77 replies to this topic

[Wintersdark]

Zigmund Freud, on 05 May 2017 - 01:36 PM, said:

I would disagree. Partially. Yes, the game is about shoting stompy robots, but objective-centered games are not about delivering fuel cells, they are still about shoting robots, but make it a bit more interesting. I'm often piloting lights or light mediums, and it's awesome to fight other lights on the middle capture point, intercept fuel cells, or return to base to defend it from enemy lights. And scouting or spotting. It is fun and part of a game.
24/7 skirmish on the other hand is stupid meat grinder IMO, people would just bring 12 heavy/assaults if they could.
And please don't say that other game modes are about runing fuel cells or trashing bases. It's still about shoting robots, in lot of incursions or assaults or captions we end up with one side wiped out completely, and in lots there's like 3-4 mechs left on losing, so fat guys get their brawl in 95% of the time. But it makes MWO less boring. And it does give lights and mediums more action, and I mean fighting, not capping or fuel shipping.

The problem is, if a team wants to WIN, it stays together.

When you run off getting fuel cells, and your team meets the enemy team 11v12, they are severely disadvantaged in that combat.

Arguing "people play it wrong" is dumb. This ultimately isn't the player's fault, it's the fault of the design.

Now, I'm not going to focus on Incursion, as I've played a whopping two matches of it, but at MWO game modes in general.

How people play a mode is a direct result of how that mode is designed. There will always be an optimal path to success and players will suss that out extremely fast. Blaming players for playing to win is entirely pointless.

The mode has to be designed such that the optimal path to success leads to the best gameplay. That is HARD; particularly as players define "best gameplay" differently, but at least must be designed such that the optimal path to success isn't objectively terrible.

That's why MWO is, at any non-potato level, 24/7 skirmish. Because killing your opposition is the fastest, surest path to success, as you can do the rest afterwards. As I said before - two teams, one has two players run off and Do Other Stuff, that 10v12 combat is decided before shots are fired. Then you've got most of a team left to Do Other Stuff/hunt down two Mechs.

Sure, it's wonderful when you can get multiple small conflicts, but we've seen how well/often that works out in practice.



I don't want 24/7 skirmish. But that'll always be what MWO is, unless something substantial changes.

Simply wanting more depth doesn't make it happen, and insulting players for playing the game they have doesn't help either.

[Bud Crue]

Tordin, on 05 May 2017 - 12:37 PM, said:

I actually see more and more wolfhounds and panthers, heck even some firestarters. Im baffled. And no, not in tier 5.. There just Cheetas & murdering new pilots with alt accounts it seems

Wow...this is one of those "what game are you playing?" experiences.

Without exaggeration, since rescale, I have seen 1...that's "one" as in singular...Wolfhound in game, and I had to check carefully to confirm that it was indeed a Wolfhound. I've seen a Panther 3 times, and a Firestarter twice. That's it (never seen em single-handedly coring out assaults in any instance).

[Bishop Steiner]

Bud Crue, on 05 May 2017 - 02:16 PM, said:

Wow...this is one of those "what game are you playing?" experiences.

Without exaggeration, since rescale, I have seen 1...that's "one" as in singular...Wolfhound in game, and I had to check carefully to confirm that it was indeed a Wolfhound. I've seen a Panther 3 times, and a Firestarter twice. That's it (never seen em single-handedly coring out assaults in any instance).

Seen, or remembered?

Myself, I don't have perfect recall, so even on rare sightings, I can't be that specific, at least not without consulting all the end of match screenies... which in my case is impossible since I occasionally forgot to take one, cut out early, and they were all on my old, now deceased computer, anyhow.

Not trying to deny your recollection, because they are indeed rare, but these are things impacted by perception bias, too.

[Y E O N N E]

Bishop Steiner, on 05 May 2017 - 02:39 PM, said:

Seen, or remembered?

Myself, I don't have perfect recall, so even on rare sightings, I can't be that specific, at least not without consulting all the end of match screenies... which in my case is impossible since I occasionally forgot to take one, cut out early, and they were all on my old, now deceased computer, anyhow.

