102 replies to this topic

[Khobai]

Quote

Incursion actually allows Lights to contribute to the win without having to go pew pew.

except nothing lights do in incursion is remotely meaningful to helping their team win compared to if they just joined the skirmish in the middle.

[Mystere]

Cato Zilks, on 18 April 2017 - 12:44 PM, said:

If you want respawns, play FP. Respawns are not the solution for QP incursion.

People do not want respawns? Well then, let us just have a reinforcement system instead: someone dies, another player waiting in the queue is brought in as replacement.

Cato Zilks, on 18 April 2017 - 03:17 PM, said:

Bummer. Russ has been clear that QP is for quick matches and if you want respawns then go to FP. Lets focus on how to fix this particular game mode, on not be distracted by your desire to overhaul all of QP.

Considering QP was supposed to be just a mere filler while the game was still being developed, I say:

[Quicksilver Aberration]

SQW, on 19 April 2017 - 06:40 AM, said:

Lights to contribute to the win without having to go pew pew.

First, Khobai is right on this, they don't contribute anything by using the towers instead of going pew pew. ECM jammers aren't worth the time spent and scouting can be done without the radar ping.
Second, why do we want lights in non-combat roles in the first place? Do we want people to avoid lights even more because the non-combat stuff is taken even more seriously? Combat is the core facet of this game, having an entire set of mechs focus on something other than that is silly.

[Mystere]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 18 April 2017 - 03:33 PM, said:

I don't see how this makes the game mode any better, just makes the objectives even more ignorable and puts more emphasis on just face rushing the enemy given how close you spawn, if I'm understand correctly.

Next thing you know, people will start whining and crying that the enemy are going straight for the bases.

Hmm. Where did I see that before?

Edited by Mystere, 19 April 2017 - 07:07 AM.

[Mystere]

Vyx, on 19 April 2017 - 12:30 AM, said:

The game mode is truly stupid. It makes zero sense. Why would anyone set up a base with no power for their defensive systems?

What can I say? I think this mode was built with eSports -- not military -- principles in mind in a game based on an IP with interplanetary warfare as the main emphasis.

Edited by Mystere, 19 April 2017 - 07:16 AM.

[iliketurtles87]

i just played a few incursionen games and every game endet after 3 minutes in a skyrmish.


this game mode doenst work without respawns and does not belong to QP.

[SQW]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 19 April 2017 - 07:06 AM, said:

First, Khobai is right on this, they don't contribute anything by using the towers instead of going pew pew. ECM jammers aren't worth the time spent and scouting can be done without the radar ping.
Second, why do we want lights in non-combat roles in the first place? Do we want people to avoid lights even more because the non-combat stuff is taken even more seriously? Combat is the core facet of this game, having an entire set of mechs focus on something other than that is silly.

I run a narc RVN with only 3xMPLs. My K/D is lousy at 0.70 but my W/L is at 1.30. Do you know why my build is rarer than a VTR? Because it's HARD making support light builds work.

You know why I love Incursion? Because it allows support light mechs much more meaningful ways to contribute to a team fight WITHOUT having to take 6xSPLs as default. If you look closely at how the mode is designed, it's NOT about having heavy mechs running around delivering batteries - bravos and charlies should still play this largely as skirmish. BUT, if you've been disgusted at how lights have to run like mini-assaults in MWO then this is the mode to break that mold.

It'll take too long to explain the nuances of the three towers but I assure you, their contribution to the team fight in the middle can FAR outweight what a light can achieve under the right condition. I've won every Incursion games despite losing all team mates on several occasions after figuring out how this mode actually works.

Finally, the real objective here is to kill the base, not winning skirmish nor playing energizer bunny. Any team that thought winning skirmish first -> base kill -> winning will lose - why do you think base structure are so weak in this mode and there's a tower that allows free damage to enemy base?

[Mystere]

Cadoazreal, on 19 April 2017 - 01:09 AM, said:

If you increase the Turret health and base health you are just futher encouraging campersnipe skirmish, as it is now you need some people to play defensive and some to flank its good when people understand it (which is 20% of the time unless I bother to plug in my headset)

Remove one base and designate one team as the attacker. Give them more numbers, tonnage, or both.

Is that really too hard?

Edited by Mystere, 19 April 2017 - 07:28 AM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

SQW, on 19 April 2017 - 07:25 AM, said:

Do you know why my build is rarer than a VTR? Because it's HARD making support light builds work.

Even if it was EASIER, they aren't fun to play for a majority of players, that is NO different than support characters in other games like TF2 and Overwatch, classes that aren't active and don't ever engage in combat simply aren't fun in a game about combat.

SQW, on 19 April 2017 - 07:25 AM, said:

Because it allows support light mechs much more meaningful ways to contribute to a team fight WITHOUT having to take 6xSPLs as default.

Except 6 SPL lights are still better at doing what you want to do AND combat.....

SQW, on 19 April 2017 - 07:25 AM, said:

It'll take too long to explain the nuances of the three towers but I assure you, their contribution to the team fight in the middle can FAR outweight what a light can achieve under the right condition.

I assure you they are ignorable for the most part, and they don't add that much that you can't do yourself....

SQW, on 19 April 2017 - 07:25 AM, said:

Any team that thought winning skirmish first -> base kill -> winning will lose - why do you think base structure are so weak in this mode and there's a tower that allows free damage to enemy base?

Then we will just see a repeat of the earlier versions of Invasion, the game will devolve into who is better at base rushing. This is why people hate easy objectives in NR game modes.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 19 April 2017 - 07:33 AM.

