284 replies to this topic

[Necromantion]

Map/mode related:

I think that we should still have random maps and do the same thing as in solaris and vote out a few undesirable maps.

Im tired of playing Tourmaline/Plexus/Mining collective 4/5 drops.

[VileKnight]

Horseman, on 28 December 2020 - 06:37 AM, said:

I'm saying no because putting a player in the VIP role gives a single rando the power to inflict an instant loss on the entire team. For quickplay, that's ******* terrible design.

A single rando can do that now. I saw a Thanatos yesterday just sit back out of combat waiting for the enemy to come around the corner - that never did. They didn't engage the enemy until they were the last mech left. Stuff like this happens all the time, and we don't blame it on the match type.

Lets also not forget that there is a report button that you can use as well, and PGI can deal with the troll. VIP is still a solid idea, and valid for consideration.

Lord Lion, on 02 January 2021 - 02:46 PM, said:

One of the fixes for faction play is to limit group size and try to add mechanics to prevent 12 mans from dropping together. Yes, we want to play with our teammates put not if we are going to keep running into skilled 12 man pre-mades. Limit group size to 4 or 6 players.

Hard pass on this idea. We need the ability to drop in groups larger than 4. We can't penalize larger communities/teams like this. QP is already limited to 4. Don't limit FP like this as well.

[Horseman]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 28 December 2020 - 09:07 AM, said:

Doesn't end up that bad in CoD, then again MWO has more spuds than CoD. I mean would you say that if they got to pilot the superarmored Atlas that currently is used by the VIP in escort? Also the escort would need two pickup locations not just one.

The problem with putting a player in the VIP is that you assume they have a clue about the mode's mechanic... in a game where some teams lost Siege on attack because they couldn't figure out to shoot the ******* gate generators.
If you put some kind of restriction to only place skilled pilots in the VIP role, then you've got a small group of players who would be repeatedly screwed out of playing their own mech and forced into playing the VIP. Which would be quite unfun for them.

Hence my assertion that putting a player in the VIP role not only doesn't help but makes things worse. The mode needs a rework, and IMO the most approachable way to do so would be by making the VIP a mobile capture target. Doesn't hinge the whole thing on player ability and doesn't grief one of the players by design.

VileKnight, on 04 January 2021 - 01:27 PM, said:

A single rando can do that now.

Before the teams even leave the drop zone? Because that's how bad it gets if you put them in VIP role. If the VIP is armed, they can just self-destruct with overheat damage, otherwise walk out of bounds on multiple maps (it's not as if you have any way to force them to actually go to the drop zone...). This isn't even counting the "I AM TANKING" geniuses whose idea of using an assault mech is to walk into the enemy team and soak damage because they believe it's doing their team a favor (but yeah, they can just deliberately walk into the opfor and let them kill the mech)

Quote

I saw a Thanatos yesterday just sit back out of combat waiting for the enemy to come around the corner - that never did. They didn't engage the enemy until they were the last mech left. Stuff like this happens all the time, and we don't blame it on the match type.

11v12 is still winnable depending on the map, teams and mechs in play. I'm not talking about one idiot merely sabotaging their team by being an idiot.
Putting them in the VIP means they hold the only way for your team to win and if they won't cooperate the entire team loses no matter how hard the rest of you try to carry the match. For a moment imagine how Conquest would pIay if only one mech on each team could cap.

Bad design is bad design, sorry.

Quote

Lets also not forget that there is a report button that you can use as well, and PGI can deal with the troll. VIP is still a solid idea, and valid for consideration.

VIP mode itself is, putting a player in the role is non-viable.

Edited by Horseman, 06 January 2021 - 04:09 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Horseman, on 06 January 2021 - 03:56 PM, said:

The problem with putting a player in the VIP is that you assume they have a clue about the mode's mechanic...

And? Other games have this mode and honestly its the only worthwhile to play this. Having to guard AI will end up being just as frustrating except much more consistent because well, the AI is just never good enough (especially PGI's).

That said, the VIP mech should be consistent and powerful not the stock Atlas like it originally was.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 06 January 2021 - 04:04 PM.

