12 replies to this topic

[zolop]

To make game modes more objective based, to add to the fun cooperative team vs team gameplay change the reward structure of 2 of the game modes.

Skimirsh NO CHANGE!

REwards scale from 1 being the lowest to 10 being the highest. Assist match points and spotting points remain untouched with this suggestion.

Assault Gametype

Capture base 10
Destroy turrets 8
Friendly Turrets still alive 8
Damage Enemy Turrets 6
Eliminate Enemy mechs 3
Damage Enemy mechs 2
Base untouched 1, no enemy cap progress
no reward for loss!

If we could actually have a HQ building to actually protect that would be wonderful in assault gametype.

Capture and hold GAmemode
Rewards are checked at the end of timer or capture points reached or one team entirely destroyed

Cap point fully 10
50% capture 8
25% capture 6
Less than 25% capture 4
Destroy enemy mech 2
Damage enemy Mech 1

AGAIN Skimirsh NO CHANGE! For people that just want to destroy other mechs.

Edited by Marvyn Dodgers, 30 June 2014 - 11:01 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

The best way is to have actual Objectives.

[zolop]

Joseph Mallan, on 30 June 2014 - 08:25 AM, said:

The best way is to have actual Objectives.

Agree, this would be a quick and easy change for now to make the modes more focused until we can get the content ingame for objectives.

[Joseph Mallan]

Problem is without the full game what is the point of any objectives? Will we get to capture a base and/or planet? I have been grinding this combat engine for going on 3 years... If I don't get the swag from an objective, its just another pointless fight.

[BatWing]

I am very confused when it comes to Missions with objectives in MWO.

I still wonder how we will take off from these 3 stagnant modes we have.

ESCORT:
I dont see really how it will ever be implemented. you should have AI and we don t have it. then you should have some serious HUGE map to justify how a trip from point A to point B becomes a challenge.
if you can just reach one side of a map to another in about 5 minutes running with an assault, really there is no challenge on "Escorting" someone, it will be simply a deathmatch.

RUSH (or whatever you wanna call it, when you move from capture points ahead to unlock other areas of the map, till getting to the ultimate goal)
That would require specific designed maps. multiple maps able to connect to each other to create a way larger scenario and being available after you take control of specific points.
There is nothing designed like that in this game

RECON (A sort of a mission involving collecting data to be used later on)
This is close to what conquest is so far. Definitely should have a bit of more "depth". points should not be "conquered back", which makes no sense. it should be a "one way" communication. Say team 1 has to prevent data loss and team 2 has to acquire the data.
Having 4 or 5 Servers to hack, you gain full data acquisition if you are able to hack all of the 5 points. Defender wins if destroy enemies before full hacking because download is incomplete and corrupted. Attacker wins if achieve full hack.
THIS CAN BE DONE

PLANETARY CONQUEST
They said this will be done with multiple drops. true.. it still seems "disconnected" to me, because i don t see how that may happen if I am now dropping on Frozen city and then suddenly I find myself on Therra Therma... the fight should be on connected environment, trying to make some sense.
THIS CAN BE DONE

RESCUE (get somewhere, destroy something to free someone and ensure the Asset get oout of the map safe)
This is a sort of Escort with a bit more challenge. here i don t see this happening because again, we have NO AI and there is no script to allow someone to get "out to safety". it could be done though. Challenge would be as usual avoiding this kind of mission from becoming a simple deathmatch.


I am surprised no one at PGI ever spoke of real "modes", there s always been a very confused communication about this matter...

Shouldn t be this the CORE of a game? When you create a game, shouldn t you have a clear planning of "what you wanna do with the game" ??

[Zaggeron]

BatWing, on 30 June 2014 - 09:12 AM, said:

<snip> ... bunch of cool ideas ... </snip>

Shouldn t be this the CORE of a game? When you create a game, shouldn t you have a clear planning of "what you wanna do with the game" ??

All of this looks lovely, but I'm guessing we won't see any of this. The "What you wanna do with the game" has already been decided: Deathmatch on highly detailed maps.

It would be really cool if we had a multi-player system that played out like Left 4 Dead. Team A had to get from point A to point B and their opponents spawn in various locations along the way to try and stop them. But this requires

1. Large maps -- not really feasible given the detail levels they've committed themselves to though I would readily welcome large objective-based maps that had the level of detail that is typical for an MMO -- e.g. SW:TOR. No idea whether the MWO engine can do that sort of thing though

2. AI units -- not necessarily Mechs, though that would be nice, Tanks, infantry, more types of anti-mech units, armored cars or trucks to escort, etc

My guess is that given their choice of engine and the level of effort they put forth into the maps, it would be a huge gamble for them to release maps that have significantly less detail. And in order to get the size you need to make objective gameplay not devolve into deathmatch, they would have to be that way.

[BatWing]

Zaggeron, on 30 June 2014 - 09:36 AM, said:

My guess is that given their choice of engine .....

Honestly i dont think is a matter of Engine. Isn t this CryEngine? is the 3 or 2? However i guess it doesn t make that much of a difference. In Crysys you see a lot of great stuff and this is the same engine, so I m pretty sure everything you need for a successful MWO is right there.

point is:
DO YOU KNOW HOW TO USE IT?

[Zaggeron]

BatWing, on 30 June 2014 - 09:54 AM, said:

Honestly i dont think is a matter of Engine. Isn t this CryEngine? is the 3 or 2? However i guess it doesn t make that much of a difference. In Crysys you see a lot of great stuff and this is the same engine, so I m pretty sure everything you need for a successful MWO is right there.

point is:
DO YOU KNOW HOW TO USE IT?

I've never played it, but wasn't Crysys a first person shooter. Most first-person shooter games have levels built with natural obstacles that control the player flow. This can make a relatively small map seem large since it takes a while to get from point A to point B. Could you image the resources needed to run Crysys on a map the size of GTA's San Andreas (just the city area). I'm really thinking we need maps that large for objective play in MWO and I've no idea if the engine can do that size and still have it playable with the current level of detail.

Edited by Zaggeron, 30 June 2014 - 10:11 AM.

[RAM]

Remove the 'Kill All Enemy Mechs' objective from Assault & Conquest. Done.


RAM
ELH

[LordKnightFandragon]

BatWing, on 30 June 2014 - 09:12 AM, said:

I am very confused when it comes to Missions with objectives in MWO.

I still wonder how we will take off from these 3 stagnant modes we have.

ESCORT:
I dont see really how it will ever be implemented. you should have AI and we don t have it. then you should have some serious HUGE map to justify how a trip from point A to point B becomes a challenge.
if you can just reach one side of a map to another in about 5 minutes running with an assault, really there is no challenge on "Escorting" someone, it will be simply a deathmatch.

RUSH (or whatever you wanna call it, when you move from capture points ahead to unlock other areas of the map, till getting to the ultimate goal)
That would require specific designed maps. multiple maps able to connect to each other to create a way larger scenario and being available after you take control of specific points.
There is nothing designed like that in this game

RECON (A sort of a mission involving collecting data to be used later on)
This is close to what conquest is so far. Definitely should have a bit of more "depth". points should not be "conquered back", which makes no sense. it should be a "one way" communication. Say team 1 has to prevent data loss and team 2 has to acquire the data.
Having 4 or 5 Servers to hack, you gain full data acquisition if you are able to hack all of the 5 points. Defender wins if destroy enemies before full hacking because download is incomplete and corrupted. Attacker wins if achieve full hack.
THIS CAN BE DONE

PLANETARY CONQUEST
They said this will be done with multiple drops. true.. it still seems "disconnected" to me, because i don t see how that may happen if I am now dropping on Frozen city and then suddenly I find myself on Therra Therma... the fight should be on connected environment, trying to make some sense.
THIS CAN BE DONE

RESCUE (get somewhere, destroy something to free someone and ensure the Asset get oout of the map safe)
This is a sort of Escort with a bit more challenge. here i don t see this happening because again, we have NO AI and there is no script to allow someone to get "out to safety". it could be done though. Challenge would be as usual avoiding this kind of mission from becoming a simple deathmatch.


I am surprised no one at PGI ever spoke of real "modes", there s always been a very confused communication about this matter...

Shouldn t be this the CORE of a game? When you create a game, shouldn t you have a clear planning of "what you wanna do with the game" ??

Well, wargaming from World of Tanks was considering adding in an escort game mode and others....they straight came out and said, basically...."we wont add these game modes because the playerbase is to damn stupid to know how to play them..teamwork is nill and they pretty much SUCK"......this from a game developer about their own paying playerbase....that was basically the gist of the post I read...

So, its pretty much the same damn thing here in MWo, but to a greater extent...objective modes are cool, but in the end the game ends up being nothign but a deathmatch, every game, every mode...the only mode we have is Skirmish...Conquest? Assault? naw, they are both Skirmish with cap points to lure fools into thinking that taking them will lead to anything but a isolated death and a loss.

Only way Objective based games work is if the game is a PVE. And quite frankly, this game woulda been better that way...Kinda like an Everquest/Planetside 2 with mechs lol.

Edited by LordKnightFandragon, 01 July 2014 - 11:10 AM.

[Penance]

Just one of those things I have up on asking about.

Pgi will undoubtedly find a way to screw up capture the flag adding the alternate win condition of killing all players to make the main objective redundant, just like now.

They need to make rewards objective based. Look at conquest in battlefield, you get points for capping...here you get nothing. The only extra points come from kills and components destroyed. That being said, why should / would anyone ptfo when there can be better gains by just going for kills?

Edited by Penance, 01 July 2014 - 11:50 AM.

[LordKnightFandragon]

Penance, on 01 July 2014 - 11:44 AM, said:

Just one of those things I have up on asking about.

Pgi will undoubtedly find a way to screw up capture the flag adding the alternate method of killing all players.

PGI doesnt have to do that. The players realize that the only thing that matters is killing the enemy team, cuz once the enemy team is gone, who cares about the flag, there is noone left to capture yours...hence...TDM, every game, all the time, without abatement.

[Penance]

LordKnightFandragon, on 01 July 2014 - 11:45 AM, said:

PGI doesnt have to do that. The players realize that the only thing that matters is killing the enemy team, cuz once the enemy team is gone, who cares about the flag, there is noone left to capture yours...hence...TDM, every game, all the time, without abatement.

Hope you saw my edit...I've been saying this since they released conquest mode