41 replies to this topic

[epikt]

Arcadinal, on 03 January 2025 - 09:55 AM, said:

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.

I see what you mean, and I must admit my point of view is informed by the fact I mostly pilot fast mechs.
But I also (more rarely but I still have few favs in the category I drop with on a regular basis) pilot slow "sniper" mechs. Another category of mech that position themselves apart from the main pack.
But true, most pickup teams will have a "cluster" at the center, and that's imho not a bad thing. I actually much prefer a slow pack knowing what they do and assuming their role as an "anchor" to the team, rather than assaults brainlessly following lights in their flank (if everybody flanks, that's not a flank anymore!).
But, except a "press W and don't stop" situation, I don't think 10 mechs in a cluster is a good thing - it actually can be pretty bad if they stop (especially in the multiple "death valleys").

Quote

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.

Indeed, that's why I insisted on teammates overwatching each others (that's where long range mechs become handy), as well as on map knowledge and situational awareness.
But yeah, there is a difference between "brainlessly going all over the place without watching what the other are doing" and "spreading on the map to take our positions".

Edited by epikt, 03 January 2025 - 09:51 PM.

[martian]

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

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

I think that you are right.

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.

What if such gold star is given to somebody who did not stay in his random lance? I do not think that the OP would be pleased with such result.

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

But ego stroking works.

From what I have seen, three quarters of players leave the game right after they are killed. Thus, they are not going to see that gold star on the aftergame match score table anyway. Therefore, it is unlikely that such gold star would make them change their behavior.

[LordNothing]

herd behavior becomes a problem when you have large team sizes. this is why you have automatic strats like nascar or murderball.

also the information problem, there is no way to tell what your team is running most of the time. unless you ask them, visually identify weapons or plan ahead. but that either takes too much time or gives incomplete results. i kind of wish i could see everyone's loadout on the start screen. then if i see a lot of brawlers, missile boats or snipers, they can play accordingly. then instead of "plan?...dont die", we get "were heavy on srms so lets bum rush them". what kind of military force deploys without knowing their full capabilities?

[martian]

LordNothing, on 05 January 2025 - 06:53 AM, said:

also the information problem, there is no way to tell what your team is running most of the time. unless you ask them, visually identify weapons or plan ahead. but that either takes too much time or gives incomplete results. i kind of wish i could see everyone's loadout on the start screen. then if i see a lot of brawlers, missile boats or snipers, they can play accordingly. then instead of "plan?...dont die", we get "were heavy on srms so lets bum rush them". what kind of military force deploys without knowing their full capabilities?

People have been asking for such feature before:
Targeting Allies
Target Friendly?

I would like to see such feature, but realistically speaking ... it is unlikely that it will happen.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

I don't even think you need to be able to target friendlies, though it would be nice. The biggest thing is the start round screen needs to be able to display more info than just the variant used by pilots.

[Arcadinal]

What about being able to apply a simple tag to your mech that displays in the match lobby and in match team screen?

E.g. Sniper, Skirmisher, Scout, LRM Support, etc.

Edited by Arcadinal, 05 January 2025 - 12:52 PM.

[LordNothing]

martian, on 05 January 2025 - 10:52 AM, said:

People have been asking for such feature before:
Targeting Allies
Target Friendly?

I would like to see such feature, but realistically speaking ... it is unlikely that it will happen.

i used to have 3 hat switches reserved for targeting controls in other mechwarrior games. so when mwo only had one, it really threw off my usual control mappings. the best targeting controls in any game probibly goes to freespace 1&2. things like "target target's target" come to mind. i think they were just trolling that one honestly.

Edited by LordNothing, 05 January 2025 - 08:12 PM.

