162 replies to this topic

[Khobai]

Quote

Protecting Mr Potato Head is just annoying

its mostly annoying because he has no weapons

an atlas with no weapons is as pointless as redoing the crit system without increasing internal structure

the atlas needs some weapons so its not a complete pushover


but also i think escorting should be a secondary objective for other gamemodes, not a gamemode unto itself. you shouldnt win or lose just because you guarded/destroyed the atlas, you should just get a substantial cbill bonus for doing so. the primary objective and actual win condition should be to kill the other team.

and I think they could expand on the idea of secondary objectives by having a bunch of random secondary objectives that show up in various gamemodes. like skirmish would be the main objective but the secondary objective could be escort, info capture, search and destroy, etc... which would be optional but give a huge bonus if you complete it.

Edited by Khobai, 21 March 2017 - 12:39 PM.

[Mystere]

Mcgral18, on 21 March 2017 - 12:27 PM, said:

Don't place the objective 90% on one side of a mountain, 10% on the other side

What about at 40:60? At 45:55? At 49:51? At 49.99:50.01?

What if the mountain is not a perfect cone? Or should it be?

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 21 March 2017 - 12:32 PM, said:

Look at HPG to find out (though this is fairly symmetrical so potentially not the best example, but it still isn't a mirrored setup).

It definitely isn't.

Edited by Mystere, 21 March 2017 - 12:37 PM.

[STEF_]

Mcgral18, on 21 March 2017 - 05:47 AM, said:

I do not enjoy most of the new content
Protecting Mr Potato Head is just annoying, as you cannot know which route he is going to take until it's too late, and your Spud compratiots may or may not push, whichever side you're on.

The path Mr Potato takes should be an easy addition to the battlegrid, but we've not gotten that QoL feature in the months it's been here. I genuinely do not enjoy the mode.

But worst of all, what Escort did, was remove a large percentage of the GOOD maps from showing up, because they do not support the mode
HPG
Mining
Canyon

Fun maps, not too dark, good visibility, fast action...but we see Grim (poorly balanced), Forest (damn that visibility), and Frozen so very often
Ignoring the fact the FC & FC are inferior versions to the old ones (#PGIPLZ), I have played so many maps and modes I simply do not enjoy, it ruined my enjoyment of trying to play Shooty Stompy Robots

I do not enjoy the newest additions to the game...
I'd almost like the option to opt out of Escort, because then I win on two fronts. No more Mr Potato Head, and I also get to win the Map Lottery more often, seeing the good, small maps, more than the large, poorly designed maps.


Domination is at least Skirmish in a Circle...until the last Reds go to hide and protect their Kd, but your allies stay in the circle, making you unable to play Shooty Stompy Robots...

I want to hug you, and I need a hug.
I left mwo 3 months ago, for the same reasons you wrote.....
After 3 years my b4||z exploded.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Khobai, on 21 March 2017 - 12:32 PM, said:

you shouldnt win or lose just because you guarded/destroyed the atlas, you should just get a substantial cbill bonus for doing so.

That isn't a good mechanic because it doesn't impact the actual game, just your pocket books. This is pretty much along the same lines as the original supply cache idea (having to find them on the map) and just as bad.

[Mcgral18]

Mystere, on 21 March 2017 - 12:36 PM, said:

What about at 40:60? At 45:55? At 49:51? At 49.99:50.01?

What if the mountain is not a perfect cone? Or should it be?




It definitely isn't.

30/70 should be acceptable

But the current Alpine Dom circle is arguably worse than the LAST placement!
It just swapped sides as to who has the advantage

A MASSIVE advantage, mind you

[Khobai]

Quote

That isn't a good mechanic because it doesn't impact the actual game, just your pocket books. This is pretty much along the same lines as the original supply cache idea (having to find them on the map) and just as bad.

huh. its way better than having escort as its own gamemode that no one wants to play. also how does having an extra atlas with weapons and capturable turrets added along its travel path not impact the actual game? it certainly would. so youre wrong about that.

it could also impact the game more if they added varying degrees of victory.

like phyrric victory, close victory, decisive victory, etc... which could affect the rate a planet is captured at in faction play. completing secondary objectives in scouting mode or invasion mode could mean capturing a planet faster for example.

having secondary objectives would help break up the monotony of the game modes.

Edited by Khobai, 21 March 2017 - 12:50 PM.

[Deathlike]

The way you know a map is imbalanced is that if you know of a position to take and getting there first gives you the best chance of winning... assuming equal skill.

[Mystere]

Mcgral18, on 21 March 2017 - 12:39 PM, said:

30/70 should be acceptable

But the current Alpine Dom circle is arguably worse than the LAST placement!
It just swapped sides as to who has the advantage

A MASSIVE advantage, mind you

Considering I seem to win or lose just almost as much whichever side I drop on -- which by the way also seems to be close to a 50:50 spread -- I do not really see much of a problem, especially in relation to the large amount of crying about it. But then again I am not one of the bungholes that steadfastly refuse to get into the circle and instead find nice cover to play peekaboo from.

