869 replies to this topic

[Bombadil]

Rebel Ace Fryslan, on 23 July 2016 - 04:06 AM, said:

• Waiting times or too high
  
• Listen to the NON-american players !!!!!!!
  
• no info about the scout when waiting for invasion, WHY
  
• Other info not intgrated, planet info What is going on with que's all kinds of tactical info.
  
• Dropships shoot your own mechs, because they detect enemies behind a wall/hill
  
• Clan dropships should have lower range, clanners have more ecm and jumpjets to get out of the zone.
  
• LT should not kill trough mountains (Get your bloody physics right)
  
• Fix disconnects,
  
• Introduce More drop profilesssssssss.
  
• Give info what is in my mech in dropselection

Just curious, in your opinion what are the main differences in the points of view between NA and non-NA players?

[DAYLEET]

InnerSphereNews, on 22 July 2016 - 06:07 PM, said:

free to take this time to consider what you might want to ask or suggest regarding Faction Play.

What is more appealing to PGI:
1)More faction related stuff for a more immersive and deeper gameplay.
2)Joining factions together for a better queue time. IS vs CLAN

Should the playerbase only help polish what we already have in CW or can we actually brainstorm new stuff for it? *(see at the end)

Is Community Warfare big updates aka "PHASES" considered done and only polishing left to do?

When for the first time in years the playerbase was united together and wanted the Long Tom gone; What do you(PGI) think was the real problem? Because we know you dont think the Long Tom is a problem and you stood alone in that thought so an explication could help sway the playerbase to your side.

Can we get stats of before and after the phases in CW, for example: What was the effect of monetizing planets for the players with MC rewards?

Are changes and revamp for the map in CW considered like for quickplay?

What percentage of players in CW would make it worth to keep working on it?

Is the galaxy map still considered for a solo/coop mode with lore and stories and a career someone can get in?

Is any sort of semi "randomly generated" stuff or dynamic events ever considered for any of the game mode? Dynamics events could bed cross-gamemode missions like:
"the Clan now have Planet X in CW which creates AS7, all AS7 piloted by Clanner in ALL gamemode rewards extra cbills when killed" Many possibilities there.

*Worth to owning a planet other than MC's which isnt related to gameplay or lore in anyways.
Maybe if Clanners own an AS7 producing planet they can now put AS7 in their CW deck. Maybe the owners of the planet could buy AS7 at discount or get free upgrade to the AS7 they buy after the planet is owned.

[MovinTarget]

BSK, on 23 July 2016 - 10:51 AM, said:

No.
And you are not the moderator here, making more than 6 posts is not helpful for genuine answers ..

Nor are you. I believe my opinion, whether you agree or not, has as much right to be here as anyone else's.

Not to mention Bombadil and the other moderators are soliciting suggestions and while I think my ideas might merit consideration I would not not be so presumptuous to assume that they are the "genuine answers".

I am a software developer and have to maintain code that pre-existed my employment (1 million+ lines of VB6 code). I have customers with disparate needs and expectations. While I do not always agree with all of PGI's decisions I fully can put myself in their shoes because I have to wear the same ones at times. I don't expect them to take all or even any of my ideas, but I appreciate the opportunity to offer them.

Edited by MovinTarget, 23 July 2016 - 11:55 AM.

[Felbombling]

My .02...

• Long Tom should be 10% of what it is in the current state... soften up the enemy, sure, but vaporize? I know you want to discourage blob tactics, but your corridor-like map design in Faction play more or less demands it.
  
• Every player... EVERY PLAYER... once joining the game should be prompted to select a faction as the start up process. They should also be given token faction rewards for quick play matches, say 5% of what a normal faction play game would generate... get the seed of being in the BattleTech universe in there, otherwise quick play is just game after game after game. Use those minimal loyalty points as incentive to get into faction play. If a player knows that they'd be advancing in their faction 20x faster if they were playing faction play instead of quick play, it should be an easy sell.
  
