102 replies to this topic

[Cato Zilks]

Mystere, on 19 April 2017 - 07:28 AM, said:

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

Is that really too hard?

Yes because it is a fundamental change to QP. Remember matches cue players together, then we vote on a map and match type. We cant change numbers and weight distribution after the voting group is formed.

[Cato Zilks]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 19 April 2017 - 07:30 AM, said:

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.


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


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


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.

Look, I get it. I prefer to shoot enemies. But PGI is making a more diverse game. There is cross applicability here to LRMs. People hate on them for not armor sharing and being up and engaged in a push. I understand how irritating that is. BUT, IT IS A VALID PLAYSTYLE. PGI intentionally chose to have lrms, narcs, tags, and limited hardpoint mechs in the game.

You don't want incursion without respawns. Tough. PGI wants this mode in QP and FP. Either try to help fix it for QP or leave the conversation.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

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

If you lengthen the game, you can also lengthen how long it takes to get an objective giving the opponents time to respond.

At which point it will just be played like Skirmish because of the commit requirement. It WILL be just like the current assault, and yet another crappy mode (not that it is good right now).

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

And it works in faction play.

Maybe you should clarify in your post, or maybe I just skipped it, but I didn't see mentioning of lengthening the game through respawns, just vague talk of lengthening the match somehow (how the match is "lengthened" matters).

That said, the reason conquest works is because it is a decently designed mode. Not perfect, but still better than everything else PGI has given us, and that includes Incursion.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 19 April 2017 - 10:38 AM.

[Insanity09]

The answer is simple. Make the primary victory condition base damage, NOT enemy kills.

If the enemy base is more damaged when either team is wiped out or time runs out, the team with the less damaged base wins. Only if the bases are damaged equally does the kill count matter, and only if both factors are equal is their a tie.

And before people start whining that this would mean potential suicide rushes to damage the base and get the win, who cares? They get the win, yes, but you get a boatload of xp/cbills for the kills, not so?

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Cato Zilks, on 19 April 2017 - 10:32 AM, said:

Either try to help fix it for QP or leave the conversation.

Ummm, or I could just push for it to be moved to FP only because it fits more with respawns than it does NR. Spare me your worthless ultimatums because my POV is just as valid.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 19 April 2017 - 10:36 AM.

[Cato Zilks]

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

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?

I am not sure that solves much besides adding more buildings. I am also not entirely sure what you are proposing.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Cato Zilks, on 19 April 2017 - 10:37 AM, said:

I am not sure that solves much besides adding more buildings. I am also not entirely sure what you are proposing.

It removes the ability for the defenders to be static and camp their base. In other words it should encourage more dynamic engagements because they have to juggle to areas to protect. This is one of the facets that makes conquest work well, the encouraging of more dynamic engagements.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 19 April 2017 - 10:40 AM.

[Cato Zilks]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 19 April 2017 - 10:09 AM, said:

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

Again, Conquest works. QED.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Cato Zilks, on 19 April 2017 - 10:39 AM, said:

Again, Conquest works. QED.

Except it is played like Skirmish 90% of the time, the only reason you work around caps is to FORCE an engagement, not to play the caps. Not saying cap wins don't happen, but it is generally because a team screwed up and was too static.

Conquest is how NR game modes should be, and Incursion isn't it (and neither is your fix).

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 19 April 2017 - 10:44 AM.

[Savage Wolf]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 19 April 2017 - 10:34 AM, said:

At which point it will just be played like Skirmish because of the commit requirement. It WILL be just like the current assault, and yet another crappy mode (not that it is good right now).

You are not making sense. Somehow changing the commit requirements in favor of objectives turns in favor

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 19 April 2017 - 10:34 AM, said:

Ima stop you right here, because Faction Play is different by the nature of having respawns which CHANGES the focus of the mode.

Oh. I get it now. You basicly haven't listened at all. Right... Why do I even bother some times... Sigh...

