78 replies to this topic

[Rebas Kradd]

Posted this elsewhere, but I figured this was the right place for it.

Get behind this and vocal if you like it. Stale gamemodes are the biggest problem for MWO right now, whether people realize it or not.





Just for the purposes of refining this idea further, I'm trying to organize the possible flaws people have suggested into different cases. First, a refresher.


IDEAL scenario: Attackers spawn light lances first & move up their assigned lane, cap LZ's in their lane to secure forward spawn points and incentives (MFB's, arty, tanks/infantry, w/e), then push to base. Defenders respond by contesting LZ's to deprive Attackers of their benefits. Once first Attacker wave is spent, their heavier mechs can deploy in the closer LZs. This feels like a natural strategy - lights arrive first, scout, destroy defensive targets, and clear forward LZ's for heavier guns to land.

Now for the ways that intended scenario might fall apart. Remember, each of these could also be a legitimate alternative strategy, provided that both benefits and drawbacks exist for each.


Case 1: Attacker lights deathball up one lane, attack base.

Result (IMO): They don't get much done, like current CW maps. Base is hardened enough to be difficult (but not impossible) to destroy without help from LZ incentives. Also, later Attacker waves will then have fewer mechs than Defenders to cap LZ's, as well as still having further to travel (which can be a real drawback - they're slower and vulnerable).


Case 2: Attacker assaults deathball up one lane, attack base.

Result (IMO): More damage is inflicted but still not enough, and now assaults have been spent. Still same problems with not having captured LZ's already. Base should be tough enough to destroy that Defenders have sizeable advantage without Attacker incentives in play, unless Attackers play really well. Hitting that balance is the tricky part.


Case 3: Lights deathball, cap every LZ (zigzag pattern), attack base.

Result (IMO): This is a tougher one. It will take longer to do, however, giving Defenders time to respond and leaving LZs vulnerable to reclamation.


Case 4: Assaults deathball, cap every LZ (zigzag pattern), attack base.

Result (IMO): This one will take FOREVER to do, hopefully to where "fun factor" works against Attackers and naturally encourages other strategies. Even if not, LZs will be even more vulnerable to Defender reclamation (just avoid assaults).

Another possible deterrent is timed air strikes, which would be more effective against assault blobs than light blobs. Again, it makes sense as a natural development - "enemy is scrambling air strikes, 18 minutes".


Case 5: Defenders deathball and camp the base.

Result (IMO): Attackers stock up on incentives uncontested, making base very difficult to defend. Again, tricky balance comes into play here - making base tough to defend with Attacker incentives in play, but tough to destroy without them.


Case 6: Defenders deathball, blitz down one lane and attack a lance.

Result (IMO): Other two attacker lances race past and attack undefended base, tipping match in their favor. Not worried about this one.



CONSTRAINT: For the purposes of this discussion, a "ticket" respawn system is out. This gamemode is for the current 4x12 CW format. Tickets are not a current game mechanic and implementing it would negatively affect balance and player decisions (i.e. players suiciding rather than playing smart).


Thoughts one each case? Disagreements? Other cases not listed? Questions about details? Let's talk this out.

Edited by Rebas Kradd, 07 December 2015 - 11:00 AM.

[Spleenslitta]

Guys....you should see that video. It makes sense and i can't really see a single true weakness in his proposal.

[Nammuz]

Ok, I like the idea, and I think it does add something to the heavily bottlenecked brawls I've seen.

[Stealth Fox]

Everyone needs to watch this, this is a great idea. This with Battle Value and non instant convergence need to happen to make MWO be actually MechWarrior.

[Rebas Kradd]

Seph MacLeod, on 24 October 2015 - 11:18 AM, said:

Everyone needs to watch this, this is a great idea. This with Battle Value and non instant convergence need to happen to make MWO be actually MechWarrior.

Well, I don't know about those other two... But thanks for your support.

[Nesutizale]

Nicely done video. I like the basic concept but something is bothering me but I can't quite tell what.

[Cementi]

I have seen many of these ideas individually or variations but this is by far the most well put together suggestion.

I agree 100% that stale game modes are a big problem and I hate the bottleneck style of CW. This sounds fun, is fun in other games.

[50 50]

Nicely done Rebas.
And thank you Spleen for pointing it out.

