54 replies to this topic

[TWIAFU]

Khobai, on 23 October 2018 - 08:59 AM, said:

simple.

1) add spread out secondary objectives to force teams to split up more and to help promote more dynamic gameplay that uses a much larger area of the map. there are reasons conquest is generally considered the best gamemode.

2) make capturing objectives actually worth something. So theres a reason to capture over just killing the enemy team.


that discourages deathballing by forcing teams to spread out and control the map instead of being able to statically camp the same spot every game. it also makes lights and mediums much stronger because of their speed and the fact enemy teams wont be grouped up as much.

Good ideas.

You still run into the problem when you play objective people complaining you are doing objectives vs running to the middle of the map.

Can run around gathering resources and never fire a shot. Can win by destroying objectives and listen to the enemy complain about you playing PvE and winning by playing the mode.

[Alexandros]

Actually I miss the days where you could select which mode(es) you want to play and leave it as it is searching for a specific scenario. I play since beta and the only mode I like is the simple Skirmish/Assault. Conquest is ok but when you are on a light you have to listen to every drunk mech fail pilot giving you directions to "help" you (things you know already). Domination is the king of the hill that feeds the egos of sniper players. And if you resist becoming cannon fodder for the guys that scream GET IN THE CIRCLE while they don't, you get accused for losing the game. Incursion has potential IF you add some serious defenses and not that joke turrets that can be easily avoided. As for escort.. just lol... So yes. the most simple thing is better (for me) Skirmish and Assault all the way. Removing the skirmish will make the game a no go for me and many others that just want to shoot at things.

[WayfaringCastaway]

So the problem is how to make playing the objectives actually worth something, rather than just playing different flavors of skirmish.

A larger payout for winning by the object is one option, but I only see it as being viable if the difference in payout massively favors winning by the objective. Depending on the game mode and how I’m feeling at the moment , I just may not care and still go for the win by eliminating the other team.

Other options include forcing you to play the objective to win. The First option is that is that if one team eliminates the other, without securing the objective, then the result is a tie game. This won’t work for many game types, because aside from the match just suddenly ending when the last mech on the losing team falls, what should stop the winning team from just stomping over to the objective and completing it that way? (Domination/king of the hill currently works like this in the former).

The second forcing the objective option is to add in unlimited respawns. I’m not in favor of this, because it takes away a fun mortality aspect from the game. But doing this would make winning by the objective all important, because it would reduce getting kills down to just an item on the stats board, rather than the critical path to victory.

[Khobai]

SFC174, on 23 October 2018 - 09:26 AM, said:

Domination is really the best objective mode for forcing a fight.

If domination had multiple circles instead of just one circle it would be better. The problem with having just one circle is that you still get deathballs.

Domination should have at least 2 circles, possibly even 3 circles, instead of only 1. That would spread players out more across the map.

TWIAFU, on 23 October 2018 - 09:52 AM, said:

Good ideas.

You still run into the problem when you play objective people complaining you are doing objectives vs running to the middle of the map.

Can run around gathering resources and never fire a shot. Can win by destroying objectives and listen to the enemy complain about you playing PvE and winning by playing the mode.

I dont think thats really a problem. Its actually fairly difficult to avoid the enemy team in conquest, since theyre running around capturing the objectives too. Even light mechs have trouble avoiding engagements in conquest.

Its just all the other gamemodes should be changed to be less like skirmish and more like conquest. Except for skirmish which should be the only skirmish gamemode. Skirmish is fine as a one-off gamemode but as a core gamemode its fundamentally flawed.


Domination -> have 2-3 circles instead of 1 circle to spread teams out more

Assault -> add 3 capture objectives that work the same way as conquest (in addition to the 2 capturable mobile HQs). You would win at 500 points instead of 750. That would spread teams out more in assault and help prevent deathballing/camping.

Incursion-> make it impossible to destroy the enemy base until your team collects X energy pellets first. At which point the enemy base's defenses drop and it becomes vulnerable to attack. That makes energy pellets actually matter and controlling the energy wells becomes actually important. Thats better than base rushing.

Edited by Khobai, 23 October 2018 - 12:19 PM.

[ocular tb]

Leave Skirmish alone. The only time that camping is a problem is on Frozen City and that's more of a problem with the map than the mode since no other map seems to have that problem.

If we're going to remove a mode I'd much rather remove Escort.

