60 replies to this topic

[Thorn Hallis]

Oh yes, Rush-mode from Bad Company would have been so cool.

A good start for PGI to salvage CW would be to integrate every queue there is into CW, even if the reward is just a small %-number on a faction leaderboard or something. Immersion can mask a lot of flaws if done right.

[RedDragon]

Let's be realistic and see MWO as what it is: A failed experiment in all respects save making money. It could have been so much more, but PGI are obviously incapable of making the game they promised and sold us on and which players wanted to have for the last 4 years. Sadly many people (me included) took way too long to see this, and today still there are people who give PGI "the benefit of doubt" and cling to the hope that all will turn out well in the end. Despite the fact that in the last 4 years, there has not been a single new feature that PGI implemented which wasn't half-arsed or even worse. Clan invasion, CW, dynamic geometry, cockpit glass, ghost heat, consumables, the alternative game modes ... the list goes on and on and it doesn't even matter if it is a small or greater item, everything they implement is just objectively bad (that is, if it in fact works at all).
So why should they be able to magically produce a good CW when they haven't done anything right in the last 4 years? (Apart from Alex' work on the art department, obviously, but even those cool designs get messed up during production with dynamic weapons and really bad animations).

[Jables McBarty]

Hopefully PGI takes note of this thread.

Alistair Winter, on 24 February 2016 - 05:41 PM, said:

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.

This comment helps me understand why I hated Crimson and HPG so much at first. Still can't stand Frozen City.

I'm less than 4 months in and am 100% on board with this discussion. Hopefully there's a solid % of other newcomers who are as well.

Karamarka, on 26 February 2016 - 03:23 AM, said:

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.

Yep. Even though there are "nuanced" differences between the CW maps, they are absolutely repetitive in that they are all the same game mode, and therefore have the same chokepoint style. It is a huge missed opportunity (as others have said in this thread), where each map could a completely different set of objectives and playstyle (sort of like Polar Highlands vs. Frozen City). I think Polar Highlands was a good indicator in that they are willing to try something new, bigger, that provides for more nuanced gameplay.

Regardless of the logistical reasons behind the current CW's 6 maps x 1 game mode (because ultimately all four variations are the same), I'd rather see that effort expended to produce 3 maps where each has its own, completely separate game mode. Fewer maps. But more real variety in gameplay.

[Speedkermit]

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

What you call 4 minutes of walking, others call manoeuvring, positioning, using actual tactics.. I believe many players are sick and tired of the same old formula of "proceed to C5 and brawl it out" like always.

By the way, excellent post OP.

[Speedkermit]

Navid A1, on 25 February 2016 - 08:32 PM, said:

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.

How can planets ever be made to mean something when the owning unit can, and usually does switch sides every seven days?

[Ultramallet]

OP has articulated perfectly what I wanted when I first jumped into CW. I was sorely disappointed. I'm glad the game has some arena style maps/modes, but an actual mechwarrior game is long overdue.

[Rip von Graze]

OP has described exactly what I want from CW and really the whole game in general. I'd rather have maps that make me as the player feel like I am doing something other than rushing a point. The few times I've thrown myself into the current CW maps made me angry, they are just worthless objectives that require mech blobs to do anything. With OPs design objectives can be taken and held, blobs split up into lance sized units.

Honestly, if this was the design philosophy for the CW maps I might play it more...

Please make this happen.

[Rebas Kradd]

Rush mode would not only be a refreshing addition, but it would serve MWO even better than it does Battlefield. Advancing spawns would give heavier mechs a way to drop closer to the action without having to walk for five minutes, while lights would be used to clear out and cap those spawns at the very beginning.

In our current CW format of four mechs each, this would organically promote role warfare and players using multiple classes. They could step out of those classes and go with three heavies and a light if they really wanted, they'd just have to pay the price in walking time. (But it could still be fun if that person is able to catch an enemy light lance by surprise at a battle stage they weren't expecting.)

I repeat my video proposal:

[Alex Gorsky]

Lyoto Machida, on 25 February 2016 - 12:41 PM, said:

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.

So true.

[Jables McBarty]

Rebas Kradd, on 26 February 2016 - 09:37 AM, said:

I repeat my video proposal:

Another good proposal.

PGI, please build two new maps:
1. Open-ish desert-ish map with objectives like what OP suggested.
2. Map with parallel AOOs such as mountain valleys and progressive spawn points like what Rebas Kudd suggested.

[Stelar 7]

So, so much salt on this thread.

