57 replies to this topic

[Vincent DIFrancesco]

Feral Clown, on 23 July 2019 - 02:15 PM, said:

And when those other folks ask "why am I having these 10 game plus losing streaks, or why can't I get over 1 wlr or kdr" please refer to this guy's approach.

It's really simple dude, game is based around combat. Lots of matches I have seen guys like you trying to cap, leaving their team down and then they are running around while all the enemy has to do is flip a couple of cap points.

It's very few games I see where the enemy is wiped out, but manage to sneak a win on cap points. So few in fact that it is absolutely mind boggling that people are still shooting for that long shot win.

Really wished more players watched comp, talked to some of the better players, and learned about what map control is.

I'm not saying the approach is wrong. I'm saying it's pathetic that it's right. Along with every other game objective that just ends up being Skirmish with a side task. I'm also saying that the people that gripe about Conquest are usually the ones who would prefer every game mode be Skirmish, and get pissed when the one game mode that has the best chance of biting you in the butt if you ignore it actually does bite.

Really wish more players wanted actual objectives, instead of just wanting "Skirmish with an Epilogue."

[Prototelis]

Every game mode IS skirmish dingus.

The only thing the objectives are there to do is break up or change where you control the map. This is intentional. It is how the game modes were designed. This is a combat oriented game.

[Vellron2005]

Insignus, on 21 July 2019 - 09:44 PM, said:

Title Says it All.

Hahahahahaahah... good one..

But no.

[Feral Clown]

Vincent DIFrancesco, on 23 July 2019 - 02:49 PM, said:

I'm not saying the approach is wrong. I'm saying it's pathetic that it's right. Along with every other game objective that just ends up being Skirmish with a side task. I'm also saying that the people that gripe about Conquest are usually the ones who would prefer every game mode be Skirmish, and get pissed when the one game mode that has the best chance of biting you in the butt if you ignore it actually does bite.

Really wish more players wanted actual objectives, instead of just wanting "Skirmish with an Epilogue."

Well, I really wish more players understood how to leverage objectives instead of wanting them to be the focus or primary concern.

Makes no sense to me to gather 24 players together, give them a bunch of guns, then design something where said guns are superfluous.

If you want a hard objective game while avoiding fighting the enemy, there's actually already teams that focus on that in CW. Maybe if that's what you want, you should try your luck there. You'll love incursion there, same base health as quick play and you have four mechs you can throw at pve.

[Vincent DIFrancesco]

Feral Clown, on 24 July 2019 - 05:51 AM, said:

Makes no sense to me to gather 24 players together, give them a bunch of guns, then design something where said guns are superfluous.
.

Why is it when I say that I want the objectives to have more meaning to a game people think I want the shooty part of the game to be superfluous?

Battles are fought with a purpose. They're [usually] not just fought to blow stuff up and kill people. The boom-boom is the tool to achieve the objective, not the objective itself. Killing people just to kill people is not the act of soldiers. It's the act of serial killers. I'm just expressing a desire for more emphasis on this with MWO's objectives in QP. I don't think that's an unreasonable request.

[Feral Clown]

Vincent DIFrancesco, on 24 July 2019 - 06:06 AM, said:

Why is it when I say that I want the objectives to have more meaning to a game people think I want the shooty part of the game to be superfluous?

Battles are fought with a purpose. They're [usually] not just fought to blow stuff up and kill people. The boom-boom is the tool to achieve the objective, not the objective itself. Killing people just to kill people is not the act of soldiers. It's the act of serial killers. I'm just expressing a desire for more emphasis on this with MWO's objectives in QP. I don't think that's an unreasonable request.

Actually it is.

For one this is a video game not an actual war. If you are playing this game, that is all you are doing is playing a game. You're not a soldier, you're a fictional mechwarrior. The purpose is to have fun shooting things.

There are some modes thrown in for diversity that players can leverage if they know how. Even if we were to fall back into you role playing it hard that you're a soldier, defeating the enemy with force (especially since they are armed and shooting at you) makes a great deal more sense than magically defeating your enemy by cleverly standing in a box.

So yeah it unreasonable to want some sort of campaign with meaning when you are playing what is essentially an arena shooter pvp game.

[illudium Q 36]

Sometimes I actually enjoy playing the Conquest mode. Played some close (and great) games on it. Sadly, most of the time I'm not in the mood for the amount of Machiavellian intrigue required for this three dimensional chess version of MWO. I'm just a shmoo who wants to blow up digital mechs before I get "All Blowed Up". Is that to much to ask?

This generally leads to me marching straight to Theta, popping a UAV, dropping an Arty Strike on the opposition and being eliminated before I can complete the Cap. At least it gets me outta there!

I'd be all for allowing someone to eliminate Conquest as a choice from their own list of game modes. I doubt we'll see that, however.

[Vincent DIFrancesco]

Feral Clown, on 24 July 2019 - 07:32 AM, said:

Actually it is.

For one this is a video game not an actual war. If you are playing this game, that is all you are doing is playing a game. You're not a soldier, you're a fictional mechwarrior. The purpose is to have fun shooting things.

There are some modes thrown in for diversity that players can leverage if they know how. Even if we were to fall back into you role playing it hard that you're a soldier, defeating the enemy with force (especially since they are armed and shooting at you) makes a great deal more sense than magically defeating your enemy by cleverly standing in a box.

