If there were more maps like Bog or old Frozen City or a real city map without a wide open space which spells doom on anyone entering it because the snipers are already waiting and drooling

[beerandasmoke]

Maps that are "immersive" are rejected by the majority of the playerbase. Heat really isnt a factor compared to line of sight on these maps. Thats why Canyon and Tourmaline are so popular and picked over maps such as river city, bog, and the dreaded forest colony. This is what the playerbase wants and what the playerbase should get instead of "immersion" effects such as fog, day/night, and a map so full of trees you have to use nightvision. You want immersion go play a singleplayer roleplay game this is a shooter. Personally, I dont mind bog but the rest of the maps are trash compared to what they had before.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

beerandasmoke, on 21 March 2017 - 02:45 PM, said:

Maps that are "immersive" are rejected by the majority of the playerbase. Heat really isnt a factor compared to line of sight on these maps. Thats why Canyon and Tourmaline are so popular and picked over maps such as river city, bog, and the dreaded forest colony.

Canyon is heat neutral.

[Weeny Machine]

beerandasmoke, on 21 March 2017 - 02:45 PM, said:

Maps that are "immersive" are rejected by the majority of the playerbase. Heat really isnt a factor compared to line of sight on these maps. Thats why Canyon and Tourmaline are so popular and picked over maps such as river city, bog, and the dreaded forest colony. This is what the playerbase wants and what the playerbase should get instead of "immersion" effects such as fog, day/night, and a map so full of trees you have to use nightvision. You want immersion go play a singleplayer roleplay game this is a shooter. Personally, I dont mind bog but the rest of the maps are trash compared to what they had before.

Bog is actually a good map. Different elevations, various approaches, rewards good positioning etc

Edited by Bush Hopper, 22 March 2017 - 12:16 AM.

[Xetelian]

Escort is fun for a lark but I wouldn't want to play it more than a couple times every day.


The defenders that actually gather around the VIP and move as a slow murder ball usually win. As the aggressor or attacker I find that FINDING the VIP is the real challenge. If the team escorting breaks away and fights somewhere unrelated good luck figuring out where its going before the thing reaches the drop ship.


They really should have made it a tank instead of an enormous mech. People can snipe all the armor off the CT really quickly with a ERLL or ERPPC and there isn't much you can do outside standing in front of it and taking the free hits yourself.





If this is what they accomplish when trying to make a new mode it leaves me feeling depressed about the single player that is supposed to be coming.



Also, as a side note, I HATE events that are mode or map specific. Just let me play 75 rounds of ANY mode and I'll be satisfied.


Tweet Russ!

[Mystere]

beerandasmoke, on 21 March 2017 - 02:45 PM, said:

Maps that are "immersive" are rejected by the majority of the playerbase. Heat really isnt a factor compared to line of sight on these maps. Thats why Canyon and Tourmaline are so popular and picked over maps such as river city, bog, and the dreaded forest colony. This is what the playerbase wants and what the playerbase should get instead of "immersion" effects such as fog, day/night, and a map so full of trees you have to use nightvision. You want immersion go play a singleplayer roleplay game this is a shooter. Personally, I dont mind bog but the rest of the maps are trash compared to what they had before.

Please tell everyone why a shooter should not have immersion? Where is that design law written, preferably in stone?

[Ted Wayz]

One thing that this event made me realize...escort doesn't get played that much. Like 11% of the time in my case during this event. All this QQ over 11%?

And if you play escort by escorting...you are doing it wrong? The successful escorting teams I have seen have either taken advantage of the other team looking for the VIP or mislead the other team away from the drop point. Which you can usually guess after the first few turns.

But I guess the mode may be too cerebral for some. It isn't "stand in center" and "beat each others head in".

Maybe if it gave conquest equivalent rewards people would defend it and play escort more often.

[Deathlike]

Ted Wayz, on 21 March 2017 - 04:53 PM, said:

One thing that this event made me realize...escort doesn't get played that much. Like 11% of the time in my case during this event. All this QQ over 11%?