• I stated this in another post, but here goes... if the population of faction warfare is currently low [it is], create alliances between the Inner Sphere Houses and the Clan Invasion corridors. This could reduce by half the number of buckets in the queue and promote friendships / rivalries. My thinking would be House Kurita & Free Rasalhauge Republic, House Davion & House Steiner, House Marik and House LIao, Clan Wolf & Clan Ghost Bear, Clan Smoke Jaguar & Clan Jade Falcon. There would be power blocks and multiple avenues for planetary attacks with this change. Once Faction Warfare populations are up to a higher level, split the factions again to their current state. It is all about getting games in as a player, not waiting for thirty-two minutes while some other team adjacent to us is waiting for twenty-seven minutes.
  
• Planet defenders should spawn from a hangar, not a drop ship.
  
• More targets of opportunity. Mobile command vehicles, ammunition dumps, barracks, water filtration. Use your imaginations and expand the involved tactics required to win a match.

On a side note, I sure hope this goes over well and some positives can come out of this round-table. Crossing my fingers that the information is taken in by the designers.

Edited by StaggerCheck, 23 July 2016 - 11:55 AM.

[SuperFunkTron]

I've got a few suggestions to help improve FW:

1. Missions with objectives- Objectives beyond just killing all enemy mechs would be a huge improvement. Escorting a train or vehicle convoy from one location to another. Destroying an unmarked VIP while the enemy team has to travel from one point to another. Capture and holding of a building (i.e. sensor array, turret control, HQ building). Any kind of objective can really be used to provide some variety and a sense of acquisition and taking of enemy territory or resources.

2. Costs/Rewards for mechs used- It is well known that certain mechs are more or less common among certain factions. Faction choice could be made more meaningful by incurring a sort of "cost" to those who want to use a mech atypical to the faction they are a part of. This could be as simple as a lower pay out during the rewards distribution or a deduction from the achieved rewards. A larger pay out for faction typical mechs could be another benefit. This may seem like an annoyance, but it will hopefully start to push certain play styles or help PUGs show up with a build more typical of a particular faction, helping form a sort of attack style for a faction and reducing the guess work to be a functional part of a team you drop with randomly.

3. Reduce the number of warring factions and attribute victories to banners that contribute more- We all would like to have some amount of lore included in this but practicality and a smaller player population means that the number of factions is currently excessive for that population. Making a "clan vs IS" attack pattern would be helpful in reducing the hunt and wait for matches across multiple borders. The current vote system can be used to choose 2 or 3 planets at a time to focus the whole population's attention. Since there is no lore or story is actually present in the game, it would be good to ignore it until a later time and push the agenda of conquest across the map along with planets that provide certain benefits within a given radius (benefit to satellite scans and such).

4. Build a "campaign"- If a campaign trail could be built, something like a 4 or 5 planet path of conquest with rewards, would help give a sense of direction and achievement if it can be completed.

5. An 8 vs 8 game type- it doesn't always have to be a full scale war at 12v12 for it to be an enjoyable match. Reducing the player demand for games will help add variety and allow more games (maybe with varying objectives or tasks) to start more often.

These are core ideas, not well fleshed out, but can provide much more enjoyment when implemented.

[Murgen McKenna]

Success or failure of a faction is highly depending on big MERC Units switching.
Question: Whould it be possible to limit playerbase for factions? A Faction which is filled with loyalists has no need for MERCs. So for example Haus Comstar has 30% of loyalist players, and Mercs are not able to sign a contract with Comstar.


The Topic gen rush in FW has been clearly improved. Thanks for that. But still attackers have an advantage over defenders, if they focus on objectives. This feels wrong. Attacking should be harder than defending. Right now it is easier to attack.
Suggestion: Change O-Gen so that they are cap-zones like on conquest. If you have all three zones you are able to attack OMEGA. But defenders have the possibility to recap and push caps up to max., so that OMEGA is no longer open to attack. This would make attacking mutch harder and defenders (espacially Random groups) would have better chances to win a game.

Clan vs. IS Balance is as good as never before. BUT it will never be balanced 100%.
Question: Woulld it be possible to add a booty mechanic? So that if you have done something special, you are able to ad one Mech of the other tech to your Drop deck? (As Clan player you could add for example a Warhammer)
If no - Why not?

Still there are to many planets attackable.
Question: Still there are to many planets attackable. Why not reduze the number of attackable planets to maybe 4 but with a higher Slot number (like Tukayyid)

[Kurbeks]

Probably alredy mentioned several times.

