4 replies to this topic

[Death Mallet]

Certainly it improves gameplay if players are incentivized to be agressive and focused around achieving the mission objectives. You obviously can't force them, but you can reward them if they do.

For this reason, I think the match rewards should include the following:

+5% xp/c-bills if:

- your team wins
AND
- at the end of the match your mech is occupying the objective zone (enemy base/cap point whatever)


This is in addition to any capture points you may have earned and all other rewards.
Implementing this bonus achieves the following:

- Allows for support roles, but rewards those players who realize that at a certain point they need to switch from support to siezing the objective.

- Rewards players who focus on winning the objective (like a military unit) instead of hunting down and destroying every enemy unit in the area

- Rewards mobilty and creates more dynamic gameplay.

[PirateNixon]

But this punishes people playing support mechs who are doing their jobs, and people defending their teams base preventing the opposing force form capturing. Why would I stay back and defend if I'm going to get bonus XP/credits for rushing cap? Why would I play a Catapult, which is focused around support fire, if that is going to leave me behind on XP/credits or unable to fill my role?

[Death Mallet]

First of all - you're not "rushing" the cap. If people start doing that then the enemy will just set up ambushes around the cap zone. It does require you to move and occupy the cap zone at the critical time however, which encourages people from hanging back and just "sniping".

You play a catapult because you want to provide valuable long range fire support to your team. But at the end of the day, if your team doesn't sieze and hold the objective you've failed, no matter how many mechs you've killed or damage you've done. A catapult is a fire support mech, not an artillery piece. Its mobile and you should be part of your team's overall strategy to capture the objective. . . not just an LRM launcher with legs that remains in one spot the whole time. You could have much more effectively dropped some LRM pods from orbit if that's all it was supposed to do.

That's the whole point of encouraging "dynamic gameplay" vs. static, stand back and spam LRM gameplay. Finding the right balance between playing that support role, and getting to the objective is part of the skill set a good mechwarrior will need to develop.

This will also encourage a more balanced approach to mech design that rewards flexible mechs over boats.

Edited by Death Mallet, 18 June 2012 - 11:48 AM.

[Death Weasel]

I have to agree with Death Mallet.
Any military unit worth its salt stays together as a team. From Battalion down to a 2 man sniper team.
Also, in warfare, speed is life. Moving targets are harder to hit, track, lock on to.
Every part of the unit has to understand that the mission / objective is more important than any person, mech, unit. If the mission is a failure....
You get the idea.

[Phaid Knott]

The LRM might actually be the reason why camping your own flag DOESN'T work. As a WoT player (and there are simularities between the two games), I can tell you a camping team will be at a disadvantage.

Why?

Because just one friendly mech can light up the whole enemy team (esp a scout), this will allow your team to fire at the enemy team while the enemy team can only fire at one mech. As your own team is staying at extreme range firing off LRMs, and if the "scout" *(doesn't have to be a light mech, just one mech goes in at a time) plays defensive (using cover, not trying for a kill, just keep the enemy lit up), then you'll soon find the enemy lance goes down. Order of the day will be even coverage across the map, try to zerg and a few mechs will hold you up while the rest of the enemy lance wanders in to cap unopposed. Teamplay doesn't simply mean close proximity. I hope these elements of WoT gameplay feature in MWO, as they have broken up the tired old gameplay on many team based PvP games.