Jump to content

No Guts No Galaxy Podcast #158 - Game Modes


19 replies to this topic

#1 Sean Lang

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Wolf
  • The Wolf
  • 969 posts
  • Facebook: Link
  • Twitter: Link
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationNorth Carolina

Posted 24 April 2017 - 07:30 PM



#2 Davegt27

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 6,952 posts
  • LocationCO

Posted 25 April 2017 - 12:20 AM

Thanks I love your pod casts, since I am using the T terrible network
For internet (have to use sound cloud, video is next to impossible)


Edited by Davegt27, 25 April 2017 - 12:24 AM.


#3 justcallme A S H

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • CS 2020 Referee
  • CS 2020 Referee
  • 8,987 posts
  • LocationMelbourne, AU

Posted 25 April 2017 - 03:03 AM

- Pushing respawns in QP modes agenda pretty heavily there Phil with the "everyone I've spoken too supports it". Not sure who you talk with but the pages upon pages of people here that say otherwise here on the forums, refutes that pretty heavily. As did your guests. Hopefully that never happens. It'll break what QP is, quick.

- I got a laugh out of dynamic spawn points, guests supported it. But as soon as "comp" came up "oh no no no, they must be set". The hardcore backpedalling there was great to watch, I LOL'd big time. Make them random for comp as well. That'll make it FAR more interesting, challenging and knife-edge than the "well we know they will come from XXX, and setup in XXX, probably carrying XX loadout", which basically all comp is. Who controls certain points better in predetermined scenarios. Shake it up.

- Incursion is indeed a poor mode how it is designed now, a base rush from a single mech is silly. And objectives should indeed be in the middle, well not out of the middle, just outside the base. Asymmetrical is a better idea. It cannot delete Assault though because then the map rotation is even further impacted. EG. Canyon will come up even less.

#4 Johnny Z

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • 9,942 posts
  • LocationDueling on Solaris

Posted 25 April 2017 - 04:20 AM

Only watched a third of the video so far, but its excellent. Agree with almost everything said so far. Great podcast and interesting.

#5 Nesutizale

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Privateer
  • The Privateer
  • 3,239 posts

Posted 25 April 2017 - 06:15 AM

- Respawn
I think that is kinda a mode of itself. QP should stay quick but if you would have a mode that is build around it I could totaly see it beeing a good idea. Just slaping respawns on the existing QP dosn't work.

I would go as far as saying that it would be better to have maps that are just centered around a certain mode instead of haveing all maps with all modes.
Escort and Crimson are a terrible combination, just for example.

- Dynamic spawnpoint/capturepoints
That is an idea I like a lot. Breaks up the monotone gameplay that we have now.

- Incursion
I also wished it was an asymetrical mode.

- Assault
Take it out as planed. It adds nothing to the gameplay. As they said, when you put more money into the objective people will just go for the objective to get an easy win or they will skirmish like they do now.
Incursion with an asymetrical design would be the perfect replacement IMO.

BTW, good podcast. I would like to see you pick up more of the common questions that are going around in the forum in future episodes.

#6 Ultimax

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 6,979 posts

Posted 25 April 2017 - 07:21 AM

Here's my opinion:

PGI needs to stop creating poorly balanced or designed modes that reduce the appearance of some of the most evenly balanced maps in the game.

FP has basically failed, importing what FP was into QP is not going to go well either (respawns, weak AI elements, base structures, etc)

#7 Sunstruck

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 441 posts

Posted 25 April 2017 - 08:09 AM

There are already respawns in Faction Warfare... and nobody plays it.

You can already choose mechs after map is selected in Faction Warfare... and nobody plays it.

Invasion (Seige) is already an asymetrical game mode avaliable in Faction Warfare.. and nobody plays it.

Quick Play game modes, are already in Faction Warfare... and nobody plays it.

It seems like NGNG needs to play less quick play and more Faction Warfare!

Edited by Sunstruck, 25 April 2017 - 08:13 AM.