And as I have said before, the whole point of "Domination" is to dominate the enemy. So in Hades' name go in and dominate them -- or die trying. <shrugs>

Deathlike, on 21 March 2017 - 12:28 PM, said:

Noone needs to be using red herrings to refuse/argue the point when that's not even the definition of what balance entails.

It's much less using a red herring and more about taking a more practical approach or point of view. See above.

Edited by Mystere, 21 March 2017 - 12:51 PM.

[Rhent]

Skoll, on 21 March 2017 - 06:46 AM, said:

If you're complaining about being base capped on Assault, that means you didn't defend your base. You deserve that loss. It's been almost six years and people are still crying over a preventable loss.

NO, what you do on base capping is immediately cap the opposing teams base and get an easy win. When done, you troll the F out of the idiots for capping and tell them if they do it again while you are on red, you'll outcap them.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Khobai, on 21 March 2017 - 12:40 PM, said:

huh. its way better than having escort as its own gamemode that no one wants to play. also how does having an extra atlas with weapons not impact the actual game?

Why are we adding an extra mech to game modes for no real purpose? Better yet, why are we adding an AI controlled mech to one side when all it is meant to do is to add c-bills to the winning team? Does it stop a team from camping (to which the answer is no, and that is bad)? Does it make the battle more dynamic (not in the way that conquest does)?

Khobai, on 21 March 2017 - 12:40 PM, said:

it could also impact the game more if they added varying degrees of victory.

Which still has no real impact on QP.

Mystere, on 21 March 2017 - 12:46 PM, said:

Considering I seem to win or lose just almost as much whichever side I drop on -- which by the way also seems to be close to a 50:50 spread -- I do not really see much of a problem, especially in relation to the large amount of crying about it.

That's because the difference isn't as noticeable in QP because well, PUGs are gonna be PUGs. In comp and group queue, the difference starts to become more stark. If changing it doesn't really impact QP but DOES impact group queue and comp for the better, then it should be changed.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 21 March 2017 - 12:53 PM.

[Ultimax]

Bishop Steiner, on 21 March 2017 - 06:16 AM, said:

1) I don't like any map where I don't have pristine firing conditions

The problem isn't immersive environmental effects or weather patterns that change, the problem is that there are so many maps that even without weather effects have outright bad visibility.

I probably spend half or more of a night of drops in heat vision mode.

It wouldn't be so annoying if heat vision mode wasn't black and white, I have a powerhouse computer with a 34" ultra wide monitor & 1070 GTX GPU - it would be nice to see some color and not constantly be in washed out, bad contrast, low visibility conditions so often.

I've been playing Fallout 4 a lot again recently and it rains, and storms and I have to fight at night, etc - but there are so many times the view is so fantastic I literally stop to take screenshots like a total nerd.

That never happens in MWO, because so much of the game is ugly and drab.

MWO, is more ugly, drab & washed out ... than a game set in a post apocalyptic wasteland.

Bishop Steiner, on 21 March 2017 - 06:16 AM, said:

2) I don't like any other tactical consideration other than killing the other team

We don't like tactical considerations that are forced & badly implemented, and rely on a dumb NPC that takes a dumb path and travels slower than the slowest member of the team.

There is a reason that conquest is one of the most highly preferred competitive game modes - very specifically because it forces different tactical considerations and can be used to force movement.

Bishop Steiner, on 21 March 2017 - 06:16 AM, said:

That about sum it up? Was conquest the hated Game Mode of choice before this?

It's only hated in the solo & group queue because potatos are going to potato and they are unable to understand that just because it's conquest doesn't mean you have to cap every single time - it's an option, just like trying to kill the entire enemy team is also an option.

Edited by Ultimax, 24 March 2017 - 04:08 PM.

[Deathlike]

Ultimax, on 21 March 2017 - 12:57 PM, said:

We don't like tactical consierations that are forced & badly implemented, and rely on a dumb NPC that takes a dumb path and travels slower than the slowest member of the team.

Well, it's equivalent to the guy that tells noone what he's doing, where's he's going, or asks for help while he's in no-man's land. In that instance, we have the perfect braindead Escort PUG for the masses!

[Khobai]

Quote

Why are we adding an extra mech to game modes for no real purpose? Better yet, why are we adding an AI controlled mech to one side when all it is meant to do is to add c-bills to the winning team

I explained it already.

1) it makes the game less boring by adding secondary objectives
2) the secondary objectives would include assets to help win the primary objective
3) completing the secondary objective would yield higher cbill earnings and who doesnt like more cbills?
4) it could also mean having degrees of success which would influence planet capture percentages in faction play.

