210 replies to this topic

[Wintersdark]

Alan Davion, on 03 June 2017 - 10:30 AM, said:

Which is why I said

Otherwise why bother having any game mode other than skirmish in the game if there's no point since people hardly PTFO to begin with.

As I said, the existing game modes just make Skirmish more interesting - add something else you need to think about, rather that JUST killing each other. Basically, they help prevent the main fight from happening in the same place every time, if nothing else. If we JUST had skirmish, it'd be a lot more boring.

This isn't PGI's mentality, though. There's no way to make these game modes play differently. It's not that PGI just wants everyone to have a "kill everything mentality"; that's simply what the game is.

The only way to change this is to go to a respawn game, where you win via objectives only, but that's a very different game (and one, while I understand why people desire it, I certainly wouldn't like). Don't get me wrong; I'm all about objective based game modes, and I posted things like you did lots of times, thinking it was possible to have my cake and eat it too.

It's just not.

The game will always be focused on killing the opfor. That's what it is, and it can't be anything else while it's not a respawn game.

Faction Warfare at least allows a level of mixing, so you can have "more objectivey" battles what with the limited respawns.

[Mcgral18]

Imperius, on 03 June 2017 - 06:29 AM, said:

Free roam navigation replays have been useful since halo 3. In both content creation and in quality breakdowns of epic moments or fails.

It would be a nice feature, but I'm not sure it's feasible
Halo has much smaller arena's than MWO, which are square kilometers (some many more than others, mostly wasted land)

[Alan Davion]

Mcgral18, on 03 June 2017 - 01:35 PM, said:

It would be a nice feature, but I'm not sure it's feasible
Halo has much smaller arena's than MWO, which are square kilometers (some many more than others, mostly wasted land)

It's only wasted space because there aren't more objective biased game modes, and said objectives are not spread further out in the objective modes we do have.

Several table top games I'm getting into are almost entirely objective based, and you have to find some way to control pretty much the whole map/table, or at least 1/2 to 2/3 of it to win the game.

[Mcgral18]

Alan Davion, on 03 June 2017 - 01:44 PM, said:

It's only wasted space because there aren't more objective biased game modes, and said objectives are not spread further out in the objective modes we do have.

Several table top games I'm getting into are almost entirely objective based, and you have to find some way to control pretty much the whole map/table, or at least 1/2 to 2/3 of it to win the game.

They have to be good objectives

Conquest is good
Objectives are needed to win, but do not remove from the Shooty Stompy Robot aspect of the game (which I'm here for)


Escort, with Very Important Potato, rushing into firing lines and dying without any recourse, isn't fun
It's poorly thought out and needs reword

Incursion should be Asymmetrical, as simple as that



Games modes which remove too much of the Shooty Stompy part, and CANNOT BE AVOIDED, are bad

[Wintersdark]

Nicodemus Rosse, on 02 June 2017 - 11:35 PM, said:

RE: Quads, no torso twist, and control issues...

That doesn't need to be A Thing. In TT quads can sidestep, moving laterally without having to change leg facing or speed up/slow down. So in lieu of torso twisting, just allow quads to 1) turn the orientation of the entire chassis with the mouse, and 2) give a throttle function to A and D the same way W and S have it now, so it's a four-directional throttled d-pad instead of forward/reverse throttle and leg direction. Holding down two adjacent keys (say W and A) would result in diagonal acceleration, with half the acceleration applied along each axis. X would reduce all four to zero throttle simultaneously. Controlling a quad should be a whole different experience than a biped.

You'd need a new key bind for elevation, though: Quads can go hull-down.

All Mechs can crouch, except not in MWO. I'd love to see Mechs be able to crouch here too.... But really, that's totally not a quad thing. I figure giving them sidestep, turn, forward/reverse is fine. It'd make them well unique, scuttling about like crabs.

sycocys, on 03 June 2017 - 09:24 AM, said:

There's no way they can't figure out how to do a free roaming/possibly invisible camera.

