139 replies to this topic

[Requiemking]

Spheroid, on 26 November 2017 - 12:20 PM, said:

There is no activity that asks more skill of the player than engaging in combat. You need to aim, maneavuer violently, twist and manage heat at the same time.

How is collecting info nodes skillful? Conquest in FP is somewhat a tactical game as it requires dynamic response to manage capping outcomes. However both sides are guaranteed to meet each other in contention of these cap points. So it is a win/win for each side. Smoke diving and combat avoidance does not satisfy the hunting side in scouting.

Objective rushing is not a desireable playstyle in this game. Assault previously suffered from this in quickplay and siege in its earliest days resolved too quickly or from range shooting exposed o-gens of lesser health with zero turrets. These were not considered successful versions of the current mode and were amended. This design philosophy is still in effect.

If people want drastically lower ttk, they should ask for 1,1,1,1 mini conquest were the engagements will not be 4v4 but isolated duels of 1v1 or pairs spread over the map. You just tweak the capture rate and spawn locations to arrive at the correct level of dispersion vs. concentration to promote sufficiently fun and long fights to the death.

I believe people's main beef with scouting is not the combat but the extremely short TTK. Are people seriously asking for a non-combat activity in a combat game? The physics model is non-existant so what other motor reflex skill is being exercised?

We already have them. It's just that they don't pay, and since Lights are garbage for actual combat(thanks for the years of continuous nerfing), we have nothing we can do to contribute. And who said motor skill is the only skill that is worthwhile? What about tactical skill? Knowing when to fight, and when not to? The game you want is just another FPS meatgrinder, but not everyone wants that. In fact, very few people I know want that.

[Mystere]

mistlynx4life, on 26 November 2017 - 10:39 AM, said:

Again, I think damage should still be the largest factor - it's the single most reliable metric to determine victory consistently over time, in my opinion - but it still needs to be toned down.

I completely disagree. Consistently winning is the most reliable metric to determine victory consistently over time.

Damage, on the other hand, can be completely gamed.

[Spheroid]

@Requiem: What makes for a good game has been understood for decades. Millions of people enjoy sports games, flight sims, fighting games etc. because the brain is constatnty required to output instructions.

Nothing that is sneaky or tactical requires this level of mental output. Activity is required for enjoyment in video games.

Have you ever been in pug match were a team sits paralyzed in fear for minutes on end? I gain no enjoyment in the waiting. If fire support is waiting for spotting how are they staying occupied for an opportunity that may or may not materialize? At least if they get their own locks they are not in danger of falling asleep.

Edited by Spheroid, 26 November 2017 - 01:11 PM.

[Mystere]

Requiemking, on 26 November 2017 - 11:36 AM, said:

It's not hard to do. Grab a COM-2D, outfit it with ECM, Stealth armor, and the biggest engine you can fit, and run like hell. You can literally win the match without ever being seen, and that is the way the mode was intended. Sadly, thanks to the way the score system is, playing that way is highly non-profitable.

Long ago, people loudly whined and cried like little babies on the forums when players went for objectives. Rewards were then significantly reduced, and time to do objectives were also made significantly longer. I completely blame those people for the current sorry state of things.

Edited by Mystere, 26 November 2017 - 12:48 PM.

[Spheroid]

The problem though is rushing is not satisfying for both parties, unlike combat. How could you be happy on a cap rush on Canyon in something like an Atlas? Most likely you will never site the enemy let alone fire a shot.

From a game design perspective what activities satisfy the largest number of players in a match on both sides? Cannot you see that turbo capping would fail this test?

Edited by Spheroid, 26 November 2017 - 12:53 PM.

[Mystere]

Spheroid, on 26 November 2017 - 12:20 PM, said:

Objective rushing is not a desireable playstyle in this game.

To a large chunk of the player base, MWO should be nothing more than "Rock 'em, Sock 'em Robots" 24x7x365.

Spheroid, on 26 November 2017 - 12:20 PM, said:

Assault previously suffered from this in quickplay ...

Not if people had an plan to defend their base. But alas, a large chunk of the player base just went to the map middle, expecting to play only "Rock 'em, Sock 'em Robots". They loudly cried and whined on the forums whenever that did not happen.

Spheroid, on 26 November 2017 - 12:20 PM, said:

... and siege in its earliest days resolved too quickly or from range shooting exposed o-gens of lesser health with zero turrets.

Oh my, the loud whining and crying on the forums that generated was nothing less than EPIC!

