151 replies to this topic

[Klappspaten]

I love the OP's ideas, its exactly what I would hope to get out of CW. I am going to post the link to this thread ******* everywhere.

[Mystere]

Firelizard, on 03 April 2015 - 10:40 AM, said:

Speaking of Alpine...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasnt Alpine supposed to be the prototype for CW maps? That being the reason why it is both so feggin massive, and asymetrical?

The base by Mt Murder supposed to be the defended objective, and the attackers were suppose to move over the hills or lowlands to attack.

Any idea why the change in attitude? Or am I just remembering wrong?

I do not know if Alpine Peaks was intended for use in CW. But, having said that ...

Mt. Murder is not the best place to put a CW base on. The best location I think is within the H11-I13 area. It's an uphill battle and would probably feel like assaulting Masada. That should be epic and would probably be totally in the defenders favor.

[CutterWolf]

Floated an idea like this during one of he town hall meetings but they edited my question down so much that it removed the whole idea other than, "we need a skirmish mode."

Like the OP I wanted to get PGI something simple to implement and something that would be fun for the player base. The idea was this:

Each planet is broken up into zones, (Landing zone/Beach head, Recon/Search & Destroy, Breakthrough, and Capital)

Landing zone/Beach head/ Map: random non-CW map, Mode: skirmish, Objective: attacking team must kill all enemy mechs or have more Mechs alive at end of time period to win to win. Tonnage: 240 max.

Recon/Search & Destroy/ Map: CW maps, Mode: current CW "hold territory game mode", Objective: "same as it is in that game mode". Tonnage: 190 max. **note, tonnage limit is designed to force the use of light & med mechs.**

Breakthrough/ Map: CW maps. Mode: current CW "attack/defend mode". Objective: "same as it is in that game mode". Tonnage: 265 max. **note, tonnage limit is designed to enable players to bring in heavier mechs since this would be major battle at this point.**

Capital/ Map: "new" CW maps of dense cities. Mode: Similar to the current CW game mode "attack/defend" but with more objectives to destroy. Objective: "same as the current attack/defend mode but with more objectives and turrets to destroy". Tonnage: 285 max. **note, tonnage limit is designed to enable players to bring in assault class mechs since this would be major battle for the planet.**

Just a simple way to add some more flavor to CW.

[Mystere]

CutterWolf, on 04 April 2015 - 11:06 AM, said:

Floated an idea like this during one of he town hall meetings but they edited my question down so much that it removed the whole idea other than, "we need a skirmish mode."

Like the OP I wanted to get PGI something simple to implement and something that would be fun for the player base. The idea was this:

Each planet is broken up into zones, (Landing zone/Beach head, Recon/Search & Destroy, Breakthrough, and Capital)

Landing zone/Beach head/ Map: random non-CW map, Mode: skirmish, Objective: attacking team must kill all enemy mechs or have more Mechs alive at end of time period to win to win. Tonnage: 240 max.

Recon/Search & Destroy/ Map: CW maps, Mode: current CW "hold territory game mode", Objective: "same as it is in that game mode". Tonnage: 190 max. **note, tonnage limit is designed to force the use of light & med mechs.**

Breakthrough/ Map: CW maps. Mode: current CW "attack/defend mode". Objective: "same as it is in that game mode". Tonnage: 265 max. **note, tonnage limit is designed to enable players to bring in heavier mechs since this would be major battle at this point.**

Capital/ Map: "new" CW maps of dense cities. Mode: Similar to the current CW game mode "attack/defend" but with more objectives to destroy. Objective: "same as the current attack/defend mode but with more objectives and turrets to destroy". Tonnage: 285 max. **note, tonnage limit is designed to enable players to bring in assault class mechs since this would be major battle for the planet.**

Just a simple way to add some more flavor to CW.

We actually have a very similar idea. The main difference is that the use of directed graphs allows for the creation of strategic choke points. Smaller factions (or those with large invasion ambitions ) can decide to concentrate on said choke points while defending their planets.

[xe N on]

This thread speaks from my soul.

I had similar expectations on CW. The above mentioned "staged conquest" is exactly what I had in mind as CW was announced.

In addition there should be goals that actually not directly are necessary for a win but give strategic options. Like capture or destroy a radar station, destroy a bridge to cut supplies, set a large scale fire to cause smoke hinder the sight and so on.

Edited by xe N on, 04 April 2015 - 02:28 PM.

[The Massive]

We all do.

[nitra]

Mystere, on 02 April 2015 - 09:01 AM, said:

(by collecting some of my thoughts in one place ... and so I apologize in advance to all those who have seen these before )


GREAT IDEAS

This is a great concept need to tweet this to russ with a make it so meme.

Edited by nitra, 04 April 2015 - 09:01 PM.

[YCSLiesmith]

Molossian Dog, on 02 April 2015 - 03:13 PM, said:

All being said and done, I blame customer behaviour.

kind of hard to call anything built in the 13th century 'mediocre' if it's still standing today

[Molossian Dog]

YCSLiesmith, on 05 April 2015 - 05:17 AM, said:

kind of hard to call anything built in the 13th century 'mediocre' if it's still standing today

Wonderful derailment for the sake of argument. But no worries, I am gonna play.
The Torre pendente di Pisa began to incline 12 years after construction started.

At least wiki it. Emphasis is my own:
"The tower began to sink after construction had progressed to the second floor in 1178. This was due to a mere three-metre foundation, set in weak, unstable subsoil, a design that was flawed from the beginning. Construction was subsequently halted for almost a century, because the Republic of Pisa was almost continually engaged in battles with Genoa, Lucca, and Florence. This allowed time for the underlying soil to settle. Otherwise, the tower would almost certainly have toppled.^{[citation needed]} In 1198 clocks were temporarily installed on the third floor of the unfinished construction."

