102 replies to this topic

[Cato Zilks]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 19 April 2017 - 11:07 AM, said:

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.


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.



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.

So here is the thought. The bases are so weak right now that moving far away from them is bad unless you can prevent the enemy from getting close or get to the enemy base first. Bases need a buff, and the batteries need a buff. I really think the base needs some bomb-*** turrets to come online with the jammer. I think it was Aylward who suggested these bad boys http://www.sarna.net...Calliope_Turret . And yes, we should get notable rewards for the getting the batteries and keeping the base going. Radar pings should be more frequent (every 10 secs). Those rewards need to be good.

Now I think moving the bases together helps create a more dynamic battlefield. Take this map (my fav layout)

There are multiple angles of attack and each side has access to very strong defensive hills. Bravo and Charlie will no doubt fight around the valley base G10, G11. Alpha lances get the unfriendly task of fighting over the battery points out west or grabbing the one battery in the valley.

And here is where having better battery powered defenses comes in. Starving the enemy base of power leaves it vulnerable to a light rush. So if blue team crushes greens lights out west it becomes for green to protect their base. But, having the bases closer together means they dont have to abandon the main fight to still have a chance of driving off the lights that are attacking the base.

As I look at it, there are four control points for the slow mechs (h11, i10, f10, g13) as well two out west for the fast mechs (i5, j5). The better the lights do, the less concerned a team needs to be about the base and vice versa. We are forced into map control, but the assaults don't have to spend all day moving between cap points. The assaults have one objective in mind (base) the lights can go different ways.

I also would note that a base rush can still work here. For example, green team's Bravo and Charlie lances can move into the valley base while their alpha lance skirts up the eastern edge of the map. They should reach the blue base/blue bravo &Charlie lances before bluelights could return from i5, giving green a 12-8 advantage. By spreading out the sub-objectives, we allow more strategy towards achieving the objective.

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.

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

Bummer. PGI is clearly not going that direction. If it really is important to you, maybe start your own company?

[Mystere]

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. thats a matchmaker player issue not a gamemode issue. different problem entirely.

FTFY.

Let's stop encouraging people from using the MM as a bogeyman.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 19 April 2017 - 11:48 AM, said:

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

Whether a game mode or map sucks is more an opinion than fact, with the exception of invisible walls of course.

Edited by Mystere, 19 April 2017 - 11:57 AM.

[Cato Zilks]

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

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




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.

Respawning adds to the match time and makes players more reckless towards taking the objective. Russ has said he does not want that. PGI has also been clear that they do not intend to add respawns to QP. So, move on.

[Mystere]

Insanity09, on 19 April 2017 - 10:35 AM, said:

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?

Why limit ourselves to just which base is more damaged? Make winning require the destruction of the enemy base. That ought to make ties a bigger possibility.

And let winning pay generously, while losing gives a lump of coal.

Naqser, on 19 April 2017 - 10:54 AM, said:

I like the idea of having to fetch Power Cells to power the base.

I myself am not a fan. It's too gamey for my taste.

[Khobai]

Quote

Respawning adds to the match time and makes players more reckless towards taking the objective. Russ has said he does not want that.

except no one plays for the objective because its easier and more rewarding just to kill the enemy team. so that makes no sense.

and were not talking about unrestricted/unlimited respawns. its a limited respawn that you would need to use a power pellet and a reinforcement tower to call in. its not going to cause anyone to be reckless.

plus when has russ ever been right? russ has had to retract more statements and reverse PGIs decisions more times than I can count. lol.

Quote

And let winning pay generously, while losing gives a lump of coal.

again the easiest way to win is skirmishing the enemy team and ignoring the objective. the objective is meaningless atm.

the only way to make the objective matter over killing the enemy team is to make it harder to win by killing the enemy team. and respawn is how you do that.

Quote

Respawning adds to the match time

so? why is adding match time so bad? it means the payout can be increased for playing. And it means youre spending less downtime between games because the games are longer.

And the match times will still be limited by the countdown time. So its still going at end at 15 minutes. Whichever team has the most damaged base loses.

Oh no you have to spend 15 minutes in a game instead of 8-12 minutes, and get a bigger payout for the longer playtime. THATS SO HORRIBLE.

