60 replies to this topic

[Lyoto Machida]

I love the effort you put into the post, OP, but y'all are on an island...Founders and people who want an immersive CW aren't the target demographic.

Buy more mech packs, pls.

[Psi Anara]

Psi Anara, on 25 February 2016 - 12:40 PM, said:

This is a direction I would like to see CW go.

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.

In the same way that Conquest Game mode awards those teams which control the most objectives, even if they lose on Kill count. I am sure we have all lost several games in Quick Play because we failed to control enough objectives for long enough, despite being up on kills. That is the sort of tactical diversity that should exist in CW. Give commanders the option to choose to go for kills, objectives, or a combination of the two etc...

[Drunk Canuck]

One thing worth noting is that CW was supposed to be out in 2012, it took them 2 years to finally get it out the door and they basically rushed it into development because they knew that the founders and open beta players were going to walk out the door if they didn't have anything tangible within 6 months of their "going into live", especially when Transverse was presented to the same community that had been ramming it's fists up PGI's rear ends and the community collectively said "F U PGI".

The first two phases have been for the most part, a colossal disaster as far as design is concerned. They are linear, repetitive and ever lacking in the diversity and constant flux that CW should have, and I don't see phase 3 doing a lot to stem those issues because like usual, Russ isn't listening to the community.

[Impyrium]

Drunk Canuck, on 25 February 2016 - 05:13 PM, said:

One thing worth noting is that CW was supposed to be out in 2012, it took them 2 years to finally get it out the door and they basically rushed it into development because they knew that the founders and open beta players were going to walk out the door if they didn't have anything tangible within 6 months of their "going into live", especially when Transverse was presented to the same community that had been ramming it's fists up PGI's rear ends and the community collectively said "F U PGI".

The first two phases have been for the most part, a colossal disaster as far as design is concerned. They are linear, repetitive and ever lacking in the diversity and constant flux that CW should have, and I don't see phase 3 doing a lot to stem those issues because like usual, Russ isn't listening to the community.

See, a lot of elements of Phase III sound really interesting. They ought to add in that extra level of depth and polish that the Faction Warfare meta map needs... although it could go further, honestly.

But that doesn't touch the actual game mode which is my issue. You can make the most intricate, in-depth Faction Warfare metagame with full economy and everything and I'm still not going to touch it if it comes down to grinding the same linear maps over and over.

[GoodTry]

Quote

However, I will play devil's advocate / negative nancy and say this:

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.

I'm one of the people who hates the 4 minutes of walking on Polar Highlands. I think that what people are forgetting is that this game is structured in a way that already minimizes the amount of actual fighting that you get to do. You have to spend time building a mech, queuing, voting, waiting in a lobby, waiting for a dropship, and then waiting for your mech to boot up. None of these things can be cut down much more, sadly, so we are stuck like this.

Adding 4 minutes of walking on top of all of the other delays just isn't fun. If we had a different system - one where you could play again after a win/loss without going through all of the crap, or one where you could respawn mid-map, etc - then it would be definitely workable. But that is not what we have. There just isn't room to add tons of empty walking to this game as things stand now

[Triordinant]

Malleus011, on 24 February 2016 - 07:02 PM, said:

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.

The idea of a Big Gun "objective" is from Quake 2.

[ZenFool]

I wanted something other than a mechlab and a fight button. I wanted a mode that reminds me of BT. I still don't get, with thousands of pages of lore already written, why you would pull ideas like the Orbital Gun or the copy/paste Dota maps?

The idea of "balance" kills variety. Seriously, why should the ice planet have sulfourous rift? Balance... Why must we have gates and chokepoints at the SAME spot on every map? Balance... A lot of poor decisions come down to that.

It is OKAY to give attackers an advantage on some maps. It is OKAY to give defenders an advantage on some maps. Especially given the nature of planet conquering in CW. Once you accept that you can have a blast designing maps with all sorts of gems hidden inside.

So I'm on an island in a lake on an island. I want some form of lore to tie this game down. How many other fps titles have over thirty years of history like MechWarrior? I also want maps that aren't mirrored or choked into "balance". Silly me.

[NoSkillRush]

seeing how things progressed from 2013 yea.. I never had any high hopes and here we are in early 2016. Same status.

[Navid A1]

ZenFool, on 25 February 2016 - 07:24 PM, said:

I wanted something other than a mechlab and a fight button. I wanted a mode that reminds me of BT. I still don't get, with thousands of pages of lore already written, why you would pull ideas like the Orbital Gun or the copy/paste Dota maps?

