16 replies to this topic

[sycocys]

Drop deck idea is good, respawns in this style of MW game really isn't so much.

So here's the thought, and it would of course require some new maps which they should be doing anyhow.

Matches start with lance seperated drops - 4v4 x 3 on the smaller maps, then 3 12v12 rounds - 1 one the next larger variation of the map theme, then 2 on the CW map (with hopefully them creating a second or more CW map of each type for more variation).

Would go something like this -

Frozen City -- 4v4 x3 - with some sort of skirmish for a central cap (dropship info recovery or some such thing)

Alpine -- Conquest. Conquest only. Spread out the cap points and spawns and make it so the teams can be tactical.

New Tundra map (forget what they are calling it) -- Let it be Assault mode, or whatever that new mode Russ was dreaming about a couple months ago.

Boreal - to determine the winner of the round. Attack/Counter and gates/turret/generator functionality or something determined based on prior victories.

---
Similar can be done with Mining, Caustic, Terra, Hellbore and Old Forest, Swamp Thing, New Forest, Taiga.

Could mix up some combos as filler while new maps get made to lead into the other CW maps but basically it removes the spawn camp issue entirely and adds a campaign/warfare feeling to CW.

[Hotthedd]

But without re-spawns, how will we spawn camp? Or spawn turtle?

[Not A Real RAbbi]

DROPSHIP MVP!

[sycocys]

Hotthedd, on 04 January 2016 - 06:03 PM, said:

But without re-spawns, how will we spawn camp? Or spawn turtle?

Exactly?


Something like this would actual add tactics to the mode. Teams would still have a decided advantage of preparation but it also flat out eliminates one of the more frustrating things for small groups and pug players.

I'd maybe even take it a step further though to encourage larger groups to play one another by having longer campaigns with an additional drop deck or two and much higher rewards - including a specific leader board for ranking 12 mans against one another with a monthly prize.

Add a layer that unit size must be at a certain threshold - say 28 or 52 (fields 2 or 4 12 man groups plus a lance for rotation) and you might actually start to see some competitive play forming.

Take if further and have multiple tier rewards for various unit thresholds and you are actually starting to develop an entire mode that would start to take more of the shape CW was intended to be. Run it all the way down to best ranking small teams (under 12) and unitless pugs.

The planets really don't mean anything at the end of the day because there will always be map resets, leader boards and rewards on the other hand give competitive players something to actually play for regardless of what shape the map is in.

At the end of it all simply reduce the bucket (planet) count to 2 types - vs other Side or vs own Side <- even that little bit there would balance the hell out of CW and just award the planets based on who is actually winning a % of contests per cease fire.

[Hotthedd]

sycocys, on 04 January 2016 - 07:43 PM, said:

Exactly?

Yes, exactly! (I liked your post because I agree with you)
I was being sarcastic with my comment. Re-spawns are a lazy game mechanic that will always have spawn camping, no matter what you try to do. CW needs dynamic campaigns.

[sycocys]

Gotcha, first day back to work after vacation makes for a long day.

[Leartes]

Not a big fan of this. In CW mech that survive a wave are damaged for the next one. This gives the losing team a chance to come back and overall makes for more exciting matches. Obviously it is broken in one-sided matches, but if the groups are so different in skill that one side gets spawn camped, then 4 drops against the same opponent likely are as devastating.

Finally, CW allows for very different loadouts compared to normal drops. e.g. as defender you might want a quick brawler for clean-up after a lost push and you probably want something long range and ammunition independent if you get low on drops. Perhaps you want something fast to reinforce in a quickly or gen-rush. Imo you would lose a lot of these things and make CW more similar to the much more boring quickplay.

CW definitely needs a lot of changes, but respawns is not one of them. In a no-matchmaking environment all game modes will have stomps.

[Hotthedd]

Leartes, on 05 January 2016 - 04:12 AM, said:

Not a big fan of this. In CW mech that survive a wave are damaged for the next one. This gives the losing team a chance to come back and overall makes for more exciting matches. Obviously it is broken in one-sided matches, but if the groups are so different in skill that one side gets spawn camped, then 4 drops against the same opponent likely are as devastating.

Yeah, no. Not really. The fresh wave of 'mechs might close the kill count, but then THOSE 'mechs are damaged for the next wave, and the kill count swings the other way. At least with a new mission and new 'mechs each team starts out each wave with a chance. However, if a 'mech survives the first wave healthy enough, the pilot should have the option to take the damaged 'mech into the next round.

Leartes, on 05 January 2016 - 04:12 AM, said:

Finally, CW allows for very different loadouts compared to normal drops. e.g. as defender you might want a quick brawler for clean-up after a lost push and you probably want something long range and ammunition independent if you get low on drops. Perhaps you want something fast to reinforce in a quickly or gen-rush. Imo you would lose a lot of these things and make CW more similar to the much more boring quickplay.

And this is the biggest single advantage pre-made teams have. The ability to bring complimentary composed forces. The OP's idea mitigates this somewhat, as choices wold be forced.