Quote

Does it stop a team from camping (to which the answer is no, and that is bad)? Does it make the battle more dynamic (not in the way that conquest does)?

youre basically saying skirmish is bad because teams camp and its not dynamic enough and that skirmish with escort as secondary mode is still bad because teams camp and its not dynamic enough. there is a logical fallacy there. the problem isnt adding escort as a secondary objective. the problem is the primary objective allowing camping and not being dynamic enough...

the way I see it, adding secondary objectives doesnt make the gamemode worse, potentially makes it better, and adds a way to earn more cbills in the process. so theres nothing to lose by adding them. and since no one wants to play escort gamemode anyway, integrating it as one of several random secondary objectives in the gamemodes people do want to play, makes perfect sense to me.

Edited by Khobai, 21 March 2017 - 01:19 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Khobai, on 21 March 2017 - 01:11 PM, said:

1) it makes the game less boring by adding secondary objectives

Doesn't mean it is good. Assault and Siege are not well regarded either and both have secondary objectives....

Khobai, on 21 March 2017 - 01:11 PM, said:

2) the secondary objectives would include assets to help win the primary objective

Do both sides get this asset? What is the point in adding an AI controlled 13th man over a real 13th man?

Khobai, on 21 March 2017 - 01:11 PM, said:

3) completing the secondary objective would yield higher cbill earnings and who doesnt like more cbills?

The higher c-bill earnings are a non-issue when talking about making game modes better. Escort could have the higher payout and it still wouldn't fix the issues with it currently, it would just make it more tolerable if you are c-bill farming.

Khobai, on 21 March 2017 - 01:11 PM, said:

4) it could also mean having degrees of success which would influence planet capture percentages in faction play.

This is a completely independent idea, it could be done on virtually every mode, not just this made up thing.

Khobai, on 21 March 2017 - 01:11 PM, said:

youre basically saying skirmish is bad because teams camp and its not dynamic enough.

That's EXACTLY why skirmish is bad.....

Khobai, on 21 March 2017 - 01:11 PM, said:

so skirmish with escort as secondary mode is still bad because teams camp and its not dynamic enough.

Correct, because the escort does not prevent camping or curtail the advantage of finding a super advantageous position and sitting on it.

Khobai, on 21 March 2017 - 01:11 PM, said:

adding secondary objectives doesnt make the gamemode worse

Speaking of fallacies, they can in fact make it worse, by encouraging camping because of one sided advantages (see siege mode as a perfect example).

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 21 March 2017 - 01:20 PM.

[Clownwarlord]

This event made me realize that I will have way to many envious ear drums when this event end

[Khobai]

Quote

Doesn't mean it is good. Assault is not well regarded either and it has secondary objectives..

no assault does not have secondary objectives. it has multiple primary objectives (win conditions).

a secondary objective is purely optional. completing a secondary objective does not mean you win the game.

Quote

Do both sides get this asset? What is the point in adding an AI controlled 13th man over a real 13th man?

obviously it would have to be balanced somehow. one side would get a mech they have to escort. the other side would also get something to balance it out.

Quote

The higher c-bill earnings are a non-issue when talking about making game modes better. Escort could have the higher payout and it still wouldn't fix the issues with it currently, it would just make it more tolerable if you are c-bill farming.

except people dont want to play escort at all. its not chosen as a gamemode. even with a higher payout it wouldnt be chosen as a gamemode.

thats the whole point of integrating it as a secondary objective instead. it wouldnt be the only secondary objective though, there would be multiple secondary objectives, and one would be picked at random each game.

Quote

This is a completely independent idea, it could be done on virtually every mode, not just this made up thing.

nope. because completing the secondary objective would contribute to the degree of success. its very much a connected idea.

Quote

That's EXACTLY why skirmish is bad.....

so then theres nothing to lose by adding secondary objectives. at worst skirmish stays the same with an opportunity to earn extra cbills. at best its improved by breaking up the monotony of games and adding more variation to the gamemodes.

Quote

Correct, because the escort does not prevent camping or curtail the advantage of finding a super advantageous position and sitting on it.

it wouldnt as a secondary objective. because secondary objectives are entirely optional. if the other team is camping and making it impossible to win the secondary objective then you simply give up trying to win the secondary objective and focus on the primary objective of killing them instead.

Quote

Speaking of fallacies, they can in fact make it worse, by encouraging camping because of one sided advantages (see siege mode as a perfect example).

what youre saying makes no sense. siege is a primary objective not a secondary objective. and if a secondary objective(s) is added to siege that gives the attackers an advantage in siege, then it might encourage the defenders to camp less to stop the attackers from gaining that advantage. so what youre saying isnt true, it could potentially discourage defenders from camping if anything.

for example, if a repair bay asset was added to the middle of the map just outside the defenders base as a secondary objective. whichever team captures it would have a limited ability to repair their mechs. the defenders obviously wouldnt want the attackers having that so theyd have to move out of their base to fight for it.

