78 replies to this topic

[Rebas Kradd]

AWOL 01, on 16 June 2016 - 03:30 AM, said:

Not at all! This is a fantastic idea and more people need to see it.

A few ideas:
1) Have the defenders spawn inside of hangars towards the back of the base. Each lance would have their own hangar, and if destroyed, those players lose their mechs, so it's critical to defend these (See MW4 intro). Could be partially defended by turrets. Maybe dropships could be destoyed too, making it take longer to deploy the attackers?

2) Have the attackers spawn the first wave from an Overlord with a small outpost, and have the other LZs be outposts with some walls and turret(s) that is defensible but not too fortified. After these are captured, have artillery/MFB/repair truck deploy from the Overlord and move to one of the LZs.

3) To keep people from abusing the MFB, limit it to one refit per mech, or have a time limit between repairs. If you try to go back within that time limit some gruff guy says, "Hey, weren't you already here? Get back in the fight!" #immersion

4) Have other voice-overs for when a lance is taking too long to capture the LZs, when an LZ is being attacked, when incentives are deployed... Make the players feel like they're accomplishing something and guide them into the best strategy, rather than forcing them to play the game a certain way. *cough* choke points *cough*

These are great immersion touches!

The only hesitation I have is destructible hangars. Depriving the enemy of a third of their force in one fell swoop (destroying the hangar) would be such a powerful objective that it would motivate the attackers to go for that instead of the base. At the very least, that hangar would need to be heavily protected.

[AWOL 01]

Rebas Kradd, on 16 June 2016 - 06:58 AM, said:

These are great immersion touches!

The only hesitation I have is destructible hangars. Depriving the enemy of a third of their force in one fell swoop (destroying the hangar) would be such a powerful objective that it would motivate the attackers to go for that instead of the base. At the very least, that hangar would need to be heavily protected.

Thanks!

There could even be a road/path from each dropship to the 2 outposts and then to the base which the vehicles drive down. Artillery and repair/refit trucks would stop at the outposts, but tanks could easily be added by having them follow the road and stop when they engage an enemy until they reach the main enemy base and help destroy whatever the main objective is. Just use the basic AI from the testing grounds.

Then make it so that the refit truck deploys to the first LZ, the artillery deploys to the second LZ, and the tanks only assault the base if that lance has broken through the sensor net in their sector, so there's progressive rewards for each lance. If one lance is doing poorly you miss out on 1/3 of your artillery fire/tanks/etc, but if the defenders sit in the base you can easily rack up incentives and take the base is easy.

Maybe have enemy patrols on these roads also, so the lights could choose to ignore these and take the LZs, leaving them to possiblyly be a thorn in their side later on, or they could take them out right away, delaying the LZ's capture and possibly costing them a mech. Just something to help balance the attackers' incentives and the defenders' defenses.

I thought having destructible hangars might promote that being the main objective, which is why I suggested having them towards the back of the enemy base, making you go through all their defenses and separating you from your team. However, since the game engine has a hard time with destructible environments, they could just make the mechs inside the hangars destructible. Maybe separate them into 3 groups of 4 hangars - one for each player. It could also be dangerous because you could have one of these mechs power up behind you while you're focused on one of the other "easy targets." (Imagine firing on a powered-down Awesome and *surprise!* Atlas destroys your rear armor and cores you out.)

Edited by AWOL 01, 16 June 2016 - 08:39 AM.

[Rebas Kradd]

AWOL 01, on 16 June 2016 - 08:34 AM, said:

Thanks!

There could even be a road/path from each dropship to the 2 outposts and then to the base which the vehicles drive down. Artillery and repair/refit trucks would stop at the outposts, but tanks could easily be added by having them follow the road and stop when they engage an enemy until they reach the main enemy base and help destroy whatever the main objective is. Just use the basic AI from the testing grounds.