[LordNothing]

Quicksilver Aberration, on 05 January 2025 - 12:39 PM, said:

I don't even think you need to be able to target friendlies, though it would be nice. The biggest thing is the start round screen needs to be able to display more info than just the variant used by pilots.

i was thinking kind of a mouseover the names and get a loadout and get some stats like top speed and minimum engagement range. you could abstract it down even more with an alpha damage vs range plot so you can at least get an idea of the combat envelope of each mech. even then when you mouse over 12 mechs, its a lot of data to take in. so maybe sum up the curves and bracket the most optimal engagement ranges.

if the game was smarter about sorting players by capabilities and forming lances out of mechs with similar capabilities that would help teamwork a lot. lances seem to stay together better when they have a similar role. sorting by tonnage alone doesnt work because you have fast assaults, slow lights and everything in between. you are probibly better off putting the slow ac20 urbie in the assault lance as it excels in the close escort role. sorting by speed might help but that doesnt match the range profile at all. players should be making these choices more deliberately before the match even starts. a lot of the lack of team work possibly comes from the lack of tools to organize the random assets you have in any qp drop.

and you could turn it on its head with in game mech selection, if you cant find the tactics to fit your mechs, then pick your mechs that fit the chosen tactic. fp kind of does this to a degree, where you can at least chat before the drop and coordinate builds.

i dont think you are going to be bribing anyone into team work. look at fp if you need an example for why that doesn't work. people will feign compliance to get in and then do their own thing and leave angry once they picked all the low hanging fruit. it didnt turn them into the hyper team focused players that were wanted in fp.

Edited by LordNothing, 05 January 2025 - 09:29 PM.

[pbiggz]

You do not helicopter in and say "you must team work" from on high like mechajesus.

If you want team work to actually be a feature of the game, you need to rework gamemodes comprehensively, and incorporate meaningful respawns into quick play matches. Right now most behaviour we see in quick play is rooted in the fact that one small mistake can easily snowball into a loss; every mech team 1 kills makes the next mech easier to kill. Every mistake team 2 makes, makes the next mistake easier to make. This leads to very timid and selfish gameplay; you never want to be the first death on the team, so you'd rather sit back and let someone else be the first death.

Never mind that this game absolutely insults your time; you spend well over half of it staring at a queue. Any time I bring this up however, people get very weird about it. As though respawns cant exist in quick play because it'll ruin the game somehow?

[sycocys]

A lot of it stems from the game being an arcade-style TDM in relatively small arenas on static maps with only one functioning mode.


In my opinion if you want to push this game here towards more "teamwork" style play the first thing that needs to happen is a reduction in drop counts followed by re-placement of every drop point. There's simply no achievable way to make it a more tactical game with over populated matches with team lances all getting dropped next to each other.

Better would be to urge PGI to shift over to unreal 5 where they seem to have far more competency in programming mission sets, much larger and moderately procedural maps, and destructible terrain. Personally I would also encourage them to shift away from arcade mechanics like the buff tree unless they made it zero-sum, and to disregard TT designs/rules as it pertains to parity across tech and between individual weapon systems so they can actually try balance the game without all the insane quirks.

[LordNothing]

pbiggz, on 06 January 2025 - 05:55 AM, said:

You do not helicopter in and say "you must team work" from on high like mechajesus.

If you want team work to actually be a feature of the game, you need to rework gamemodes comprehensively, and incorporate meaningful respawns into quick play matches. Right now most behaviour we see in quick play is rooted in the fact that one small mistake can easily snowball into a loss; every mech team 1 kills makes the next mech easier to kill. Every mistake team 2 makes, makes the next mistake easier to make. This leads to very timid and selfish gameplay; you never want to be the first death on the team, so you'd rather sit back and let someone else be the first death.

Never mind that this game absolutely insults your time; you spend well over half of it staring at a queue. Any time I bring this up however, people get very weird about it. As though respawns cant exist in quick play because it'll ruin the game somehow?

you have to design your game mechanics around that though. mwll used cappable bases with useful things like the ability to spawn there, also things like turrets, repair, rearm, or sometimes the ability to upgrade mech. this made much better use of the maps and you didnt always end up fighting in the same spot like you do in mwo. terrain control was also a pretty good simulation of actual combat. gaining ground, falling back, etc. we have conquest but its nowhere near as well thought out. combat in mwo is often very contrived. when you boil everything down to run to center, shoot mechs, people stop using their gray matter. mwo really failed to add depth to combat.

