66 replies to this topic

[Pixel Hunter]

Andi Nagasia, on 02 April 2017 - 09:18 AM, said:

but you can already have this to a lesser extent as the Dish is a giant LRM umbrella,

kind of, but i always feel that it's suicide to run into the circle when Pug teams are around with massive amounts of missiles, I feel like that's a major reason why nobody goes in there

[Pyed]

Mystere, on 02 April 2017 - 07:27 AM, said:

I am dead serious.

The name of the game mode is "Domination". Therefore, dominate the enemy against all odds.

If this were PvE, what you said would make sense.

As things are, what you're saying also means "The name of the game mode is "Domination". Therefore, dominate the enemy while they're at a huge disadvantage."
Because there are two teams.

[DRlFTER]

Khobai, on 02 April 2017 - 09:07 AM, said:

the problem with domination is that you only need one mech in the circle to stop the timer.

domination should tick down whenever one team has more mechs in the circle than the other team

that would force you to get your whole team inside the circle, which is more like king of the hill

That would certainly increase the time to full engagement, as being down a mech would need to be rectified pretty quick. Timer would probably have to be increased for this to work, and maybe circle enlarged so as not to invalidate non brawling builds. It would be pretty fun in the first wave of invasion, cause everyone would bring brawlers and have a huge scrum, but after the first wave it would be bad.

[PhoenixFire55]

My fix would be to implement brains into people playing domination (and other) modes, but of course that is a pipe dream ...
So yeah, since concepts of firing lines and covering teammates are beyond comprehension for your average PUG player we clearly need to "fix" domination game mode.

[DAYLEET]

I dont know if i should say "fk domination" or "fk the implementation". Both, probably. Its just another thing that clearly wasnt thought out and developed to an acceptable level and as soon as it hit the "minimally viable" it gets released.

I started going in the circle(worst possible option as you dont need to go in to win, just to die), so tired i am of that mode. IT make no sense. Dont go in, youll lose to any half competent team. No great team can go in and hold it if the other team is half as competent. And even if they could hold it, WHY? its not like they cap when they get shot at. Everytime someone say, "get in the circle" i feel like when i see assaults going side caps and im done trying to teach people how to play. Its dumb, the whole thing wasnt thought out. Stupid game mode, forcing dumb gameplay in the worse possible map position. Minimally Viable game mode in an already minimally viable game.

[DRlFTER]

I like the game mode, just want to see some circle tweaks and it will be fine.

[Khobai]

Quote

That would certainly increase the time to full engagement, as being down a mech would need to be rectified pretty quick. Timer would probably have to be increased for this to work, and maybe circle enlarged so as not to invalidate non brawling builds. It would be pretty fun in the first wave of invasion, cause everyone would bring brawlers and have a huge scrum, but after the first wave it would be bad.

well the whole point of domination gamemode is to force brawling. so I dont see how people bringing brawlers is a problem.

its a problem when you DONT need to bring brawlers to domination, because you can just have one light mech step in the circle and hide, while the rest of your team snipes as usual.

which is why I think whenever one team has more mechs in the circle than the other team it should count down the timer, but I agree it would need more time on the timer as well as some adjustments for the faction play version.

Edited by Khobai, 02 April 2017 - 11:32 AM.

[Mystere]

Pyed, on 02 April 2017 - 09:44 AM, said:

If this were PvE, what you said would make sense.

As things are, what you're saying also means "The name of the game mode is "Domination". Therefore, dominate the enemy while they're at a huge disadvantage."
Because there are two teams.

And yet people only complain loudly when they are disadvantaged.

Edited by Mystere, 02 April 2017 - 11:30 AM.

[Khobai]

Quote

And yet people only complain loudly when they are disadvantaged.

not true Ive been complaining about ISXL and STD engines needing buffs for the longest time.

that doesnt help me one bit since I play clans almost exclusively.

[Mystere]

Bulletsponge0, on 02 April 2017 - 08:30 AM, said:

I am going to assume you think the placement of the circle on Alpine is fine, but you feel the spawn points should be adjusted so one team doesn't have a huge advantage due to spawing so much closer to the circle than the other team

I don't know where you got that.

As such, I will be crystal clear. I think a significant portion of online gamers these day lack the intestinal fortitude to handle built-in adversity.

