19 replies to this topic

[Asmudius Heng]

OK, some of you might know I have quite a dislike of Assault mode. I do not hate it, but I think it is a poorly thought out mode that severly limits tactical movement and allows silly game ends where both teams end up in a cap race.

While the addition of turrets and a new capture model (forward base etc) are kinda neat from an immersion point of view I kind of doubt it will shift how the game is played.

I like the IDEA of assault but I feel it needs something else to justify that base cap and provide more incentive to move, attack and defend. Sneaking a light into a base when there is pugging confusion due to lack of communication is not good tactics - its luck and its boring, i have done it many times and I do not feel accomplished and I do not feel any teamwork helps our team win.

How to change this? Make base capping a team effort from more than one part of the map.

Here is the idea:

• The maps would remain the same, but there would be 3 other capture points that function like the cap points in Conquest. They would be in the centre, and to each side of the map.
  
• Capturing a point will allow the main base to be 'Open' for capture.
  
• If the capture of one of the mid-map objectives turned back to neutral or owned by the other side you can no longer capture the main base.
  
• If you were capturing the main base during this the, timer stops and you will need to recapture a mid-map objective to continue.
  
• EDIT: Something I just through of as an option - the more mid-map nodes you control the quicker you can cap the main. have not thought that one through but might also encourage controlling territory.

Now you have more things to fight over in the midfield that can affect the base capture mechanic. In essence you need to have some sort of battlefield control before you can move on the final objective.


Now you have some more teamwork. Do you cap as many as you can early to give you more chance to get the main? Do you sit off a cap point until your main base cap lance is ready to move on the main and do both quickly after the other? Do you try to control the midfield to stop that main base cap happening and concentrate on kills or pushing into thier base?

If you are the last lone light mech against 2 assaults they can only guard two of the mid-objectives, but if you are the last light and the enemy have heaps and can control the centre you will not be able to get a win either. Some might state this is unfair but i think the idea that a single light sneaking in while their entire team has died and gotten a win is not exactly a memorable victory - i have done it, feels quite rediculous when i am watching my bar go down before they can cap out my base.

Q. This sounds complicated.
A. More complex than sit on the magix red box, sure - is that really a problem?

Q. Sounds too much like conquest.
A. Conquest is a time pressure game made that is very dynamic as you can capture anything any time. It is quite frenetic and you are forced to engage and capture. In this version of assault you choose where and when you hit cap points or you can choose not to focus on them at all.

Q. You are hating on light mechs pulling off wins via cap
A. I am against solo light mechs gaining immesion breaking wins without using any teamwork. I like that lights would play a major part in this (or fast meds) but would need to be more involved with some level of teamwork. The cap time for the final base should not be too long mind you to take into account the fact you need to retain mid-map objectives.

Q. You can still get a cap race in this mode.
A. Yes, but you will also see which mid-map nodes have been taken by the enemy so its much less likely and easier to stop with fast movers.

Q. People might just sit and defend thier base and not move out.
A. That is the best way to win right now, doesnt change much. An alternative might be that if you control all 3 mid-map nodes you start losing your base anyway to force them to move and retain some mid-field control.

Q. You are a butt-hurt skirmish player
A. Skimish is great, Assault could simply be better, This would truly differentiate the two and give conquest the forced capture time pressure mechanic. We would have 3 very different and engaging modes.

Q. This would encourage more assault mechs just holding the mid field and killing rather than capping.
A. With 3 objectives those fat boys have got to split up ... hint hint.

---

So what does the community think? Assault with a level of territory control basically.

Edited by Asmudius Heng, 20 January 2014 - 05:57 PM.

[Roland]

Sounds better than the current assault mode, to be sure. May be more interesting than conquest as well.

[Zerberus]

Assault is already undergoing a rework on Feb. 4th. Real Bases, addition of turrets, and some other goodies

Your idea is more of a tower defense style game the way I read it., and would be better suited as an entirely new gamemode.

Edited by Zerberus, 20 January 2014 - 09:18 PM.