[Horseman]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 06 January 2021 - 04:03 PM, said:

And? Other games have this mode and honestly its the only worthwhile to play this. Having to guard AI will end up being just as frustrating except much more consistent because well, the AI is just never good enough (especially PGI's).

And what I'm saying is that there are ways to handle the same core concept without descending to the depths of frustration, idiocy and outright griefing that would result from forcing a player into the VIP role.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Horseman, on 06 January 2021 - 04:07 PM, said:

And what I'm saying is that there are ways to handle the same core concept without descending to the depths of frustration, idiocy and outright griefing that would result from forcing a player into the VIP role.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that would be far and few between. I don't see griefing so much as just players who legitimately don't understand how to play this game and the game mode really doesn't change the impact or prevalence of that. Video game companies are actually incentivized to be active in policing their game because getting to ban people generally means more money when the banned individuals pay to get a new account or get items for their new account.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 06 January 2021 - 05:28 PM.

[Horseman]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 06 January 2021 - 05:27 PM, said:

I don't see griefing so much

Taking the player out of their mech that they chose to drop with and forcing them to play one they didn't want amounts to griefing them by the mode's very design.
The sooner you see that, the better.

Also, I've seen players suicide because they didn't like the map that was voted in.
How much worse do you think it will get when they're forced to play a mech they don't want to?

Quote

as just players who legitimately don't understand how to play this game and the game mode really doesn't change the impact or prevalence of that.

No, but the mode's design can either mitigate or exacerbate their impact. With one player as the VIP, it's 100% the latter.

Quote

Video game companies are actually incentivized to be active in policing their game because getting to ban people generally means more money when the banned individuals pay to get a new account or get items for their new account.

Not PGI. Even cases that had been backed with publicly viewable video streams required a shitload of outcry from the community before PGI gave the offenders as much as a slap on the wrist.

Edited by Horseman, 06 January 2021 - 11:47 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Horseman, on 06 January 2021 - 11:47 PM, said:

Taking the player out of their mech that they chose to drop with and forcing them to play one they didn't want amounts to griefing them by the mode's very design.
The sooner you see that, the better.

....... really? I..... can't even.

Quote

Also, I've seen players suicide because they didn't like the map that was voted in.

I have too, but it happens in maybe 1% of my matches if that so me thinks you protest too much.

Either way, the only way escort should be a thing is with player controlled VIPs, if people think that is problematic then the benefit of the game mode is effectively lost since instead of planning ahead on which extraction point to use and defenders adapting, the attackers would have to adapt to whatever the AI decides which puts them at a stronger disadvantage.

[Sare204]

I think Escort should make a comeback, but with some changes.

Renamed: Convoy

Overall Premise: To reward team cohesion, and provide an alternate solution to "Multiple types of team deathmatch" in the existing game modes.
The convoy route is randomly selected from 3 distinct routes.

Attacking team: Your goal is to prevent the enemy convoy from extracting.
You have two main options:
1:You can destroy the enemy convoy (quick and dirty option, less rewards)
2:You can capture the enemy convoy by standing in its proximity for a determined amount of time with no enemy present. (Like existing Base capture mechanic)

Your whole team gains a reward for every surviving vehicle in the convoy. less vehicles surviving= Less C-bills / Negative C-bills.


Defending Team: Your goal is to get as much of the convoy to the extraction point as possible.

The convoy only moves forward when players are within a certain proximity, and stops when players leave said proximity. The extraction is complete when every remaining Convoy unit enters the extraction zone.
The whole team is rewarded additionally for every convoy unit that is successfully extracted.

Some maps may need some redesigning to allow for multiple convoy routes, but this would be the best and most rewarding option gameplay wise, in my opinion.

[Sare204]

I think Incursion and Assault should be merged and simplified.
They are almost identical in premise, even according to the wiki.
Keep turret defended base with walls, add more types of turrets (LRM/SRM and A/C)
Remove powercell, powered upgrades like radar. (they are confusing and not intuitive)

The reason I propose this is because Assault almost always ends up in two ways:
Team deathmatch
or
A lone enemy Light mech/wolfpack caps your base and all of your lights/fast mediums cannot get there fast enough without leaving their slower teammates to fight the main force with less players/firepower. Every time this occurs, I see players in chat get upset, and often chastise the capping player/players for cutting the fight short.