And if they did require replay for some reason they have the hit state rewind that should already be capturing all the data they need to do that.

We have a free roaming invisible camera. We DON'T have replay, that's the problem, not the camera.

[Wintersdark]

sycocys, on 03 June 2017 - 09:24 AM, said:

There's no way they can't figure out how to do a free roaming/possibly invisible camera.

And if they did require replay for some reason they have the hit state rewind that should already be capturing all the data they need to do that.

We have a free roaming invisible camera. We DON'T have replay, that's the problem, not the camera.

[SplashDown]

El Bandito, on 02 June 2017 - 08:29 PM, said:

IS omnimechs.

ima tell you right now..ive been a loyal clanner from the beginning..even when PGI gave me 2 loyalty IS mechs ive never even sat in them...im as loyal a clanner as clan gets..but if PGI releases IS omnimechs..NAMELY the 90 ton sunder..i will jump ship so fast it'll make ppl jumping off the titanic look slow.

[El Bandito]

SplashDown, on 03 June 2017 - 07:43 PM, said:

ima tell you right now..ive been a loyal clanner from the beginning..even when PGI gave me 2 loyalty IS mechs ive never even sat in them...im as loyal a clanner as clan gets..but if PGI releases IS omnimechs..NAMELY the 90 ton sunder..i will jump ship so fast it'll make ppl jumping off the titanic look slow.

Any particular reason aside from nostalgia? Cause IS omnis are decidedly inferior than Clan omnis, in general.

[stealthraccoon]

Summoned pet vehicles/infantry/tanks - maybe attack/defend a certain target?

Map specific gravity modification?

Respawning as a vehicle/tank/industrial mech?

[chucklesMuch]

After spending some time on the battle tech beta... mele would be mint, ah... but then we would prolly need knockdowns...

Pve could be fun... unless mech dota, farming lanes...

Smoke/mines/napalm etc could be fun (except for FPS)

Solaris would be mint, especially if also 2v2 ...maybe even 3/4v3/4

Less exciting:
Saving builds/ST clicks
Is Omni
Mech hats (though that would be funny)

[Deathlike]

Wintersdark, on 03 June 2017 - 10:24 AM, said:

That'd be effectively nothing, though, given how FW works. I suppose they could, but... that's hardly big. What a disappointment that would be.


haha lol. You've been around for a while, you should know better.

You'd still deathball to win. Move up, crush the team that split up. Exactly how all quickplay matches go.

It's not that people don't "want to think" or anything of the sort. That's a complete strawman.

The reality is that ALL our game modes end up being Skirmish because just killing the other team is always the most effective strategy. Not because people don't want to think, because they're dumb, or because they think tactics are bad; it's just that killing is the best tactic.

This would be no different in CTF.




Different game modes help "liven up" battles by giving extra things to consider while playing. For example, in Conquest, you can't just totally ignore capture points - but you still have to focus on fighting first. If several players run off "capping" early, you nearly always lose because either those people run into the mass of the OpFor and die, or the shorthanded main group runs into the full OpFor and dies. So instead, you cap two and fight at the third.

This is the reality of a non-respawn game like MWO. Having a numerical advantage is such a major deal it's more important than basically anything else, as it can be leveraged to make a larger numerical advantage. Once you have a strong numerical advantage, fulfilling other objectives is easier.

There's no way around this, short of designing a game mode that reliably ends via objective before the teams CAN kill each other. See: Conquest in Faction play with dropships, sometimes - but this is effectively a respawn gamemode due to the time limit vs. point requirement. The trouble here is that games that end this way are rarely very fun for the combatants. Consider how happy people are when teams miss each other in Assault, and it's just a non-combat cap race.

It's impossible to run CTF in MWO without respawns unless you have like repair bays available... but even then, once you lose an arm or side torso... you're usually closer to death or useless than anything else.

Edited by Deathlike, 03 June 2017 - 10:34 PM.