Leartes, on 05 January 2016 - 04:12 AM, said:

CW definitely needs a lot of changes, but respawns is not one of them. In a no-matchmaking environment all game modes will have stomps.

Stomps happen, and that is okay. Spawn camping makes the team getting camped feel like they are being griefed, and is bad for the overall health of the game population, as these players decide to go play a different (more fun for them) game.

[sycocys]

The respawning had some merit initially, but it just didn't play out at all. Doesn't add anything positive to the game that wouldn't be done far better by changing it to multiple match drops.

Multiple matches would add not only a lot of variation to the mode by actually having teams compete against each other in campaign style missions, but adds a ton of replay value for everyone from pugs to comp teams because even if you play the same planet the win/loss bonuses will be able to wildly affect how your later-to-final (current CW map/mode) match(s) are buffed/debuffed and play out.

^ This means every single campaign match has the potential to be wildly different as the matches progress towards the end.
It also opens the mode up to implement a huge variety of alternative missions like protecting convoys, defending airfields/other assets, capturing satellite bases and so forth that can be spread among lances to compete for which just takes the simple mode and adds mountains of depth to it with a few simple things added to maps and modes that are already in the game.

Having 12 man v 12 man being able to compete on longer more rewarding/competitive mission also helps alleviate their affect on the rest of the queue as well as continues to give them a stronger environment for them to play in.

^ This means you actually start to create an environment that is tune-able and built towards actual competitive and tactical play, rather than skirmish mode on channeled maps.

Edited by sycocys, 05 January 2016 - 06:55 AM.

[Leartes]

Hotthedd, on 05 January 2016 - 04:29 AM, said:

Yeah, no. Not really. The fresh wave of 'mechs might close the kill count, but then THOSE 'mechs are damaged for the next wave, and the kill count swings the other way. At least with a new mission and new 'mechs each team starts out each wave with a chance.

In Counter-Attack you are right, but if you have an objective outside of kills, then it can be very important to soften up targets. A common tactic in invasion is to attack with a fast and disposable mech first and then attack with heavier stuff into damaged defenders. Despite being behind in damage and mech this actually gives you the lead. Now you can take your heavy stuff into weakend defenders, quickly overwhelm them and take the objective while they respawn.

The obvious counter tactic is to push out with damaged mech and deal as much damage as possible before respawning. On maps with multiple ways to approach this can lead to hillarious situations if the defenders push out of the wrong gate.

I don't want to lose these higher level decisions for more boring quickplay-like games.


There should be other solutions to spawn camping. My favorite is less planets and better matchmaking. Also please don't split groups from pugs, just inflate group skill rating so that groups of weak players play with stronger solo players and weak solo players mostly pug. In my experience games that are not totally one-sided don't degenerate into spawn camping.
Another thing is, in CW right now the coordinated groups mostly attack and the pugs mostly defend. This works halfway decent in invasion games with all the turrets, short distance to reinforce etc. But if the pug has to attack in counter-attack into a group this leads to the worst games I have experienced so far. Those usually are the games with horrible scores (48/10 or worse) and bad spawn camping - mostly because the terrain around the drop zones is pretty bad (worst offender Boreal Vault where defenders can spawn camp easily outside of dropship range and attackers have no cover at all).

So my answer for spawn camping: Need better game modes/maps and need better matchmaking.

Now I don't want to say we should not have all the other missions or campaigns on planets. I'm all for that stuff. But invasion kind of works and should stay as one of the mission types. I can totally do without counter-attack though. I would prefer stuff like scouting, convoy, capture and hold etc. But this is a different topic.

[Hotthedd]

I posted this idea in another thread, but it is applicable here.

Keep it simple:
House/Clan Units - Individuals and Units that choose to be aligned with a faction (as we currently have)
Functions exactly as CW currently does, with the exception that house units do not defend planets belonging to other houses. Repair and re-arm is free for the player, C-bill payouts are dictated by the house (as it is now). They should have SIGNIFICANT loyalty bonuses.

Mercenaries - Individuals and Units that choose to play as mercenaries choose single mission contracts. They go where the C-bills are. Bringing up the CW map will show all contested planets, with the option to attack or defend for any House (not Clan). Supply and Demand, MRBC rating, and loyalty rank determine the payout of the contract. Repair and Re-arm costs would be the responsibility of the mercenary, and merc unit coffers can be used to offset those costs.

Loyalty Acheivements (Ranks) - Getting rid of this would cause a sh1tstorm, so it would be simpler to keep this with some tweaks:
Once a rank is reached, it cannot be re-reached. If a player or unit switches houses, or a mercenary would lose rank due to losing loyalty points with a House, they would still have to reach the next rank in the tier to reap any rewards. The current loyalty rank would add a modifier to the contract payout, so being (relatively) loyal to a certain faction, or at least NOT attacking or defending against said faction would ultimately give the highest rewards. Higher loyalty ranks would give higher contract modifiers.

MRBC rating would be completely determined by match score and W/L (sound familiar?) Ratings would be A+ down to F.