But maps and modes need update.Proposed new Assult game mode sounds great on FP, instead of Quick play.
Same as FP needs more maps and update older maps. For example Boreal has too long/straight attack lines which favours defender very much (espeically if defender is Clan factoins) + attacker dropzone in plains.

Sulfurous has too long and curved roads - reulting in half of game time being spent traveling to enemy base not fighting

[Killer Kellaine]

Wintersdark, on 22 July 2016 - 06:43 PM, said:

Just my two bits, but really - I hope this focuses on things that matter, not silly sales. Sure, it'd be great to be able to grab modules cheap, but what's important here is fixing faction play so it doesn't suck. If FP sucks, all the cheap modules in the world won't make it more fun.

That's just me though.

I agree

[GI Journalist]

The biggest problem with Faction Play is wait times. Waiting is not fun. Matches take ten minutes or more to assemble, depending on team size and the availabilty of opponents which compares poorly to the short waits for Quick Play. Sometimes, an opponent can not be found, leading to further disappointment. The current bucket system isn't working.

The design of Faction Play made assumptions about the size and distribution of the MWO population. It assumed players would spread themselves evenly across factions and respond quickly to attacks on their territory. However, no amount of incentives to date has yet convinced the player base to do so. Rather than increasing incentives for players, I think the time has come to fundamentally change how matches are assembled.

My suggestion would be to create two Faction Play Lobbies in which the players can form up in teams of 12. You will need two lobbies, one for Inner Sphere and one for the Clans. Once a team of 12 is ready, automatically assemble the match with the next available team, regardless of faction. This match could be Clan vs. Inner Sphere, Clan vs. Clan, Inner Sphere vs. Inner Sphere or internal faction warfare! The factions are fighting with someone, somewhere. Matches between factions that do not share a border would require a new "Raid" Game Mode. However, you could work preferences into the matching algorithm, and give loyalist factions sharing a border the highest priority for match-ups.

After the match is automatically assembled, notify the players of the planet for which they will be fighting and their opponent. At the end of the match, apply the results to the appropriate planet.

I can't speak for other player preferences, but I'm here for a FPS MechSim, not a strategy board game. I don't think players need to choose which planet they will be fighting on. NPC faction leaders make those decisions. They don't let their population vote on it. They hire mercenaries on contracts and send them to fight wherever they are needed. I just want to fight.

[T I N M A N]

Summarizing some of the best points:

Balancing faction populations-

K O N D O, on 23 July 2016 - 05:19 AM, said:

How to even out player numbers across factions.

The best way to do this is by evenly allocating available contract slots to each factions.

...

Some of the other points posted are good but I think PGI need to start with ways to even out player number and large units.

-This guy gets it. Interesting system and probably would work fairly well. Read into this.
-Consolidation by alliance. Could work. Would have to be controlled by the players (probably loyalist) so that alliances could break and form at will.

Improving FP gameplay-

-FACTION PLAY TUTORIAL PLEASE for the new ones. It's sorely needed.
-More maps (Giant dense city, Polar Highlands, Giant forest, Giant Swamp, ports, farmlands, mountainous regions [look to MW4 V/BL/Merc]) (could even be different maps in the same style of others)
--Different types of bases (not always laney. Other ways to attack etc.)
-Different types of objectives and missions (escort, assasination, etc)
-Get rid of the long tom until you can find a better solution (improved consumables due to better supply lines/supply line raiding was an interesting idea [free coolshots?])
-Units who own planets should have the ability to upgrade/place turrets more strategically, maybe a few mines? Something that allows the unit to customize each map to how they want to play. Not so much that it makes it impossible to take.
--Limit turret placement, density, etc.
-Show KMDD and TD at end round screen
-MC earned per win and loss
--Makes it more end gamey, more reasons to play it etc.

Improving lore (and gameplay too in a way)

-Planets all need a description. It's not hard. 3 minutes for each planet on sarna.net.
-Planets need rewards for factions or units unique to that planet.
--Say a planet has a marauder factory. Award the unit 1 marauder a month or something like that or
--Reward the unit, or better yet all faction loyalists, a small, yet significant discount on that variant or chassis.
--Another reward could be unit decals who based on that planet.
---Deeper system with economy would include more significant buffs and factories would matter more, as would food worlds and such, but don't worry about that yet.
-Maps should resemble that of the planet. #sarna.net
--Not every planet has a grim portico
--With more maps this will give more options.

