8 replies to this topic

[Derk Talon]

Short and simple (and probably requested before i imagine):

Now that we have assault with 2 bases and skirmish without, can we get a gamemode where one team starts with a base and the other without one so we can play attack/defend?

I know it might not be as easy as removing a base and presto. But i was thinking it might be relatively simple to develop since most of the groundwork is done through the other gamemodes already and, if i understand matchmaker correctly, it already would be pretty random as to in what team you spawn ie: attack or defense.

So, what thoughts on that?

Oh, and did i mention:
Please?

[DI3T3R]

You have not been on this forum very long, do you?

This has been brought up many times, it is currently in development and will be introduced some time in spring 2014. (My guess is summer.)

[Derk Talon]

I know it is coming as part of cw. The question is if something this basic can be done now to hold us over until a more elaborate type of objective based gameplay can be achieved.

And to answer your question: no i don't read these forums much anymore or post much. I guess the veil of unlimited complaining and dissatisfaction that lies over this community repels me. Suprised?
But i do love battletech and mwo and was simply thinking about what can be done now to make it a more fun and engaging experience and along with that, less to complain about.

[DI3T3R]

Developing a game can be trickier than you think:
- How would you force the attackers to attack and the defenders to defend a certain position? Base-cap? How many seconds?
- How would you balance the forces so that both sides have equal chances even though one of them can't move much?
- What about bombing the stationary defenders to hell with artillery? Or sniping them?
- What will this game-mode look like with and without turrets?

Inventing a game is no problem. Balancing it is.

[INKBALL]

And you do one match offensive, and one defensive.

[Derk Talon]

Oh, i thought the concept to be self explanatory, sorry i wasn't as clear as i thought i was.
Basically it is the assault gamemode minus one base. So it would come down to this:

Gamemode: Attack/Defend
Round time: [15] minutes
Description: Attack/Defend is an asymetrical gamemode where one team is tasked with defending a base for the duration of a round, while the other team tries to capture it. If either team loses all its mechs, the opposing team wins as well.


Defending team:
Task:
Defend te base from the attacking force for the duration of one round: [15] minutes.

Victory conditions:
- All enemy mechs destroyed;
- Time-out.
Defeat conditions:
- All friendly mechs destroyed;
- Base lost.


Attacking team:
Task:
Capture the defending team's base before the round ends: [15] minutes.

Victory conditions:
- Base capture;
- All enemy mechs destroyed.
Defeat conditions:
- All friendly mechs destroyed;
- Time-out



- How would you force the attackers to attack and the defenders to defend a certain position? Base-cap? How many seconds?
Yes, the attacking team needs to base cap or destroy he defending team. Imo the current cap time would be fine, but that could easely be changed if needed, right?

- How would you balance the forces so that both sides have equal chances even though one of them can't move much?
Remember, i envision this with current ingame mechanics in mind. As it is, only one friendly mech needs to be in a capzone to prevent the cap. If there are no enemy in the capzone, there is no need for the defenders to stay there. Basically that comes down to tactics and is up to the players to decide.
I imagine a few slow, hard hitting mechs can defend while more mobile units scout, hunt, strike, ambush, you name it. When needed, they can return to their base to help out in close defense. Defending an object can't be done by simply waiting for the enemy to show up. You'll probably end up being overrun. Not moving much would be unwise.

- What about bombing the stationary defenders to hell with artillery? Or sniping them?
Imo artillery and airstrikes are a viable weapon to prep the defender's positions and defending players would be wise to understand that. Remember that a defending force is already in an advantageous position. I think the ability to use these assets is a balancing feature in itself.
Once more, defending is not sentry duty. If you are standing around, waiting to get shot at, you are doing it wrong.

As for sniping: to be able to deliver rounds on target a sniper needs to position himself accordingly: a base of fire needs to be established. When firing the attacking sniper(s) reveal their positions and can be flanked by a defending team and/or suppressed with support assets: Airstrikes, Artillery.

- What will this game-mode look like with and without turrets?
As stated: i envision this with current ingame mechanics in mind. So turrets are at this time not an option. Should they be in the gamemode however, i imagine they would be static base defenses, giving the defending team even more maneuvring room.

And you do one match offensive, and one defensive.
I would like that, a two-round match but i think that would require extra coding and is beyond the scope of this concept. The idea is to have something that can be done now without much extra work and hold us over until community warfare makes it way into the game. Imo that would be the only way this idea has the slightest chance of being picked up by the devs.
So, for now. It will be up to the matchmaker to put you in either the attacking/defending team and thus be pretty random i guess.


I hope this write-up brings more clarity on the matter. Also, i am not a native english speaker so sorry once more if things weren't as clear as i thought.

p.s. I guess the same can concept can be applied to the conquest mode, effectively starting with all harvesters in one teams possession with the other team needing to capture them all, forcing the defending team to defend or execute a fighting withdrawal to stall the attackers advance long enough to win the round. Or die trying of course.

[DI3T3R]

Derk Talon, on 18 December 2013 - 09:50 AM, said:

Yes, the attacking team needs to base cap or destroy he defending team. Imo the current cap time would be fine, but that could easely be changed if needed, right?

It could be changed easily, you are right. And now please imagine the forum-reaction to a game-mode where one side always wins because PGI didn't take the time to run simulations and balance it.

Quote

Remember that a defending force is already in an advantageous position.

Dependng on the landscape, they may or may not be.

Quote

When firing the attacking sniper(s) reveal their positions and can be flanked by a defending team and/or suppressed with support assets: Airstrikes, Artillery.

Send out a whole lance to take out the one sniper who's harassing your team?


We agree on the basics, but you fail to see that the whole game-mode has to be balanced BEFORE its release. That takes time. And that's why it's still in development.

[Derk Talon]

Imo you can't balance anything without actual data. Theory only gets you so far and can hamper progress even, akin to politics.

Built the mechanics, Pick a map, put a cap zone and spawns on suitable spots. Put on a test server, get telemetry and balance it out based on that data, not on assumptions alone.

Typed on phone, sorry for short sentences. Hope you get my point. Thanks

[DI3T3R]

You can simulate data:
- You have a set of rules.
- You have a set of parameters, each has a random value within a defined range.

You enter the parameters into the rules and look what comes out.
And then you do it again.
And again.
And again.
And again.
And again.

That's called Monte Carlo (MC) -simulations and they are run typically about a thousand to millions of times. (A thousand simulations of a simple system with dozens of parameters only takes a few minutes.) From the results, you can see what outcomes are most likely.

For example, particle physicists do that to find out what would would happen if they shoot two generic particles at each other. Later, when they are experimenting with a real particle accelerator, they know what patterns they have to look for.

Edited by DI3T3R, 20 December 2013 - 04:23 AM.