44 replies to this topic

[PurplePuke]

As it stands now, capping the points is usually an afterthought. One team caps two points, the other caps three, then they skirmish.

It would be cool if PGI would tweak the capture rewards in the Conquest game mode. Or if they tweaked the Conquest mode in other ways to bring some variety between it and Skirmish. There's an opportunity there.

I know it's highly unlikely, but maybe a thought for MWO 2.0 if they ever build it.

[D V Devnull]

Mokyu, on 06 September 2024 - 05:17 PM, said:

Several times in the past weeks I've been on winning teams that I helped cap out in assault mode and I still got a down arrow because I wasn't involved int he brawl. If you have modes that allow wins by cap, then reward the cappers. Don't penalize for playing the mode.

Seconded....... This has been a long-standing problem. PGI's MWO Staff most certainly & definitely ABSOLUTELY NEED to increase the Assault Base "Capture Success" Reward from what's current at 15,000 (C-Bills) to a greater minimum of 40,000 (C-Bills) after what I've been experiencing for years now. It needs to be big enough that people actually think, and ultimately sense a desire to want it. Otherwise it fails to outweigh other options properly & consistently enough that people would then choose teamwork over disrespectful ignorant selfishness. Apparently the hidden total value of "Solo Kill" is so big that people are bloodthirsty, and therefore fail to care if they hurt teammates by ignoring base capture. Unfortunately for us, the only way which PGI's MWO Staff can use to fix this one is by hanging out (metaphorically speaking) a bigger tasty treat that players will desire over older ways of doing things. Until that time arrives, those who actually actively enjoy doing objectives which are not killing — such as you and myself — will continue to find ourselves left unhappy.


It's either that, or they go the negative route where one calls any Assault Mode game a Tie when some team kills the entire opposing side first. Of course this would then mean additional functions subsequently need to be added, such as for telling of the opposing MFB having managed a radio call and being evacuated from that battle area. It's actually easier for them to increase the Rewards instead for capping the opposing base!


~D. V. "gets how 'Mokyu' feels about Objectives & Rewards with full understanding of what fixes this" Devnull



[Small Edit by this post's author for a few missed words... The post is now complete!!!]

Edited by D V Devnull, 10 September 2024 - 12:44 AM.

[pattonesque]

Ken Harkin, on 09 September 2024 - 09:23 AM, said:

I agree with the OP. Objectives should have importance. I always have a level of satisfaction when a game is won on victory conditions, even when it is the opposite team. When a victory is achieved by victory conditions without eliminating all opposing mechs, other than in skimish, there should be a significant bonus to the winning side, especially if the winning side has fewer mechs remaining.

Nobody is saying you cannot take your mech and shoot at other mechs. We are just saying that something other than a continuous deathmatch creates more strategy and teamwork and can be far more rewarding and engaging.

this sounds insanely boring lol, who's gonna play the giant robot stompy mech simulator to stand in a square and pretend like doing so makes them Napoleon

crazytimes, on 07 September 2024 - 06:02 PM, said:

"Oh lol we lost again". Or "oh lol why did that assault have <100 damage and match score"?

Both hilariously good fun for the rest of the team in a team based shooter.

yeah this is the other thing. I've used this analogy before but people who do stuff like that are like ... OK, say you're at a pickup basketball game and you and three of your teammates are playing normally. Not optimally or flawlessly or whatever, but just playing your roles. And then your fourth teammate, whenever they receive the ball, immediately flings up a behind-the-back shot at the net, regardless of where they are on the court.

And then when you ask them they're like "well this is how I have fun"

you would not play with that person again!

[Jon Gotham]

crazytimes, on 07 September 2024 - 06:02 PM, said:

"Oh lol we lost again". Or "oh lol why did that assault have <100 damage and match score"?

Both hilariously good fun for the rest of the team in a team based shooter.

Don't you mean team deathmatch play for yourself at other's expense shooter?

