155 replies to this topic

[Bishop Steiner]

GrimRiver, on 18 April 2017 - 03:02 PM, said:

Whats the point of having objectives if they're not gonna be played?

Why not remove all the gamemode and just leave skirmish?

Isn't that the point of having objectives in the first place, to have something other than straight skirmish all the time 24/7, 365 days a year for the past 4 years?

Maybe people are just tired of that CoD gamemode and want to play the objectives like a real team based shooter but can't because they profit only off shooting each other more than the objectives?

because they can be played, and are played?

Also...if anything.. respawns contribute to CoD playstyle, not detract.

[Jesus0999]

this is my thoughts. if you want respawns, play CW. say this only cuz there are QP in CW with a 4mech drop deck(limited respawns).
meow the new game mode. yes is sucks! I feel that they (PGI) is trying to get players to play CW more. this mode should be in CW and be left out of QP.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Shadow Magnet, on 18 April 2017 - 03:03 PM, said:

In the end, QP is already respawning. You start just another map with the same mech, all damage magically gone, ammo fully refilled. It's respawning with some more manual clicking to launch.

The difference is you give up no ground to "respawn" and everyone "respawns" together. But if you want to continue to be thick then by all means.

GrimRiver, on 18 April 2017 - 03:02 PM, said:

Whats the point of having objectives if they're not gonna be played?

To disincentive camping and force an engagement. As for removing all game modes but skirmish, honestly for solo queue that would work since most players don't understand how to play objective modes (including conquest, which is the best mode in the game), but group queue should keep the other modes.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 18 April 2017 - 03:10 PM.

[Khobai]

Quote

Because not everyone wants respawns in QP........nor does everyone want the sudden focus on objectives to shift (especially since many of the game modes don't actually force engagements with their objectives).

but not everyone wants skirmish in QP.

Why is it okay for QP to have skirmish but not respawn gamemodes?

That just sounds like a really ignorant, uncompromising attitude.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Khobai, on 18 April 2017 - 03:06 PM, said:

Why is it okay for QP to have skirmish but not respawn gamemodes?

Because we have FW which is NOTHING BUT respawn game modes? Ironically most of which are played like skirmish anyway because that still has the best payout, which is why it is great to level mechs in FW.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 18 April 2017 - 03:08 PM.

[Pr8Dator2]

Khobai, on 18 April 2017 - 03:06 PM, said:

but not everyone wants skirmish in QP.

Why is it okay for QP to have skirmish but not respawn gamemodes?

That just sounds like a really ignorant, uncompromising attitude.

That's how some people here are... I remember back in those days they were pew pewing about the inclusion of 3rd person cam too... such inflexibility.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 18 April 2017 - 03:07 PM, said:

Because we have FW which is NOTHING BUT respawn game modes?

And for people who just dun wanna play FW?? I built this account just for CW and even I stopped playing CW! CW is wrong so don't force people on it!

[Khobai]

Quote

Because we have FW which is NOTHING BUT respawn game modes?

again faction play is nearly unplayable.

[Deathlike]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 18 April 2017 - 02:44 PM, said:

Or you just keep respawn game modes to FW, which is even simpler.

TBH, FW has to be reworked fundamentally before this is even an attractive option.

I have some ideas on reworking the entire system, but that just means a whole freaking series of buckets. It's probably too late at this point.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Khobai, on 18 April 2017 - 03:09 PM, said:

again faction play is nearly unplayable.

Then maybe you should get them to fix it instead of trying to drastically change QP. Or we just drop FW entirely and replace it with a Respawn game mode queue.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 18 April 2017 - 03:11 PM.

[GrimRiver]

Bishop Steiner, on 18 April 2017 - 03:04 PM, said:

because they can be played, and are played?

Also...if anything.. respawns contribute to CoD playstyle, not detract.

Last I checked assault or whatever it's called now still boils down to the skirmish side of things.

I'm not saying the objectives don't get played, just that they are played considerably less than straight up skirmishing.

Respawns don't necessarily need to be added, simply change how c-bills are being earned by making team/support and objective actions worth more than shoot shoot shoot KDR fest.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

GrimRiver, on 18 April 2017 - 03:11 PM, said:

Last I checked assault or whatever it's called now still boils down to the skirmish side of things.

That's kinda the point though, why would you wanna play a NR game where you spend more time playing PvE than the actual PvP shooting stuff, you know the core gameplay of the game. I mean, a lot of this has to do with bad game mode design (which you can see in FW with respawn on most of these game modes).

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 18 April 2017 - 03:13 PM.

[Requiemking]

I would ask for you all to defer to these threads for my take on the issue.

[Khobai]

Quote

Then maybe you should get them to fix it instead of trying to drastically change QP. Or we just drop FW entirely and replace it with a Respawn game mode queue.

but incursion is bad in quickplay too without respawns

there is no point to having bases you need to attack when the game is decided in the middle of the map before any base even gets attacked.

having 6 gamemodes that are all skirmish is bad. so I dont think compromising so 2-3 gamemodes have respawns is unreasonable.

youre the one being an unreasonable child that wont compromise.