Merge the two=Fix the problem. Enemy lights are much less willing to rush a base defended with turrets without backup. If they get backup there is less armor and weapons to assist the main force thus making Tactical choices more Important.

Edited by Sare204, 10 January 2021 - 06:31 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Sare204, on 10 January 2021 - 06:24 PM, said:

I think Incursion and Assault should be merged and simplified.
They are almost identical in premise, even according to the wiki.
Keep turret defended base with walls, add more types of turrets (LRM/SRM and A/C)
Remove powercell, powered upgrades like radar. (they are confusing and not intuitive)

We had this before back when Assault had turrets, all it did was remove chunks of the map from play and was bad.

[Alreech]

Sare204, on 10 January 2021 - 06:06 PM, said:

I think Escort should make a comeback, but with some changes.

Renamed: Convoy

Overall Premise: To reward team cohesion, and provide an alternate solution to "Multiple types of team deathmatch" in the existing game modes.
The convoy route is randomly selected from 3 distinct routes.

Attacking team: Your goal is to prevent the enemy convoy from extracting.
You have two main options:
1:You can destroy the enemy convoy (quick and dirty option, less rewards)
2:You can capture the enemy convoy by standing in its proximity for a determined amount of time with no enemy present. (Like existing Base capture mechanic)

Your whole team gains a reward for every surviving vehicle in the convoy. less vehicles surviving= Less C-bills / Negative C-bills.


Defending Team: Your goal is to get as much of the convoy to the extraction point as possible.

The convoy only moves forward when players are within a certain proximity, and stops when players leave said proximity. The extraction is complete when every remaining Convoy unit enters the extraction zone.
The whole team is rewarded additionally for every convoy unit that is successfully extracted.

Some maps may need some redesigning to allow for multiple convoy routes, but this would be the best and most rewarding option gameplay wise, in my opinion.

It like that idea, but it was suggested numerous times and ignored by PGI.

It's a shame, because by using the tank models from Mechwarrior 5 it would be possible to add "mobile turrets" to the convoy.

[Alreech]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 10 January 2021 - 09:03 PM, said:

We had this before back when Assault had turrets, all it did was remove chunks of the map from play and was bad.

The main problem with Assault and Incursion is that both team have 2 objectives:

• Defend the own base
  
• Destroy the enemy base

And that don't work with the uncoordinated teams of quickplay. Best way would to remove it from quickplay, or give the teams clear attacker / defender roles and use only one base.
Since the existing maps have now 2 bases it's possible to use 2 different base locations.

Assault:

• One base without defence
  
• small and medium size maps
  
• 4 vs 4
  
• 8 vs 8
  
• 12 vs 12 on big maps

Incursion:

• One base with walls & defence
  
• large maps
  
• 12 vs 12
  
• Faction Play

To make more use of the map space in incursion the power cells could be replaced with outposts containing the Radar / ECM / Air control turrets and forward spawn points.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Alreech, on 11 January 2021 - 04:01 AM, said:

Assault:

• One base without defence
  
• small and medium size maps
  
• 4 vs 4
  
• 8 vs 8
  
• 12 vs 12 on big maps

Incursion:

• One base with walls & defence
  
• large maps
  
• 12 vs 12
  
• Faction Play

To make more use of the map space in incursion the power cells could be replaced with outposts containing the Radar / ECM / Air control turrets and forward spawn points.

One base is bad game design. There is a reason every other successful game entertains two areas that a team has to defend if it is never expected to move and that's to discourage camping, it puts the defending team at a strong advantage generally and then you wanna add free damage on top of that with turrets? It's why siege is and has been a terrible game mode (yes it has two entry points instead, but both of them are funnels which doesn't make for very intriguing gameplay.