Edited by LordNothing, 06 January 2025 - 12:21 PM.

[LordNothing]

sycocys, on 06 January 2025 - 07:00 AM, said:

A lot of it stems from the game being an arcade-style TDM in relatively small arenas on static maps with only one functioning mode.


In my opinion if you want to push this game here towards more "teamwork" style play the first thing that needs to happen is a reduction in drop counts followed by re-placement of every drop point. There's simply no achievable way to make it a more tactical game with over populated matches with team lances all getting dropped next to each other.

Better would be to urge PGI to shift over to unreal 5 where they seem to have far more competency in programming mission sets, much larger and moderately procedural maps, and destructible terrain. Personally I would also encourage them to shift away from arcade mechanics like the buff tree unless they made it zero-sum, and to disregard TT designs/rules as it pertains to parity across tech and between individual weapon systems so they can actually try balance the game without all the insane quirks.

i miss the days when you could play video games without needing spreadsheets. sometimes i feel like im playing numberwarrior, not a robot shooty game.

seems like they are prototyping pvp in clans with the dlc. and they have said their next mechwarrior game would be an mwo successor. though disclaimer, i still havent beat the training mission. was meched out from holiday events but i was going to play the first few missions. go figure my controls weren't working very well, no enemies were spawning, and while figuring out how to ent the mission i got stuck between two buildings. i figured id wait for a patch and ended up playing the forever winter.

Edited by LordNothing, 06 January 2025 - 12:37 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

pbiggz, on 06 January 2025 - 05:55 AM, said:

You do not helicopter in and say "you must team work" from on high like mechajesus.

If you want team work to actually be a feature of the game, you need to rework gamemodes comprehensively, and incorporate meaningful respawns into quick play matches. Right now most behaviour we see in quick play is rooted in the fact that one small mistake can easily snowball into a loss; every mech team 1 kills makes the next mech easier to kill. Every mistake team 2 makes, makes the next mistake easier to make. This leads to very timid and selfish gameplay; you never want to be the first death on the team, so you'd rather sit back and let someone else be the first death.

Never mind that this game absolutely insults your time; you spend well over half of it staring at a queue. Any time I bring this up however, people get very weird about it. As though respawns cant exist in quick play because it'll ruin the game somehow?

Respawn doesn't fix anything. You just aren't going to get teamwork in QP regardless of the game. TBH respawn doesn't even change passive play either, the number of CoD lobbies I've played with friends where even they play the most passive way, proned/crouched down in some weird off-angles on the side of the map even on modes like kill-confirmed where you need to collect the tags off your frags is well....too numerous.

I'm pretty sure people look at MWLL through some rosy glasses too because it's never had the population really worth mentioning, meaning no one has really started to develop the optimal strategies like they would in bigger games (though in ye olden days, it was just aerospace spam because of course it was).

Expecting teamwork from a random group who aren't even necessarily going in to coordinate before hand (like say a PUG in an MMO would) or where everyone is necessarily going in with the same objective (again I compare it to a PUG in an MMO), yeah it's a futile effort.

Edited by Quicksilver Aberration, 06 January 2025 - 12:54 PM.

[pbiggz]

Quicksilver Aberration, on 06 January 2025 - 12:52 PM, said:

Respawn doesn't fix anything. You just aren't going to get teamwork in QP regardless of the game. TBH respawn doesn't even change passive play either, the number of CoD lobbies I've played with friends where even they play the most passive way, proned/crouched down in some weird off-angles on the side of the map even on modes like kill-confirmed where you need to collect the tags off your frags is well....too numerous.

I'm pretty sure people look at MWLL through some rosy glasses too because it's never had the population really worth mentioning, meaning no one has really started to develop the optimal strategies like they would in bigger games (though in ye olden days, it was just aerospace spam because of course it was).

