I'm not a fan of the pointlessness of skirmish, and yet assault can be gamed to completely ruin a match for everyone if a team chooses to just sneak around the other team and pile a half dozen mechs or more on the capture point.
So...
I propose a new game mode where the ultimate goal is to capture a point which opens a door allowing the final objective to be blown to smithereens (similiar to CW attacks on Omega)
However, you cannot simply rush to the objective. Instead, you have to capture a series of objective in order. Putting the "in order" requirement focuses the fighting at the current frontline points.
The maps would have capture points A1, A2, and A3 running along the outside edge of the map for one team, and B1, B2, and B3 for the other team. Putting them far apart is meant to force each team to decide whether to split, defend, or attack as changing tactics will mean running mechs completely across the entire battlefield.
At the start of the match, Team A is shown controlling all of the A points, and Team B the B points. All these points have defense turrets on them to prevent light rushers (at least at the start of a match), and again, they must be captured in order with each team needing control of all the opposing teams points before being allowed to make that final capture on the base and the blowing up of the target. Of course, killing off the enemy is also a win.
It sounds complicated, but it shouldn't be, nor is there any really new mechanic. CW already has the ogen requirements so the code should be able to adapt to all captures, and getting things in order simply means applying that code to each point. And again, the whole point is to take the kinda messy and pointless fighting that goes on and really focus things at one or two places.
New Game Mode: Frontlines
Started by Xavori, Feb 23 2016 01:13 PM
1 reply to this topic
#1
Posted 23 February 2016 - 01:13 PM
#2
Posted 23 February 2016 - 01:59 PM
Having two sets of points, all with turrets, makes for a relatively long game. Not to mention the NASCAR that could go on. The game mode as you have suggested it could easily turn into a rush to cap all the points - whoever hits them and the base first wins. The time your team spends defending their points reduces the speed at which you can take your points. And if the enemy team simply takes their whole force to take points, then your defense force gets demolished, and your team lacks both the resources left to capture and defend.
I think a better approach would be to simplify it to three points total, where each team must capture A, B and C in either direction to open the opposing team's gate. This would create a tug-of-war type situation where all the PUGs in quickplay have one objective, but multiple ways to go about it. Do I rush the capture points and risk getting demolished, or do I fight it out with my team and try to reduce the others' numbers enough to where I can cap faster?
The problem with my suggestion would be that it almost certainly would create chokepoint situations on many maps, which can be very un-fun depending on the map itself. Point paths would need to be carefully thought out and playtested to give the point-rushers and the skirmishers a chance to make a difference.
Still, these are okay ideas. You just gotta make sure you take into account how QP differs from CW, and unless you're willing to add a respawn mechanic into QP, it's a big difference to consider.
I think a better approach would be to simplify it to three points total, where each team must capture A, B and C in either direction to open the opposing team's gate. This would create a tug-of-war type situation where all the PUGs in quickplay have one objective, but multiple ways to go about it. Do I rush the capture points and risk getting demolished, or do I fight it out with my team and try to reduce the others' numbers enough to where I can cap faster?
The problem with my suggestion would be that it almost certainly would create chokepoint situations on many maps, which can be very un-fun depending on the map itself. Point paths would need to be carefully thought out and playtested to give the point-rushers and the skirmishers a chance to make a difference.
Still, these are okay ideas. You just gotta make sure you take into account how QP differs from CW, and unless you're willing to add a respawn mechanic into QP, it's a big difference to consider.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
