Some other categories that I'm too lazy to put where they go

Merc v Loyalist v Freelancer

-Mercs should get paid exorbitantly for their services, if they win. They should receive a small something for a loss just because if they earned nothing I think that would ruin the experience with as small the community as we have. Later for that.

-Loyalist units should share in the benefits which taken planets give. This way loyalists are the faction. Still, the owning unit would get their own rewards in addition.

-Freelancer is difficult. Someone suggested that before someone can play faction play they need to own x amount of mechs or something and I think that would help.
-If buckets are consolidated by the alliance form (which preserves the ISvIS, ClanvClan) then I might even say try to bring back pug solo FP queue again? Or at least like only up to 3 man queue. Would help a lot. One issue would be that units would just split up into 4-3mans, but that would just be an *** move, pardon my french.

-All of these groups should recieve some kind of reward unique to each planet that they participate in taking. Definitely more for the loyalists. But the mercs shouldn't be earning explicitly more money. That would sway people to loyalist for the unique rewards. I don't think freelancer should get them though. IMO, people should want to unit up.

If I missed anything I'll add it in later but these were most of the great Ideas so far that I have seen.

-Show unit tags in freinds list
-Quick thought, maybe Mercs earn MC per match (small number) while Loyalists earn MC for planet (for the MC system. This doesn't include the Unique planet rewards.) A difficulty with this is Mercs wouldn't own planets persay, the loyalist unit who most participated would own it, though possibly some kind of homebase aspect could come in at a much later date. Though I think not allowing mercs to own planets might ruin CW for them. It would, most likely, for me, if I were a merc.

-Other mission types do not have to be 12v12. Many missions can be 2v2, 4v4, or any size really.
-Other mission types might also include industry sabotage, fuel depot/outpost sabotage, and more

-VERY IMPORTANT- Allow Loyalists to choose the attack lane they wish to pursue.

-Loyalty Points need to go beyond rank 20 or something like that

-Clans rewarded for bringing less tonnage

Edited by NightStalker97, 23 July 2016 - 07:38 PM.

[Johnny Z]

Murgen Hugin, on 23 July 2016 - 11:55 AM, said:

Success or failure of a faction is highly depending on big MERC Units switching.
Question: Whould it be possible to limit playerbase for factions? A Faction which is filled with loyalists has no need for MERCs. So for example Haus Comstar has 30% of loyalist players, and Mercs are not able to sign a contract with Comstar.


The Topic gen rush in FW has been clearly improved. Thanks for that. But still attackers have an advantage over defenders, if they focus on objectives. This feels wrong. Attacking should be harder than defending. Right now it is easier to attack.
Suggestion: Change O-Gen so that they are cap-zones like on conquest. If you have all three zones you are able to attack OMEGA. But defenders have the possibility to recap and push caps up to max., so that OMEGA is no longer open to attack. This would make attacking mutch harder and defenders (espacially Random groups) would have better chances to win a game.

Clan vs. IS Balance is as good as never before. BUT it will never be balanced 100%.
Question: Woulld it be possible to add a booty mechanic? So that if you have done something special, you are able to ad one Mech of the other tech to your Drop deck? (As Clan player you could add for example a Warhammer)
If no - Why not?

Still there are to many planets attackable.
Question: Still there are to many planets attackable. Why not reduze the number of attackable planets to maybe 4 but with a higher Slot number (like Tukayyid)

Yes objective rushes in invasion still needs work but I hope its via things like more objectives like towers or what ever, to do rather than arbitrary none sim things like capping zones. Maybe knock out the cannon repair vehicles and stockpile or something.

A lock on the gates themselves that can be destroyed on the outside just for the sim is another.

Maybe the gate could be closed again somehow. Or one of the generators could be replaced somehow to buy more time. Maybe a friendly mechs reactor could serve as a generator replacement by hooking up somehow.

Edited by Johnny Z, 23 July 2016 - 12:54 PM.

