11 replies to this topic

[happy mech]

i bet you guys can do better than that, the invasion mode and gates are what cause the long range or light rush debates

the maps need to have objectives, both sides need a way to win by completing their objectives (for example 2 ways to win), fighting for their objective while trying to deny the enemy theirs
spread the mechs around the map more (by objectives, not dropships), create more open maps (not valleys with go forward or reverse)

no gates, no bottlenecks, no 1-minute objectives, no 12-man balls
open map, many routes, cover, flank, spread mechs
my thoughts

[Mordin Ashe]

I would like 1/1/1/1 (after Clan lights are made on par with at least the worse IS lights), it would solve a lot of issues (like 3 light rushes or TBR/SCR floods). Map design isn't problem at all because all weight classes work very well on all current maps.

[Codeine Radick]

Or asset recovery, "Neutral Flag", would be nice. Forces a straight up brawl for the objective by both sides.

[Dr Gonzo316]

1/1/1/1 will not solve the issues we are talking about. IS would still have 1 Light and 1 Cicada Rush, which is enough most of the time, and with the Clan Wave 3, the clans will have jump capable, fast and nearly indestructible mechs in every weightclass for zerging.

[Mordin Ashe]

Dr Gonzo316, on 03 March 2015 - 04:53 AM, said:

1/1/1/1 will not solve the issues we are talking about. IS would still have 1 Light and 1 Cicada Rush, which is enough most of the time, and with the Clan Wave 3, the clans will have jump capable, fast and nearly indestructible mechs in every weightclass for zerging.

Clans aren't IS. Even the coolest Mechs have three or four alphas before they have to crawl back to safety to cool down. I doubt Arctic Cheetah will ever be the reaper Firestarters are.

What you say is that one can still adapt his drop deck in a way that emphasises mobility above anything else. That is true, and it should always be that way. Still, it is not the only way of doing things and the biggest issues would still be addressed. Keep in mind, the problem with lights isn't their speed and JJ capability but speed+lag shield that makes them invincible. Cicadas can be fast but are must easily manageable.

EDIT: And, of course, only one SCR and one Timby.

Edited by Mordin Ashe, 03 March 2015 - 05:06 AM.

[Kjudoon]

3 things are the problem. One thing is easily solved over time. The other two, very hard to solve for PGI because it means a paradigm shift.

1. Make more mechs that provide equivalent options for clans. Wave 3 is an example. This problem solves itself over time.

2. Drop deck of 3 clan versus 4 IS. The problem isn't tonnage, it's numbers while keeping the same weight ratio. This change would simulate a 12 v 9 scenario that would reverse the need to nerf clan mechs and buff IS so hard. Of course, the consequence is the Public queues are hung out to dry.

3. Map design philosophy. They need to stop thinking like an arena and build maps you could actually never run into the enemy because a smart enemy could use stealth, ambushes and whatnot. The problem here is based on a few serious roadblocks.

A- PGI wants 15 minute matches or 30 minute matches. Large maps require matches to last an hour or more.

B- Players who are addicted and trained to accept rail shooters and FPS garbage, not simulators and exploration will not stand for it. They do not have patience or the repeated pavlovian training to handle a slow game that involves indepth strategic thinking. This leads us to C.

C- Boredom. Face it, a smart, tactical game is 5 minutes of decisive fury preceded by 40 minute of set up, or accomplishing missions without ever firing a shot. What is being demanded and provided are glory battles. Players are expecting them and most wouldn't play anything BUT them due to years of gaming conditioning. You'd never get them to play an exploring shooter like say Shadow Warrior with secret areas, the ability to get lost, ambushed and generally screwed by the game let alone go for months if not years without knowing major goodies were hiding in an area. Ergo, we are never getting more than this Solaris arena 12 v 12 garbage, even in CW any time soon.

D- There is little to no game money in playing smart. You think the grind is bad now, if you allowed people to win without firing a shot you underestimate the playerbase.

As you can see. For this to change, we would have to see a dramatic alteration of gameplay from the ground up. An investment to a problem PGI does not need and I don't know if they could accomplish.

We have MechGladiator Online, and we should really start getting used to that simple fact.

