62 replies to this topic

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

Why play a war game and never shoot at the enemy?

That's like joining the Army to mop the halls.

[Khobai]

Quote

Why play a war game and never shoot at the enemy?

I dont think thats the point

I think the point is that shooting the enemy shouldnt always be the easiest win condition

as long as killing the enemy team is easier than the other objectives, game modes with other objectives are just going to devolve into skirmish

scouting works because scouting for intel and avoiding the enemy team is sometimes easier than fighting the enemy team. scouting is a solid gamemode because it gives you that option.

but most of the other gamemodes really are just lame variations of skirmish and dont work very well without respawns. I still think PGI needs to add ticket based respawns to non-skirmish gamemodes similar to what Mechwarrior Living Legends had. Limited respawns would help make the other objectives matter more than just killing the enemy team, and having reinforcement tickets still means dying is a consequence.

Edited by Khobai, 27 March 2017 - 03:21 PM.

[Anjian]

Saint Scarlett Johan, on 27 March 2017 - 03:03 PM, said:

Why play a war game and never shoot at the enemy?

That's like joining the Army to mop the halls.

Seriously?

Any game with respawns means more shooting. That's because respawns means more enemies to kill, more shots are going to be fired, and your kill count is higher. Even if you get killed, you get a second chance to kill some more, by going back with a new mech, and kill some more, though you may get killed in the process. It means you will at least get to play a full 10 minutes of shooting, and during that shooting, you get to routinely kill 5 to 10 (sometimes even more) enemies on the average, rather than 2 to 3.

You also need to work harder, shoot more, to stop those wave rushes. Just because you think it should be over, doesn't mean its over. They will be coming back.

A game with respawns is much more unpredictable. Victory can be snatched from you at the last moment. These are the kinds of games you don't let your guard down to the very end.

It rewards brawling and pushing even more, to capture the spots. Camping is a good way to lose such a game.

It creates relevance for lighter mechs or vehicles, which are often used to grab the objectives fast and early, as well as to recapture those spots.

By bringing everyone out of the woodwork and into the fray, contested spots also become areas to make your kills. But of course, the other team is also trying to do the same to your team. This leads to some furious and intense battles. This creates a dynamic, not a static situation. People are less afraid to lose their assets. They are overall, more aggressive knowing they have more chances than one.

Having a set of mechs to bring into the game means bringing a variety of them from light to assault. It means that during respawn, you can choose a new mech, and select a new mech suited for the purposes of the moment. You are behind in points, and you need to cap fast --- bring light. Enemy is strongly holding on to the cap point, and we need to push them out. Bring something heavy like an assault.

Objective based with respawns means the game isn't just about killing. Its about killing to achieve an even higher goal --- territorial dominance.

Edited by Anjian, 27 March 2017 - 03:54 PM.

[El Bandito]

Kiran Yagami, on 27 March 2017 - 06:38 AM, said:

Matches where people rush the objectives always feel cheap and pointless because they are. You get a whopping 50k c-bills for your objective rushing madness. I make more than that on a loss where I do 400 damage, and 400 ain't much. On Alpine Peaks Domination, many teams literally let the enemy win when they get the sh*t spawn just because the game mode is so piss poor that playing it makes you want to slit your wrists. It lasts a whole 60 seconds and no one cares about the loss. The enemy team got like 25k c-bills. Whoopty doo.

Except my post was about Siege mode, not QP. CW works differently, where victories actually count towards something, not just money earned.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Khobai, on 27 March 2017 - 03:15 PM, said:

I think the point is that shooting the enemy shouldnt always be the easiest win condition

In a no-respawn game they SHOULD be the main win condition.

[Mystere]

Saint Scarlett Johan, on 27 March 2017 - 03:03 PM, said:

Why play a war game and never shoot at the enemy?

That's like joining the Army to mop the halls.

Is that why certain countries choose to start and send their soldiers to unnecessary wars?

Edited by Mystere, 27 March 2017 - 05:49 PM.

[FireDog]

Lykaon, on 27 March 2017 - 02:19 PM, said:

Here are what I see as the leading causes to stale game play and a tendency towards a "skirmish" like focus.

Fixed spawn points: Every match we play on any given map we know where we are and we know where the enemy will be. We can even see the enemy dropships leaving their drops zones.

The fixed spawn points issue leads to predictive movement and a tendency to cover the same ground over and over again.Fixed and known spawn points reduces the importance and need for recon and this deminishes role warfare.