[Pz_DC]

Well, let me repeat my suggestion/ideas for FP.
1st:
Make MISSIONS not wall-on-wall TDM! Make 'points of interest' on each planet, like warehouses, government buildings, factories etc. For example lets say it ill be 5 points per planet. So, to get control over planet you need to get at last 3 of them, and you cannot take all 5. To take any point you need 4 missions. 1st - landing (now its called invasion), 2nd - get to the mission area (now its called 'kill em all' in quick play), 3rd - capture point(conquest), 4th - defend it (assault). So, for example, 3 points with 4 missions each = 12 missions. Scouts will have their place too. Same time, missions need to be combined with quick play games so there will be only one mode - FP, with different missions. Players will choose themselves where to go. Hope you've got main idea so I will save words for other things.
2nd:
Dropships. Now they appear of nowhere and disappear somewhere. We already have limited amounts of contested planets so give each faction their own jumpships - those will carry some dropships to contested star system. For example - each player will have its own 4 dropships. Each faction will have its own 4 jumpships. Each dropship will carry one drop deck to the planet. So while factions jumpships are in range of contested planet player can use its dropships to get in fight.
Ok no more words - those things are IDEAS but not finished 'to do list' so just get it in yours mind plz.

-P.S.-
Looks like much more then 50% of players need MISSIONS in FP

Edited by MGA121285, 23 July 2016 - 01:16 PM.

[S C A R]

Hi PGI and Bombadil:

I know you have to go through a lot of comments so I'll be short. Here are the suggestions from EVIL:

1) Fewer factions. There aren't just enough games around;
2) Gen rushes. People just want to take planets and don't want to fight. This is really bad got the game experience;
3) Tier system. Arguably to what people say it is not fun to have 30-0 games all the time. Please consider introducing a minimum number of games in pug drops before a person is allowed to CW. Prohibit trial mechs. If a person doesn't move for a minute he should be shown on the map.
4) Small MC rewards for wins. Small amounts to compensate small units that can't capture planets;
5) Show amount of damage taken, KMD for all players at the end game screen. Camping players will be shamed;
6) The higher your loyalty rank the more voting power you should have. This will stop alternative accounts abuse;
7) More ranks for Mercs (cap at 50) and loayties;
8) Re-arm stations to reload mechs and replenish armor (for C-Bills);
9) Fix streak mines;
10) Outposts in front of bases to slow down rushes and add logistics;
11) C-Bills rewards should be based on the number of active players and not total players in the factions.
12) Dropships defence doesn't work. People are still getting farmed all the time.
13) Give incentive for top team to fight each other.
14) Monthly leagues for top CW teams and pilots with small rewards like modules, c-bills or MC. There is no end game at the moment and this is what will keep people motivated in this game.
15) Reduce the rate of fire for long tom. Once every 5 mins. Allow people with command concoles to aim it. It would be also nice to see long time on mini map. Purple smoke is difficult to see on certain maps.

Please consider those points seriously. As one of the top units in CW we don't like killing new or low tier players all the time. This is getting old.

Thank you for listenning and your time.

Team EVIL

Edited by S C A R, 23 July 2016 - 01:24 PM.

[Rebel Ace Fryslan]

Bombadil, on 23 July 2016 - 11:38 AM, said:

Just curious, in your opinion what are the main differences in the points of view between NA and non-NA players?

AHA the quote system doesn't work in IEX11, bad forum searchmachine if i can mention that.



Well in 1st it seems most feedback is from like your community NGNG and other NA sources, so it's more included.


Each part of the world has it's 'quirks' so each plays and there fore approaches the game different.

The consumer is different, the player is different, the tactic is different.
And last but not least the amount of active players is different.

All those things have there different problems in those regions, active players rlly changes the gameplay.

Also the Tournaments that mostly QP-based, disrupt the lower activity-regions even more.
There is NO reason to play FW (or even the game) when there is a QP-event in the non-NA regions.

And others may see more indiscretions in that.

[Bombadil]

Rebel Ace Fryslan, on 23 July 2016 - 01:22 PM, said:

AHA the quote system doesn't work in IEX11, bad forum searchmachine if i can mention that.



