80 replies to this topic

[DAYLEET]

Kjudoon, on 06 January 2016 - 01:55 PM, said:

Also, something to consider is the amount of cunning and conniving that it takes to actually succeed in completing a military goal without firing a shot. I know I know, you can cap rush on assault! Been there done that dozens of times. Tee shirt is in the mail even. But... what if you bite the bullet and just defend base knowing full well if you are not out there, they will come to you.

You can do that already if you want. Obviously CW is only that but ive seen it happen in group queue where it;s easier to keep people not to move.

Kjudoon, on 06 January 2016 - 01:55 PM, said:

How about this for an assault mode, you can't win unless you control (mechs standing on and not taking fire) both bases? Deathball is broken instantly or you're gonna have a lot of boring time. You gotta try and keep alive because you need at minimum 2 mechs to win.

This would work better of both bases were actually built like bases instead of undefended trucks out there in the middle of nowhere.

So i guess the best strat would be to deathball and kill the devided enemy team. Conquest is better at breaking group than this idea.

[Kjudoon]

DAYLEET, on 06 January 2016 - 02:05 PM, said:

So i guess the best strat would be to deathball and kill the devided enemy team. Conquest is better at breaking group than this idea.

Well it would be if you eliminated all XP/Cbill/PSR for damage and made it cap victory only.

[DAYLEET]

Kjudoon, on 06 January 2016 - 02:06 PM, said:

Well it would be if you eliminated all XP/Cbill/PSR for damage and made it cap victory only.

No because when you are all dead i can cap and defend and win all i want.

[Kjudoon]

DAYLEET, on 06 January 2016 - 02:08 PM, said:

No because when you are all dead i can cap and defend and win all i want.

yep. That's why I want to penalize the "Captain Barbossa" school of thought in game.

[DAYLEET]

This is really weird because im always the one ready to go somewhere else than the middle or try something new. Im just here because you guys blame the map for your own actions. Middle is the logical choice, so fkin what ive won tons of games that made no sense from a tactical point of view.

[Kjudoon]

Current level of map strategy possible: Tic Tac Toe 3x3

---|---|---
---|---|---

Needed level of map strategy possible: Tic Tac Toe 5x5

---|---|---|---|---
---|---|---|---|---
---|---|---|---|---
---|---|---|---|---

Go ahead, take the middle square. You are still a long way to victory and still have many ways to lose.

[LordNothing]

Mystere, on 06 January 2016 - 01:39 PM, said:

We don't have to. It's called CW's Attack/Defend mode.

those have their own issues. and im not talking skill disparity and wait times (those are separate issues). at least they have a little more depth (if you call that depth) than quick play maps. it doesnt feel like a battle, it feels like an arena. look at unreal tournament's assault and onslaught modes. those are probibly better suited for mechwarrior. ut assault has some variety as different maps have different objectives. onslaught had a moving front so at least you were always fighting at different locations. im getting tired of the same gates the same gens the same turrets and the same gun, and of course the same tactics over and over. the only reason i play it is because the quick play maps and modes are even more shallow.

i would actually have each map have a long (and different) objective list. the game is played like a tug of war where each team tries to complete the mission. one teams objectives compliment the other, so when red completes an objective blue fails it. you start in the middle of the list and whoever gets to their end of the objective list first wins the planet. since the list is long the games run many hours, with a new lance dropping in every few minutes. you would be able to join a game in progress and can queue up many times. the maps need to be much larger and highly scripted but that is well withing the capabilities of crytek. too bad pgi are a bunch of 2 bit modders.

Edited by LordNothing, 06 January 2016 - 02:28 PM.

[DAYLEET]

Kjudoon, on 06 January 2016 - 02:16 PM, said:

Current level of map strategy possible: Tic Tac Toe 3x3

---|---|---
---|---|---

Needed level of map strategy possible: Tic Tac Toe 5x5

---|---|---|---|---
---|---|---|---|---
---|---|---|---|---
---|---|---|---|---

Go ahead, take the middle square. You are still a long way to victory and still have many ways to lose.

The best thing about this game is that we have only 1 life. You can't make walking without any firefight 50% of the gameplay Because that's a lot of wasted times. You want to make game modes that does not reward fighting, make sure those match are quick and the map small. I think the 4vs4 recon mission will be like that, we will see.

[DAYLEET]

LordNothing, on 06 January 2016 - 02:22 PM, said:

those have their own issues. and im not talking skill disparity and wait times (those are separate issues). at least they have a little more depth (if you call that depth) than quick play maps. it doesnt feel like a battle, it feels like an arena. look at unreal tournament's assault and onslaught modes. those are probibly better suited for mechwarrior. ut assault has some variety as different maps have different objectives. onslaught had a moving front so at least you were always moving. im getting tired of the same gates the same gens the same turrets and the same gun, and of course the same tactics over and over. the only reason i play it is because the quick play maps are even more shallow.

i would actually have each map have a long (and different) objective list. the game is played like a tug of war where each team tries to complete the mission. one teams objectives compliment the other, so when red completes an objective blue fails it. you start in the middle of the list and whoever gets to their end of the objective list first wins the planet. since the list is long the games run many hours, with a new lance dropping in every few minutes. you would be able to join a game in progress and can queue up many times. the maps need to be much larger and highly scripted but that is well withing the capabilities of crytek. too bad pgi are a bunch of 2 bit modders.