[Wintersdark]

Deathlike, on 03 June 2017 - 10:34 PM, said:

It's impossible to run CTF in MWO without respawns unless you have like repair bays available... but even then, once you lose an arm or side torso... you're usually closer to death or useless than anything else.

I'd be totally for repair bays, at least in CW modes. In QP, though, I can't figure a design that would work. It's kind of an opportunity thing, really. It's not like we really have a lot of tentative engagements, things tend to get stuck in and someone bailing to repair is going to turn that fight into a roll pretty fast.

But yeah... If we don't have respawns, all the game modes will fundamentally remain skirmish. It's inevitable and totally outside of PGI's control. Even repair bays won't change this but they could make more extended game modes more interesting.

[RestosIII]

They HAVE to be adding my stock market idea! It's the obvious answer.



(Either that or we might finally get ammo switching. I don't know which one is more likely.)

Oh, and replays are a possibility. A very welcome possibility.

Edited by RestosIII, 04 June 2017 - 12:29 AM.

[Imperius]

Mcgral18, on 03 June 2017 - 01:35 PM, said:

It would be a nice feature, but I'm not sure it's feasible
Halo has much smaller arena's than MWO, which are square kilometers (some many more than others, mostly wasted land)

Unreal does it just fine

[Karamarka]

UI scaling so I can actually see what I'm doing in the mech lab at 4k resolution.

OR

Fixing the effects graphic setting so it doesn't melt your FPS when a tiny smoke particle happens (even at 1080p)

[SplashDown]

El Bandito, on 03 June 2017 - 08:17 PM, said:

Any particular reason aside from nostalgia? Cause IS omnis are decidedly inferior than Clan omnis, in general.

the Sunder is the exception imho...its a 90ton mech that moves like a 70 ton mech and has a nice arrangement of speed/manuverability/fire-power..AND can equip ams..ecm and all teh lil goodies =)

Edited by SplashDown, 04 June 2017 - 08:00 AM.

[Mechwarrior1441491]

SOLARIS PULLED!

Who gives a damn about replays. Not needed at all. Why is this the ONE game feature that isn't released and "fixed" later when they are able to figure it out? Make it. Release it. If replays are a big deal, figure it out later.

Very sad.

[VanillaG]

They are going to be removing pinpoint convergence and replace it with a cone of fire system system that varies the cone based on target lock and your mech's speed. Running full speed with no target lock means you might miss the target. Getting a full target lock reduces the cone and slowing to 2/3 speed with a lock gives you smallest cone. Bonus points if they implement different cones for arm and torso mounts.

It would definitely change the hide and poke playstyle of being able to peek out and dump a PPFLD alpha to a specific component without having to get a lock.

[RestosIII]

Mechwarrior1441491, on 04 June 2017 - 09:11 AM, said:

SOLARIS PULLED!

Who gives a damn about replays. Not needed at all. Why is this the ONE game feature that isn't released and "fixed" later when they are able to figure it out? Make it. Release it. If replays are a big deal, figure it out later.

Very sad.

Replays matter because it would GREATLY help the cause of bug reporting and backing up claims of cheating. Plus, it'd be a lot easier to go back over matches and review what you did wrong to improve yourself, or share stuff with friends without having to keep a third party recording software going at all times. It's a really damn useful feature.

(Also, if they're trying to hype colorblind support, I will flip.)

[Mechwarrior1441491]

RestosIII, on 04 June 2017 - 09:15 AM, said:

Replays matter because it would GREATLY help the cause of bug reporting and backing up claims of cheating. Plus, it'd be a lot easier to go back over matches and review what you did wrong to improve yourself, or share stuff with friends without having to keep a third party recording software going at all times. It's a really damn useful feature.

(Also, if they're trying to hype colorblind support, I will flip.)

Not necessary for the launch of that game feature.

Odd they can't figure it out.

Edited by Mechwarrior1441491, 04 June 2017 - 09:26 AM.