[Asmudius Heng]

Zerberus, on 20 January 2014 - 09:17 PM, said:

Assault is already undergoing a rework on Feb. 4th. Real Bases, addition of turrets, and some other goodies

Your idea is more of a tower defense style game the way I read it., and would be better suited as an entirely new gamemode.

Too many game modes split the queue too much. I am making this post now so that while they are reworking that side of assault they think a little deeper about the tactical implications of assault.

Adding turrets and changing the model of what you are capturing is not going to change the fundamental way the game is played. Turrets are suppose to discourage caps by weaker lone mechs perhaps and the teamwork to cap just means capping in force so no massive change there.

Turrets and new looks are great for immersion but do not change the core gameplay to add some more interesting level of tactics - what i propose would also mape the cap race much less problematic and give much more to do and think about in the mid field.

Not sure what you mean by tower defence style though, please elaborate? This idea just means you need to open up an avenue to attack the main base and do not need to return to base to stop a cap but can do it in the mid field as well as an option.

[mania3c]

This modes will never work without respawn system...

However... I don't think too many modes is a problem..hopefully in CW we won't be able to choose what modes we don't want..and campaigns will have mix of all modes ..

[Asmudius Heng]

mania3c, on 21 January 2014 - 03:23 AM, said:

This modes will never work without respawn system...

However... I don't think too many modes is a problem..hopefully in CW we won't be able to choose what modes we don't want..and campaigns will have mix of all modes ..

Why would it not work without respawn?

[Zerberus]

Asmudius Heng, on 20 January 2014 - 09:39 PM, said:

Too many game modes split the queue too much. I am making this post now so that while they are reworking that side of assault they think a little deeper about the tactical implications of assault.

But on the other hand, completely changing teh mechanics of a mode creates a new mode that people man not like... which would be even worse that "splitting" the queue, becasue it runs the risk of emptying it

That said, it`s my impression that most still play "any", so I think it`s really just the little buttercups that wish to shackle themseves to one mode....

Quote

Adding turrets and changing the model of what you are capturing is not going to change the fundamental way the game is played. Turrets are suppose to discourage caps by weaker lone mechs perhaps and the teamwork to cap just means capping in force so no massive change there.

Turrets and new looks are great for immersion but do not change the core gameplay to add some more interesting level of tactics - what i propose would also mape the cap race much less problematic and give much more to do and think about in the mid field.

Nor is ther a massive change needed IMO. I see turrets as "fine, I`ll deal with them" and the implementation of redesigned models for the base as entirely unnecessary. Assault is fine the way it is from my perspective, it was the assault blob that eventually got skirmish that had problems with the mode

Quote

Not sure what you mean by tower defence style though, please elaborate? This idea just means you need to open up an avenue to attack the main base and do not need to return to base to stop a cap but can do it in the mid field as well as an option.

"tower defense" is a primarily RTS gamemode where the basic idea is that you have to attack, capture, and hold one tower to be able to do the same to the next. It plays entirely different from current assault, and tbh is not necessarily a mode I would be willing to sacrifice assault for.

*edit* WTF, Zerb?? That`s not tower defense, Plant`s vs. Zombies or Rampart are tower defense... Ehm, what was the style I was looking for... brain, work damnit

Edited by Zerberus, 21 January 2014 - 09:40 PM.

[Fabe]

Asmudius Heng, on 21 January 2014 - 01:06 PM, said:

Why would it not work without respawn?

Because with out some sort of respawn system teams can just ignore any capture points or any other objectives and just focus on killing the other team to win. With respawns teams would have more incentive to capture and hold objectives before enemy reinforcements could arrive.

[mania3c]

Asmudius Heng, on 21 January 2014 - 01:06 PM, said:

Why would it not work without respawn?

As Fabe said..without some sort of respawn system, just killing enemies will be the fastest and the most effective way win in these modes..It's already happening now..while I know there are many people crying "oh they capped us in conquest/assault"..in fact it's just huge minority of the game which are finished upon completing objectives (PGI supported this by data).. Imagine for example any capture the flag map in any FPS or even MMORPG, where everyone has just one life..how would people play this? do you really think anyone would try to steal the flag?