Spheroid, on 26 November 2017 - 12:52 PM, said:

The problem though is rushing is not satisfying for both parties, unlike combat. How could you be happy on a cap rush on Canyon in something like an Atlas? Most likely you will never site the enemy let alone fire a shot.

From a game design perspective what activities satisfy the largest number of players in a match on both sides? Cannot you see that turbo capping would fail this test?

Are these the same Atlas pilots who cried about big maps and would rather have maps the size of a small parking lot?

Edited by Mystere, 26 November 2017 - 12:57 PM.

[mistlynx4life]

Quote

There is no activity that asks more skill of the player than engaging in combat.

Objective rushing is not a desireable playstyle in this game.

Are people seriously asking for a non-combat activity in a combat game? The physics model is non-existant so what other motor reflex skill is being exercised?

Yeah... no.

The definition of combat is not so narrowly defined as to be limited to armed engagement, especially when there are alternate win conditions and not all 'mechs are designed for it. What is 'desirable' varies from player-to-player, and motor reflex skill maybe one important facet of a good player - perhaps, for some, the only one the player is capable of - but what's killing the game, and the Scouting mode during events especially (per the OP), is that not everyone wants to brawl, not all 'mechs are made to brawl, and not all matches are won by brawling. If someone is on the Protect Intel side, they probably want to bring a bit more firepower, sure. Maybe not. Maybe they just want enough to leg and then force the dropship to land or whatever. Someone in Gather Intel might want to simply outrun the Reds and win that way. That's perfectly valid and works because it's a thing that PGI made. It's real. It happened. During an event where match score and damage get swag, players who aren't usually running in Scouting suddenly take an interest because they think they can just brawl their way to a good score easily. Well, almost everyone else is doing that too. It's just gross SRM-fests or whatever and it's neither the intent of the mode nor the only way to win but it's what a larger percentage of pilots unfamiliar with the mode are doing so you see threads and tweets and posts like this one - that a certain aspect of the game is broken or whatever. It's not. It's very easy to explain - the mode is currently flooded with inexperienced pilots not focused on teamwork facing teams of veterans who know how to win in multiple ways. This is, incidentally, why I believe there are so many complaints about wait time in QP. I drive Lights almost exclusively and I've never waited longer than 2min. No one wants to bring them except when there's a new one or an event or whatever. The line for Assaults and Heavies is generally much longer.

Pay attention here, because this is why that matters: Even in a Skirmish match with a random assortment of pilots, PGI has decided that not everybody can bring Big Brawly Assaults. So if this is the only way you want to play, this is not the game for you.

It's like the SNL skit where all you can get is cheeseburgers and Pepsi. The menu says there are other options and some folks want those and PGI is happy to include them... but they aren't actually catering to them. The cheeseburger and Pepsi folks laugh because everyone knows that's all that gets served there. The fact remains that there are other items on the menu. Some of us aren't interested in cheeseburgers and Pepsi and we do pretty well just sitting the booths, drawing on napkins and wondering when the waitstaff will arrive.

Change the menu and I'll gladly leave, but don't tell me cheeseburgers and Pepsi are the only things I should be eating here.

[Spheroid]

The first iteration was a failure. The breeching mechanic on sulphurus plays better now because in the first version you could snipe o-gens out from beta.

Only the sniper was doing something. That is what I am saying. Enjoyment and activity levels were not being maximized for all players involved in that match.

[Mystere]

Requiemking, on 26 November 2017 - 12:31 PM, said:

We already have them. It's just that they don't pay, and since Lights are garbage for actual combat(thanks for the years of continuous nerfing), we have nothing we can do to contribute. And who said motor skill is the only skill that is worthwhile? What about tactical skill? Knowing when to fight, and when not to? The game you want is just another FPS meatgrinder, but not everyone wants that. In fact, very few people I know want that.

There is a large difference between ordinary "grunts" and "officers". There is a reason not everyone can be the latter.

[mistlynx4life]

Mystere, on 26 November 2017 - 12:42 PM, said:

I completely disagree. Consistently winning is the most reliable metric to determine victory consistently over time.

Damage, on the other hand, can be completely gamed.

What I mean is that in something like QuickPlay, where previous planning and coordination is not possible, being able to deal damage is more likely going to be useful since one mode depends on it almost exclusively and all other modes benefit from having fewer opponents. I don't think it's the only way to win, nor do I let it determine my own builds or tactics. Simply that it's a pretty safe bet that whatever the mode, map, or team composition... making less of the enemy is more likely to result in a win. I didn't mean as a metric to measure an individual player's value or anything. I think the case can be made for damage to count most in match score (though I, personally, wouldn't prefer that) on those grounds... but it still feels like too much at present.

