96 replies to this topic

[HolyGrail101]

Brauer, on 19 July 2020 - 11:01 AM, said:

You can think while engaging the enemy and helping your team win.

We finally agree on something.

A warriors most important tool is his brain.

Also just to note the only reason I went out and captured what I did was because someone took credit for winning and my motto is that there are definitely better players than I. When invited to learn where actual top talent players move, how they aim, how they focus Mechs down I take the opportunity to learn. If I'm in a match and I die before Dogmeat, Lizzee, Von Dogfight or other players I know are great players I go watch through their eyes so I can get better.

Edited by HolyGrail101, 19 July 2020 - 12:19 PM.

[Ekson Valdez]

I split this discussion from the original thread, stay on topic next time.

[My Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ]

HolyGrail101, on 19 July 2020 - 10:38 AM, said:

I know you want an answer, so do I. I will say that people would not need to sandblast weapons and AMS if we fixed the way Match Scoring works to the benefits of everyone. I think that due to the coding limitations we are probably not going to get a great fix. You are correct "kills and damage are the main drivers of win", that does not mean it is working well. Not every mode is Skirmish on Classic Forest.

The most effective and consistent way to win matches is to kill the enemy, so the system rewards you for being an effective player. The single map where a light running around capping has a huge impact is Polar Conquest because the map is huge, otherwise the good old 'two cap brawl' will win most of the time.

Even in your ideal world where everyone played the objective, killing enemy mechs is an important thing because it reduces the enemy's team ability to defend their caps. Even times when you win a match because the teams fought for too long or the last ones alive were too slow or legged is not a win for the light that went to cap, its a win for the guys who were fighting.

[C E Dwyer]

A masochist, that enjoys repetition.

[Nesutizale]

Hawker Siddeley, on 20 July 2020 - 08:45 AM, said:

Even in your ideal world where everyone played the objective, killing enemy mechs is an important thing because it reduces the enemy's team ability to defend their caps. Even times when you win a match because the teams fought for too long or the last ones alive were too slow or legged is not a win for the light that went to cap, its a win for the guys who were fighting.

I think to have an more objective focused gameplay you would need an incentive to do so as well as the opportunity.
Incentives could be created by either rewarding more points, so that players who aim for the highest score would want to play them.

Opportunity could be like FW-Conquest. Have a dropdeck and an objective that can be fullfilled before everyone runs out of mechs. That way players could go either route. Try to kill everyone fast or cap fast.
Another thing is in mapdesign. Are there options to sneak around to fullfill the objective.

The general design of the objective is also importend. So far I only find FW-Conquest to be the only objective based mode that was close to "works as intended".

Skirmish:
Is "kill everything that moves" anyway and I think its okay. There should be such a mode.

Conquest:
As long as its easier to kill the enemy then takeing the points...whats the point?
I think the only way to solve this is when you can get to the 750 points faster by capping then it takes to destroy the enemy.
Basicly the only way to archive that is by haveing Dropdecks or respawns.

Domination:
It works in the way as to give a focuspoint to where the battle will take place but not for captureing. You just kill everything in sight first...again.
Frankly I have to good idea on how to get this mode working better. Ideas that come up to my mind are:

- Design the map around the point so that you have cover as well as good hidden flanking routes so one part can hold the line while others try to get around...what works on some maps but not all.

- Moveing point. Let the domination point be at the starting point but as soon as someone steps in it starts to slowly move in a random direction. Another option could be that every ... 50 points ... it jumps to a new location.

Incursion:
Looks at FW....don't we have something like that in there? Can't we simply copy that? When I remember it right those attack / defence missions where quite interesting.

Escort (yah I know its not in atm)
While I liked the idea there where things that allways bothered me.
1) Let it be a mobile HQ with an escort of tanks and let the tanks add their firepower to the defance
2) If you can't program a good pathfinding system for the AI make a map that supports the mode and have predetermed pathes you make sure the AI will follow correctly.
3) An option to draw the escorting players away. Maybe in the way that the players know the convoys path beforehand. Then the enemy team can have false radar blips at their disposal they can drop to create false radar readings and lure out the escorting players. Maybe let every UAV appear as an enemy mech.

[Kubernetes]

Good grief, ANOTHER ONE.

HolyGrail101, on 18 July 2020 - 05:34 PM, said:

You might be a better shot than me but I'm still a better pilot.

No, no you're not. The only things in which you are superior to him in this game are dying and losing.