Not trying to deny your recollection, because they are indeed rare, but these are things impacted by perception bias, too.

Perhaps, but then again, if you assume your inability to recall things is fairly uniform and you can't recall seeing something much, then perhaps that thing is not as frequent as the others.

[Bishop Steiner]

Yeonne Greene, on 05 May 2017 - 02:45 PM, said:

Perhaps, but then again, if you assume your inability to recall things is fairly uniform and you can't recall seeing something much, then perhaps that thing is not as frequent as the others.

which is why I acknowledged "they are indeed rare"? While questioning the specificity of the recall.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Zigmund Freud, on 05 May 2017 - 01:49 PM, said:

Not the case in MWO. In assault mode capping takes a lot of time

Assault mode doesn't have destroyable objectives nor does it have good objectives period (it doesn't encourage dynamic play).

Let's point something out here about good objective game modes:
CP maps generally make the control point very easy to contest because the point itself doesn't offer strong strategic value (domination on Plexus would be a great example) but these maps generally require quick re-engagement (why do you need to walk so far across parts of the map you will never use in domination) and are played best in a wave like scenario (time factors in to ensure that there is more to it than simply winning the most "waves"). Due to only having one point on the map, engagements are forced if a team wants to win.

Payload maps are dynamic because each "section" plays almost like a new map as far this game goes, much like CP maps, these are generally best played in the wave style but they often give a bit more setup time but this is a much more asym mode since it has defenders/attackers. This is more like escort except the escort can't be destroyed and it requires someone around it to actually move (and moves faster to a point with more people around it). Generally the payload maps are more generous to defenders than they probably should be because of how disadvantageous some of the paths are and the fact that you HAVE to be the aggressor but still better than Invasion mode by a long shot.

Zigmund Freud, on 05 May 2017 - 01:49 PM, said:

In incursion trashing the base takes time, especially with lights' limited firepower

Unless the lights are special, only 2 of them should really be needed to destroy a base within a couple minutes, an entire lance should be able to wipe the base ezpz if left undefended. Incursion is a joke of a mode for objective gameplay because light rushing would be waaaaaay too strong.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 05 May 2017 - 03:22 PM.

[Bud Crue]

Bishop Steiner, on 05 May 2017 - 02:39 PM, said:

Seen, or remembered?

Myself, I don't have perfect recall, so even on rare sightings, I can't be that specific, at least not without consulting all the end of match screenies... which in my case is impossible since I occasionally forgot to take one, cut out early, and they were all on my old, now deceased computer, anyhow.

Not trying to deny your recollection, because they are indeed rare, but these are things impacted by perception bias, too.

Maybe not perfect recall, but I always comment on Wolfhounds and Panthers on the load screens as they are my two favorite light mechs. Firestarters are so distinctive I almost always take note of them when I see them in game.

Meh. The point of the exchange above is that when I see lights "coring out an assault" it is one of those that I mentioned in my firs post above. I've never seen a Wolfhound, Panther or Firestarter manage this feat as I so rarely ever see them at all.

[Bishop Steiner]

Bud Crue, on 05 May 2017 - 03:23 PM, said:

Maybe not perfect recall, but I always comment on Wolfhounds and Panthers on the load screens as they are my two favorite light mechs. Firestarters are so distinctive I almost always take note of them when I see them in game.

Meh. The point of the exchange above is that when I see lights "coring out an assault" it is one of those that I mentioned in my firs post above. I've never seen a Wolfhound, Panther or Firestarter manage this feat as I so rarely ever see them at all.

Sorry man, not trying to put the thumb screws here, you know I tend to be a tad literal!

[Bud Crue]

Bishop Steiner, on 05 May 2017 - 03:53 PM, said:

Sorry man, not trying to put the thumb screws here, you know I tend to be a tad literal!

No worries. I just miss seeing them in game. That's all.

Help them PGI, you're our only hope.
-shudder-

[Gyrok]

Wintersdark, on 05 May 2017 - 12:53 PM, said:

I'm torn. In some ways, I'd like to see a world where that stuff has a real purpose.

