26 replies to this topic

[WardenWolf]

I've been pondering game modes recently, and it occurs to me that the two we have now represent 'games' well, but not realistic combat. For example, controlling resources is important: but having one light mech being able to 'control' multiple resource points vs a few bigger, slower mechs (which is how games have ended several times for me) is just not how things would work.

Instead, I would like to throw the following ideas out:

"Battle" game mode: Opposing sides start in similar fashion to Assault mode, but with no bases. The objective is to destroy as many of the opposing forces as possible within a set time frame, like a deathmatch... but there is a twist.

Real-life battles rarely involve one side being completely wiped out, so once half the mechs (in total, counting both sides) are destroyed a 60-second timer starts. If that timer goes off, the team with more surviving mechs wins... and the only way to reset the timer is for a mech to hit an opposing mech with weapons fire. That means the timer won't go anywhere while the battle is 'hot', but if one team or the other disengages then the side with superior remaining forces wins - unless the underdogs try and force to keep the fight up.

This sort of fits real-life warfare: how often does one army completely destroy the other? It is usually the case that both sides take losses, and the side taking the worse losses pulls out (loses).

"Defend" game mode: One side is assigned to defend a base from either capture or destruction. This way the teams have a single goal, instead of having to try and fill both the attack and defense roles. It is rare in battle for both sides to have important bases in such close proximity, so this more closely matches one side attacking the other. I'd call it "assault", but that name is already taken.

Also, a few possible tweaks:

- Base destruction rather than capture: have a few buildings that need to be destroyed, with several hundred HP at least, instead of capture. This makes 'hit and run' a viable strategy, and gives the attacker an edge (when otherwise the defending team generally has the upper hand).

- Unknown base location: have it so that the attacking team has to actually scout out to find the base first, giving the smaller mechs a purpose (scouting, or anti-scout screening). You could even have people set up groups of decoy mechs, looking like they are defending something that may be a base but upon closer look is just a distraction.

- Multiple bases: have a few targets that the defenders are trying to protect, and see how many the attackers can take out within a given time period.


Forum Mods - I understand that I am technically 'suggesting' something, and if you want to move it to Suggestions I understand... but please consider leaving it here in the more populated forum for a bit of discussion first Thanks!

[Britane]

good ideas.

Here's one for a co-op mode:
(though it's a little pie in the sky since it'll require some AI)

"Ogre battle" (reference to good old Steve Jackson's Ogre minigame)
all mechs have to fight an AI driven "super tank" in the 2000 ton range. It would have many armor segments, multiple redundant engines that can be blown to slow it down and a bunch of target-able turret mounted direct-fire weapons and LRM launchers and plenty of target-able AMS systems.

The player mechs have X amount of time to defeat the robot super tank before it crests a ridge and is able to destroy the player base/drop-ship.

Edited by Britane, 25 March 2013 - 05:00 PM.

[Fabe]

Britane, on 25 March 2013 - 04:58 PM, said:

good ideas.

Here's one for a co-op mode:
(though it's a little pie in the sky since it'll require some AI)

"Ogre battle" (reference to good old Steve Jackson's Ogre minigame)
all mechs have to fight an AI driven "super tank" in the 2000 ton range. It would have many armor segments, multiple redundant engines that can be blown to slow it down and a bunch of target-able turret mounted direct-fire weapons and LRM launchers and plenty of target-able AMS systems.

The player mechs have X amount of time to defeat the robot super tank before it crests a ridge and is able to destroy the player base/drop-ship.

interesting idea but I don't think it really fits the battletech/mechwarrior universe So I personally say pass on this idea.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

They cant add in more game modes till they figure out how to do that AND not split the playerbase.

In reply to a concern about splitting the playerbase via 3rd person view:

Bryan Ekman, on 21 March 2013 - 05:23 PM, said:

This is one of our largest concerns. In fact, it's one of the reasons we don't just jam in more game modes.

http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__2103999

Man, I CANT make this **** up

[Roadbeer]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 25 March 2013 - 05:06 PM, said:

They cant add in more game modes till they figure out how to do that AND not split the playerbase.

In reply to a concern about splitting the playerbase via 3rd person view:


http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__2103999

Man, I CANT make this **** up

LOL, IKR?

[Targetloc]

Matchmaker randomly picks the map and decides which team is attacking first.

Attacker team picks (by vote) which of the 5 bases they want to attack (epsilon, sigma, gamma, etc)

Defending team spawns at that base. Attacking team spawns at one of the other 4.

After base is captured or all mechs are dead, Defending team now gets to vote on which base to attack.