When you want have working modes..you have to give teams chance to recover, time for tactics, meaningful choices..where one lost battle is not costing them whole game..etc.. you can't achieve this with one "life" system..because it's just about that one battle..

[Asmudius Heng]

Fabe, on 22 January 2014 - 07:06 PM, said:

Because with out some sort of respawn system teams can just ignore any capture points or any other objectives and just focus on killing the other team to win. With respawns teams would have more incentive to capture and hold objectives before enemy reinforcements could arrive.

How is this different to Assault now?

mania3c, on 22 January 2014 - 09:05 PM, said:

As Fabe said..without some sort of respawn system, just killing enemies will be the fastest and the most effective way win in these modes..It's already happening now..while I know there are many people crying "oh they capped us in conquest/assault"..in fact it's just huge minority of the game which are finished upon completing objectives (PGI supported this by data).. Imagine for example any capture the flag map in any FPS or even MMORPG, where everyone has just one life..how would people play this? do you really think anyone would try to steal the flag?

When you want have working modes..you have to give teams chance to recover, time for tactics, meaningful choices..where one lost battle is not costing them whole game..etc.. you can't achieve this with one "life" system..because it's just about that one battle..

I would not mind a limited respawn mode but that is not the topic of this post, I am talking about making the no respawn version of Assault more interesting and tactical.

You can start another thread about respawn modes if you like it is a worthy topic of discussion but not really applicable to this thread

They have mentioned a 'Rush' style game mode like the battlefield series does where you have to push an objective til you capture it, then it opens up a new section of map you have to push through again til the final one. This has respawn of course but imagine if this game mode for MWO had limited respawns.

12 vs 12
- when the objective is captured it opens up the next section.
- If attackers all die a new dropship comes in with 12 more but the defenders cannot be reinforced so fight on until they are destroyed or objective captured
- Max 3 dropships or something
- As such a good attacker can save its extra dropchips by conserving mechs and a good defender can force the enemy to bring in more ships and destroy thier resruves before they push the final base.

There you go - start a new topic go

[mania3c]

I understand Asmudius ..but I really think that any change to assault wont really work at this stage.. we really need respawn to make it different

I have my own ideas how to make these modes more interesting..however...again..can't really think about anything without respawn..

Edited by mania3c, 22 January 2014 - 10:27 PM.

[Naduk]

Op has basically discribed onslaught mode from unreal tournament 3

The concept would work well for mwo but as stated it would work better respawn (dropship)

[Josef Nader]

This is actually really well thought out.

Have my +1 sir.

[Zerberus]

Naduk, on 23 January 2014 - 01:17 AM, said:

Op has basically discribed onslaught mode from unreal tournament 3

The concept would work well for mwo but as stated it would work better respawn (dropship)

ONSLAUGHT!!! YES, thank you, that is what I was lookingfor the whole time *raises glass to toast*

[Asmudius Heng]

Never played much UT but looked that up ... seems very similar yes. Here is an image I found of that



Here is what it might looks like in MWO, much simplified to suite the no respawn environment.

Edited by Asmudius Heng, 26 January 2014 - 01:55 AM.

[Deathlike]

I think Assault is fine for the most part, because people tend to try to zerg for a match and then realize too late that it's a distraction for a base cap.

That's what scouting and intelligence is for. That's a real world thing just as much as you'd disagree (being set up for a fight, and having stuff stolen under your nose in the distraction isn't fun fiction).

Assault could use some tweaking, most notably with super-early game capping (just slowing it down a little then would be fine, instead of a no-cap timer, which is totally silly).

This idea does actually sound good if not an "improvement" over the base concept of Conquest. It's Conquest but yet not Conquest in the same light (as you're not tied to a resource bonus timer essentially). It would need actual cap bonuses (primarily for the benefit of a light mech... of course this should apply to Conquest just as well) to make this "more acceptable" IMO.