Expecting teamwork from a random group who aren't even necessarily going in to coordinate before hand (like say a PUG in an MMO would) or where everyone is necessarily going in with the same objective (again I compare it to a PUG in an MMO), yeah it's a futile effort.

On its own yeah I agree respawns would do little. I think they'd make the game alot better but they wouldnt do anything for teamwork.

Cultivating a more teamwork oriented experience would require a lot more, like fully comprehensive reworks of the gamemodes and maps. Stuff that isn't going to happen.

[sycocys]

LordNothing, on 06 January 2025 - 12:23 PM, said:

i miss the days when you could play video games without needing spreadsheets. sometimes i feel like im playing numberwarrior, not a robot shooty game.

seems like they are prototyping pvp in clans with the dlc. and they have said their next mechwarrior game would be an mwo successor. though disclaimer, i still havent beat the training mission. was meched out from holiday events but i was going to play the first few missions. go figure my controls weren't working very well, no enemies were spawning, and while figuring out how to ent the mission i got stuck between two buildings. i figured id wait for a patch and ended up playing the forever winter.

I haven't played clans yet, but just going on what I've seen with a few play through's of 5 they have most of the core features that would make for a very solid upgrade and have the ability to present a pretty reasonably start to what many of us bought into this game for at the start.
Don't feel like it would take many modifications to the mission sets to make enjoyable pvp, really as long as they don't take the e-sports design bait again and think every map and mode needs to be focused around deathmatch arena.
Then even on that angle they could actually set up interesting multi-mission/tug of war mission sets to continue that angle for their tournaments and for things like faction play.

On the mechlab from at least 5, to me it was too simple but on the other hand I personally wouldn't be very bothered if they built units with maybe even less player customization so they could actually have some restrictions to the balancing from the get-go.
I'd much rather see a game that they can logistically have some balance without looney toon buffs. I'm pretty sure they've well crossed the 300 mark in different characters with a significant amount of alternate options just pulling from source materials - to me that's a lot of variation already for the taking and there's no reason they can't make new variants based on game history or player suggestion and just keep them within a margin of balance.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

sycocys, on 06 January 2025 - 06:25 PM, said:

Then even on that angle they could actually set up interesting multi-mission/tug of war mission sets to continue that angle for their tournaments and for things like faction play.

Anyone who continues to ask for persistent universes or PvPvE is beyond delusional. At best you are creating troll heaven ala EVE Online, at worst you've created MWO2. Sorry, but team deathmatch like CS2/Valorant or deathmatch with objectives like TF2/Overwatch IS the best you can probably ask for with a PvP MW.

The worst part is that any believe that making the game beyond "team deathmatch" makes it somehow more tactical just doesn't understand how to play the game.

And if someone mentions Helldivers 2, then again, they didn't quite catch what makes Helldivers' persistent universe work: the lack of actual PvP. Helldivers 2 is what MW5 Mercs wishes it was because it has zero PvP and is solely about co-op for multiplayer.

pbiggz, on 06 January 2025 - 03:20 PM, said:

On its own yeah I agree respawns would do little. I think they'd make the game alot better but they wouldnt do anything for teamwork.

Cultivating a more teamwork oriented experience would require a lot more, like fully comprehensive reworks of the gamemodes and maps. Stuff that isn't going to happen.

I mean I don't think you want the game to go the route of Overwatch by making you even more dependent on your team and reducing the ability to carry which is the double-edged sword people forget, however that is more about the high end of play and not the low end. You don't have to go far in Overwatch or TF2 which definitely more reliant on team play than most to see the same thing you did in basically every other game. PUGs will be PUGs.

Edited by Quicksilver Aberration, 06 January 2025 - 08:24 PM.

[sycocys]

Quicksilver Aberration, on 06 January 2025 - 08:18 PM, said:

Anyone who continues to ask for persistent universes or PvPvE is beyond delusional.

