84 replies to this topic

[Urdasein]

Option 3

I want TDM and Attack/defend mode.

[fandre]

Voted yes but as loupgaroupoilu stated before. Option 3 with TDM in Attack/Defend mode would be interesting too. For me it would more interesting than CW, which I as a casual player dont realy like.

[Jeremy Wade]

More secondary or tertiary objectives would be great.

How about in Assualt mode, the added a tertiary objective to hold a single point on he map and if you won the match and controlled the objective location the team gets an XP and Cbill boost.

Would give players something to do rather than go straight to capping the enemy base. Cappers get to cap, and by capping the objective everyone benefits. This would also buy some extra time for those who only want to brawl to shoot at each other before your capping guys move onto the enemy base

Whatever the add though, for any objective games they really need to get voice comms incorporated into the UI. As a light pilot, sometimes when I scout I find a swarm of enemy units under an ECM cloud by turning a blind corner and running into them. I can't dodge and relay the information back to the team at the same time unless I have voice comms. So often I have to choose, tell my team and die because I cant type and steer at the same time, or try and evade the enemy but risk not being able to warn my team of the danger because I'm stuck running away from the enemy trying to survive.

[Will9761]

It would be cool if the mission-type game modes that you're doing had voice actors giving you objectives and mission breifings. It makes you feel like the battles you are doing are real.

Like this example:

Edited by Will9761, 01 December 2013 - 02:06 PM.

[Sennin]

Would I enjoy a cooperative mission mode? Hell yes! Do I expect PGI to ever deliver it? Hell no!

[Galenthor Kerensky]

the tabletop game has had this included since it's inception practically... it should be reflected in this version as well, as it would make this game far more challenging, and start players thinking alot more tactical...

[Exilyth]

Problem is that currently, maps are too small. Most missions in mechwarrior resp. mechcommander had a whole base + perimeter for you to capture: http://youtu.be/pYznxmE6I34?t=3m52s

[Ansgar Odinson]

I would love to see some tactical objective type games. I think it would be cool to have multi stage objectives like they did in the Spartan vs Eliets game mode in halo reach. As attackers take objectives the defenders lose ground until eventually the fight ends at the last objective

[Dolph Hoskins]

YES....there is nothing more to say.

[Victor Steiner Davion Kahn]

I definitely agree that this game needs to be more then the eventually match degradation to TDM. I feel the game modes need to feel more apart from each other and more unique. For example in the game mode capture the base, instead of two bases why not have one dropship. Have one team guarding the ship and one attacking it. Then have them switch sides for a total of two rounds. They could put all the turrets onto the dropship itself to give it the feel that it is truly defending itself. More ideas to follow.

[Demon Horde]

Acid Phase, on 26 April 2013 - 04:13 PM, said:

Since this topic now belongs here, let's re live it up again.

I posted this before, but it died down. It would interest me how many of you (The Community) is on board with this topic through a poll. Any suggestions are also welcomed.

I feel that this game should stop becoming a team death match. If I wanted to play that, I would go back to playing some Unreal Tournament. I remember that MechWarrior was mostly about going through missions. If you played MechWarrior series, you know exactly what I mean. "Primary Objectives, secondary objectives, and tertiary objectives".

In my opinion, the way the "Assault gametype" would be ideal is to complete these objectives. Think of how tactical the team will perform according to these objectives, rather than just seeing a bunch of "steam-rolls" or just boring base caps. I see that the teams are composed of 12 players per side. If each team was divided into two groups (offense/defense) I'm pretty sure the game would come down to very grueling battles down to the wire. End of game stats and rewards should reflect on how well has each team has completed these objectives.

Here's my thought, Have the map with multiple Primary Objectives, (Capturing/Destroying/Defending) buildings or bases located at different NAV points. Return to extraction points also as an important primary objective. As for Secondary and tertiary objectives, have them be kill all enemy mechs.

The point is to make the game more tactical. As far as I'm concerned, that is a feature not taken into consideration in MechWarrior Online. Not sure about everyone else, but these "steam-rolls" and base captures (in favor/against) are

Myself and many other players have throw idea after idea of different kind of game modes that could work online and tactically. one that has been repeated countless times is the idea of a "convoy" mode where one side defends a convoy of vehicles and the other tries to destroy it. so far doesn't seem like PGI is listening really , or maybe the guys above them are saying no to it. but yes i agree these FPSer mode cloning is getting boring. This franchise deserves to have unique game play that sets itself above other MMO shooter games.

we need a convoy mode
we need a drop ship defense mode
we need a solaris mode with it's own sub modes for tournament support
we need seek and destroy/defend game play
and we need real base capture/defense not this king of the hill that is assault mode and capture mode

[Dianesion]

Any of this options would implement a new perspective to this game. Enough killing without meaning!!!!

[Acid Phase]

Bumping my own thread if you don't mind. The voting is one sided thank you very much. Glad to see that. Just hope one day PGI would take it under consideration.

