41 replies to this topic

[Johny Rocket]

Teamwork is OP please Buff.

Pretty simple make the bonuses related to teamwork the highest payout.

Lance in formation as the highest payout in score, C-bills and xp would stop people from scattering off on their own Rambo missions.

Information is king of the battlefield, Scouting paying out a factor higher would have people hitting the R button like fanatics.

Savior kill paying double of a kill assist or kill would increase sharing targets and focusing fire.

Before anyone comes in with how they should be able to go it on their own because they get stuck with trash teams or whatever toxic nonsense reply this will get...this is a team game, don't want to play as a team maybe its not for you.

Edited by Johny Rocket, 02 January 2025 - 10:20 AM.

[martian]

Johny Rocket, on 02 January 2025 - 09:52 AM, said:

Improve Teamwork With Simple Tweaks To Payout

Teamwork is OP please Buff.

Pretty simple make the bonuses related to teamwork the highest payout.

I absolutely do not care about C-Bills.

Johny Rocket, on 02 January 2025 - 09:52 AM, said:

Lance in formation as the highest payout in score, C-bills and xp would stop people from scattering off on their own Rambo missions.

I see no reason to stay with other random lancemates assigned by the matchmaker, especially if they are about to do something stupid, such as charging the enemy team head-on or camping on the open ground.

And of course, the matchmaker assigns 'Mechs more or less randomly, so I do not understand why I should as brawler stay with a sniper who is going to spend the game in some corner of the map. Not to talk that our third lancemate is some guy in Locust who runs away to flank the enemy team. etc.

Johny Rocket, on 02 January 2025 - 09:52 AM, said:

Information is king of the battlefield, Scouting paying out a factor higher would have people hitting the R button like fanatics.

Who does need scouting? Almost all MWO maps are pretty small and the enemy team will almost certainly come from the same direction as hundred times before.

On some maps you can see the enemy spawn right from your spawn.

Johny Rocket, on 02 January 2025 - 09:52 AM, said:

Savior kill paying double of a kill or assist or kill would increase sharing targets and focusing fire.

It already pays double.

Johny Rocket, on 02 January 2025 - 09:52 AM, said:

Before anyone comes in with how they should be able to go it on their own because they get stuck with trash teams or whatever toxic nonsense reply this will get...this is a team game, don't want to play as a team maybe its not for you.

I could not care less about any random assortment of players that I have never seen before and will never seen again. Especially if they are doing something stupid such as circling around the map and losing 'Mechs left and right, or if they are hiding behind buildings, praying for some miracle that would make enemy 'Mechs drop dead, while already losing 'Mechs.

I will try to do something alone what would give me the green arrow, instead of dying with the herd and getting the red arrow.

Edited by martian, 02 January 2025 - 11:19 AM.

[epikt]

Johny Rocket, on 02 January 2025 - 09:52 AM, said:

C-bills and xp would stop people from scattering off on their own Rambo missions.

LOL.
What do you do with players like me who couldn't care less about their score and PSR? Not to mention cbills, I have too much already, and I'm not the only one.

To be honest, I've never understand players driven by extrinsic rewards. My fun is the game itself.

[Johny Rocket]

Johny Rocket, on 02 January 2025 - 09:52 AM, said:

Before anyone comes in with how they should be able to go it on their own because they get stuck with trash teams or whatever toxic nonsense reply this will get...this is a team game, don't want to play as a team maybe its not for you.

It's like I'm clairvoyant or something, eh?

I'm just going to take both your comments as acknowledgement that you are the problem not the other 11 people on the TEAM that have to put up with your toxic behavior.

[martian]

Johny Rocket, on 02 January 2025 - 09:52 AM, said:

Before anyone comes in with how they should be able to go it on their own because they get stuck with trash teams or whatever toxic nonsense reply this will get...this is a team game, don't want to play as a team maybe its not for you.

I really laughed when I read your first preemptive attempt to label anyone disagreeing with your ideas as "toxic".

Johny Rocket, on 02 January 2025 - 11:08 AM, said:

It's like I'm clairvoyant or something, eh?

I'm just going to take both your comments as acknowledgement that you are the problem not the other 11 people on the TEAM that have to put up with your toxic behavior.

Now I am laughing even more when I am reading your repeated attempt at labelling people, who disagree with your ideas, as "toxic".

But of course, feel free to use any modern buzzword or phrase as you wish.

[Arcadinal]

Some interesting ideas. I would replace "Lance in formation as the highest payout in score" with bonuses for doing other activities in the proximity of teammates. Frequently the lance your are placed with isn't the one it makes the most sense for you to group up with, but any time mechs are doing stuff together should be rewarded.