[My Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ]

Nesutizale, on 20 July 2020 - 10:35 AM, said:

I think to have an more objective focused gameplay you would need an incentive to do so as well as the opportunity.
Incentives could be created by either rewarding more points, so that players who aim for the highest score would want to play them.

It doesn't change the fact that just playing an objective isn't fun, its not engaging gameplay, a perfect example of this is FP Scouting. The most efficient way to play that was to just run a super fast ECM light, cap enough intel, hide and dive the dropship right at the end to win, but it just isn't fun.

What's the point in queuing up to then just sit with your thumb up your arse playing an objective?

[Nesutizale]

To some people doing hide and seek is whats fun. I haven't played scouting alot so I hardly remember.
Was it difficulte to find the extraction point? I think, depending on the map, you could get unlucky and be on the other side and have no chance to reach it.

Modes like this need to be very tight in gameplay. The people looking for the hiding scout need an equal chance to either find him or intercept him, when he makes his way to extraction as the hidden mech needs to hide and getting to the extraction.

Like with most things PGI just slapped the mode on existing maps and then only did very little to balance things.

I think the mode could have been improved, for example, by giveing the hunting team some breed crumps to follow. Maybe a radar sweep in intervals so the hiding player has to keep moveing.
When its time to extract both teams should know where it is so it realy becomes a race where the fleeing team needs to block the other team for at least one to escape. Think american football like if you will.
Also there should be a fixed data runner so not just anyone can escape and the enemy knows who it is or at least has a rough idea.

[Sjorpha]

To adress the question in the threads title: (yes I'm aware it was titled by the mod who split the thread)

A good player is a player who reliably wins more than he loses, especially if he also wins when matched against other strong players. Another way to put it is that a good player will, on average, increase the winning chances of teams he is in.

A bad player is a player who, on average, decreases his team's chances of winning.

And finally a scrub is someone who tries to argue against the above, who makes excuses for their own performance and who tries to bring their own subjective values into the argument (such as calling things cheese or raving about irrelevant moral standards like "honor" or "no-skill builds" and so on.)

[Nesutizale]

@Sjorpha
I think it would be helpfull to say what makes the good player win more. What is he doing to increase the winning chance of his team?

[Brauer]

Nesutizale, on 20 July 2020 - 01:05 PM, said:

@Sjorpha
I think it would be helpfull to say what makes the good player win more. What is he doing to increase the winning chance of his team?

Mostly they are quickly and efficiently killing enemy mechs while limiting the risk they incur to their own mech such that they can continue to quickly and efficiently dispatch the enemy.

[Kubernetes]

Brauer, on 20 July 2020 - 01:23 PM, said:

Mostly they are quickly and efficiently killing enemy mechs while limiting the risk they incur to their own mech such that they can continue to quickly and efficiently dispatch the enemy.

This right here.

[Brauer]

Nesutizale, on 20 July 2020 - 10:35 AM, said:

Conquest:
As long as its easier to kill the enemy then takeing the points...whats the point?
I think the only way to solve this is when you can get to the 750 points faster by capping then it takes to destroy the enemy.
Basicly the only way to archive that is by haveing Dropdecks or respawns.

I don't think you're going to see QP teams execute particularly good strategies on conquest. I think it's fine as is.

Quote

Domination:
It works in the way as to give a focuspoint to where the battle will take place but not for captureing. You just kill everything in sight first...again.
Frankly I have to good idea on how to get this mode working better. Ideas that come up to my mind are:

- Design the map around the point so that you have cover as well as good hidden flanking routes so one part can hold the line while others try to get around...what works on some maps but not all.

- Moveing point. Let the domination point be at the starting point but as soon as someone steps in it starts to slowly move in a random direction. Another option could be that every ... 50 points ... it jumps to a new location.

I think a moving point, or varying the domination point in some way could be interesting. Ultimately, domination will probably mostly revolve around a big fight in the circle so I don't think that will change things much in the end, but those ideas have some potential (whether or not PGI can make them happen, or if they would be implemented well is another question).

Quote

Incursion:
Looks at FW....don't we have something like that in there? Can't we simply copy that? When I remember it right those attack / defence missions where quite interesting.

Incursion is across the board a horrible game mode imo. Mostly it ends up being a big fight near the middle of the map followed by a march to the base to kill it. Shooting turrets isn't fun, shooting stationary buildings isn't fun, dealing with a base rush isn't fun. I'm not sure how an incursion-like mode would be made worthwhile, but I suspect it would require substantial redesign and potentially even purpose-built maps. I don't think many people would be upset if Incursion went the way of Escort.