As for a proposal for a different mode, here's my contribution.

http://mwomercs.com/...etrievalrescue/

[Mike McSullivan]

The biggest issue for me are (to 90%) the maps.
a) Sniperland -> + for the clans (Range)
b ) too easy/fast to destroy objectives -> + for IS (Lightrush)
c) spawncampable for both sides (valid tactic but extremly frustrating and unfun)

imho, a+b lead to the metas, both sides are complaining about.

Edited by Mike McSullivan, 03 March 2015 - 05:54 AM.

[Kjudoon]

all PQ maps need a 400-1000% increase in size.

All CW maps need a 200-400% increase in size.

[Dawnstealer]

I've said before that MWO should really look at Joint Operations as a model. This is what one of the maps looked like:



So it's not easy to tell, because the maps in JO tiled, but the action all took place on that north-south axis. This was a relatively small map with three cap points. Each side with start with one and would battle for the middle. You had to control all three to win. If you captured the middle one, that became a new spawn point.

With this dynamic, suddenly teams would have to decide if they wanted to Light rush the middle and try to hold it against what might be an oncoming Assault lance, or maybe take their own Assaults and try to roll.

You also couldn't take the last node until you hold the center. So you had to both defend what you had AND attack. It was just so much more interesting to play and battles really swung back and forth hard.

Map design's also a problem. I tossed this one together on PS just to give an example of a map with more options and less bottlenecks:

[Koniving]

happy mech, on 03 March 2015 - 03:02 AM, said:

i bet you guys can do better than that, the invasion mode and gates are what cause the long range or light rush debates

the maps need to have objectives, both sides need a way to win by completing their objectives (for example 2 ways to win), fighting for their objective while trying to deny the enemy theirs
spread the mechs around the map more (by objectives, not dropships), create more open maps (not valleys with go forward or reverse)

no gates, no bottlenecks, no 1-minute objectives, no 12-man balls
open map, many routes, cover, flank, spread mechs
my thoughts

This. Overall, map design is a big problem here.

Currently:

• You have to move across half the map to be able to do something useful (encouraging light rushes and Timber/Summoner wall rushes).
  
• Having to blast at something on the other side of gates, too, also causes an issue. Encouraging sniper rigs and geometry exploitation. In fact this, almost entirely in and of itself, is the primary reason that Clans have a HUGE advantage when defending; longer range = better snipe capabilities regardless of how they are built. Then funnel enemies like on the snow map, and there ya go.
  
• Key objectives are under ECM, making it difficult to really be able to tangibly find these things for first time players.
  
• The limited number of objectives seem to be extremely secondary to the core objective of annihilating the enemy team.
  
• Turrets have preset locations, making them virtually worthless as more than a nuisance.
  
• Dropship spam. Time your deaths and suicides just right and you can have 6 dropships come in within 1 minute, spamming weapons fire in all sorts of directions. Do it just right, and you can manage to get up to 12 dropships in 4 minutes.
  
• Dropship deployment points are static and do not move up with the action. This makes no sense.

Now... Food for thought.

First, if nothing changed about objectives.... but other changes, smaller ones, did occur?

• What if Gate access could be toggled? In Mech Commander 1 and 2, as well as numerous other Mechwarriors to some degree, you could 'hack' the gate controls and have the gate open. The enemy, in turn, can restore the gate controls and have the gate close. Both sides could decide on the state of the gate.
  
  • (For example what if the defense wants the gates open to storm outside and meet the enemy before they travel across 3/4ths of the map to get to the gates? They can close the gates behind themselves, too).
    
  • (As another example, what if the attackers wanted to close the gate so that they could safely congregate behind it, rally up, and then reopen the gate to storm in again?)
    
  • Destruction of the generator would and should lock the gate in whatever position it is in, even if it's not all the way open or shut.
• But wait, if the gate can be locked into whatever state while the generator is destroyed what if the defense destroys the generator and locks the gate shut?! Well that would cost the defense the ability to control their own gate so it likely would not be a first resort. If it is, that's a good time to storm the walls and rush because they're probably all sniper builds that can't fight well up close. At any rate, the gate itself should be destroyable through means of brute force. This would cost a fair bit of firepower and time, but it also discourages the long range sniping meta that defenses will use as at any time the mechs could just blast their way through instead.
  
• Lets look at our points of ingress. We have the gates and over the gate's walls. Really, that's it? What if we had:
  
  • Terrain that could allow other points of ingress, via difficult climbing or little things like a river where something very short could try to sneak in with a very easily destroyed 'patchwork' obstacle slapped on such as a grate guarding a river.
    
