84 replies to this topic

[Acid Phase]

Since this topic now belongs here, let's re live it up again.

I posted this before, but it died down. It would interest me how many of you (The Community) is on board with this topic through a poll. Any suggestions are also welcomed.

I feel that this game should stop becoming a team death match. If I wanted to play that, I would go back to playing some Unreal Tournament. I remember that MechWarrior was mostly about going through missions. If you played MechWarrior series, you know exactly what I mean. "Primary Objectives, secondary objectives, and tertiary objectives".

In my opinion, the way the "Assault gametype" would be ideal is to complete these objectives. Think of how tactical the team will perform according to these objectives, rather than just seeing a bunch of "steam-rolls" or just boring base caps. I see that the teams are composed of 12 players per side. If each team was divided into two groups (offense/defense) I'm pretty sure the game would come down to very grueling battles down to the wire. End of game stats and rewards should reflect on how well has each team has completed these objectives.

Here's my thought, Have the map with multiple Primary Objectives, (Capturing/Destroying/Defending) buildings or bases located at different NAV points. Return to extraction points also as an important primary objective. As for Secondary and tertiary objectives, have them be kill all enemy mechs.

The point is to make the game more tactical. As far as I'm concerned, that is a feature not taken into consideration in MechWarrior Online. Not sure about everyone else, but these "steam-rolls" and base captures (in favor/against) are

Edited by Acid Phase, 09 October 2013 - 07:39 AM.

[Keifomofutu]

When I think of a good objective based mode in a game I think of age of chivalry.

The objective mode there worked slightly like rush in that there was only one set of objectives at a time. These varied from killing npcs to breaking down defenses or even signalling for help. As you completed one the other opened up. If an objective mode worked like that in MWO it would be amazing.

As in rush there was always one team defending the objectives and one team attacking.

[verybad]

It's not going to happen. THat simple. Waste of time asking.

[Voivode]

verybad, on 27 April 2013 - 05:56 PM, said:

It's not going to happen. THat simple. Waste of time asking.

While it is called Mechwarrior Online, I think a team based mode where a few friends beat up some NPCs would be a popular item. It still fulfills the "Online" portion of the name and could be done in a similar fashion to the matches already at the core of the game. A few friends select mechs and drop into an existing map for a challenge against various AI items (tanks, mechs, helicopters, the usual stuff) with the same sort of timer. The exact same objective locations could be used, either fight a group of AI dealies at each one and cap it or destroy it or whatever. Being able to take a break and play some low key mechwarrior with some friends would be something people would really get into.

[mouzerius]

both sides could get differant orders. so all mech types can come back to the roll that they should have.

[Acid Phase]

Very solid points. I do like the idea of NPCs in the form of vehicles and while we're at it, add base turrets for an extra base defense.



As Mouzerius mentioned, I'd like for each pilot to play a pivotal role out there in the battlefield. Scouts for example should relay information of enemy locations and/or objective loctions through coordinates on the map. While the team deliberates which lance will carry out which objective to complete.

As I said, MechWarrior is more than a team deathmatch. For that, I beleive there's the solaris arena, for those who care for that sort of thing. I prefer to be a part of a mission and the satisfaction of completing it as a MechWarrior we all know from the battletech stories.

Edited by Acid Phase, 29 April 2013 - 05:58 AM.

[SuperBroHeroFella]

Just make me defend or attack an important crashed spaceship.

Just make steal/safe information from an enemy headquarter.

Just let me hunt down an specific enemy for extra cash.

Just let me backup a truck convoy.

Just let me destroy a couple of security points.

Just let me stomp on civilians.

Just make me use a specific mech layout for a special purpose.

Just throw a bunch of elementaries at me.

Just let me gamble my cash on a gladiator mech.

Thank you.

[Nuds]

What if a mode similar to tf2's payload was implemented? One team has to stay close to a convoy in order for it to move, the other team just has to keep them suppressed. the convoy is indestructible so they don't have to worry about snipers and can focus just on positioning.

[Nation Uprise]

At this point I'll take anything other than the TDMs (Masquerading as Base Caps) we have now. Here's a great quote:

Bryan Ekman, on 25 April 2013 - 11:30 AM, said:

Interesting stat - 19% of Assault wins come from Base Caps. 81% of victories come from destroying the opposition.

So in the gametype where the object is to Capture the Base, close to no one tries to capture the base, and basically every match becomes a TDM. I'm tired of that. Give us something that is worth investing time into. We have 15 mins per match, but almost every match is over in 5 mins. A gametype that gives a mission type scenario would be wonderful:

-Defend/attack convoy, structure, base
-Gather intel and flee to extraction zone
-Base Defense with Waves of NPC Enemies (like Gears of War's Horde or COD's Zombie mode) that can also have deployable defense objects like turrets, tanks and the consumable air strikes would play a big role here.

