1
Please, before you post why this won't work, take a quick look at the Arguments and Rebuttals section to see if I've already answered your concern (I probably have). Any other counter-points brought up will be added to the list and answered like the rest (when I have time).
The Problem:
People like me are uncomplicated - we just want a pure, ferocious combat experience. I don't want to stand next to someone's house, I don't want to chase down lights, and I don't want to have to hang back in case someone tries to capture our base in the middle of a perfectly good brawl. I want my team and my opponents to have a single focus in mind: kill.
I know a lot of you hate on the idea of team deathmatch, and I'm well aware that PGI has no plans to implement it at this time. In my mind, there's one primary reason for its absence, and it's the same reason a lot of people don't like the concept: How do you force people to fight? How do you prevent a lone 3L from running or camping indefinitely? It is a very serious concern that, left unaddressed, would undermine the entire purpose of the mode.
A lot of people think that a reporting function could fix it - they're wrong. It's a ridiculous argument - it's never worked in any game, it never will work in any game, it doesn't prevent the behavior (punishment != prevention), the support team needed to handle the volume of complaints coming in would be massive, and I could go on and on. Though that sort of system will never work, there is a viable solution.
The Solution:
Though not perfect by any means, I believe my idea would take care of 90% of the problem:
1. A spot on the map is chosen to be the focus of the battle (henceforth Fight City). They could do this several ways, but I would be in favor of PGI selecting a few spots per map (they could easily use the Conquest capture points if they wanted to be really lazy). At drop time, one of them would be randomly selected. Random selection from a pre-determined set gives PGI the ability to balance the arena locations and gives players some much-needed variety.
2. As time progresses and as more 'mechs are killed, the area of operations shrinks in around Fight City. Depending on map size, this would take somewhere between five and ten minutes. Here's how I imagine this panning out (though it's all subject to testing and balancing):
-Depending on map size, the first two to four minutes would have no effect on the area of operations; the entire map would be safe.
-After the initial grace period, the boundary (a circle or a box or whatever) around Fight City would become active and start shrinking over time. It would start rather large (think a two-grid radius (regardless of map size, since grids scale with map size at the time of this writing)) to allow for long-range skirmishing and flanking at first.
-There would be clear HUD and map indications of where Fight City will be and how long players have before it becomes active.
-After it becomes active, boundary changes would not be instantaneous for obvious reasons. The boundary would close in over time at a fixed speed (depending on the map), and each 'mech that's killed would slightly speed that up. On the player's mini-map, there should be two circles - a yellow one to warn players that the boundary has almost reached them (30 seconds away) and a red one to indicate the actual boundary. This would give players sufficient time to adjust their position, even if they're in a very slow build.
-Just like going out of bounds, a 'mech will die if it stays outside of Fight City for too long. It would be a higher number than regular out-of-bounds to allow skirting (15 seconds or so).
3. The boundary would eventually stop shrinking at a size that would all but ensure combat for the number of 'mechs remaining. When more 'mechs are killed, the radius would continue shrink to fit the new population of Fight City (again, over time - not instantaneously). Here are some rough numbers (these ones are highly subject to testing/balancing) for the minimum radius:
-16 'mechs remaining: 400m
-8 'mechs remaining: 300m
-2 'mechs remaining: 200m
Why It Works:
Forcing people into a progressively smaller area essentially mandates fighting. The slow shrinkage allows for all roles including LRMs and snipers to be valuable, but it also doesn't let anyone run away.
As an added bonus, it gets people like me out of objective modes. Remember the last time you were thinking to yourself, "We could have won if that ******* had just captured"? I'm that *******, and I care far more about shooting things than I do winning.
In fact, every time you go capture the other team's base, I think to myself, "We could have had a great brawl if that ******* hadn't cut it short." You're doing both of us a favor by getting me out of your gametype.
Edge Cases:
It's true - this won't solve every situation. If Fight City has a bunch of cover and the last two are a Raven and an Atlas, the Raven could feasibly be a huge **** and stay on the exact opposite side of a rock for ten minutes. Even that would be partially taken care of by having PGI pick the locations for Fight City. They could easily pick spots that offer no escape from the final arena. You can dream up all sorts of edge cases where this might not work, but it would solve over 90% of the problems that result from a 'mech being able to run away.
Arguments and Rebuttals:
1. One light mech can escape a group of assault mechs for a period of time that is virtually indefinite.
Not when everywhere it can run causes it to explode.
2. Camping is real. It is not soluble or counterable in TDM.
Wrong.
3. TDM will lead to loadout homogenization, and everyone will run an assault mech.
This is, in my mind, one of the only legitimate concerns about my proposed solution, but I don't see it as a particularly convincing one. I've seen many Jenner pilots top the scoreboards for damage and kills, mediums are nice to pilot in a field of assaults because no one takes you seriously, and there are plenty of competitive heavies. I don't think you'll ever see a shift towards all-assault teams simply because people pilot what they like, regardless of whether or not it's effective (if the number of 6MG Jagers I've seen isn't proof enough...).
