52 replies to this topic

[Taiji]

Lavrenti, on 10 November 2012 - 07:22 PM, said:

I think I see the problem. For want of a better phrase, you are in favour of "shooting stuff and seeing it blow up real good". Not trying to be offensive here, I just can't think of a better way of putting it.

You failed at offending me with your deliberate misunderstanding of my points or you plainly failed at understanding English.

Either way, I've nothing to add

Edited by Taiji, 10 November 2012 - 07:33 PM.

[Lavrenti]

Taiji, on 10 November 2012 - 07:31 PM, said:

You failed at offending me and also plainly failed at understanding English.

"What should be clear is that a game about big robots with guns should be about using them to destroy other big robots with guns."

Then tell me, what other interpretation should I put on a statement like this? If this is NOT in favour of shooting other mechs and seeing them blow up, what DOES it mean?

[Taiji]

You are obviously adding 'seeing them blow up' in there as a childish attempt to belittle my argument.

Good luck with that!

[Lavrenti]

Taiji, on 10 November 2012 - 07:39 PM, said:

You are obviously adding 'seeing them blow up' in there as a childish attempt to belittle my argument.

Then let's do without it. The question still stands, though - if "a game about big robots with guns should be about using them to destroy other big robots with guns" does not imply that the game should be all about destroying other robots, then what DOES it mean?

[Taiji]

Lavrenti, on 10 November 2012 - 07:44 PM, said:

Then let's do without it. The question still stands, though - if "a game about big robots with guns should be about using them to destroy other big robots with guns" does not imply that the game should be all about destroying other robots, then what DOES it mean?

Now, having admitted you have something to 'do without' from now on (something to do with your seemingly being disingenuous, most likely), you're actually trying to imply that I mean something other than what I've stated very clearly!

I begin to wonder if you can ever truly 'do without' when you face disagreement...

Edited by Taiji, 10 November 2012 - 07:56 PM.

[SteelShadows]

Taiji, on 10 November 2012 - 06:28 PM, said:

What should be clear is that a game about big robots with guns should be about using them to destroy other big robots with guns.

While I agree that there should be a mode that either emphasizes, or even requires, a straight up fight between the two sides, there needs to be more then just one game mode. The current assault match, while not perfect, is good. When it becomes one of several, then it will be better as there will be more variety but as it stands it gives players options on how to play.

What seems to be the core issue is that some people don't want to have options, they want a straight fight between them and their opponent, a death match as has been stated earlier. If they were to switch to death match being the only match type it would hurt this game more then help. With the loss of options in game play people would burn out faster, lowering the amount of player base faster.

What I feel they should do is get death match added as soon as they can and give players the choice to que for one, the other, or both so that way people could play which ever style suits them.

[Taiji]

SteelShadows, on 10 November 2012 - 08:04 PM, said:

While I agree that there should be a mode that either emphasizes, or even requires, a straight up fight between the two sides, there needs to be more then just one game mode. The current assault match, while not perfect, is good. When it becomes one of several, then it will be better as there will be more variety but as it stands it gives players options on how to play.

What seems to be the core issue is that some people don't want to have options, they want a straight fight between them and their opponent, a death match as has been stated earlier. If they were to switch to death match being the only match type it would hurt this game more then help. With the loss of options in game play people would burn out faster, lowering the amount of player base faster.

What I feel they should do is get death match added as soon as they can and give players the choice to que for one, the other, or both so that way people could play which ever style suits them.

Yeah, totally. I'm not suggesting the existing gamemode be removed. I just wouldn't play this one if there were something that guaranteed some action which (most likely) won't be interrupted by artificial mechanics until I or they are dead.

Edited by Taiji, 10 November 2012 - 08:46 PM.

[Hayashi]

Do be civil, we've had a report on this. Though personally I don't think it was severe enough to warrant any infringement on your freedom of speech just yet, it'd be nice if the discussion was toned down a bit willingly, thanks.

For proponents of the deathmatch game style, consider what would happen if the last few Mechs for a match don't have weapons left (run out of ammo, whatever), and there was no alternate way to win. They'd be chestbumping enough other until the clock expires.

