17 replies to this topic

[Jacmac]

Both Conquest and Assault are tired, worn out, and feeble. They need to be retired. When will PGI roll out game play or victory conditions that are dynamic or at least somewhat unpredictable? I hope community warfare is nothing like what we have been playing for the last year because another 10 Project X's won't stop people from becoming bored with the game play and subsequently bail out of the game..

[Celtic Warrior]

I don't see anything wrong with the current game modes. Obviously more is better but assault is basically what warfare is all about, defeating your enemy and taking their land/base or whatever. More maps would help for sure.

[Steelgrave]

I'm hoping to see something like Battletech 3025 Online where you pick a house to align with, choose worlds to drop on, and the great house boundaries shift (as do the rewards) as worlds are fought over and lost or won.

Game modes existing now would then just be a facet of the greater war. Hopefully they'll add more modes as well, potentially making each contested world a specific kind of engagement with its own rewards (for the houses and their aligned players) for victory.

Which probably means they'll need more "currency" types like the way Planetside handles reward various bonuses for territory captured.

Edited by Steelgrave, 29 June 2013 - 10:02 AM.

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

The modes are very stale.

the problem is, they can hide behind the "it's beta" until release, and say those 2 modes are good enough to test the experience.

[Fabe]

Steelgrave, on 29 June 2013 - 09:59 AM, said:

I'm hoping to see something like Battletech 3025 Online where you pick a house to align with, choose worlds to drop on, and the great house boundaries shift (as do the rewards) as worlds are fought over and lost or won.

Game modes existing now would then just be a facet of the greater war. Hopefully they'll add more modes as well, potentially making each contested world a specific kind of engagement with its own rewards (for the houses and their aligned players) for victory.

Which probably means they'll need more "currency" types like the way Planetside handles reward various bonuses for territory captured.

We'll be getting some of that when Community warfare comes out. We'll be able to join a house but we will not be able to choose what planets we invade. We will be rewarded for fighting although no one is really sure what those rewards will be.

[Mech79]

I say give us a free for all game play. Like the dropship mode they talked about you would pick four mechs total one light,medium,heavy, and assualt. You randomly drop onto a map and fight until one man stands. All economy would be based off of entire damage done throughout the game. Also give us deathmatch without the bases. I read something about a stock mech match only mode that would be cool to see no boating there.

Edited by mech79, 30 June 2013 - 09:25 PM.

[Assiah]

I don't think there is anything severely wrong with Assault and Conquest as game modes (although minor adjustments could be made), the issue for me is that they are the only two game modes. In both game modes it is about moving to a fixed location and getting into a slug fest with the enemy, a job well suited for heavy and assault mechs. Lights are used because they are the fastest mechs and can quickly cap bases, but are unable to really hold them, they are used rarely otherwise. Mediums are able to step up to the plate so to speak, but a heavy or assault does the job better.

As such I feel we need game modes that focus on what mediums and lights do well, stay mobile and move with good speed. A team having to defend a mobile objective would help with this, especially if said objective does not take the exact same path every time, or even better its path can be dictated by the defending team. In short the defending team needs to escort a convoy (could be mechs, could be tanks), while the assaulting team needs to destroy it before it goes off map. The convoy can sorta defend it self, but only enough to keep a few lights off them, meaning faster mediums would be used to hit them harder. With variable paths the lance could take and a convoy speed of around 64.8 KPH, it makes slower mechs less desirable and makes scouting a very real job as the defenders would want to avoid any ambushes while attackers would want to know the location of the convoy. C-bills and XP would be awarded to the attacking team for damage done to the convoy while the defending team would be rewarded for lack of damage, meaning engaging next to the convoy would cost the defenders money, further adding the need for mechs going faster than the convoy to engage and hold the enemy as it passes.

I'm sure many other modes could also be thought up (be they for CW or just the current find a drop style of play), but thought should be put into these modes and their corresponding maps to ensure that some modes favor certain mech roles.

Edited by Assiah, 30 June 2013 - 10:08 PM.

[Unrelenting Farce]

I'd like to see an escort game mode. I'd also like to see a stock mech mode for each of the game modes.