#8 naterist

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary Rank 6
  • Mercenary Rank 6
  • 1,724 posts
  • Location7th circle of hell

Posted 25 April 2017 - 08:39 AM

^hes not wrong......

basically, the biggest thing i heard was two guys explaining some basic level stuff about how objectives can and cant work sometimes, a few good ideas on how to polish off incursion (which i predominately agree with, and a fierce defense of keeping each ques unique feel. all of which i pretty much found logical....

as for seans fixation on respawns, well i get it cause it obviously helps push objective play in 4.1 fw, but it isnt the right solution for qp. it has too many drawbacks to consider.

#9 BLOOD WOLF

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Jaws
  • The Jaws
  • 6,368 posts
  • Locationnowhere

Posted 25 April 2017 - 09:10 AM

View PostSunstruck, on 25 April 2017 - 08:09 AM, said:

There are already respawns in Faction Warfare... and nobody plays it.


View Postnaterist, on 25 April 2017 - 08:39 AM, said:

^hes not wrong......


really now?

#10 Nesutizale

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Privateer
  • The Privateer
  • 3,239 posts

Posted 25 April 2017 - 09:15 AM

I think the biggest problem with FW is that you have to commit to it.
At min you need 2 types of Mechs, 6 to skill these two and 4 full sets of modules. That takes some time to get.
Also you more or less have to find a team as solo drops mostly garanty a defeat and you hardly affort not to play the current meta.

So you have to invest a lot of time to skill your mechs, get the money to buy modules, then (still) wait a long time to finaly find a match and then you have a 90% chance of beeing stomped if you don't have an experianced team.

Great that is exactly what people allways wanted.
Tell me why would someone want to do that when in QP he can invest a lot less time and Cbills and still have a good game?
Also isn't forced into the meta.

Now people look at all the stuff that FW has but they can't have because they don't have the time, money or just don't play with others or just are bad people with no friends ^_^
Is it a wonder that people ask for the FW content without the bothersome around way of getting all the stuff and facing certain doom that FW brings with it?

As I see it PGI should concentrate on two things

1) Rework QP in a way that they have one map for one mode each. Take each of the current maps and look what mode works best on this map. Then refine that map around the mode till its near perfect.
You just can't make every mode work on every map.

2) For the teams/untis create a competetive envoirment that supports them all the way. Kinda like you allready talked about in the Roundtable (I think it was).
Give them tools for createing leagues, anounce tournaments, unit chat, leaderbords and so on.

#11 Khobai

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 23,969 posts

Posted 25 April 2017 - 09:30 AM

The biggest problem with faction play is that its not friendly for solo players and small groups. Which makes no sense to me because solo players and small groups make up 95% of the player population.

Yet faction play castigates that 95% in favor of the 5% of the players that play as large groups and units. Its no wonder that faction play doesnt have the player population to support itself.

Quote

1) Rework QP in a way that they have one map for one mode each. Take each of the current maps and look what mode works best on this map. Then refine that map around the mode till its near perfect.

You just can't make every mode work on every map


Agreed. Each map should have one gamemode unique to that map. But also the gamemodes should be "mission" oriented like attack/defend a union class dropship. The objectives should immerse players in the battletech universe. Instead of the objectives being abstract things that mechs would NEVER do like run around capturing coffee grinders. How does a mech even capture something? It makes no sense. To capture installations you need to occupy them with ground troops... in other mechwarrior games you need to escort APCs to capture buildings. There are no shortcuts for immersion.

As for faction play, they really need to open it up so its more friendly for the 95% of solo players and small groups. Thats the only way faction play will survive into the future. Because its pretty obvious that 5% of the player population cant sustain the numbers required to make faction play work. They also need to resolve the IS vs Clan imbalance in faction play, I personally think its time to allow IS and Clan to be on the same team in faction play, because thats appropriate with the 3068 timeline where you have new factions like Rasalhague Dominion that use both IS and Clan tech.

Quote

2) For the teams/untis create a competetive envoirment that supports them all the way. Kinda like you allready talked about in the Roundtable (I think it was).
Give them tools for createing leagues, anounce tournaments, unit chat, leaderbords and so on.


