51 replies to this topic

[Tiewolf]

Playing the game mode objectives makes no sense. Most game modes are just skirmish by a different name. Your teammates even harrass you, if you cap the domination circle before all enemy mechs are down and we all experienced FW farming on one end or the other. Winning by objectives makes no sense in this grind context because you get much more rewards for taking down enemy mechs then by playing the objectives.

What about giving a x2 Bonus to C-Bills, XP and matchscore if the game is won by objectives before all enemy mechs are down? Or even better the more enemy mechs are still on the field at the end of a game, the higher the bonus.

This would reward playing the objective and make FW much more enjoyable. Maybe not Incursion in its current state, but it would make FW games much shorter if a game is lost after the first encounter anyway.

Edited by Tiewolf, 25 February 2018 - 04:56 AM.

[Bud Crue]

People play stompy robot shooter, to shoot stompy robots. Objectives are secondary to that experience and so too are rewards even. If the objectives get in the way of that experience then most folks outright ignore the objectives no matter how great the rewards. I think PGI could triple objective rewards and the above would still be true for the majority of matches.

[Scyther]

What Bud said. People spend a lot of time and effort turning their Mech into weapons of mass destruction... they really don't want the match to end half-way through (from their viewpoint) because a stealthed medium managed to sneak around and cap out a base while they are in mid-battle.

I agree that 'every mode is skirmish' gets mind-numbingly dull after a while. It is, frankly, the primary reason I barely play anymore. I can deal with non-balance, poor MM, clunky interfaces, time-consuming Skill Trees... but after thousands of 'death match' repetitions I can't rally up much enthusiasm for more.

Unfortunately, making capping points or knocking out bases 'more rewarding' doesn't really change the nature of the match. It's still death match, with the option that someone with a cheesy build or tactic can end it early.

PGI apparently can't or won't add anything to the game other than 'death match with a slight twist', so best get used to being rewarded for shooting things and using the 'twist' for an occasional change in the routine.

[Seranov]

Objectives are strictly for preventing folks from playing hide and seek the whole match for no purpose, other than to waste 23 other people's time. They are not intended to be the primary way to win games. This game is, like Bud said, about shooting mechs with your own mech. If that is not what you want from the game, you'd probably be better served in a different game entirely.

[PocketYoda]

But but i wanna shoot robots not do objectives....




And they wonder why they lose every match... This community is garbage you can't expect team play from morons..

[Mystere]

Bud Crue, on 25 February 2018 - 04:59 AM, said:

People play stompy robot shooter, to shoot stompy robots. Objectives are secondary to that experience and so too are rewards even. If the objectives get in the way of that experience then most folks outright ignore the objectives no matter how great the rewards. I think PGI could triple objective rewards and the above would still be true for the majority of matches.

Rewards are low because sometime ago the people loudly and incessantly [complained] others were playing for objectives. Eventually, PGI got weak-kneed and acquiesced.

The rest, as they say, is history.


[redacted]

Edited by McValium, 25 February 2018 - 06:51 AM.
removed video /changed wording

[Sjorpha]

If going for the objective is the best move towards winning in a specific situation i'll go for it without hesitation, for me the game is about winning the match. If one teams wins quickly one way or the other on to the next match, wait times are pretty short so i don't see the problem there.

Personally don't care about rewards but i agree it would probably be better if they rewarded objective wins more so you don't lose cbills by going for it.

[Seranov]

Samial, on 25 February 2018 - 05:42 AM, said:

But but i wanna shoot robots not do objectives....




And they wonder why they lose every match... This community is garbage you can't expect team play from morons..

There are hundreds of games out there where you can go do objective-based gameplay as the primary motivation in those games. MWO is the only robot-shooting game that exists and still has a population, that is actually about robots shooting other robots, instead of infantry and fighter jets and tanks shooting robots.

[Mystere]

Imagine if Domination rewards were multiplied 3X if a team won by keeping the enemy out of the circle, 5X if a team won by driving the enemy out, and twice all of that if there were still survivors on the losing side.

Also imagine if the enemy received nothing more than a lump of coal for losing to a cap in an Assault match.

Those are just for starters.

Edited by Mystere, 25 February 2018 - 06:42 AM.