Then make it so that the refit truck deploys to the first LZ, the artillery deploys to the second LZ, and the tanks only assault the base if that lance has broken through the sensor net in their sector, so there's progressive rewards for each lance. If one lance is doing poorly you miss out on 1/3 of your artillery fire/tanks/etc, but if the defenders sit in the base you can easily rack up incentives and take the base is easy.

Maybe have enemy patrols on these roads also, so the lights could choose to ignore these and take the LZs, leaving them to possiblyly be a thorn in their side later on, or they could take them out right away, delaying the LZ's capture and possibly costing them a mech. Just something to help balance the attackers' incentives and the defenders' defenses.

I thought having destructible hangars might promote that being the main objective, which is why I suggested having them towards the back of the enemy base, making you go through all their defenses and separating you from your team. However, since the game engine has a hard time with destructible environments, they could just make the mechs inside the hangars destructible. Maybe separate them into 3 groups of 4 hangars - one for each player. It could also be dangerous because you could have one of these mechs power up behind you while you're focused on one of the other "easy targets." (Imagine firing on a powered-down Awesome and *surprise!* Atlas destroys your rear armor and cores you out.)

As long as it's nice and difficult to do, I wouldn't mind, because at least there would be three separate hangars that all need attention. Would break up the murderblob.

[AWOL 01]

So I played a few FP matches recently and it's fun, but... not THAT fun. I'd still rather play 5 QP matches in the time it takes to finish 1 FP game. And at least when I'm playing a losing QP match I know I'll be in another match in 2 minutes, instead of getting spanked for a half hour in FP matches which are nigh impossible to turn around. So I thought, "I wish there was some way to make CW more fun... Maybe if the maps were bigger and deathballing was discouraged. Maybe if there were progressive objectives that made the game have more depth. Maybe if someone proposed a cool new idea for a CW game mode." And then I remembered this thread and thought, "Hey! That's a great idea! Why isn't this a thing yet?"

TL;DR: Bump

[Kynesis]

You'd probably be looking at fairly lengthy game times - which is not necessarily a bad thing in itself but it's an important consideration.

[Rebas Kradd]

Kynesis, on 27 July 2016 - 10:25 PM, said:

You'd probably be looking at fairly lengthy game times - which is not necessarily a bad thing in itself but it's an important consideration.

No longer than the current Invasion mode. Would probably involve less waiting around and more scattered action, too, so hopefully it wouldn't feel as long.

[Brody]

I'll jump into this.

First, awesome video! Well done.

Second, what's to keep this from turning into something like alpine or grim plexus where there's all this space, that no one uses? They just run to THE hill(s) of choice and fight from there.

Edit: also, what's wrong with "deathball" ? If you have 12 players available, why fight with less? I'm totally on board with your point (or what I think your point is) that maps revolving around the same 2 or 3 gate dynamic is a bit redundant. But it seems like you're kind of against coordination as well. I don't think coordination is something to discourage, and in a situation like you've proposed I don't think the desired effect will occur. I mean, I think organized , coordinated teams will crush disorganized or uncoordinated ones even harder. I think light rushes would be even more deadly as to the speed at which they can group and their ability to catch slower 'mechs "in the open" or unsupported with greater ease.

I like the discussion, and I'd like to see it bear fruit but it still needs to be discussed. And even after we've all agreed "let's do this" ,, doesn't mean pgi will actually agree with us. We need to consider the amount of work / time they need to put into doing this vs their actual monetary increase by it.

If it doesn't pay them more than the phoenix hawk, it's not going to happen.

Edited by Brody, 28 July 2016 - 10:15 AM.

[AWOL 01]

Brody, on 28 July 2016 - 10:05 AM, said:

I'll jump into this.

First, awesome video! Well done.

Second, what's to keep this from turning into something like alpine or grim plexus where there's all this space, that no one uses? They just run to THE hill(s) of choice and fight from there.

