151 replies to this topic

[Apnu]

Telmasa, on 17 May 2015 - 01:57 PM, said:

Sounds like an entirely new game from ground-up, xX PUG Xx...the idea has merits and all, just doesn't feasibly deal with reality of what we have now, y'know?

Nontheless, the ideas could be applied to the CW experience in some ways. Making CW matches feel more like missions and less like some kind of Solaris-arena-team-competition tournament would undeniably be more fun.

Though like I keep saying having that Solaris-team thing still around, just in another format, is worth keeping in mind. Evil e-sports attention and all.

I think, given what's in game now, a lot of what we have can be adapted if we connect the public queue maps to the IS Map in the back end.

First make all players align with a faction. If the player is a Lone Wolf or Merc, they have to acquire a contract from a faction to play. Even if its only for 24 hours.

Now that all the players are aligned with a faction, they go looking for a public queue match, they wind up on a team of everybody from that faction. Now say they win. They should get some LP out of that and the game impacts the IS map in some way. Maybe a few assault wins open up a shard on a planet so it can be attacked with Invasion mode. Maybe Conquest games get that faction a temporary perk in the store. Say a 2% discount for 30 minutes, stackable up to 10% or something like that.

There's lots of different ways to slot in the public queue game modes and have them impact the IS map in some way without trampling on the "hardcore" mode of Invasion.

I've been doing a survey of active members in my unit. About half of them are into CW as it is now on a competitive level, the other half don't like that but want to drop with some pals casually but also feel like they're fighting for Davion's glory. These casuals aren't satisfied with the casual player experience. They want to feel like, when they have the time, they're adding to the faction and/or the unit's goals and earn rewards for that.

Anyway, I don't think they need a whole game rewrite, but I do thing PGI needs to re-think their intentions and vision for MWO, then mod what assets they have done towards that vision and then, from there, adding more things to deepen and broaden that vision.

Its possible, if they only have the willpower to look at the game as a whole instead of "here's this group, you get that, and this other group, this other thing, and the two shall not be combined"

[Rahul Roy]

Apnu, on 18 May 2015 - 08:45 AM, said:

I think, given what's in game now, a lot of what we have can be adapted if we connect the public queue maps to the IS Map in the back end.

The problem is that people in pub queue are often playing casual or just goofing off. They don't care what happens to the IS map therefore their play shouldn't affect the map. Otherwise they will be watering down the efforts of anyone who does care about the map.

[Apnu]

Rahul Roy, on 18 May 2015 - 11:41 AM, said:

The problem is that people in pub queue are often playing casual or just goofing off. They don't care what happens to the IS map therefore their play shouldn't affect the map. Otherwise they will be watering down the efforts of anyone who does care about the map.

Every game population has a bunch of goof balls and a bunch of uber-serious players. Its part of the territory in any given game community.

They will care in time. Especially if the map's condition affects their fortunes. Say that Conquest games can gain a c-bill discount in the store after 4 victories for 1/2 hour. So there's an idea that impacts the player directly, without flipping planets the "hardcores" want so badly. Kinda separate, kinda not, but related to the map. Goofing off and going on a losing streak because of it, will hurt them. They'll either dislike the suckage or move on. Either way players who care will benefit. The wackadoodles leave or they man up and play better.

When we say map, we should not just think, literally, of the map. But the "map" as in the galactic universe the game takes place in. That also means, in general, the factions. As it stands right now, there's no difference belonging to one faction over another. In CW, few players actually care about whatever faction they're aligned with. Smoke Jag and Ghost Bear effectively don't exist anymore, by planet count and no one cares.

As you point out, its a training issue. Players have trained themselves not to care about the IS map. For two years this game had no IS map of any consequence, and players got used to playing without it. This is a grievous tactical error on PGI's part, but its happened, so now there must be a course correction or the game hits an iceberg. So, obviously, the solution is to re-train players to care about the map.

But, what we have now is PGI spending a lot of time, effort, and money on a game mode that < 20% of the current game's population plays. Its a horrible ROI. Meanwhile the other 80% of the players are getting tired of waiting and all they have is hyperventilating over the TBR/SCR nerfs.

Anyway, the logic is very simple and very strong: If you want CW to succeed, you need more players playing. CW is not attracting players, players avoid CW. Therefore, putting things in CW that most players like, will attract more players to CW. That starts by putting the player's focus on the IS map. With out it, they'll ignore CW now and forever while PGI bankrupts itself making a game mode for < 20% of the player base.