And if you play escort by escorting...you are doing it wrong? The successful escorting teams I have seen have either taken advantage of the other team looking for the VIP or mislead the other team away from the drop point. Which you can usually guess after the first few turns.

From my experience, most Escort missions fall into 3 categories.

1) If one side is more skilled than the other, the roflstomp is still commencing on schedule.

2) One side gets overaggros the other, forgetting that the objective exists... deciding the match by objective.

3) One side is too passive, and gets wrecked anyways.

Wait, that's the consequence of every other mode. Who knew?

Quote

But I guess the mode may be too cerebral for some. It isn't "stand in center" and "beat each others head in".

Maybe if it gave conquest equivalent rewards people would defend it and play escort more often.

Escort really isn't that complicated. It's just not that good at all.

[Hunchening]

Ted Wayz, on 21 March 2017 - 04:53 PM, said:

One thing that this event made me realize...escort doesn't get played that much. Like 11% of the time in my case during this event. All this QQ over 11%?

And if you play escort by escorting...you are doing it wrong? The successful escorting teams I have seen have either taken advantage of the other team looking for the VIP or mislead the other team away from the drop point. Which you can usually guess after the first few turns.

30%

You can't lead the Potatos
They don't push when necessary

[DAYLEET]

Deathlike, on 21 March 2017 - 05:04 PM, said:

Escort really isn't that complicated. It's just not that good at all.

It takes the fight somewhere else which is more that any other game mode have done. Even conquest mostly happens at the same place than Skirmish and Domination on most map.

[Deathlike]

DAYLEET, on 21 March 2017 - 05:16 PM, said:

It takes the fight somewhere else which is more that any other game mode have done. Even conquest mostly happens at the same place than Skirmish and Domination on most map.

The difference is that the there's this T9000 Scrub that tells noone where they are going and charges into a fight thinking they are invincible and isn't capable of torso twisting damage... let alone retaliation.

I mean... who knew adding +1 Potato on the team had to be carried?

[DAYLEET]

Deathlike, on 21 March 2017 - 05:21 PM, said:

The difference is that the there's this T9000 Scrub that tells noone where they are going and charges into a fight thinking they are invincible and isn't capable of torso twisting damage... let alone retaliation.

I mean... who knew adding +1 Potato on the team had to be carried?

That he's not telling us where he is going sucks but could be a design choice for now because pathing is hard(the way he turns on the same spot for a period of time tells me the ai changes its mind often or dont know where its going).

that he isnt torso twising damage really is just bad design. But if he did we would all just shoot a leg and end the match there anyways so i dunno... He should be torso twisting, no logical reason not to.

[Deathlike]

DAYLEET, on 21 March 2017 - 05:29 PM, said:

That he's not telling us where he is going sucks but could be a design choice for now because pathing is hard(the way he turns on the same spot for a period of time tells me the ai changes its mind often or dont know where its going).

Slow reaction time AND poor driving... this isn't (strictly) a mech driving simulator.

Quote

that he isnt torso twising damage really is just bad design. But if he did we would all just shoot a leg and end the match there anyways so i dunno... He should be torso twisting, no logical reason not to.

Well, the guy working on AI is working on MW5 and not MWO, so... it's unlikely to change in the near future.

Edited by Deathlike, 21 March 2017 - 05:38 PM.

[Ted Wayz]

Deathlike, on 21 March 2017 - 05:37 PM, said:

Slow reaction time AND poor driving... this isn't (strictly) a mech driving simulator.

Well, the guy working on AI is working on MW5 and not MWO, so... it's unlikely to change in the near future.

Because maybe the VIP pilot isn't a...wait for it...pilot? Maybe it is just some dignitary dropped into a mech with mucho armor on auto pilot. Maybe there is a bathroom in the Atlas.

See what happens when you use imagination. And potatoes...they always follow the lead french fry. Now maybe you could become that lead french fry. Or maybe you are just a potato, bigger than other potatoes but still a potato, among other potatoes waiting for a french fry to follow.