Can anyone, anyone at all, honestly look at Faction Warfare's 'Invasion' game mode and say that it makes any sense whatsoever?
I'm talking about purely the game mode in this thread, rather than the overall CW map and units. Now I'm a harsh critic. Always have been. But CW was MWO's opportunity to dip into something more than what it was, and instead it feels like it completely missed the point.
I just can't wrap my head around it. What it could be, what it is. How the decisions came about to design it as it is. It makes me wonder whether there's some sort of technical or higher game design reasoning that is beyond me.
On concept and on paper, Invasion sounds like the game mode CW and MWO needed. An asymmetrical battle where one team attacks, dropping in on dropships, and the other team defends a base. The attackers have to get through defenses such as gates and turrets before... destroying some type of orbital gun? Which I suppose is in the lore somewhere. On so many occasions both PGI and Russ promised that CW would be the 'hardcore' experience we'd all been waiting for.
In practice? It's ridiculously limited and anything but hardcore. Unless close-range twitch skill is your version of hardcore. My issues specifically with it:
Spoiler
Issue one: the map design. Everything revolves around the damn gates. Maps basically come down to various layouts that all revolve around very, very structured paths that end in a large, over-sized gate. Almost lazily, all maps have a predefined point that the attackers can relatively safely shoot the conveniently placed gate generators.
As a result, gates are just a time barrier that alerts defenders to the first attack. From there, gameplay comes down to gathering at the gates and then pushing in as fast as possible while the defenders position themselves tower-defense style. The teams wear each other down, and then it's rinse and repeat. It's like repeatedly smacking your head against a brick wall.
Issue two: The objective design. The objectives are very, very linear. Destroy gates, destroy generators. Missed opportunity here. Instead of a game map and objectives that encourages decisions on both team's part, as well as requiring teams to maneuver to attack/defend certain points, you tend to have very static gameplay that never really varies. Again, the very linear/path based maps limit any decent design.
Ultimately: it feels like the game mode was designed for ten year olds that require a game to hold their hand and tell them where to go, only requiring the player to hold W and click when needed. And, on some maps, feels suspiciously like a MOBA design... again, PGI completely missing the point of what they were developing.
Now, if I was the designer... which I'm not, obviously, so this is just a dream filled player's silly idea... well, I'd do something like this.
Spoiler
For one, the map design philosophy is going to completely change. The bases would become actual walled bases placed on an actual large scale map. The base would still have multiple gates and defenses, but would be entirely surrounded by walls that you could navigate around. The walls would be sized to keep out heavier 'mechs, but allow lighter 'mechs with enough JJs to leap over for the sake of extra strategic choice. The base would be defended by heavy batteries of turrets- I'm talking AC10s, SRMs... enough to deter a straight up light rush and require an assault lance if taken on directly.
Then the objectives get slightly expanded. Instead of a gate generator that just exists as a mandatory time sink barrier, it'd have both a Gate Control and a Turret Control. These locations would be spread out into the map. They'd be capturable, and on capturing these locations, it would disable the respective defense at the defender's base. On top of that, they would be OPTIONAL objectives- both gates and turrets could be destroyed by weapons fire, but it would take some time and the attackers would surely take loses. Again, strategic choices.
The point of all this? For one, the conflict zones are no longer going to be just choke-points surrounding gates. Having external objectives from the base encourages defenders to actually sally forth and defend their control centers if they so choose, and the battle will take stages as the attackers try to capture points, and then siege the defender's base. Ultimately, combat isn't just limited to within the base.
One issue that might arise from this is travel time. In the final stage of a battle, where the attackers have the defenders pushed back, if an attacker dies and has to travel 2+ minutes to get back into battle... well that's hardly going to be fun. So, implement capturable spawns! This hardly even needs to be complex.
Attackers would have a main spawn point where they spawn from drop ships. Defenders would start with hangers in their main base. However, there'd also be two capturable hanger spawns at the two control centers. The defenders would start with these, and could choose to start further into the map to start their defenses. Attackers could capture these points and be able to spawn closer to the battle.
There's still so much room for ideas. There could be further optional objectives, such as resource depots, which grant Cbill bonuses to the winning side, perhaps even have their own spawn points.
So because images speak a thousand words I whipped up a quick mock up in Blender. Let it be known that I have no idea how to sculpt terrain so this is less of a 'this is a map I want to see' and more of a 'this is the idea I want to see maps designed around'. Also this was sort of supposed to be a desert, so imagine plenty of rocky structures for cover and such.
It's the same scale as Alpine, so not even as large as Polar Highlands.
Do I expect PGI to suddenly drop all their current maps or redesign them like this? Do I even expect them to use this sort of style for future maps? Of course not. I doubt everyone would even like this style of gameplay, which is more towards the original MW games and LL. And I'm sure there's people out there that like the current CW mode.