Alreech, on 11 January 2021 - 03:53 AM, said:

It like that idea, but it was suggested numerous times and ignored by PGI.

It's a shame, because by using the tank models from Mechwarrior 5 it would be possible to add "mobile turrets" to the convoy.

Escort without a player VIP is going to be inherently bad, because there is nothing players can really do if the convoy pushes through a bad position that allows a team to gank the escort and win easy. What he is describing would be better off just being Payload from TF2 rather than an escort mission where the thing you are escorting can be destroyed.

[Alreech]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 11 January 2021 - 09:44 AM, said:

One base is bad game design.

Two bases is a bad game design with uncoordinated teams, as shown in MWO.
The team that splits up to do both attacking and defending will in most case lose the match.

Also there is a plenty of succesfull games with one attacker / one defender:
Counterstrike: bomb defusal (would it be better if both side have to plant bombs?)
CoD: Search & Destroy
Battlefield: Assault, Supply Line, Rush,...
Unreal Tournament: Assault

Quote

Escort without a player VIP is going to be inherently bad, because there is nothing players can really do if the convoy pushes through a bad position that allows a team to gank the escort and win easy. What he is describing would be better off just being Payload from TF2 rather than an escort mission where the thing you are escorting can be destroyed.

Like MWO players going in Incursion & Assault for the easy win of destroying / capturing the undefended base, making less matchscore & C-Bills?

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Alreech, on 11 January 2021 - 11:28 AM, said:

Two bases is a bad game design with uncoordinated teams, as shown in MWO.
The team that splits up to do both attacking and defending will in most case lose the match.

Not sure how this is really any different than public CS:GO or CoD matches other than MWO has larger team sizes (to its detriment).

Alreech, on 11 January 2021 - 11:28 AM, said:

Also there is a plenty of succesfull games with one attacker / one defender:
Counterstrike: bomb defusal (would it be better if both side have to plant bombs?)
CoD: Search & Destroy
Battlefield: Assault, Supply Line, Rush,...
Unreal Tournament: Assault

I think you are missing what I'm talking about, I'm not saying each side has their own base, I'm saying defender has two bases as they do in CS:GO and CoD.

Alreech, on 11 January 2021 - 11:28 AM, said:

Like MWO players going in Incursion & Assault for the easy win of destroying / capturing the undefended base, making less matchscore & C-Bills?

Yes, as I've said before objectives should really only be about forcing engagements but not necessarily to their detriment. The reason they have two bases that are separated a decent amount in CS:GO and CoD with the bomb game mode is to ensure that a team has a way to win in case a team is not participating. However this does not put either team is a weak position, not like an escort game will most likely do.

The problem with Assault/Incursion as is is a bit three fold:

• The community itself has this obsession with objectives being the primary thing to do in this game, which is very much counter to no respawn game modes
  
• PGI has done themselves no favor with dissuading the community of that notion mostly because they seem to think the same way.
  
• Incursion/Assault are just bad game modes as it stands, for both no respawn and respawn.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 11 January 2021 - 12:44 PM.

[Vlad Ward]

Integrate QP into the FP framework:

FP matches are already no longer Faction locked. With that in mind, I see no reason why QP matches can't be tagged to FP battles - allowing players to earn LP and influence the Faction map without committing to the longer game modes and pure-tech restrictions of the FP game modes.

In a similar vein, instead of segregating out the FP game modes into their own non-default screen, why not keep all the Faction/Unit configuration information in the Faction screen and split "Quick Play" into Single-Mech and Multi-Mech (Drop Deck) modes with the ability to opt in to one or both queues. This could be done with a multi-select box similar to what we have for Server Regions.

If players want to pick and choose which battle they fight in or which side they fight on, they can always join a battle on the main FP screen. Players who don't particularly care what they play can just hop in and fill slots.

Nice Bonus: Being able to draw from any player with both modes selected increases the available population for both FP and QP matchmakers, allowing for better matches.

[VileKnight]

Horseman, on 06 January 2021 - 11:47 PM, said:

Taking the player out of their mech that they chose to drop with and forcing them to play one they didn't want amounts to griefing them by the mode's very design.
The sooner you see that, the better.