Clan players switching to I.S. would have to be mercenaries. (No House would trust them)
I.S. players switching to Clan would have to be bondsmen. (A set amount of loyalty would have to be achieved before even beginning to go up in rank, and bondsmen have to pay for repair and re-arm)

This would reward loyalty without forcing it, and allow the free market to even the queues without forcing it.
Best of all, almost nothing would need to be changed to the existing system.

Ideas like sycosis's and others for different missions could easily be incorporated into this format. Hopefully this would also satisfy Leartes's desire for "better game modes/maps". Matchmaking, unfortunately, should not be a part of competitive drops.

[sycocys]

It's not removing groups from the CW MM at all - at the top its encouraging 12 mans to play other 12 mans for the top level experience and rewards - because that is how you encourage them to actually play each other, create an environment that takes a good experience and up the ante in rewards and gameplay depth.

It also creates for these teams an actual competitive environment which would be something actually interesting and unique to MW to have as your platform for tournament play and "e-sports" - something that would actually have some amount of tension and drama as you (the spectator of the e-sport) watch these campaigns unfold. <- and that right there is how you sell a game based off a TT and bunch of books into the e-sports realm.

Dropping the MM to 2 buckets - vs Other side and vs the Same vastly reduces the buckets to place players into the MM pool. This makes the rest of group and solo play far more balanced, and vastly faster to find matches.

Match-wise - removing respawns adds up to a huge increase in tactical play even on the CW maps, especially if you'd add it buffs/debuffs that ultimately affect that last drop (or the CW map drops) with such things as open/closed gates, generator functionality, turret functionality, as well as some of the things Russ hinted to like long toms and map wide radar pings/knowing the enemies drop mechs and so forth. Could go as far as hindered/buffed communications sharing (reduced/increased sharing ranges once they re-implement this system), ammo per ton buffs/debuffs based on successful convoys, locking out/allowing strikes for missions, setting weather conditions or day/night on maps.

There's really a nearly endless array of things that could be modified to provide extremely dynamic and variable match conditions and add actual replay value to the mode.

Then as Hotthed said have the Loyalty system take a meta-game approach to things.

Edited by sycocys, 05 January 2016 - 08:13 AM.

[Sandpit]

I always thought it would be easier to simply have checkpoints on the map.

Once a team hits a certain checkpoint, there reinforcements now drop at the new checkpoint closer to their front since they've "secured" a new LZ area.

[Armando]

If you have a full 'team' playing with you....re-spawns wait until everyone else from the previous wave dies, then advance as a full 12 man team for waves 2, 3, (and if needed wave 4).

When you don't have a full team, I see pilots who rush back into the fight as soon as they can only to find that all that is left in the fight is 2-4 other 'trashed' mechs on the verge of going to the scrap pile. The result is they blow through their 2nd wave mech while everyone else on their team is forming up to start the 2nd wave push.

Of course they do this every time they die so that by the time everyone else on their team is starting their 4th wave, THEY are already 'DEAD' and left watching the game from a team mates cockpit. (sometimes this is the case during the 3rd wave).

[sycocys]

Sandpit, on 07 January 2016 - 09:23 AM, said:

I always thought it would be easier to simply have checkpoints on the map.

Once a team hits a certain checkpoint, there reinforcements now drop at the new checkpoint closer to their front since they've "secured" a new LZ area.

It's not a bad idea in itself, just that the maps are far to small and unidirectional for it to really work at all. Plus because they refuse to expand into different modes/map designs this really only has any affect for the attacking team.

Current game mode-wise defenders already draw the short end of the stick due to having multiple objectives to have to complete or lose on.

[Armando]

sycocys, on 07 January 2016 - 11:30 AM, said:

It's not a bad idea in itself, just that the maps are far to small and unidirectional for it to really work at all. Plus because they refuse to expand into different modes/map designs this really only has any affect for the attacking team.

Current game mode-wise defenders already draw the short end of the stick due to having multiple objectives to have to complete or lose on.

For the most part I agree with this, the exception being Borreal Vault because of the "E5 nook" defense which if executed right can't be beat. I think defenders also have the advantage on Grim Portico.

[sycocys]

On Portico it's only an advantage IF the attacking team isn't going for the objective points. If they shoot through either side and head to the gens/cannon or omega immediately the one advantage is blown up pretty easily because of all the spires/walls you need to navigate to return to an effective defending position.

Either way, you can dynamically alter those by removing respawns and adding campaign layers to change the many variables of the matches, which could be up to/including advanced initial drop points.

It should also lean heavily on giving the more expanded experience to 12v12 matches, which is better for those players as well as the small groups and pugs that just want a taste of CW with an optional middleground for combinations of smaller groups, but leaving out pugs.

Basically pugs + small groups that just want the basic experience end up with something more interesting than skirmish mode to play for that isn't getting trolled by 12mans.

Mid-sized groups/combo groups have a place for higher competition and rewards that isn't getting trolled by pugs in trial mechs.

12man/units get the top level experience with the most competition and reward.

If you have to keep the silly planet system, just change it to some sort of % based system based on W/L with a weighting that gives groups of increasing size more value since pug matches will be shorter.