Jump to content

Proposed Assault Mode Changes


  • You cannot reply to this topic
5 replies to this topic

#1 Farix

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 890 posts

Posted 27 September 2013 - 05:15 AM

Assault is the most complained about mode because a large number of MechWarriors do not understand that the mode is based on Capture the Flag. A large part of it is the rewards system focus more on combat while gives a win via base capture almost nothing. However, I do believe that Assault can be improved and made more challenging if some basic mechanics where change along with a complete overhaul of the rewards system.

First, let me start with the mechanics changes. I have three mechanic changes in mind, all affecting base capture. They are to further limit the number of mechs that affect the capture rate, the speed of the capture rate, and the ability for the defenders to reset the base capture.

The first mechanic change based on how many mechs affect the speed of the capture. Currently, the capture rate is multiplied by the number of mechs inside the base's parameters with a maximum multiplier of roughly 4 mechs with capture accelerators. My change would be to lower the limit to just one mech and one capture accelerator. Piling on more mechs onto the base will not be of any benefit. One affect this should have is that if the two teams bypass each other on the map, there is no point for the entire team to stack onto the base. Most of the team can turn around look for the enemy leaving a mech behind to capture the base. It should pretty much eliminate the "cap rush".

The second change is to reduce the amount of time it takes to capture the base. That the multiplier for the number of mechs has been reduced, if not removed, the time it takes to capture the base can be lowered. The amount of time it takes to capture each base should be based on the amount of time it takes a sock Atlas traveling at 48.6 km/h to go from one base to the other +30 seconds. This gives the entire team ample opportunity to protect their base from being captured.

The third mechanic change is not just a change in numbers. It is the ability for a team to reclaim their base and reset the capture bar. This can be done in a number of ways. One is for a friendly mech to reset the bar by setting on the base similar to Conquest. Another would be for the capture bar to automatically refill any time all enemy mechs steps out of the base parameters or are destroyed within the base. So no more 80% captures by lights and then running off to finish out the cap later.

Now the next set of changes is to the rewards system and is intended to balance out the C-bills rewards from direct combat and non-combat roles. Currently, the C-bill rewards are as follows:

  • Win/Loss/Tie = 25,000
  • Team Kill = -10,000 * how many teammates you have killed
  • Component Destroyed = 2,500 * how many components you have destroyed
  • Enemy Kill = 5,000 * how many enemies you have killed
  • Enemy Kill Assist =7,500 * how many kill assists you got in the match
  • Spotting Assist = 2,500 * how many spotting assists you got in the match
  • Damage Done = 25 * how much damage you did in the match
  • Savior Kills = ?
  • Scrap = ?
  • Capture Win = 0

My reward system would be as follows:

  • Win/Loss/Tie = 25,000
  • Team Kill = -10,000 * how many teammates you have killed
  • Component Destroyed = 1,500 * how many components you have destroyed
  • Enemy Kill = 4,000 * how many enemies you have killed
  • Enemy Kill Assist =5,500 * how many kill assists you got in the match
  • Spotting Assist = 3,000 * how many spotting assists you got in the match
  • Damage Done has been removed
  • Savior Kills = ?
  • Scrap = ?
  • Capture Win = 10,000
  • Base Defense Kill = 2,000 * how many enemies you have killed or kill assist within your base's "zone" (10 seconds outside the base parameters).

I debating on whether there should be a Capture Assist reward, but I could not come up with a solution that was practical and not exploitable. However, capturing the base is a viable role that should have a reward of some sort. One aspect I didn't include where the TAG, Narc, and UAV rewards. That is because I don't know what the current rewards are for these actions.

The end result is that these changes will make Assault more like Capture the Flag, with the ability to reclaim the "flag" by resetting the base capture bar as well as adjust the rewards so that they are not so weighted towards direct combat roles, thus taking the focus off of just destroying all enemy mechs, but on completing EITHER mission objectives.

References:
http://mwomercs.com/...mber-18th-2012/

Edited by Farix, 27 September 2013 - 05:15 AM.


#2 Davers

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 9,886 posts
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationCanada

Posted 06 October 2013 - 12:34 PM

So even the slowest mechs can RTB with time to spare? So basically, your idea is to remove the ONLY weakness to playing an assault mech (slow speed)?

#3 Farix

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 890 posts

Posted 06 October 2013 - 02:34 PM

Yes, because if the last two mechs are an assault and a light, the assault should still have a chance to RTB to defend it.

#4 Kazairl

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 159 posts
  • LocationBrisbane

Posted 12 October 2013 - 06:49 AM

Though I commend you for trying to find a solution to base caps on Assault, I am not sure your suggestion is a step in the right direction.

My problem with capping is the suspension of belief required to understand that peace spreads throughout the region as soon as HUD bar empties. It is a question of trying to simulate a battle in a 15min window. Not an easy thing to do in a PC game. But trying to make a match more formulaic feels like it is looking for a solution from the wrong direction.

I am of the belief that capping should only be viable once the outcome of a battle has pretty much been determined. After all a base that is captured while the enemy still has 8 mechs within 2km isn't exactly secure.

#5 Troutmonkey

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Moderate Giver
  • Moderate Giver
  • 3,776 posts
  • LocationAdelaide, Australia

Posted 12 October 2013 - 06:57 AM

I just thought about a good mechanic that world of tanks uses.
Bascially when you attempt to capture their base, if you come under any fire and take damage, the timer resets to full.
As soon as you leave the capture square the timer will also reset to full.

That way if you can make it back at least within LOS of your base you can shoot the enemy, force them to move and thus stop you base from being capped. The base in Assualt mode is really meant only as an alternate win-con so you don't have to chase down that last spider. So if someone is left to fight and wants to, you have to fight them if you want to win.

#6 Farix

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 890 posts

Posted 12 October 2013 - 07:22 AM

The reason most complain about the capture mechanic is because Assault is set up as a Capture-the-Flag, but they are trying to play it as a Deathmatch. But since Assault is set up as Capture-the-Flag, there will be teams who will pay it as such and attempt to capture the other teams base as quickly as possible. (which is perfectly valid in CtF) The changes I've proposed simply reinforces the Capture-the-Flag elements of Assault by giving the defenders a better opportunity to counter a base capture and rewarding teams that do successfully capturing the other team's base.

None of the modes, Assault, Conquest, or the upcoming Deathmatch are realistic scenarios. An area can't be secured when one team magically obtains a certain amount of resources while still having an entire company of enemy mechs in the area. A unit isn't going to fight to the last man when it is clear that the battle is lost. So claiming that increasing the emphases of Capture-the-Flag in Assault is unrealistic is a silly argument to make.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users