Jump to content

Procedurally Dropped Objectives On Existing Maps


10 replies to this topic

#1 Threat Doc

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Bowman
  • The Bowman
  • 3,715 posts
  • LocationO'Shaughnnessy MMW Base, Devon Continent, Rochester, FedCom

Posted 16 November 2015 - 12:44 PM

Much as the topic title explains... I know you, PGI, don't want to do procedurally-generated maps, and I understand your focus on quality, there. You also know that Conquest is pretty much a dead issue with the new voting system in place, I'm sure? Along with all of your game modes. However, if you're interested in saving Conquest -or what I would aptly rename Objectives-, my recommendation is that you have a module that takes a moment to set up objectives to be achieved -and I'm not talking about resource gathering, but that plus quite a few other objectives- by each team, for a score, of course, that will allow those teams that are focused on Objectives, or those who likely do not have the strongest shooters, to have a shot at winning the match that way, instead of killing one another.

You could designate thirty points on each map that are randomly chosen, by the new module, to have between three and seven drops of varying point values and objective types dropped on the map.

UPDATE: My recommendation would be to roll all non-unique game modes -Conquest, Assault, and Skirmish- in together, because it's pretty much what everyone does, anyway. This would give those who only want to fight their opportunity to chase their opposition and try to kill them, and would allow those who prefer to perform objectives to get their kick, too. Then, you would have all of the bitching from your players centered in one area, right?

Destruction - For targets that need to be destroyed, once destroyed they regenerate within a minute or three of that event; low to moderate point value

Chain Destruction - Several things have to be done in order to succeed, here, and they either need to be done in order -the second objective doesn't become available for destruction before the available one is destroyed; high point value

Chain Destruction Time Limit - The same as Chain Destruction, but these objectives have to be completed in a certain amount of time, or before the enemy enters a certain range, or the entire thing resets and all points accumulated for the objective are lost; very high point value

Area Destruction - A certain number of targets have to be destroyed in an area; moderate-low to moderate-high point value

Area Destruction Time Limit - The same as Area Destruction, but these targets have to be destroyed in a certain amount of time, or before the enemy enters a certain range, or the entire thing resets and all points accumulated for the objective are lost; very high point value

Area Denial - One team has to hold off or deny the use of an area, such as a DropShip launch pad or repair area, for a certain time-limit. This could be protecting team assets or stealing team assets. Either way, the team needs to deny the opposing team access to it. Moderate point value

Area Holding - One team has to protect the territory they've been ordered to protect, it has to be with a certain amount of team strength remaining until the end of the counter, and then the team can break out of the held area, if they want to, to finish the opposing team off. Low to moderate point value

Resource Gathering - Rather than requiring 750 points from five locations, this could be 50 points at a shot, simply holding the area, with only a minute in-between the team leaving and being able to return required to start the process over, again. Low point value

Resource Gathering Time Limit - The same as Resource Gathering, but the point collection limit is 300, and these points have to be gathered in a certain amount of time, or before the enemy enters a certain range, or the entire thing resets and all points accumulated for the objective are lost; moderate to medium-high point value

Intelligence Gathering - Similar to Resource Gathering, but this is set to a specific time-limit, regardless of enemy range, and if that time-limit is not reached before those who are gathering die, or are forced to leave the area, the entire thing resets and all points accumulated for the objective are lost; high-moderate to very high point value

For all of these, and any others developed in this thread that could be legitimately used, point maximums (such as 750 for Conquest at present) are removed entirely, no maximum point value present, and it remains a 15 minute game. Objective-based completion points accrued would be added to the team totals and, whether the time-limit is reached, or all 'Mechs from one side are put down, point-totals are calculated, and the team with the highest points, including kills, assists, etc. -which SHOULD have a smaller point-value in the case of this game type-, wins.

Edited by Kay Wolf, 31 January 2016 - 06:15 PM.


#2 50 50

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,145 posts
  • LocationTo Nova or not to Nova. That is the question.

Posted 17 November 2015 - 06:17 PM

I like the idea of introducing some random objectives to the battles.

#3 Hoffenstein

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 368 posts
  • LocationThe Great White North

Posted 17 November 2015 - 07:20 PM

This sounds amazing! Do it PGI, pleeeeeease!