[Sneaky Snek]

No thanks. I would rather fight big stompy robots than stand around in a square with my thumb up my ***

[DarkBazerker]

martian, on 06 September 2024 - 07:42 PM, said:

Nobody is punishing you. Everything is working as planned.

I am going to tell you the big secret: Those objectives are just auxiliary devices that are in the game just to break stalemates, end the game quickly in case of some problem or just to force both teams to fight.

I guess that the majority of the MWO players is here to shoot other 'Mechs, not to stand in some blinking square.

But everything is not lost: Play the game as you like it and let the PSR do its job. Eventually, you will end up in the Tier that is the most appropriate for you, i.e. in the Tier filled with the players who think that standing still in some empty remote corner of the map is what MechWarrior game should be about.

^ this logic is ok, but me talking about being ok with a lost, because I did my damage and got an up arrow is not? Very messed up double standard.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Ken Harkin, on 09 September 2024 - 09:23 AM, said:

I agree with the OP. Objectives should have importance. I always have a level of satisfaction when a game is won on victory conditions, even when it is the opposite team. When a victory is achieved by victory conditions without eliminating all opposing mechs, other than in skimish, there should be a significant bonus to the winning side, especially if the winning side has fewer mechs remaining.

Nobody is saying you cannot take your mech and shoot at other mechs. We are just saying that something other than a continuous deathmatch creates more strategy and teamwork and can be far more rewarding and engaging.

The only point of objectives in no-respawn game modes is to force quick engagements. That's it. No one wants repeats of MW4 where you could spend 60 minutes dancing around each other or playing chase the light for a half hour.

As for strategy, soup queue isn't about strategy or teams wouldn't constantly give up strong positions for a corner or low ground to hide in or dry peeking angles where there's a 90% chance of 3 people watching that corner only to get instantly murdered.

[Bud Crue]

As long as PGI lets folks vote for giant and/or one-sided maps and Assault mode, some of us are going to cap it out and bask in the glow of both teams complaints -because you voted for this and got what you wanted. Complain all you want; this is was your choice. You chose to give us this opportunity to troll. You want to shoot stompy robots? So do we, and we just got you the next match, and the hope for a better map and mode, that much quicker, because again, you voted for this crap. We're fine with a down arrow and all that. Stop voting for this sort of silliness and we will stop "playing the mode". Until this is no longer an option, live with your choices.

[LordNothing]

Ken Harkin, on 09 September 2024 - 09:29 AM, said:

I almost always encounter a couple victories in every session where the game is won in assault or conquest by the victory conditions other than destruction of the opposing force. I can't count how many times I have begged a light to go and take some random shots at the mechs capping our base in assault or to focus on conquest only to lose to those conditions WITH MORE MECHS REMAINING. Just this weekend when our base began being capped I asked one of the lights to take a look when one player started ranting about "not giving in to psychology!!!" As our impeding loss became more and more certain he strangely had nothing to say about "not giving in to psychology."

there needs to be a significant penalty if you lose a match with your mech still alive. call it: "cowardly loss" or something and make it a large points sink like friendly damage.

[Meep Meep]

Ken Harkin, on 09 September 2024 - 09:29 AM, said:

I almost always encounter a couple victories in every session where the game is won in assault or conquest by the victory conditions other than destruction of the opposing force. I can't count how many times I have begged a light to go and take some random shots at the mechs capping our base in assault or to focus on conquest only to lose to those conditions WITH MORE MECHS REMAINING. Just this weekend when our base began being capped I asked one of the lights to take a look when one player started ranting about "not giving in to psychology!!!" As our impeding loss became more and more certain he strangely had nothing to say about "not giving in to psychology."

I'm not saying don't play the objectives. I'm saying that the herd instinct is to shoot mechs in the face not go stand in a square.

[Ken Harkin]

Meep Meep, on 12 September 2024 - 07:08 PM, said:

I'm not saying don't play the objectives. I'm saying that the herd instinct is to shoot mechs in the face not go stand in a square.