[Novakaine]

It ain't the map or mode it's the players.
Take for instance Mining Collective lemmings do the same.
Almost every single time.
They will march straight down the middle opposite of the opfor.
And then the battle proceeds something like this.
"Hey boys and girls their gonna straight down the delta line."
"Their gonna hit delta 4 and try to wrap around on our rear."
"Watch the mini map!"
Sure enough they do that and the mechs up front will start the nascar.
And while our assaults get wiped out no one turns around to fire.
Or even say hey their behind us.
I have literally ran off to the far side of the map just to watch the shenanigans.
As teams get wiped out.
Naw it ain't the map or mode.
It's the players.

[Anjian]

Khobai, on 23 October 2018 - 11:52 AM, said:

If domination had multiple circles instead of just one circle it would be better. The problem with having just one circle is that you still get deathballs.

Domination should have at least 2 circles, possibly even 3 circles, instead of only 1. That would spread players out more across the map.



I dont think thats really a problem. Its actually fairly difficult to avoid the enemy team in conquest, since theyre running around capturing the objectives too. Even light mechs have trouble avoiding engagements in conquest.

Its just all the other gamemodes should be changed to be less like skirmish and more like conquest. Except for skirmish which should be the only skirmish gamemode. Skirmish is fine as a one-off gamemode but as a core gamemode its fundamentally flawed.


Domination -> have 2-3 circles instead of 1 circle to spread teams out more

Assault -> add 3 capture objectives that work the same way as conquest (in addition to the 2 capturable mobile HQs). You would win at 500 points instead of 750. That would spread teams out more in assault and help prevent deathballing/camping.

Incursion-> make it impossible to destroy the enemy base until your team collects X energy pellets first. At which point the enemy base's defenses drop and it becomes vulnerable to attack. That makes energy pellets actually matter and controlling the energy wells becomes actually important. Thats better than base rushing.

This is the only game I have seen that quotes Domination with only one circle, other than I think, World of Tanks? Oh wait, there is the War Thunder Air Forces were everyone fights over the same airfield.

War Thunder Ground Forces runs with three circles.

War Robots runs with five capture points.

World of Warships runs with three circles.

I think MWO Conquest is actually closest to what other games think as "Domination". But seven capture points is about too many.


Respawns don't have to be infinite.

War Thunder backs three capture zones with three respawns, this with teams up to 14 or 15 players. War Robots backs five capture points with up to five respawns, but teams are only 6 players each. World of Warships have no respawns, but with teams up to 15 players, and some seriously long TTK...

Total number of vehicles matter, which is number of players x number of respawns.

For MWO, with 12 players per team, I would think 3 might be enough. With 8 players per team, I would think may be 5 respawns.

A lot of War Robots initial success comes from nailing its Domination mode right. For a long time, it was the only game mode, until Beacon Rush came in (a variation of Domination where teams are allowed to respawn on capture points). Beacon Rush became even more popular. But when they introduced Team Deathmatch, which is like skirmish on MWO but with respawns, sort of like mini FP, most players hated it even if some were fans of it. That tells you a lot. Now they separated all the game modes and allow you to choose.

This experience tells me that a good game mode is much more vital to a game's success than previously assumed. Just Fortnite alone will tell you. Its PvE Save the World game mode, which is its original game mode, will only get the game so far, but when it added Battle Royale, the game exploded into number one.

Edited by Anjian, 23 October 2018 - 05:42 PM.

[Grus]

#nocememe

[General Solo]

thievingmagpi, on 23 October 2018 - 07:54 AM, said:

remove bads

Well the so called bads buy mech packs
So if they are removed....
....it should be by a fully functional Match Maker

Either way you don't have to deal with them coz they are removed from your game
Thou you can farm them in FW i guess
So my way is much better.... Wot about ma Seals mang.

Edited by OZHomerOZ, 23 October 2018 - 10:27 PM.

[General Solo]

I don't see advantage to removing skirmish
Its less common for a mode, mech, weapons or map to cause a bad games
Far more commonly players are the cause of their own bad games and then whine about it, deflect blame etc.

thou yeah about match maker

Edited by OZHomerOZ, 23 October 2018 - 10:29 PM.

[MW Waldorf Statler]

please remove the Trolls, Teamplay Ignorants ,Narcistic Stats Players and give a real Academy thats each player must sucessfull ending before they can play his first PvP Battles

[Khobai]

OZHomerOZ, on 23 October 2018 - 10:25 PM, said:

I don't see advantage to removing skirmish

youre not looking hard enough, because there are plenty of advantages to replacing skirmish as the core gamemode. but that doesnt mean skirmish would entirely go away, just that it wouldnt be the core gamemode anymore.