The idea of "balance" kills variety. Seriously, why should the ice planet have sulfourous rift? Balance... Why must we have gates and chokepoints at the SAME spot on every map? Balance... A lot of poor decisions come down to that.

It is OKAY to give attackers an advantage on some maps. It is OKAY to give defenders an advantage on some maps. Especially given the nature of planet conquering in CW. Once you accept that you can have a blast designing maps with all sorts of gems hidden inside.

So I'm on an island in a lake on an island. I want some form of lore to tie this game down. How many other fps titles have over thirty years of history like MechWarrior? I also want maps that aren't mirrored or choked into "balance". Silly me.

As long as planets remain the same dots you need to paint, nothing will mean anything.

I remember different planets with mech factories on them was supposed to offer several advantages back in 2012 PGI's vision.

[Wolfways]

Psi Anara, on 25 February 2016 - 12:42 PM, said:

In the same way that Conquest Game mode awards those teams which control the most objectives, even if they lose on Kill count. I am sure we have all lost several games in Quick Play because we failed to control enough objectives for long enough, despite being up on kills. That is the sort of tactical diversity that should exist in CW. Give commanders the option to choose to go for kills, objectives, or a combination of the two etc...

Imo kills should never be the objective (yes i hate skirmish). Killing should be what you have to do (assuming the enemy get in your way) to complete the objective.

[Wolfways]

GoodTry, on 25 February 2016 - 05:36 PM, said:

I'm one of the people who hates the 4 minutes of walking on Polar Highlands. I think that what people are forgetting is that this game is structured in a way that already minimizes the amount of actual fighting that you get to do. You have to spend time building a mech, queuing, voting, waiting in a lobby, waiting for a dropship, and then waiting for your mech to boot up. None of these things can be cut down much more, sadly, so we are stuck like this.

Adding 4 minutes of walking on top of all of the other delays just isn't fun. If we had a different system - one where you could play again after a win/loss without going through all of the crap, or one where you could respawn mid-map, etc - then it would be definitely workable. But that is not what we have. There just isn't room to add tons of empty walking to this game as things stand now

Walking? You mean taking position while the lights scout out the enemy for you?
It sounds like you want to remove the one thing that makes Polar the best map, that fights can happen anywhere instead of just having everyone walk to the center and fire.

[MemeCreamSupreme]

What are all the controls outside the base, I hate that.

How about they just rip of bases from Mechcommander and show those in.

Imagine a 4v8 battle where the 4 defend the base and have access to repair stations. Take turns healing while others tank. Just spitballing because that is a horrible time for lights. But there's so many possibilities. Every map should feel like a different game mode.

Let me repeat that, every map should feel like a different game mode. Similar to halo, Super smash bros, the entire game can change through the level design.

[Wolfways]

Apocalypticoreo, on 25 February 2016 - 09:36 PM, said:

Imagine a 4v8 battle where the 4 defend the base and have access to repair stations.

Players have already screamed at pgi "No repair stations and no respawns." because "realism"

[Impyrium]

GoodTry, on 25 February 2016 - 05:36 PM, said:

I'm one of the people who hates the 4 minutes of walking on Polar Highlands. I think that what people are forgetting is that this game is structured in a way that already minimizes the amount of actual fighting that you get to do. You have to spend time building a mech, queuing, voting, waiting in a lobby, waiting for a dropship, and then waiting for your mech to boot up. None of these things can be cut down much more, sadly, so we are stuck like this.

Adding 4 minutes of walking on top of all of the other delays just isn't fun. If we had a different system - one where you could play again after a win/loss without going through all of the crap, or one where you could respawn mid-map, etc - then it would be definitely workable. But that is not what we have. There just isn't room to add tons of empty walking to this game as things stand now

See, that's Winter's point. The 'fun' to many is just the part where you get the trigger. There's nothing wrong with that, but that simplistic gameplay should be kept to something solaris based or quick play, not faction warfare.

Apocalypticoreo, on 25 February 2016 - 09:36 PM, said:

What are all the controls outside the base, I hate that.

How about they just rip of bases from Mechcommander and show those in.

Imagine a 4v8 battle where the 4 defend the base and have access to repair stations. Take turns healing while others tank. Just spitballing because that is a horrible time for lights. But there's so many possibilities. Every map should feel like a different game mode.

Let me repeat that, every map should feel like a different game mode. Similar to halo, Super smash bros, the entire game can change through the level design.

Actually, MechCommander was one of the biggest inspirations for this.

What you suggest would largely be the same to what we have now. The point of external objectives is to diversify the game so that combat occurs throughout the map, rather than just being focused in the same choke points over and over again.

I think the idea of different objectives per map would be quite interesting, however. But doing that with linear objectives will mean there's really no diversity between them at all.

