84 replies to this topic

[Acid Phase]

Nathan Foxbane, on 01 May 2013 - 10:42 AM, said:

As much as I like your suggestion OP the simple fact of the matter is no matter what you do objective wise, destroying the other team will almost always be the most efficient choice of victory. Adding objectives only forces variances in tactical decisions to prevent loss from those objectives. It will do little to encourage a change in the current dynamic of team destruction.

Unless carrying out the objectives gives the team an incentive far more than just killing each other.

[Kraven Kor]

Purplefluffybunny, on 01 May 2013 - 10:42 AM, said:

As Bryan mentioned, PGI have subsumed this idea born form the community into their game design direction. The knowledge engine that is us is serving them well.

BTW, Bryan talked about convoy protection and assault type missions. That is objective based IMO.

When he last talked about them, though, it was only to say they had no plans for "mission based" maps or game modes, and that those were wholly the realm of single player.

He did mention the possibility of some more "asymmetrical" game modes, though, so not all hope is lost.

Again, some conflicting information there, and some evidence that plans have changed since those halcyon days of Dev Blogs and those chalkboard diagrams outlining how awesome this would all someday be. Understandable to an extent, but the source of many of our woes.

[Hellcat420]

the problem with assault is that there are 2 bases. it should be one base with one team attacking and one team defending. win conditions are base is capped by attackers or all attackers destroyed. if time runs out before one of those conditions are met the defenders win.

[Hammerfinn]

They have said that objective-based missions are coming with CW. I can't wait. :-D

[Acid Phase]

Well as beta testers....we need to test all aspects of this whenever it arrives. I can guarantee it will not be flawless, and we need to provide extensive feedback. I have to say, that I'm not as ecstatic to know the game could go live in September with many important issues of the game still unresolved (ie. Gameplay balance, weapon damages, bugs/glitches). This summer looks like it's crunch time, around the clock testing. We need to test new game modes. TDM/CapWarrior is done.

[Kraven Kor]

Hammerfinn, on 01 May 2013 - 07:43 PM, said:

They have said that objective-based missions are coming with CW. I can't wait. :-D

No, they didn't, or at least not that I have read.

They have hinted that CW matches would be "different" but without much detail on how, while still maintaining that "mission based" game modes are not planned, at least if you go by the ATD's.

I'm not saying they won't be or are not doing this, just that the official line, so far as I have read it, seems to imply that what "we" want when talking about "mission oriented game modes" is not going to happen, or at least not any time soon.

Again, just going by what I have read, and not trying to spout off at PGI or anything.

[Embiggens The Small]

Yes to this post! They're really getting the combat sorted out with each patch. The problem is what to DO with that combat at this point. I am of the opinion that MWO, after you've played it quite a bit, is just a glorified garage. The tinkering is fun, but the GAME is pretty boring. With such an awesome framework, they could knock it out of the park with some interesting game modes. And I don't mean single-player-esque missions, but something more complicated. I'm talking about aspects of MechCommander and MOBA-style games. Here's my idea; hear me out please:

A game map reminiscent of MOBA-style games (League of Legends, DOTA, etc.). Each team has a main base, destroying it means win or lose. That base is defended by turrets. Further out, each team has other sets of strongholds with turrets, radar towers, whatever. The point being that it be very difficult/impossible for a team to destroy a base and win the game without first taking down the progressive strongholds (e.g. turret towers in League of Legends). And destroying buildings is something those big assault mechs should excel at.

On top of destroyable outposts that a team relies on, some of those outposts should periodically spawn NPC vehicles (like minions/creeps in MOBA games). Those vehicles have a set, direct path toward the enemy team's next stronghold. Squashing vehicles is very empowering in a mechwarrior game!

This would definitely be a much more epic fight than a normal MWO match, so why have everyone only live once? Why not have the fight be resupplied with a fresh dropship of teammates periodically? After you die, you can stay and spectate and respawn at the next drop, or you can quit the match, and a fresh player can get dropped into the battle. But we wouldn't want fresh players to feel shafted if they end up on a losing team, so make the minor goals significantly dramatic and rewarding. That way, even if the team loses, someone knows they got to take down a stronghold and get serious xp/cbill rewards (or clanner parts, lol).

For those of you who bother to read this lengthy diatribe, doesn't this just make you salivate with anticipation? Doesn't it sound AMAZING?