Well in 1st it seems most feedback is from like your community NGNG and other NA sources, so it's more included.


Each part of the world has it's 'quirks' so each plays and there fore approaches the game different.

The consumer is different, the player is different, the tactic is different.
And last but not least the amount of active players is different.

All those things have there different problems in those regions, active players rlly changes the gameplay.

Also the Tournaments that mostly QP-based, disrupt the lower activity-regions even more.
There is NO reason to play FW (or even the game) when there is a QP-event in the non-NA regions.

And others may see more indiscretions in that.

Thank you for the info, and I will take it into serious consideration when gathering feedback.

[Stuffer]

Bombadil, on 22 July 2016 - 07:01 PM, said:

This meeting will be focusing on further-reaching issues, such as player buckets and queue times. If successful, future meetings may focus on other topics, which may or may not include sale requests.

Here is my simple, lore-based solution to decreasing the number of buckets in Faction Play. Leave the individual Great Houses and Clans, but merge them into four lore-based factions.

1) Create the Federated Commonwealth from House Steiner and Davion. (1st Bucket)

2) Create the Kapteyn Accords (Concord of Kapteyn) from House Liao, Marik and Kurita. (2nd Bucket)

3) Create the Warden and Crusader Clan factions with the appropriate Clans. (3rd and 4th Buckets)

You can still serve mercenary contracts or as a loyalist for the individual houses/clans, but you serve as part of a greater faction. As a result, Attack and Defense is done as a faction as opposed to as a House/Clan.

This preserves IS vs IS, Clan vs Clan and IS vs Clan but does so from a lore standpoint. It also greatly reduces the amount of buckets and pools more players together.

Not sure where to fit Rasalhague into this though.

Anyways, that's my two cents on that particular issue.

Edited by Stuffer, 23 July 2016 - 01:40 PM.

[smokefield]

personal opinion :

1. FP should be what NBT league tries to do. with content, with progress, with real objectives and missions that can vary - attacking, scouting, defending, escorting
2. Fp should never be resetted, or it should be very rare.
3. A new player that wants to play FP should pass some tests where he can prove he knows how to play the game at a certain level. Or, if this doesnt please people, make it hard so it will feel like the top game of this online franchize.

The general aim should be a massive multiplayer online mech sim/fps with progress and incentives that makes you want to log in an immerse in this beautifull universe that is Battletech.

[Asaru]

Some ideas that I would like to see possibly addressed (some of these may not be original or unique to me or this post).

1) Add a Win Condition to FW

2) Move to one attack cycle. Planets flip based on total wins over all three time zones (NA+EU+OA)

3) Shorter wait time to launch a match

4) Remove or severely restrict LT in Invasion mode

5) Lower scout weight to 45 tons

6) Create a way to have Official Faction Alliances:
a) allows for sharing of attack/defend planets
b ) allows units to move to where the best action is
c) reduces some of the buckets while still allowing players to keep their Faction

7) Add to voting the ability to pick which planet your Faction will attack

8) Restrict how many mercs can move into anyone Faction at a time

9) Increase awards for tagging planets and scouting

10) If a unit takes a planet but it is already at their max cap award the planet to the 2nd place unit and so on.

11) Special lore planets should be mini-events when they come under attack

12) Attack lanes most be connected to Home World. If a Faction's attack lane is severed from Home World then that Faction can not continue to "move forward" until the gap is reconnected.

Edited by Asaru, 23 July 2016 - 02:34 PM.

[Davers]

I just want to know if there is any plans to make the different factions feel different/unique, if there is any plans for some kind of logistics and if there will be more interactive aspects of FP other than voting on who is going to be attacked?

[Romwood]

Been playing since open Beta with a LONG break before any of this CW stuff hit. Couple of spots in there where I hopped in to see what had changed. I literally only play this game because I thoroughly enjoy building robots and blowing things up with them. If there was another game out there that allowed this level of customization with decent shooter mechanics, I would probably be playing that as well as, if not instead of, MWO. Pretty sure this is my first post, so sorry for the length.