  • Underground tunnels which only smaller mechs could fit in with fairly weak doors blocking them. These would allow defenders to flood out through them or attackers to try and sneak some mechs in through them. The downfall is their narrow nature means that a well placed defender could have a field day... or his presence there could take away from the big defense.
    
  • This can mean that some walls might be too tall for all but the highest jumping mechs to vault over (Spider 5V you've got a use; kinda...maybe!)
    
  • Weakpoints in walls that are not near gates, for wider defenses and especially early defenses. Use more of the map, make defenders walk. More on this later.

Now, if anything could be changed.

• Lets start with making mechs walk. Defenders should have more surface area to travel. Secondary and Tertiary objectives that are a bit away from the core objective. Outer walls to compliment the inner walls. Honestly in no mechwarrior game, in no battle tech game, in no way shape or form, did a base ever have all of its power sources within their base. Turret control centers, power generators, etc. are usually placed outside and reasonably well defended in their own right.
  
  • For example a base with diggable terrain would keep their generators buried under ground in secret and defended tunnels that are protected enough to withstand a few attackers but not enough to overtly draw lots of attention. And their existence was optional to make the base attack easier, not mandatory.
    
  • Lets use Alpine as an ideal example, notice how there are many stations out there? One for communications, another for drilling, another for air units, then a resource base and finally the main base which houses most of the troops and vehicles? That's the sort of thing we should be seeing.
    
  • And each one coming down should have an effect on the main base's defenses.
    
    • Dealing with the communication station could slow down defense reinforcement deployment from 30 seconds apart to 1 minute apart.
      
    • Taking out the turret control centers could take a number of linked turrets and disable their automatic controls, forcing crews to work them manually (making them less accurate and slower to react).
      
    • Disabling generators could disable defender building ECM fields, making them easier to locate and target.
      
    • Destroying warship class turrets -- which shouldn't be able to fire on mechs because that'd be instant-kills -- or other anti-air weaponry could allow attacker dropships to risk coming in closer before deploying attacking mechs.
      
    • Capturing said turret could force defenders to come in from farther away.
      
    • Mechbays within the field could allow defenders to choose a deployment location rather than come in by dropship, so that they can spawn closer to objectives. Destroying these (if possible) could prevent them from spawning at defense objectives that you're trying to take out.
  • Specified locations on certain maps with a theme, such as a training facility, could have controls to tamper with to raise or lower defensive barricades and obstacles (destructible preferably but not necessarily) that could provide themselves as cover that can be raised or lowered at the will of the players.
    
    • Too many obstacles in the way of your long range shooting? Send someone to flip the things down so you have clear shots on open terrain.
      
    • Is that field too clear? Send someone to flip the obstacle course up, raising large concrete and metal walls to use as temporary bullet catchers as you dash your way to the enemy.
  • What if there were mobile objectives? Ambassador mechs carrying political targets, convoys carrying supplies that could buff the defenders mid-game if they make it, things of that nature.

This is just simply touching the ice berg.

Edited by Koniving, 03 March 2015 - 06:28 AM.

[Triordinant]

Kjudoon, on 03 March 2015 - 05:38 AM, said:

As you can see. For this to change, we would have to see a dramatic alteration of gameplay from the ground up. An investment to a problem PGI does not need and I don't know if they could accomplish.

We have MechGladiator Online, and we should really start getting used to that simple fact.

I have to agree. We're clearly not the target audience for MWO. This is why it's my "filler" game for when I have 30 to 90 minutes to spare between real world events and more serious games. If it wasn't set in the BattleTech universe (which I enjoyed so much in my youth in its tabletop RPG incarnation), I'd probably be playing some other filler game.

It's too bad. It could be so much more...

[sdsnowbum]

Mike McSullivan, on 03 March 2015 - 05:52 AM, said:

The biggest issue for me are (to 90%) the maps.
a) Sniperland -> + for the clans (Range)
b ) too easy/fast to destroy objectives -> + for IS (Lightrush)
c) spawncampable for both sides (valid tactic but extremly frustrating and unfun)

imho, a+b lead to the metas, both sides are complaining about.

Good summary, although I think b is more an issue with the objectives for this game mode than the map design. Look at how in counter-attack light rush is much less of an issue, regardless of map.