[TELEFORCE]

epikt, on 02 January 2025 - 10:34 AM, said:

LOL.
What do you do with players like me who couldn't care less about their score and PSR? Not to mention cbills, I have too much already, and I'm not the only one.

Then you don't worry about it? LOL! I like collecting C-Bills so I don't run out of any doing expensive tweaks, like buying a bunch of XL engines or 'mechs. I'm probably not the only one who's like this either.

I think we need more rewards for using Narc and TAG, like a 50/50 damage credit split between the Narc/TAG user and those doing damage.

[Bud Crue]

Johny Rocket, on 02 January 2025 - 09:52 AM, said:

Teamwork is OP please Buff.

Pretty simple...

...make friends and drop with them.

Seriously. No amount or type of rewards is going to get people to behave in a manner that benefits others over themselves and their own desires. You want teamwork, then drop with a team.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

https://mwomercs.com...-be-even-worse/ this thread is proof that rewards don't actually matter outside of making players feel validated in their bad play. It's no different than people wanting AMS/NARC rewards to be higher to "encourage teamwork" or "support" play.

[Jon Gotham]

Nothing that anyone could do or say is going to make players behave any different. This playerbase is one of the most solo-centric I'm a special snowflake groups I have ever come across.
You have players proclaiming I'll do what I want and screw anyone else as if it's something that is normal and should, be accepted as correct behaviour. You have players moaning that people teaming up is "unfair" and tantamount to "cheating." Again they state this as if it's correct thinking...
All my friends who used to play this game bar one have quit. They were all team oriented players. They all quit for same reasons-the playerbase.
Until suchtime as people start to think and most importantly act in a more socially reciprocal manner you are simply dreaming.

[epikt]

One of the misconceptions of suggestions aiming at "improving" teamwork by intensives based on moar matchscore and cbill rewards is thinking teamplay could be quantified and rewarded by simple numbers, rather than appreciated by someone with practical knowledge and experience of game mechanics and tactics.

The multiple propositions in this thread of rewarding "proximity" between teammates is a good example: sure there are situations where staying close is a good thing (a wolfpack for example), but as many situations where it's definitely not (basically any mid to long range engagement). By the way this is this "stay together rather that control the map" mentality that is in part responsible for the dreaded nascar that plagues a lot of QP matches. Should we reward lemming mentality instead of tactical vision?
Also, most of the time a team that stay together is "rewarded" by artillery strikes and crossfires, because their position sucks.

More thoughts:
Rewarding scouting? The game already does something like that, and all it encourages is to fire your JJs and spam "R" to lock in succession as many enemy as possible to get those cbills bonus…
Narcing? The problem is that NARC is probably more useful at wallhacking (and thus suppressing the target, making them affraid to poke any corner/hill afraid to get gauss+ppc hits as soon as they appear) rather than actual missile damage… how do you quantify the fact that an assault mech is basically immobilized during 30 seconds because they have to hide?
Reward vocal communication? Sounds a good idea, doesn't it? But we all know so called "drop callers" that can't shut their mouth up and always call random targets without any tactical vision (not to mention this kind of reward would highly privilege native/fluent English speakers).

I could continue for pages. Teamplay is not a cooking recipe.

One good metric for teamplay is simply Victory and the fact that matchscore, PSR evolution and cbill/XP rewards are greatly indexed on win/loss is actually a good thing - you might find it unjust on a particular drop, but it evens out after enough matches.

[GreyNovember]

I don't think number rewards are going to motivate the behaviour you're looking for.

Perhaps instead, a commendation system post match. One for your team, so you can recognize individuals of note, and one for the enemy team, for the same reason.

Yes, it's a glorified gold star next to a name for a fleeting moment.

But ego stroking works.

[crazytimes]

There is plenty of rewards on offer for doing almost anything except playing a bracket build like a potato by running away from your team and not shooting.

Literally just standing near team mates pays out. It is not a lack of incentive for people to not potato- it is a deliberate choice on their part. Adding more money to not potato will not unmash said potato.

[kalashnikity]

martian, on 02 January 2025 - 11:26 AM, said:

I really laughed when I read your first preemptive attempt to label anyone disagreeing with your ideas as "toxic".

Now I am laughing even more when I am reading your repeated attempt at labelling people, who disagree with your ideas, as "toxic".

But of course, feel free to use any modern buzzword or phrase as you wish.

I've never seen a discussion forum where people complain as much as this one.

Is it because half of us are old farts, and the other half are whipper snappers?