Edited by Deathlike, 26 January 2014 - 04:07 PM.

[Asmudius Heng]

Yes bonuses for capping that are not a usable would be good.

I am not sure why PGI refuses to entertain the concept ... Though I did kill a guy on a cap the other day and forgot you get some bonuses for that ...

[Morsule]

Some interesting idea. I think most of conquest is fine and the coming improvements we should wait and see how it impacts the game.
Would suggest this alteration: If you want to have other points then they need to be 'destroyed' its a one time event. Not a capture point. Once destroyed the base becomes vulnerable. You can do the same thing with some of the base defense points.

I really dislike the capture - can re-capture idea. Conquest is already does that.

As for a bunch of lights capturing a base. That's part of the game. Implementing tonnage limits or balance to match maker will help solve the issue when one side has 8 assaults and the other 8 lights and odd choices/imbalances get chosen.

I think after the base changes are done and tonnage balance is added then re-look. I do agree that more pts should be awarded for capturing the base. Like the Resource Pts in Conquest.

[Khobai]

if youre going to make base capping that impossible you might as well just get rid of base assault it and replace it with skirmish.


The gamemode is called base assault.

What the gamemode needs are actual bases with walls, gates, and static turrets that you have to assault.

The objective should be to capture/destroy the other team's mobile HQ or destroy all enemy mechs. First team to do that wins.

Edited by Khobai, 29 January 2014 - 07:38 AM.

[Asmudius Heng]

Morsule, on 29 January 2014 - 07:29 AM, said:

Some interesting idea. I think most of conquest is fine and the coming improvements we should wait and see how it impacts the game.
Would suggest this alteration: If you want to have other points then they need to be 'destroyed' its a one time event. Not a capture point. Once destroyed the base becomes vulnerable. You can do the same thing with some of the base defense points.

I really dislike the capture - can re-capture idea. Conquest is already does that.

As for a bunch of lights capturing a base. That's part of the game. Implementing tonnage limits or balance to match maker will help solve the issue when one side has 8 assaults and the other 8 lights and odd choices/imbalances get chosen.

I think after the base changes are done and tonnage balance is added then re-look. I do agree that more pts should be awarded for capturing the base. Like the Resource Pts in Conquest.

Destroying will not really do much though as it will be done so easily without any real effort or any conflict with the other team. Recapping provides a method of conflict and making the enemy compete for territory because of the fear of being capped. The more nodes you control in the midfield should definitely reduce the cap timer for the main base also so that a coordinated team allows the main capping force to do so with ease.

I am happy to see how adding turrets will help but quite frankly I don't think it will do much unless those turrets are powerful ... And if they are people might just abandon base capping and concentrate on kills ... Unless killing turrets gives XP and cbills then you might see people farming them but not to win just to get more stuff which will detract from tactics.

Khobai, on 29 January 2014 - 07:30 AM, said:

if youre going to make base capping that impossible you might as well just get rid of base assault it and replace it with skirmish.


The gamemode is called base assault.

What the gamemode needs are actual bases with walls, gates, and static turrets that you have to assault.

The objective should be to capture/destroy the other team's mobile HQ or destroy all enemy mechs. First team to do that wins.

I agree that a real base to cap would be awesome but that should be an attack vs defence type game not both having a base.
The rush type game I gave a vague outline would be great for that with respawns too.

Adding objectives to take and hold adds a level of strategy to the game, but it does not make it too difficult really. It is very different to skirmish because you still need to defend your base and nodes or risk being beaten by an alt win condition. In skirmish you have no such worries and as such the entire map if your objective to find the best points to attack and defend ... They are miles apart, in most games of the one I propose it would be incredibly easy to cap a mid point to allow a base cap and would happen almost by accident ... BUt gives no non base cappers some more objectives in the mid field to fighter for a reason. Extremely far from skirmish and conquest and means you do not have people bored out of their skull defending main base when no attack comes, and avoids the silly cap races too.