Of course respawns changes the focus. By lengthening the game. And I even suggested respawns as an obvious way to do so.
What did you think I meant? The time limit? The time limit is never met. It has no influence on the length of the game.

All this time laughing at me and you didn't even have a clue about what I said because you didn't read. And then suddenly suggesting respawns as a means to lengthening the game and it's whole other deal.

Goddamnit.

[Cato Zilks]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 19 April 2017 - 10:39 AM, said:

It removes the ability for the defenders to be static and camp their base. In other words it should encourage more dynamic engagements because they have to juggle to areas to protect.

That is not a problem. The mode is not riddled with campers. People are reporting base rushes and center of the map skirmish. You are strawmanning the game mode. If camping becomes a problem, then we can address it. But right now, the opposite is the problem. The game is a crappy version of assault: if the forces meet in the middle it is skirmish, if they miss each other it is a cap race (base destruction race).

The Irony is that fat4eyes did similar in the PTS forums. He is the one that argued for weak bases and having the dropship flyover enemy bases to discourage camping. BUT, nobody was camping on PTS. I posted videos of matches that he was in that clearly show that camping was not happening. And camping is not a problem now, easy base rushes and death balling are.

[Naqser]

Having played a few matches of Incursion, I'm not a fan.

I like the idea of having to fetch Power Cells to power the base, I really like the idea of having map elements that do things, Air Control, Radar and so forth.
However, many have pointed out that this mode suffers from the "non-respawn issue".
That's one thing I dislike, it's a mode which is more complex than other current existing ones, but I feel like the gameplay rules work somewhat against it.

See, the base issue is that a numerical advantage offers better opportunity to play the objective, in most cases of course.
Killing an opponent that can't return provides you with that numerical advantage.

Then of course, you contest an objective with an opponent by shooting him/her.

Then the second issue of course is the fact that a light can go in and wreck havoc quite easily in the enemy's base, done it myself. While strengthening the bases is one solution to that problem, seeing as most Incursion matches devolve into Skirmish, there won't be that many times when a large assault on a base will occur, which I think would be awesome.

However, I'm liking your solutions to the map base placements.
Furthermore, I think there'd be more incentive to play the objective if there was a larger reward for doing the Objectives as well. Double them or something along those lines.

Edit: For Base Campers, isn't Air Control the answer to that?

Edited by Naqser, 19 April 2017 - 11:06 AM.

[Khobai]

Quote

But conquest still mostly works in QP.

incursion is NOT conquest though.

incursion will only work with respawns.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Cato Zilks, on 19 April 2017 - 10:49 AM, said:

That is not a problem. The mode is not riddled with campers

Alright, you seem to be confused on something or I'm simply not explaining something well.

The problem with plain ol skirmish is there is nothing there to encourage engagements, so what do teams do when they start to get more coordination? They find a strong defensive spot and hold it, there is no incentive to not. In Conquest you can't just sit on the edge of the map, you must either find a way to destroy the enemy team before they can get enough of a cap advantage or you must control caps through strong positioning.

That's the ONLY issue with Skirmish, it doesn't have any way to force engagements (forcing engagements is how you prevent camping). How it goes about doing that is also very important because you still want to make sure you don't have a central contest point (which is why Polar is honestly one of the better designed conquest maps), you want more options/avenues of approach to be available like there are in Skirmish.

Cato Zilks, on 19 April 2017 - 10:49 AM, said:

But right now, the opposite is the problem. The game is a crappy version of assault: if the forces meet in the middle it is skirmish, if they miss each other it is a cap race (base destruction race).

Assault is crappy period, it doesn't encourage dynamic games and is much more limiting, it forces you to play one of two ways:

• Hold a defensive position between the line of no return (midway between your base and the enemies base) and your base.
  
• Commit to a push over the line of no return with either your full force or a 1-3 mechs that go to grab base.