-players would actually use the entire map which would add more tactical/strategic variance to games

-lights and mediums would be better since their speed matters way more when objectives and enemies are spread out/isolated

-would help discourage negative behaviors like camping, deathballing, nascaring which all result from skirmish.

-if a decent new gamemode is created to replace skirmish, we might actually have a satisfying gamemode for once, and not a gamemode that feels like an incomplete alpha/beta test gamemode.

Anjian, on 23 October 2018 - 05:32 PM, said:

This experience tells me that a good game mode is much more vital to a game's success than previously assumed.

absolutely. MWO's biggest failing, by far, is the lack of a truly decent gamemode.

this game desperately needs a gamemode thats actually immersive... with mech hangers/bases and capturable objectives that actually make sense (sensor towers, satillite uplinks, orbital guns, repair bays, forward bases, etc...).

the problem is PGI designs their gamemodes to fit their maps. Instead of designing their maps to fit their gamemodes. The result is we end up with awful basic gamemodes that have to work on every map. Instead PGI needs to create 2-3 large maps specifically for a new gamemode.

Edited by Khobai, 24 October 2018 - 11:06 AM.

[General Solo]

Khobai, on 24 October 2018 - 10:52 AM, said:

youre not looking hard enough, because there are plenty of advantages to replacing skirmish .........

-players would actually use the entire map which would add more tactical/strategic variance to games

Disagree, players are lazy, and follow the path of least resistance,
So many maps yet most are still played in the centre.

Khobai, on 24 October 2018 - 10:52 AM, said:

youre not looking hard enough, because there are plenty of advantages to replacing skirmish .........

-lights and mediums would be better since their speed matters way more when objectives and enemies are spread out/isolated

The maps are very small and objectives placed relatively close together (Alpine Conquest), which makes speed a minor advantage as far as using speed to claim objectives.

Disagree, we already have non skirmish game modes yet the most common winning method is skirmish wipe the other team, go figure.

Khobai, on 24 October 2018 - 10:52 AM, said:

youre not looking hard enough, because there are plenty of advantages to replacing skirmish .........

-would help discourage negative behaviors like camping, deathballing, nascaring which all result from skirmish.

Camping, deathballing and nascaring are all valid ways to play the game, and with in the rules and if you do them right, Successfull.
I don't see them being negative

Limiting strats and tactics which are effective but unpopular for some is a bad move.

[Khobai]

OZHomerOZ, on 24 October 2018 - 01:52 PM, said:

Disagree, players are lazy, and follow the path of least resistance, So many maps yet most are still played in the centre.

theyre played in the center because theres no reason to go anywhere but the center. thats the whole point of adding objectives that arnt in the center. SO PEOPLE DONT GO TO THE CENTER ALL THE TIME.

OZHomerOZ, on 24 October 2018 - 01:52 PM, said:

The maps are very small and objectives placed relatively close together (Alpine Conquest), which makes speed a minor advantage as far as using speed to claim objectives.

thats why the objectives need to be spread further apart. alpine conquest is not a good example of spread out objectives. its actually a bad example because the objectives ARNT spread out. Alpine conquest is an example of objectives done wrong.

OZHomerOZ, on 24 October 2018 - 01:52 PM, said:

Disagree, we already have non skirmish game modes yet the most common winning method is skirmish wipe the other team, go figure.

we dont have a non-skirmish gamemode. if you can win by killing the enemy team that is a skirmish gamemode. even conquest is a skirmish gamemode. conquest is just the closest thing to non-skirmish we have but its still skirmish at its core.

in a true non-skirmish gamemode you couldnt win just by killing the enemy team. or at least it wouldnt be the easiest way to win.

OZHomerOZ, on 24 October 2018 - 01:52 PM, said:

Camping, deathballing and nascaring are all valid ways to play the game

theyre also one dimensional and boring ways to play the game. its the same damn thing every game with zero variation.

OZHomerOZ, on 24 October 2018 - 01:52 PM, said:

Limiting strats and tactics which are effective but unpopular for some is a bad move.

but thats exactly what skirmish does: it limits strats and tactics. it results in boring repetitive gameplay by encouraging camping, deathballing, and nascaring. none of those are fun.

Edited by Khobai, 24 October 2018 - 06:09 PM.

[General Solo]

Khobai, on 24 October 2018 - 06:02 PM, said:

theyre played in the center because theres no reason to go anywhere but the center. thats the whole point of adding objectives that arnt in the center. SO PEOPLE DONT GO TO THE CENTER ALL THE TIME.

How is skirmish to blame for players congregating toward the centre of the maps especially since in conquest and assault game modes the objectives are not in the center of the map bar ONE which is theta.