I'm just posting this because I can. CW is something that's frustrated me since day one due to the hype it built up and the way PGI was selling it, but it just feels like a missed opportunity that could have made MWO surpass even the previous MW games.
Will edit this later, but I just want to make a quick reply:
I only recently found this article on PcGamer from 2013, and it really confirmed all my suspicions about PGI's map design and game design philosophy. http://www.pcgamer.c...tion-to-detail/
They basically want you to start each match by walking into designated 'grind zones', where all the fighting takes place. Russ basically confirmed this in a Town Hall meeting earlier, where he explained a total disinterest in having any fighting take place outside the gates. The whole point of Invasion mode, in his mind, was to funnel the attackers into the base to have a big brawl. That sounds like really crude paraphrasing on my part but he used the word 'brawl' repeatedly. Not tactical maneuvering, not sneaky strategies or clever plans to go after objectives. Just... "brawl". Do u even brawl bro? The whole point of the game mode is to have big meat grinder brawls, repeated every 5 minutes until one side wins.
Now, having said that, I will edit this post with a longer response.
EDIT:
Ok, now I've read all you wrote and looked at your pictures. It's a perfect post. I award you 9000 out of 9000 internet points. Well done.
However, I will play devil's advocate / negative nancy and say this:
Spoiler
I actually think it's much harder for PGI to do what you're suggesting now than before. Because what you're asking for is exactly what the players asked for in 2012-2013, and what the players asked for again a few days after CW Phase 1 went live. But here's the bad news:
A lot of the players who want the game you want... have left MWO. And a lot of the players who want the rail shooter model are still here. This is especially evident when you look at Polar Highlands. That map is exactly what a lot of people asked for when PGI started pumping out all those "grind zone" maps with very limited movement. But in 2016, it's like a huge portion of the players have been so accustomed to fighting on those Crimson Strait-type maps where your choice is basically left or right (and you still end up in the same god damn place no matter what), they really hate the new map.
"omg, I have to spend 4 minutes of this match walking? Is this a walking simulator? hello? when do I get to shoot the enemy? are we there yet? no, im not going to J6, im going to the center of the map. f*ck this, f*ck maneuvers, i just wanna shoot stuff."
If every MWO map was like the maps I've seen in MW:LL (big, open maps with no clear paths or 'grind zones'), or if every MWO map was like Polar Highlands (in terms of freedom of movement, not lack of cover), then those players would have left ages ago. But they've stayed in MWO because they've been playing Crimson Strait and HPG Manifold for years, and they enjoy the lack of maneuvering and scouting. They enjoy knowing where the enemy is and getting in a brawl after 2 minutes every damn time.
I wouldn't say that it's too late, I would just say that if your idea was implemented, guys like me and you would love it, but a lot of people would miss the "big brawls bro" from Invasion mode.
Edited by Alistair Winter, 24 February 2016 - 05:52 PM.
They should have stolen the "Rush" gamemode from Battlefield: Bad Company 2 flat out and incorporated Battlemechs into it. Keep the 4-mech drop loadout. Advancing drop-zones. Multiple objectives to push the advancing combat line. Legitimate tactics.
CW maps are a giant bowl. Look at the difference in map design here:
That's designed with mobile objectives and changing battlelines in mind.
Yes, it's squad-based combat compared to armor-based combat. But the general ideas can still apply. CW was just a missed opportunity.
CW's game mode is a failure, really, for many reasons:
- For one, it's terribly NON immersive. Nevermind the little details - I love how the planets we're fighting over not only contribute nothing to anything but don't even have any info filled out on them when you're waiting to drop. Classy!
No, I'm talking about the insanity of the CW map setup. No sane commander is going to send an attacking force into obvious kill-zones, particularly when the defenders have numerical parity AND defense turrets (as mediocre as they may be) on their side. It all just feels very forced and rather meaningless, and the bad attempts to give it meaning make it actually worse, IMHO, than the Random battles, since at least those aren't pretending to be some epic, high-skill environment full of realism.
- Even if you can get past the general "wrongness" of it all, the battles are still rather miserable experiences. I won't get into the lack of match-making and the seal-clubbing it produces, but even in a relatively balanced CW match, it still usually feels dragged out and pointless. Much like any other such combat game, an early lead in kills tends to produce a snowball effect. In short, it often feels like more of the same, just dragged out over a longer period for no extra reward.
So, even from a basic level, CW generally fails to meet its supposed goals, though if the goal was just to smash mechs into each other until everyone dies, it achieves that admirably. This doesn't even touch upon the greater designs, missions, and other things that could have been... Heck, I like MWO, but I also find it sad that it is common for games from the 1990's (X-Wing, etc.) to have more believable battlefields and missions than many modern games. Ah, well... whatever sells, and that's generally stuff to collect, not quality missions, stories, etc. sadly.
