9 replies to this topic

[Durandal]

Edit: Since this thread is intended to try and make as many improvements to the game as possible, please feel free to post your ideas in full - including reasons why you vote "no" on any of the poll items above. I do ask that we keep the flame wars over on the general forum, that way we can keep this post to a reasonable debate about what features we do and do not want, and more importantly why. Not everyone will agree, but we can keep it civil so that people can explain their thoughts and feelings on general ideas.

Also, the poll above may change (again) if some new thoughts come up for it, though I'm trying to avoid too many questions. Thank you all for your input, hopefully some folks at PGI will join the dialogue here.

I know this has been brought up before, but it's time to really look at one part of conquest that continually seems to be getting ignored: the hit and miss rewards given by the game type. Here is an example:

You fire up your favorite light mech and enter the game; for sake of argument, we'll say that we have a 3-3-3-3 matchup going, so 3 lights on each side. The enemy lights engage and die, while your three lights go on to capture each point, and you're clearly winning. As the score ticks to 749, the last enemy on the other team is killed, and the game ends. As you were capping the entire round, you saw little to no combat, and did almost no damage, meaning you got no kills/component destruction/etc. Now that the round has ended by kills instead of points, your actions have netted you...nothing.

Alternate game, same situation, but this time your team is losing the skirmish. You and your light squad have gained control of the points, but the enemies are recapping them and cornering you in their net. The game ticks to 749 points, and you die, the last member of your team. In this case you got to fire back, so maybe you did some more damage (maybe even got a kill), but you still lose...and because points weren't the thing that ended the game, for your efforts capturing the map throughout the game, you earn: nothing!

We need to have a clearer system that rewards using alternate play mechanics other than direct combat in order to reward players who are playing the gametype itself. Since the mode came out, I've had trouble understanding why there are not two rewards tied to the points themselves: Point neutralization (turning it from Red to Yellow) and point control (turning from Yellow to Blue). You could even have different levels of this bonus, such as "Capture Point" vs "Capture Point Assist" for those who came in later on in the cap. These rewards don't have to be massive (think akin to a spotting bonus, perhaps slightly higher since there is an element of danger to capturing a point and remaining still), but they act as an incentive to operate in ways outside the simple Skirmish mode. While I do tend to see more games of Conquest mode ending to points than, for instance, Assault ending in Base Captures, I still see the majority of those games ending as Skirmish deathmatches. With kills/assists being worth less in Conquest, that means playing the gametype generally results in worse rewards overall than if I had queued in for an Assault/Skirmish game and had the same results.

Additionally, this same justification can be put towards capturing the base on Assault: provide a periodic reward for capturing the base itself...for instance, every 25% or so, a small reward for doing so. Give incentives for the game types, and you begin to differentiate them from your basic Skirmish TDM, which will allow players to use some variation in their playstyle.

The TL;DR version is this:

Consider the addition of rewards for actually playing the gametype, regardless of how the match is won (points vs. skirmish victory) so that going for those objectives doesn't mean getting crap exp/cbills for the match if it ends in deaths.

Ideas/discussion below, flames use the back button.

Edited by durandal, 04 May 2014 - 02:53 AM.

[Metafox]

Putting weight on objectives over kills could be vital for some of the game modes that they seem to have planned for CW. I put together some ideas on game modes a while back and I had some ideas on how to focus the gameplay around the objectives:

Eliminate or greatly reduce rewards for kills/damage: In order to get players to work towards completing the objectives instead of killing each other, the rewards should come from the objectives. Kills and damage should be worth little to nothing, making successful completion of objectives the primary focus.

Reward teams for taking minimal damage: Provide significant rewards to each player based on how little damage their team has taken during the completion of an objective. This will encourage players to avoid unnecessary combat. Without this kind of incentive, teams would likely focus entirely on combat, taking the objective only after they’ve wiped out the enemy team. This bonus should be greatly reduced if the objective is failed, so that a losing team will still have an incentive to continue fighting.

