66 replies to this topic

[JC Daxion]

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

[Mystere]

Pyed, on 02 April 2017 - 02:46 PM, said:

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

Nope. I'm just being a **** ***.

Pyed, on 02 April 2017 - 02:46 PM, said:

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"

I thought that was already very obvious from my first post.

I'm tired of this 12v12, "all maps must be equal from all drop points", "all game mode objectives should be the same for both sides" snooze fest.

I want asymmetry.
I want X Stars, vs. Y Lances.
I want a siege game mode that has defenders entrenched in a heavily fortified base facing an enemy force 2/3x their number or weight.
I want complementary "Search and Destroy" and "Escape" game modes where a larger force pursues a lighter/smaller enemy running to an extraction point guarded by a heavily armed dropship.

I want something more than this still minimally viable arena game. I want a game more deserving of it's "A BattleTech Game" byline.

Edited by Mystere, 02 April 2017 - 03:06 PM.

[Pyed]

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

I want asymmetry.

Yeah you're talking about asymmetric game modes, which would be fine and maybe even really awesome assuming they have proper balance.

But that's not what we have. What we do have is a symmetric game mode that is unbalanced.
It's the worst of both worlds.

I don't understand how you can think it's fine.

[Mystere]

Pyed, on 02 April 2017 - 03:13 PM, said:

Yeah you're talking about asymmetric game modes, which would be fine and maybe even really awesome assuming they have proper balance.

But that's not what we have. What we do have is a symmetric game mode that is unbalanced.
It's the worst of both worlds.

I don't understand how you can think it's fine.

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

I'm tired of this 12v12, "all maps must be equal from all drop points", "all game mode objectives should be the same for both sides" snooze fest.

Domination on Alpine solves 2 of 3 complaints I have above:

• The target location is asymmetric in distance.
  
• The objectives are also asymmetric:
  
  • 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.

It's as simple as that.

[Tarl Cabot]

Make the circle 25% or so larger,
More than one "spawn" point.

[FireStoat]

On Domination with Alpine, if I'm in a light or medium mech on the disadvantaged side, I stopped racing at full speed to reach the circle. I go the same speed as the slowest mech in Bravo lance. Too many times, I've tried to be the hero that races ahead only to be ripped apart by 3-4 enemy mechs who had half a minute more time to arrive before I could. I'm done with that noise. Either our team enters the circle together or they lose together - I couldn't give a flip and will cheerfully move on to the next map.

The issue is that the players should have to be solving anything. PGI's staff should have tested this game mode with 24 people several times before ever releasing it to live. This is on them.

[Pyed]

FireStoat, on 02 April 2017 - 04:29 PM, said:

On Domination with Alpine, if I'm in a light or medium mech on the disadvantaged side ... Either our team enters the circle together or they lose together - I couldn't give a flip and will cheerfully move on to the next map.

I've been on that side in an Atlas (~60kph) multiple times and I literally could not make it to the circle before 10 seconds were left and we had a hero light save us a few in the meantime (and die).

There is a more direct approach I could have taken but it's in the wide open with no cover and enemies with plenty of cover get easy shots.

[LordNothing]

have the classic long tom bombard everyone who is not in the circle.

[Mystere]

LordNothing, on 02 April 2017 - 04:42 PM, said:

have the classic long tom bombard everyone who is not in the circle.

I think it would be more challenging if the Long Tom bombarded the circle. <maniacal >

[James Argent]

A bit off topic, but change the tool tip from 'destroying Alpha/Beta will ADD 15 seconds to the enemy timer' to 'destroying Alpha/Beta will RESTORE 15 seconds to the enemy timer' so we don't get quite as many, ahem, 'new people,' who don't know the mode killing them off when the timer is still full.

Or change it completely so that killing the enemy Alpha/Beta takes time off of your timer.

[Snazzy Dragon]

This is alpine peaks, without a domination circle

Fixed

[Y E O N N E]

I thought Domination was fine when the circle was in the F7/F8 or G7/G8 area. Nobody had any particular advantage there.

[Mystere]

Tarl Cabot, on 02 April 2017 - 04:21 PM, said:

Make the circle 25% or so larger,
More than one "spawn" point.

I'd rather make it smaller. It makes getting inside even more important.

Edited by Mystere, 02 April 2017 - 07:57 PM.

[Insanity09]

As Pyed mentioned above, regardless of the current location of the circle in domination, the objective of BOTH teams is ownership of the circle. Keep the enemy team out, stay in yourself. Having one team given a significant benefit time/distance-wise and cover-wise, at random, is not adversity.

We are all playing this game against other people, that suggests that we are all willing to accept some adversity, since we are playing against adversaries, same root word and all . We don't like automatic disadvantages for no reason and not of our choice. When I play a light mech, I know I'm going to have a tough time of it against the vast majority of heavier armed and armored opponents. That's by my choice. Going into a dom match and being on a side that automatically has a tougher road to hoe, not a choice.