Quote

Also...if anything.. respawns contribute to CoD playstyle, not detract.

but not all gamemodes would have respawns. derpa derp.

skirmish would still not have respawns.

only gamemodes that NEED respawns like incursion would get respawns.

Quote

Respawns don't necessarily need to be added, simply change how c-bills are being earned by making team/support and objective actions worth more than shoot shoot shoot KDR fest.

so now you have teammates that are busy farming cbills doing stupid **** and not contributing to winning the match?

what a dumb idea.

Edited by Khobai, 18 April 2017 - 03:22 PM.

[Deathlike]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 18 April 2017 - 03:12 PM, said:

That's kinda the point though, why would you wanna play a NR game where you spend more time playing PvE than the actual PvP shooting stuff, you know the core gameplay of the game. I mean, a lot of this has to do with bad game mode design (which you can see in FW with respawn on most of these game modes).

The moment I figured out that Conquest was literally like having a "ball and chain" on your mech (because it took too effing long to cap when 12v12 was introduced), is when I realized PGI hadn't had any clue how it affected gameplay (and this was a ~2+ year journey).

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Khobai, on 18 April 2017 - 03:16 PM, said:

but incursion is bad in quickplay too without respawns

Which is why it shouldn't be in quickplay either. I don't see them creating any better mode than conquest for NR any time soon. It's not like variety of game modes is really needed for NR anyway. CS:GO has 2 really golden modes for NR and they both play somewhat similar (hostage and bomb).

[GrimRiver]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 18 April 2017 - 03:12 PM, said:

That's kinda the point though, why would you wanna play a NR game where you spend more time playing PvE than the actual PvP shooting stuff, you know the core gameplay of the game. I mean, a lot of this has to do with bad game mode design (which you can see in FW with respawn on most of these game modes).

But what if I wanted to play the gamemode and not just skirmish 2.0?

If I wanted to play skirmish then I'd pick skirmish and not a gamemode with other objectives in mind.

Every other game has deathmatch and I'm just trying to get away from it.

[Deathlike]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 18 April 2017 - 03:17 PM, said:

Which is why it shouldn't be in quickplay either. I don't see them creating any better mode than conquest for NR any time soon. It's not like variety of game modes is really needed for NR anyway. CS:GO has 2 really golden modes for NR and they both play somewhat similar (hostage and bomb).

The default objective in CS does force the action, yet are perfectly asymmetric.

If only PGI could take a cue from something that is so basic and has worked a decade+ ago.

Edited by Deathlike, 18 April 2017 - 03:19 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Deathlike, on 18 April 2017 - 03:18 PM, said:

The default objective in CS does force the action, yet are perfectly asymmetric.

If only PGI could take a cue from something that is so basic and has worked a decade+ ago.

Oh I agree, part of the reason they are successful is because of something really simple, the defending team has two areas to guard instead of one, which are both a decent distance away from each other. It means defenders have to find better areas to guard from that are flexible and give suitable map control while giving the attackers decent numbers of approaches. The Invasion mode just proved how little they understood the importance of this, and this new game mode is no different.

GrimRiver, on 18 April 2017 - 03:18 PM, said:

But what if I wanted to play the gamemode and not just skirmish 2.0?

Then push for better respawn game modes, because none of the ones we have are honestly interesting to play nor do they honestly force engagements in a dynamic way. I almost guarantee they will end up just like Invasion did (and Invasion is a huge reason why even comp players hated FW).

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 18 April 2017 - 03:24 PM.

[Khobai]

Quote

Which is why it shouldn't be in quickplay either

the reality is theres not enough players to fill multiple buckets. faction play likely cant be saved anymore for that reason. its pretty much a lost cause at this point. faction play is not a solution and suggesting it as a solution just makes you look ignorant on the state of the game.

and what needs to happen is all players need to be put into one bucket with a variety of different gamemodes that arnt all skirmish (some of which might have respawn like incursion), and if you dont always get skirmish, then be a man and suck it up.

Quote

But what if I wanted to play the gamemode and not just skirmish 2.0?

If I wanted to play skirmish then I'd pick skirmish and not a gamemode with other objectives in mind.

Every other game has deathmatch and I'm just trying to get away from it.

well now we know why. because of selfish crybabies that have to have their way all the time.

Edited by Khobai, 18 April 2017 - 03:32 PM.

[GrimRiver]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 18 April 2017 - 03:23 PM, said:

Then push for better respawn game modes, because none of the ones we have are honestly interesting to play nor do they honestly force engagements in a dynamic way.

I haven't pushed for respawns in this topic.

All I was saying is give bigger c-bill rewards for support/team and objective actions MORE on objective gamemodes than damage based c-bills.