I completely agree, a territorial domination mode with the progressive spawn points would be brilliant.
I also believe that we could get a lot of value from it if new lances with new players could be introduced as the spots become available so there is a turn over in an ongoing battle that many people get to contribute to an experience.

One note.
The match timer needs to go and there needs to be other methods to end the battle, either by using the ceasefire and picking up the fight again once that is over, or by declaring one side the victor when they control all the dropzones.

As you said, plenty of details to work over, but a great suggestion and nicely presented.

[Greyhart]

reminds me of my idea sort of

http://mwomercs.com/...066-new-cw-mode

hope the link works.

[Omi_]

Just watched the video.... and this seems like the Invasion mode that we need!

[Greyhart]

I can't help but think they need to scrap the maps they have for CW at the moment (perhaps put them in the general queue) and go with larger more expansive maps with multiple objects that mean that the team has to split.

[Raubwurst]

Great idea, I really like it!

[iLLcapitan]

All my thumps up for your approach!

[Rebas Kradd]

Greyhart, on 27 October 2015 - 05:22 AM, said:

I can't help but think they need to scrap the maps they have for CW at the moment (perhaps put them in the general queue) and go with larger more expansive maps with multiple objects that mean that the team has to split.

I don't think they need to scrap what exists now. Just add more onto it.

[Spleenslitta]

Rebas Kradd, on 29 October 2015 - 11:37 AM, said:

I don't think they need to scrap what exists now. Just add more onto it.

They could just do what they have done to Forest Colony and River City. Remodel a bit and expand them a lot.

[Rebas Kradd]

So, just for the purposes of refining this idea further, I'm trying to organize the possible flaws people have suggested into different cases. First, a refresher.


IDEAL scenario: Attackers spawn light lances first & move up their assigned lane, cap LZ's in their lane to secure forward spawn points and incentives (MFB's, arty, tanks/infantry, w/e), then push to base. Defenders respond by contesting LZ's to deprive Attackers of their benefits. Once first Attacker wave is spent, their heavier mechs can deploy in the closer LZs. This feels like a natural strategy - lights arrive first, scout, destroy defensive targets, and clear forward LZ's for heavier guns to land.

Now for the ways that intended scenario might fall apart. Remember, each of these could also be a legitimate alternative strategy, provided that both benefits and drawbacks exist for each.


Case 1: Attacker lights deathball up one lane, attack base.

Result (IMO): They don't get much done, like current CW maps. Base is hardened enough to be difficult (but not impossible) to destroy without help from LZ incentives. Also, later Attacker waves will then have fewer mechs than Defenders to cap LZ's, as well as still having further to travel (which can be a real drawback - they're slower and vulnerable).


Case 2: Attacker assaults deathball up one lane, attack base.

Result (IMO): More damage is inflicted but still not enough, and now assaults have been spent. Still same problems with not having captured LZ's already. Base should be tough enough to destroy that Defenders have sizeable advantage without Attacker incentives in play, unless Attackers play really well. Hitting that balance is the tricky part.


Case 3: Lights deathball, cap every LZ (zigzag pattern), attack base.

Result (IMO): This is a tougher one. It will take longer to do, however, giving Defenders time to respond and leaving LZs vulnerable to reclamation.


Case 4: Assaults deathball, cap every LZ (zigzag pattern), attack base.

Result (IMO): This one will take FOREVER to do, hopefully to where "fun factor" works against Attackers and naturally encourages other strategies. Even if not, LZs will be even more vulnerable to Defender reclamation (just avoid assaults).

Another possible deterrent is timed air strikes, which would be more effective against assault blobs than light blobs. Again, it makes sense as a natural development - "enemy is scrambling air strikes, 18 minutes".


Case 5: Defenders deathball and camp the base.

Result (IMO): Attackers stock up on incentives uncontested, making base very difficult to defend. Again, tricky balance comes into play here - making base tough to defend with Attacker incentives in play, but tough to destroy without them.


Case 6: Defenders deathball, blitz down one lane and attack a lance.

Result (IMO): Other two attacker lances race past and attack undefended base, tipping match in their favor. Not worried about this one.



CONSTRAINT: For the purposes of this discussion, a "ticket" respawn system is out. This gamemode is for the current 4x12 CW format. Tickets are not a current game mechanic and implementing it would negatively affect balance and player decisions (i.e. players suiciding rather than playing smart).