There doesn't need to be anything persistent about it, they just have the systems more or less in place with the newer engine that they could literally have multi-mission - up to the point of back and forth drop (tug-of-war style) drops and objectives that actually affect the match that is being played.

They already have event triggers, and various ways to trigger/complete them even in MW5. I have no idea how/if they refined that in clans but the core system is already there to place thing in to make matches more interesting that the singular mode of team death match.

The options for them to create some fully pre-defined maps with mission sets for higher levels of competition or special events is right there as well.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

sycocys, on 07 January 2025 - 01:46 AM, said:

There doesn't need to be anything persistent about it, they just have the systems more or less in place with the newer engine that they could literally have multi-mission - up to the point of back and forth drop (tug-of-war style) drops and objectives that actually affect the match that is being played.

Yeah, I've seen this song and dance before and it did not draw things like people wanted. Alliance Battles in Guild Wars 1 were a lot like this. 12v12 but each side is comprised of 4 man groups rather than 12 mans like FP. The tug-of-war would determine the map with maps the furthest to each side being lopsided rather than providing in-game bonuses and it just wasn't fun to play when the map was lopsided against you which is why that just doesn't work for PvP games, it was better to just wait that out (since the tug-of-war I believe had decay over time).

MW5 also had really bland missions so I really hope no one would be using them for the basis for a PvP game. Again, MW5 Mercs really wanted to be Helldivers 2 which is a co-op PvE game, not a PvP game.

Edited by Quicksilver Aberration, 07 January 2025 - 07:10 AM.

[LordNothing]

sycocys, on 06 January 2025 - 06:25 PM, said:

I haven't played clans yet, but just going on what I've seen with a few play through's of 5 they have most of the core features that would make for a very solid upgrade and have the ability to present a pretty reasonably start to what many of us bought into this game for at the start.
Don't feel like it would take many modifications to the mission sets to make enjoyable pvp, really as long as they don't take the e-sports design bait again and think every map and mode needs to be focused around deathmatch arena.
Then even on that angle they could actually set up interesting multi-mission/tug of war mission sets to continue that angle for their tournaments and for things like faction play.

On the mechlab from at least 5, to me it was too simple but on the other hand I personally wouldn't be very bothered if they built units with maybe even less player customization so they could actually have some restrictions to the balancing from the get-go.
I'd much rather see a game that they can logistically have some balance without looney toon buffs. I'm pretty sure they've well crossed the 300 mark in different characters with a significant amount of alternate options just pulling from source materials - to me that's a lot of variation already for the taking and there's no reason they can't make new variants based on game history or player suggestion and just keep them within a margin of balance.

i really think 12v12 was a mistake for an indie game. from a match making time and skill balance perspective. so doing stars or lances makes a lot of sense. and again its probibly a prototype to get the core multiplayer components

Quicksilver Aberration, on 06 January 2025 - 08:18 PM, said:

Anyone who continues to ask for persistent universes or PvPvE is beyond delusional. At best you are creating troll heaven ala EVE Online, at worst you've created MWO2. Sorry, but team deathmatch like CS2/Valorant or deathmatch with objectives like TF2/Overwatch IS the best you can probably ask for with a PvP MW.

The worst part is that any believe that making the game beyond "team deathmatch" makes it somehow more tactical just doesn't understand how to play the game.

And if someone mentions Helldivers 2, then again, they didn't quite catch what makes Helldivers' persistent universe work: the lack of actual PvP. Helldivers 2 is what MW5 Mercs wishes it was because it has zero PvP and is solely about co-op for multiplayer.