The devs provided us with rewards and soon we'll be getting individual variant perks that are made to promote role warfare. Rewards look great. However, we are still looking at a deathmatch, where killing is the winning objective. If PGI devs looked at mission type game modes, where killing/capping is not the only means of victory. There has to be other forms of winning. When you have scout mechs fighting instead of scouting something, then you know your game is really lacking other options.

There has to be a reason to scout, defend, attack, hold, recon. If there was a gametype where you can't win just by killing, then I think it would change alot. Or maybe that gametype would give you drastically less c-bills for winning by killing. Like 25% of the sum for killing everyone, 100% if you complete objective. They would have to invent the whole no-need-to-kill-to-win feature.

Do you remember that MW2 mission of being in a Firemoth? He needed to infiltrate a base, destroy an important enemy object and be out like a mother f****r. They can do something like that. Where if your one teammate, does not succeed in carrying out that objective, the whole team loses and the kills made are worth jack. Like an MWO version of that could be two teams. One defending base, the other defending the dust off site. The objective is to have your light mech(s) infiltrate base and destroy generator and then flee to dust off. The defenders of each team could also fight it out in midfield to create diversions or to push for destroying drop ship at dust off.

Edited by Acid Phase, 25 October 2014 - 07:11 PM.

[Kreisel]

Personally I would like to see a mode like Conquest but where holding the points mattered in a tactical sense.

A basic addition would to add 4 turrets to each Conquest base that would fight for whatever side currently held the base. While that would be a improvement in the tactical importance of holding each base it would be a minor one as most the bases would still be ignored and the turrets would only matter on the base where the bulk of the fighting happened.

To make it truly interesting you give each base some feature that can be a major tipping point for battle on large sections of the map. Make the feature at each base a destructible building so tactically you can choose to capture the base or simply deny it's advantage to the other team by razing it. The advantage should be good enough you want it pretty badly for your team, but if the other team has locked down control of the point and you can't take it from them it might be worth spending the damage to kill a heavy or assault mech on the structure instead to eliminate the advantage they are getting from it.

You could have the different points thematically give advantages based on the features of the map. Here are a few basic suggestions.

• 2 Bases, on opposite side of the Map, that have a repair station and ammo depot each. In a game mode where you only get one life the advantage of a place to repair should be HUGE and holding onto that ability even if only one mech can be repaired and very slowly can become vital to winning. Likewise the ability to rearm ammo would be a big deal. I think each should be a separate building and the ammo Depot should create a massive explosion if destroyed. I don't think the repair station should restore destroyed sections of the mech and I'm iffy about it repairing destroyed equipment (I could see that as a entirely separate base, a refit hanger that would replace damage or destroyed weapons). Repair and rearm should be slow and require you to be shutdown. Like 30 seconds to rearm 1 ton of ammo (though you can power up part way through for a partial restore) and slow enough repairs that you can still kill someone with a single small laser, flamer or machine gun if matches ever get down to 1v1 and someone just sits in a repair station. Also the capture point for the base should be such that you can't be capturing or preventing a cap while you are repairing. These should be the bases each team starts with and managing to steal one or destroy their repair station would tip the match in your favor.
  
• An Air Strip, the controlling team received one 'free' Air Strike they can use each minute. Only a team or lance commander can use this strike and it is shared by the team, so if one person uses the free strike no one else can until a new one regenerates in one minute. Obviously this is a bad thing for you to let the other team have and if you can't control it your going to want to destroy their ability to drop an airstrike on your team/bases once a minute! The moment it goes neutral you lose your free air strike if you haven't used it.
  
• An artillery emplacement. Works the same as the free airstike but Artillery instead. There is a giant gun, pointed at the sky, it can be used once a minute by your team to rain shells on the enemy base or players... they may want to blow it up rather than let you have it if they can't take it from you. Should be on the opposite side of the map from the air strike on any map that has both. This should make it more difficult for either team to have both, or to focus on taking/destroying one if they do.
  
• Radar/Sensor station. Control of this base should give an effect similar to a UAV (minus the revealing ECM Mechs.) or seismeic sensor, but for a much larger or wider area. The advantage of controlling a position that reveals the position (and maybe even lets you target) nearby enemy mechs should be obvious. especially in a prominent or central part of the map. An example being if you were to hold Theta on Caustic Valley and it gave you seismic data in and along the sides of the caldera. The advantage to holding the central position of the map and controlling movement around the map would be significant. Enough to force the other team to take wider paths, or force them to either take the position or destroy the seismic data research station.
  
• maps could also have points where the victory points for that location were gathered much more quickly than other locations, and which are worth a large c-bill bonus if you control them intact at the end of the match, even if you lose.

HPG manifold I could see something special where if you control a point both at the bottom and the top of the the central building under the giant radar dish at the same time it reveals the location of foes everywhere on the map. This would be a MASSIVE advantage but very hard to hold onto because you have to split your team into two separate groups, cut off from each other by virtue of being on different levels of the same building, and considering they are both positions where you can be surrounded and attacked from four sides that could be tough. Especially, if say the other bases control turrets that are placed on high positions around the map, like up on the wall tops, where they can see and shoot wide areas of the map. Make a few PPC or LL turrets along the walls that could shoot at you when hiding among the pillars at the top under the dish
and suddenly that's a position you want to hold but not one you want to be at unless you control the outside bases.