Edited by oldradagast, 24 February 2016 - 05:50 PM.
oldradagast, on 24 February 2016 - 05:49 PM, said:
CW's game mode is a failure, really, for many reasons:
- For one, it's terribly NON immersive. Nevermind the little details - I love how the planets we're fighting over not only contribute nothing to anything but don't even have any info filled out on them when you're waiting to drop. Classy!
Not to mention that every world in the galaxy has the exact same battlefields. You've landed on the ice world Hoth? Guess what, you're playing Grim Portico. You're attacking the lush jungle world of Dagobah? Guess what! It's Grim Portico. You're attacking the desert world Tatooine? That's right! Grim Portico again! Attacking the cloudy gas giant of Bespin? Yep, you're back to Grim Portico.
So immersive. It's so exciting to fight over new planets from week to week, you know? They could have limited each planet to 3 specific maps, but... nah. Just let every planet be exactly the same.
I hope this game fails due to how they have handled CW to this point. I despise PGI for the abomination CW is and I will forever be salty for it.
Not sure anything can save CW with two more phases to come how ever many years that could take.
While we are at it throw on the poorly thought out skill system for mechs, just another complete failure on their part to allow player choice and immersion.
Edited by GRiPSViGiL, 24 February 2016 - 06:06 PM.
Alistair Winter, on 24 February 2016 - 05:41 PM, said:
Will edit this later, but I just want to make a quick reply:
I only recently found this article on PcGamer from 2013, and it really confirmed all my suspicions about PGI's map design and game design philosophy. http://www.pcgamer.c...tion-to-detail/
They basically want you to start each match by walking into designated 'grind zones', where all the fighting takes place. Russ basically confirmed this in a Town Hall meeting earlier, where he explained a total disinterest in having any fighting take place outside the gates. The whole point of Invasion mode, in his mind, was to funnel the attackers into the base to have a big brawl. That sounds like really crude paraphrasing on my part but he used the word 'brawl' repeatedly. Not tactical maneuvering, not sneaky strategies or clever plans to go after objectives. Just... "brawl". Do u even brawl bro? The whole point of the game mode is to have big meat grinder brawls, repeated every 5 minutes until one side wins.
Now, having said that, I will edit this post with a longer response.
EDIT:
Ok, now I've read all you wrote and looked at your pictures. It's a perfect post. I award you 9000 out of 9000 internet points. Well done.
However, I will play devil's advocate / negative nancy and say this:
Spoiler
I actually think it's much harder for PGI to do what you're suggesting now than before. Because what you're asking for is exactly what the players asked for in 2012-2013, and what the players asked for again a few days after CW Phase 1 went live. But here's the bad news:
A lot of the players who want the game you want... have left MWO. And a lot of the players who want the rail shooter model are still here. This is especially evident when you look at Polar Highlands. That map is exactly what a lot of people asked for when PGI started pumping out all those "grind zone" maps with very limited movement. But in 2016, it's like a huge portion of the players have been so accustomed to fighting on those Crimson Strait-type maps where your choice is basically left or right (and you still end up in the same god damn place no matter what), they really hate the new map.
"omg, I have to spend 4 minutes of this match walking? Is this a walking simulator? hello? when do I get to shoot the enemy? are we there yet? no, im not going to J6, im going to the center of the map. f*ck this, f*ck maneuvers, i just wanna shoot stuff."
If every MWO map was like the maps I've seen in MW:LL (big, open maps with no clear paths or 'grind zones'), or if every MWO map was like Polar Highlands (in terms of freedom of movement, not lack of cover), then those players would have left ages ago. But they've stayed in MWO because they've been playing Crimson Strait and HPG Manifold for years, and they enjoy the lack of maneuvering and scouting. They enjoy knowing where the enemy is and getting in a brawl after 2 minutes every damn time.
I wouldn't say that it's too late, I would just say that if your idea was implemented, guys like me and you would love it, but a lot of people would miss the "big brawls bro" from Invasion mode.
Ugh, that article sent a shiver down my spine. And I've always got the impression that Russ hasn't ever really been quite clued in on what people originally wanted in the game. I do wonder how much say he gets in the actual design of the maps since it seems a map designer would be well aware of issues like this.
But you know, what you have in your spoiler there, is so god damn right it hurts. I'm aware of it, believe me. It's why I felt a little silly posting it in the first place. Some silly part of me hopes that if I keep trying to hold a torch high maybe, just maybe, some miracle might happen.
As a fan of lore - there are no planetary defense gauss cannons I can recall. Even id a few exist, they certainly aren't on every damn planet, and disabling them is not in a single lore campaign I can recall.