#4 Threat Doc

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Bowman
  • The Bowman
  • 3,715 posts
  • LocationO'Shaughnnessy MMW Base, Devon Continent, Rochester, FedCom

Posted 01 December 2015 - 12:16 PM

It would be nice if others would take note of this thread and say something one way or another. I honestly feel this would be the best way to get Conquest back to an operational status, with or without the voting system.

#5 GI Journalist

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Senior Major
  • Senior Major
  • 595 posts

Posted 01 December 2015 - 07:31 PM

These are good ideas, many of which would be good for Faction Play.

#6 Threat Doc

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Bowman
  • The Bowman
  • 3,715 posts
  • LocationO'Shaughnnessy MMW Base, Devon Continent, Rochester, FedCom

Posted 07 December 2015 - 02:07 PM

Alright, Rebas Kradd posted New Gamemode Proposal - Making Bigger Maps Fun and, what I've recommended in this thread would likely fit with that, as well. Hell, if we could get a mix of Rebas' and my ideas, I would return to play Community Warfare.

#7 L Y N X

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Nimble
  • The Nimble
  • 629 posts
  • LocationStrana Mechty

Posted 07 December 2015 - 02:13 PM

If you want to play a game in the BT universe that does not require skills piloting or shooting, then help back HBS' BattleTech, it is a Tactical Turn-Based Lance on Lance game. Please do not try to alter MWO for those who are not willing to improve their own skills.

#8 Threat Doc

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Bowman
  • The Bowman
  • 3,715 posts
  • LocationO'Shaughnnessy MMW Base, Devon Continent, Rochester, FedCom

Posted 07 December 2015 - 06:28 PM

View Post7ynx, on 07 December 2015 - 02:13 PM, said:

If you want to play a game in the BT universe that does not require skills piloting or shooting, then help back HBS' BattleTech, it is a Tactical Turn-Based Lance on Lance game. Please do not try to alter MWO for those who are not willing to improve their own skills.
First off, I did support HBS' BattleTech, and at a pretty high level, nearly double what I've ever spent on this game, total.

Second, I love this game, not only because it's in the BattleTech universe, but because it's very nearly perfect for what I imagined BattleTech would look and fight like in a vidya game; numbers are way off in places, the Machine Gun and Flamer are 200%+ more powerful than they should be, but this game still fights like I always imagined it would play. It has easily supplanted MechWarrior III.

However... third, if this game does not evolve into AI, PvE, enhanced unit care and, hopefully, a much improved version of Community Warfare, you won't be able to practice your twitch skills, at all, until the next game for BattleTech comes out. Stop being negative, and try to help figure out ways the Devs might actually read to improve this game.

#9 SaJeel

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 170 posts

Posted 08 December 2015 - 09:33 PM

Gave this a cursory glance, and yes to all of what i saw, conquest needs a change, and this would be great as that change, or as another mode

#10 50 50

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,145 posts
  • LocationTo Nova or not to Nova. That is the question.

Posted 15 January 2016 - 06:17 AM

One thing that I thought would make Conquest and even Assault a bit more challenging was to randomise the locations of the capture points and bases a little more and not have them show up on the battlegrid, mini map or compass until they had been found.
The only problem with that, is players would likely ignore it completely and skirmish.
So it really means making those points valuable enough that a team wants to capture them.
Having mini missions pop up with the type of objectives mentioned in the OP is great, but perhaps the bases and capture points from the modes should mean something different.
Combined with Rebas's idea and we have a really in depth and compelling game mode.

#11 Threat Doc

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Bowman
  • The Bowman
  • 3,715 posts
  • LocationO'Shaughnnessy MMW Base, Devon Continent, Rochester, FedCom

Posted 19 January 2016 - 10:49 PM

View Post50 50, on 15 January 2016 - 06:17 AM, said:

One thing that I thought would make Conquest and even Assault a bit more challenging was to randomise the locations of the capture points and bases a little more and not have them show up on the battlegrid, mini map or compass until they had been found.

The only problem with that, is players would likely ignore it completely and skirmish.

So it really means making those points valuable enough that a team wants to capture them.

Having mini missions pop up with the type of objectives mentioned in the OP is great, but perhaps the bases and capture points from the modes should mean something different.

Combined with Rebas's idea and we have a really in depth and compelling game mode.
Ooooh... I really like those ideas... yes, very much. I'm going to keep this thread followed to see if there are any more ideas.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users