Edit: also, what's wrong with "deathball" ? If you have 12 players available, why fight with less? I'm totally on board with your point (or what I think your point is) that maps revolving around the same 2 or 3 gate dynamic is a bit redundant. But it seems like you're kind of against coordination as well. I don't think coordination is something to discourage, and in a situation like you've proposed I don't think the desired effect will occur. I mean, I think organized , coordinated teams will crush disorganized or uncoordinated ones even harder. I think light rushes would be even more deadly as to the speed at which they can group and their ability to catch slower 'mechs "in the open" or unsupported with greater ease.

I like the discussion, and I'd like to see it bear fruit but it still needs to be discussed. And even after we've all agreed "let's do this" ,, doesn't mean pgi will actually agree with us. We need to consider the amount of work / time they need to put into doing this vs their actual monetary increase by it.

If it doesn't pay them more than the phoenix hawk, it's not going to happen.

From the video, it looks like there are "waypoints" that the team advances through, and these provide incentives, so there's reasons to search the map and find these. They could be in semi-random positions like the data points in Scouting too so that even if you drop on the same map twice the waypoints could be in any of 3 (for example) places.

Deathballing is only a problem now because 12 mechs can focus on one and destroy it in seconds. By splitting it up TTK could increase and allow for longer, more intense battles. It also encourages coordination between 3 lances instead of just marching 12 mechs into the base and calling targets to focus. You'd have to make sure each lance has done their part and all attack simultaneously at different gates. And I think he addresses light rushes. You have to use assaults I destroy the base because of the defenses, but the lights can capture waypoints that allow for support (artillery, MFB, etc.).

I agree that it needs more discussion, but it needs to be seen by more people so it gets discussed tonight. And it seems like many of the assets needed for this idea are already in-game, so it could hopefully be implemented (relatively) soon-ish. And if more people actually like the gamemode the game will do better and PGI will profit from new player purchases/old players who refuse to spend more until the game is "fun."

[Brody]

AWOL 01, on 28 July 2016 - 01:17 PM, said:

From the video, it looks like there are "waypoints" that the team advances through, and these provide incentives, so there's reasons to search the map and find these.

Why do you need to find waypoints when you can group up and kill the enemy, then find the waypoints?

AWOL 01, on 28 July 2016 - 01:17 PM, said:

Deathballing is only a problem now because 12 mechs can focus on one and destroy it in seconds.

Why is that a problem? / Who is this a problem for?

AWOL 01, on 28 July 2016 - 01:17 PM, said:

By splitting it up TTK could increase and allow for longer, more intense battles.

How do you split up 12 people who don't want to be split? Hasn't Scouting mode proven that 4v4 battles are shorter and less "intense"?

AWOL 01, on 28 July 2016 - 01:17 PM, said:

It also encourages coordination between 3 lances instead of just marching 12 mechs into the base and calling targets to focus. You'd have to make sure each lance has done their part and all attack simultaneously at different gates.

If the attackers can't march into the base as 12 'mechs, what prevents the defenders from mopping them up with 12 'mechs? How do you make sure the defenders have done their part when defenders only need to "defend"?

AWOL 01, on 28 July 2016 - 01:17 PM, said:

And I think he addresses light rushes. You have to use assaults I destroy the base because of the defenses, but the lights can capture waypoints that allow for support (artillery, MFB, etc.).

If you are attacking while my team is defending under this particular scenario you have given me:
We're going to group up 12 light/medium 'mechs that all move over 110kph first wave.
We're going to deathball out of the base (jumpjets if need be).
We're going to hunt down your assaults and murder them while they're separated.
We're going to either take one of your spawns and camp it for perma-dead or hunt down your lights at our leisure knowing that they can't attack without assaults.

Basically until you group up all 12 of your team to destroy us, we're just going to whittle you down until your weight is too low to effectively defeat us. And because you're so slow/spread out/focused on map obj we won't have a problem doing this.