[Savage Wolf]

SQW, on 19 April 2017 - 06:40 AM, said:

No, it'll just turn into a longer skirmish. If you want to play objectives, you don't magically start to do so with two lives instead of one. Incursion actually allows Lights to contribute to the win without having to go pew pew.

Assaults and Heavies were never suppose to do anything other than kill so no amount of mode tweaking will get people who pick KDK-3s, DWFs and MADIICs to do anything other than skirmish.

Dude, it works in faction play. Once it's faster to win by objective than by skirmish then objectives will be chosen as a strategy. We don't even need a PSR, we already have proof on the live servers.

Edited by Savage Wolf, 19 April 2017 - 08:27 AM.

[GrimRiver]

My idea I've been proposing is simple: (((Buff objective rewards)))

But some *other people* rather have the game focus on shoot shoot shoot KDR deathmatch in every gamemode because those people are too lazy to think and play the gamemodes.

A faster mech's time should feel worth it when playing objectives(you know, the modes that is something other than skirmish=deathmatch that every other shooter known has)

Note I never said anywhere that it'll fix anything, but it will incentivize objective play more.

If people want to play skirmish then they'll pick skirmish, but I don't see skirmish in the other gamemode's names and those other gamemodes have a list of win conditions and destroying the enemy team is always the (last) condition, as in objectives take higher precedence than straight up skirmish.

Objective play on objective gamemodes needs higher rewards.

[Cato Zilks]

Wingbreaker, on 18 April 2017 - 11:35 PM, said:

I too can draw meaningless blobs on a mapstrat.

Good for you, now go play on the freeway.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

So let me ask a serious question, why must a team always have a SINGLE base?

Trying to make this asymmetric by just removing one base and designating one team attackers and defenders just turns this into Invasion-lite with less horrible map design. Why can't the defender have TWO decently spaced bases that take a while to destroy?

[GabrielSun]

The turrets should have a damage and health multiplier starting high and slowly decaying over the match. Either that or put far more of them in the base. Played many times last night where a single light takes out half the base before anyone can even return.

The short of it is that in this new "Fancy Assault" game mode lights can destroy all mobile bases and towers faster than they can cap the point in assault, which is ridiculous.

[Savage Wolf]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 19 April 2017 - 09:48 AM, said:

Trying to make this asymmetric by just removing one base and designating one team attackers and defenders just turns this into Invasion-lite with less horrible map design. Why can't the defender have TWO decently spaced bases that take a while to destroy?

Because if it takes a while to destroy, it's faster to just skirmish, which is what happens already. Lengthen the game and then all kinds of possibilities rise up, but until then, only skirmish will happen.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Savage Wolf, on 19 April 2017 - 10:02 AM, said:

Lengthen the game and then all kinds of possibilities rise up

Lengthening the game won't make anything magical happen, lol. Skirmish without camping is the goal for any NR game mode, get that through your head people, otherwise we WILL have people complaining about base caps where no engagement happened or events just like that.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 19 April 2017 - 10:05 AM.

[Cato Zilks]

Widowmaker1981, on 19 April 2017 - 03:15 AM, said:

With all due respect, ANY gamemode without respawns of any kind IS ALWAYS going to be played as skirmish 90% of the time, for the simple and unavoidable fact that there is more fun to be had from shooting things that dont want to be shot (people) than there is from shooting things that dont care (AI / Walls). If it is possible to win by killing the enemies first then doing the objective after, people will do that most of the time.

Im not saying we should have respawn in QP, as you say we have FP for that.. but im also fine with all game modes in QP basically being skirmish, because im here to shoot robots with lasers.

I respect that and I normally play QP for Skirmish. But, if you don't want to fix this gamemode from being skirmish, then respectfully stay out of the conversation. Other people want objective based combat and PGI is trying to accommodate that. If you don't really want to constructively help with that or think it is a lost cause, that is cool. Every fifth day I probably agree with you. But, don't undermine the attempts of others to try and make PGI's attempts successful.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Cato Zilks, on 19 April 2017 - 10:06 AM, said:

But, if you don't want to fix this gamemode from being skirmish, then respectfully stay out of the conversation. Other people want objective based combat and PGI is trying to accommodate that.

Or you should be realistic in that accommodating objective-based gameplay without respawns is an impossible task without cheapening the gameplay.

[Cato Zilks]

Khobai, on 19 April 2017 - 05:58 AM, said:

this. respawns are the only solution if you want something to not be skirmish.

This is obviously untrue. Conquest works. Sure, when you play conquest on mining or canyon, it will be very skirmishy. But that is because those maps are tiny. But for the most part conquest does force the spreading of forces and and map control.

FP respawning certainly makes objective based modes better, I would never deny such a thing. But conquest still mostly works in QP. So again, please, respect the boundaries that PGI has for QP and focus on fixing Incursion with single spawns.

[Savage Wolf]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 19 April 2017 - 10:03 AM, said:

Lengthening the game won't make anything magical happen, lol. Skirmish without camping is the goal for any NR game mode, get that through your head people, otherwise we WILL have people complaining about base caps where no engagement happened or events just like that.

So because we lengthen the game, people will somehow have less, not more time to respond? That makes no sense.

The reason it's so fast to capture bases is so that you have even the slightest chance to do so in the length of our very quick games. If you lengthen the game, you can also lengthen how long it takes to get an objective giving the opponents time to respond. As long as it's still shorter than killing all your opponents.

And it works in faction play. In Conquest with respawns people actually play the caps and there is time to fight for the caps, several times so the game mode becomes the tug of war it was meant to be. Objective play AND lots of fighting. And all it took was lengthening the game through respawns.