66 replies to this topic

[Mystere]

Pyed, on 03 April 2017 - 04:06 PM, said:

Mystere, look...are you also fine with dropping on the side with an advantage and easily seal clubbing opposition?

I am perfectly fine with dropping on either side because it is a 50-50 chance, which is fair enough as far as I am concerned. I'm a simple but at the same time a very special snowflake in that way.

Having said that, it's neither seal clubbing nor anywhere close to it. As such, people should really stop exaggerating. It does not really help their own arguments no matter how much they think it does. <smh>

Pyed, on 03 April 2017 - 04:06 PM, said:

Me, if I win over or lose to a live opponent in a game, which I'm choosing to play for recreation, with two sides intended to be functionally identical and sharing an identical objective, I want it to be because I bested them or was bested and not because the game itself was unfair.

If you really prefer to play games with two sides intended to be functionally identical and sharing an identical objective tilted either in your favor or in favor of your opponents, I very much suspect you are in a tiny minority.

If you want to argue for asymmetric gameplay, fine. I'm all for that too. But the location of dom points is not that, so it isn't relevant to this topic.

It is asymmetric as far as I am concerned: one side gets the short end of stick.

And let us not forget, the game mode is called "Domination". As such:

Mystere, on 02 April 2017 - 03:43 PM, said:

• The so-called "advantaged" team needs to "dominate" the enemy by keeping them out of the circle.
  
• The so-called "disadvantaged" team needs to "dominate" the enemy by driving them out of the circle.

If it helps, you can think of it as being Alexander the Great at the Battle of Gaugamela or, more recently, the Taliban taking the strategically important district of Sangin from the Afghan Army^(*).

(*) In other words, think of MWO as a war game, not an eSport.

[DRlFTER]

JC Daxion, on 02 April 2017 - 03:00 PM, said:

Id love to see the circle moved to a few locations.. or have multiple locations it possibly could spawn.


Polar, 2 of the corners in the north would be great spots.. Lots of cover, and buildings to play around.

Crimson.. The middle of the city, on the back side of the hill.. (north spawn) that would put cities all around it, with the little open area in the middle.

those are two off the top of my head,.. I think a few other maps have some nice spots too.. maybe the air field on River might be good as well

I would LOVE a circle on Crimson that placed teams on opposite end of the C line and the fight goes down at C5 or so. New one is an improvement though, I've come to enjoy it.

G4LV4TR0N, on 03 April 2017 - 04:28 PM, said:

Make circle move around map. Mechs will be forced to move with it, right?

Lol, that sounds kind of awesome.

[Insanity09]

As far as discouraging long range builds...
On the one hand, long(er) range builds currently have the upper hand. Thus I would say a mode that tends to nullify that a bit is not a bad thing.
Otoh, it would make sense to do the same thing for dom that is already done for assault and conquest; when a team within the zone is shot (even if only one of many), for a brief period of time that team cannot capture (or count down, in this case). So, if you were outside the circle, but sniping in, you could still prevent the timer from dropping, at least to temporarily. Thus long range builds would not be entirely nullified.

@Mystere
I do always speak for myself. However, I do also admit that I take it for granted that when I've put together a decent logical argument, particularly one of deductive reasoning, that others will tend to agree with it. Or, if they disagree, will point out the flaws, not simply discard the whole. Ahem.
Therefore, I will state my argument in another way.

People do not like being victimized.
Being disadvantaged feels like being victimized.
Your team will start on a random side of the map.
Some maps have imbalanced domination start points.
An imbalanced start point gives one side a disadvantage.
Therefore, one side on some domination maps will feel victimized.

I welcome you to identify any of the premises above as being false, and thus invalidating the conclusion.

You may wish to substitute the word adversity (more accurately in this situation, "added adversity") for disadvantaged. The meaning and result is the same. Your team getting extra adversity just because you got the bad side of the coin (map)? This is good how?

But, perhaps in any sports contest you favor giving one team a random advantage? Do you believe giving one team a few points for free "because the other team should be able to deal with adversity" is the right and good thing to do?
Call it an e-sport, call it a game, simply call it a form of competition, the end result is the same. Arbitrarily giving one team an advantage is not a fair and reasonable behavior. Pointing at the people making note of that and saying "nyah, nyah, can't handle the difficulty" is slightly reprehensible, imo.

[FireStoat]

G4LV4TR0N, on 03 April 2017 - 04:28 PM, said:

Make circle move around map. Mechs will be forced to move with it, right?

On Alpine as a test subject? SOLD! It can do a graceful large circular path at a speed of 50 kph.

[James Argent]

The only thing I'm going to say about the 'adversity' thing is that IF it remains, the team with the 'added adversity' should be rewarded better for winning against the stacked odds. Balancing reward with risk is one of the most important parts of game design.

Of course this would require PGI to acknowledge that their deployment zones are not symmetric, and if they did that they'd probably just fix the drop zones.

[HGAK47]

Anything that makes it so there is an actual gamemode to play please.

It would appear that in all gamemodes the best way to win is death ball, focus targets and blob battle. It would be really nice to have two or more fights going on where a deathball cannot achieve the objective, or at least it is not the most effecient way to victory.

[DRlFTER]

HGAK47, on 04 April 2017 - 12:26 AM, said:

Anything that makes it so there is an actual gamemode to play please.

It would appear that in all gamemodes the best way to win is death ball, focus targets and blob battle. It would be really nice to have two or more fights going on where a deathball cannot achieve the objective, or at least it is not the most effecient way to victory.

Hard to disagree with that. Conquest in invasion mode is much more objective focused, can't remember the last time I saw a side wiped out. You get lots of great smaller skirmishes, which is cool.