Honestly they need to save the game for the 95% of solo players and small groups first. PGI needs to stop wasting effort on the 5% until the 95% are taken care of. Trying to turn MWO into an esport game doesnt work when theyre hemorrhaging players like crazy. They need to get their game to a point where more people want to join than quit, then they can focus on esports. Jumping the gun on esports is not helping MWO grow AT ALL.

Every resource PGI has should be focused on making the game into something people actually want to play. Make it more tactical. Make it more strategic. Make it more immersive. Grow the player base. Then worry about esports when youre gaining players, not losing them.

Edited by Khobai, 25 April 2017 - 09:51 AM.


#12 Nesutizale

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Privateer
  • The Privateer
  • 3,239 posts

Posted 25 April 2017 - 10:02 AM

I wasn't thinking of Esports when I talked about competetive gameplay.
Just give the units a playground where their structure of teamplay is best used and people who like a challange can go.

For everything else, I agree that PGI should focus on one thing at a time and that is where most players are and where most of the new players would be...if MWO would actually have these *sarcasm, as I guess that once in a while someone still stumbles uppon it*

#13 Deathlike

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Littlest Helper
  • Littlest Helper
  • 29,240 posts
  • Location#NOToTaterBalance #BadBalanceOverlordIsBad

Posted 25 April 2017 - 10:32 AM

View Postjustcallme A S H, on 25 April 2017 - 03:03 AM, said:

- Pushing respawns in QP modes agenda pretty heavily there Phil with the "everyone I've spoken too supports it". Not sure who you talk with but the pages upon pages of people here that say otherwise here on the forums, refutes that pretty heavily. As did your guests. Hopefully that never happens. It'll break what QP is, quick.


Yes, let's just talk to yes-men. That'll be smart.

Quote

- I got a laugh out of dynamic spawn points, guests supported it. But as soon as "comp" came up "oh no no no, they must be set". The hardcore backpedalling there was great to watch, I LOL'd big time. Make them random for comp as well. That'll make it FAR more interesting, challenging and knife-edge than the "well we know they will come from XXX, and setup in XXX, probably carrying XX loadout", which basically all comp is. Who controls certain points better in predetermined scenarios. Shake it up.


It's not that simple for comp. For variety in just regular Quickplay, changing the monotony of the literal predictably of the modes is very important in terms of "keeping the map" fresh.

For comp, setups are very dependent on location... as having a particular location of the map controlled is usually determining of success or failure (it's the Alpine H10 problem, except not as blatant or stupid). If it was totally random, you can't quite run the same strats as it becomes more deathball oriented (not literally though), and that won't really make comp matches as interesting. Domination wouldn't be affected that much (it's just getting to the circle to hold it for a little bit), but something like Conquest would play out differently. Having multiple spawn points on a small map probably wouldn't change much, but mechs climbing to the upper areas becomes a chore (learning the entry points is key). It would make the drop way more JJ-oriented over ground bound (will still effort to get a KDK-3 in there of course) because you couldn't guarantee a particular spawn point.


Quote

- Incursion is indeed a poor mode how it is designed now, a base rush from a single mech is silly. And objectives should indeed be in the middle, well not out of the middle, just outside the base. Asymmetrical is a better idea. It cannot delete Assault though because then the map rotation is even further impacted. EG. Canyon will come up even less.


Incursion is honestly better suited for FP and ironically better than Assault. Canyon already suffers from not being Escort AND Incursion friendly (would require destroying the map like every other map expansion to date).

#14 justcallme A S H

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • CS 2020 Referee
  • CS 2020 Referee
  • 8,987 posts
  • LocationMelbourne, AU

Posted 25 April 2017 - 10:44 AM

View PostDeathlike, on 25 April 2017 - 10:32 AM, said:

It's not that simple for comp. For variety in just regular Quickplay, changing the monotony of the literal predictably of the modes is very important in terms of "keeping the map" fresh.