[Asym]

Bud Crue, on 25 February 2018 - 04:59 AM, said:

People play stompy robot shooter, to shoot stompy robots. Objectives are secondary to that experience and so too are rewards even. If the objectives get in the way of that experience then most folks outright ignore the objectives no matter how great the rewards. I think PGI could triple objective rewards and the above would still be true for the majority of matches.

BINGO ! We have a winner !

Bud, you are correct Sir ! That is why Solaris is PGI's strategic goal !!!!!

We are reaping what players have sown........ They average player doesn't want to think, or use tactics, or teams or anything that is in any way complicated. They want to turn the game on, take their blaze orange and pink robot and blow crap up and they could give a crap less about teams, objectives or tactics.....

PGI is rewarding the many Bud, we are about to reap what was sown and shown to be easier to maintain, more effective to use micro-transactions in, can use an existing outdated gameplayengine and takes 2/3 less time to make changes on since the gameplay is now 2D versus 3D....... You Sir, have it 100%, spot on, correct and, sadly, we'll see the death of a niche...............until Solaris fails....

[Nema Nabojiv]

We all seen how much fun genrush is. Objectives play at its best. I say lets keep this cancer contained in fp.

[Escef]

I'd like to see game modes with objectives grant bonus c-bills to all players for number of friendly mechs that survived. Maybe around a 20k bonus to all players on the winning team for each friendly mech that survives. I'd exclude Conquest from this, because it already pays out quite well.

[ANOM O MECH]

Objectives break up the game and add some (albeit very little) strategy to the game.

I love conquest for this reason.

Incursion as it is right now doesn't belong in CW at all. Base doesn't have enough health. In quick play though a couple of mediums or lights can win a match.

Assault is great if you have a guy hiding or the map is big enough to turn forces around.

So they are there to provide some options, and am glad that combat is still the focus of rewards. If it wasn't, bad players would always choose objectives instead of trying to get better.

[Xetelian]

I propose that we seriously increase the rewards for doing objectives.



Even if they don't get played to, the objectives don't reward squat as it is now.

[MW Waldorf Statler]

Seranov, on 25 February 2018 - 06:34 AM, said:

There are hundreds of games out there where you can go do objective-based gameplay as the primary motivation in those games. MWO is the only robot-shooting game that exists and still has a population, that is actually about robots shooting other robots, instead of infantry and fighter jets and tanks shooting robots.

in others Games with Obj. most respawn ...waves or Teamcounter thats only stopped by fullfill the Objectives ..here only most kill all ...thats the Problem in FW thats many not understand the difference between Conquest in QP and FW ...4x more Enemys...

Good Gamemodes ...seeing the very old UT2004 and the Assault modus ,or Battlefield Bad Company 2...War Thunder...here we have a Game thats must use laserbarks to marking Zones for Conquest or Assault (in the OB only Ground Markers was for it)..oh yes ...Thinkings Man Shooter ...who the thinking Devs?

Edited by Old MW4 Ranger, 25 February 2018 - 06:53 PM.

[Yosharian]

Objectives need to make sense from a gameplay perspective before they can make sense from a goal perspective.

It's nonsensical to design game modes around meaningless objectives when the game itself, from the ground up, is only designed for one thing: dealing damage to your enemy.

[PocketYoda]

Seranov, on 25 February 2018 - 06:34 AM, said:

There are hundreds of games out there where you can go do objective-based gameplay as the primary motivation in those games. MWO is the only robot-shooting game that exists and still has a population, that is actually about robots shooting other robots, instead of infantry and fighter jets and tanks shooting robots.

No its not.. If you played the tabletop you'd know Battletech has a huge set of scenarios and different objectives.. Other than shoot stompy robots bruh....

[Seranov]

Samial, on 25 February 2018 - 06:58 PM, said:

No its not.. If you played the tabletop you'd know Battletech has a huge set of scenarios and different objectives.. Other than shoot stompy robots bruh....

Almost like this game isn't the tabletop! Such a novel thought!

[Khobai]

conquest is the only gamemode where the objective makes sense

the objective isnt so easy that it saps the fun from the game

and the objective isnt so hard that killing the enemy team is always easier

[Funk1777]

Full on base capping in the early stages of assault and having to go beat up their base at the end of incursion because one of the enemy assaults decided to try and solo ours can go diaff. Escort is even worse.

Edited by Funk1777, 25 February 2018 - 08:11 PM.