37 replies to this topic

[Oy of MidWorld]

I thought this would be a fairly easy to implement gamemode: Having two teams fight each other, no capture option, just the need to control the battlefield. If one team (or single pilots) decide they've had enough, they'd have the option to retreat by crossing the baseline of the battlefield on their side (probably through a choke point or two).

A battle is won when no enemy mechs remain (obviously).

If the winning team wants to destroy the enemy completely, they'd have to be quick about it. They'd probably get careless and rush into a trap. A retreat could be feigned. I know this favors fast mechs (so does capping), but in 8 vs. 8 and 12 vs. 12 matches, real rearguard battles could ensue, as lighter mechs might try to guard heavier ones off the battlefield against enemy lights.

This would depict a real battle in the most realistic way, as there are no abstract mechanics like magical basecap/resource win. It would probably make people happy who are disappointed with those mechanics or interested in a more realistic, lore-oriented experience. After all, a MechCommander who realizes that a battle is lost, would try to tactically retreat his forces (in the IS anyway...)

Those who don't like it wouldn't have to play it (i never play conquest).

Just an idea, tell me what you think about it. If many of you like this idea, i might repost this in the suggestions forum (i might anyway ).

[DrSecretStache]

If a mech retreats, is it out of the game permanently?

I feel kind of eugh about this. I think there really isn't much incentive for a retreat at the moment. If RnR were available, I could understand, but even then, if you decide to bug out, you could be bugging out at a crucial moment at the battle. It wouldn't really encourage good tactics... that, and I just see less c-bills being earned in this way.

I could have misunderstood something. If I did, please clarify. It sounds like if a mech retreats, they're out for good.

[Andrew Waltfeld]

Would you still feel the same way when your team quickly wipes out 7 enemy members in like 2 minutes, and then the remaining player decided to troll your team by running and hiding his mech in some corner forcing you to sit there and wait 13 minutes or retreat on your own causing a loss?

No thanks!

[Esplodin]

Have fun playing find the shutdown griefer spider for 15 min.

[Zero Neutral]

Oy of MidWorld, on 13 February 2013 - 11:55 AM, said:

I thought this would be a fairly easy to implement gamemode: Having two teams fight each other, no capture option, just the need to control the battlefield. If one team (or single pilots) decide they've had enough, they'd have the option to retreat by crossing the baseline of the battlefield on their side (probably through a choke point or two).

A battle is won when no enemy mechs remain (obviously).

If the winning team wants to destroy the enemy completely, they'd have to be quick about it. They'd probably get careless and rush into a trap. A retreat could be feigned. I know this favors fast mechs (so does capping), but in 8 vs. 8 and 12 vs. 12 matches, real rearguard battles could ensue, as lighter mechs might try to guard heavier ones off the battlefield against enemy lights.

This would depict a real battle in the most realistic way, as there are no abstract mechanics like magical basecap/resource win. It would probably make people happy who are disappointed with those mechanics or interested in a more realistic, lore-oriented experience. After all, a MechCommander who realizes that a battle is lost, would try to tactically retreat his forces (in the IS anyway...)

Those who don't like it wouldn't have to play it (i never play conquest).

Just an idea, tell me what you think about it. If many of you like this idea, i might repost this in the suggestions forum (i might anyway ).

Do you realize that you just described Assault and replaced, "Cap," with, "Retreat?"

Edited by Zero Neutral, 13 February 2013 - 12:09 PM.

[Lukoi Banacek]

I don't understand the tactical value to this retreat option so did not vote. Why would lights perform a rearguard action at all for retreaters? there's no need. It's more like a survival mode with the option to protect one's KDR thrown in. There's literally no reason to retreat except protecting one's KDR....because retreating off of the table leads to less Mechs on your team, which leads to likelier loss.

So, no...as currently written I'd vote no or simply not vote at all for such a mode.

[Odins Fist]

Oy of MidWorld, on 13 February 2013 - 11:55 AM, said:

"Would You Play Team Deathmatch With Retreat Option?"

.
That completely ruins the whole point of "DEATH-match"...
I think we all know what "DEATH" means right..??

[Loc Nar]

Quote

Do you realize that you just described Assault and replaced, "Cap," with, "Retreat?"

I know it's just one measly word, but it makes all the difference. With Assault as it currently stands, retreat in this context = win/game over, or potential win/potential game over. For everyone. With this proposed version of King of The Hill, retreat means the battle continues without you.

[Roadkill]

Esplodin, on 13 February 2013 - 12:05 PM, said:

Have fun playing find the shutdown griefer spider for 15 min.

And this is why I wouldn't play this.