Winning team is who ever wins both rounds. Or if it's a tie, winner is who ever won their round fastest.

[WardenWolf]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 25 March 2013 - 05:06 PM, said:

They cant add in more game modes till they figure out how to do that AND not split the playerbase.

In reply to a concern about splitting the playerbase via 3rd person view:

http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__2103999

I am aware of the stated difficulties, but there is an easy 2-prong solution:

1) Stop making game modes people hate. You want people to like the game modes, so that they don't try to select just one mode (which is what leads to fragmentation).

2) Don't allow the selection of a single game mode. Instead, allow people to opt-out of *one* game mode. This would work the same right now, but if there were four modes people could opt to avoid one while being open to any of the other three. This would *greatly* alleviate matchmaking, as shown here:

Assume 100 people in queue, with roughly equal breakdowns across weight class and elo ranking. Figure that 20% opt out of one game mode, 20% out of another, and so on - with the final 20% okay with any game mode. The server picks a map and game mode at random, then filters out those who opted out of that mode. From there, it selects and Elo range with enough players in that segment to fill a full game. It then breaks the teams down based on tonnage or weight class, as well as pre-made groups.

[Team Leader]

I like the second idea! For the first one, the set timer sort of thing seems kinda unusual. Just in a common sense sort of way. Can't quite place my finger on why it seems strange.

I'm thinking a sort of evacuation game type. A smaller, quicker force of mechs has to push through a larger, slower force and get to their drop ship before the defenders orbital cannons or whatever get in position to destroy it. The goal for the defenders is to either kill the entire enemy force or delay them until their side can get in position to blast the drop ship to pieces. The maps for this gametype would be long and have multiple paths, lots of cover and avenues, with the "evacuating" team starting at one end and having to work their way to the other.

[WardenWolf]

Team Leader, on 25 March 2013 - 07:28 PM, said:

I like the second idea! For the first one, the set timer sort of thing seems kinda unusual. Just in a common sense sort of way. Can't quite place my finger on why it seems strange.

I'm thinking a sort of evacuation game type. A smaller, quicker force of mechs has to push through a larger, slower force and get to their drop ship before the defenders orbital cannons or whatever get in position to destroy it. The goal for the defenders is to either kill the entire enemy force or delay them until their side can get in position to blast the drop ship to pieces. The maps for this gametype would be long and have multiple paths, lots of cover and avenues, with the "evacuating" team starting at one end and having to work their way to the other.

The reason for the timer would be to prevent one last enemy mech from hiding out until the 15 minutes are up. That is the whole reason that there is a base cap mechanic in Assault now, but the problem is that it can be exploited.

As for a 'retreat to dropship' mode, I think something like that could be interesting - but I'd like to see more complex games like that as part of a bigger campaign to take a planet in Community Warfare.

[Patrick Wolf]

I had an interesting idea while playing some bf3 a while ago. Basically take bf3's rush type game mode and PGI's proposed dropship mode. What would happen would be defenders vs attackers, the attackers have to take/destroy complexes that the defenders are obviously trying to defend. When a base is taken both sides would immediately get access to their next "drop" of mechs in their mech bay. So anyone who has died would then respawn once the next base has been take. The respawns could be limited or unlimited depending on preferences and balancing. People who havent died would then be able to redrop in with their second/third/fourth mech later on if they died. When a base/complex or two was taken, the next base or so would then be opened up, the defenders would have to make a fighting withdrawal to the next base and defend there.

I think it would make matches last that much longer, give each class a bit more of meaning, and if styled correctly you could almost mimic a sort of single player campaign that so many people have been wanting. It would at least provide a big difference from standing in the square

[Teralitha]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 25 March 2013 - 05:06 PM, said:

They cant add in more game modes till they figure out how to do that AND not split the playerbase.

In reply to a concern about splitting the playerbase via 3rd person view:


http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__2103999

Man, I CANT make this **** up

No... they need to add in more game modes now before there is no more playerbase left....

Or better yet... swap out the current modes for 2 new modes. No playerbase splitting that way.

I mean seriously... people are FRICKIN BORED TO DEATH OF THE CURRENT MODES IN CASE YOU DIDNT GET THAT DEVS.

Edited by Teralitha, 25 March 2013 - 09:31 PM.

[PANZERBUNNY]

Apparently already ditched dropship mode.

Meh.

Hell at this point I'd accept "protect the VIP" mode with someone designated as the target on each side.

Edited by PANZERBUNNY, 25 March 2013 - 09:21 PM.