For comp, setups are very dependent on location... as having a particular location of the map controlled is usually determining of success or failure (it's the Alpine H10 problem, except not as blatant or stupid). If it was totally random, you can't quite run the same strats as it becomes more deathball oriented (not literally though), and that won't really make comp matches as interesting. Domination wouldn't be affected that much (it's just getting to the circle to hold it for a little bit), but something like Conquest would play out differently. Having multiple spawn points on a small map probably wouldn't change much, but mechs climbing to the upper areas becomes a chore (learning the entry points is key). It would make the drop way more JJ-oriented over ground bound (will still effort to get a KDK-3 in there of course) because you couldn't guarantee a particular spawn point.


Incursion is honestly better suited for FP and ironically better than Assault. Canyon already suffers from not being Escort AND Incursion friendly (would require destroying the map like every other map expansion to date).


It's not that simple, because people don't like random :)

I don't mean totally random, but hell, break it up a bit so there is something dynamic. Some maps are really bad for it though (due to PGI) design, so it would take some thought.

Random exists in the highest level of e-sports all the time. FPS and RTS all do it. While there might be "6" possible locations for one to spawn in, you don't know that without actually scouting the opposition. Granted some do have "set" locations as well, but not having it, spices stuff up. MWO is a odd-ball in that, you know where people will be, the vast majority of the time, long before they even get there.

Most comp people will get find their knickers firmly knotted outta nowhere though, so it'll never happen.

Incursion ain't suited to FP at all IMO, not without serious reworking of the mode. It'll just become a base-camp fest because if you leave it, you risk it being shot up. It's bad enough now people won't leave DZ's...

#15 Deathlike

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Littlest Helper
  • Littlest Helper
  • 29,240 posts
  • Location#NOToTaterBalance #BadBalanceOverlordIsBad

Posted 25 April 2017 - 10:57 AM

View Postjustcallme A S H, on 25 April 2017 - 10:44 AM, said:


It's not that simple, because people don't like random Posted Image

I don't mean totally random, but hell, break it up a bit so there is something dynamic. Some maps are really bad for it though (due to PGI) design, so it would take some thought.

Random exists in the highest level of e-sports all the time. FPS and RTS all do it. While there might be "6" possible locations for one to spawn in, you don't know that without actually scouting the opposition. Granted some do have "set" locations as well, but not having it, spices stuff up. MWO is a odd-ball in that, you know where people will be, the vast majority of the time, long before they even get there.

Most comp people will get find their knickers firmly knotted outta nowhere though, so it'll never happen.


It's not as simple as you'd think.

For instance, let's say you wanted to brawl in a non-Drop 1 MRBC scenario. Let's say the map is Canyon (because it's an easy example to remember). If for some reason RNGesus decided the two groups would be totally separated from each other (spawn-wise), it would reduce the chance of that brawl to work. You change a lot of the planned scenarios into more generic strats... and those are honestly not that interesting.

For PUG play, it's fine to randomize a bit, so people regroup in different locations (assuming people actually bother to do that).. it's just too detrimental in comp play and honestly would water it down (like mech choices and would remove more options/strategies off the table).


Quote

Incursion ain't suited to FP at all IMO, not without serious reworking of the mode. It'll just become a base-camp fest because if you leave it, you risk it being shot up. It's bad enough now people won't leave DZ's...


Bad players do bad things.

#16 justcallme A S H

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • CS 2020 Referee
  • CS 2020 Referee
  • 8,987 posts
  • LocationMelbourne, AU

Posted 25 April 2017 - 11:13 AM

Where did I say it was simple? It would take work, absolutely it will. If PGI are going to semi randomise the maps for QP, then done right, it can carry over.

However the track record of the idea vs what we actually get? It's probably not even worth delving into, even for QP.

#17 Nik Reaper

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 1,273 posts

Posted 25 April 2017 - 11:16 AM

If one looked at FP from the majority standpoint, and it's the point from QP solo players, as stats showed those are the most numerous, FP is a) unbalanced due to groups , b ) games take longer and c) there is no matchmaker.