[Hellcat420]

Nation Uprise, on 30 April 2013 - 04:08 PM, said:

At this point I'll take anything other than the TDMs (Masquerading as Base Caps) we have now. Here's a great quote:

So in the gametype where the object is to Capture the Base, close to no one tries to capture the base, and basically every match becomes a TDM. I'm tired of that. Give us something that is worth investing time into. We have 15 mins per match, but almost every match is over in 5 mins. A gametype that gives a mission type scenario would be wonderful:

-Defend/attack convoy, structure, base
-Gather intel and flee to extraction zone
-Base Defense with Waves of NPC Enemies (like Gears of War's Horde or COD's Zombie mode) that can also have deployable defense objects like turrets, tanks and the consumable air strikes would play a big role here.

for one thing the objective of assault is not just to cap enemy base, its cap enemy base OR destroy all enemy mechs, which is part of the problem. make it one or the other, not both. my opinion on the matter is that all matches should be mission based, this is mechwarrior not robot jox.

Edited by Hellcat420, 30 April 2013 - 05:06 PM.

[Kraven Kor]

Good Luck with this. I'm with you 100%.

Don't see it happening, but I'm hoping. Still. Kind of.

I need a hug.

[p4g3m4s7r]

Your poll is asking the wrong question. However, to answer the right question: yes I would like it if the devs would implement mission style (/assault style) matches into the game.

[Acid Phase]

Good call. Yet even before this gametype is ever implemented, one important feature is missing. In game voice chat. Otherwise these pilots would be doing their own things without communicating, jeopardizing the mission objectives. So hopefully we get the socks on before the shoes.

[Boris The Spider]

I would like to see the consumable Air-strikes and Artillery linked in with missions and the community warfare meta-game in some way. For example, when an invasion commences the attacking force only has Airospace fighters, they must hold ground for a certain amount of time until they are able to deploy fixed artillery positions, likewise the defending force would have access to both Air and Arty initially, however as the attackers capture key locations like space/air ports and destroy their ground based artillery units they loose access.... obviously, the Air and Arty need a buff though.

Also, down the line, do this for between mission repair and rearm too, mech factories, ammo factories, supply lines, etc. Field repairs and ammo intensive builds will only get you so far before you need to return back to your forces staging area, increasing the need for more varied builds for varied jobs at different stages of each campaign.

[tenderloving]

Somebody asked the devs about this in a live QA session somewhere, and they responded that objectives were a "primarily single player experience" or something similar.

This is a great idea but I don't think it's going to happen anytime soon.

[Nation Uprise]

tenderloving, on 01 May 2013 - 08:52 AM, said:

Somebody asked the devs about this in a live QA session somewhere, and they responded that objectives were a "primarily single player experience" or something similar.

This is a great idea but I don't think it's going to happen anytime soon.

So basically they want this game to have as basic a multiplayer experience as you can get. They don't want to make anything new or exciting. They're ok with throwing in existing game modes used in every multiplayer game since DOOM. If I want to play DM,TDM, CTF or DOM (Base Capping) I can do that in any other game that does it better.

[Ser Barristan]

It's probably a long way off before it could be implemented but I wouldn't mind seeing scenario missions with semi defined order of battles. So a mission involving Light Horse Regiments would queue up both sides with mediums and lights for example.

[ArmageddonKnight]

I cant vote for one or the other, i would want both. In the absense of having both. i would have ether.

We dont have ether atm. Assault is a failed attempt at objectives, but also isnt a TDM as people frequently ruin that by caping.


I would want a objective bassed game that would encourage combat, but not give people the opotunity to end the game by runing to the objectives. Bassicaly make it so the game ends ether all objectives are met, but only after a % of the game times has elapsed (so ur team can go for all the objects asap and then say "ok every1 stay alive for 5mins now and we win" or some such), or all the mechs one side are destroyed. Once that happens the tally of objectives met and mechs destroyed are scored up and the winner announced. The timer would have to be short to stop the simple people complaining about 'long'(15mins ! ..oh soo long ) drawn out tactical games, maybe have many objects to last and keep people going for the current full 15 mins, or just lower the timer to 10mins.

And TDM would be much better with more mechs on the field, hopefull 12v12 will help use use more of the map, or maybe even introduce 3 way TDM ..3 teams of 8 or 3 teams of 12. just somthing to spice it up.

Anyway Op i get where ur coming form, i just cant choose one over the other. I want them both

Edited by ArmageddonKnight, 01 May 2013 - 09:32 AM.

[Nathan Foxbane]

As much as I like your suggestion OP the simple fact of the matter is no matter what you do objective wise, destroying the other team will almost always be the most efficient choice of victory. Adding objectives only forces variances in tactical decisions to prevent loss from those objectives. It will do little to encourage a change in the current dynamic of team destruction.

[Purplefluffybunny]

As Bryan mentioned, PGI have subsumed this idea born form the community into their game design direction. The knowledge engine that is us is serving them well.

BTW, Bryan talked about convoy protection and assault type missions. That is objective based IMO.

Edited by Purplefluffybunny, 01 May 2013 - 10:43 AM.