15 replies to this topic

[Acenan]

Inspiration:
"Unreal Tournament:
Assault: This game type is played with two opposing teams, one assaulting a "base" and the other
defending it. The map is set up with a number of objectives which the attacking team must complete (usually in sequence)
such as destroying something, entering an area, triggering a button, et cetera.

The team who first attacks then defends,
and attempts to defend for the entire time they attacked. If they can accomplish this,
they win the map. If the team defending

first assaults the base faster than the other team, they win the map.
If both teams defend for the maximum amount of time the map is a tie."


The diffrent objectives could just be "cap a point" or something,
but the attackers can't advance until they cap/complete an objective X: wich opens a door, deactivates some turrets,
gather stuff, opens new area..etc

The main problem with how the gamemodes are now and this is: when you die you die,
wich could be boring in large/long battles.

Respawn is not the answer, Dropship mode is: Select 4 mechs, when you die that mech
is lost for the rest of the match and you have to choose one of the other 3 to drop.

A simplyfied version of UTs version of Assult, or any objective based
gamemodes will do this game alot of good.

This game is getting boring, and i don't want it to be boring.

[Voridan Atreides]

When I think of Assault that is what I think of. One team assaulting another teams base.

[TehSBGX]

This would pretty boss honestly

[jay35]

Voridan Atreides, on 28 March 2013 - 12:14 PM, said:

When I think of Assault that is what I think of. One team assaulting another teams base.

MW:LL had something similar. I believe MW4 did as well but I forget.

People have been asking for this for a while. It requires more coding work because you'd need proper bases instead of simple cap points, with destructable objectives, automated defenses, etc. Looking forward to it at some point.

[Team Leader]

Cool idea +1
Since we can't really do anything from our mechs, maybe for some of the first sections we are escorting ground units in APCs, and we have to defend them until they hack down the turrets or whatever.

[jay35]

Now you're adding escort on top of base assault/defense. That'd be even more complex, requiring automated vehicle train functions or AI pathfinding, escort code, whatever. Easier to just make the automated base defenses that can be destroyed and some objectives that can be destroyed. Then you'd only have to create destructibles and some basic targeting functionality, both of which you'd need either way.

Edited by jay35, 28 March 2013 - 12:30 PM.

[Amsro]

Assault should simply be changed so their is only one base, one team attacks one team defends. The current Assault mode is broken.

[Fishbulb333]

[Acenan]

As we have witnessed from the Devs (the three TTTs) Things Takes Time (sounds better in Norwegian..). So best, to keep it simple and easy.


An objective based Assult Mode could easily be constructed on any of the old maps.

F.eks: River City: Drop/Attacker spawn near beach lower city -> Advance into lower city destroy the X building->

Advance to harbor secure objective X -> Secure top city-> Advance and capure enemy headquters...

Edited by Acenan, 28 March 2013 - 01:01 PM.

[Ratnix]

I was thinking more along the lines of the warfare game mode from ut****.
Each team still had a base but there is a cap point in the middle of the map.
You can't cap the enemy base unless you have control of the center point.
You can't continue to cap the base if you lose center cap.

While I agree your idea is good I would think that would be better after clan and all that was implemented.

[Pater Mors]

I think we'll see something like this eventually. Give them time to get the core of the game solid first.

[Acenan]

Ratnix, on 28 March 2013 - 01:52 PM, said:

I was thinking more along the lines of the warfare game mode from ut****.
Each team still had a base but there is a cap point in the middle of the map.
You can't cap the enemy base unless you have control of the center point.
You can't continue to cap the base if you lose center cap.

While I agree your idea is good I would think that would be better after clan and all that was implemented.

I agree, warfare game mode would be awesome, any game mode other than Team Deathmatch.

One of the point i made is that it needs to be simple, and easy to make in game.
like the example i made about River city.

Pater Mors, on 28 March 2013 - 02:10 PM, said:

I think we'll see something like this eventually. Give them time to get the core of the game solid first.

Rate and cost of making of maps(3+ month/600K-1000K, WUT!?) says "eventually" is a long time.
Mechs shoot/walk/turns, game does not crash every 5 minutes(if you have a decent pc).


I don't say: I WANT IT NOW, But i want CW to be good and want PGI to take thier time going so.
So it would be in everyones intrest to experiment with gamemodes.

F.eks A splat cat might work realy well in open Team Deathmatch while it might be crap in base defence/attack,
or a sniper might be crap in Team deathmatch and be a badass in base defence/attack... etc

[Noobzorz]

God UT 99 was a work of art.

