34 replies to this topic

[Felicitatem Parco]

Well, we now have several different kind of objective-based in-game assets, such as Gauss Cannons (from Invasion), Resource/Mineral Collectors (from Conquest), Mobile HQs (from Assault), and random Generators (from Invasion).

We now have the kinds of things needed to make bi-directional Community Warfare.

• Mobile HQs are like bases for Attacking forces
  
• Gauss Cannons are like bases for Defending forces
  
• Resource Collectors are Secondary Objectives to affect the End-Match Bonuses
  
• Generators can manipulate the functionality of Turrets.

I think you might see where I am going with this one...




... take an Invasion Game Map, and make it fully Bi-directional... Attackers get bonuses for destroying the Defender's Resource Collectors; Defenders get bonuses for keeping them intact. Defenders have to defend the Gauss Cannon, but it's protected by an array of turrets. Turrets that can be disabled by destroying their power generator... the Attacker's Mobile HQ is needed to call-in reinforcements, however. And destroying the Defender's base Generator could shut-down the reinforcement supply, too.

Ya know... or something... Use those resources for more than one Game Mode, each, and stuff them all into Community Warfare maps.

Edited by Prosperity Park, 21 December 2014 - 08:34 PM.

[Nathan Foxbane]

As it would also entail maps of truly epic proportions to fit all of that in with decent space to maneuver and take cover, I approve.

[Alistair Winter]

I'm ashamed I didn't think of this.

You win the internet.

This would be awesome.

[Navid A1]

a very nice idea...
however, I think as long as there is one win condition placed on one object positioned in a specific place... zergs are here to stay.!

Edited by Navid A1, 21 December 2014 - 09:25 PM.

[Alistair Winter]

Navid A1, on 21 December 2014 - 09:24 PM, said:

a very nice idea...
however, I think as long as there is one win condition placed on one object positioned in a specific place... zergs are here to stay.!

You could do it like Quidditch in Harry Potter.

Multiple objectives with different rewards. Orbital cannon is worth 10 points, Protected / destroyed generators are worth 3 points, Mobile HQ is worth 10 points, etc. So you can win by just taking out the Orbital cannon if the defenders are unable to do much. But taking out the Orbital cannon won't be enough if the defenders take out your Mobile HQ and control resource collectors, for example.

Catching the Golden Snitch isn't always enough to win a match of Quidditch.

[HellJumper]

Idea is nice but it cant be pulled of unless

they increase the map size.

at the current size of the maps it will be just replacing the small 3 generators with other things.. so its bascially the same stuf with a different skin...

[MoonUnitBeta]

and then bring all the old maps and game modes into CW as well, and make them 4v4 and 8v8 games as special planetary games.

[Alistair Winter]

MoonUnitBeta, on 21 December 2014 - 10:16 PM, said:

and then bring all the old maps and game modes into CW as well, and make them 4v4 and 8v8 games as special planetary games.

Yes! With different drop deck limitations for different planets!

[Felicitatem Parco]

MoonUnitBeta, on 21 December 2014 - 10:16 PM, said:

and then bring all the old maps and game modes into CW as well, and make them 4v4 and 8v8 games as special planetary games.

Ooohh.. you mean to utilize the numerous Less-Than-12-Man-Teams to fill game slots?

[MoonUnitBeta]

Prosperity Park, on 21 December 2014 - 10:25 PM, said:

Ooohh.. you mean to utilize the numerous Less-Than-12-Man-Teams to fill game slots?

Yes.
Like I mentioned in a few posts, there's no reason 12-mans should have exclusive rights to the lowest wait times. Special events that pop up on planets for the day that cater to smaller groups would be a real nice thing.

Edited by MoonUnitBeta, 21 December 2014 - 10:36 PM.

[Felicitatem Parco]

I really think that adding resource generators as secondary objectives would increase the number of people joining the CW queue, because we have spent so much time "capturing" them that I bet most players would jump at the chance to blow some of them up out of spite...

[Cyborx]

spawn camping isn´t the Problem - many ppl simply deserve it. I want to mention sth more important: THE WHOLE CONCEPT OF STATIC WAITING DEFENCE IS MISTAKEN/USELESS. Defending a position/building means to start defence in front of that target. Only castles and towns in medieval age were defended like this. Then the blackpowder made walls useless. Sitting inside the base is the eqivalent of surrender today. Isn´tthis the far future of warfare? There is nothing to do than waiting or spawncamping. This game needs more objectives with sense.Just some important stuff listet for modern (not even future) warfare.
1) disable communication: Why are there no sensor Arrays that u can fight for?
2) why is there not sth like a solar power plant on a hill that provides 50% of
power for base turrets.
3)why is there no artillery on a hill - destroy it and "unlock" a 2nd route to attack?

there can be so much to do on a battlefield. all this stuff is missing. Now it´s just boring and we´ve got another Cage fight like we are used to them. Also a Defender must have have the possibilty to move and prepare / fight the enemy in front of the "living room".