So yeah it unreasonable to want some sort of campaign with meaning when you are playing what is essentially an arena shooter pvp game.

Even shooters usually have meaningful objectives for matches. You don't need a campaign for that.

[Marquis De Lafayette]

Vincent DIFrancesco, on 24 July 2019 - 09:07 AM, said:

Even shooters usually have meaningful objectives for matches. You don't need a campaign for that.

Never going to see it in QP. Just because the 12 v 12 format isn’t suited to it. Best you are going to see objectives do is to move the fights to different points on the map and give you more 1 v1 or lance v lance fights. That’s the variety they bring. Plus if some dude just runs away in a stealth mech, you don’t have to spend 5 mins trying to find him to end the match.

If you want objectives to matter.....play FW. Every win in conquest is a objective win on points. It’s prehaps the most stress enducing mode in FW. Because killing, cap points, map control all matter and the points ticker determines some decisions for each team. Heck you will even see timer-count down domination mode wins in FW on rare occasion (but never in QP, unless a guy runs away out of the circle)...where a team can’t get back in the circle in time if they get pushed out. So, if you want what you seem to want....you are playing the wrong part of MWO

[Vincent DIFrancesco]

Marquis De Lafayette, on 24 July 2019 - 09:46 AM, said:

Never going to see it in QP. Just because the 12 v 12 format isn’t suited to it. Best you are going to see objectives do is to move the fights to different points on the map and give you more 1 v1 or lance v lance fights. That’s the variety they bring. Plus if some dude just runs away in a stealth mech, you don’t have to spend 5 mins trying to find him to end the match.

If you want objectives to matter.....play FW. Every win in conquest is a objective win on points. It’s prehaps the most stress enducing mode in FW. Because killing, cap points, map control all matter and the points ticker determines some decisions for each team. Heck you will even see timer-count down domination mode wins in FW on rare occasion (but never in QP, unless a guy runs away out of the circle)...where a team can’t get back in the circle in time if they get pushed out. So, if you want what you seem to want....you are playing the wrong part of MWO

FW queue makes the current QP queue look speedy. Not to mention that it's practically unplayable in a casual manner. I do like it. But I don't play MWO enough to really do the mode justice.

I get that what I'd like to see will never happen. I'm not posting with the expectation of an actual change to QP objectives. Just dreaming out loud is all.

EDIT: Typo fix.

Edited by Vincent DIFrancesco, 24 July 2019 - 10:25 AM.

[Feral Clown]

Vincent DIFrancesco, on 24 July 2019 - 09:07 AM, said:

Even shooters usually have meaningful objectives for matches. You don't need a campaign for that.

Sure.

You want to meaningfully stand in box for the win, go ahead. Cause that makes meaningful sense for a great soldier to honourably defeat his enemy right?

Or are even you starting to reconsider the abject nonsense you said earlier?

[Prototelis]

Even ticket based respawn games with objetives are usually won by just killing the **** out of the enemy team.

[Vincent DIFrancesco]

Feral Clown, on 24 July 2019 - 11:05 AM, said:

Sure.

You want to meaningfully stand in box for the win, go ahead. Cause that makes meaningful sense for a great soldier to honourably defeat his enemy right?

Or are even you starting to reconsider the abject nonsense you said earlier?

Maybe you should be less of a jerk. I'm not being rude to you, or anyone else. You don't like my idea. We get it. No need to talk down to people you don't agree with.

[Feral Clown]

Vincent DIFrancesco, on 24 July 2019 - 11:09 AM, said:

Maybe you should be less of a jerk. I'm not being rude to you, or anyone else. You don't like my idea. We get it. No need to talk down to people you don't agree with.

Dude, you brought up what a soldier would or wouldn't do in regards to a video game. Then you are talking about meaningful objectives in regards to conquest in that context.... You even alluded to people who just want to shoot pixels in a game being psychopaths.

I am pointing out that what you are saying is both contradictory and lacks insight. Try and see the humour in what you are saying here.

[Steve Pryde]

NO

It's one of the best game modes.

[Willard Phule]

A Really Old Clan Dude, on 22 July 2019 - 01:26 PM, said:

That's "Grand Melee" mode, Map would be easy, a crater 1000M in diameter, a couple of large rocks that can screen one mech only dotted around and both teams lined up in a semi circle, to quote Leonidas "Glorious"

A bowl with sides too high for anything to jump out of. And NO COVER inside the bowl. With some sort of mapwide ECM cancellation field.

FRAGTAST1C, on 23 July 2019 - 12:12 AM, said:

Merge Escort with Conquest!! Do eeeet!!

That's so ridiculous, it just might work.

[Prototelis]

^ lol found the lrmer.

[50 50]

It would be nice if there was some variation to the location of some of these objectives.
Why does the domination circle have to always in the same spot for example.
It moves sometimes with an update, but why isn't it a little more dynamic and there is 1 of 3 spots on the map it may appear (for example)?
Same for Assault.
Same for Conquest.

We have a little bit of this in Scouting as there are numerous locations for the beacons, but only 20 get used each time.
Same concept to create some variations in missions and therefore where we might see the fighting occur.
One of the complaints we see is that the fighting always happens in the same spot, wouldn't that help?