21 replies to this topic

[Corralis]

I think this will only work on the large maps but have a read and see what you think and then answer my poll.

The idea is basically a mix of both assault and conquest. The idea is to capture the enemy base and there are two way this can work. The first is two have one base and 1 team of defenders and 1 team of attackers. The base itself is already defended by automatic turrets that will engage enemy mechs within range. Also dotted around the map are turret control points, the attacking team can capture these control points and each control point commands different turrets around the main base. By capturing 1 control point you will disable the turrets connected to that point but if the attacking team manages to control all of the points before assaulting the base then they take full control of the turrets and they will engage the base defenders. These turrets can be anything from LRM turrets to ERPPC's or AC/20's and will therefore cause huge damage to the attackers if they are not shut down first. I think this would be a great idea as it would force both teams to have to split their forces up to either capture or defend the points. It will allow a bit of sneaky play by some good light pilots on both teams as a defending team could re-capture the turrets as the main attacking force starts to assault the base and could end up getting slaughtered. I'm sure other tactics could come from this but that is my personal favorite idea.

The second would have 2 bases as well as turrets and also have turret control points similar to the above idea but both teams would have to defend their base as well as take out the turret control points and assault each others main base.

Answer in the poll and let me know what you think or if you have any suggestions or ideas to make this more interesting.

Thanks for reading.

[Corralis]

Seriously, not one person has anything to say about this idea? Not one?

[-Muta-]

TL DR

[Corralis]

Mutaroc, on 10 October 2013 - 07:04 AM, said:

TL DR

TL DR is read it you lazy b*stard, there's not much text there.

[Tarzilman]

I like your idea(s) and yeah, it's not that much to read.
I peraonally prefer the second scenario. I think it's more tactical and everyone in a team has to arrange each other who will defend and who will cap.
Automatic turrets would be great in this game and I think your idea would fit very good in the whole CW-thing. I see the factions try to conquer each others territories and fight through a bunch of turrets reinforced by enemy mechs. *dream*

Edited by Tarzilman, 10 October 2013 - 01:23 PM.

[Corralis]

Tarzilman, on 10 October 2013 - 01:21 PM, said:

I like your idea(s) and yeah, it's not that much to read.
I peraonally prefer the second scenario. I think it's more tactical and everyone in a team has to arrange each other who will defend and who will cap.
Automatic turrets would be great in this game and I think your idea would fit very good in the whole CW-thing. I see the factions try to conquer each othera territories and fight through a bunch of turrets reinforced by enemy mechs. *dream*

Yea I definitely see it being good for CW. I do think that from a purely lore based view 1 base would make more sense on a map just cause why would there be two military bases from two factions in the same couple of KM? That being said I think either way this game mode would have to have a specially created map built for it (not impossible to do). But it would add a bit of tactics to the game that MWO is sorely missing.

Edited by Corralis, 10 October 2013 - 02:24 PM.

[Strumtruppen]

I prefer the second scenario because in the first scenario I feel it would lean too much in favour of light/medium mechs as you would rush/flank in order to gain control of the turrets and then move on to the next control point. heavy/ assault mechs would be ineffective at this in comparison to the lighter chassis and would get shot up more easily by turrets. for having heavy/assault mechs as mech destroyers...we all know how annoying it is to kill that spider,raven or jenner and leaving guards at each and every control point to prevent the capture of the control nodes or else risk being shot in the back by your own turrets would prove very annoying. overall its a good idea but some modification will need to be made

[LauLiao]

Why would you build a base with automated turrets, then put the controls for those turrets OUTside the base? That's like having a security system installed in your house then putting the "Off" button outside the front door.

Edited by LauLiao, 11 October 2013 - 01:48 PM.

[Oppresor]

I like your idea, especially option 2. This is the sort of thing we need to make both sides think about what they are doing rather than: OK we'll all go to Theta and assault it WW1 style

[LauLiao]

Ok I've decided that I'm good with both of these ideas so long as the turret control points are hidden in giant versions of those fake rock thingies you're supposed to hide your spare house key in.

[Hellcat420]

capturing all of the turret control points should disable the turrets, not turn them on the defending team.

[Corralis]

LauLiao, on 11 October 2013 - 01:48 PM, said:

Why would you build a base with automated turrets, then put the controls for those turrets OUTside the base? That's like having a security system installed in your house then putting the "Off" button outside the front door.

I'll refer you to Planet Hoth in Star Wars and say no more about it. Actually I'll also say this. Maybe your assaulting the rear of the base which is where they put the control points to try to keep them safe.

LauLiao, on 11 October 2013 - 02:27 PM, said:

Ok I've decided that I'm good with both of these ideas so long as the turret control points are hidden in giant versions of those fake rock thingies you're supposed to hide your spare house key in.

In Mechwarrior 4 the turret control points were in pretty open area, this would be no different.

[Corralis]

Hellcat420, on 11 October 2013 - 02:34 PM, said:

capturing all of the turret control points should disable the turrets, not turn them on the defending team.

Well that's where the tactics has to come into play and remember you have to capture and hold all the points to get them to shoot the defenders, it's designed to punish the defenders for allowing all the points to be taken. If you didn't do this then the game's would just end up like what we have now. The defenders will allow the points to be taken to shut off the guns and then 12 vs 12 starts. Also remember that if the map is done properly then the defenders will have a base to hide in so they already start with a pretty big advantage.