[Insanity09]

1. Problem: on more than one map the circle location is totally imbalanced. One side has a quicker path to the circle. In some cases, though the distance is similar, one side can approach in cover, while the other has to walk across totally open ground. Alpine and Crimson come to mind.
Solution: On every map, the distance from ALL lance spawn points must be more or less the same (+/-50m?) and the amount of cover for the common travel lanes must be equivalent.

2. Problem: Inside the circle, similar to the 1st issue, one side has far more effective cover (to start with) than the other.
Solution: Build up the circles a little bit, buildings, rocks, trees, whatever is appropriate for the map to even things out. Even a handy ridge line can make a big difference here.

(For problems one and two, I'd offer more specifics, but the number of maps on which this is a problem makes it unreasonable to do so.)
Corollary for prob/sol 1 & 2: On some maps it may simply not be feasible to balance things out without dramatic, and probably catastrophic, changes to the maps. For those cases, I would make the simple suggestion that those maps be excluded from possible choices when domination is one of the scenario offerings.

3. Problem? Even one mech inside the circle can prevent the timers from dropping for the other side. Sensibly, one mech should not be able to dominate over 2, or 6.
Solution: Change the logic of domination so that the team which, ahem, dominates the population inside the circle has their timer dropping.
A few other changes might make this more smooth. First, enlarge the circle a bit so that more mechs can fit inside without standing on top of each other. Second, change to the total time possible (say 2m instead of 1m?).
It might also make sense in that situation to add a third timer restore to the maps (so, alpha, beta, and gamma)
This alteration would mean that killing even one enemy mech inside the circle might make your timer start dropping. I would hope it would also lead to a more dynamic game mode where pushing in domination was far more common than hide and peek.

[Mystere]

DRlFTER, on 02 April 2017 - 09:02 AM, said:

This. The F line side isn't so bad, but the G line stinks. The layout does force you to push in to win, and rewards you for it, but outside of well disciplined and determined groups players it is unfun.

FTFY.

[Wildstreak]

Got an image I posted for Alpine Domination here relocating it on the map entirely.
Second post I show the problem with Crimson Domination, it also has a problem with the spawn points.
C6 always spawn Mediums/Heavies closest to circle 1 and 1/2 grids away while other side, Lights/Mediums(Heavies) in Alpha start in G4 about 3 grids away and best cross open water to have earliest chance to stop the clock.

[Scout Derek]

Why not rename it to "King of the Hill, but instead of staying in circle the longest you kill anything that tries to stay in it".

[naterist]

Move circle from current spot on alpine to right smack dab in the middle of m7. Move the spawn the currently sucks back a couple of squares. Boom, done.

[Bulletsponge0]

Mystere, on 02 April 2017 - 11:47 AM, said:

I don't know where you got that.

As such, I will be crystal clear. I think a significant portion of online gamers these day lack the intestinal fortitude to handle built-in adversity.

There is a difference between "adversity" and being placed at a significant disadvantage due to a built in flaw in the game design.

[Pyed]

Mystere, on 02 April 2017 - 11:47 AM, said:

I don't know where you got that.

As such, I will be crystal clear. I think a significant portion of online gamers these day lack the intestinal fortitude to handle built-in adversity.

I don't have a problem with adversity, I have a problem with things being stupidly unfair.

If I were playing against myself on Alpine dom (or 12 of me against 12 of me), one team would win almost 100% of the time and it wouldn't be because the other team didn't like or couldn't deal with "adversity".

[Marius Romanis]

Increase diameter 25% . Move Alpine circle to top of hill between most recent 2 locations, move left, west spawn closer.

Done.

[Mystere]

Pyed, on 02 April 2017 - 01:44 PM, said:

I don't have a problem with adversity, I have a problem with things being stupidly unfair.

If I were playing against myself on Alpine dom (or 12 of me against 12 of me), one team would win almost 100% of the time and it wouldn't be because the other team didn't like or couldn't deal with "adversity".

People saying "one team would win almost 100% of the time" is a big exaggeration and as such is proof to me that people are unable to deal with adversity.

[Pyed]

Mystere, on 02 April 2017 - 02:29 PM, said:

People saying "one team would win almost 100% of the time" is a big exaggeration and as such is proof to me that people are unable to deal with adversity.

Now you're being a sanctimonious ******.

Unfair map and mode is unfair*. Don't impugn mine or anyone else's intestinal fortitude that we're pointing it out.

*which you seem to be in agreement on because otherwise there wouldn't be any "adversity"


edit: apparently <butt>hat is beyond the pale and worthy of censor.

Edited by Pyed, 02 April 2017 - 02:48 PM.