The sooner the "hardcore" CW players get on this idea and PGI gets on this idea, the sooner CW won't suck. Until then, it will continue to suck.

PGI is aware of this already. They're working on a 4v4 "scouting" mode for CW, and have been talking up PvE missions. They're taking steps. It remains to be seen if those steps are the correct ones. I, personally, don't think so. The crisis is here and now, we don't have time to wait eons for a 4v4 scouting mode. But what can be done, real fast, as a place holder is bring in the PQ game modes to CW, make them relevant and start jucing up the CW population while they go back and work on all this awesome stuff like the scouting mode, a rumored 8v8 mode and this PvE stuff.

Combining the queues increases CW population and buys time for PGI to come up with something better.

[GRiPSViGiL]

So many superb ideas and collaboration in this thread. It baffles me how terrible CW is from onset to now still. In my mind CW was suppose to save this game yet the most compelling thing MWO offers is player run leagues and events.

[Syrkres]

Some thoughts on this, using for the most part existing game modes and maps.

As several have pointed out, working through a progression towards conquering a planet.

Assets PGI has:

• A drop deck (4 ships)
  
• four different game modes (conquest, assault, Skirmish, and CW)
  
  • Conquest - capture points
    
  • Assault - destroy resistance or capture point
    
  • Skirmish - destroy resistance
    
  • CW - destroy resistance and objectives.
• lots of maps

Now with the current implementation of CW you get a drop deck of 4 and repeatedly drop on the same map, usually after the first wave the game winner could be determined, so why bother with the other 4 waves (note: this is not to say a team has won after the first wave, but rather that the outcome is all but determined).


Proposal for new CW:
Each attack is a series of steps (as others have outline) but rather than drop on the same map, you drop on different maps (with each mech) as well as change up the game mode.

So for example, I have a drop deck of 4 mechs, the first drop is on River City for Conquest mode, the second drop is on Alpine peaks for Skirmish mode, third drop is on Grim Portico for CW mode, while the last drop is on Mining Collective for Assault mode.


To make things simple, each drop could use a new mech (phase 1), but it would be even better if surviving mechs carried over. So first drop you select a mech, in second drop you would drop in same mech (with damage and less ammo[if used]) if it was not destroyed in drop one. Now you could eject to grab a fresh mech or a better suited mech for map/mode. Third drop again you retain your mechs which have not been destroyed, so someone could have upto 3 mechs(for someone still with their 1st mech), while another player could be on his 3rd mech (having lost 2 mechs in the first 2 drops). A player would always have at least one mech per drop, but any still has on respawn any mechs which he has not used yet.


With the above, it would take different skill sets for each battle as you progress across the planets country side. You may have fallen behind in the first battle, but the second battle is Conquest, and your team excels at that, and you catch back up.


An Additional element which could be added, is the defender (if a winner) holds, that is if team A is attacking team B, if team B wins the first battle(defending), then the second battle is still on the first map, the attackers have not advanced.

A sector would be won or loss depending on attacker/defender controlling the majority of that sector (in this case three drops/wins/maps). So if the defender wins the first two battles the attack is over because the attackers cannot win 3 maps/victories.

I think this would give a bit more feeling of depth to conquering a planet.

When starting a drop, the maps/modes are shown, so players can adjust their mech selection as appropriate.

For CW maps I think this would take some alteration as you would possibly need to be able to win the objective in a single wave. So possibly lowering health of targets for this mode.

This would allow PGI to add more depth to CW, while using as many current assets as possible, the main coding would be to the drop deck, though with the new map redesigns, if they use drop ships, this could be worked in.

Edited by Syrkres, 18 May 2015 - 12:41 PM.

[Telmasa]

I know it sounds silly, but what about players who don't want to be forced into Community Warfare?

I'm just saying, implementing Solaris along with any changes to merge "public qeue" games with CW, would probably be a good idea.

[Ghost_19Hz]

I don't play CW very much at all, almost never in fact. Got 45 in Tuk event though, outside of that >10 matches.

What i liked: -Coordinated teams. (which i already get from my clan, they are awesome).

What i disliked: -Forced to take a light mech to bring desired mechs.
-Forced to go through a choke point.
-Predictable strategy / movement.

It felt like there was really only one strategy, the map with 3 entrances seemed ok but... I'd really like a more open world experience from it(not rinse and repeat choke point), tanks and troops and helo's defending instead of turrets, choice of drop zones, choice of planets to attack, mobile asset missions, re-arm for ammunition mechs(far from front ofc), usage of more of the maps surface area as opposed to the fights taking place 95% in the same area. I don't need %100 perfect balance, just make it fun, i'll forgive slight imbalances if its fun.

