Jump to content

More Fun For Less Effort


6 replies to this topic

#1 Paigan

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Blazing
  • The Blazing
  • 2,789 posts

Posted 29 April 2015 - 06:36 AM

I have posted a little idea many times in other threads but it has been barely noticed/commented.
So after reading this thread and neither wanting to spoil it with my stuff nor my idea to drown once again, I post it as a separate thread to get concrete feedback from other players.

Feel free to flame or dislike (or like, of course ;) ).


I feel the current "conquer ALL the cannons" principle of CW is MUCH to rigid and boring while requiring massive effort (specialized maps etc.) on PGI side.
I always imagined conquering planets more like this:

A simple series of single matches, all on normal X vs X maps with none or minimal special logic, with potentially other players for every match, consisting of:

1.) Scout a map as a landing zone for a drop ship
Really just a normal game with some simple objectives like touch some waypoints / conquer some bases or something.

2.) Defend the landed drop ship
Just a stationary Overlord Dropship sitting somewhere on the same map that has been successfully scouted, just having HP and weapons like a giant turret.

3.) Scout strategic targets
Like a factory, an orbital cannon, etc. Again with some simple objectives like we already have.

4.) Attack the target
Well, kill / defend the scouted target.

5.) MOAR
Maybe a variable repetition/mix of points 2 to 4.
Like the zones we have now in CW. To conquer a planet, the series would have to be completed by the attacker with a certain number of orbital cannons destroyed.
Maybe some planets would have a 10 missions series, others 15 or 20 or so.


That would feel like a real mini-campain of interconnected missions for each planet.
With different types of missions but still very low developing effort.

I'm still working on understanding why they didn't do something like that but chose to implement that rigid, over-specialied dota-style game mode.


Thoughts, flames? :-)

Edited by Paigan, 29 April 2015 - 06:42 AM.


#2 InspectorG

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Boombox
  • The Boombox
  • 4,469 posts
  • LocationCleveland, Ohio

Posted 29 April 2015 - 06:38 AM

Supposedly a 4v4 recon mode is coming to CW.

How soon™? Dunno.

#3 sycocys

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Moderate Giver
  • Moderate Giver
  • 7,635 posts

Posted 29 April 2015 - 06:40 AM

The current maps/mode would be fine if they were the final nodes and set up less like a tiny moba trail and more like a war game.

But otherwise that's pretty much what I expected CW to be, a pvp version of a MW campaign - all the assets are there to make it happen, just a lot of shortsightedness/ aimlessness from the devs.

--
At this point I am fully expecting 4v4 to take the same route as smaller matches. Will end up not happening because of server logistics. That it will chew up a lot more resources to have 3 4v4 running versus having 1 12v12 because of loading 2 additional maps and battle instances per match.

Personally I just see the plug getting pulled on it, converted to 12v12, or it being limited to only accessible at certain times (cease fire windows maybe).

Edited by sycocys, 29 April 2015 - 06:44 AM.


#4 _Comrade_

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 1,120 posts

Posted 29 April 2015 - 07:03 AM

Russ said in town hall meeting that a 4 v 4 more pug friendly scout missions are coming to CW and he did say something about defending a drop ship like objective but I think it's only an idea at this point. I'm hoping for tonnage restrictions on the 4v4 , no "Steiner scout lances" please (4 atlas ). He also mentioned something about the possibility of a Solaris map where it would be just 1v1. Solaris is the inner spheres version of gladiator games for those that don't know. It will be cool to see which MWO player can be Solaris champion and be able to hold on to and defend that title. They can even put a WWE like championship belt as a cockpit item if you ate champion LOL

4v4 will be great for zellbringen , we clanners can do one on one duels with IS and role play more, I an totally see an IS and clanners drop commander agreeing to zellbringen over general chat

Edited by Grimwill, 29 April 2015 - 07:23 AM.


#5 Logen Ninefingers

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • The Blade
  • The Blade
  • 127 posts
  • LocationHamburg

Posted 29 April 2015 - 07:27 AM

View Postsycocys, on 29 April 2015 - 06:40 AM, said:

At this point I am fully expecting 4v4 to take the same route as smaller matches. Will end up not happening because of server logistics. That it will chew up a lot more resources to have 3 4v4 running versus having 1 12v12 because of loading 2 additional maps and battle instances per match.

Personally I just see the plug getting pulled on it, converted to 12v12, or it being limited to only accessible at certain times (cease fire windows maybe).


I'm not a Dev but isn't it possible to share a map? 3x 4v4 on just one instance of a map with 16 invisible players?

#6 Paigan

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Blazing
  • The Blazing
  • 2,789 posts

Posted 29 April 2015 - 08:41 AM

View PostLogen Ninefingers, on 29 April 2015 - 07:27 AM, said:


I'm not a Dev but isn't it possible to share a map? 3x 4v4 on just one instance of a map with 16 invisible players?

I'm a developer, although not PGI of course.
The immutable parts (like terrain) could be shared, no problem.
The mutable parts (turret hitpoints and stuff) have to be instantiated. But we're talking few bytes to kilobytes of data here.
Every lousy PC could host thousands of matches simultaneously.

As usual in software stuff, the reason probably simply is that some moron was lazy when coding, took the simply way and lets the program copy EVERYTHING over and over again, consuming endless amounts of ram.

#7 SuomiWarder

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Raider
  • The Raider
  • 1,661 posts
  • LocationSacramento area, California

Posted 29 April 2015 - 09:34 PM

No one seems to have an answer for why PGI gave us the CW they did. I'm not sure that they know anymore. A rush to get something out there years past due might have been part of it.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users