Thoughts one each case? Disagreements? Other cases not listed? Questions about details? Let's talk this out.

[Dimento Graven]

Oh yeah, this thing. Man I'd forgotten all about it.

If no one has mentioned it, I think the amount of time per match should be expanded to something closer to an hour. Part of what drives bad tactics is the extremely limited time you have in a match. After having burned 15 minutes in the match and you're staring down the barrel of the last 15 minutes tactics tend to go towards what's expedient rather than what's best.

Something like this setup will bring a lot more options and in some cases require a minimum of 5 or more minutes to setup, bring 'mechs to the battle (the slower heavies and assaults, specifically, especially for IS, and the Clan Direwolf).

[sycocys]

The more I think about CW the less I like the idea of respawns being the central part of it.

It would feel a lot better I think both in terms of "community" and "warfare" if instead of a bunch of pies to contest on a planet you had 2 teams line up for a set number of distinct branching missions to contend. Each mission its own drop, still with a limited deck going in.
For the most part get rid of the boring gate maps, unless they can be feasibly opened up to allow for many approach routes and tactical options.

Simplify and balance the grouping to something along the lines of-
1(solo)-5 get short sortie sets of 4. Shorter overall missions and less overall c-bill/xp rewards.
6 - get 8 mission sortie sets.
12 - get 12 mission sets.

Planets aren't self chosen, just let the stupid algorithm do that in the background. Instead you get the choice of Clan v IS, IS v IS, Clan v Clan -- that mean 6 total possible buckets to fall into instead of the 3 dozen planets. If grouping is still a huge issue after this move solo pugs into their own queue with 2 mission sets. Still only 7 total buckets instead of dozens.

Missions would be pretty simple to deal with, there's 4 previous MW titles, a handful of Battletech titles, and a ton of books to pull from.

Drop 1 - 1 mech dropped and sides compete for their respective side of the mission objective. Winner determines which branch of the campaign happens next.
Drop 2a or 2b - more difficult mission objectives to complete. This repeats.

Now that sounds pretty simple and creating the branching system for up to 12 rounds shouldn't be difficult for even PGI to pull off. Use multiple/bonus objectives that split the teams apart to eliminate deathballing. Maps don't need to be intensely detailed - they need to be large and USED (meaning don't waste 3/4ths of the map having people walk to a gate).

Options for escorting(protecting) and destroying convoys. Capturing/destroying communications - repair stations - aircraft hangars and the list goes on pretty much forever.

You don't need a special 4v4 mode if you actually design the game to be split up until you get to the point of actually assaulting a main base.

No need for respawns if you use the mode to integrate some fashion of multi-leveled mission story which will actually interest players - and provide a hell of a lot of replay-ability for a lot less effort - not to mention it wouldn't take a ridiculous amount of effort to keep expanding/building new mission branches for players to compete over.

You only need to create full size normal maps instead of standard and CW (but you could just limit the play area of standard if you wanted to make it feel more different). 1 set of maps is a million times easier to manage and tune. Removing respawns removes one of the huge blunders of CW thus far as well.

You also will be able to more easily implement more variety in objectives (and maps themselves) to standard drops if you build everything upon one larger map set. Think - Forest Colony A (with this set boundary), Forest Colony B (with another cross section, Forest Colony C and so forth. 1 Map can provide for many different standard experiences as well as a wide array of CW (and smaller sections could be used for Solaris in the future).

And the last bonus to this is that when you implement full AI you can just use limited versions of the entire system for your single player campaign without having to re-write the game entirely again.

Well that's my current thought on the whole debacle.

[BARBAR0SSA]

I'd like to see 36v36 made up of 3 teams of 12 on each side

With 3 overall objectives

You then decide how many to go to each objective, which makes scouting important, and stealth scouting even more important.

Do you send 12 assaults to hold off 24 lights and mediums going for objective A? Match them for numbers?

[Raubwurst]

shad0w4life, on 03 December 2015 - 04:05 PM, said:

I'd like to see 36v36 made up of 3 teams of 12 on each side

Rebas Kradd, on 02 December 2015 - 04:08 PM, said:

CONSTRAINT: This gamemode is for the current 4x12 CW format.

Especially adding more 'Mechs to a mode would require a lot of work. This thread is solely for the above idea and ideas/critic concerning this idea.

Edited by Raubwurst, 03 December 2015 - 04:15 PM.