See, my point is that bigger, more dynamic, maps would be a good idea and a hell of a lot of fun. But trying to put people into a game and tell them that grouping up isn't in their favor, when everyone knows grouping up increases armor, firepower, and survive-ability, is never going to work. The only thing that prevents grouping up is Long Tom. And it does this by killing someone every two minutes. I think we can all agree that isn't the dynamic we're looking for.

You do NOT, should NOT, and can NOT discourage people from playing a team game as a team (close, coordinated, focused, ie "deathball") no matter if it's only 4 players on a team, twelve players, or forty players; without discouraging them from playing that game.

Edited by Brody, 29 July 2016 - 03:28 AM.

[Spleenslitta]

I haven't kept myself up to date with this thread but i'm certain of one thing....It's a disgrace that Rebas's ideas has not received any attention from the developers.
PGI's lack of interrest in his ideas downright disgracefull.

Edited by Spleenslitta, 29 July 2016 - 08:33 AM.

[AWOL 01]

Brody, on 29 July 2016 - 03:13 AM, said:

Why do you need to find waypoints when you can group up and kill the enemy, then find the waypoints?



Why is that a problem? / Who is this a problem for?



How do you split up 12 people who don't want to be split? Hasn't Scouting mode proven that 4v4 battles are shorter and less "intense"?



If the attackers can't march into the base as 12 'mechs, what prevents the defenders from mopping them up with 12 'mechs? How do you make sure the defenders have done their part when defenders only need to "defend"?



If you are attacking while my team is defending under this particular scenario you have given me:
We're going to group up 12 light/medium 'mechs that all move over 110kph first wave.
We're going to deathball out of the base (jumpjets if need be).
We're going to hunt down your assaults and murder them while they're separated.
We're going to either take one of your spawns and camp it for perma-dead or hunt down your lights at our leisure knowing that they can't attack without assaults.

Basically until you group up all 12 of your team to destroy us, we're just going to whittle you down until your weight is too low to effectively defeat us. And because you're so slow/spread out/focused on map obj we won't have a problem doing this.

See, my point is that bigger, more dynamic, maps would be a good idea and a hell of a lot of fun. But trying to put people into a game and tell them that grouping up isn't in their favor, when everyone knows grouping up increases armor, firepower, and survive-ability, is never going to work. The only thing that prevents grouping up is Long Tom. And it does this by killing someone every two minutes. I think we can all agree that isn't the dynamic we're looking for.

You do NOT, should NOT, and can NOT discourage people from playing a team game as a team (close, coordinated, focused, ie "deathball") no matter if it's only 4 players on a team, twelve players, or forty players; without discouraging them from playing that game.

I'm on mobile so I'm going to try to keep my responses simple.

1. The enemy team is safe in their base until the turrets, sensor net, gate generators, etc. are destroyed. The idea is to make the base very difficult to take without the support from capturing the LZ waypoints.

2. This is a problem especially for newer players. No one wants to get insta-killed for making a mistake, which is very common when you're early in your piloting career. If you decrease the probability of new players being decimated, we might have a better retention rate of new players. Overall, it's just a matter of making the game more fun instead of punishing.

3. The reason for splitting up would be to advance your lance's LZ closer to the base. Of you all group up, it'll take MUCH longer to advance all the LZs to the last one, and while you're doing that the enemy could be retaking the ones you already captured. If you split up you can cover more ground.
Also, I would say that 4v4 Scouting matches are more intense than 12v12, but the length depends on how the sides are balanced. Streakcrows take out lights fast, but if the Streakcrows go up against other mediums it's a much tougher fight.

4. The defenders would need to defend by making sure the attackers don't capture all the LZs and gain the support needed to capture the base. They can't just wait for the attackers to come to them because the attackers will gain artillery, MFBs, etc.