I would love to see a well designed asymmetric game mode. Escape/S&D sounds great to me.
I could see a lot of people complaining about the mode for a few reasons.
One, it would actually require some thought, on both sides, to succeed. People seem to hate thinking. Not a popular mode based on that.
Two, numbers would be lower for both sides damage/kill wise, so people would be confused about bragging rights. No e-peen for people, which is far from a problem in my book. Again though, not a big draw.
Third, and this is an actual problem, unless they changed the scoring mechanism, the skill ranks and so forth, as well as xp and cbill rewards would be all screwed up from this. Nobody would like to play the mode on that basis. Except, PGI already totally dropped the ball on this one, i.e. scouting missions in fp, so their track record isn't very good for recognizing the need here.
Fourth, and this relates to the on-going domination discussion, unless the asymmetric modes were carefully designed and balanced, or unless there were some way to sign up for one side or the other specifically, I can see similar cries of unfair advantages being sounded. (for the sign-up to change, there would need to be a change to the queuing system, which I don't see happening)

[DRlFTER]

Insanity09, on 02 April 2017 - 11:56 AM, said:

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 &amp; 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.

Good post. Thoughts:
1) Agreed. Seems like a reasonable and easy fix to move spawn points.

2) If there is literally no better circle placement, and a few map tweaks will get it solved, I'd go for this. Otherwise it seems expensive and unlikely. Another poster suggested just taking that map out of Domination rotation, which might be the easiest and best course in a bad situation.

3) What would having a mech advantage count down the timer do?
-Make the losing side more aggressive...I'd count that as a good thing.
-It would make the winning side more aggressive too, you'd get the blood in the water effect you see when everyone is shooting the last mech standing (or their teammates lol)...I guess that is good, just watch your back armor.
-More quickly end an 8 to 4 or similarly degrading match due to time out...don't know if people would actually like that as they may feel robbed, maybe people on the losing side that want to preserve their KDR would.
-Encourage brawling as it heavily discourages being outside the circle, and the circle is 2x2...I like brawling a lot, but it may be frustrating when you are testing out your new log range build and you pull Domination, similar to how brawling on Polar can feel.
-Decrease match time and TTK by shoving everyone in a 2x2 box and promoting aggression...as long as match wait times aren't bad I'm fine with that; fight, get paid, move on.

Bigger circle, more time thoughts:
-Maybe circle size needs to be map dependent depending on cover. Gives variety, and a way to tweak without redoing maps.
-You could switch from time countdown to points like in conquest. Instead of ticking down a sec if you have a kill lead you could have an exponential point tick off depending on how big the advantage is. That way time "slows down" in close matches where neither side is truly "dominating" but speeds up as things snowball.

Yes, this would be bad for faction. Whoever wins wave one would probably win.

Edited by DRlFTER, 03 April 2017 - 01:15 PM.

[G4LV4TR0N]

DRlFTER, on 01 April 2017 - 11:56 PM, said:

Domination circles could use some improvement. Lets give some specific feedback. Post your map, your four grid circle suggestion, or a pic detailing it. Drop zones optional.

That would be so called Long-Tom cannon shooting at the circle of course.

[Mystere]

Insanity09, on 02 April 2017 - 09:03 PM, said:

As Pyed mentioned above, regardless of the current location of the circle in domination, the objective of BOTH teams is ownership of the circle. Keep the enemy team out, stay in yourself. Having one team given a significant benefit time/distance-wise and cover-wise, at random, is not adversity.

It is adversity, but it is the kind you have zero control of.

Insanity09, on 02 April 2017 - 09:03 PM, said:

We are all playing this game against other people, that suggests that we are all willing to accept some adversity, since we are playing against adversaries, same root word and all . We don't like automatic disadvantages for no reason and not of our choice. When I play a light mech, I know I'm going to have a tough time of it against the vast majority of heavier armed and armored opponents. That's by my choice. Going into a dom match and being on a side that automatically has a tougher road to hoe, not a choice.

Please, speak for yourself.

And as a wise man () once said:



The same holds for the battlefields to which you are sent to fight in.

Oh! But I forgot! MWO is e-spurts!

Edited by Mystere, 03 April 2017 - 01:59 PM.

[Tarl Cabot]

Or how about a MOVING circle... And the dish is shrunk a tad and put on a BIG, FRAKing vehicle....

Nay, thought about it and it would not work, especially if one side is not willing to push, it would be something like escort. Stick to the circle being generated at 2-4 locations.

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 03 April 2017 - 02:23 PM.

[Pyed]

Mystere, on 03 April 2017 - 01:58 PM, said:

It is adversity, but it is the kind you have zero control of.

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


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.

[G4LV4TR0N]

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