6 replies to this topic

[TheCaptainJZ]

I'm sure I'm not the only one who knows how predictable most battles are and mech movement, especially in Conquest mode.

The bases should be placed in different configurations to mix things up a bit, or player start locations should be mixed up. It makes little sense to set every conquest game up as follows:
1. You start with a base
2. Your team grabs the next base closest to you.
3. Your fastest mech grabs the central base.
4. All fighting generally revolves around that center base.

Instead, add like 2 more bases (maybe just the larger maps), slow down resource collection accordingly, and randomize either base placement or spawn placement.

I have found that sometimes the best way to win is to direct your team to cap points in an unanticipated order, though sometimes (like desert) this is a sure way to loose because of travel time. Still, it's a way to mix things up which seems more effective than meeting in the middle and whoever has the most PPC boats wins.

[Skunk Wolf]

Yeah, there's nine maps and three of them are dupes.

Going to happen.

Edited by Skunk Wolf, 18 June 2013 - 03:24 PM.

[Shephard]

They should really have taken a page from Chromehounds' book. There are three potential spawn points for each team, and when the match starts you don't know which of the three they spawned at. Makes scouting early VERY important.

Something like this would really liven up the matches. they wouldn't all play out identically.

[Neon Samurai]

Shephard, on 18 June 2013 - 09:28 PM, said:

They should really have taken a page from Chromehounds' book. There are three potential spawn points for each team, and when the match starts you don't know which of the three they spawned at. Makes scouting early VERY important.

Something like this would really liven up the matches. they wouldn't all play out identically.

I did like Chromehounds, if only for the weak conquest metagame and what I thought was ahead-of-its-time, at least for a console-ready title, clan support.

Outside of just crying Beta,

Another game, involving tank-like playable characters, that has had questionable success in CW did one thing that was interesting, they tied spawn points into CW/metamap factors such as what direction on the compass you were attacking from in the game world . It was clunky how it was implemented there, but had a lot of potential. So, some of this may be waiting on CW factors that we are all waiting on. Hopefully.

Edited by Neon Samurai, 18 June 2013 - 09:38 PM.

[White Bear 84]

Shephard, on 18 June 2013 - 09:28 PM, said:

They should really have taken a page from Chromehounds' book. There are three potential spawn points for each team, and when the match starts you don't know which of the three they spawned at. Makes scouting early VERY important.

Something like this would really liven up the matches. they wouldn't all play out identically.

Essentially a good idea, but consideration would need to be given to ensure it does not infer either team an unfair advantage both cap and combat wise. And at the end of the day, it is likely most battles will still occur on the same spots between each of those spawns...

A move in a better direction though.

[Neon Samurai]

White Bear 84, on 18 June 2013 - 09:38 PM, said:

Essentially a good idea, but consideration would need to be given to ensure it does not infer either team an unfair advantage both cap and combat wise. And at the end of the day, it is likely most battles will still occur on the same spots between each of those spawns...

A move in a better direction though.

Or, in a Community Warfare scenario, it could be intentionally UNbalanced, to give the attacker/defender an advantage based on whatever widgets a dev could want, resources, time spent occupying, the level of some upgrade, or whatever, thus not requiring balance and rewarding smart gameplay on the oh so special metagame level.

For instance, the defenders, after a certain amount of time or some threshold, get to start at one of a few points around the high base on Alpine, thus making an Alpine-map world a good one to hold out on. This all depends on a decent CW.

Edited by Neon Samurai, 18 June 2013 - 09:47 PM.

[Trufast]

I like how you point out predictability as a problem, and in the same post suggest to use strategy revolving around that predictability. If you just go where most pugs go in an 8 man you are usually toast. Good team vs good team is a lot less straight forward that just meeting at the middle.