5. Like Rebas says in the video, the attacker's first drop will also be lights so that they can capture the LZs that are closer to the base so the assaults don't have as far to walk. If the defenders drop in lights it would be lights vs lights, and if the 12 defenders are grouped up, the other lances of attackers can group up and wait by the LZ turrets for extra firepower. The lance that got killed will respawn and could take the base while all the defenders are away.

I agree that team play is important, but like many people have said on the forums, 8v8 was much more fun than 12v12. In this gamemode, you could still coordinate with your team (like I said it would be even more important) to capture the LZs, and in the end when the enemy defenses can be defeated, you can all drop in your assaults and make a push on the enemy base to finish it off. It would be important to have a leader to coordinate 3 lances attacking different spots to make sure the objectives are completed.

I understand your concern, but in my opinion this would drastically improve player experience in FP. I could definitely be wrong, but there's really no way for us to test it at the moment sadly.

[Rebas Kradd]

Quote

Why is that a problem? / Who is this a problem for?

Deathballing has caused a number of problems that many people are concerned about. It makes TTK artificially low and single mistakes highly punishing; it causes most of the map to go unused; it buries roles, such as assaults getting to be damage tanks or lights getting to be, well, anything, because EVERYONE dies in ten seconds against a deathball; and most of all, it makes gameplay extremely repetitive.

Quote

How do you split up 12 people who don't want to be split? Hasn't Scouting mode proven that 4v4 battles are shorter and less "intense"?

Yeah, for lights and mediums. For heavies and assaults, smaller battles would be longer, and players might get to actually savor the MechWarrior hallmarks of analyzing targets, aiming for crucial components, and learning to fight with one arm hanging off and most weapons gone. None of that is present in the game right now. It's all a blur because of deathballs.

Quote

Basically until you group up all 12 of your team to destroy us, we're just going to whittle you down until your weight is too low to effectively defeat us. And because you're so slow/spread out/focused on map obj we won't have a problem doing this.

You might once my attacking lights slip past your defending lights and pound your undefended base defenses with the extra artillery we picked up from those objectives. We might lose the first wave, but later waves will find your target niiiice and softened.

And we will slip past, because the thing you're forgetting is map size. I'm suggesting maps large enough, and occluded by terrain enough, to where you cannot find mechs with just your eyes. Scouting and information warfare would be necessary in such a situation. They aren't right now.

Operating in separate lances can still be teamwork. The lances still have to coordinate, report enemy movements, request reinforcements, wait for "blitz" orders ("the defenders have left their base! Rush the base!").

Please understand...I'm not actually trying to eliminate deathballing. I'm trying to make it just one of many options. You want to try deathballing and ignore the objectives, go ahead - there are advantages (more firepower now, easier coordination, simpler for newbies to follow) and disadvantages (less firepower later, further walk for assaults, repetitive gameplay, maybe less money for grabbing those cap points). Under my idea, there are options. Right now, there's exactly one strategy. That's why MWO really sucks for me. Deathballing made sense in QP, but a lot of people want something new.

I'll stop there, as AWOL 01 did a nice job above. I do appreciate the feedback, Brody - I'm always looking to refine this idea, so I welcome people poking holes in it.

Edited by Rebas Kradd, 29 July 2016 - 08:47 PM.

[Rebas Kradd]

Spleenslitta, on 29 July 2016 - 08:33 AM, said:

I haven't kept myself up to date with this thread but i'm certain of one thing....It's a disgrace that Rebas's ideas has not received any attention from the developers.
PGI's lack of interrest in his ideas downright disgracefull.

Actually folks within PGI are aware of it. I'm not the first person to propose it, just the first person to really campaign for it.

Just because they don't make a forum post in response doesn't mean they aren't aware of your idea. If they were going to personally reply to every idea they've taken notice of, it would be a full time job.

Edited by Rebas Kradd, 29 July 2016 - 09:12 PM.

[Brody]

I like the idea of bigger and more dynamic maps.

But let me try to be clear on this next point. If you succeed in convincing PGI to implement game/map dynamics that punish or effectively dissuade organized team play you will destroy the game.