It's bad enough that CW ignores most Battletech lore, but the worst offense is that it does so without even being fun.
Alistair Winter, on 24 February 2016 - 05:59 PM, said:
Not to mention that every world in the galaxy has the exact same battlefields. You've landed on the ice world Hoth? Guess what, you're playing Grim Portico. You're attacking the lush jungle world of Dagobah? Guess what! It's Grim Portico. You're attacking the desert world Tatooine? That's right! Grim Portico again! Attacking the cloudy gas giant of Bespin? Yep, you're back to Grim Portico.
So immersive. It's so exciting to fight over new planets from week to week, you know? They could have limited each planet to 3 specific maps, but... nah. Just let every planet be exactly the same.
Very true! I can forgive the lack of "infinite" maps, or even a huge number given the small size of the company and the time maps take to create, but the current setup is just laughable. Every planet is exactly the same as every other planet - free of any flavor, story, or anything else - and the all the combat to win them accomplishes exactly nothing. Hell, one could probably write a more immersive story made up on the spot in the random battle queue vs. what's been created in CW, and that's just sad.
I love the OP's take on what CW should be, and it's how I always imagined CW would be. Mechcommander meets MWLL
But let's be honest here. Anything would be better than the current CW's crap maps and "brawlers r us" playstyle. I'm sick of brawlers whining that they don't get into combat fast enough when practically the whole game is made for them, while some players want to scout and use actual tactics.
I do not know if PGI has figured out map design yet or not. I do admit their maps are getting better but they have built up so much inertia in the wrong direction (see static choke points/grind points as posted above) they have a way to go to overcome past ignorant decisions to start tracking right.
Yep, if they had only studied the mission maps of MW4 and MWLL early on. Seriously, they threw away 15 years of online mech game map design experience and started trying to reinvent the wheel. (And with CW failed miserably.)
Anyway I hope PGI has figured out and working toward adding much needed variety to the MWO game/maps. Really Scripting, Orders/Goals, Wining Conditions, weight/CB restrictions, multiple threat axis, random (or player influenced) AI interplay, etc, were all prior accomplishments of the MW4 and MWLL online games.
Edited by ShadowFire, 24 February 2016 - 07:11 PM.
oldradagast, on 24 February 2016 - 07:06 PM, said:
Very true! I can forgive the lack of "infinite" maps, or even a huge number given the small size of the company and the time maps take to create, but the current setup is just laughable. Every planet is exactly the same as every other planet - free of any flavor, story, or anything else - and the all the combat to win them accomplishes exactly nothing. Hell, one could probably write a more immersive story made up on the spot in the random battle queue vs. what's been created in CW, and that's just sad.
I find it particularly comical that they added in UI fields for various planet statistics like temperature, gravity, description etc and never ended up even adding the relevant content let alone connecting it to gameplay.
I mean come on. You could at the very least have dynamic temperature/gravity linked to the maps and maybe a dynamic texture set based on the world type (alpine, desert, grass, barren etc).
I cannot express how disgusted I am at the CW maps. They turned CW into nothing but grinding C-Bills and no one has fun on these maps. There's minimal skills involved and the only 'team work' is concentrating fire at choke points or CTs.
They should have stolen the "Rush" gamemode from Battlefield: Bad Company 2 flat out and incorporated Battlemechs into it. Keep the 4-mech drop loadout. Advancing drop-zones. Multiple objectives to push the advancing combat line. Legitimate tactics.
CW maps are a giant bowl. Look at the difference in map design here:
That's designed with mobile objectives and changing battlelines in mind.
Yes, it's squad-based combat compared to armor-based combat. But the general ideas can still apply. CW was just a missed opportunity.
Oh my god, Arica Harbor you sir just made my day. That map was just so amazing and I realize this is off topic.
Giving PGI the benefit of the doubt, let's hope and assume that CW in its current state is an implementation of a variety of successful, but not finished factors. The galactic Map. It works! Planets change hands, territory is gained and lost, and there are multiple battles for each planet. Dropships and drop decks work, call to arms works, so there are a variety of implemented factors that work.
So let's hope and assume that they will take these in place and working systems and start to work more nuance and strategy into it. GIve us a good reason to bring Light's in a drop deck besides just needing to fill our 4th spot with 25-35 tons because everything else is Assault/Heavy. There should be tactical balance to every drop, where a Drop Caller will need to (for example) Assign Alpha Lance to have 3 lights and a Medium to go take Objective A (which is far away) while Bravo lance sets up for fire support and Charlie lance pushes towards Objective X.
As you described very clearly OP, the current mechanics are no more than the heaviest and most coordinated push wins every time, but thats because the objectives are so linear. If there were more asymmetrical objectives there would be more options for tactical diversity.
7