That it still stands is a testament to the work of dozens of planners after Bonanno Pisano. (Some controversy exists if it wasn´t Diotsalvi, but let´s leave that discussion for another day) Hence the reference.

I am glad we talked this out like adults instead of resorting to hairsplitting.

Edited by Molossian Dog, 05 April 2015 - 05:40 AM.

[Jakob Knight]

Back in the MUD/MUX days, we had something similar. The teams would compete to capture bases, resource points, and various objectives over the course of many months on a single planet. To capture one point, it was almost a necessity to capture points before it or risk being cut off from support. The sides were smaller, however, with a maximum of about 4 teams fighting at any one time, and the battlespace was persistent, which meant any mechs or other forces that wanted to contest or support a battle at a point had to spend the real time it took to travel there and back. It was a wonderful setup that really highlighted the advantages and disadvantages of the various models of combat units and made fighting worthwhile as well as challenging.

However, I doubt the playerbase in MWO has the stomach for such complexity or immersion. Look at the numbers of complaints people shoot out onto the Forums for the amount of work they have to do now with the simplistic mode we have, and imagine what people would add to that if the fighting situation were even more complex. Some of us would welcome it, but I despair that many would.

So, we end up with what we have. A game mode that is challenging for teams, but clearly intended to force engagement as quickly and predictably as possible without completely crushing innovation within those limits, so those with less interest in immersion and thinking about their fighting aren't so pushed beyond their comfort zone that they avoid it entirely. It's a shame, but that's the reality of making a video game instead of a virtual world.

Edited by Jakob Knight, 05 April 2015 - 07:22 AM.

[YCSLiesmith]

Molossian Dog, on 05 April 2015 - 05:38 AM, said:

Wonderful derailment for the sake of argument. But no worries, I am gonna play.
The Torre pendente di Pisa began to incline 12 years after construction started.

At least wiki it. Emphasis is my own:
"The tower began to sink after construction had progressed to the second floor in 1178. This was due to a mere three-metre foundation, set in weak, unstable subsoil, a design that was flawed from the beginning. Construction was subsequently halted for almost a century, because the Republic of Pisa was almost continually engaged in battles with Genoa, Lucca, and Florence. This allowed time for the underlying soil to settle. Otherwise, the tower would almost certainly have toppled.^{[citation needed]} In 1198 clocks were temporarily installed on the third floor of the unfinished construction."

That it still stands is a testament to the work of dozens of planners after Bonanno Pisano. (Some controversy exists if it wasn´t Diotsalvi, but let´s leave that discussion for another day) Hence the reference.

I am glad we talked this out like adults instead of resorting to hairsplitting.

flawed certainly but mediocrity is not about flaws, it is about a generalized low quality, a going with the herd that the leaning tower does not exemplify. its tilt was not mediocre, but catastrophic. its survival to the present day is admirable. its construction is both deeply flawed and magnificent. it manages to miss being mediocre by every standard.

[Telmasa]

YCSLiesmith, on 05 April 2015 - 01:00 PM, said:

flawed certainly but mediocrity is not about flaws, it is about a generalized low quality, a going with the herd that the leaning tower does not exemplify. its tilt was not mediocre, but catastrophic. its survival to the present day is admirable. its construction is both deeply flawed and magnificent. it manages to miss being mediocre by every standard.

ROFL
A point goes sailing miles over your head, a guy bothers to explain it to you, and writes in the last part of his post: "I am glad we talked this out like adults instead of resorting to hairsplitting."

What do you proceed to do?

Split hairs, for no purpose other than to try to salvage some kind of appearance that you have a brain.

Oh, bravo, well played indeeeeed.

[YCSLiesmith]

Telmasa, on 05 April 2015 - 01:05 PM, said:

ROFL
A point goes sailing miles over your head, a guy bothers to explain it to you, and writes in the last part of his post: "I am glad we talked this out like adults instead of resorting to hairsplitting."

What do you proceed to do?

Split hairs, for no purpose other than to try to salvage some kind of appearance that you have a brain.

Oh, bravo, well played indeeeeed.

uuuuh you're a moron? the point didn't go over my head, but mediocrity does not mean ******* up. in fact mediocrity and ******* up are mutually exclusive, since mediocrity is by its very nature good enough and does not stand out either in excellence or failure. He then explained his point but since he remained entirely wrong about what the word mediocrity means, it didn't actually signify.

[Molossian Dog]

Bonanno Pisano was a mediocre architect. At best.
That the tower stands at all and has since back then was not his achievement.

That is what the picture tells you. That is the joke. If you don´t refuse to understand.
That is actually the end of this amusing little semantical digression for me.

If you want to concentrate on if and how the tower could be mediocre as well that is your choice. gg close

Edited by Molossian Dog, 05 April 2015 - 03:25 PM.

[YCSLiesmith]

bonanno pisano was a man who built a tower that immediately started to fall down, which is not mediocrity. mediocrity is an ugly tower that doesn't stand out at al.

[Molossian Dog]

He only built the first two stories, but whatevs, dude.

[Telmasa]

all I can say is that YCSLiesSmith is living up to the canon reputation of Kurita mercs

[Mystere]

Telmasa, on 05 April 2015 - 01:05 PM, said:

YCSLiesmith, on 05 April 2015 - 02:10 PM, said:

Gentlemen, behave! This is not that "other" thread. So please take your bickering there. I might even join you.

[Defensores 6]

This thread topic saddens me. We all wanted Community Warfare as promised. A real game with objectives, goals, and strategies. What we've gotten is a worthless map and another way to troll for c-bills and loyalty points (whatever that is).

I hope it changes for the better soon.

[AztecD]

OP has an excellent idea, please PGI listen to the man