Edit: This post has two different points being expressed: 1) New dynamics for team play. 2) Current team play is bad because it allows players to group up and kill quickly.

The second idea is toxic. Players grouping up and killing quickly is the point of this game. Regardless of map objectives, the way activision made their games, lore, the table top, or any other argument; the point of this game is to take two groups of big stompy robots and make them fight on a battlefield. Grouping up and killing quickly is successful game play by every definition of every mode this game has ever taken.

If pilots aren't killed quickly for making mistakes on the battlefield, then it's not a battlefield. If pilots can't learn to avoid making mistakes, then we don't want them on our teams. This isn't a single player campaign with three artificial difficulty modifiers to choose from.

Learn, Lose, or Leave.

Edited by Brody, 30 July 2016 - 10:24 PM.

[XCOM Engineer 3051]

I love Rebas Kradd's video! His video was fantastic! Great work Rebas, and thank you for sharing it, and all other Mechwarriors who have brought these ideas to the table.

I believe this is what FW needs! I am in full support!

[Rebas Kradd]

Brody, on 30 July 2016 - 10:10 PM, said:

I like the idea of bigger and more dynamic maps.

But let me try to be clear on this next point. If you succeed in convincing PGI to implement game/map dynamics that punish or effectively dissuade organized team play you will destroy the game.

Edit: This post has two different points being expressed: 1) New dynamics for team play. 2) Current team play is bad because it allows players to group up and kill quickly.

The second idea is toxic. Players grouping up and killing quickly is the point of this game. Regardless of map objectives, the way activision made their games, lore, the table top, or any other argument; the point of this game is to take two groups of big stompy robots and make them fight on a battlefield. Grouping up and killing quickly is successful game play by every definition of every mode this game has ever taken.

If pilots aren't killed quickly for making mistakes on the battlefield, then it's not a battlefield. If pilots can't learn to avoid making mistakes, then we don't want them on our teams. This isn't a single player campaign with three artificial difficulty modifiers to choose from.

Learn, Lose, or Leave.

I will have to disagree with your stance, on four separate points:

1) This proposed gamemode doesn't eliminate deathballing. It simply makes deathballing one of two viable options, with its own advantages and disadvantages. That makes the most people happy.

2) Deathballing will still be the best strategy in other gamemodes, like Invasion and Skirmish.

3) Deathballing is not the only way to have teamwork. In this "Dropfront" mode, the individual lances would still need to coordinate and share information. In fact, it would be absolutely crucial to their success. And eventually, I envision, there would be a point at which the lances would need to re-combine for the final assault on the base.

4) Loads of players dislike deathballing. They recognize the problems it creates (repetitive gameplay, artificially low TTK, burying role and information warfare, maps going unused, possibly extra performance load) and want something else. These are problems that weren't necessarily present in previous games, for a variety of reasons (such as smaller teams). This "Dropfront" gamemode would give PGI a way to sneak in the game dynamics they originally promised (the four pillars). I would also say that while skill should be a part of every game, there is a point at which mistakes are TOO punishing, and MWO has fallen into that. It makes the learning curve very difficult for new players - a notoriously long-lasting complaint for this game.

I do appreciate your feedback, and I appreciate that you as an individual enjoy deathballing. But I think you should recognize that as your individual preference and not gospel, and debate as such.

Edited by Rebas Kradd, 31 July 2016 - 12:18 PM.

[Brody]

Rebas Kradd, on 31 July 2016 - 11:05 AM, said:

I will have to disagree with your stance, on four separate points:

1) This proposed gamemode doesn't eliminate deathballing. It simply makes deathballing one of two viable options, with its own advantages and disadvantages. That makes the most people happy.

2) Deathballing will still be the best strategy in other gamemodes, like Invasion and Skirmish.

3) Deathballing is not the only way to have teamwork. In this "Dropfront" mode, the individual lances would still need to coordinate and share information. In fact, it would be absolutely crucial to their success. And eventually, I envision, there would be a point at which the lances would need to re-combine for the final assault on the base.

4) Loads of players dislike deathballing. They recognize the problems it creates (repetitive gameplay, artificially low TTK, burying role and information warfare, maps going unused, possibly extra performance load) and want something else. These are problems that weren't necessarily present in previous games, for a variety of reasons (such as smaller teams). This "Dropfront" gamemode would give PGI a way to sneak in the game dynamics they originally promised (the four pillars). I would also say that while skill should be a part of every game, there is a point at which mistakes are TOO punishing, and MWO has fallen into that. It makes the learning curve very difficult for new players - a notoriously long-lasting complaint for this game.

I do appreciate your feedback, and I appreciate that you as an individual enjoy deathballing. But I think you should recognize that as your individual preference and not gospel, and debate as such.

I would like to reduce your quote but I am tired and lazy. Sufficient to say that this is the quote I'm responding to.

Deathballing is not the thing I'm defending. Perhaps the learning curve is, perhaps it's the TTK. I don't think giving players a reason to separate further from each other, or giving teams that don't have designated or agreed upon leadership additional things to argue over will improve anyone's game play or learning.

I didn't think you were the one who was pushing the idea of splitting up the team into smaller groups that are unable to support each other with anything but words. I thought that was something people were reading into your idea. But if that is your goal. I would encourage you to really think about how impotent words are to many of the people who choose to play video games in general. How rare it is to find a team of players who actually listen and perform deathballs even when they are "simpler for newbies to follow". You argue the learning curve is to high, but then say you want to make a game mode where team coordination depends upon timing and coordination that already doesn't exist. The problem that creates the deathball and the artificially low TTK is that PEOPLE DON'T LISTEN TO EACH OTHER. Not that the map encourages it.

It's not my personal favorite thing. My personal favorite thing is battle drill 1A. google it. But even that requires more teamwork, practice and leadership than I am able to muster within my own unit.

More dynamics. New maps / modes, bigger maps (even though less of them will be used, 12 people can only take up so much space) Great. Convoluted teamwork / objectives, reasons to for players to argue (go here, no go there, i'm capping nub it's important, but we need your help in the fight, don't fight nub) and map control over player control (long tom) are not good things in any game.

Players should control the map, the map should not control players.

Edit: I don't like to add new ideas to a person's post, but I think one of the things that would help you achieve what you want "deathball"-wise is something I would like to see. More players in a game. As it stands right now all game modes revolve around 24 or less players, even in lobbies.

A team of 12 players is something in military science that would be considered a "squad" sized element. Squads can be broken down into teams (lances) that have specific jobs or roles that help the squad but usually the squad itself operates together in a combat setting. Rarely is the squad separated from itself.

If you increase the number of players on a team to 24, 32, 40 or 48 you have what is then is a collection of squads, most armies call this a platoon. Platoons separate for their mission all the time. One squad pulls security. Another squad does reconnaissance. The third and forth squads set up as the main force.

This would solve your deathball problem (imagine 32 mechs trying to squeeze through alpha gate on sulfurous), keep teamwork a priority, and require larger maps / more complex objectives. It wouldn't help your TTK though.

Edited by Brody, 01 August 2016 - 12:07 AM.

[Rebas Kradd]

Brody, on 31 July 2016 - 11:08 PM, said:

I would like to reduce your quote but I am tired and lazy. Sufficient to say that this is the quote I'm responding to.

Deathballing is not the thing I'm defending. Perhaps the learning curve is, perhaps it's the TTK. I don't think giving players a reason to separate further from each other, or giving teams that don't have designated or agreed upon leadership additional things to argue over will improve anyone's game play or learning.