RedDragon, on 26 February 2016 - 05:53 AM, said:

Let's be realistic and see MWO as what it is: A failed experiment in all respects save making money. It could have been so much more, but PGI are obviously incapable of making the game they promised and sold us on and which players wanted to have for the last 4 years. Sadly many people (me included) took way too long to see this, and today still there are people who give PGI "the benefit of doubt" and cling to the hope that all will turn out well in the end. Despite the fact that in the last 4 years, there has not been a single new feature that PGI implemented which wasn't half-arsed or even worse. Clan invasion, CW, dynamic geometry, cockpit glass, ghost heat, consumables, the alternative game modes ... the list goes on and on and it doesn't even matter if it is a small or greater item, everything they implement is just objectively bad (that is, if it in fact works at all).
So why should they be able to magically produce a good CW when they haven't done anything right in the last 4 years? (Apart from Alex' work on the art department, obviously, but even those cool designs get messed up during production with dynamic weapons and really bad animations).

I love that you think that load of opinion is in any way objective, I encourage you to look up the meaning of that word, and another, hyperbole.

I like CW, I've had matches which were skittle stomps, tight matches between well matched teams and times when I dropped against -MS- where we got handily face rolled. Cheers guys.

The OP's suggestion looks like fun to me, it reminds me of some of the open world fighting we used to get in WWII Online, many years ago. My main concern is that a mobile defender, read anyone using Clan heavies, will be able to project forcefully and crush any dispersed IS units.

I don't think you people are considering the asymmetric balance of the two factions when you are planning your new and improved modes. Battlefield has identical sides, only the graphics change. It also has strictly limited equipment, and all the "units" move at the same rate. It's not a good analog for MWO and the complexity of balance should not be underestimated.

Currently the two sides are in pretty good balance with Clans generally being better at poking, and long range and the IS generally being better up close and in your face. However that means that any defender needs to be able to generate a long range, or brawling defense, and any attacker needs to be able to generate a long range or brawling defense. The large open maps you want directly favor clan mechs. They are faster. How do you offset that? Can you do it without pitching out four years of balancing? Polar works because both sides are mixed groups and no one knows it's coming.

I like a lot of the ideas above, but they need to be thought of within the constraints of the game. The salt above, I can do without. All it does is poison the well, and bias the reader.

Finally, scouting is good. Having a few scout mechs is great and great fun when situations call for it. However planning a game mode where the attacker splits their forces is bad. It will encourage the defender to blob up and crush the isolated attacker groups. If you want to encourage separation, you need to find a way to force both sides to do it. Something like a really fast timer, that can not be abandoned. Of course, if you have such a thing you will get the feints, and speedy caps that everyone hates in Assault mode, so be careful what you ask for.

[RedDragon]

Stelar 7, on 26 February 2016 - 12:02 PM, said:

I love that you think that load of opinion is in any way objective, I encourage you to look up the meaning of that word, and another, hyperbole.

I encourage you to name me one major feature they implemented that wasn't half arsed and was liked by a majority of players. It would be okay if only some people didn't like it, you can't always make it right to everyone. But for this game, par on course is "Well, could have been worse, at least they didn't break the game this time".

And yes, I dare say measured by the things they promise, what they deliver IS objectively bad.

[Impyrium]

Stelar 7, on 26 February 2016 - 12:02 PM, said:

I like CW, I've had matches which were skittle stomps, tight matches between well matched teams and times when I dropped against -MS- where we got handily face rolled. Cheers guys.

The OP's suggestion looks like fun to me, it reminds me of some of the open world fighting we used to get in WWII Online, many years ago. My main concern is that a mobile defender, read anyone using Clan heavies, will be able to project forcefully and crush any dispersed IS units.

I don't think you people are considering the asymmetric balance of the two factions when you are planning your new and improved modes. Battlefield has identical sides, only the graphics change. It also has strictly limited equipment, and all the "units" move at the same rate. It's not a good analog for MWO and the complexity of balance should not be underestimated.

Currently the two sides are in pretty good balance with Clans generally being better at poking, and long range and the IS generally being better up close and in your face. However that means that any defender needs to be able to generate a long range, or brawling defense, and any attacker needs to be able to generate a long range or brawling defense. The large open maps you want directly favor clan mechs. They are faster. How do you offset that? Can you do it without pitching out four years of balancing? Polar works because both sides are mixed groups and no one knows it's coming.

I like a lot of the ideas above, but they need to be thought of within the constraints of the game. The salt above, I can do without. All it does is poison the well, and bias the reader.

Balance is a very fair point and should certainly considered, however, I feel like my philosophy differs here. I believe that maps shouldn't ever be the balancing factor to an extreme level, especially in a MechWarrior game. I know this is tricky because MWO straddles the line between a competitive shooter and a MechWarrior game, but I feel like this should still ring true.

It just doesn't feel right that artificial choke points, closed in paths and dedicated grind areas are the methods for balance. I think the ISvClan can still be balanced on the stats side of things.