Edited by Khobai, 19 April 2017 - 12:16 PM.

[Mystere]

Cato Zilks, on 19 April 2017 - 11:54 AM, said:

Bummer. PGI is clearly not going that direction. If it really is important to you, maybe start your own company?

PGI sold the original Founders "A BattleTech Game", and so in Hades' name I will hound them on that point until they do.

Who's going to stop me? You? <maniacal >

Edited by Mystere, 19 April 2017 - 12:13 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Cato Zilks, on 19 April 2017 - 11:54 AM, said:

There are multiple angles of attack and each side has access to very strong defensive hills.

I think you underestimate the importance of distance between teams. The closer a team is, the less time you have to even setup strong defensive positions and the more the game just devolves into a push/brawl game like can happen in domination. Now this isn't the case for every map, but for a majority of maps it will be.

As for your multiple angles, sorry but no you still haven't fixed the problem I stated above. You either hold back at a ridge and defend or you follow the ridge and be aggressive. That's it.

Cato Zilks, on 19 April 2017 - 11:54 AM, said:

As I look at it, there are four control points for the slow mechs (h11, i10, f10, g13) as well two out west for the fast mechs (i5, j5). The better the lights do, the less concerned a team needs to be about the base and vice versa. We are forced into map control, but the assaults don't have to spend all day moving between cap points. The assaults have one objective in mind (base) the lights can go different ways.

By not forcing assaults to ever move unless the team is pushing you make the game more static, which is part of the problem.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 19 April 2017 - 12:09 PM.

[Sjorpha]

I appreciate the suggestion, it might be worth trying. One problem I see is that some of your sketches puts the bases a little too close on small maps, but that is a very minor problem and could just be tweaked to find the optimal places so it's not really an argument against the idea itself.

However, what I myself see as the basic problem with this game mode and also assault, is that you have two teams with bases to defend, creating the risk of either mutual camping, or rushing past each other as sometimes happens.

I think the mode would be far better if only one team had a base and the other team's job was to attack it, that honestly seems like easiest and most straighforward fix.

Edited by Sjorpha, 19 April 2017 - 12:12 PM.

[Mystere]

Khobai, on 19 April 2017 - 12:06 PM, said:

again the easiest way to win is skirmishing the enemy team and ignoring the objective

Ahem! You omitted the first part of my post: require the enemy base's destruction for a win.

Base is too easy to attack? Then give it better defenses.

People will just go camping? Give both sides 2 bases to defend.

People are still camping? Make artillery and air strikes more dangerous and, if necessary, give both teams Long Toms.

Edited by Mystere, 19 April 2017 - 12:16 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Mystere, on 19 April 2017 - 12:12 PM, said:

Ahem! You omitted the first part of my post: require the enemy base's destruction for a win.

Base is too easy to attack? Then give it better defenses.

People will just go camping? Give both sides 2 bases to defend.

Makes more sense for that to be asym then that way draws thanks to the objective not being completed within the time limit can still be considered a loss for someone (I mean you could use base health as a determination, but if neither team touched the other's base, then what do you do).

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 19 April 2017 - 12:15 PM.

[Mystere]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 19 April 2017 - 12:14 PM, said:

Makes more sense for that to be asym then that way draws thanks to the objective not being completed within the time limit can still be considered a loss for someone (I mean you could use base health as a determination, but if neither team touched the other's base, then what do you do).

Believe me when I say I'd rather have asymmetric game modes instead of the boring "12 vs. 12, all sides must be equal, everything is Skrimish" situation we have right now. But people just cannot seem to wrap their heads around such a concept, and in a war game no less, as well as a game originally billed as a "thinking person's shooter".

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Mystere, on 19 April 2017 - 12:19 PM, said:

Believe me when I say I'd rather have asymmetric game modes instead of the boring "12 vs. 12, all sides must be equal, everything is Skrimish" situation we have right now.

Both sides should still be equally viable and have a diversity of options on how to play them, but they don't have to be the exact same, I think you misunderstand some of the people that argue for same team sizes and such.