Fixed objective locations: Knowing where every cap point is on a conquest match also reduces the need to apply resources for recon and also deminishes the importance of mobility information warfare and role warfare.How hard is it to assault an enemy position if you know exactly where to go? Conversely how hard is it to mount a defense if you know both where the enemy begins and where they need to be? This is how assault mode plays.

Small maps or maps with largely unused or "worthless" space: As the area of a map becomes smaller the amount of guess work applied to figuring out where the enemy is going and where they are is reduced. This is another factor that leads to a stale gameplay enviorment where we feel like we do the same things over and over. If the potential variables are so narrow and we know where the enemy starts and we know where they want to go how many suprises are left? Why do we need recon? why do we want to carefully plan where we position our slower mechs (the map is so small or the course of action so predictable there is no worry about being out of position for long) Because of this speed and deployment become less relevent. And role warfare takes another hit as with these circumstances we don't have much need for recon (lights) we don't have much need to delay the enemy to position our assaults (medium roles) and assaults mechs lose their defensive capabilities to some degree because the map is so small or so predictable that the enemy has little fear of not having their own assault mechs in position to counter enemy assests.

Small overall number of maps: Relatively speaking MWo for the length of time it has been in operation doesn't have a lot of maps. So those maps with flaws in design are either seen with more frequency or not popular for voting. Two examples.

Forest Colony has a flaw in design. I see it as being an excellent example of a map with a load of under utilize "worthless" space. Nearly a third of this map is either behind deployment zones and objectives (walked through but never returned to) or open water with no reason to enter baring a lethal lapse in judgment. Forest Colony is rarely voted for.

HPG Manifold also has a flaw in design.This map is probably the one map most guilty of predictability. The players are literally gated into the center "arena" and fight either "NASCAR" or "king of the hill" but usually a little of both. HPG holds few suprises to anyone and has limited tactical options.The amount of under utilized dead map space is close to two thirds of the total map area. Yet HPG is a popular map.This map has a lot going for it but utilized space,unpredictability and promotion of role warfare are not well supported.

Yep, PGI's worst sins are poor map design and lack of knowledge what promotes good mech play. Over the last few years they have went down multiple paths of terrible game/map design decisions, however they are slowly learning and have corrected or mitigated several of their design flaws. But truly, PGI could have done a lot more research and learned so much from the latter phase of MW4's mission play maps and game mechanics. Reinventing the wheel is always a pain. They still should load up a few old PCs with MW4 mission play maps (50+) and burn a few hours in game play/study. Some missions and maps ideas will not translate well into MWO but most will and that knowledge will be worth gold to PGI and to us in returns.

Edited by FireDog, 27 March 2017 - 06:25 PM.

[Jingseng]

rather, in a no respawn game, it is essentially impossible to have meaningful and rewarding objectives. Thus every mode overwhelmingly results in TDM/skirmish with a different set of warnings to ignore.

Skirmish skirmish skirmish.... everything is skirmish... PGI, that is not fun, your so called mandate and expertise. It becomes even less so when skirmish is gussied up slightly as something else, but still really just skirmish.

I'm surprised all the lore warriors aren't in arms over it. It makes even less sense to be nothing but skirmish all the modes than 'respawn'. It devolves into a very slow paced, grindy, shooter without even melee weapons.

I think it universally understood and implied that when the players cry "we want a new game mode" that the new game mode NOT be skirmish.

[Tarl Cabot]

This is PGI original map design but no real change for the most part.

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

Mystere, on 27 March 2017 - 05:47 PM, said:

Is that why certain countries choose to start and send their soldiers to unnecessary wars?

You still haven't figured it out?

War is a game. The ultimate game.

Anjian, on 27 March 2017 - 03:52 PM, said:

Seriously?

Any game with respawns means more shooting. That's because respawns means more enemies to kill, more shots are going to be fired, and your kill count is higher. Even if you get killed, you get a second chance to kill some more, by going back with a new mech, and kill some more, though you may get killed in the process. It means you will at least get to play a full 10 minutes of shooting, and during that shooting, you get to routinely kill 5 to 10 (sometimes even more) enemies on the average, rather than 2 to 3.

You also need to work harder, shoot more, to stop those wave rushes. Just because you think it should be over, doesn't mean its over. They will be coming back.

A game with respawns is much more unpredictable. Victory can be snatched from you at the last moment. These are the kinds of games you don't let your guard down to the very end.

