64 replies to this topic

[Johnny Morgan]

the VIP would have to a human player on the team that is Escorting (i.e. one mech on the team is designated the VIP at random, goal is to protect X and get them to location Y for Z amount of time).

It would be a great game for the Large map types and it would be a fun change to occasionally end up *being* the VIP.

I would also love it if there was more than 1 map per mission. Take and Hold mission on River City, 1st round is the day map one team is defending a base, other team is attacking. If defenders win, next round is River City night and they defend again, if they lose then they are the attackers for that round (simulate a counter attack or a renewed assault on a loss for the attackers).

Maybe give both sides the option to select a different variant between matches, would be uber cool

Edited by Johnny Morgan, 01 March 2013 - 02:07 PM.

[Raalic]

Absolutely. We need game types that include real objectives. With community warfare somewhere on the horizon, it's not exactly going to be immersive or believable for the entire goal to be attrition.

[aptest]

Ranek Blackstone, on 28 February 2013 - 06:23 PM, said:

The biggest problem with mission style objectives, is that "kill the other team" is going to be the unspoken secondary objective.

And depending on the mission, it might be easier to just kill all your enemies then it is to do something like kill the drop ship (horrible mission BTW. LRMs can just blind fire at the thing at max range and you'd have no real counter for it except pray you have more AMS ammo then they have missles.)

"kill the other team" as a win mechanic scales differently than other win mechanics on different maps. The bigger the map is, the weaker this strategy becomes when compared to other strategies.

Alpine ridge shows this principle quite well. I can definitely see how an escort mission can run on that map... although the draw distance "hack" combined with the high peak does present a little bit of a problem there.

[TheRulesLawyer]

If they ever fix rewards for capping, especially on conquest you'll probably see a lot more people play the objectives rather than shoot everything. While rewards are heavily stacked to TDM why wouldn't you shoot the other team instead of capping?

[Irreverence]

This was discussed a lot on the forums throughout closed beta. I still have absolutely no idea why we have no actual objective based game-modes.

Edited by Irreverence, 01 March 2013 - 02:51 PM.

[Ranek Blackstone]

Irreverence, on 01 March 2013 - 02:51 PM, said:

This was discussed a lot on the forums throughout closed beta. I still have absolutely no idea why we have no actual objective based game-modes.

Mostly because "kill all the other guys" would still be in effect. Kill the dropship, or the opposing mechs? Kill the convoy, or kill the mechs guarding it? Defend the base, or kill the mechs?

With out a respawn system, "kill the enemy team" may be the fastest route to victory in most instances

[Kraven Kor]

Ranek Blackstone, on 01 March 2013 - 03:03 PM, said:

Mostly because "kill all the other guys" would still be in effect. Kill the dropship, or the opposing mechs? Kill the convoy, or kill the mechs guarding it? Defend the base, or kill the mechs?

With out a respawn system, "kill the enemy team" may be the fastest route to victory in most instances

But again, even without respawn, if you do it right, it would work.

You don't have to have it so you "shoot the dropship" as that is stupid easy for the attackers to win, no matter what. You make it "capture and hold" with the capture point being, for example, the "spotting perch" from which you are directing larger ordinance.

You don't have to "shoot the VIP." You make the VIP a moving Capture Point.

You don't have to "blow up the convoy." Hell, it is perfectly canon to require the convoy to not be damaged at all, given the Ares Conventions and the general concept of civilian or industrial targets being off limits in the latter succession wars. So you just make the convoy a moving capture point.

[Ranek Blackstone]

Kraven Kor, on 01 March 2013 - 03:08 PM, said:

But again, even without respawn, if you do it right, it would work.

You don't have to have it so you "shoot the dropship" as that is stupid easy for the attackers to win, no matter what. You make it "capture and hold" with the capture point being, for example, the "spotting perch" from which you are directing larger ordinance.

You don't have to "shoot the VIP." You make the VIP a moving Capture Point.

You don't have to "blow up the convoy." Hell, it is perfectly canon to require the convoy to not be damaged at all, given the Ares Conventions and the general concept of civilian or industrial targets being off limits in the latter succession wars. So you just make the convoy a moving capture point.

The cap point though just serves as a catalyst though. It focuses all attention on that point, so both teams rush to that point and prepare to murder all comers. Last team standing wins. It'd be just like Assault but with a single capture point (which might not be a bad idea. Curb a lot of the cap QQ threads, thats for sure.)

[Oppresor]

I know its deviating off the path a little but if you check out my old poll http://mwomercs.com/...n-field-repair/ you will find that it started to look at different types of mission along the way. The main thing that most agree with is that missions are far too short and that we need more mission objectives.

[TheRulesLawyer]

First thing you have to do is make the reward structure favor completing the objectives. Without R&R its make objectives worthwhile without going to a respawn situation.

[semalferuzA]

You want people to not ignore objectives and just kill the other team? Then you need to make it pointless to kill the other team. In an attacker/defender style game mode one of the teams can have some form of respawns.