Piranha, I know this would be a large undertaking, but it would be worth it. Right now matches are often boring, often one-sided, and often leave you feeling like what was the point. It's just a grind-fest to add chassis to my mech bay. And your game has so much more potential.

[Adrienne Vorton]

there are many many many possibilities,especially if you think about mechwarrior and/ or mech commander missions.... and the cryengine is very well capable of making that stuff real... question is,if PGI is capable of it... we´ll see,but i for my part have no illusion right now

[Corbon Zackery]

The single player part of the game was cancelled due to a cease and desist order by Harmony gold. The only thing left not covered under the cease and desist was the multiplayer aspect witch turned into a free to play. The first mission based game play is suppose to be convoy duty. protecting 5 or 6 vehicles while going from point A to point B

Victory conditions being:
Attacker: destroy all of the supply truck, prevent the convoy form reaching point A to point B before the 15min timer expires.

Defender: destroy all attacking mech, get the convoy from point A to Point B before the 15 min timer runs out.

[Jestun]

As there is now going to be a split between regions as well as 3rd person view / 1st person view the old "we don't want to split the playerbase" doesn't cut it as a reason not to add gamemodes any more.

[Zerstorer Stallin]

They could just copy hawken since that the crowd they are aimed out now anyway. Hey they could sell modules that let you play different games! 500 mc per module or 300,000 cb's but it has a 50% of not working.

[Kageru Ikazuchi]

No to Team Death Match ... Yes to Objective-based missions, but not with NPCs.

Protect / Assault a moving objective (convoy) ... Protect / Assault a location (base, drop zone, etc.) ... etc.

The trick will be establishing the right balance between attackers and defenders ... 12v12 may not be it.

Hopefully we will see some things new things roll out once Community Warfare is (finally) launched.

[MajorBludd]

Nation Uprise, on 30 April 2013 - 04:08 PM, said:

At this point I'll take anything other than the TDMs (Masquerading as Base Caps) we have now. Here's a great quote:

So in the gametype where the object is to Capture the Base, close to no one tries to capture the base, and basically every match becomes a TDM. I'm tired of that. Give us something that is worth investing time into. We have 15 mins per match, but almost every match is over in 5 mins. A gametype that gives a mission type scenario would be wonderful:

-Defend/attack convoy, structure, base
-Gather intel and flee to extraction zone
-Base Defense with Waves of NPC Enemies (like Gears of War's Horde or COD's Zombie mode) that can also have deployable defense objects like turrets, tanks and the consumable air strikes would play a big role here.

In a game not too long ago I split off from the group as we started loosing men fast and solo capped the enemy base... the amount of hate I got in the chat for "stealing" the other teams win.

It honestly seems like a core segment of the player base really don't want to do anything apart from fight to the death, but I personally I want a range of game types as the game really feels stale after a day or two after a new patch

Base defense. The typical wave style play. Start against tanks then choppers then a light lance etc etc.

Assassination. Both teams have a ViP and must stop him from getting killed.

Historic battle. This one is more for the die hards. The idea is that its a standard Co-Op but its themed around Canon events.

And a legit death match arena

Edited by MajorBludd, 06 May 2013 - 12:42 AM.

[aniviron]

OP, I was with you 100% until the use of comic sans in the image at the end of the post. Shame on you.

p.s. when you say you would go back to playing Unreal Tournament, what sorcery is allowing you to play a game that old in populated servers?

[Av4tar]

Yes to PvE, yes to Mission

[Acid Phase]

aniviron, on 06 May 2013 - 01:08 AM, said:

OP, I was with you 100% until the use of comic sans in the image at the end of the post. Shame on you.

p.s. when you say you would go back to playing Unreal Tournament, what sorcery is allowing you to play a game that old in populated servers?

It's my favorite FPS of all time. Enough said...lol

[Prezimonto]

If you like this thread check out this other similar suggestion:
http://mwomercs.com/...based-gameplay/

[tenderloving]

Embiggens The Small, on 03 May 2013 - 06:53 PM, said:

Awesome idea.

If this was pulled off it would probably be one of the most popular games of all time.

[Acid Phase]

tenderloving, on 09 May 2013 - 08:00 AM, said:

If this was pulled off it would probably be one of the most popular games of all time.

Without a doubt. The incentives would have to be high on the objectives completed so that it doesn't stray from becoming a "fight eachother would end all" .

[ThunderHart]

Community Fareware

Edited by ThunderHart, 09 May 2013 - 09:32 AM.