So their are reasons not to go centre which I just mention yet people persist.
Your caps lock will not deter me........Muhahahahaha.

Splitting up to do objectives is a empirically tested bad payoff.
In fact Objectives are a bad name for objectives.

Because the objective is to win, those other objectives should be renamed winning Conditions instead.

Khobai, on 24 October 2018 - 06:02 PM, said:

thats why the objectives need to be spread further apart. alpine conquest is not a good example of spread out objectives. its actually a bad example because the objectives ARNT spread out. Alpine conquest is an example of objectives done wrong.

That's exactly why I mentioned Alpine, great map for objectives yet rekt with objectives placed too close together to make speedy mechs count.

Why? People whined of course and PGI changed it.

Khobai, on 24 October 2018 - 06:02 PM, said:

theyre also one dimensional and boring ways to play the game. its the same damn thing every game with zero variation.

but thats exactly what skirmish does: it limits strats and tactics. it results in boring repetitive gameplay by encouraging camping, deathballing, and nascaring.

Thanks for sharing your opinion .
In mine strats and tactics are only limited by their suitably to the current enemy and battlefield situation.

But if all you know is one thing it can be hard to be flexible.
But if you can deathball, trade, nascar, camp, brawl, spat, snipe, flank, kite, poptart, tank and indirect fire like a boss you have more options so tactics and strats aren't a problem.

Far from one dimensional

Edited by OZHomerOZ, 24 October 2018 - 06:34 PM.

[Asylum Choir]

Spheroid, on 23 October 2018 - 07:12 AM, said:

Direct and unambiguous combat has been the staple of BattleTech for 30+ years. Lets not change what works. Strange that you don't find combat exciting, I certainly do.

Trouble is, getting that combat to actually happen! Most teams I'm on in quickplay spend half the game hiding, not engaging.

[Lykaon]

Spheroid, on 23 October 2018 - 07:12 AM, said:

Direct and unambiguous combat has been the staple of BattleTech for 30+ years. Lets not change what works. Strange that you don't find combat exciting, I certainly do.

My problem with skirmish is frequently the match results are a forgone conclusion 30 seconds into the match. I just find it annoying to have to play through an obvious loss.

And we have all seen this happen.

2 light mechs peel off to run into the whole enemy team (because they have no sense of timing)

4 assault mechs go running in 4 directions (because why would you want to concentrate firepower in a game mode that is ALL about concentrating firepower)

the mediums and heavies blunder around trying to figure out where to go to set up a concentration of firepower but never figure out they were the only ones who remembered it's important to do so.

And then it happens. One of the two impatient light mechs from your team spots the enemy (seconds before getting killed) all nicely balled up and mobile heading straight towards your fractured team.

The match is already over.

[Geek Verve]

Bombast, on 23 October 2018 - 07:01 AM, said:

I'd be for removing Skirmish. Not having any map objectives can exacerbate some (Not all) of the bad player behavior we see, and there's little more frustrating than having to go the full 15 minutes because some lonely enemy mech refuses to play anymore.

I'll tell you what's frustrating. Losing a domination match with 8 mechs still alive on your team (happened just yesterday), because no one cares about the objective. I mean, I understood back in the day in assault matches, when an enemy light would sneak back to our base and cap us out, but the domination circle is in the center of the freaking map.

[Bombast]

Geek Verve, on 29 October 2018 - 04:11 AM, said:

I'll tell you what's frustrating. Losing a domination match with 8 mechs still alive on your team (happened just yesterday), because no one cares about the objective. I mean, I understood back in the day in assault matches, when an enemy light would sneak back to our base and cap us out, but the domination circle is in the center of the freaking map.

We've all been there. And I know, losing due to not even trying to play the objectives is miserable. But the way I look at it is thus: A team that can't even be bothered to step into the circle probably wouldn't have been great to play with for 15 minutes in Skirmish anyway. Sometimes losing fast is better than suffering for an entire match with passive pansies.

[TWIAFU]

Bombast, on 29 October 2018 - 01:51 PM, said:

We've all been there. And I know, losing due to not even trying to play the objectives is miserable. But the way I look at it is thus: A team that can't even be bothered to step into the circle probably wouldn't have been great to play with for 15 minutes in Skirmish anyway. Sometimes losing fast is better than suffering for an entire match with passive pansies.

Tell me about it. I play Light most of the time, so my 'job' to get to the circle. When I notice 10-11 mechs back half to full sector in the rear and just staying there, I leave. I'm not going to sacrifice my mech for a crap score so they can play peek a boo.

Screw that.