[Pater Mors]

Acenan, on 28 March 2013 - 02:38 PM, said:

Rate and cost of making of maps(3+ month/600K-1000K, WUT!?) says "eventually" is a long time.
Mechs shoot/walk/turns, game does not crash every 5 minutes(if you have a decent pc).

I don't say: I WANT IT NOW, But i want CW to be good and want PGI to take thier time going so.
So it would be in everyones intrest to experiment with gamemodes.

F.eks A splat cat might work realy well in open Team Deathmatch while it might be crap in base defence/attack,
or a sniper might be crap in Team deathmatch and be a badass in base defence/attack... etc

I think I managed to decipher the message you were trying to get out in that word salad of a post above.

A: It's much more efficient to design and build a whole game mode which can then be loaded onto the test servers and tested properly, rather than push it out piecemeal.
B: I don't think you know what you're talking about in regards to map building and the costs involved.
C: If you want CW to be good then let PGI do their thing and if you want to have input post in the correct feedback threads instead of General Discussion.

[OneEyed Jack]

People ***** about the time it takes to play Conquest on a large map and you want to make 1 match into 2? I'm not saying it's a bad idea. Wouldn't mind playing it once in a while, myself, but all these ideas to make long drawn out games are doomed to failure.

A true one-sided Assault is impossible to balance. The boards would explode with the screams of those that randomly ended up on the side with a perceived or real disadvantage more times than they felt was "fair." Even if the occurrence of being on the underdog side was perfectly even, would you want to be the one telling the people on these boards that, with tracked stats, they are being given a distinct disadvantage in half their matches by design? It's bad enough with the un-intended disadvantages of mismatched weights, mismatched numbers (DC's, AFK's, short teams, etc), mismatched builds ("cheese" builds, ECM, etc), imperfect skill balance, or any other real or perceived difference.

There's always bitching that Conquest is just TDM and how we need game modes that aren't. The best way to accomplish an objective is often to remove the obstacles which, in this case, is the enemy team. As long as there is combat, this will be the case. Make the objectives whatever you want. If team 'A' wipes team 'B' they win by default, because there's no one left to stop them. The only ways to change this are to make killing the enemy team not win by default, which would make no sense at all, remove combat from a combat game, which would make even less sense, or add unlimited respawn, which would be A Bad Thing.

[Acenan]

OneEyed Jack, on 28 March 2013 - 03:13 PM, said:

People ***** about the time it takes to play Conquest on a large map and you want to make 1 match into 2?
I'm not saying it's a bad idea. Wouldn't mind playing it once in a while, myself, but all these ideas to
make long drawn out games are doomed to failure.


A true one-sided Assault is impossible to balance. The boards would explode with the screams of those that
randomly ended up on the side with a perceived or real disadvantage more times than they felt was "fair."
Even if the occurrence of being on the underdog side was perfectly even, would you want to be the one telling
the people on these boards that, with tracked stats, they are being given a distinct disadvantage in half their
matches by design? It's bad enough with the un-intended disadvantages of mismatched weights, mismatched numbers
(DC's, AFK's, short teams, etc), mismatched builds ("cheese" builds, ECM, etc), imperfect skill balance, or any
other real or perceived difference.

There's always bitching that Conquest is just TDM and how we need game modes that aren't.
The best way to accomplish an objective is often to remove the obstacles which, in this case, is the enemy team.
As long as there is combat, this will be the case. Make the objectives whatever you want. If team 'A' wipes team
'B' they win by default, because there's no one left to stop them. The only ways to change this are to make
killing the enemy team not win by default, which would make no sense at all, remove combat from a combat game,
which would make even less sense, or add unlimited respawn, which would be A Bad Thing.

First like mye example about river city, mye assult version don't have to be a long match.

F.eks The attacker have X min to take/capture/destroy object X, if they fail match flips
and attacker defend and defender attack... Assult/rush should not be long. If it draws out
the attacker have failed, and has one last
chance while defending...


"they are being given a distinct disadvantage in half their matches by design?"

Battlefield: rush Mode? One side has unlimited respawn the other not and a timer aganst them, i don't hear
anyone complaining...


And again:

Acenan, on 28 March 2013 - 12:07 PM, said:

Respawn is not the answer, Dropship mode is: Select 4 mechs, when you die that mech
is lost for the rest of the match and you have to choose one of the other 3 to drop.