A lot of Negative Nanci's, and Sorry Sallies around here.

We need a Gumpy Cat Emoji.

[Arcadinal]

GreyNovember, on 02 January 2025 - 09:19 PM, said:

Perhaps instead, a commendation system post match. One for your team, so you can recognize individuals of note, and one for the enemy team, for the same reason.

Yes, it's a glorified gold star next to a name for a fleeting moment.

But ego stroking works.

I like that idea. I seem to recall League of Legends doing something similar.

Edited by Arcadinal, 03 January 2025 - 05:42 AM.

[dario03]

Doesn't lance in formation and scouting kind of conflict with each other? Scouting is more than pressing R, its best done by being in a different position than your teammates so you can get a different viewing angle.

[Arcadinal]

epikt, on 02 January 2025 - 09:02 PM, said:

I could continue for pages. Teamplay is not a cooking recipe.

No, but it's at least usually a better game. Personally, I'd rather have the team following a stupid plan than no plan at all. Even if it's not a sure victory, it's certainly more enjoyable. The most frustrating matches at least for me are the ones where half the team is scattered across the map while the enemy rolls around in a giant deathball and just crushes everyone in ones and twos. At least when everyone's on the same page I'm more likely to get a decent fight in as opposed to winding up with me and one Atlas versus four or five opponents.

[epikt]

Arcadinal, on 03 January 2025 - 07:28 AM, said:

The most frustrating matches at least for me are the ones where half the team is scattered across the map while the enemy rolls around in a giant deathball and just crushes everyone in ones and twos. At least when everyone's on the same page I'm more likely to get a decent fight in as opposed to winding up with me and one Atlas versus four or five opponents.

But "being on the same page" is not the same thing as all blobing together at the same place. Actually, if I wanted to play the Devil's advocate I'd say it's the exact opposite:
1/ staying together is a best worst behavior in order to mitigate the effects of a lack of teamplay;
2/ a team with a plan and a strong coordination is able to spread out in order to control the map.

Let's take an extreme example: if you watch a "high level" competitive match - a situation where you can't say there is no plan and no teamplay - you'll notice the dominant team is most often the one that spreads, opens new angles on the enemy in order to deny them covers, while overwatching each others.

Let's take another example, in quick play this time: a fight on epsilon corner on Canyon Network/Hibernal Rift. The dominant team is most often the one able to open to the center map, deploying their fast movers to the flank in order to apply pressure from multiple directions.

Sure, I won't expect from random pickup teams to have the same coordination than structured comp teams. But at least I could expect players to have basic map knowledge, positioning, tactics,... In my first post I wrote "tactical vision" multiple times, I don't know if it's the good English word (in French we call it "vision de jeu") but by that I want to speak of situational awareness, tactical sense,... the ability to read the game and how it evolves.

A team that stay together is often the sign of a team afraid to deploy and control the terrain, because of a lack of teamplay and coordination. Players don't trust their teammates, so at least they stay together hoping they will be able to defend each other by cheer numbers. And it eventually can work.
But it is just trying to mitigate the worst.

PS: don't make me say something I don't, and don't make this post more dogmatic than it is.
As I said in my first post, there are situations where a close pack is a good thing. But it's not the most frequent situations. And, as far as teamplay goes, it is the easy way and not the most rewarding.

[martian]

kalashnikity, on 02 January 2025 - 11:27 PM, said:

I've never seen a discussion forum where people complain as much as this one.

Is it because half of us are old farts, and the other half are whipper snappers?

A lot of Negative Nanci's, and Sorry Sallies around here.

We need a Gumpy Cat Emoji.

I am deeply sorry, but I can not take seriously a person who ends his posts preemptively with "Before anyone comes in with how they should be able to go it on their own because they get stuck with trash teams or whatever toxic nonsense reply this will get" in an attempt to discourage other players from questioning his ideas.

[Arcadinal]

epikt, on 03 January 2025 - 08:52 AM, said:

A team that stay together is often the sign of a team afraid to deploy and control the terrain, because of a lack of teamplay and coordination. Players don't trust their teammates, so at least they stay together hoping they will be able to defend each other by cheer numbers. And it eventually can work.
But it is just trying to mitigate the worst.

Yeah I hear this, it's just if there isn't good communication going on, I feel like unless you're running around in a light you don't have a lot of great options beyond sticking with a cluster. Even when an enemy team spreads out to take advantage of angles, they're still generally winning because they're bringing numerical superiority to any given engagement, i.e. it's five mechs on three, even if those five are in different grid cells. If a team just has people going all over the place, however, not much good seems to come of it.