[Corwin Vickers]

I still say King of the Hill or CTF would be a blast.

[WardenWolf]

Corwin Vickers, on 26 March 2013 - 05:30 AM, said:

I still say King of the Hill or CTF would be a blast.

I think those could definitely work, but I'd like to see them get a 'BattleTech' spin. For example:

Capture the Flag -> Recon Raid

There is a base hidden somewhere in the area (on the map) with sensitive data that your employer / house needs recovered. Other forces are also looking for it, so you need to find it first and get it back to your dropship (or just your base). In order to recover the data you need to get a mech close to it (within a cap zone) and download the information from the base's computer core. This takes several seconds (like a capture, and with the capture module helping speed it up slightly) - but once retrieved, the information has to be returned safely to your base (the capturing mech has to return, alive, to your base). If destroyed, another mech has to go get the data instead.

The main trick here would be where to start teams out, since slower mechs might have trouble even getting to the 'base' in time to cap or stop the enemy. Having the base location randomized could help, since scouts could spread out but bigger mechs could head for the middle of the map to be in the best position to intercept an enemy 'carrier'. You could also start lances at various places around the map instead, once lance assignment is in the game.

King of the Hill -> Secure Facility

In this mode, there is a facility / base in the middle of the map which two forces are trying to fight over. The goal is to get to the base and hold it against the enemy forces. I'm not sure how the exact mechanics would work out, though, and the difficulty is that it can lead to 90% of the map going unused and the focus just being on a small nexus around the base. This may make it less appealing, or only viable on smaller maps (like River City, where the big structure in the middle could be the base and it can be fired upon from almost anywhere else on the map).

[Voridan Atreides]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 25 March 2013 - 05:06 PM, said:

They cant add in more game modes till they figure out how to do that AND not split the playerbase.

In reply to a concern about splitting the playerbase via 3rd person view:


http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__2103999

Man, I CANT make this **** up

That makes no sense....

[WardenWolf]

Voridan Atreides, on 26 March 2013 - 11:53 AM, said:

That makes no sense....

It sort of does, the way it is set up now. Currently we have 2 game modes, right? And you can select one or the other, or both. Assuming for a moment equal numbers of people selecting each of the three options, it means that when the server starts a match only 2/3rd of the people in queue will be eligible for it. Move to three game modes and that drops to 50%, four game modes it is 40%, and so on.

Now it is unlikely that an equal number of people select each option, but that can actually make things worse. Someone who wanted to play only game mode #4 (out of 4) might have a very hard time finding a match if that is an unpopular mode.

My solution is to do the inverse: instead of allowing people to select which specific mode they want, they can only select one mode which they *don't* want. At two maps, that is identical to what we have now - but as the number of maps increases it does not suffer from decreasing player pools; in fact, the opposite happens! It also gives very clear information to the Devs about what game mode is least popular.

[BARBAR0SSA]

I don't know but at some point I hope the CW game you actually lose mechs if your side loses that should increase light mech usage and increase laser usage etc. Not sure how they could implement that but I'd love to not just rush in for the kill.

[PANZERBUNNY]

CTF really...no..come on now.

They can muster enough brain power to come up with some interesting and unique modes for their game instead of 20 year old CTF used in almost every game.

ESCORT:
A two round game.

The attacker moving to escort a VIP unit back through enemy lines is chosen. The slowest mech on your team.

Defenders need to stop the attacking units to escape with their VIP.

Match ends. Sides flip so both get a chance to play escort.

[anonymous175]

[Corwin Vickers]

PANZERBUNNY, on 26 March 2013 - 01:50 PM, said:

CTF really...no..come on now.

They can muster enough brain power to come up with some interesting and unique modes for their game instead of 20 year old CTF used in almost every game.

ESCORT:
A two round game.

The attacker moving to escort a VIP unit back through enemy lines is chosen. The slowest mech on your team.

Defenders need to stop the attacking units to escape with their VIP.

Match ends. Sides flip so both get a chance to play escort.

...players lose their first round and rage quit out. Slowest mech on your team is an AFK macroer. VIP decides he prefers death match.

Lots of threads about how "my pug team mates made me lose cause I'm awesome." And "My last 10 rounds my team was VIP first" rages.

KISS

Just saying CTF is old because it is good.


I'd like to add a detail to your CTF description WardenWolf. If the drop ship bay you have to return the intel to was say 2 mechs wide a strategy could be to send two blockers to block the drop ship exit.

I'd like to see more strategy added to the map objectives.

Edited by Corwin Vickers, 26 March 2013 - 07:46 PM.