11 replies to this topic

[Gattsus]

We all know that by -3000BC the usual strategy is to NOT PUT GENERATORS AT ENEMY RANGE.

An idea I had is to replace or upgrade the concept of gate by the destroying a turret defended small area or capturing a zone like in Conquest , which after is destroyed/captured, the gates gates to the base are opened and/or the generators become vulnerable.

Although if such zone is controlled by the attackers, it would provide a closer dropping point that could allow them to keep momentum (assuming we can choose where to drop).

This would allow the control of rushes and may introduce new dynamics into the CW. Still, it would require a small redesign of the maps, which it's fairly commonly accepted that they are not very good (see below) and it would require the selection of dropping areas instead of random dropping:

Edited by Gattsus, 08 January 2015 - 09:48 AM.

[Felix7007]

I'm not quite sure I understand your idea but if it's, fighting over a portion of the map to change control of the generators from one team to another. I'm intrigued. Maybe design the maps so that attackers can take control of turrets.

Like an attacker can hack into the turret system. While doing so they are out of cover and can't shoot while hacking.

Edited by Felix7007, 08 January 2015 - 07:23 AM.

[Gattsus]

Exactly what you said, that instead of having to destroy a bad placed generator, to take control of a zone where or around the gates are.

[Alistair Winter]

While our current invasion mode is pretty terrible, it at least has the merit of giving the defenders a large advantage during the start of the mission and then letting the attackers even the odds with each successful wave. The trouble with letting the defenders hold turrets, is that you're potentially not making any progress at all, unless those turrets can be permanently destroyed. And if they are permanently destroyed, it's basically just Conquest with waves. But if it they can't be destroyed, then you risk matches were attackers will give up and refuse to engage, like we're already seeing in CW matches on Boreal where the attackers are smashed by snipers before they can even open a gate.

In my opinion, it's rather difficult to create a dynamic and interesting game mode revolving only around stationary objectives. This is why my favourite game modes in any FPS is usually something like team deathmatch, plant the bomb, hostage rescue or capture the flag. All those game modes have dynamic, moving objectives, which makes the matches more interesting and unpredictable.

I'm not saying it's impossible to make a fun game mode with stationary objectives, but you certainly have to think of a way to make it interesting and unpredictable. Defending turrets is a big improvement from improving squares in Conquest, but it's not quite enough, I think. We need to go... deeper.

[Gattsus]

Alistair Winter, on 08 January 2015 - 09:26 AM, said:

While our current invasion mode is pretty terrible, it at least has the merit of giving the defenders a large advantage during the start of the mission and then letting the attackers even the odds with each successful wave. The trouble with letting the defenders hold turrets, is that you're potentially not making any progress at all, unless those turrets can be permanently destroyed. And if they are permanently destroyed, it's basically just Conquest with waves. But if it they can't be destroyed, then you risk matches were attackers will give up and refuse to engage, like we're already seeing in CW matches on Boreal where the attackers are smashed by snipers before they can even open a gate.

In my opinion, it's rather difficult to create a dynamic and interesting game mode revolving only around stationary objectives. This is why my favourite game modes in any FPS is usually something like team deathmatch, plant the bomb, hostage rescue or capture the flag. All those game modes have dynamic, moving objectives, which makes the matches more interesting and unpredictable.

I'm not saying it's impossible to make a fun game mode with stationary objectives, but you certainly have to think of a way to make it interesting and unpredictable. Defending turrets is a big improvement from improving squares in Conquest, but it's not quite enough, I think. We need to go... deeper.

Carry the bomb, like in Team Fortress 2

[Alistair Winter]

Gattsus, on 08 January 2015 - 09:46 AM, said:

Carry the bomb, like in Team Fortress 2

I've never played it, You mean Payload?
https://wiki.teamfor...om/wiki/Payload

Sounds like both Payload and Payload race could be converted to work in a Battletech setting. Just another way to do a VIP escort mission as seen in the old Mechwarrior games, basically. Same thing for Plant the Bomb and Hostage Rescue in CounterStrike. Only cosmetic differences between those game modes and some of the Escort missions in Mechwarrior 2-4.

[Gattsus]

Alistair Winter, on 08 January 2015 - 10:09 AM, said:

I've never played it, You mean Payload?
https://wiki.teamfor...om/wiki/Payload

Sounds like both Payload and Payload race could be converted to work in a Battletech setting. Just another way to do a VIP escort mission as seen in the old Mechwarrior games, basically. Same thing for Plant the Bomb and Hostage Rescue in CounterStrike. Only cosmetic differences between those game modes and some of the Escort missions in Mechwarrior 2-4.

Yes, that's right (I haven't played TF2 in aaaages!).
It would be nice for a change of static objectives.

[Deathlike]

I honestly don't want another version of Assault or Conquest in CW. If you weren't burned out from them already, then it's only going to get worse.

People had been arguing about shooting bases when Assault didn't even have turrets and the game was nicknamed "CapWarrior".

A fair number of people honestly stopped using their brains during those times... so I don't know what to tell you.

[Killstorm999999]

I think capture zones would be the way to go. They should not be like what we have in Conquest or Assault. Instead, they should be actual large areas that multiple mechs from both sides can move around and fight in. A zone would flip slowly towards the team with the most tonnage. Greater tonnage = faster capture rate.

[Pz_DC]

Agree with TS - and can say even more - those "bases" are build with no sense and will cause igneneers who work with army objects to go panic... So idea with "conquest zones" is good.

Edited by MGA121285, 08 January 2015 - 02:14 PM.

[Gattsus]

Instead of the meme saying "Aliens" should, it say:
"MWO:CW engineers"

Edited by Gattsus, 09 January 2015 - 12:24 AM.

[TheCaptainJZ]

For starters, you should have to capture the O generators instead of destroying them.