Quote

Escort (yah I know its not in atm)
While I liked the idea there where things that allways bothered me.
1) Let it be a mobile HQ with an escort of tanks and let the tanks add their firepower to the defance
2) If you can't program a good pathfinding system for the AI make a map that supports the mode and have predetermed pathes you make sure the AI will follow correctly.
3) An option to draw the escorting players away. Maybe in the way that the players know the convoys path beforehand. Then the enemy team can have false radar blips at their disposal they can drop to create false radar readings and lure out the escorting players. Maybe let every UAV appear as an enemy mech.

Basically since escort missions were first developed they have been among the most reviled game modes/missions. An escort mode is also easily cheesed by the attacking team as they can simply objective rush. As implemented Escort was the worst game mode I've ever experienced in MWO by a long shot. I don't see any way to make escort viable in MWO, including the options you cited.

FYI I am fairly sure that PGI did just set some predetermined paths for escort.

[Nightbird]

To be clear, no one thinks earning more Match Score = helping the team more. Many activities will help the team win, such as good communication (concise remarks, good strategic suggestions) which earns 0 MS, killing enemy efficiently though the CT which earns far less MS, distracting the enemy at an opportune time as a light which earns 0 MS, tanking at the right time to keep allies shooting at the enemy alive for longer which earns 0 MS, and others.

Many MS rewarding activities actually hurts the team, such as inefficiently killing enemies to earn more damage and thus MS but allowing them to do more damage to your teammates, capping when the match moved into the fight phase making the combat 12vs11 seriously tilts the odds against your team, hiding and preserving your mech until the second phase of the fight so that enemies are weakened while you are fresh also seriously hurts your team's chances of winning. There are more examples.

[Nesutizale]

Brauer, on 20 July 2020 - 01:37 PM, said:

I don't think you're going to see QP teams execute particularly good strategies on conquest. I think it's fine as is.

From what I remember from FW, even with randoms, you had an flow to the battle. One team takeing more points, then the other pushed them out or a light took some, then it went back the other way.
It made it realy intersting as there was allways a new hotspot, depending on where a point was lost and allways a light or two running behind enemy lines to cap.
It made the mode so much better. When people coordinated it was even better and to me the best experiance I ever had with MWO.

Quote

I think a moving point, or varying the domination point in some way could be interesting. Ultimately, domination will probably mostly revolve around a big fight in the circle so I don't think that will change things much in the end, but those ideas have some potential (whether or not PGI can make them happen, or if they would be implemented well is another question).

Domination will allways be about fighting the other team and then taking the point. The part that makes it interesting is that you know where the battle will happen and that everyone is focus on that. Hardly do I see people running off to somewhere for no reason.
The movement of the point could add another layer in that the teams have less chance to nascar and a shift in the battlefield that people then have to adapt to. Maybe the hill you where hiding behind is not a bad spot and you have to move on.

Quote

Incursion is across the board a horrible game mode imo. Mostly it ends up being a big fight near the middle of the map followed by a march to the base to kill it. Shooting turrets isn't fun, shooting stationary buildings isn't fun, dealing with a base rush isn't fun. I'm not sure how an incursion-like mode would be made worthwhile, but I suspect it would require substantial redesign and potentially even purpose-built maps. I don't think many people would be upset if Incursion went the way of Escort.

Incursion in its current form is boring, yes. FW had this asymetrical warfare where you had one team defending and the other attacking with a sub objective where it wasn't just enough to take out the enemy team but also destroy a specific target.
I think you could build on that.

Quote

Basically since escort missions were first developed they have been among the most reviled game modes/missions. An escort mode is also easily cheesed by the attacking team as they can simply objective rush. As implemented Escort was the worst game mode I've ever experienced in MWO by a long shot. I don't see any way to make escort viable in MWO, including the options you cited.
FYI I am fairly sure that PGI did just set some predetermined paths for escort.

Yah escort was also my least favorite one. The enemy just playing the objective with one target to take out is also a problem. Maybe haveing a convoy with several targets would be better so that you still can play the objective but its hard without coordination of the attackers to focus fire a target before going for the next one.
Still I agree that this is the mode I would work on the last if at all.