Also, it would mean that if the last mech alive on one team was a Jenner and there are 3 Atlases alive on the other team, the Jenner can run circles and generally bore everybody to death, since there's no objective to force the Jenner back to fight - while the Atlases can neither catch nor hit the Jenner.

Do you want that to happen? If not, how would you build a deathmatch style match where that kind of play is made impossible?

For opponents of the style, do think of how the current system can be tweaked so more combat happens and less base cap rush matches. Slower cap speeds? Caps that restore over time if not actively being captured? Movement of the cap zone from the starting areas of each team to a common area a la 'King of the Hill' style?

You're not going to have any productive argument if you think only about yourself. Think about why people don't agree with you, and come up with ways to create a situation that more people can be happy with. You probably know why you like your idea, but if you don't think about why people like their way of thinking, and accomodate for them, we're just going to have a lot of one-sided non-persuasive points degenerating into flaming when people get frustrated that their points aren't getting across to others.

[Taiji]

Hayashi, on 11 November 2012 - 12:53 AM, said:

Do be civil, we've had a report on this. Though personally I don't think it was severe enough to warrant any infringement on your freedom of speech just yet, it'd be nice if the discussion was toned down a bit willingly, thanks.

I think we are being pretty civil, and I'm glad you agree that nothing said warrants any kind of moderation. Sarcasm and disingenuous accusations abound everywhere on the internet, although I prefer to use them only to respond in kind.

Hayashi, on 11 November 2012 - 12:53 AM, said:

For proponents of the deathmatch game style, consider what would happen if the last few Mechs for a match don't have weapons left (run out of ammo, whatever), and there was no alternate way to win. They'd be chestbumping enough other until the clock expires.

Yep, I think we need artificial mechanics to prevent that.

Hayashi, on 11 November 2012 - 12:53 AM, said:

Also, it would mean that if the last mech alive on one team was a Jenner and there are 3 Atlases alive on the other team, the Jenner can run circles and generally bore everybody to death, since there's no objective to force the Jenner back to fight - while the Atlases can neither catch nor hit the Jenner.

Yep, same as above.

Hayashi, on 11 November 2012 - 12:53 AM, said:

Do you want that to happen? If not, how would you build a deathmatch style match where that kind of play is made impossible?

Personally no, as you probably noticed in my first post in this thread.

The only method I'd currently advocate is something like the one used by the mod for Mount and Blade called cRPG.

IIRC; in that instance we'd have a gamemode where 5 minutes into a match a condition for creating a single cap zone in a hard to defend area of the center of the map is added.

The condition being n minutes without anyone taking any damage.

Both teams can cap the point at the same time, so it becomes a race to do so through weight of numbers while under fire.

And for this game, which is not a melee game, the cap zone can be made large enough to allow mech combat to take place. So it would be much bigger than the current mode's smaller cap zones.

In this way we can have a gamemode that allows pure combat and then forces players to fight when both teams become too cowardly for fun to be had.

Hayashi, on 11 November 2012 - 12:53 AM, said:

For opponents of the style, do think of how the current system can be tweaked so more combat happens and less base cap rush matches. Slower cap speeds? Caps that restore over time if not actively being captured? Movement of the cap zone from the starting areas of each team to a common area a la 'King of the Hill' style?

I think you're making a mistake in thinking either style should be compromised for the other. In my opinion it's far better to have at least 2 styles, to suit those who prefer abstract sport games in one, and then those who like fast paced tactical combat games in another.

Although if we want to look at improving both then I suggest we make a tie - maybe the worst disaster in a game of this kind - count as both a death and a loss for both sides. So it affects stats and money.

Hayashi, on 11 November 2012 - 12:53 AM, said:

You're not going to have any productive argument if you think only about yourself. Think about why people don't agree with you, and come up with ways to create a situation that more people can be happy with. You probably know why you like your idea, but if you don't think about why people like their way of thinking, and accomodate for them, we're just going to have a lot of one-sided non-persuasive points degenerating into flaming when people get frustrated that their points aren't getting across to others.