For now, we'll have to be satisfied with what we've got, as PGI has stated numerous times that their attention is elsewhere, like UI 2.0.

Patience is hard. :/

[Jacmac]

Assiah, on 30 June 2013 - 10:01 PM, said:

I don't think there is anything severely wrong with Assault and Conquest as game modes

Here's whats wrong with Assault:

There are two bases in fixed locations on both sides of the map. These bases are in the same place every single time you play the game. Assault should not be called Assault because it isn't really an assault. It's more like a meeting engagement with a base capture way to bypass fighting. A better way to have implemented an assault mode would have been to have one base which gets placed in a random part of the map. One team is chosen to defend, and the other team is tasked with an assault, either capturing the base or destroying all of the enemies. This would fix several issues. For one, the game is far less predictable for either side. You don't know exactly where you are going to start, or where the enemy base is before you start. Secondly, a team is forced to defend and a team is forced to assault, and scouting becomes much more important. This bypasses the problem where almost all of one side is destroyed, but a scout manages to cap the enemy base. Since there is only one base, chasing a lone unit all over the map isn't going to happen.

Here's what wrong with Conquest:

The bases are in the same location every time. The number and locations of bases as well as the team starting positions should be randomized. The main issue is predictability. The fights end up occurring in the same choke points every time on every map. After so many months, win or lose, it just gets boring. Conquest has less problems than the current Assault mode, but it is still static game play on a very limited number of maps.

[Ranek Blackstone]

Jacmac, on 01 July 2013 - 08:24 PM, said:

Here's whats wrong with Assault:

There are two bases in fixed locations on both sides of the map. These bases are in the same place every single time you play the game. Assault should not be called Assault because it isn't really an assault. It's more like a meeting engagement with a base capture way to bypass fighting. A better way to have implemented an assault mode would have been to have one base which gets placed in a random part of the map. One team is chosen to defend, and the other team is tasked with an assault, either capturing the base or destroying all of the enemies. This would fix several issues. For one, the game is far less predictable for either side. You don't know exactly where you are going to start, or where the enemy base is before you start. Secondly, a team is forced to defend and a team is forced to assault, and scouting becomes much more important. This bypasses the problem where almost all of one side is destroyed, but a scout manages to cap the enemy base. Since there is only one base, chasing a lone unit all over the map isn't going to happen.

Favors Heavies and Assaults mechs. Combat will occur at one point and one point only. No need for scouts or med mechs because mobility takes a back seat to armor/ fire power. You have this problem with EVERY asymmetric game type with a single point of contention. Double points would favor the attacker because the defenders would have to split up, and the attackers could attack en mass, enjoying local fire superiority. Then they'd just move on to the next point, overwhelm that and GG

Currently in assault you have to balance fire power and mobility or else the enemy team will swing wide around you and cap your base before your slow assaults can get back there to defend it.

Quote

Here's what wrong with Conquest:

The bases are in the same location every time. The number and locations of bases as well as the team starting positions should be randomized. The main issue is predictability. The fights end up occurring in the same choke points every time on every map. After so many months, win or lose, it just gets boring. Conquest has less problems than the current Assault mode, but it is still static game play on a very limited number of maps.

The problem with random is that it's random. Sometimes you'll get good drops, and sometimes you'll get bad ones, and you'll have no say in the matter. Imagine a game of Conquest on Frozen City, where all the points are clustered around point Sigma, where the enemy team dropped, and you're whole team dropped at point Theta. Match would be half over before you even got visuals on the enemy. And then you'd be on the forums QQing about bad spawn points.

As for escort missions, it's roughly the same as single point assault, except with even more balance issues. Make the escorted object to squishy, and you'll have people charging the defenders to kill it in a massive zerg swarm. Make it too durable and they'll just kill the defenders because it's quicker/ easier.

[Kraven Kor]

The Current Game Modes are the Final Game Modes, until we see SOMETHING, ANYTHING regarding details on the Community Warfare gameplay.

What you see is what you get, with no plans of changing them or improving them as had originally been stated, so far as most of us can tell.

In a few weeks, they will tell us they will "Have something soon" and then ignore the subject for a year.