Conquest with redeployment is possibly the most fun I had in this game as a solo , is it for all gamemode, no, but the barrier to entry to get to conquest with respowns , is simply too high that most players , making most solo never try it.

If the main view is that FP is the only place to have redeployment and we can't split buckets to create a gamemode where there is a MM, there is redeployment and it's split in solo and group que then I'd vote to kill FP and reinstate it into the aforementioned gamemode.

To simply put it just add invasion mode to the private lobby and remove the "lore" part of taking planets as it never worked so far and replace it with a different queue.

Redeployment might not be for everyone or for every mode, or all the time, but it adds a lot of both brainless fun and tactical options, just it's not accessible to most players ( yes they can go and get crushed, or crush due to no MM or wait long searches as few players use the mode ).

As I see it, PGI should do a take where they replace FP with something like this and see if it works out, I personally would much rather play a max 20 min match with 2 mechs than play a 15 min max but over in 7 min game and spend 5 min serching for the next 7 min game, while still having the option for the 7 min game in the single mech old queue.

And as far as NGNG podcast, the speakers were players with active units and more or less comp players who did little to speak for any other perspective , with what I saw as the attitude of well yeah that might be a problem but hey I'll just group up with my competent unit mates or friends and power over it... not the prevalent standpoint the player base would take, so mby invite some strictly solo players of mid to high skill when talking about things that impact the whole game not just the comp scene .. that might as well be isolated to the private lobby, as they will grind out the regular game for resources with brute force of skill, numbers and coordination.

Edited by Nik Reaper, 25 April 2017 - 11:30 AM.


#18 Steve Pryde

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 1,465 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 25 April 2017 - 11:27 AM

I have no problems with respawns in quick play just because a game runs for max 15 minutes and then it's over. If you haven't time like 15 minutes, just don't play. Even games in LOL/DOTA2 or HotS are longer than that usually.

View Postjustcallme A S H, on 25 April 2017 - 10:44 AM, said:

Incursion ain't suited to FP at all IMO, not without serious reworking of the mode. It'll just become a base-camp fest because if you leave it, you risk it being shot up. It's bad enough now people won't leave DZ's...


And there scouts come in handy. Scout before you push out, that's it. Maybe let stay a small grp at your own base for sneaky lights.

Edited by Steve Pryde, 25 April 2017 - 11:30 AM.


#19 justcallme A S H

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • CS 2020 Referee
  • CS 2020 Referee
  • 8,987 posts
  • LocationMelbourne, AU

Posted 25 April 2017 - 12:22 PM

Dude you are talking QP. You expect a team to work cohesively together?

Please.

#20 Tarogato

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Civil Servant
  • Civil Servant
  • 6,557 posts
  • LocationUSA

Posted 25 April 2017 - 12:44 PM

View PostSteve Pryde, on 25 April 2017 - 11:27 AM, said:

I have no problems with respawns in quick play just because a game runs for max 15 minutes and then it's over. If you haven't time like 15 minutes, just don't play. Even games in LOL/DOTA2 or HotS are longer than that usually.

The long match times was actually why I quit playing LoL quite some years ago. You never know when you hit that button whether you're going to be in a 20-minute match or a 70-minute match. And those 70-minute matches killed it for me, absolute slog of an end game. I love that MWO matches are 6-9 minutes on average. I also avoid CW because I don't like the 15-30 minute matches, and wasting a lot of it just walking back from respawn and grouping up. It's really really boring.



View PostDeathlike, on 25 April 2017 - 10:57 AM, said:

It's not as simple as you'd think.

For instance, let's say you wanted to brawl in a non-Drop 1 MRBC scenario. Let's say the map is Canyon (because it's an easy example to remember). If for some reason RNGesus decided the two groups would be totally separated from each other (spawn-wise), it would reduce the chance of that brawl to work. You change a lot of the planned scenarios into more generic strats... and those are honestly not that interesting.


*AHEM*

No need to randomise it. Just have 3-4 different configurations. In private lobby you could select a specific one, but in public queue they would be selected at random.

Some examples here that I did like years ago: http://mwomercs.com/...spawn-variants/





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users