I'm not thinking only about myself, and I hope you don't mean to accuse me of such after asking us to be 'civil' regarding similar behaviour. In fact, as I see it, I'm standing up for the many thousands of fellow gamers who enjoy combat. The people who insist what we have already is enough, it seems they are the ones who apparently do not care about other people's enjoyment.

If we already had a combat forcing gamemode and were lacking the abstract sport gamemode, then I'd probably be here arguing for the other side. Because I think it's in PGI's interest and so MWO's interest and so mine along with everyone else who loves this game.

And incidentally, it's disconcerting to see you admonish open-mindedness but then refer to a gamemode you probably haven't any experience of by the term 'Deathmatch'. It makes you come across as someone with a preconception of the idea you haven't heard.

The game mode I just described again (having described it previously in another thread on the same subject) is simply called 'Battle' in cRPG.

Edited by Taiji, 11 November 2012 - 07:56 AM.

[KRNLRKR]

I'm certainly attracted by the Idea of a persistent world where you capture territories using different tactics and what you do really matters in a global meaning of the word.
Tactics are necessary, In my opinion is what makes MW what it is. If it was for mindlessly shooting stuff down I'd be playing battlefield.
I think all the modes should be integrated into a massive interactive scenario where factions fight to control strategic spots, which in term would grant those factions different technological or strategical advantages.
This kind of game could suit all roles from scout to plain brawler, but there has to be an objective other than killing the opposite team. Maybe Solaris for those who seek fame and fortune "a la gladiator".
But then again, persistent world, strategic locations that have to be captured/destroyed and favoring the strengths of each class is mandatory for me.
As an immediate suggestion, why not change the capture point for a destructible structure (a hangar, a control tower, etc) maybe even in a valley so it's protected from long distance attacks from LRMs?

Edited by KRNLRKR, 14 November 2012 - 06:19 PM.

[IntruderAlert]

Hayashi, on 11 November 2012 - 12:53 AM, said:

Do be civil, we've had a report on this. Though personally I don't think it was severe enough to warrant any infringement on your freedom of speech just yet, it'd be nice if the discussion was toned down a bit willingly, thanks.

For proponents of the deathmatch game style, consider what would happen if the last few Mechs for a match don't have weapons left (run out of ammo, whatever), and there was no alternate way to win. They'd be chestbumping enough other until the clock expires.

Also, it would mean that if the last mech alive on one team was a Jenner and there are 3 Atlases alive on the other team, the Jenner can run circles and generally bore everybody to death, since there's no objective to force the Jenner back to fight - while the Atlases can neither catch nor hit the Jenner.

Do you want that to happen? If not, how would you build a deathmatch style match where that kind of play is made impossible?

For opponents of the style, do think of how the current system can be tweaked so more combat happens and less base cap rush matches. Slower cap speeds? Caps that restore over time if not actively being captured? Movement of the cap zone from the starting areas of each team to a common area a la 'King of the Hill' style?

You're not going to have any productive argument if you think only about yourself. Think about why people don't agree with you, and come up with ways to create a situation that more people can be happy with. You probably know why you like your idea, but if you don't think about why people like their way of thinking, and accomodate for them, we're just going to have a lot of one-sided non-persuasive points degenerating into flaming when people get frustrated that their points aren't getting across to others.

So....When does the Jenner tossing mode come out????

[KittenKrusher Prime]

I agree with remove the base cap .... but keep the timer, none of this standoff setup and wait all day for them to come to us ****, lets get some battle on ... actually fight!! you are there to assault like the game modes says not camp... otherwise that game mode would be called GAMEMODE: CAMP...

[King Arthur IV]

MouseNo4, on 10 November 2012 - 12:59 PM, said:

Create a new game mode.

Remove the base capture, remove the timer.

Match is won by the team that destroys the other. No cheap wins by completely avoiding the enemy and going for the swift capture. This is MechWARrior, not capture the flag.

i need the option of ninja cap if my team has all died.