Your suggestion doesn't fix any part of that, in fact it just removes the tower/fuel cells as a factor even more because of how close teams start relative to each other compared to how far away the cells are. It also results in much less of the battlefield being used on top of that.

Savage Wolf, on 19 April 2017 - 10:46 AM, said:

And then suddenly suggesting respawns as a means to lengthening the game and it's whole other deal.

Then we get to the whole deal where it doesn't belong in QP if it has respawns. Not that it fixes the issues with this game mode, since it is still just like assault which is still worse than Conquest. Adding respawns still won't fix stupid game design.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 19 April 2017 - 11:15 AM.

[Khobai]

Quote

then we get to the whole deal where it doesn't belong in QP if it has respawns.

says who? just because quickplay hasnt had a respawn gamemode before doesnt mean it shouldnt have one.

Quote

Adding respawns still won't fix stupid game design.

actually it will. heres how.

make one of the towers a reinforcement tower. you can bring a power pellet to the reinforcement tower to respawn a dead enemy mech. you can do that once every 2 minutes.

now there is a legitimate reason for lights to go grab power pellets, a reason to attack the enemy base and destroy their reinforcement tower, and a reason to defend your own base and protect your own reinforcement tower. because whichever team loses their reinforcement tower first will likely lose the skirmish.

that makes makes power pellets super important. makes attacking and defending the bases important. and it makes the gamemode different enough from skirmish by having limited respawns.

Edited by Khobai, 19 April 2017 - 11:22 AM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Khobai, on 19 April 2017 - 11:20 AM, said:

make one of the towers a reinforcement tower. you can bring a power pellet to the reinforcement tower to respawn a dead enemy mech. you can do that once every 2 minutes.

Except that reinforcement is not going to be able to reinforce in time to stop a snowball in serious matches (especially since it requires you to dedicate ANOTHER unit to even get that reinforcement, which puts you yet another man down). In PUG play, it is even more of a lottery based on how bad a team is (bringing back a spud that only did 16 damage his first life is likely to not impact the match anymore than he did the first time around).

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 19 April 2017 - 11:23 AM.

[Khobai]

Quote

Except that reinforcement is not going to be able to reinforce in time to stop a snowball in serious matches

if your team is getting snowballed that badly you never had a chance of winning in the first place. thats a matchmaker issue not a gamemode issue. different problem entirely.

for purposes of fixing the gamemode we have to assume both teams are roughly equal skill levels and tonnages and that matchmaker has done its job. in which case snowballing shouldnt be an issue because both sides should be suffering similar levels of attrition. in which case reinforcements every 2 minutes can and will make a difference.

Edited by Khobai, 19 April 2017 - 11:28 AM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Khobai, on 19 April 2017 - 11:23 AM, said:

if your team is getting snowballed that badly you never had a chance of winning in the first place.

Snowballs happen even amongst evenly skilled teams, it has nothing to do with a skill gap and everything to do with an enemy able to capitalize on a mistake and not making any in return. Being a man down puts you on the defensive if you aren't able to trade a kill in return, and it can quickly cascade by simply having the numerical advantage.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 19 April 2017 - 11:26 AM.

[Mystere]

Cato Zilks, on 19 April 2017 - 10:24 AM, said:

Yes because it is a fundamental change to QP. Remember matches cue players together, then we vote on a map and match type. We cant change numbers and weight distribution after the voting group is formed.

Which is why voting needs to go the way of the dodo bird. It's an impediment to a whole lot of possibilities.

I do want QP changed from the currently very boring "12 vs. 12 all sides must be equal" eSports nonsense.

Cato Zilks, on 19 April 2017 - 10:32 AM, said:

But PGI is making a more diverse game.

Not from where I am sitting.

Edited by Mystere, 19 April 2017 - 11:49 AM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Mystere, on 19 April 2017 - 11:47 AM, said:

Which is why voting needs to go the way of the dodo bird. It's an impediment to a whole lot of possibilities.

They need to fix game modes and maps to not suck first before they can really do that.