[sirius89]

Game needs a Rush mode like in Battlefield Bad Company.

[Kraven Kor]

sirius89, on 02 July 2013 - 12:31 PM, said:

Game needs a Rush mode like in Battlefield Bad Company.

I could go with that, to an extent, but....

Why can't we, instead, not copy other games and create some really fun, immersive maps and game modes that actually make one feel they are taking part in a Space War involving Giant Robots?

Escort the Convoy? Secure the Drop Zone? Capture the Space Port? Assault the Fortified City?

Doesn't that sound more fun, and more "Battletech," than "Let's shoot at boxes filled with loot?"

[Ranek Blackstone]

Kraven Kor, on 02 July 2013 - 12:57 PM, said:

Escort the Convoy?

Balance nightmare. If the convey is too squishy, the attackers will ignore the defenders and zerg the convoy. Too many hit points on the convoy and the attackers will ignore it in favor of killing the defenders instead for the win.

Quote

Secure the Drop Zone?

Single point Attack Defend map. Every one would drop as heavies and assaults for the weapons and armor needed for the resulting siege. No need for scouts.

Quote

Capture the Space Port?

Might work as a TDM mode.

Quote

Assault the Fortified City?

Strategically unsound. Better to simply bypass the city, cut off it's supply lines, and let the defending units grind them selves to a halt in a battle of attrition they can't win. Allies did this in WW2 (called it "By Pass and Haul ***") by simply going around strong holds and attacking the lesser defended supply depots. Entire garrisons surrendered en mass when it became apparent they couldn't stage a break out action, and were faced with the options of surrender or starve. Mechs run off reactors, so fuel isn't an issue, but armor, parts, ammo and food is very much an issue.

Not trying to be a kill joy, but some of these things don't work very well once you stop and think about them.

[Assiah]

Ranek Blackstone, on 02 July 2013 - 01:51 PM, said:

Balance nightmare. If the convey is too squishy, the attackers will ignore the defenders and zerg the convoy. Too many hit points on the convoy and the attackers will ignore it in favor of killing the defenders instead for the win.

Are you assuming that the convoy will always take the same static route that can not be changed by the defending team and that its location is always known by the attacking team? Because if so I could see how you could come to that conclusion. Teams would have to split up to located a hidden convoy and if the maps are large enough (think alpine or desert, or bigger) you might not be able to zerg a convoy in time. Scouting would be highly important, as would splitting up (either to find safe passage for the convoy to take or to find the convoy). Also while I agree with you on the toughness of the convoy, I feel it is not impossible to find a good balance between the two.

Ranek Blackstone, on 02 July 2013 - 01:51 PM, said:

Single point Attack Defend map. Every one would drop as heavies and assaults for the weapons and armor needed for the resulting siege. No need for scouts.

Honestly there is nothing wrong with a game type that focuses on what heavies and assaults do well, only a problem when every game type focuses on that.

Your two other points I agree with completely.

Regardless, new game types are needed badly for this game, game types that focus on other mech roles. We could also use some options to these game types such as Stock only, Tier 1 tech only, Dropship mode (limited respawn), ect.

Oh and Jacmac I feel you quoted me out of context, I was not claiming that no improvements could be made to Conquest or Assault, I was simply saying that as it stands the largest problem with them is that they are the ONLY game types.

[FRED WILLIAMSON]

Jacmac, on 01 July 2013 - 08:24 PM, said:

Here's whats wrong with Assault:

There are two bases in fixed locations on both sides of the map. These bases are in the same place every single time you play the game. Assault should not be called Assault because it isn't really an assault. It's more like a meeting engagement with a base capture way to bypass fighting. A better way to have implemented an assault mode would have been to have one base which gets placed in a random part of the map. One team is chosen to defend, and the other team is tasked with an assault, either capturing the base or destroying all of the enemies. This would fix several issues. For one, the game is far less predictable for either side. You don't know exactly where you are going to start, or where the enemy base is before you start. Secondly, a team is forced to defend and a team is forced to assault, and scouting becomes much more important. This bypasses the problem where almost all of one side is destroyed, but a scout manages to cap the enemy base. Since there is only one base, chasing a lone unit all over the map isn't going to happen.