But the reality in MWO is that blowing up robbits is what determines games, and that is the only thing that ultimately matters. Everything else is to some degree or other a waste of time.

It's self reinforcing, though: We don't have anything but direct combat ability, because direct combat ability is all that matters, and direct combat ability is all that matters because for the most part we just have direct combat. Sure, there's other game modes, but winning via those requirements is either tedious as all get up (everyone has those great Assault matches where the teams missed each other (deliberately or otherwise) then just sat on bases till one side won... or counterproductive (run off and cap on conquest, and you lose in combat... then the winners in combat just kill the remaining mechs and easily cap.

But... On the other hand, it's extraordinarily hard to make objective based game modes without substantial changes. Respawn is the normal way it's done (actually, I really love the FP implementation of Conquest) but simple respawn is tremendously gamey and immersion breaking (Yes, I get this is a contentious topic, lets not go there). There's no simple answers beyond that, really.

It's a very difficult game design quandry.

Say PGI increases mission objective rewards dramatically, as per the poll. This doesn't really help lights in particular as everyone can do that, it just means you have that guy in the Direwolf hauling a fuel cell instead of shooting at stuff. This is not an improvement.

You can see this happen in previous instances of reward revamps, like when they buffed "scouting" tools like NARC/TAG. You just had people slapping TAG on their brawler assaults to reap extra rewards. Then they still get the "scouting" rewards AND the high-damage rewards, and lights still suffer respectively.

*sighs*

so, really, in MWO as it is, combat is the only option.

Since we agree...can someone finally tell PGI to remove the **** game modes that require standing in laser fences/rushing a base?

EDIT: This game is basically skirmish...that is it. Why bother with crap that encourages people to rush a base for a worthless victory that wasted 5 minutes to queue up, 2 minutes to go looking for an enemy that is skirting the map to cap out, and another 5 minutes to queue for the next match for a whopping 50k cbills...if that? Incursion is horrible for base rushes, escort is mostly worthless as a game mode other than an extra mech to destroy in skirmish, assault is too easy to cap out with a single mech, and conquest is not at all interesting.

I miss being able to disable game modes...

Edited by Gyrok, 05 May 2017 - 06:32 PM.

[Wintersdark]

Gyrok, on 05 May 2017 - 06:27 PM, said:

Since we agree...can someone finally tell PGI to remove the **** game modes that require standing in laser fences/rushing a base?

EDIT: This game is basically skirmish...that is it. Why bother with crap that encourages people to rush a base for a worthless victory that wasted 5 minutes to queue up, 2 minutes to go looking for an enemy that is skirting the map to cap out, and another 5 minutes to queue for the next match for a whopping 50k cbills...if that? Incursion is horrible for base rushes, escort is mostly worthless as a game mode other than an extra mech to destroy in skirmish, assault is too easy to cap out with a single mech, and conquest is not at all interesting.

I miss being able to disable game modes...

I find the best gameplay in conquest tbh, because i find it prevents those matches where both teams call in strong positions and forever mobility. While aware of the potential issues, I find them very rare.

Domination would be awesome with moving capture points, but sadly sucks horribly on multiple maps.


But with people vetoing game modes... Well, we just don't have enough players, and a game mode veto isn't bringing many back.

[Requiemking]

Gyrok, on 05 May 2017 - 06:27 PM, said:

Since we agree...can someone finally tell PGI to remove the **** game modes that require standing in laser fences/rushing a base?

EDIT: This game is basically skirmish...that is it. Why bother with crap that encourages people to rush a base for a worthless victory that wasted 5 minutes to queue up, 2 minutes to go looking for an enemy that is skirting the map to cap out, and another 5 minutes to queue for the next match for a whopping 50k cbills...if that? Incursion is horrible for base rushes, escort is mostly worthless as a game mode other than an extra mech to destroy in skirmish, assault is too easy to cap out with a single mech, and conquest is not at all interesting.

I miss being able to disable game modes...

Because without those gamemodes:

1) the game would get extremely stale really quickly.

2) mechs like the Mist Lynx, Ice Ferret, Locust, Arctic Cheetah, ect, would have no business being in game, because they are #scoutmechs.