[jjm1]

I want to see warfare on a huge open map where there is a command role that's dedicated to the mini map, cameras and mech stats, can divert power to defense turrets or can move AI aircraft and tanks around to enable artillery/air support along certain corridors.

Attackers should generally have more choices about how to mount an attack so battles are a bit more dynamic and exciting.

There can be a range of important roles for lights:
Destroy monitoring posts
Open gates for express assault movement by capturing them on the other side
Scouting
Flanking

The primary objectives should be varied and have some sort of planetary conquest arc:
Sensor Array
Command Station
Mech Factory
Airfield
etc.

And each planet should have a certain look to it, that's for sure.

[Johnny Z]

Dingo Red, on 24 February 2016 - 05:29 PM, said:

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.

I think there will be a few different types of maps for faction play eventually. The current defense maps being a part of that is fine. Being the only kind of maps at the moment kind of sucks. That anyone still plays faction proves the current maps are not bad.

Same thing for the original Forest colony map. It has had many many matches played on it proving its quality.

The above idea from the topic looks good or something similar to that eventually.



This was done before I had internet and could just barely load the forums. Its from all the feature suggestions and topics and replies about game modes just piled together.

http://mwomercs.com/...e-to-see-added/

Some of these ideas could be used to create dynamic faction play.

MechWarrior Online base design is a lot like Mass Effects(and Mass Effect is awesome minus a couple sabotage elements to limit replayability https://youtu.be/lx9sPQpjgjU the next one should be even better coming this year https://youtu.be/uG8V9dRqSsw ) game design. Its like lego. Its actually the best way to do it and have proper game play detail and features. Open world has massive limits to how much detail can be gone into and features.

So the original topic is entirely possible is the point.

I should add that Mass Effect: Andromdeda game trailer is right off ideas that were on these forums a couple years ago or more, every aspect. Coincidence for sure because the two games designs are that close. Other game of course to, but these two are the best of them.

Edited by Johnny Z, 26 February 2016 - 12:08 AM.

[Deadmeat313]

In 2582, the Star League member states signed the Treaty of New Hessen. It stiplulated that :

• Each world within the Inner Sphere should be emplaced with thirteen massive gauss cannons.
  
• Planetary governments are required to keep the guns powered, and keep them firing at the sky.
  
• Henceforth, control of each planet will go to whichever faction controls a majority of cannon sites.
  
• Control will be determined at pre-set times, based on Terran time zones.

The planetary governments themselves were given freedom onily in the positioning of the guns - hence the vast majority being placed in extremely hostile environments, far from civilisation.

One anomaly is the backwater agricultural world of Tukayyid, which - due to a serious administrative error - was emplaced with sixty three gauss cannons. This has made it the 4th most difficult planet to conquer in the whole Inner Sphere (after Terra, Persistence, Outpost and Cadiz*).


* Interestingly, the three worlds Persistence, Outpost and Cadiz appear to have dismantled all their gauss cannons. This has effectively made them unconquerable.

[Greyhart]

Yes the maps on CW are terrible and clearly designed with a very linear and arena like game play in mind. There is very little to think about.

I hope Polar Highlands have shown PGI that large open maps are interesting too and that shifts the design philosophy.

I understand from the previous town hall that the Assault mode on quick play will become capture the base with external cap points providing the attacker with advantages. With a bit of luck this again will filter through to CW.

I think what they should be doing with map design is start by making one massive "planet" map. Then they can cut it up into individual play maps (which can overlap with each other). Then you have the attacking team progress from map to map until the take the entire planet. Also you can use these maps in quick play too.

[Ulris Ventis]

I've read all the thread and I agree with most things been told here.
I played MechCom a lot in the past, some MegaMek as well and seen CW the first time was I don't know, it was frustrating.
There is basically one way in, and literally no way around, there is mostly no maneuvering around the place or flanking involved in any way. It's like playing Assault with 30 minutes and 4 mechs but against a coordinated group on god awful linear maps when been an attacker means a huge penalty from the start.


And then PGI comes up with Polar Highlands which I enjoy a lot! Lots of valleys, hills, paths, routes to strike from, ways of gaining advantage against an opponent and room for movement. It's like the opposite of Alpine Pikes that I hate or one of those Circle Circus maps with too short distances until one team catches a slow assault from the other and kill him in a tactical Nascar move.

God I wish, PGI will ever take the first post in consideration or at least notice it.

[Karamarka]

I hate how every map is basically a gate chokepoint map. They are all the exact same strategy and gameplay - and that is not even good gameplay, just funneling 1 bad team into a good team with no way to change tactics.