[Khobai]

Quote

I know it sounds silly, but what about players who don't want to be forced into Community Warfare?

Lots of people didnt want to be forced into WW2 either. TOO BAD.

[Telmasa]

Khobai, on 20 May 2015 - 07:07 PM, said:

Lots of people didnt want to be forced into WW2 either. TOO BAD.

I hate to use such a widely abused cliche, but...it's just a game, bro.

[Red Legs Greaves]

Telmasa, on 20 May 2015 - 01:53 PM, said:

I know it sounds silly, but what about players who don't want to be forced into Community Warfare?

I'm just saying, implementing Solaris along with any changes to merge "public qeue" games with CW, would probably be a good idea.

Have a faction pug queue and a random Solaris pug queue for random factions could work. Have the faction one tie into CW somehow and keep the Solaris queue for people who don't want to do CW or want to play with friends from other factions.

[102_devill]

Regardless of the different game modes, for me every game feels the same. So much of the time do we see players focusing on one single point on the map and fighting there to the death. Or running in circles around a map feature. Or fighting over a choke point in CW. It is always and only this. The only time you get something different is when your pug team doesn't know what to do and they spread across the map and you all die one by one.

IMO the lack of the need for gameplay variety is what is seriously wrong in MWO. The one method of winning which can never fail is: you bunch up, move together and focus-fire on targets. If you and your team mates can do this, then your skills in MWO are top - there is nothing more to learn in order to play and you just repeat it indefinitely or until another team is better at it that you.

Unfortunately I do not think that this skill set is something to be very proud of. Anyone can do it as long as they ALL want to do it. And this is the only "team" aspect to this game which is actually used by the players.

You can imagine all kinds of game modes, but if a Moving Murder Ball (MMB?) can still defeat any other play, then all game modes are useless. This I find to be true not only in CW but in the PUG and group queues as well. For the exception of a couple of maps in the random game, where the MMB engagement has to be executed fast, most of the maps in Conquest mode cannot prevent the MMB meta.

This effectively removes what many people want: role warfare. And the role warfare is what makes game modes stand out from one another. Currently, too many mechs can just dish out too much damage using direct fire, so that they are meta. Why would you bother to setup an elaborate scouting/spotting party for a lance of LRM boats, when this is a risky proposition? It might fail for a whole host of reasons. This is just an example, because IMO the light mechs painting targets (spotters) and the LRM boat mechs with few self defense weapons (arty) are an obvious and clear role separation.

The further separation between medium, heavy and assault mechs is very moot given the way MWO works. I have never played the TT game, (except a few sessions in megamek) so I cannot say why is this this separation effective in TT, except in terms of battle value. As far as I can see in MWO, many builds of medium or heavy mechs can easily dish out just as much damage as some assault builds. And the durability of heavier mechs is not exactly standing out as a defining factor for the match outcome.

When you can ram an alpha of 30-40 instantaneously into a CT of a heavy mech, you can well see that no matter how this much it is armored or durable, it will crumble in a couple of such alphas.

The bottom point is that the game is based on high damage in a short time, and maps which promote deathmatch furballs. Sometimes it can be a lot of fun, but it precludes the match from developing in different directions, and we are left with not much variety. Again, to conclude, in the face of such poor variety, it will be hard to implement more immersive, campaign-style game modes which everyone expected CW to have.

[Mirkk Defwode]

Mirkk Defwode, on 19 May 2015 - 08:34 AM, said:

I don't disagree with this. But as it goes for community features those need to get expounded in general.

Half the time I don't know the units I'm fighting with/against because we have no registry within the title and I'll be damned if I am going to search through the one on the forum from the original unit creation. The tags are nice and all but they have no means of tracking back to whom they're associated with.

Chat functions need to not be gated inside the social or faction menus exclusively. Seriously why can't I have a chat conversation with let's say you, discussing the merits of the Commando while I'm tinkering with one of mine in the mechlab (and some tinkering needs to be done).

How about a Black Market? Player sold mechs for player determined prices. These keep whatever customizations are done to them. You have a mech you don't want to use offer it up for Cbills for another player to purchase it. All of your tweaks or removal of the equipment included. This could allow a bit of gaming the system of selling super cheap to your friends, but lets just say each chassis has a base cost associated with that's the minimum value. No 1 C-bill exchanges. All of this would be done with C-bills to make it so there is some sort of market exchange going on for users that adds additional interaction.