It rewards brawling and pushing even more, to capture the spots. Camping is a good way to lose such a game.

It creates relevance for lighter mechs or vehicles, which are often used to grab the objectives fast and early, as well as to recapture those spots.

By bringing everyone out of the woodwork and into the fray, contested spots also become areas to make your kills. But of course, the other team is also trying to do the same to your team. This leads to some furious and intense battles. This creates a dynamic, not a static situation. People are less afraid to lose their assets. They are overall, more aggressive knowing they have more chances than one.

Having a set of mechs to bring into the game means bringing a variety of them from light to assault. It means that during respawn, you can choose a new mech, and select a new mech suited for the purposes of the moment. You are behind in points, and you need to cap fast --- bring light. Enemy is strongly holding on to the cap point, and we need to push them out. Bring something heavy like an assault.

Objective based with respawns means the game isn't just about killing. Its about killing to achieve an even higher goal --- territorial dominance.

I'm not reading your wall of text because it's clear from the first word of your response that you missed the intent of my frivolous statement.

Edited by Saint Scarlett Johan, 27 March 2017 - 08:43 PM.

[RAM]

Mcgral18, on 26 March 2017 - 01:34 PM, said:

Hey, I'm here to play Shooty Stompy Robots
That's exactly what I'm going to do

Mechs are neither stompy nor robots. Perhaps the problem is you playing the wrong game...


RAM
ELH

[Mcgral18]

RAM, on 27 March 2017 - 09:16 PM, said:

Mechs are neither stompy nor robots. Perhaps the problem is you playing the wrong game...


RAM
ELH

What are you talking about?

My Gundams are all Shooty and Stompy

[Jingseng]

Come to think of it, the Transformers game has robots that can transform from vehicle to robot forms in combat, including flying planes...

so LAMs could be added....

[Khobai]

Quote

In a no-respawn game they SHOULD be the main win condition.

um thats why I pointed out we need respawns to make non-skirmish gamemodes actually work

non-skirmish gamemodes should have ticket based respawns where each time you die your team loses tickets equal to the tonnage of the mech you were piloting. And then you respawn in one of your 4 dropdeck mechs.

there should also be an odd number (3-5) of capture objectives spread out across the map and controlling them would bleed the other team of reinforcement tickets. that would eliminate camping and force action because both teams would have to fight over the objectives to stay ahead in ticket count. controlling the objectives could also give a strategic/tactical bonus to your whole team (like sensor towers, ammo caches, repair bays, etc...)

and then there would be the main objective of destroying the enemy base. so you could win either by destroying the enemy base or by running them out of reinforcement tickets.

thats how the new incursion game mode shouldve worked.

Edited by Khobai, 28 March 2017 - 10:18 AM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Khobai, on 28 March 2017 - 10:10 AM, said:

non-skirmish gamemodes should have ticket based respawns where each time you die your team loses tickets equal to the tonnage of the mech you were piloting. And then you respawn in one of your 4 dropdeck mechs.

I know you guys have this fantacization of MWLL's ticket crap, but it isn't necessary for objective game modes, nor is it actually helpful because the more coordinated teams will try to respawn in waves anyway, just like they do in Overwatch/TF2/MWO FW/etc. The more you try and limit respawn, the more you shift the focus back to attrition of respawns rather than the objective.

If we want a true objective game mode, just give infinite respawns but keep the drop deck for allowing variety so you aren't necessarily stuck doing the same thing repeatedly, that way Objectives are truly THE ONLY way to win.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 28 March 2017 - 10:17 AM.

[Khobai]

Quote

The more you try and limit respawn, the more you shift the focus back to attrition of respawns rather than the objective.

actually if the main objective is easier to complete than attritioning the enemy team then it will shift the focus back onto the objective.

the goal is to find that balance between making the primary win condition reasonable to complete while still having attrition as an secondary win condition in the few cases where the primary win condition cant be complete or when time runs out.

Quote

If we want a true objective game mode, just give infinite respawns but keep the drop deck for allowing variety so you aren't necessarily stuck doing the same thing repeatedly, that way Objectives are truly THE ONLY way to win.

but dying over and over needs consequences. tickets represent the fact that your side has limited resources to deploy and doesnt have an infinite number of mechs.