You take me back with ut2k4, onslaught was awesome(except the winning sound that would blow my speaker). The idea of new lances dropping rather than players respawning strongly appeal to me. It would give some kind of importance to what you are doing.

Edited by DAYLEET, 06 January 2016 - 02:29 PM.

[Kjudoon]

This game is trying to attract the wrong fanbase. PCs are the realm of strategy and much more indepth game players while consoles are the realm of the arena shooter. Seriously, this was a bad market decision. I'm fairly certain it's why Battletech is going to go bonkers in comparision, and hopefully MWO will be able to make deals to use much of their more in-depth concepts they are developing.

BTW, here's a mind melter for you. A game designed to force killing and someone manages to do this.

http://uproxx.com/ga...-4-no-kill-run/

who says you must just do as the visigoths do?

[Mystere]

LordNothing, on 06 January 2016 - 02:22 PM, said:

those have their own issues. and im not talking skill disparity and wait times (those are separate issues). at least they have a little more depth (if you call that depth) than quick play maps. it doesnt feel like a battle, it feels like an arena. look at unreal tournament's assault and onslaught modes. those are probibly better suited for mechwarrior. ut assault has some variety as different maps have different objectives. onslaught had a moving front so at least you were always fighting at different locations. im getting tired of the same gates the same gens the same turrets and the same gun, and of course the same tactics over and over. the only reason i play it is because the quick play maps and modes are even more shallow.

As I said previously, there is a reason I always say:

Mystere, on 06 January 2016 - 01:24 PM, said:

We need more imaginative game modes. That and maps large enough to compliment them.

Mystere, on 06 January 2016 - 01:54 PM, said:

We need variety. The current five total game modes -- and worse, split between CW and the public queues -- do not "variety" make.

[LordNothing]

Mystere, on 06 January 2016 - 02:33 PM, said:

As I said previously, there is a reason I always say:

i think pretty much everyone is saying that.

[DAYLEET]

Kjudoon, on 06 January 2016 - 02:31 PM, said:

This game is trying to attract the wrong fanbase. PCs are the realm of strategy and much more indepth game players while consoles are the realm of the arena shooter. Seriously, this was a bad market decision. I'm fairly certain it's why Battletech is going to go bonkers in comparision, and hopefully MWO will be able to make deals to use much of their more in-depth concepts they are developing.

BTW, here's a mind melter for you. A game designed to force killing and someone manages to do this.

http://uproxx.com/ga...-4-no-kill-run/

who says you must just do as the visigoths do?

Not having to resort to violence for the main quest was one of the pitchsale of fallout 4. Though if you want the vids hes wilfully making others do the killing for him.

Battletech is getting a strategy game in may 2017. It wont be a fps obviously, it will be turned based.

[Kjudoon]

DAYLEET, on 06 January 2016 - 02:57 PM, said:

Battletech is getting a strategy game in may 2017. It wont be a fps obviously, it will be turned based.

Yes I know, and that plays into the PC marketplace far better.

That said, I hope that PGI is able to appropriate many of the out of mech aspects of that game to use here.

That said, we're still stuck with too small arena shooter maps and provincial console thinking that every barrel is to be broken in every room lest XP be left on the table.

[Sandpit]

DAYLEET, on 06 January 2016 - 01:21 PM, said:

How do you not meet in the "middle"? Both parties are moving toward the other because we want to kill each others.

because the "middle" of the entire map doesn't consist of one grid coordinate

[MaximusPayne]

FlipOver, on 06 January 2016 - 08:25 AM, said:

I'd add to the options one reason of what's wrong with ALL maps:

Size

Too small for 12v12

This in a nutshell. Bigger maps allow variety which make for more enjoyable battles. All the current maps herd the sheep down the same paths for the same ol' rinse-and-repeat Groundhog Day battles.

Greyhart, on 06 January 2016 - 08:58 AM, said:

would be interesting to design a map with a big hole (rather than a big hill) in the middle so people would want to actively avoid the middle.

MW4's Crater. Good map, except for the never-ending poptarts.

SilentWolff, on 06 January 2016 - 12:47 PM, said:

One of the main weaknesses of the game are the maps for sure.
If we could just import the MW4 maps, sigh.

Maybe, but I was thinking more on the lines of MWLL.

[Alistair Winter]

I'm just going to repost this, from one of the old threads about this very topic.



It was kind of discouraging to google this topic, actually. Because people have been saying the same thing since 2013. Here's one of my threads from August 2013, as an example. Needless to say, other people said the same thing before me.

Also relevant:

Edited by Alistair Winter, 06 January 2016 - 03:20 PM.

[Mystere]

Alistair Winter, on 06 January 2016 - 03:18 PM, said:

Also relevant:

Well, I asked for River City but PGI seemed to have lost something in translation:

[Deathlike]

Alistair Winter, on 06 January 2016 - 03:18 PM, said:

I'm just going to repost this, from one of the old threads about this very topic.



It was kind of discouraging to google this topic, actually. Because people have been saying the same thing since 2013. Here's one of my threads from August 2013, as an example. Needless to say, other people said the same thing before me.

Also relevant:

You do realize that PGI doubled down on that effort by refusing to allow others to create maps.

We've enabled Lostech™ in our lives.

[SmithMPBT]

World of Tanks map designers avoid the central landmark problem by making each side of the map a distorted mirror image of the opposite side. Keeps things fair, generally avoids deathballs & circling, plus it creates multiple attack lanes. Granted the line of sight and camo mechanic greatly effects map design, but something in the WoT style could be a nice change.