Okay. So I'm gonna start off by saying I disagree with the majority of the sentiments in this thread. I don't feel like lore has anything to do with CW failing as a whole. It is a cool foundation for potentially interesting gameplay. Gives a reason for this galaxy spanning conflict and why we are fighting for control of planets. If you JUST want lore, read books, Sarna, and fanfic. More rewards are a lovely benefit that we could all get behind, but that won't fix CW either. Compelling gameplay is, to my mind, the biggest issue.

CW, to me, doesn't feel like I am taking a planet. What kills me about this, as Rampage and others in here have noted, is that you have basically all of the game modes required for it. The quickplay modes NEED to be in CW. Even use the same maps. Remove scouting as a separate queue.

You go to a fresh planet, the first brick or bar of progression or whatever IS scouting. What military operation goes off without scouting? You don't get the Intel and decide to proceed? Defender can have massive benefits. The attackers DO get the scout off? Awesome. Now you can move to Invasion and take out that key structure the defenders have that you learned about. Defenders hold it? Damn. Now they get some manner of advantage unless the attackers use more resources (time, with the current 8 hour cycle, maybe a limited number of attempts to move through certain stages, etc.) to take it out.

Awesome. We have started our hostile takeover of the planet. What next? Well, we need to strangle the defending forces. We need to remove their resources to make a siege possible. On to Conquest. OH NO! They became aware of our movements, or an enemy patrol wandered into us. It's a Skirmish! The results here mean the attacker can move on to Conquest and remove the enemy resources or the defender would thwart the conquest de-facto by destroying the unit sent to take the resources.

The attackers took the industrial sector, removing our supply chain! We need to push them out or we have no chance to hold the planet! We need to push out the attacker's forward outpost so we can reclaim our supplies! Counter attack. Defenders win? Cool, now they need to take back their resources via Conquest. Attackers win? Now they need to move forward to crush the last vestige of military power on the planet. Could throw another invasion in there or something before...

The new Assault. The way this has been described, in my opinion, doesn't really work in quickplay. As has been pointed out by several people, specifically in my experience Sader and his stream chat, no one has ANY incentive to leave the base. In fact, the first team to do so is at an extreme disadvantage. This DOES make sense, however, as an asymmetrical mode in which the last bastion of military power on a planet is trying to hold out against the oncoming advance of invaders. One team has a base, the other is trying to Assault that base. And I don't mean some piddly bs gates and ll turrets. I mean a SERIOUS military installation with multiple layers of defence. This would invoke some balance concerns. At no point should one team have an advantage they did not earn and this all needs to be competitive throughout, but it SHOULD feel like we are taking over a planet. Reduce defender tonnage or mechs available in the drop deck or overall team numbers. The base should be strong enough to make up for it, and remember, at this point, the attackers have them against the wall. As the attackers move through, clearing out airspace, dropships could come in and make sure no spawn camping occurs by the defenders. This, out of everything, would be the most ambitious and actually would require development resources. And maybe there is a more cost effective solution that doesn't require new maps and a new gameplay mode that is unique to CW.

Defenders win? Great, they have a spot for reinforcements to come down, and can start pushing out the invaders. Attacker win? Planet is theirs. You could have one last mission which is like a flip of Domination where the defenders have to hold out in the dropzone until evac arrives and they can re-coup some c-bills or something.

And look at that... We could have an end-game MMO style experience. We got our **** together, got geared up, and went and TOOK A PLANET. That is every bit as cool as slaying a dragon for some golden drops. And instead of READING about some lore, we can make it OURSELVES. "Remember when we were down to the last point on Globtrulon X and our lance held against THREE WAVES of the ******** Reavers invasion force? F*cking epic."

The assets are even there to make it feel like you are moving from a remote location into a more populated/controlled sector. Like Alpine->Polar->Frozen city kind of thing, but that is more fluffy than necessary.

The point here isn't really anything specific I've laid out above. That's mostly my thoughts on how *I* would like it to be. But it DOES need to have some sort of progression tree that isn't simply number of wins over a given cycle. This would add meaning to last minute defences and those popups we see in the bottom right of our screens.

Obviously these are just thoughts and would require a good deal of work to implement, but for CW to be a good and compelling game mode, a band-aid will not work. I am also not remotely sure anything will work without a much larger playerbase, but good games tend to get players. Just my thoughts.