Edited by Khobai, 28 March 2017 - 10:24 AM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Khobai, on 28 March 2017 - 10:21 AM, said:

actually if the main objective is easier to complete than attritioning the enemy team then it will shift the focus back onto the objective.

So you just want to go back to quick play then?

Khobai, on 28 March 2017 - 10:21 AM, said:

but dying over and over needs consequences

First, why does it need consequences? Because of some silly "immersion" needs?
Second, giving up terrain is consequence enough. Have you ever played payload maps on TF2/Overwatch? Being wiped takes much longer to recover from, and losing battles continuously means you aren't gaining any ground.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 28 March 2017 - 10:27 AM.

[Khobai]

Quote

So you just want to go back to quick play then?

how does that resemble quickplay at all? quickplay doesnt focus on objectives it focuses on skirmish and kiling the enemy team.

ticket based respawns would focus primarily on objectives because completing the objectives would be easier than attritioning the entire enemy team.

Like I said its a matter of balancing the gamemode so the primary objective is reasonable to complete for both sides and it doesnt turn into an attrition fight except in cases where the teams are extremely equal in terms of skill.

Quote

First, why does it need consequences?

I explained why. To represent the fact your team does not have infinite resources to throw into a fight.

Its not for immersion. Its for strategic/tactical consideration so you have to be careful about what mechs you choose. Since multiple assaults getting killed can drain your tickets very quickly. It encourages players to use lighter mechs.

Quote

Second, giving up terrain is consequence enough.

I agree. Except the difference is those games are more balanced with regard to their classes/characters being roughly equal power level. Where in MWO an assault mech is outright better than a light mech

There needs to be something that reflects an assault mech being better than a light mech. And thats what reinforcement tickets do since you lose tickets equal to the mechs tonnage when its destroyed.

Reinforcement tickets help add weight class parity to the game which PGI has continually failed to do.

Edited by Khobai, 28 March 2017 - 10:40 AM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Khobai, on 28 March 2017 - 10:30 AM, said:

how does that resemble quickplay at all? quickplay doesnt focus on objectives it focuses on skirmish and kiling the enemy team.

Which is sort of my point, if attrition is easy, you talked about making the objectives easier which again puts it into terms of either quick play or invasion (because objectives aren't that hard in both). Still, we are oversimplifying things because the design should FORCE non-static engagements. That static part is the reason invasion is horrible, as it designed around a team camping a position.

Khobai, on 28 March 2017 - 10:30 AM, said:

ticket based respawns would focus primarily on objectives because completing the objectives would be easier than attritioning the entire enemy team.

FTFY, tickets have nothing to do with it.

Khobai, on 28 March 2017 - 10:30 AM, said:

I explained why. To represent the fact your team does not have infinite resources to throw into a fight.

So "MAH IMMERSION" then.

Khobai, on 28 March 2017 - 10:30 AM, said:

Its not for immersion. Its for strategic/tactical consideration so you have to be careful about what mechs you choose.

You would get that even without tickets.......

Khobai, on 28 March 2017 - 10:30 AM, said:

It encourages players to use lighter mechs.

What if I were to tell you that shouldn't be the focus? Also, it doesn't encourage, it forces.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 28 March 2017 - 10:42 AM.

[Khobai]

Quote

That static part is the reason invasion is horrible, as it designed around a team camping a position.

um thats caused by the gamemode being asymmetrical. one team is the attacker the other is the defender. of course the defenders are going to camp. they have no reason not to.

where im talking about symmetrical gamemodes. And having capture objectives that bleed the enemy teams tickets forces action. You cant sit in your base and camp because you will get bled to death on tickets.

thats the whole point of tickets, it prevents camping and forces action because of ticket bleeding. but it also has the added benefit of assigning costs to mechs based on their tonnage so medium and lights get better consideration.

Quote

So "MAH IMMERSION" then.

again its not for immersion at all. its to represent the cost of mechs based on their tonnage. it sets the value of of an assault mech as being worth more than a light mech.

its to add parity to weight classes. so assaults and heavies arnt always better than mediums and lights.

Quote

What if I were to tell you that shouldn't be the focus? Also, it doesn't encourage, it forces.

it doesnt force it at all.

you still have the option of using a heavier mech

it just forces people to pull their weight in the mech they choose. if you cant pull your weight in an assault then you shouldnt be using an assault.

the number of tickets would be like 4000-5000 per team so there would be some slack to choose heavier mechs

Edited by Khobai, 28 March 2017 - 10:54 AM.