94 replies to this topic

[Tarl Cabot]

Kalimari Krusader, on 09 April 2017 - 10:39 AM, said:

The current mode does promote more players to try out cw, due to a almost dead population but I think the current system just defeats the point of cw, planets are really hard to take and I just think the whole concept has been lost. I just wish they'd bring the flavor back, make planets easier to take. I for one think the wait time is bs, just let us ghost, better to ghost then to wait 30 minutes with the spinning disc and just annoy people, atleast they get paid to wait that way.

The planets should be difficult to take, some more than others but that is not factored at all. Nor has FP ever been the primary focus for MWO population and PGI. And those who want something more from MWO than the minimal viable product PGI has produced are doing it externally but that does not help all the others who want that in the game.

[50 50]

Ok.
Quantify the reasons for wanting to play Siege.

[justcallme A S H]

Because QP is, QP.

Siege maps offer variety to the normal QP maps which is the main reason a lot of people played FP in the first place - different maps that rely far more heavily on team work/coordination. That is the only reason you need really.

[Liveish]

Not 100% how it works ATM.

Why don't they just change it so every 1 hour the mode changes ?

[Tarl Cabot]

The main thing I like about the QP maps w/respawn is that is reduces the amount of nascaring seen in regular QP due to ACTUALLY protecting base/spawn points. The "Siege" maps though I like for the same reason justcallme mentioned.

Edited

imho the QP maps have their place but they should not take up 80% of FP.

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 09 April 2017 - 08:20 PM.

[50 50]

justcallme A S H, on 09 April 2017 - 06:39 PM, said:

Because QP is, QP.

Siege maps offer variety to the normal QP maps which is the main reason a lot of people played FP in the first place - different maps that rely far more heavily on team work/coordination. That is the only reason you need really.

Ok.
So a different map makes a bit of variety to play on.
Sure, that works for everyone and I can understand long time players enjoying the different maps as a break from the quick play options.
Maps that rely far more heavily on team work... meaning the layout? The different avenues of attack and the choke points?

The mode itself doesn't appeal to anyone?
ie. if we used the maps with the quick play or scouting modes, that would be just as good?

[justcallme A S H]

QP maps and boring and generic. It is the same grid square crap every match.

FP at least you can def at the gates, trade them from the gates, mount a def closer to the gens, or work out a flank etc etc. I feel there are more options in Siege maps.

That said some maps do suck - Grim / Boreal are just disgustingly defender favoured. Other maps are also, but to a lesser degree. But then it is Siege, you are laying siege to defenders, as attackers, it shouldn't BE easy.

[50 50]

justcallme A S H, on 09 April 2017 - 07:44 PM, said:

QP maps and boring and generic. It is the same grid square crap every match.

FP at least you can def at the gates, trade them from the gates, mount a def closer to the gens, or work out a flank etc etc. I feel there are more options in Siege maps.

That said some maps do suck - Grim / Boreal are just disgustingly defender favoured. Other maps are also, but to a lesser degree. But then it is Siege, you are laying siege to defenders, as attackers, it shouldn't BE easy.

The modes on the maps probably don't help that too much.

I feel there is solid appeal to having an asymmetric setup so there is a clear purpose to each side allowing different tactics for each side.
That also means being able to utilize the structures/objectives in different locations than what we have with QP where the objectives are placed to try and be even to both teams.

Taking a planet should be massively difficult.

[C E Dwyer]

My playing of F.W has been extremely limited these days.

The tug of war system is far better, but it shouldn't exclude siege entirely, neither should planets fall without that mode being opened.

This system needs tweaking, but not changing, and the biggest issue seems to be there isn't enough time for the unlock.

The 8 hour session was introduced so that all time zones had roughly the same chance of taking a planet, which is fair and under the old system was needed.

With the tug of war system it's not needed.

You play tug of war on the standard maps the bar moves, there is no time period, it continues until one side unlocks siege.

The game then switches into siege mode, which does have a time period. From now on until the end of the time period you only play on siege maps.

The Faction that gets the most wins in the siege period, either captures or retains it, the tug of war regardless of result then resets.

The 8 hours sessions are not required, because the siege section can unlock during any timezone, giving each zone a chance of playing the seige section, if the seige time period is an odd number of hours, this also makes the seige period less likely to stick in one time area.

Unit rewards, they're extremely limited but shouldn't be ignored, and i'm proposing a change to the current system, where you have to take a planet to be rewarded.

The unit that contributed the highest number of players during the tug of war and the seige section are rewarded with the planet taken, the unit tag and the MC.

However if the planet doesn't fall, the team that contributed to it's defence the most, gets it's tag on the planet and the MC reward.

The reason for this is that many teams contribute a lot to a defence but are simply not large enough to have any chance of contributing in the attack in any meaningful way.

The reward is still most likely to go to a large active unit, but a medium sized one does now have a small chance to get something out of FW other than purely participation, with this change, and frankly they deserve it for being the most likely players going up against the big attacking units.

[mesmer]

BUMP. 2 hours of conquest last night. blerg.

[justcallme A S H]

At least Conquest can be interesting.

2hrs of Skirmish is enough to send someone insane. Particularly on Polar/Alpine. 3 games basically drains 1.5hrs of your life

[Terrastras Rex]

Hey Russ, you up?