[Requiemking]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 05 May 2017 - 12:18 PM, said:

What if I told you the idea of a class that is meant to do something that isn't the focus of the game (shooting stompy robots) or directly help in that matter was probably not a good idea? Sorry but relegating an entire class to fuel cell runners, conquest cappers, etc is probably not a good idea.

Well, as I stated in the OP, an unfortunately large portion of the community seems to think Lights are nothing more than training mechs and scouts, thus they should never be capable of combating anything larger than another Light. In fact, I do believe there is a picture that quite aptly displays their reasoning.

Edited by Requiemking, 06 May 2017 - 12:03 AM.

[Zigmund Freud]

Wintersdark, on 05 May 2017 - 06:50 PM, said:

But with people vetoing game modes... Well, we just don't have enough players, and a game mode veto isn't bringing many back.

Gyrok, on 05 May 2017 - 06:27 PM, said:

I miss being able to disable game modes...

I think there is enough players to enable mode vetoing again. I mean today usual time it takes for matchmaking is like 5 seconds or less. I would agree to wait 30 seconds more to play something other than skirmish, so probably would Gyrok wait 30s more to play skirmishes, everybody's happy.

[Sunstruck]

PGI should remove the ten minimum heat sink requirement, this would help out lights for sure.

[Fox With A Shotgun]

Sunstruck, on 06 May 2017 - 01:55 AM, said:

PGI should remove the ten minimum heat sink requirement, this would help out lights for sure.

Would it really, though?

I mean, I guess if you have the hardpoints to spare, you could theoretically go with more smaller weapons - but packing more weapons doesn't mean you get more damage out. Even with 10 DHS, cooling down is an extremely, *extremely* painful procedure with just a few C-ERML. Any less would render your mech virtually unusable, especially on the move when you have an extra 1 heat per second being generated by movement.

[Requiemking]

Zigmund Freud, on 06 May 2017 - 01:25 AM, said:

I think there is enough players to enable mode vetoing again. I mean today usual time it takes for matchmaking is like 5 seconds or less. I would agree to wait 30 seconds more to play something other than skirmish, so probably would Gyrok wait 30s more to play skirmishes, everybody's happy.

First of all, there really aren't. Secondly, I would have opt out stay dead. The main point of my suggestions is to give Lights a place in game, and if we were to modify the score system to fairly reward Lights for performing non-combat roles, only add the option to simply not participate in game modes where said change matters, then it becomes a self-defeating system and we are right back at square one.

Edited by Requiemking, 06 May 2017 - 08:14 AM.

[Zigmund Freud]

Requiemking, on 06 May 2017 - 08:13 AM, said:

First of all, there really aren't. Secondly, I would have opt out stay dead. The main point of my suggestions is to give Lights a place in game, and if we were to modify the score system to fairly reward Lights for performing non-combat roles, only add the option to simply not participate in game modes where said change matters, then it becomes a self-defeating system and we are right back at square one.

As mentioned above, most people play to win and to have fun, not to grind cbills. So to make lights more usefull it's better to just make objective-centered games more objective-friendly (like incursion, for example, where the base is the main tagret, and killing everybody in skirmish-like brawl in the middle of the map is not the main objective, you have to damage the base.)

But the main problem IMO is that a lot of people prefere skirmish, and are willing to turn every gamemode in skirmish, even harass their teammates for capping or protecting base, because it's "lame and stupid, we want to brawl". If these people would be able to uncheck incursion, conquest, and assault, they would enjoy their repetative and limited behaivour (not saying it's something bad), and people who want to play incursion, conquest and assault would be playing the game, where lights can do more job, since it's not only deathballing alltogeather 24/7.

[Y E O N N E]

Sunstruck, on 06 May 2017 - 01:55 AM, said:

PGI should remove the ten minimum heat sink requirement, this would help out lights for sure.

It really, really wouldn't. You'd spend more time running around trying to cool-off than putting out damage, making you useless.

[TheMisled]

Speaking of lights facing off against heavier mechs...

Ima just leave this here: Link (Locust pre-nerf)