I don't know anyone who pilots a light just in case they need to run back to base (at least in non-competitive play); I do, however, know a lot of light pilots that enjoy being fast and manoeuverable. Even if the worst case scenario happened and everyone ran an Atlas, who cares? I'd love to fight in a match that had 1580 tons of pain.
3A. But even if the PUGs don't change their loadouts, 8-man drops will run super-heavy.
Honestly, they probably will. The 8-man queue is chock full of cheese most of the time. It's always been that way, and 8-man TDM squads will probably be even worse. TDM or not, it's a problem that PGI needs to address by other means (tonnage balancing, battle values, or whatever). Deathmatch shouldn't be thrown under the bus because there's currently no balance in 8-mans.
The bottom line is this: If you don't want team deathmatch, then why do you give a **** about what 'mechs people will run in a gametype that you won't play? If you do want team deathmatch, are you really so picky that you're unwilling to give this a shot on the off-chance that everyone switches what they run?
4. Your idea causes the game mode to favor brawlers over long-range support 'mechs.
Again, the boundary starts large enough and closes in slowly enough to allow these units to be valuable. Mad because you ran an all-LRM Stalker and now you're stuck dueling a Hunchie for the win in a tiny arena? That's your fault. Feeling like it's unfair that you can't sit a klick away and snipe people from a hill? Good. The whole point of this mode is to fight it out - not to be a ***** and take potshots.
The same point I made in my last response applies here: If you won't play it, why do you care? If you will, are you really willing to forgo team deathmatch altogether based on the ridiculous assumption that the long range game will cease to exist?
5. It will split the community.
3rd person view, anyone? But seriously, at the end of the day, only PGI knows what's going on with this. As the game picks up more players, it will be a more viable option. I'm not saying we need team deathmatch right now; I'm simply suggesting that whenever someone over at PGI wants to put it in, this is the way to do it.
I would also argue that putting in team deathmatch would make transitioning from other shooters easier for new players. When you just want to try out a game with big, stompy robots, the last thing you're thinking about is standing on someone else's base. You just want to shoot stuff. I won't go so far as to say they've lost players because they don't have team deathmatch, but I definitely think it would make this game more attractive to a larger audience.
6. You're forcing people to get killed against hopeless odds.
No - I'm forcing them to fight against hopeless odds. That's the entire point of this fix. Your team is getting steamrolled 0-6? Too bad - stop being a ***** and try to take one or two of them with you. I've watched several times as the last guy on a team killed five or six other 'mechs single-handedly. Just because you're probably screwed doesn't mean it's not worth trying.
7. This all seems very confusing.
How? They would definitely need to do the UI work to make it clear what's going on, but that work is comparatively minimal. All players need to know is that there's a fight happening at X, and if they're not close enough to X, they're going to explode. There would be a grace period, there would be plenty of HUD indication, and it really boils down to get in the circle and stay in the circle.
8. This does away with tactics.
First off, no - it doesn't. The large initial size and the graduate rate of shrinkage means Fight City stays large enough to execute flanking action or other maneuvers in the first few minutes. Second, 90% of the "tactics" I see involve using the reach-around capture to force some 'mechs to return to base.
Third, if you're a strategic mastermind, this is not the gametype for you. This is a gametype made for Crixus - not Spartacus (for those of you that watch the show). I'll admit that the limited area will make the game somewhat less strategic - and to its benefit. There are two modes for strategic play. Give something to us barbarians.
9. But slow 'mechs are totally screwed, man.
No. As I stated earlier, the boundary would close in slowly enough that even an Urbanmech could outpace the fence of death surrounding Fight City. When's the last time it took you ten minutes to walk half-way across any map? That's right: never (not even on Alpine).
10. Walking to Fight City sounds sucky.
Yeah, it does, but that already happens in the other two game modes. I'd rather see them change the spawn points based on where Fight City is located, particularly since the bases would often make fantastic arenas. Either way, there's still less walking involved than either of the two current gametypes.
11. It doesn't make sense. Why is there an arbitrary boundary shrinking around a random place on the map?
I don't know, but it doesn't make any less sense than standing next to a drilling platform for thirty seconds. Put something to fight over in the middle of Fight City. Bombard the area surrounding Fight City. I don't care what the excuse is - it's a mindless mode for mindless people; we don't care why we're shooting other robots. It's deathmatch at its finest - even the map is trying to kill people.
TL;DR:
1. Pick a spot on the map (preferably randomly from a list of ones PGI picks and tests).
2. After three or four minutes of no restrictions, activate a large boundary around it ('mechs outside the boundary for 15 seconds die).
3. Slowly shrink the boundary over the next 10 minutes until there is no escape (minimum size based on number of 'mechs remaining).
Your thoughts?
Edited by Homeless Bill, 05 April 2013 - 12:08 AM.
:
