45 replies to this topic

[NineTails]

Great proposal.

However, the problem is and always has been that 12v12 isn't what MWO is balanced against. Moving from 8v8 to 12v12 killed assault mode.

[SpiralFace]

NineTails, on 06 January 2015 - 08:04 AM, said:

Great proposal.

However, the problem is and always has been that 12v12 isn't what MWO is balanced against. Moving from 8v8 to 12v12 killed assault mode.

Hence the proposal.

12 v 12 isn't the enemy, simply that the game mode was not originally built with 12 v 12 in mind. This is a proposal specifically geared to focusing on a field of battle spread out to where you would want 12 people operating as either a cohesive force or in smaller strike teams going up against multiple objectives.

In an 8 v 8 scenario, I can see this kind of gameplay being practically "barren" with 1/3rd of the forces gone and having objectives spread out around very large and wide area of terrain.

[Kalimaster]

I must congratulate you on a well thought out proposal and plan of action. I would like to see some of your proposed elements implemented, such as the base health.

I would give this post a +1, but it really deserves a +2. Well done.

[Pohrawg]

What would prevent both teams from just going for the base objectives and not attack each other? I can just imagine both sides ignoring each other as they run by and start pounding each others bases....seems pretty funny if that happened.

[The Omega]

Pohrawg, on 06 January 2015 - 08:33 AM, said:

What would prevent both teams from just going for the base objectives and not attack each other?

The same thing that stops it now. Low rewards, and a large majority of people wanting blood.

[uebersoldat]

Good lord man! This is brilliant and so completely obvious I have no idea why it's not done already. Great work!

Pohrawg, on 06 January 2015 - 08:33 AM, said:

What would prevent both teams from just going for the base objectives and not attack each other? I can just imagine both sides ignoring each other as they run by and start pounding each others bases....seems pretty funny if that happened.

That's a different match type, this being 'Assault' should be 'Assault'. If you don't see each other and your base is getting smacked you and your team done goofed. Use role warfare properly and that won't happen.

[HARDKOR]

Please do this, and also, please include it in CW.

[Homeless Bill]

I am Homeless Bill, and I approve this message.

[SaJeel]

This is great, all of this is great. With the introduction of skirmish mode, Assault and conquest need to be furthered from the Skirmish model and objectives need to come to the forefront, and I love the way the OP has suggested doing this for assault. I'd say the same thing needs to be done with conquest, simply making the most viable strategy focusing on the objective rather than focusing on outright killing your opponent and ignoring the objectives until most of the enemy is dead.

[Xetelian]

I skimmed it because anything is better than the existing assault.

[Night Fury76]

more bumps

[Nothing Whatsoever]

I like this.

But it seems like a Border Skirmish if both sides have full bases like this, due to how many battles were one force invading from another planet IIRC.

Nonetheless, if one side would be a base (with base emplacements) and the other side a Dropship and maybe immobile tanks assets (as their sides' turret equivalents) then this would fit nicely as an Assault game mode.

[xX PUG Xx]

I love the ideas, well thought out and it appears that it shouldn't be too difficult to implement across most of the maps.

Bartholomew bartholomew, on 06 January 2015 - 04:40 AM, said:

I like it, but for it to actually work well. All the old smaller maps will need an expansion to tourmaline size or bigger. This would actually favor maps of Alpines size.

Would it be possible, game code wise, for PGi to use the smaller maps with this game style design for 4 vs 4 and 8 vs 8?

I'm just wondering if this could be used as a way to get smaller battles into CW and alleviate the wait times during off-peak times.

Edited by xX PUG Xx, 06 January 2015 - 07:50 PM.

[wanderer]

This is an excellent expansion of existing assets to produce a superior game mode.

It'll never happen and I'll be delighted to be proven wrong.

[Orteus Zenzala]

+1 ! This is just a perfect Dream !

[TyrEol]

Great idea would love to see this happen.

It might be a bit of challenge on smaller maps river city is really cramped on the current assault mode and this looks like it would take even more space for assets.

Having said that there are enough maps now that you could drop one or two smaller ones from assault mode and it wouldn't get too stale. Why not drop alpine from skirmish while you're at it, it feels a bit too big for it anyway.

[Ghostsuit]

Really like this idea

[SpiralFace]

TyrEol, on 07 January 2015 - 05:55 AM, said:

Great idea would love to see this happen.

It might be a bit of challenge on smaller maps river city is really cramped on the current assault mode and this looks like it would take even more space for assets.

Having said that there are enough maps now that you could drop one or two smaller ones from assault mode and it wouldn't get too stale. Why not drop alpine from skirmish while you're at it, it feels a bit too big for it anyway.

The idea for smaller maps is that you base the base's HP on the total structures around the encampment.

So smaller maps would use less physical base pieces, and as a result, the base would have less HP then it would on a larger map. Making each piece of lethal and non-lethal structures that much more important to defend.

[Quaamik]

Pohrawg, on 06 January 2015 - 08:33 AM, said:

What would prevent both teams from just going for the base objectives and not attack each other? I can just imagine both sides ignoring each other as they run by and start pounding each others bases....seems pretty funny if that happened.

Actually, that could become an interesting variant on the tactics. Kind of like CW turned into a race with the attacking side spending little time trying to kill opposing mechs.

It could be balanced by putting more emphisis on he core base, either as a capturable or destroyable target, than on the rest of the structures. Something like 45 - 55% of the "health" is tied up in the core base, with the rest spread between the turrets and forward structures. The team that goes all out offensive risks the opposition coring their base before they can stop them. A gambol, especially if the opposing team leaves 1 - 3 mechs back at their base as defense.

I think a few things would need to be in place to make it work as a better "role warfare".
-- Rewards for base / structure destruction would have to be as good or better than a win by killing mechs.
-- The rewards for winning by destroying the base / structures would have to be more evenly spread among the team, so someone playing defense didn't get left out of the rewards. I'm thinking 3/4 of the reward for the base destruction / cap is evenly spread between the winning team, 1/4 is assigned according to structures destroyed / captured, and rewards for destroying enemy mechs are assigned according o damage done / assists / kills.

[Quaamik]

Smaller maps could be adapted by leaving little or no "no mans land" and more non-lethal base assets (forward observation posts, supply points, ect). You could also add a two part base on each side. Like a shield generator that has to be destroyed to allow the base to be captured (like CW).

Another option for small maps would be to code a different type of turret - something almost immune to missiles but that also only had shorter range weapons. Maybe a turret that houses 2 small pulse lasers, 2 medium pulse lasers and 2 AMS systems, emplaced so that its hard to get a shot at it from more than 300 meters out. Use those on the obvious route across the map.