[Durandal]

In continuing to think about this issue, I would also pose another question to those who answer (I'll modify the poll shortly to include this question): Would modifying the Conquest and Assault game types to include a variety of objectives better serve those gametypes in the future? For instance, here are some basic ideas for what I've thought of:

(Side note, in all Conquest suggestions, I would also recommend making a higher point total be needed to win by points, to hopefully draw out the game a bit more. If a respawn/dropship mode ever comes in, it would also greatly benefit by some of these ideas IMO)

Conquest, Module Points: Have certain modules have their use tied to specific points. For instance, in Caustic Valley, Theta has Flak Cannons mounted somewhere near it that fire automatically (figure out a reason...say, a rogue computer command makes them fire on everything). As a result, Air Strikes can't be used since they will be shot down, but if your team controls the point, they will temporarily reprogram the cannons to only fire on enemy air strikes. You could have similar effects from other points for UAV or Artillery, such as a point generating a shield (not canon, I know, just putting out ideas)...but if you control it, you can make the shield drop when artillery is called in so your shells can land. This would make controlling the various points of paramount importance, given how strong modules tend to be...if a team can use Strikes, Arties, and UAV while the other is forced not to, it could turn the tide in a close battle.

Conquest, Automatic Defenses: Before I type this, I know the turrets in Assault are unpopular with some, but please hear me out. Throughout various maps (particularly the larger ones like Caustic Valley, Tourmaline Desert, Terra Therma, Alpine, etc), there will be abandoned defenses left behind on the planet. These will be tied to various outposts, and are difficult to destroy, but only operate only a small part of the map. Controlling the points means cutting off easy access to certain areas by activating the turrets in those areas. I say they should be difficult to destroy, since in many maps, you can easily whittle away things like turrets...but if they become something that's nigh indestructible, but only dangerous if you wander into that area, it makes taking and holding the points to keep them on your side more important. After all, if you go to fight inside the turrets, and don't notice the light squad behind you turning them to the other side...

Conquest, Resupply and/or Repair Points (Mobile Field Base?): I foresee that a number of people will not like this idea either, however it's worth mentioning to me. One of the biggest advantages that a player could have in MWO would be the ability to either resupply their ammunition, repair their mech, or both. There would be some limitations to these in order to make them work: only a certain percentage of max ammo could be resupplied per match, for instance. Or mechs could have their armor repaired, but they could not have destroyed components/weapons restored, and again could only restore a certain amount of armor per match, to prevent people from simply running to the point and repairing every time they take 1% damage in a match. If we go with the full MFB idea, it would also mean that the repairs would take time...during which a mech would have to be powered down, and completely vulnerable.

Assault, the Empire Strikes Back: In another thread on the general forums, an Assault gametype where one team defended while the other team attacked was suggested...and this could be interesting in and of itself. To piggyback on that same idea, this could allow for the introduction of a number of very interesting devices that would make assaulting more interesting: doors to be broken through, turrets to avoid, emplacements for things like always-on UAV that must be eradicated to avoid LRMs, and so on. A lot of the ideas were quoted in this thread, and it's worth a full read: http://mwomercs.com/...-one-easy-step/

Those are just some of the first few ideas I've found...feel free to, again, add your constructive thoughts and ideas on the matter.

[fandre]

I suggest to reward the capturing of points like dealt dmg with a ratio of 1:1 or 1:2.

Example1: if you end the game by capping (reaching 750) you should get rewarded with the same XP and c-bill like 750 dmg (1:1), or 375 dmg (1:2) plus normal rewards for fighting.

Optional: reward is also granted if you win by fight or if your team lose.

Example2: Enemy team has 667 and your team 345 but the game ends with all enemeys down, they get additional rewarded with XP and c-bill for 667 dmg and your team the 345.

Capture assist should be like kill assist and making the cap meter full, is like a kill in terms of rewarding.

Rewards for dealing dmg in fights should be as is.

[Durandal]

So, if I read that correctly, getting a full cap (750) would award as if you'd done that much damage...I could see that working, but there would be some incongruity if the experience/cbills from fighting/killing were nerfed into oblivion at the same time. I could see that hurting the game mode too, if people were only concerned about doing a cap dance, and not about killing enemy mechs since they were worth almost nothing in comparison. I know you said current rewards should stay as-is, just mentioning it in case someone at PGI reads it and gets...ideas. I do wonder though, if the rewards are that high for a cap victory, if they might be too high in that case. In a rare example, say you have someone in a mech that gets 750+ damage, then their team wins with 750 points. There is a certain point where the rewards may be too high on a 1:1 ratio, which would hurt the game in other areas by making conquest the default farming gametype for people who want cbills or exp at a faster rate. While I agree that seeing the points give exp/CB as if it was damage could be a good solution, the math on it would need to be solid first.