So, for instance, bringing a 'mech that NARCs or TAGs into QuickPlay isn't guaranteed to work because I don't know if I'll have LRMers. 'Mechs built for capping might be a waste if the mode ends up as Skirmish, etc. In Scouting at least you have the option and foreknowledge, if not the teamwork component, and it's a little different... but match score rarely matters there since PSR isn't adjusted for it (in my opinion, supporting the idea of not brawling as an even more enticing tactic). During this event, it matters, hence this thread, lol.

[CancersCincar]

Not sure how you're supposed to stand scouting when your legs are blown off.

[mistlynx4life]

CancersCincar, on 26 November 2017 - 01:05 PM, said:

Not sure how you're supposed to stand scouting when your legs are blown off.

I'm genuinely surprised it took two full pages of posts before someone said this. You win!

[MischiefSC]

Asym, on 26 November 2017 - 12:21 PM, said:

Again, so you and so many others just can't accept that brawling isn't always the answer.... Fighting comes in two basic varieties: subtle and decisive. You are stuck on decisive because it's really a pretty simple FPs arcade event: see them, kill them. Subtle, is the sneaky version to fighting where the idea is accomplish a mission dirst and if you must, fight.... Lights need a role or they become NVA... Lights need a role;........brawling isn't it.

The game has taken away spotting (because no comp team would ever use LRMs), taken away intelligence gathering (since scouting is nothing but a brawl), taken away signal interdiction (ECMs and nerfs) and you wonder why we have a declining player base??? We are not all FPS brawling pilots.....Say, 30% of the current population wants "something" else, doing something else; and, would like a place in the game, either by role or by game design to have fun....

If you continue these type of replies, eventually, that 30% will leave MWO and that, is the beginning of the end..... We hang on in hope MWO will change.........

So go ahead, keep the bravado up.

What bravado?

It's not about brawling - I only brawl in scouting about 50% of the time. Smart Clan pilots know that on some maps/modes you want to run some ranged lasers.

Poke is more common than brawling overall. Theres a lot of flavors of combat, really. Pew, splat, dakka and mixes for brawl, mid and long range.

As to what percent of the game really wants a game mode with no combat, well, not sure where you would even speculate on it.

Beside that a lot of the draw is in doing objectives *in spite* of the risk of being shot. So an objectives focused mode has teeth because of the risk of being shot - hence why one team is on gather, one on defend. We already have that. You can split up and avoid fighting, go gather and then smoke dive. Essentially a dedicated chase the squirrel mode.

However nobody likes to smoke dive. Paid or unpaid. Sure, give objectives more pay - it wouldn't matter as most people wouldn't do it regardless because again, shooting stompy robbits.

I think you're talki g about a segment closer to 3% than 30% but whatever. However if you skew scouting to be non-combat I literally dont know anyone- out of the couple hundred people I play with- who would play it. That's cool though - do your thing. I just wouldn't expect PUG to make a mode for a sliver of an already margin population.

[Khobai]

Quote

I completely disagree. Consistently winning is the most reliable metric to determine victory consistently over time.

if its 1v1 I completely agree winning is the best metric.

but if its 12v12 its not the best metric. because you can literally do nothing and still win a game. you can just play with a group of really good players and let them carry you for example. or you can do extremely well and get the most kills and damage and still lose a game for reasons beyond your control. its not a good measure of individual prowess.

match score should be the metric used for increasing or decreasing player ranking. matchscore just needs a few adjustments so its not as easy to manipulate. but its entirely doable.

and since winning adds to your match score, winning is still a factor. just not the only factor.

Edited by Khobai, 26 November 2017 - 02:17 PM.

[Xavori]

Spheroid, on 26 November 2017 - 12:43 PM, said:

@Requiem: What makes for a good game has been understood for decades. Millions of people enjoy sports games, flight sims, fighting games etc. because the brain is constatnty required to output instructions.

Nothing that is sneaky or tactical requires this level of mental output. Activity is required for enjoyment in video games.

Have you ever been in pug match were a team sits paralyzed in fear for minutes on end? I gain no enjoyment in the waiting. If fire support is waiting for spotting how are they staying occupied for an opportunity that may or may not materialize? At least if they get their own locks they are not in danger of falling asleep.

You are so far beyond wrong.

Sneaky is not cowardice. Sneaky requires a lot more mental effort and skill to pull off. In fact, in brawling, I tend to go on autopilot because it's just the same thing as always.