This is where communication and initiative come to play. Don't be a sheep.

[Samara 6J]

The game needs to pick a lane.

Do people want to just play mech smash-em-up? Then get rid of the objectives getting in the way of that and confusing new players. Make Skirmish the only gamemode, plop some kind of Domination or Assault style objective in the middle so the flea can't hold the game hostage for ten minutes because Muh Jarls, call it a day.

Do people want objective based gameplay and coordination, where the base getting capped out two minutes in is a clever play and not a disruption that everyone rages about in chat? Then the game needs to properly score objective play when considering performance.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Samara 6J, on 13 September 2024 - 10:24 PM, said:

Do people want objective based gameplay and coordination, where the base getting capped out two minutes in is a clever play and not a disruption that everyone rages about in chat?

Sorry, but this is still dumb. The whole point of objectives in both no-respawn and respawn games is to reinforce the core gameplay loop (aka combat), however the way they work is a bit different. No-respawn game modes can be optional win conditions to counter passive play, in respawn game modes they are the ONLY win condition, and they typically are about making those engagements be in waves.

There's a reason Overwatch copied payload from TF2 and it has to do with it being good at creating changing engagements but also reinforcing "waves" of combat since often a lost wave means the payload gets pushed to the next "segment" of the map (moreso in ranked/comp play than QP which is more chaotic by nature).

There's also a reason CoD/Valorant copied bomb defusal from Counterstrike, because it was just the right kind of game mode for no-respawn.

It's worth noting that I also don't know what successful shooter these days even uses "destructible" objectives because that can always be gamed easier than things like payload or bomb defusal.

[Samara 6J]

Quicksilver Aberration, on 13 September 2024 - 11:21 PM, said:

Sorry, but this is still dumb. The whole point of objectives in both no-respawn and respawn games is to reinforce the core gameplay loop (aka combat)

How do the objectives reinforce the core gameplay loop at all?


Because quite frankly, Domination's objective is so large as to be irrelevant, Conquest encourages the capping team to avoid fights (because you're trying to win on objective and you sacrificed your positioning to do it by splitting the team, your win condition becomes losing the mech fight slow enough that you win on points in the lategame), and Assault is basically a communications check to see if you can get somebody to walk back to base and clear the locust.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Samara 6J, on 14 September 2024 - 06:20 AM, said:

How do the objectives reinforce the core gameplay loop at all?

Because quite frankly, Domination's objective is so large as to be irrelevant, Conquest encourages the capping team to avoid fights (because you're trying to win on objective and you sacrificed your positioning to do it by splitting the team, your win condition becomes losing the mech fight slow enough that you win on points in the lategame), and Assault is basically a communications check to see if you can get somebody to walk back to base and clear the locust.

Why are you assuming I think the objective game modes in MWO are great?

That said domination is typically fine for forcing engagements in that you can't just camp on some corner of the map which was a huge problem in the MW4 days especially with some of the large maps. I think with Polar spawns getting fixed the issue of an early cap out is mostly fixed. Now does that mean domination is perfect? Hell no, but it is does the job decently.

Conquest has a problem on larger maps where cap strats are more valid this is true, but on the more medium sized maps (mining, viridian, canyon, etc) it's been the gold standard because cap control forces the opponent to do something. It plays less well in QP because it typically requires coordination and people to not be brain dead and take their assault to take some far cap for no reason. Again it isn't perfect, but it's probably the best we have outside of the maps that are way too big anyway (polar, grim, alpine, somewhat tourmaline).


Honestly I've wanted Skirmish and Assault to be done away with, just make QP domination because it's probably the least worst option for QP.

Edited by Quicksilver Aberration, 14 September 2024 - 07:39 AM.

[Samara 6J]

Quicksilver Aberration, on 14 September 2024 - 07:36 AM, said:

It plays less well in QP because it typically requires coordination and people to not be brain dead and take their assault to take some far cap for no reason.