I think that's an awesome idea for Assault. What I really think would make the game cool if there was some overhead progress being made. Like what others have said, a clan progress over territory.

For example:
It's a Friday night, you and your friends are off of work. Y'all party up online and are a part of the same clan house. Someone is promoted captain (party leader). This player then pulls up the space map or whatever it is and can see progress made by that clan house while they were gone and maybe can get a status of take over for different planets or whatever. Then the party chooses where to go.
This part has potential. The party of friends could go to somewhere and invade, begin progress on a planet. Maybe these maps would be the huge, like Alpine, this could be far away from that planet's critical capture point. As him and his friends win, they progress through the planet towards that critical capture point, which could be the River City, like that planet's capital or something.

For the people who just randomly join matches, they could be paired with these already made teams like a conscript troop. They could be excluded from the drop decision process until they are aligned with a house and are party-ed with a team.

Just my thoughts on how to improve.


Also, this would help resolve the random players problem. Could be used to implement the command consul part that currently has no purpose. Also would a great way to have clan specific teams. Being new to MWO and the MW universe, I'm not familiar with the background of house and clans. But obviously a Jager and Blackjack should be paired. Obviously Dragons against Cataphracts.

Let me know what y'all think.

Edited by FR3D W1LL1AM50N, 02 July 2013 - 06:46 PM.

[Ranek Blackstone]

Assiah, on 02 July 2013 - 03:58 PM, said:

Are you assuming that the convoy will always take the same static route that can not be changed by the defending team and that its location is always known by the attacking team? Because if so I could see how you could come to that conclusion. Teams would have to split up to located a hidden convoy and if the maps are large enough (think alpine or desert, or bigger) you might not be able to zerg a convoy in time. Scouting would be highly important, as would splitting up (either to find safe passage for the convoy to take or to find the convoy). Also while I agree with you on the toughness of the convoy, I feel it is not impossible to find a good balance between the two.

The convoy is going to be the bunch of trucks with all the bloody assault mechs around it. It's going to stand out at a distance, mostly because the defenders will zerg around it in order to protect it. Find the mechs, find the convoy. A good scout will find them in under 2 minutes.

Quote

Honestly there is nothing wrong with a game type that focuses on what heavies and assaults do well, only a problem when every game type focuses on that.

It gets dull though when all you have are heavy hitters. I like the current implementation of assault because it's like this unholy mash up of CTF (the game mode, not the mech) and TDM. Killing is important, but if you leave the base unguarded, you'll get bypassed and back capped. Team mobility must be balanced with raw fire power.

Quote

Your two other points I agree with completely.

thank you.

Quote

Regardless, new game types are needed badly for this game, game types that focus on other mech roles. We could also use some options to these game types such as Stock only, Tier 1 tech only, Dropship mode (limited respawn), ect.

I wonder often what MWO would be like with a more "arcade" respawn system. Get blown up, and just respawn in a heavily defended base and move out from there. Certainly open up various game play opportunities that the current system denies us. A MOBA game type, where you must escort waves of combined arms creeps through an urban sprawl with like 20 possible lanes. The sheer amount of possible avenues and blocked sight lines would mean scouts would get a work out while slowly chipping away at the incoming forces, but high alpha builds suffer from being swarmed by the tanks and battle armor. High DPS builds would be better against the creeps, but would be a disadvantage against the enemy mechs.

A rearm system would also balance out energy and ammo based builds. Do I go for the more sustained presence that lasers lend me, or the more up front damage that ballistics give me at the expense of having to rotate back for rearm?

Edited by Ranek Blackstone, 03 July 2013 - 07:15 PM.

[BillyM]

A fun game-mode would be assault, 4-respawn-style.

You pick one mech of each weight-class (if you don't have one, you get the trial) and launch, places everyone 2,2,2,2 with respect to weight-class. As you die, you spawn into your next descending weight-class (lights get their assault) until everyone on one team is killed 4 times...

...more robot-fighting, less waiting for a match.

BRING ON THE 30MIN-LONG GAMES!

--billyM