5 replies to this topic

[Rawrshuga]

I had a discussion with a friend and fellow player recently about our growing boredom with the gameplay of MWO. It was a point of concern to us, as fans of the Battletech franchise we would really like to see this game succeed, and as regular gamers we're quite disturbed by how quickly this waning interest in the game has set in.

We identified gameplay as the key factor. He had some great ideas on what could be done, and I really hope he posts them up as Suggestions, because I sincerely think they could work. I had some other ideas, mainly into the how-and-whys of what would make for more interesting gameplay.

What I've found lacking in the MWO gameplay is a sense of purpose. This was most evident in our discussions about in-game events where mostly it was about how much damage was done, kills had, and the occassional rage over idiotic teammates. In other games we had more of a story, about trying to hold an objective against overwhelming odds, or pulling off a clutch rear flanking move to take out an enemy tank, stuff like that.

What I feel is needed is a clear sense of purpose—a story if you will (human beings naturally think of things in terms of story even when one isn't really there)--that will drive players to act accordingly and play out the tale of an epic battle.

Both Assault and Conquest have both sides trying to achieve exactly the same objectives, to both attack and defend, or simultaneously pulling players in two different directions with two different mindsets at once. This is even more evident as pubs (or PUGs in MWO parlance—which makes no sense to me) face more and more premades. The premades (tend to) have a clear plan and usually steamroll over the objectively divided pubs.

I tried to think of a successful model that shares similar characteristics to MWO's gameplay setup—no respawn, fixed timer, relatively small map—and came up with one shining model—Counterstrike. Not the new shoot-em-up Global Counterstrike, but the old hostage rescue, plant the bomb Counterstrike.

Counterstike had very clear, diametrically opposed objectives for each side. Essentially one side attacks, while the other defends. As a pressure factor, time is on the side of the defenders—they merely need to hold out until the timer ends. This makes it a push factor for the attackers to actively pursue their goal. This by no means makes defense passive, it is still an active role, but the goal is different. These clear goals results in both sides playing their role in the 'story' of this battle.

APPLYING THIS TO CURRENT GAMEPLAY MODES

Assault:
This is pretty straightforward. There is now only one base—the defenders'. The attacking team has to capture the defenders' base. The defenders have to prevent them from doing so. There are some confounds to this and I can already hear the raging against 'camping'. But I also have some solutions. First, I've seen teams totally storm over a static defense in pubs through a dedicated assault, so it's definitely possible, also let's modify the capture bit, because I can see how it becomes a problem, and let's make it 'destroy' the enemy 'base'.

The Base now becomes a targetable, destroyable object. It has to be detected to be locked on and can be protected as such with ECM. As most bases are usually behind some cover, sniping from spawn is not really an option and attacking teams will have to close and position to suitable firing/spotting lanes. Which means these positions can be defended.

(the amount of 'health' the base has is the most tricky bit in balancing. It has to be enough that it needs a significant amount of firepower to destroy, but not so much that destroying the base is not a viable primary goal. i.e. It should be mathematically easier to destroy the base rather than the entire defending team, but should definitely be harder to destroy than a single Atlas).

Taking out the base is not a simple option of having a single spotter and raining down LRM death on the base—though that would be a valid tactic. TAG lasers are visible, leaving the spotter exposed to defender retaliation (also that 750m range) and can be blocked (by standing in front of it with a big hulking atlas), and defenders could also form an AMS shield to take out incoming missiles.

Attackers also have another issue. They have to kill the base, but the defenders only need to kill them or run out the clock. So it's a question of do you shoot the base, or the defenders, and when do you attack--early or late?

(FYI: I've played Counter-strike competitively and I can tell you there's a certain advantage to taking the time to setup an nice little blitz)

This further necessitates another change. The clock. 15 minutes is too long for this type of gameplay. And personally most matches I've played end before the 5 minute mark, and rarely exceed the 10 minute mark. So, as a suggestion I'd say the timer for this particular mode be 5-10 minutes.

[UPDATE:
After reading the issues regarding map time on Alpine I think the timer should be based on map. The nice thing is... hey no more base capping time right?]

Now, let's put a bit more pressure on the attackers too. Killing off the entire defending team doesn't win you the game, you still need to destroy the base in the time you have remaining. Not enough firepower left on your team? Out of ammo? Mission failed. Defenders win.

Perhaps that's unfair, but only if the balance of base health is off. It's similarly unfair to the defenders that the attackers could win by destroying a single target—the base.