I like the concept, but it's too easy to grief. A better solution would be to have a reasonably large area in the center of the map (I'm thinking 2x2 or 3x3 map squares) that is the "base" that must be captured instead of having 2 tiny bases like Assault currently has. That would focus the fight, and the limited (though large) size of the base would make shutdown spider griefing much more difficult.

[Oy of MidWorld]

The point of this gamemode would be to make the game more realistic for people who like realistic and less abstract, which i do. This gamemode would focus on team effort for full premades and regiments mostly. A losing team "saving" more tonnage and pilots lives would get a higher reward in xp and c-bills, so rearguard action would be a viable choice.

That being said, the griefer spider would in this case probably be part of one of two regiments battling over a planet in Community Warfare, so it wouldn't want to damage it's regiments reputation.

I know this is a "simulation" approach, it's not for everyone.

Zero Neutral, on 13 February 2013 - 12:06 PM, said:

Do you realize that you just described Assault and replaced, "Cap," with, "Retreat?"

Soo? I just called it "deathmatch" so i wouldn't have to explain everything twice.

Edited by Oy of MidWorld, 13 February 2013 - 12:41 PM.

[Bryan Kerensky]

Oy of MidWorld, on 13 February 2013 - 12:30 PM, said:

The point of this gamemode would be to make the game more realistic for people who like realistic and less abstract, which i do. This gamemode would focus on team effort for full premades and regiments mostly. A losing team "saving" more tonnage and pilots lives would get a higher reward in xp and c-bills, so rearguard action would be a viable choice.

The problem as stated before is that a shutdown spider in frozen city would take quite a length amount of time to find even with a full 8 man premade. It's strenuous.

[StalaggtIKE]

I just want an arena mode. *cough*Solaris*cough*

Edited by StalaggtIKE, 13 February 2013 - 01:49 PM.

[Lukoi Banacek]

Oy of MidWorld, on 13 February 2013 - 12:30 PM, said:

The point of this gamemode would be to make the game more realistic for people who like realistic and less abstract, which i do.

that's all well and good, but your game mode paradigm doesn't accomplish that so far. See my question above about the rear-guard problem you haven't solved. What incentive to retreating is there that creates a rear-guard. If there's a retreat incentive, what's the incentive to stay and fight. Your initial description doesn't mesh with either the current beta mechanics nor with any conceptual CW meta-game aspects.

I'm all for a more meta-game, bigger world experience. How does your mode fit in with that?

[Golfin Man]

I think this is a great idea, particularly in the fact that when my team is bad enough I'd often love to power down and wait for the loss, but people see that as cowardly, or will tell the other team where you are. People often say that since rearm and repair gone, there's no need to care about dying. I personally don't like dying needlessly just out of principle. That being said I'm not sure how it would work out, as I can see people somehow abusing the system of retreat. Or perhaps some unforeseen problem will arise where games end with entire teams retreating, or people basically forfeiting after the two lights suicide rush or the ECM atlas barges forward and dies within a minute of the game starting. Just my two cents

[Teralitha]

More game modes is good. What people are forgetting is... THEY DONT HAVE TO PLAY OTHER MODES. If you dont like the idea of more game modes, then you are a complete moron.

[Davers]

I would be fine with a Deathmatch mode, but retreat should not be an option.

[Oy of MidWorld]

Lukoi, on 13 February 2013 - 12:41 PM, said:

that's all well and good, but your game mode paradigm doesn't accomplish that so far. See my question above about the rear-guard problem you haven't solved. What incentive to retreating is there that creates a rear-guard. If there's a retreat incentive, what's the incentive to stay and fight. Your initial description doesn't mesh with either the current beta mechanics nor with any conceptual CW meta-game aspects.

I'm all for a more meta-game, bigger world experience. How does your mode fit in with that?

The incentive to stay and fight is to win the battle. The incentive for rearguard action is to get punished less for losing the battle. The incentive for this gamemode is to have a realistic battle which, like it or not, works this way. A party that realizes it will lose, will try to retreat.

I know this is conceptual, and it is just an idea for the far future, not for the current beta. Not so sure about this myself, which is why i started the topic. I just know that i don't like the current gamemodes much. They feel very artificial to me, while the core gameplay is still excellent.

[jay35]

Just offer regular TDM already. Other gametype options are fine but let's at least cover the basics first, please.

[Oy of MidWorld]

jay35, on 13 February 2013 - 12:54 PM, said:

Just offer regular TDM already. Other gametype options are fine but let's at least cover the basics first, please.

I'd actually like this too...

[Hawkwings]

We already have TDM, it's called Conquest.

And you still haven't addressed how powering down for 15 mins is going to work. If my team is all dead and I'm powered down somewhere, obviously I haven't lost and haven't retreated. So then what?