I didn't think you were the one who was pushing the idea of splitting up the team into smaller groups that are unable to support each other with anything but words. I thought that was something people were reading into your idea. But if that is your goal. I would encourage you to really think about how impotent words are to many of the people who choose to play video games in general. How rare it is to find a team of players who actually listen and perform deathballs even when they are "simpler for newbies to follow". You argue the learning curve is to high, but then say you want to make a game mode where team coordination depends upon timing and coordination that already doesn't exist. The problem that creates the deathball and the artificially low TTK is that PEOPLE DON'T LISTEN TO EACH OTHER. Not that the map encourages it.

It's not my personal favorite thing. My personal favorite thing is battle drill 1A. google it. But even that requires more teamwork, practice and leadership than I am able to muster within my own unit.

More dynamics. New maps / modes, bigger maps (even though less of them will be used, 12 people can only take up so much space) Great. Convoluted teamwork / objectives, reasons to for players to argue (go here, no go there, i'm capping nub it's important, but we need your help in the fight, don't fight nub) and map control over player control (long tom) are not good things in any game.

Players should control the map, the map should not control players.

Edit: I don't like to add new ideas to a person's post, but I think one of the things that would help you achieve what you want "deathball"-wise is something I would like to see. More players in a game. As it stands right now all game modes revolve around 24 or less players, even in lobbies.

A team of 12 players is something in military science that would be considered a "squad" sized element. Squads can be broken down into teams (lances) that have specific jobs or roles that help the squad but usually the squad itself operates together in a combat setting. Rarely is the squad separated from itself.

If you increase the number of players on a team to 24, 32, 40 or 48 you have what is then is a collection of squads, most armies call this a platoon. Platoons separate for their mission all the time. One squad pulls security. Another squad does reconnaissance. The third and forth squads set up as the main force.

This would solve your deathball problem (imagine 32 mechs trying to squeeze through alpha gate on sulfurous), keep teamwork a priority, and require larger maps / more complex objectives. It wouldn't help your TTK though.

Low TTK is exactly what causes deathballing. People stick to teams because they fear running into 12 enemy mechs and their combined firepower, and rightfully so. Upping the game to 32v32 is only going to drive people further into the instinct, not away from it. It's also infeasible technically.

Besides, we already have military units in-game; they're called lances (the BT equivalent of a squad) and nobody uses them precisely 1) because the teams are so large and 2) the objectives don't require them to, outside of Conquest.

With FW geared largely towards organized teams, I see no problem trying to require some teamwork from FW objectives. In QP, yes, things should be simple, and I'll agree that deathballing might be more sensible there. But in FW, I've got no problem with "Act as a team; if you can't do it, you lose to the better team."

[Brody]

Rebas Kradd, on 01 August 2016 - 02:45 PM, said:

Besides, we already have military units in-game; they're called lances (the BT equivalent of a squad) and nobody uses them precisely 1) because the teams are so large and 2) the objectives don't require them to, outside of Conquest.

If you think four people count as a squad or that a twelve person team is "so large", then we're just going to have to disagree.

Nice video though. Good luck.

Edit: consider a reduced TTK as the answer to your problem. If you could kill quickly enough, four players would be able to fight vs twelve, and even if they all die, kill 3-6 opponents. As it stands the TTK is so high that if twelve mechs roll up on four, the four are lucky if they focus fast enough to kill one or two before overheating and going down. This would make deathballing kind of pointless, and give you more dynamic usage of the maps.

The answers you seek are actually rooted solely in a lower TTK. Not maps, team size, deathballing or an increase in TTK. Only lower TTK would give you what you actually want. But like I said, we're going to have to disagree.

Edited by Brody, 02 August 2016 - 10:21 AM.

[Rebas Kradd]

Brody, on 02 August 2016 - 10:14 AM, said:

Edit: consider a reduced TTK as the answer to your problem.

I'm assuming you mean increased time-to-kill. Problem with that: we don't want to increase TTK any further, as it's already nice and high for 1v1 confrontations, as it should be.