[Insanity09]

So, one logical question occurs to me. Why the tug of war at all?
I like the siege mode, it offers a little spice into the regular play, I'd like to see more of siege mode (or other variations?).

But back to my question. What is the reasoning behind allowing only one side to make gains at a time? Many times in a war you will see gains made by both sides in different location, especially when being fought over a large front (or fronts).
That's part of strategy. Do you know where the enemy is attacking or will attack? Do you want to commit forces to prevent that, or do you send your forces elsewhere to make gains of your own?

Why is this relevant to this thread? If both sides were able to progress towards their goals simultaneously, running their own campaigns (as would make sense), then we might actually get to more siege modes.
Whether that change and/or others get made to the FW system, something needs to give, clearly.

[mesmer]

Bump.

#MakeCWGreatAgain

[Xavier]

justcallme A S H, on 05 April 2017 - 04:24 PM, said:

Minority for sure. SIEGE requires far more teamwork, generally why people dislike it.

MOAR SIEGE.

I actually disagree with this assessment.......line up push kill as many mechs as you can....destroy buildings....wash rinse repeat........

I think conquest mode in Faction play has far more complicated tactics do you cap do you kill when do you cap when do you kill where do you move which points do you hold how much do you care about someone capping a point you had....I think conquest in FP is by far the game mode that requires the most thought and is also the most fun to play.

[Tarl Cabot]

Quote

So, one logical question occurs to me. Why the tug of war at all?

Because it is 4 Clan systems and 4 IS systems in one bucket. PGI would have been nuts to break it down to a 2-bucket system where players have a choice of either attacking or defending. In the previous incarnations unless is was a unit or co-op, getting IS players to attack another system was trying to pull blood from a turnip that had not previously been injected with blood.

As for the 4 systems per side for a total of 8 planets, that was likely due to favor the Clans as there are 4 attacking Clans vs borders of 3 out of 5 Houses.

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 11 April 2017 - 03:00 AM.

[Big Tin Man]

It would be nice if the 1 unique game mode to FW was 50% of the bar. Then make the rest a random selection of conq/assault/dom. Skrimish should be eliminated, as it ends up as one side getting spawn camped quite often.

Yes, that would make drop decks different and more jack of all trades in case conquest came up.

[justcallme A S H]

Xavier, on 10 April 2017 - 01:01 PM, said:

I actually disagree with this assessment.......line up push kill as many mechs as you can....destroy buildings....wash rinse repeat........

I think conquest mode in Faction play has far more complicated tactics do you cap do you kill when do you cap when do you kill where do you move which points do you hold how much do you care about someone capping a point you had....I think conquest in FP is by far the game mode that requires the most thought and is also the most fun to play.

It's more so the ATTACKER in Siege, it takes far higher levels of effort/co-ordination/trading/pushing/armour sharing (team vs team). Defenders have the inherent advantage and I'm good with that. If you're against a good team they won't let you wipe the gens etc.

I've had some truly epic games against EVIL, AW0L, BCMC, KCom & a bunch of others where it's often come down to the last wave and last couple of mechs.

QP modes usually are done by wave 2 team vs team, rare it turns into a last wave fight from what I've seen (for the most part). Conquest is usually won on tickets before half the mechs are killed in most games I'm in, long as you cap early and maintain that you're basically set-up for a win in the first 4-5mins even if it drags out to 15.

[Insanity09]

I'm sorry Tarl Cabot, your answer distills out to, "everything is in one bucket (tug of war) because it is in one bucket". Beautiful tautology, but perhaps lacking in foundational detail.

Four systems or seven or seventeen is irrelevant. The number of planets plays absolutely no role in the fighting that occurs, it is merely an arbitrary number that might go to the clans after each phase. It could have just as easily been one. Even if we choose 4 theoretical planets to invade, PGI could have decided that only one random planet out of those four would change hands. As you said, the number four was most likely chosen as a sop to there being 4 clans (and wasn't that a not so subtle hint from PGI).

As for it then being a choice between attacking and defending, not so much. In any real campaign there are attacks and counterattacks on both sides, regardless of who initiated a conflict in a given theater. I don't see a need for it to be different here.
It is simply odd that ever gain would be in one bucket, an all or nothing deal. Things don't normally work that way.

Edited by Insanity09, 10 April 2017 - 07:45 PM.

[Kubernetes]

Xavier, on 10 April 2017 - 01:01 PM, said:

I think conquest mode in Faction play has far more complicated tactics do you cap do you kill when do you cap when do you kill where do you move which points do you hold how much do you care about someone capping a point you had....I think conquest in FP is by far the game mode that requires the most thought and is also the most fun to play.

They're just different. I like the assymetry of siege mode, as well as the tempo. In a siege attack you regroup before committing successive waves. Battles feel like organized battles with purpose. The QP modes require constant reinforcement.

The mode that gets complicated is Domination, IMO. I've seen teams win on Dom despite getting beat in kills and tempo. For instance, the other day my unit won on Grim Domination, even though we had no business doing so. Why? Because our best players somehow died really quickly, whereas theirs stayed alive. Our survivors held on, and when our reinforcements came they steamrolled the enemy first wave remnants in under a minute. We won on the clock because it took them too much time to drop their second wave. I felt bad for them.