Also, I've seen players suicide because they didn't like the map that was voted in.
How much worse do you think it will get when they're forced to play a mech they don't want to?
No, but the mode's design can either mitigate or exacerbate their impact. With one player as the VIP, it's 100% the latter.
Not PGI. Even cases that had been backed with publicly viewable video streams required a shitload of outcry from the community before PGI gave the offenders as much as a slap on the wrist.

Horseman, you are making assumptions to fit your argument of "VIP BAD!! NO!!!" that have not even been suggested.

I am advocating for bringing back the VIP match type. I don't recall anyone saying "let's take a random player out of their mech and force them to sit into a mech they don't want". Your entire argument is based off the assumptions that haven't been discussed, or that the player in charge of the VIP mech is going to be a troll 100% of the time.

So, in the interest of providing actual solutions instead of stomping our feet and saying "NO!"....

You could leave the VIP role up to whoever wants to grab it - like the in-game drop command. This could help avoid putting players into a role they don't want to play.

The VIP player could also be restricted to only assault class to avoid it being given to a light mech who just dashes at 150kph to the designated nav point. You could also add a stipulation for the match maker to make sure that a team with assault mechs are given the side with the VIP. On occasion one side is without assaults, but it's incredibly rare to see a match without any assaults. I assume some other type of safeguard of backup plan could be added in that event.

There really isn't much of an argument for your insistence that someone will drop into the match as the VIP and insta-troll their team. I think you are giving that idea far too much credit. Not everyone who plays MWO will immediately stomp there feet and whine like a child when they don't get the exact match they want.

[AnimePops]

8v8 - Some of the most fun I had was with 8v8 early on. That being said, I would not want to give up 12v12. I would love to see a world that both could appear randomly.

Faction Warfare / Solaris - I find these "other modes" so damn fun. I am not sure how to fix it, I just find it frustrating no one else appreciates them enough to play them to fill the ques. Faction Warfare being so hard to find matches along with the 4 person cap on drops have had such an impact on active community units. There is much lower reason to come together as a group if all you can do to get a game is 4 man drop. I am not sure what the fix is here, but I will try whatever you come up with.

2-min reconnect - This seems like a no brainer. That being said, I have never had a time where I didn't make it back in. Also, this issue is far less an issue then the fact there is no balance once DC'd. If someone has dropped out and not allowed back in after 2 to 4 mins, I would love to see a backfill option that got another mech in que added to the started match. I get it could not happen at 10 min mark giving a fresh mech late game, but if we already are blocking a reconnect at 2mins, why not? It would still be early game.

Game Modes - I never understood the major hate over Incursion or other modes. I think it is just the annoyance that even after entire team is dead, you still have to walk the map to hit something for one hit. I can count the number of times a base kill race ever impacted the win on one hand. I think the only options are, make the reward for winning with a base destruction so significant that there is a reason to attack or defend it, or just turn the mode off. The only reason people even select it now pre-game is to gamble for another x1 for the next pick.

Match Maker -- I never honestly had an issue with the Match Maker. I feel that is still valid feedback however. As a returning player however, I was kinda miffed that my Tier rating dropped to 5 from nearly being Max. As slow as it is to climb up, that was disappointing.

Dailies and Weeklies -- I love these mission weeks! Only thing I don't like about them is the UI. (Honestly a gripe I have overall for the out of match experience, the UI is clunky and not intuitive ) I wish they were not buried, hard to find, and interactive. They should be automatic and flashy and present on the surface. Maybe even in match notifications!

Edited by Anunaki, 16 January 2021 - 11:17 AM.

[PocketYoda]

Make incentives better in faction play and Solaris and customers will play them more.. free mechs, free weapons, more cbills.. As it is now to drop into a faction war as a solo to farmed isn't fun.

Not to mention the toxics telling everyone what to do all match. It really doesn't work.

Solaris is just boring as hell and no amount of cosmetic silly bolt ons would get me to play it. MWO just doesn't work right for real solaris.

Edited by Samial, 21 January 2021 - 05:53 PM.