Ontop of the black market, this is sort of a pie in the sky sort of wish, why can't I have a drop down selection of variants my friends have made and renamed. That way it'd parse out designs where the original chassis name hasn't changed. Like a design your buddy is using? Buy it for yourself for the Chassis and Upgrade costs straight through the store page. All the meta data is already there for the exact config cause it's saved and associated with their account and inventory.

I do agree that the public queue gamemodes and user base needs some sort of CW integration, I personally think the idea of "Raids" could be added that'd have an impact on the Invasion modes. Successful Raid = Gate(s) are down and/or turrets are destroyed upon invasion forces landing. It'd then play like Counter-Attack for Invasion giving the aggressive force less opposition overall through the environment to contend with. These games would be achieved through a "Raid" button similar to the play now within CW that'd select a planet where your forces are attacking and a raid would be automatically launched there. No individual planet selection in the process.

Raids would be defined as several things as well. Taking Apnu's suggestion from another thread.

• Tech Raid (Conquest) - Successful Raids (Approximately 10 consecutive ones) offer faction mech discount within the store for C-Bill mechs. Give this a timer of 1 Hour on success. It does not stack but can be reset.
  
• Sabotage Raid (Assault) - Destroys Gates and/or Turrets for a friendly attacking force on an Assault Map. If assault impacted is successful raiding force receives LP in the aftermath.
  
• Force Interception (Skirmish) - Prevents Assault on a defending world forcing the aggressive force into counter-attack immediately. If friendly unit is successful in counter-attack raiding force receives LP in the aftermath.

Dropping this here to centralize improvement ideas.

[xX PUG Xx]

A little nudge to keep this in the forum readers eye, there are alot of really good ideas in here. Lets keep it goin in the hope someone (Tina are you out there?) from PGI takes note and possibly finds some use for one of them.

We are the "community" in Community Warfare, let PGI know what we would like to see.

[operatorZ]

Bump

[xX PUG Xx]

Yet another revival for this thread, I keep seeing the same topics being brought up over and over. Many of them are in this thread and I feel many of the thoughts/ideas are great, even though the grandiose ones may never be completely implemented.

However some of the smaller, easily implemented ideas may improve the overall experience. It is upto us, the Community, to consolidate and discuss these in a constructive way if we have any desire for them to be taken seriously.

Not simply start ANOTHER thread moaning about something.

So please keep this alive.

[operatorZ]

Excellent ideas in this thread that cover a wide spectrum of the current real and perceived problems. 10/10 would read again.

[Gremlich Johns]

If PGI had decided to create a stand-alone game with single and multiplayer instead of going for the F2P model, you would be able to have what you want.

Unless PGI can figure out a way to monetize these ideas, we'll never see them in the light of day.

Edited by Gremlich Johns, 18 June 2015 - 02:20 PM.

[Cyborx]

Almond Brown, on 14 May 2015 - 04:28 AM, said:

Can anyone name a MP Online FPS that has this Depth you seek? I would try that MP Online FPS game. Does WoT have Depth?

Mechwarrior Living Legends had some depth:
big maps
diverse tactics for mechs of different speed and firepower
cappable buildings/points like : reammo bays , mechhangar(spawnpoints), sneaky paths

All i ever hoped for CW. I just wanted CW to be like MWLL with shiny graphics. MWO in General is the most shiny BT Version ever combined with worst gameplay experience ever.
PGI isn´t even able to reach the quality of a mod that was created by hobby developers.

Edited by Cyborx, 19 June 2015 - 02:44 AM.

[Kin3ticX]

Cyborx, on 19 June 2015 - 02:43 AM, said:

Mechwarrior Living Legends had some depth:
big maps
diverse tactics for mechs of different speed and firepower
cappable buildings/points like : reammo bays , mechhangar(spawnpoints), sneaky paths

All i ever hoped for CW. I just wanted CW to be like MWLL with shiny graphics. MWO in General is the most shiny BT Version ever combined with worst gameplay experience ever.
PGI isn´t even able to reach the quality of a mod that was created by hobby developers.

Big maps have their own problems. Walking a long time, more snipey + dropdeck system, fighting from the best spots every time rather than using different areas. It would also probably make short range builds non existent on such map. Even with the maps we have, intermediate to long range attrition makes brawling highly situational but not impossible.

Edited by Kin3ticX, 19 June 2015 - 03:15 AM.

[Black Ivan]

So many good ideas PGI could talk action from, but so little they actual did to make CW interesting.