[Brauer]

Nesutizale, on 20 July 2020 - 01:51 PM, said:

From what I remember from FW, even with randoms, you had an flow to the battle. One team takeing more points, then the other pushed them out or a light took some, then it went back the other way.
It made it realy intersting as there was allways a new hotspot, depending on where a point was lost and allways a light or two running behind enemy lines to cap.
It made the mode so much better. When people coordinated it was even better and to me the best experiance I ever had with MWO.

FW still exists, conquest is still available in FW on occasion. Play FW. It's still not even close to comp level conquest strats in basically all cases, but the caps do matter and it is a fun game mode. Adding respawns to QP is not a solution because then QP ceases to be "quick."

Quote

Domination will allways be about fighting the other team and then taking the point. The part that makes it interesting is that you know where the battle will happen and that everyone is focus on that. Hardly do I see people running off to somewhere for no reason.
The movement of the point could add another layer in that the teams have less chance to nascar and a shift in the battlefield that people then have to adapt to. Maybe the hill you where hiding behind is not a bad spot and you have to move on.

Yeah, I think if properly implemented a moving circle, or something like that could be fun. It really depends on implementation though.

Quote

Incursion in its current form is boring, yes. FW had this asymetrical warfare where you had one team defending and the other attacking with a sub objective where it wasn't just enough to take out the enemy team but also destroy a specific target.
I think you could build on that.

Again, FW still exists. Siege is on offer nearly all the time. Just play Siege. It's not actually that interesting imo, though it is fun, because you basically have a choice between 2-3 lanes and fight in choke points. Given how badly attacking PUG teams struggle in FW to even open gates I don't think implementing modes that punish bad coordination harder is going to improve people's QP experience. If anything it will likely drive players away as attacking teams struggle real hard.

Quote

Yah escort was also my least favorite one. The enemy just playing the objective with one target to take out is also a problem. Maybe haveing a convoy with several targets would be better so that you still can play the objective but its hard without coordination of the attackers to focus fire a target before going for the next one.
Still I agree that this is the mode I would work on the last if at all.

Why would people want to take a game where you interact with other players by engaging their mechs and turn it into a contest to kill AI bots? I'm not playing a PVP game to shoot at slow moving convoy vehicles, or compete to see if I can kill the opposing team faster than they can kill AI bots.

[Nesutizale]

With what you said I am tempted to say lets make QP just skirmish or domination and kick everything else out. I mean in the end it boils down to everyone playing skirmish anyway, dosn't it? So why pretend it to be different?
Would that realy hurt the game in any way? Would people even notice except wondering where the mode selection has gone...if they haven't ALT-TABed out anyway.

As for FW...love the modes, hate the waittimes and I don't play well with fixed units. If we could just have FW with two teams of 12 randoms.....

[VonBruinwald]

Someone who enables others to have fun.

[Brauer]

Nesutizale, on 20 July 2020 - 02:39 PM, said:

With what you said I am tempted to say lets make QP just skirmish or domination and kick everything else out. I mean in the end it boils down to everyone playing skirmish anyway, dosn't it? So why pretend it to be different?
Would that realy hurt the game in any way? Would people even notice except wondering where the mode selection has gone...if they haven't ALT-TABed out anyway.

As for FW...love the modes, hate the waittimes and I don't play well with fixed units. If we could just have FW with two teams of 12 randoms.....

Having the game modes does make camping one spot with your whole team less viable than in skirmish. It's the reason that you don't see the skirmish game mode used in competitive play outside of 1v1s. Course some maps promote camping one spot even with objectives (like Crimson with the Assault and Incursion game modes), but that's more an exception than anything else.

[Black Caiman]

I think whats been missing from the conversation is that a truly good player will make the best out of the entire scenario theyre given. That includes the mech chassis, mech build, team mates, map, game mode, and game score. A good player also knows their strengths and weaknesses and does what they can to minimize their weaknesses getting exploited, and maximizing their strengths. A good player will play the mech/build to its max potential regardless if its laser heavy, streaks, LRMs, brawler, etc, etc. A good player will also attempt to maximize his team whether that means tanking at an appropriate time (as Nightbird mentioned), providing covering fire, or being a distraction. A good player will also make good decisions based on the scenario presented to them. That might mean deciding that fighting the opponent has minimal chance for success, but playing the cap game has a moderate chance for success. That might mean you need to buy time for your team mates to fulfill an objective, or in some cases it may mean knowing you have to sacrifice your teammates so you can get the job done. Piloting and aim is only a small part of the puzzle. Decision making, map knowledge, positioning, knowing your opponents, making sound strategic calls, and many other attributes all play factors.