I would ask, would you think it would be best to keep the bonus uniform (1:1 for winning and losing team), or would the losers get slightly less of a ratio of their cap points towards their scores? It's nitpicking, but if any of this ends up going through PGI's collective minds, it wouldn't help to give them as much of a picture of the idea as we can.

I am, naturally, highly in support of Capture Point/Assist rewards, since they seemed like they would be an idea that anyone would come up with for any sort of conquest game type. Name any game with a domination/conquest style gametype, and you'll see that exact type of reward come up every time, whether it's CoD, Battlefield...and so on. That's why I still can't understand why PGI didn't think about adding the same type of reward here, when it's a sign of actually playing correctly, at least in terms of the game type.

Edit: And another note, with any luck, keep in mind any ideas for new maps as you make suggestions here. While some maps (River City...) don't have much room for adding in a bunch of things, our bigger maps would be prime to receive some upgrades...and any new maps could be designed to be large enough to incorporate some more creative design choices that fit in with the game types.

Edited by durandal, 04 May 2014 - 02:51 AM.

[Eladrion]

How about the simple idea of granting 1XP for every second spend in the cap zone as long as it is not fully capped (both conquest and assault)? It would encurage more people to actually go for the cap but you would have to actually get in there and stay in there to get your XP reward and not just run through the zone (to farm cap assists for example).

[Geeks On Hugs]

Rather than enhance conquest and assault in the ways described (which I support) even better would be to make those variations new game types.

Assault could be called "Siege" with one team defending and one attacking.

The new conquest mode with capture points being MFBs is a great idea. This could be designed to be the longest battle type. Raise the time limit so that repairing and resupply would be fully meaningful. Incorporating MFBs into longer duration games in general is a great idea.

I love no respawn but perhaps if it's planned as part of the game type (like a single second wave is deployed which would include respawned players...this would require some thought as to mechanics.

[Kjudoon]

There is going to be a separate "Attack/Defend" mode according to the dev announcements in the past. There is no reason to change assault (other than maybe having multiple styles of drop points and base locations so we have some variety on the same maps).

[Rogue Jedi]

Should rewards be added to capturing points, regardless of how the game is won/lost?

as primarily a light pilot when playing conquest if there are few fast mechs to help the team will I will often spend the entire game capping, this is not great fun but helps gain a victory, I often win the game for the team by doing this but get minimal rewards, so win or loose I believe there should be a reward for capping, perhaps along the lines of:
2 seconds capping providing the same reward as 1 point of damage (this may seem high for a no skill activity but bear in mind there are only 900 seconds in the match and at least 1/4 of the game you will be moving from one point to the next, so it is highly unlikely you will gain the equivelent of more that 400 damage),
a cap providing the same reward as a kill,
capping from full enemy to full friendly providing same rewards as an assist. the per cap awards to be granted only once per cap point.

this would at least give a capping light something vaguely resembling fair rewards compared to combat.


Should Conquest include points that enable/disable modules?

for consumables I would be in favor but not for all modules,perhaps something along the lines of:
to use cool shots you would need to hold the closest point to your "base" point,
to use arty/airstrike you need to hold theta,
for UAV you need to hold the point near the enemy base,
take the enemy base and you get all consumables, this would encourage protecting Sigma/Gamma in conquest


In Conquest, should there be a point that allows repair/resupply?

perhaps allow your home point to have this ability (in assult as well), if you loose the point you loose the ability, and cannot get it back + make it a module each for repair and reload to be able to access the repair facility/ammo dump (possibly auto load those modules on trial mechs), also repair armor/leg only to max 75% armor/speed, as these would be field repair not full repair.

Do not repair weapons, components, internal structure (except leg to 1hp)


Should Assault have one defending team, and one attacking team?

this should be a separate game mode

edit: readibility

Edited by Rogue Jedi, 13 May 2014 - 01:37 PM.

[L Y N X]

OP - for your last question, I voted Other, but for the question as it was asked, consider my vote a NO.

You are introducing a new mode, but stealing the Assault mode name. Why not ask if we want an ATK/defend mode called Siege? I like Assault so I am not in favor of changing it, but I would not be opposed to a Siege mode like you describe or a King of the hill that has only one Capture point. Neutral turrets that could support whichever side captures the base capture point, and make it resource accumulative like conquest, where you fight/brawl over the capture point. Maybe have only 4 turrets. Maybe the turrets shoot both sides initially. idk... but leave Assault alone.