Modes like this and suddenly the idea of attacker and defender becomes relevant, that Atlas might stick around to guard your repair station, even move to stand in front of it and take some damage to protect it. Scouts are going to be scoping out which bases are lightly defended enough to be hit and taken. A mobile attack force that can bring enough guns to quickly destroy or capture a base or support a base that is getting overwhelmed before it is lost would have a key role, as would groups with just the brute force to step in and take a base from it's defenders.

[Telmasa]

Why not an online "Cooperative Mission/Campaign" mode, something kind-of similar to what War Thunder does?


Heck, assuming the legality of it all is OK, you could even sell the MW1, 2, 3, and 4 campaigns as purchasable 'packages' (admittedly something Gaijin has also done with War Thunder.)


It would definitely take some more time and effort away from other priorities at the moment, but you'd have the advantage of something to go off of rather than totally from scratch, when making the maps and whatnot. (And I doubt many folks would mind if you turned around and used those maps as templates for multiplayer TDM, too)

[EpicWarrior202]

Bumping the thread

[LordKnightFandragon]

Lol, MW is just a TDM, 5 votes, MW is more then a TDm, over 200...LOL. Love it.

And yeah, we need PVE Mission based game modes. Pick 4-8 of your buddies and get knee deep in Battletech goodness, mixing it up with some bad ass AI mechs set in an indepth, multilayered mission to attack a city and secure it, while the defenders have shutdown mechs about set to ambush you, turrets deployed about, reinforcements that come at random times.....dedicated mechs playing missile boat and shooting you from places you cant quite get to safely yet...making them a proper pain in the ass.

[Yehat Terminator]

I realize this thread is long dead, but lately I can't help but think that the 12 vs. 12 game setup is pretty stale. The fact that there are different maps helps, yes. The fact that there are slightly different mission objectives helps, yes. But it very often just ends up being 12 mech blowing up 12 other mechs, which is often pretty fun, but not always. PGI's answer to boredom seems to be to just set up new maps rather than thinking outside the box. While thinking outside the box takes time and money, it also generates interest and money.

My issue lately is that teams and missions really don't have to be fair. Why must it always be evenly matched teams and missions? That's not war at all. Why not create a larger map (such as the CW maps) and have a large team defending a large area, then give a small strike team the mission to reach a certain point on the map, destroy a certain building/mech/item, or squish a civilian as someone earlier mentioned? Just because the way MW2 inspection missions were set up were boring for some does not mean they have to be boring. It's simply a matter of taking some time to set up the mission and situation properly. In this particular example, lights become very useful and perhaps even more interesting. Do you strip all your armor and weapons to make something extremely fast but fragile? As the defender, do you spread out your forces and hope to find the enemy strike team, or send out patrols, or huddle around the objective? And what if the objective weren't clearly stated to the defender? They simply are given a recon report that an enemy lance is in the area. Better figure out what they want and defend against it.

I realize this may not work for basic PUG matches, but then again maybe it would. It seems realistic enough that only some of the team actually have their head in the game and the rest are just mercenaries doing what they're told and getting their paycheck--sounds a lot like what most people in the game do. And it works. Company's flare up and come into existence because they have a radical idea. They get extinguished because they find a groove and stick to it for years. If you only have 1 solution to every problem, people stay interested for a short time, then find a new game that does something radical. PGI would do well to offer more thoughtfully-created and thoughtfully presented variety.

[VinJade]

to be honest as long as there is no escort missions(I despise those) I would be more than happy to try others.
Oh and I like the idea of using units in the role they was meant to be in.

[patoman]

SuperBroHeroFella, on 30 April 2013 - 05:30 AM, said:

Just make me defend or attack an important crashed spaceship.

Just make steal/safe information from an enemy headquarter.

Just let me hunt down an specific enemy for extra cash.

Just let me backup a truck convoy.

Just let me destroy a couple of security points.

Just let me stomp on civilians.

Just make me use a specific mech layout for a special purpose.

Just throw a bunch of elementaries at me.

Just let me gamble my cash on a gladiator mech.

Thank you.

All of this more or less.

People already go to match making for matches, why not mix up the variety where it could be all of the above and more.

Or say if the objectives are too complicated and would make for a long game reserve it for community warfare, which while having some (one or two) more interesting things you don't find in quick match I realy don't like defending the cannon 3 times in a row.

A arena game could be a great single player que, and could have a big championship ranking based just off results in it. Might be a allot of players thing who just like the idea of fixed matches against people and fighting to be the best. Who are all like **** story, **** civilians, give me my credits, show me on the score board (mentality of allot of true to character mercenary's). Could even have some funny Scripted announcer give dialog when things are happening.



Also remember a funny touchdown fog horn playing whenever someone got fraged, that or end of match,

Solaris V that's the name, now imagine this, with this games graphics, and you know, other players who can be just as hard as you, not scriped enemys.

Edited by patoman, 11 March 2016 - 12:57 PM.