For example, in a fleeing/VIP type game mode the defenders can have only 1 life whereas the attackers receive reinforcements every x minutes until the defenders are killed or the target has escaped. Reinforcements would be players who have already been killed of course, and they would redrop in the same mech. Perhaps at a different drop point depending on the defenders progress. You can disincentivize the attackers from suiciding and respawning by giving the defenders a shorter countdown until extraction or a faster moving VIP or a million other possibilities.

Another way to draw the focus away from simply killing the other team is to make the game not end in the case of annihilation. In a game mode like conquest where there are multiple objectives, games often end with the team who has the resource advantage being annihilated. If one team completely ignored the nodes but still managed to annihilate the other team they could still lose based on points.

However, I don't mind simply blowing up the other team. Objectives are interesting for competitive purpose and for people who want to be 'immersed' in the game play but I think most people are content with blasting the enemy to bits on various maps.

[Kraven Kor]

Ranek Blackstone, on 01 March 2013 - 03:13 PM, said:

The cap point though just serves as a catalyst though. It focuses all attention on that point, so both teams rush to that point and prepare to murder all comers. Last team standing wins. It'd be just like Assault but with a single capture point (which might not be a bad idea. Curb a lot of the cap QQ threads, thats for sure.)

Well, it SHOULD.

We don't want "Avoid Fighting and Stand in Blue Box Online."

So all missions should force a fight, with the option to "win by capping" if you can't find that last Jenner that ran off and shut down to annoy you.

All mission objectives should direct both teams to one of a few locations to make with the pew-pew. Victory without blowing up at least half of the opposing team should be all but impossible.

Edit: In my not-so-humble opinion.

Edited by Kraven Kor, 01 March 2013 - 03:28 PM.

[Toxik]

They should try to implement mission with objectives, like in some fps, wolfenstein ennemi territory for example, I loved this game.
You have to blow up a gate to progress in the map, attack a base with some defender and automated defenses, or have a train to escort that can stop for defense set pieces. The possibility are there but it is going to be though to get right. If you combine it with a drop mod (several mech available for each player) due to the mission length it could work but would need a lot of testing.
Linked objectives could be a start, even if simples. Find and escort a wounded mech ((that can't be instant destroy)) on a set path for example. You can have several different locations and paths to make it less predictible. It could help channel the fight and make it more tactical.

Edit: Just a thought, the economy of the game is largely based on damage, that's why the more you pack the more you cost. If you increase the reward for teamplay to much that would create an imbalance where farming with lights will allow you to buy expensive mechs. F2P it is so they want to avoid that, When I bought my stalker I noticed that I was getting paid more when loosing because basically I did more damage. I am not an ace pilot so it seems to me that you get more out of your expensive toy.
I do not agree with this but I can see why they would do it.

Edited by Toxik, 01 March 2013 - 03:45 PM.

[Acid Phase]

Toxik, on 01 March 2013 - 03:40 PM, said:

Edit: Just a thought, the economy of the game is largely based on damage, that's why the more you pack the more you cost. If you increase the reward for teamplay to much that would create an imbalance where farming with lights will allow you to buy expensive mechs. F2P it is so they want to avoid that, When I bought my stalker I noticed that I was getting paid more when loosing because basically I did more damage. I am not an ace pilot so it seems to me that you get more out of your expensive toy.
I do not agree with this but I can see why they would do it.

The reward system should be an elaborate system. More so in a mission game type. Lights should gain a great reward by doing thier scouting duties/support attack, mediums and heavys: support Defending/support Attacking. Assaults: defending/attacking. Overall, the team that carries out a "MISSION SUCCESSFUL" should gain a great amount of C-Bills, while the team who lost should be left with a small sum. After every mission, you are left with the responsibility of repairing/rearming your damaged mech. Also...how about some salvage while we're at it.

[Kraven Kor]

Oh man I would kill for there to be a true salvage system with actual loss of mechs and gear but it would be a nightmare to balance. And I wouldn't want it to be so harsh or anything, just some metagame where "losing your mech" was bad and "not losing your mech" very good, and you actually salvaged mechs and equipment not just CBills

[Steven Dixon]

I would like to see mission type stories, but I don't really have a problem with team deathmatch and I'm having fun playing the game. The problem with more complex mission type modes is that they can take a lot of work and often don't work right (balance can be much more tricky). But I would like to see them implement something like this in a year or two.

[Kraven Kor]

Oh, likewise.

I want there to eventually be the random and simple matches we have now, then Solaris type matches for 1v1, Free For All, all that stuff. And then Community Warfare I hope and pray will have some semblance to the ideas I and many others have recommended that will have a much more "immersive" aspect to them.

[Steven Dixon]

My personal expectation is that Community Warfare will be pretty much like WoT's Clan Warfare, and I would be fairly surprised if it were fundamentaly different or much more complex. My real hope is that this game is as successful as WoTs or LoL and allows the devs to make MW5. In the meantime I'm still having a lot of fun, this game has revitalized my BT interest.

Edited by Steven Dixon, 01 March 2013 - 06:10 PM.

[TOPGUN Stinger]

Mission clear...tower flyby...!!!

[Acid Phase]

The fact of the matter is that we need to be shown all if not more gametypes. Just as the game is currently suffering from massive imbalances, we need to see what else is there to expect.