I should point out that my map idea was really just meant to represent the overall layout, and features zero terrain features or barriers. I sort of envisioned a lot of rocky structures, ridges and such to provide a lot of cover in a lot of areas. So it wouldn't be quite as open as it might look.

Stelar 7, on 26 February 2016 - 12:02 PM, said:

Finally, scouting is good. Having a few scout mechs is great and great fun when situations call for it. However planning a game mode where the attacker splits their forces is bad. It will encourage the defender to blob up and crush the isolated attacker groups. If you want to encourage separation, you need to find a way to force both sides to do it. Something like a really fast timer, that can not be abandoned. Of course, if you have such a thing you will get the feints, and speedy caps that everyone hates in Assault mode, so be careful what you ask for.

Again, a fair point and certainly something I considered fairly heavily. I did design this specifically to encourage a team to split itself up, but here's why I think that's going to work:

• If the defenders choose to blob up and remain in their base, they will allow the attacker to destroy both objectives thus making is significantly easier for the attackers to destroy the Command Center.
  
• If the defenders choose to blob up, they can only work on a single area of the map, thus leaving other areas undefended. The objective focus would mean there's more consideration that just destroying the other team.
  
• Similar to what we've seen in Highlands, a large enough map with enough cover can really screw with a death ball. A loose team can still skirmish with a blob and limit the blob's effectiveness.
  
• The turrets defending objectives would be enough to deter a couple of lights from tapping an objective and require a dedication of at least a single heavier lance. And cap time would be enough for the defenders to mount a counter attack.

Would successful separation require some serious coordination on a team's part? Sure, but CW was sorta supposed to be about that in the first place and right now the only real co-ordination is has is fire coordination, rather than tactical moves.

[MechWarrior5081902]

CW exists for one reason, for the all the elite units to club seals, this is all. This keeps the game small because the seals stop buying mechs and go play something else.

As long as PGI caters to the elite units, the game will stay small, and probably financially underwhelming.

Russ, fix the pug queues, make tier 5 only face tier 5, stop feeding your new customers to the elites, I guarantee you will make more money. Casuals spend money, but nobody wants to spend money getting one shot every game.

[Rasc4l]

Many great ideas like advancing spawns, which would make big maps playable for bigger and slower mechs. I wish OP was PGI's map designer. Not saying he's a godsent but obviously much less clueless than the current PGI CW map design approach.

Hope someone tweeted OP to Russ.

[Kaylock]

make this happen. This is what we were told would happen never got it.

[CaptainIvan]

i think if CW went for a more Rush oriented gameplay, it should also make use of the possibility of using more than 4 mechs, for example, the attackers destroy/capture A , 2nd objective comes online and the attackers and defenders get their drop decks replenished according to how many mechs they lost during the battle for objective A (unless the attackers fail and lose all mechs without taking an objective which would be game over instead)

[Impyrium]

After listening to the latest town hall my hopes for CW weren't exactly improved. The fact Russ even uses the term 'lanes' for CW kind of conveys he wants them in there specifically and it isn't just a product of inexperienced design.

Am I the only one that gets the impression he is quite... stubborn on what he wants in the game? Kind of like stock mode. Instead of saying, "Oh hey, you guys keep asking for it, we can't do a new bucket but we can chuck in a private match option for you guys", he instead tries to come up with every reason imaginable to why we shouldn't want it.

I'm just going to say this though. I'm betting that the new assault mode he keeps talking about is more like the Community Warfare we want than CW itself.

[JeremyCrow]

The map design and game mode isn't even the biggest problem for me. The problem is the total lack of immersion. You don't get the feeling you are fighting for an objective at all.

A quick win, something that wouldn't require much development and might bring some fun would be:

- Make week long campaigns, one planet per day, 3 windows per day (maybe 2 or 3 hours each window, this may need adjustment to cover all TZs)
- All Clans factions vs All IS factions
- Winner of two windows in a day takes the planet
- Weekend planets are worth twice as much
- Whoever has more wins by Sunday, last time slot, wins the campaign and all 7 planets
- One map per planet (depending on the lore description of the planet)

Benefits:
- Easier to get fights since all the player base will fight for the same planet
- PGI can create a narrative for each campaign, which will satisfy lore fans (e.g. "Road to Luthien", "Periphery Incursion", etc)
- Simplify the model, only have attack and defend. Wins by the end of the day determine the winner

[sparkomech66]

There are some very good points brought out in this thread. One of the reasons that PGI really should read this thread and look at the videos again before the Faction Play Round Table. Lets face it, unless PGI is sponsoring a challenge FP has no real activity and PGI needs to look at ways to make FP meaningful and fun to play.