Edited by Khobai, 21 March 2017 - 01:40 PM.

[Mystere]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 21 March 2017 - 01:16 PM, said:

Do both sides get this asset? What is the point in adding an AI controlled 13th man over a real 13th man?

I think you've been here long enough to be able to predict how the player base will react to such questions.

<"Wah! Wah! It's not fair! Remove it NAO or I will rage quit!>

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Khobai, on 21 March 2017 - 01:28 PM, said:

no assault does not have secondary objectives. it has multiple primary objectives (win conditions).

a secondary objective is purely optional.

So how does it help the gameplay then if it isn't a win condition? What sense does the assault capture points make if they are secondary objectives?

Khobai, on 21 March 2017 - 01:28 PM, said:

it would have to be balanced somehow obviously. one side would get a mech they have to escort. the other side would get something too to balance it out.

So basically merging escort with other game modes, seems like a lot of noise that only encourage static gameplay rather than actual dynamic movements.

Khobai, on 21 March 2017 - 01:28 PM, said:

except people dont want to play escort at all. its not chosen as a gamemode. even with a higher payout it wouldnt be chosen as a gamemode.

That's kinda my point......higher c-bill payouts don't fix a busted game mode, so you bringing them up with your hybrid is pointless.

Khobai, on 21 March 2017 - 01:28 PM, said:

nope. because completing the secondary objective would contribute to the degree of success. its a connected idea.

How, you have not mentioned this contribution until now, the only contribution you have mentioned afaik is higher payouts.

Khobai, on 21 March 2017 - 01:28 PM, said:

so then theres nothing to lose by adding secondary objectives. at worst its the same. at best its improved.

At worst its the same and you wasted a lot of development time on a pointless change.....yeah, that would go over well (just like escort did)......

Khobai, on 21 March 2017 - 01:28 PM, said:

it wouldnt as a secondary objective. because youd compromise your ability to win the primary objective.

It would, because the escort side has this stupid AI that runs around. In other words the non-escort side is encouraged to just camp and wait for the eventual push. In other words again, it only encourages bad gameplay much like Siege. That or it just creates a completely lopsided fight giving the escort team an advantage. Adding random **** to game modes for the sake of breaking up the monotony without contemplating the impact it has on how that game mode is played is stupid.

Khobai, on 21 March 2017 - 01:28 PM, said:

if a secondary objective(s) is added to siege that give the attackers an advantage, then it might encourage the defenders to camp less.

This depends on a lot of implementation details.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 21 March 2017 - 01:38 PM.

[Khobai]

Quote

So how does it help the gameplay then if it isn't a win condition? What sense does the assault capture points make if they are secondary objectives?

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...

you seem to be confused what a secondary objective is.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.

Quote

It would, because the escort side has this stupid AI that runs around. In other words the non-escort
side is encouraged to just camp and wait for the eventual push

well obviously the escort AI needs to be improved so it can be controlled better. thats a given.

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

you just set it up so if the defender wants their equivalent advantage they have to move out into the middle of the map and capture it and cant spend the whole game camping. you take the carrot approach and make it more more beneficial for them to move out and attack than to camp.

Edited by Khobai, 21 March 2017 - 02:01 PM.

[WarHippy]

Mcgral18, on 21 March 2017 - 08:36 AM, said:

So we shouldn't be able to choose to play the only good maps in the game?

That seems like a poor decision

No, I don't think we should be able to. I like pretty much all of the maps and it pisses me off that we see the same ones again and again. Anyone asking for new maps yet keeps voting for the same three again and again is wasting everyone's time and needs to shut up because they are going to continue voting for the same three maps. Anyone complaining about nothing changing in this game and we need to add new systems that are not ready simply for the sake of change but then keeps voting for the same three maps again and again is a hypocrite.

Yes, I am bitter, and none of that was directed specifically at you. However, voting ends up just pissing me off in every game. Not because what I want doesn't win, but because it always ends up eliminating half or more of the games content only to sit there and listen to people whine about the game never having anything new. Stop asking for new maps or new modes etc. if you are only going to complain when you have to play them. Nothing stagnates a game more. Its like when I played Counter-Strike and you would have 45% of people vote dust2 again and again and the other votes spread between 10 other maps. Then the other players get tired and start to leave. Eventually the people controlling the server sees that dust2 gets voted on all the time so they make the server dust2 24/7 and then wonder why a week later nobody freaking plays on their server anymore.

I can't even begin to express how much I hate voting on maps in games. Games modes should still be a hard choice, but if that isn't workable it should be random rather than voted on. Although, I would be okay with being able to have one maybe two exemptions for game modes.

Edited by WarHippy, 21 March 2017 - 02:07 PM.