Edited by Cyborx, 27 December 2014 - 05:13 AM.

[_Comrade_]

it would be great if they made CW more like MW2 where you have certain objectives. PGI has to understand that rinse and repeating base defend/base attack will get boring and will cause another mass exodus (those of us who played since beta days remembers the mass exodus of players ). Not only that it prevents players from sticking with Meta and instead using more mechs, i don't really think TW's \ StormCrows vs Firestarters\King Crabs is what PGI had in mind with CW, right?

So the idea should be, you get in a queue for battle...you are randomly assigned a map and objective. It could be attacking the orbital cannon or destroying a refinery or something else (and no gates please...make combat more open!). When the attackers meet all the objectives the planet goes for a win for the attacker, they then defend the counter attack....if the counter attackers win all their objectives it goes back to being a win for defenders and it goes back and forth before the planet flips (or doesn't flip) at ceasefire

[Strikeshadow]

This is a great idea!
[edit] [I think my idea below for multiple maps is better]
The biggest problem is the need for larger maps, but that could easily be solved by simply make the mechs & terrain features smaller and a little less detailed to enable the game engine to handle more mechs on the same sized maps.

They could also allow the turrets and dropships to be manned so solo/new players could man the turrets & fly or fire from the dropships. Spawn camping would be near impossible because the dropship captain could decide where to drop reinforcements at the risk of having a dropship shot down.

Small 4 or 8 man lances could be assigned to specific tasks in the queue, although, obviously this could change in game. But that would help organize the fight easier and allow pilots to choose their mechs and loadouts better pre-queue.

I also like the above poster's idea of allowing the same group to counter-attack or defend after the first match ends. If some players logged-off between matches, the queue could fill the slots with fresh players.

What I would really like to know is the actual time required to make CW as it now stands. I've used game editors before for games like command and conquer so it just seems rather easy to make a new map, but of course that was a top down strategy game and this is a simulator.

Edited by Strikeshadow, 27 December 2014 - 11:20 AM.

[zortesh]

I would love a more open battlefeild with a bunch of capture and holds objectives rather then the whole "rush and blow up 4 generators" stuff.

[eblackthorn]

I think we will see greater variety. I would really like to see different objectives as more of a planet is captured, starts off with disabling the Gauss rifle to initiate planet take over, then randomized objectives like capturing strategic resources etc, ending with an assault on the main enemy base. We could use existing larger maps for the mid range fights possible some CW specific maps with objectives.

[Strikeshadow]

It just occurred to me that PGI has multiple maps too! (I know I'm a bit slow ;p)

1. So the first attack is for the orbital gun.
2. If the invaders destroy the gun, then the defenders try to destroy the invaders mobile HQ on a different map.
3. If the defenders succeed in destroying the HQ, then the invaders must defend another HQ on another different map.
4. If the defenders fail to destroy the 2nd HQ, then the invaders must take resources defended by turrets on another different map.
5. If the defenders destroyed the 2nd HQ, then the invaders must defend a 3rd (up to 5 HQs).
6. If the invaders succeed in taking all the resources on the first attempt then they must attack resources on another different map.
7. If the invaders fail to take the resources, then the defenders have another chance to destroy a HQ, but this time the defenders must defend their own HQ at the same time, in addition to defending the resources.
8. After the invaders have won 2 resource maps, then there is a skirmish in a city.
9. If the attackers win the city skirmish, then they attack another orbital gun and the cycle repeats for another few maps until the planet completely falls or the war can keep going.

I hope this is clear. The idea is a campaign where territory, on the planet, is won and lost instead of just the same 2 maps over and over again.

Edited by Strikeshadow, 27 December 2014 - 11:17 AM.

[_Comrade_]

Also their should be Timber Wolf factories and Atlas factories on random planets. Capturing that planet will allow the capturing unit's faction to produce those mechs. So IS factions will be able to use Timber Wolf's and clans can use atlas if they capture a planet that produces it. This will quite the everlong complaining about clan or IS mechs being OP and give people more of a incentive to attack rather then just to have their unit tags on the planet

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Actually this is a terrible idea.

Only because the maps we have are too damn small to actually make this work.

[Strikeshadow]

DV McKenna, on 28 December 2014 - 06:50 AM, said:

Actually this is a terrible idea.

Only because the maps we have are too damn small to actually make this work.

It would still be 12v12, but winning and losing would have different consequences. I do agree that the maps are too small by about 40% overall, but unless changing the map sizes to mech ratio is easy or making new maps is easy, I think changing the campaign to create more variety would be nice.