[Corralis]

Actually another idea that was given to me was to have turret power generators inside the base (think mech commander) that can be destroyed to also kill the turrets if you didn't want to run the risk of them coming back online during your assault. These generators could self repair after a set amount of time to simulate that there is more than just mech pilots in a military base.

[Sandpit]

I thought it would be better to have a game mode where the cap points randomly switch throughout the game. So if you had 3 points then point Alpha might activate first, then Bravo, Then Charlie, so on and so forth randomly switching throughout the game. It could drastically change the cap strategies and mechs used just by making teams focus on different parts of the map but without prior knowledge as to which ones it will be.

[Corralis]

Sandpit, on 11 October 2013 - 06:12 PM, said:

I thought it would be better to have a game mode where the cap points randomly switch throughout the game. So if you had 3 points then point Alpha might activate first, then Bravo, Then Charlie, so on and so forth randomly switching throughout the game. It could drastically change the cap strategies and mechs used just by making teams focus on different parts of the map but without prior knowledge as to which ones it will be.

I think that would be a ***** for anyone not in a light or fast medium. Anyway and please don't take offense by this but I don't want to start getting a collection of other people's idea's in this thread. If you have your own Idea then make a new thread for it. Thanks.

[Sandpit]

Corralis, on 12 October 2013 - 04:00 AM, said:

I think that would be a ***** for anyone not in a light or fast medium. Anyway and please don't take offense by this but I don't want to start getting a collection of other people's idea's in this thread. If you have your own Idea then make a new thread for it. Thanks.

Uhm hostile much? Lol let me show you how someone with more tact works. Your "new" game modes are nothing more than what we have now except with turret defenses. Essentially they offer nothing other than what we are playing now except to add in automated fund that shoot the other guy for you. So essentially all you have to do is take over the turret controls and...... wait for it...... camp. So no thanks. Your game mode offers nothing but extra guns to what we already have. Oh, and see that third option YOU out in your poll? Yea the last choice. Yup, that one with the (please elaborate) after it? See that's what I was doing in my post. I forgive your hostility. Maybe we can hug and be friends now? Anyhow, in order to diversify it's going to take actual goals that go beyond "stand on point a" while the enemy stands on point b. IF you randomized the cap points you can't always "go left" because you don't know where on the map you'll need to hit

[Corralis]

Sandpit, on 12 October 2013 - 07:09 AM, said:

Uhm hostile much? Lol let me show you how someone with more tact works. Your "new" game modes are nothing more than what we have now except with turret defenses. Essentially they offer nothing other than what we are playing now except to add in automated fund that shoot the other guy for you. So essentially all you have to do is take over the turret controls and...... wait for it...... camp. So no thanks. Your game mode offers nothing but extra guns to what we already have. Oh, and see that third option YOU out in your poll? Yea the last choice. Yup, that one with the (please elaborate) after it? See that's what I was doing in my post. I forgive your hostility. Maybe we can hug and be friends now? Anyhow, in order to diversify it's going to take actual goals that go beyond "stand on point a" while the enemy stands on point b. IF you randomized the cap points you can't always "go left" because you don't know where on the map you'll need to hit

Wasn't being hostile at all but your idea should go in it's own thread, that's all I was saying. Now other than camping on a point (which you also suggested by the way), what other possible game modes would work for this game? Yes I am keeping the capture mechanic but I am adding tactics to it far beyond what we have now. The turrets act as a deterrent to anyone trying to cap the base quickly as they would get destroyed by them. So your team would have to capture the control points first. The defending team would have to either meet you and stop you or allow you to capture the turrets and thus destroying themselves in the process. So as a defending team do you put all your effort into stopping the capture of the points or just hold one of them and maybe make it easier for the enemy to get into your base? Do you allow your enemy to capture all the control points but keep a sneaky light in the back field to wait until the attackers push has started before re-taking the turrets and adding that firepower to the defense at a critical time. There would be a huge amount of variety to this game mode.

[PappySmurf]

You are all beating a dead horse PGI does not listen to any suggestions or ideas this has been going on for 2 years and I don't expect them to change there policy's now. Why do you think this game only has 2 has modes in 2 years? Why is this game not a finished AAA game after 2 years and 5 million dollars+ because PGI/IGP? devs are incompetent as a game company and totally screwed this IP up. Plus they never listen to the true players and fans on there own forums. Instead telling us some fabricated lies about this huge unseen majority that in all likelihood does not exist.

[Corralis]

PappySmurf, on 13 October 2013 - 07:45 AM, said:

You are all beating a dead horse PGI does not listen to any suggestions or ideas this has been going on for 2 years and I don't expect them to change there policy's now. Why do you think this game only has 2 has modes in 2 years? Why is this game not a finished AAA game after 2 years and 5 million dollars+ because PGI/IGP? devs are incompetent as a game company and totally screwed this IP up. Plus they never listen to the true players and fans on there own forums. Instead telling us some fabricated lies about this huge unseen majority that in all likelihood does not exist.

I guess I still believe that once the UI 2.0 and Community Warfare is built and working they can focus their efforts on making the game fun again. I still have faith in PGI to turn this game around and am trying to assist in any way I can. Whether they read this stuff or not it's the only form of communication I have and must believe that someone important has seen my idea and has, at the very least, put it up on the wall of crazy. Call me optimistic if you must but trying to help change this game or make it better is far better than just sitting moaning about it.