Using good stealth play requires a lot of work. MWO, unfortunately, doesn't really have that. Play a game like Deus Ex: Human Revolution and try to get through maps without firing a shot. I guarantee you'll spend a lot more time thinking and planning that if you just rush in guns blazing. Hell, I'd go so far as to say you requires next to no planning or thought if you're willing to just shoot everything between you and your goals.

The problem with scouting as it stands right now is that actually trying for the objectives means minimal rewards. And then you add events like the current one where we have the skewed-up match score that really only cares about damage, and now not only do you not get c-bills/faction rep for scouting, but you're not going to get whatever goodies PGI is handing out. On top of that, you don't even really care about winning or even getting kills in the current event. It's all about damage which is as far from scouting as you can get.

I'd like to see more variety of gameplay. There are times where I want to just shoot big stompy robots, and quick play is great for that. Sometimes I like watching fail in action, and pug dropping in invasion totally fills that niche (I'm weird. I know this.). But when I want to think and plan and act strategically, I play different games even tho Battletech should lend itself to strategic warfare easy-peasy.

[MischiefSC]

Khobai, on 26 November 2017 - 02:10 PM, said:

if its 1v1 I completely agree winning is the best metric.

but if its 12v12 its not the best metric. because you can literally do nothing and still win a game. you can just play with a group of really good players and let them carry you for example. or you can do extremely well and get the most kills and damage and still lose a game for reasons beyond your control. its not a good measure of individual prowess.

match score should be the metric used for increasing or decreasing player ranking. matchscore just needs a few adjustments so its not as easy to manipulate. but its entirely doable.

and since winning adds to your match score, winning is still a factor. just not the only factor.

As has been pointed out in detail repeatedly this is absolutely false. Here is a link to the actual stats and data analysis Nightbird did showing- unequivocally- that win/loss is the best indicator of ability to win matches.

There is absolutely, demonstratively and unquestionably no better metric for predicting win/loss than your win/loss. Any other data you use will only reduce accuracy.

In 12 v 12 or 100 v 100 or 1 v 1 there is, mathematically, no other useful or reliable metric for identifying a players impact on winning. Why this particular piece of misinformation keeps coming up I don't know but it's absolutely false.

https://mwomercs.com...ost__p__5952780

Edited by MischiefSC, 26 November 2017 - 02:43 PM.

[Jay Leon Hart]

Xavori, on 26 November 2017 - 02:23 PM, said:

Sneaky is not cowardice. Sneaky requires a lot more mental effort and skill to pull off. In fact, in brawling, I tend to go on autopilot because it's just the same thing as always.

Using good stealth play requires a lot of work.

I agree. My average play time for a level in a game like Dishonored is 2 hours. It takes lots of observation, memorisation & planning to pull off a stealthy run (even before save scumming!) My average play time for a level in a game like Battlefield is 30 minutes. Move, aim, shoot, repeat. Likewise, a High Chaos run in Dishonored is blisteringly fast and arguably more fun than a Low Chaos run, but requires a lot less mental effort.

[Pur]

have played maybe 25 scouting matches over the past week

i've lost only 2 of them

i've legged a total of 3 players

don't see the issue, personally i think it's a waste of time anyways, rather melt faces/nips/buttcheeks

[MischiefSC]

Jay Leon Hart, on 26 November 2017 - 02:45 PM, said:

I agree. My average play time for a level in a game like Dishonored is 2 hours. It takes lots of observation, memorisation & planning to pull off a stealthy run (even before save scumming!) My average play time for a level in a game like Battlefield is 30 minutes. Move, aim, shoot, repeat. Likewise, a High Chaos run in Dishonored is blisteringly fast and arguably more fun than a Low Chaos run, but requires a lot less mental effort.

However that's all pointless if there's no risk of getting attacked.

The point is that you can do that in scouting currently - while the other team tries to kill you. So up rewards for running objectives however realize that if the mode becomes more about chasing squirrels and avoiding combat then most the people currently playing will stop.

[Jay Leon Hart]

MischiefSC, on 26 November 2017 - 03:01 PM, said:

However that's all pointless if there's no risk of getting attacked.

The point is that you can do that in scouting currently - while the other team tries to kill you. So up rewards for running objectives however realize that if the mode becomes more about chasing squirrels and avoiding combat then most the people currently playing will stop.

Oh that was all unrelated to Scouting. There's no real stealth gameplay to be had here. Shoot robots and be merry!