I mean I don't think you want the game to go the route of Overwatch by making you even more dependent on your team and reducing the ability to carry which is the double-edged sword people forget, however that is more about the high end of play and not the low end. You don't have to go far in Overwatch or TF2 which definitely more reliant on team play than most to see the same thing you did in basically every other game. PUGs will be PUGs.

to be fair the pve assets and ai are there and can be ported. especially if they are using this clans dlc as a prototype. but id probibly just want to see the npcs be things like the non-mech vehicles which you can order around, and they die about like they do in mw5. that would at least bring some life to the otherwise sterile maps like we have in mwo.

i dont expect more than another arena shooter. but i wish they would make the gameplay loop somewhat different. provide a more continuous experience rather than the stop and go we have in mwo. i dont want to see a situation like unreal tournament sold the same game like 4 times. i do think it would be interesting to bring in the procedural maps, so you never get the same map twice. you have no idea where anything is so scouting becomes important again. maybe reduce team size to something more sustainable.

though i still think an open world game with a tukayyid megamap might be a good idea and is not outside the capabilities of the engine. then the battle loop goes on for as long as you want it too, provided you dont die or run out of enemies. people who like the cat and mouse playstyle would like that. maybe also see some superheavies and protomechs. throw in base building and customizable dropships if you have time.

Quicksilver Aberration, on 07 January 2025 - 07:09 AM, said:

Yeah, I've seen this song and dance before and it did not draw things like people wanted. Alliance Battles in Guild Wars 1 were a lot like this. 12v12 but each side is comprised of 4 man groups rather than 12 mans like FP. The tug-of-war would determine the map with maps the furthest to each side being lopsided rather than providing in-game bonuses and it just wasn't fun to play when the map was lopsided against you which is why that just doesn't work for PvP games, it was better to just wait that out (since the tug-of-war I believe had decay over time).

MW5 also had really bland missions so I really hope no one would be using them for the basis for a PvP game. Again, MW5 Mercs really wanted to be Helldivers 2 which is a co-op PvE game, not a PvP game.

the less time the game spends in the interface the better, with the exception of the mechlab of course. i dont really think 12v12 is sustainable in an indie game. if you want fast wait times, better teamwork, and an mm that can actually match skill, you need smaller teams. mw5 maps might be good in a pvp setting because its always a new map and the game unfolds differently every time. then you get rid of central features to run to or around and its more like a mechhunt.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

LordNothing, on 07 January 2025 - 01:10 PM, said:

though i still think an open world game with a tukayyid megamap might be a good idea and is not outside the capabilities of the engine. then the battle loop goes on for as long as you want it too, provided you dont die or run out of enemies. people who like the cat and mouse playstyle would like that. maybe also see some superheavies and protomechs. throw in base building and customizable dropships if you have time.

There's a reason the cat and mouse playstyle had to go, because in MW4 it could eat up 30m-1h of time, it was fun back ye olden days but looking back on it, it was awful to play against and it took forever to play with, that sort of play needed to die. As for the nonsense at the end, well that sounds like a persistent universe or at the very least, a Rust style map, and well that game is pretty much for trolls trolling trolls not unlike EVE. So many players who beg for that would be the first people to immediately leave once they actually realize what a persistent universe means.

LordNothing, on 07 January 2025 - 01:10 PM, said:

i do think it would be interesting to bring in the procedural maps, so you never get the same map twice. you have no idea where anything is so scouting becomes important again.

Scouting is important.....when you have cohesive teams and mechanics that don't prevent the easy relay of info (looking at you ECM and the one mech radar share limit). Hell the team I play with that won Worlds this last year (2024) did some after action streams and actually made a point to call out that we saw all the enemy's movement and how important that was to us making the right reaction. Again, anyone expecting quick play and PUGs to embody teamwork is going through an exercise in futility, it's not ever going to happen and you can't force it to happen, the sooner you accept that the sooner you can start thinking of ways to make QP less awful (smaller team sizes would help).

We don't need procedural maps to make that happen, tbh we just need maps that get consistent effort into improving them to make them less one-dimensional. The maps in MWO either didn't get touched enough, problems weren't adequately addressed if they were, or they were redone into a completely different map that played drastically different and often was worse than the first one.

Edited by Quicksilver Aberration, 07 January 2025 - 09:55 PM.