[LordKnightFandragon]

They should have FP tonnage decks along with repair facilities in the bases as well, so that you can fall back and repair. Itwould literally be like MWLL to a degree.

[Khobai]

Quote

Ahem! You omitted the first part of my post: require the enemy base's destruction for a win.

whats the point of that? If you already killed the entire enemy team in skirmish, why do you need to prove you can snipe some stationary turrets and generators from well outside their return fire range? thats dumb.

The purpose of the base should not be some afterthought victory condition for after youve already won the skirmish. The purpose of the base is that it should actively participate in helping you win the skirmish.

which means power pellets need to activate tower abilities that are strong enough to justify pulling mechs off the frontlines and influence the outcome of the skirmish.

Quote

They should have FP tonnage decks along with repair facilities in the bases as well, so that you can fall back and repair. Itwould literally be like MWLL to a degree.

repair facilities would be one way of making the base help influence the outcome of the skirmish. being able to bring a power pellet to a repair gantry to repair X% of your mech for example. Its similar to my respawn idea except repairing instead of respawning.

Edited by Khobai, 19 April 2017 - 12:30 PM.

[Mystere]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 19 April 2017 - 12:22 PM, said:

Both sides should still be equally viable and have a diversity of options on how to play them, but they don't have to be the exact same, I think you misunderstand some of the people that argue for same team sizes and such.

And you misunderstand me. I said we now have a very boring "12 vs. 12, all sides must be equal, everything is Skirmish" situation. I want that changed, significantly, via numbers, tonnage, objectives, etc.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Mystere, on 19 April 2017 - 12:33 PM, said:

I want that changed, significantly, via numbers, tonnage, objectives, etc.

Which I'm only okay with objectives being the asymmetrical factor.

[C E Dwyer]

JigglyMoobs, on 18 April 2017 - 11:15 PM, said:

I had an incursion game on Polar that was actually won by playing the objective in a smart way.

We went to attack and right away one of our lights got an Energon cube. Used it to power radar and we saw that the entire enemy team was playing skirmish around the Energon points. Our PUG commander smartly called an sneak attack on their base while a few of us held the enemy team at our current position. It got pretty hairy but our guys ninjaed the base before their team figured out that there were only 3 of us there in the center. Whole thing was caught on video by yours truly.

I had my doubts during the match but this time at least the strat worked well.

You guys played it well, but I can't help wonder how it would have worked out, had the eight mechs you four in the centre held off, had any stones and pushed you hard.

You won because you took advantage of their static ridge poking behaviour

[SirNotlag]

Pr8Dator2, on 18 April 2017 - 03:19 PM, said:

Sorry, but as long as killing everyone wins exists, it defeats the whole point of having other objectives. Next!

I bet your the type of person that complains when a teams wins through capping a base in assualt

[JigglyMoobs]

Cathy, on 19 April 2017 - 12:38 PM, said:

You guys played it well, but I can't help wonder how it would have worked out, had the eight mechs you four in the centre held off, had any stones and pushed you hard.

You won because you took advantage of their static ridge poking behaviour

I think after our mechs got into their base, even had they killed all of us in the center, there still wouldn't have been enough time to run back and save their base.

[Cato Zilks]

SirNotlag, on 19 April 2017 - 12:53 PM, said:

I bet your the type of person that complains when a teams wins through capping a base in assualt

When it is a cap race, yes. It is uber lame when both teams cap. I dont complain when a team caps under fire. And right now if you are in the middle of a map and your base is under attack, you might as well exploded yourself by overheating. Base gets rolled way fast

Sjorpha, on 19 April 2017 - 12:11 PM, said:

I appreciate the suggestion, it might be worth trying. One problem I see is that some of your sketches puts the bases a little too close on small maps, but that is a very minor problem and could just be tweaked to find the optimal places so it's not really an argument against the idea itself.

However, what I myself see as the basic problem with this game mode and also assault, is that you have two teams with bases to defend, creating the risk of either mutual camping, or rushing past each other as sometimes happens.

I think the mode would be far better if only one team had a base and the other team's job was to attack it, that honestly seems like easiest and most straighforward fix.

I tried to show more turrets or bigger bases for the small maps. Idea is to make those bases tougher, especially when batteried up.