0
Personally I don't understand why this hasnt been done a long time ago. Now that Skirmish mode exists, its even more needed.
THE PROBLEM:
Quote
The main problem with Assault is that its too dychotomized in its current form. What this means is that one of two things happen:
1) Capping is really easy and makes games into a race towards the other team's zone.
2) Capping is deterred, turning the game into a Skirmish
In the current meta, these are our options. And frankly none of them is very good. Turrets were added to avoid scenario (1), but they simply replaced it with scenario (2) which is no better imo. The point of assault mode is, or at least it should be, to push participants towards an objective based tactical game in which capturing and defending become key gameplay pillars. Neither scenario currently offers such a possibility.
Because you cannot have two teams both assaulting AND defending at the same time. It doesnt work. Sure, in theory one could split his team into a defense and offense unit, but thats not what we see on the field because in the current meta its simply more effective to just brawl it out with as many players on your side as possible. The team that sends 12 to attack vs the team taht splits their numbers 6/6 will always win, simply because 12 > 6.
1) Capping is really easy and makes games into a race towards the other team's zone.
2) Capping is deterred, turning the game into a Skirmish
In the current meta, these are our options. And frankly none of them is very good. Turrets were added to avoid scenario (1), but they simply replaced it with scenario (2) which is no better imo. The point of assault mode is, or at least it should be, to push participants towards an objective based tactical game in which capturing and defending become key gameplay pillars. Neither scenario currently offers such a possibility.
Because you cannot have two teams both assaulting AND defending at the same time. It doesnt work. Sure, in theory one could split his team into a defense and offense unit, but thats not what we see on the field because in the current meta its simply more effective to just brawl it out with as many players on your side as possible. The team that sends 12 to attack vs the team taht splits their numbers 6/6 will always win, simply because 12 > 6.
THE SOLUTION:
Quote
What is the solution? Its both complicated and simple in that the solution is to actually make "Assault" into *gasp* an assault!:
- ONE team attacks.
- ONE team defends.
- Secondary objectives are placed on map.
- Time limit implemented
The goal of the attacking team is to take the ennemy's base. The goal of the defending team is to protect said base. Turrets and defensive elements means the attacking team cannot simply rush the base. The secondary objectives means the defensive team cannot just stay put and wait for the attacking team to zerg rush them.
Whoever holds the secondary objectives holds the keys to assaulting or defending the base. There can be multiple secondary objectives with different effects for the team holding them:
- Power the base's different types of turrets (LRM/Lasers/Ballistics),
- Give mechs a periodic amunition refill.
- Trigger a wide range ECM or counter-ECM effect depending on the holding teams,
- Provide a UAV-like radar effects.
- In the best case scenario (yes i know, a wild dream), MWO could introduce AI controlled paratrooping infantry and armor divisions that backs the activating team.
- ONE team attacks.
- ONE team defends.
- Secondary objectives are placed on map.
- Time limit implemented
The goal of the attacking team is to take the ennemy's base. The goal of the defending team is to protect said base. Turrets and defensive elements means the attacking team cannot simply rush the base. The secondary objectives means the defensive team cannot just stay put and wait for the attacking team to zerg rush them.
Whoever holds the secondary objectives holds the keys to assaulting or defending the base. There can be multiple secondary objectives with different effects for the team holding them:
- Power the base's different types of turrets (LRM/Lasers/Ballistics),
- Give mechs a periodic amunition refill.
- Trigger a wide range ECM or counter-ECM effect depending on the holding teams,
- Provide a UAV-like radar effects.
- In the best case scenario (yes i know, a wild dream), MWO could introduce AI controlled paratrooping infantry and armor divisions that backs the activating team.
This would have the effect of forcing player teams to make tactical decisions. What would be best?
- Should we try to power down their turrets and charge? Might work, but if they have a UAV and paratroopers, they could kick you in the teeth before you get anywhere close.
- Should we ignore turrets and go for the ECM and supply depots so we can pillage the base at long range? Sure, but then they might just take a hike and force us to fight them in turret range.
And circomstances can change: charge a base with turrets powered down only to have a team of light mechs recapture the power facility? Meat grinding time!
A time limit forces players to take those decisions instead of sitting back and hoping to whittle the opponent down. When you have 10 minutes to take a base, you dont have time to poptart people for 5 minutes in hope of getting a kill or two. You have to act. You have to decide what objective to go for, dispatch effectives to defend the necessary ones, and react to changing battle conditions. THIS is what assault should be.
Am I crazy? Am I an idealist? Well yes, yes to both those things. But I still think this sounds 1000x more exciting than this glorified musical chair game we are currently stuck with. Agree/disagree?
Edited by Egomane, 04 May 2014 - 02:01 AM.