Well here's the problem. I'm talking in reference to 12v12 PUGs, which is where like 95% of my experience comes from. In those games there just isn't enough coordination to go round for the objectives to make for interesting play. It's all you can do to take a strong position as a team and not stand directly behind each other, let alone delegate capture and base defense duties.

If you have two mic'd up teams who are beyond struggling with things like not shooting one other in the back, yeah, I totally get that Conquest on midsized maps could be a more tactically interesting match than straight up Skirmish. But the game being played at that level is the exception, not the rule.

Quicksilver Aberration, on 14 September 2024 - 07:36 AM, said:

Honestly I've wanted Skirmish and Assault to be done away with, just make QP domination because it's probably the least worst option for QP.

I agree 100%. Skirmish with a "stop stalling out the match" option is the best for QP games.

[Jelan]

If they want to drive certain behaviour then they need the game mode to support it. I spent one game (i dont play lights very often) just counter capping the enemy lights so we didnt lose on cap whilst others fought. We eventually caught and killed the enemy light and won the game on cap points. The team would have lost if we hadn't counter capped, but as a reward for our team play we both got down arrows, that says something is wrong with the reward system on certain game modes imho

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Jelan, on 14 September 2024 - 11:52 AM, said:

that says something is wrong with the reward system on certain game modes imho

No, it says something is wrong with the game mode, rewarding that arms race of capping isn't a reward issue when the gameplay is....less than engaging.

[VeeOt Dragon]

name me one PvP shooter that doesn't have objective modes in its gameplay loop (something that isn't some one or two map piece of vaporware of course). objectives should have a higher impact on the match than they now do and should be rewarded as such. just because so many players can only pack one thought in their head at a time doesn't mean that objectives are bad. hell AMS used to give bigger rewards than it does now including PSR progression so you saw more people using it (mind you i agree with it giving rewards though not in PSR).

if people thought about objectives more they would be a better tactical choice. is the enemy hunkering down in a good defensive position (not common but it happens) send a light around behind them to cap and draw a few off. is it one of those games where one side has twice the tonnage of the other, send some mechs off to cap because you know its gonna be a stomp (i would rather win a match with cap than loose because the match maker ****** up yet again). hell is the enemy capping your base, have a fast mover or two head over to deal with it now you have yourself a smaller skirmish going on apart from the main battle. if objectives were rewarded then play could be more dynamic and have more variety from match to match. well that is if people bother with them. look at Conquest, at least back when i played daily the call at the start was "faster movers cap, slow mechs head towards Theta (or whatever objective was the center)". instead of having one big fight the match was a bunch of smaller ones spread out. if one team did murderball they often lost on caps even if they killed all the other teams mechs, unless they had one really good capping pilot.

the biggest problem i have seen with assault is when you have one of your lights head for the enemy cap from the start and whole team tries to follow. some simple use of coms (or just common sense) could forestall that (the light calling out "gonna head for cap and scout don't follow me"). thing is most people don't use coms or have it turned off completely and those that do are often in groups and not using the in game coms instead using discord, teamspeak, or some other outside source (again another failing on PGI's part in not having any out of match VC for those that do group up)

objectives are a tool just like mech, loadout, and map selection. if you use it it can be fun. all the "its just sitting in a square" comments are mostly because caps are ignored completely half the time. hell look at all the stuff you have on your HUD, you have objective indicators, mech health (both yours and the enemy you have targeted if you bother to even press R), and radar. half the time i think people don't bother paying attention to any of these. should we remove them as well because "they serve no purpose when the purpose is just shooting mechs"?

[martian]

DarkBazerker, on 10 September 2024 - 11:25 AM, said:

^ this logic is ok, but me talking about being ok with a lost, because I did my damage and got an up arrow is not? Very messed up double standard.

I do not know what "double standard" you are talking about. This is your first post in this thread.

Edited by martian, 16 September 2024 - 07:44 AM.