That's the gameplay, but where's the story? Imagine this. An important dignitary has turned coat and needs to leave the planet, carrying sensitive information. This dignitary is currently at the spaceport waiting for his shuttle to launch. The shuttle needs 5 minutes to take off. The defenders' job, make sure it does, at all costs. The attackers' job, stop the launch.

Or. An LZ has been setup in a certain sector with an orbital beacon to signal the point to an incoming dropship. In 5 minutes the dropship will arrive bringing with it a massive amount of firepower and reinforcements. If the two lances assigned to defend it hold out for that amount of time the dropship will arrive and the sector change hands. Two lances of opposing mechs have been sent to destroy the beacon and prevent the landing.

The details are unimportant, but the story and its players are there. Just cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war.

(I haven't addressed Conquest yet, but I will. I just haven't a very clear solution yet, and this post is already getting pretty long.)

[Rawrshuga]

APPLYING THIS TO CURRENT GAMEPLAY MODES PART DOO

Conquest.

Right now conquest just doesn't feel very ... conquesty. I capture a point, move somewhere else and an enemy mech just recaptures the damn thing. It feels more like a cash-grab than a conquest. So here's my suggestion. We MAKE IT A CONQUEST!

2 sides (again--you'd be surprised how many wars are fought by two sides) Attackers v. Defenders.

The Defenders spawn at their base, Attackers spawn at their deployment zone.

Defenders own all 5 capture points and are gaining resources like the mad pimps that they are.

Attackers want to mess their **** up and take the points for their own.

Each capture point generates resource points, like before, but now capture points can ONLY be captured by the Attackers. Once a capture point has securely in enemy hands (full cap) it cannot be decapped, nor recapped. It's lost. FOREVER!

Attackers only start getting points on FULLY CAPPED points. None of this half-cap bullcrap. You can neutralise it, sure. But if you do it can be recapped. You have to fully cap it to lock it down and gain points.

EFFECTS ON GAMEPLAY.

Defenders will most definitely lose the point furthest from them. This is effectively the 'gimme' for the Attackers. However Attackers must choose their plan of attack carefully. Locking a cap ties up mechs. Which mech do you tie up to capture the point? Do you all do it to make it a fast cap, but lose the travel time to the next position? Do you let the assault cap and send the fast movers ahead? Every second you waste not capping is points that you're not getting towards your win and points that the defenders are getting instead. Plus every time you start to take a point, the defenders know exactly where you are, leaving you vulnerable to counter-attack every second that you're there.

Defenders have to think about which points they want to defend, and how they're going to defend it based on their available mechs. No, base camping is not an option, because if the enemy caps 4 of your 5 bases, you will lose. You might be able to get by on 2 bases, but that means splitting up your force and possibly being out numbered 2 to 1 and getting obliterated.

Decisions, decisions.

I think this model of gameplay forces players into a time dependent strategy driven by outcome, and is highly teamwork dependent, moreso than the current model that conquest is based on. Permanently losing a resource point would drive defenders to hold on to them. Starting with nothing will force attackers to take the initiative. Oh I did I mention? No winning by killing. Points is the ONLY way to win. Attackers not aggressive enough? Too bad. Killed off the defenders but didn't cap enough points and lost all your legs? Too bad. (oops I just gave away a strat there)

Okay that's not to say that once a side is obliterated everyone just sits there while the clock runs. No, if defenders killed the attackers the game get locked and the resources gets totaled to determine the winner. If attackers kill the defenders then the game continues until all points are capped in which case the attackers win. If both sides somehow obliterate each other in an epic battle that somehow ended with all mechs dead then enter superspeed totaling mode as with the first instance I described and we see who wins.

TA-DA! Mo' conquesty conquest!

[Torquemada]

There are many more game modes being planned from what's been posted by the Devs, including for example Dropship mode. There is the community warfare planned for the imminent future which will add story driven type goals to matches so you're no longer simply fighting to gain XP and c-bills, but instead will be shaping your own factions hold over areas of the galaxy.

[Rawrshuga]

So... "no" is what you're saying?

[mr bear]

I do think it is worth a think. After all, variety is the spice of life.

[HammerSwarm]

I am a fan of new game modes and improving this game mode. The interesting thing about game design is that you can make assets, mechs, maps, code, and build new things without starting over from scratch every time. I think that once they have the maps in place, the mechs balanced, and the code finished that they'll have everything they need to build more game modes.

That said they could put out a bit more in the meantime so it's not 5 maps/2 modes for the long haul.