11 replies to this topic

[wanderer]

Conquest, Assault, soon Domination: We stand in squares. Generally, we don't need to hold a position, because once we're done, it stays that way unless actively changed by other teams.

What if control over points required staying with them?

That is, a point not being occupied reverts to it's original state over time. Conquest points eventually yellow again, bases recover if not completely captured (or alternatively, recover to the nearest 33/25% fraction), etc. It can even be expanded further.

Weapon systems on maps that only remain active with friendly units "protecting" them, like artillery or missile turrets. Cargo vehicles that will only progress if a 'Mech is within a certain distance towards a staging area to score points. And so on.

[Zibmo]

wanderer, on 04 March 2016 - 04:32 PM, said:

Conquest, Assault, soon Domination: We stand in squares. Generally, we don't need to hold a position, because once we're done, it stays that way unless actively changed by other teams.

What if control over points required staying with them?

That is, a point not being occupied reverts to it's original state over time. Conquest points eventually yellow again, bases recover if not completely captured (or alternatively, recover to the nearest 33/25% fraction), etc. It can even be expanded further.

Weapon systems on maps that only remain active with friendly units "protecting" them, like artillery or missile turrets. Cargo vehicles that will only progress if a 'Mech is within a certain distance towards a staging area to score points. And so on.

I suggested something like this for additional drop zones in CW, but nobody appeared to be interested.

[El Bandito]

So we get to stand in squares more often? Hmm, I dunno. Do you have an example of another game doing that successfully?

[wanderer]

El Bandito, on 04 March 2016 - 06:31 PM, said:

So we get to stand in squares more often? Hmm, I dunno. Do you have an example of another game doing that successfully?

More appropriately, we can't just sit in a position for 30 seconds and then zip off to the deathball. For example, you could bump up the rate of Conquest point gain, because you'd have to hold a position to get those points. Proximity would be required to get things done. Leave a couple of lights off to hold two spots while you hold the third with your main team? Those 750 points build up very, very quickly. Bogging down in long fights might then actually win battles but lose the war, and force more splits to prevent losing by, y'know something besides kill all 12 of the other robots because inactive areas rapidly would net you zero, nil, and bupkus.

If Conquest takes actively holding spots and ramps up the rate of gain because of it, it means people will have to make choices- which to hold, which to disrupt, which to leave fallow. As it stands, you can often just roll over a point in seconds and then forget about it, as the time to 750 isn't really an issue unless it's either a hideously drawn out fight or you're down 4 points to 1. Speed up the rate of gain and require people actually hold on to points, and that changes the dynamic. It also means that you know there's a fight if you go to a held point, regardless of when- or else it'd be visibly and rapidly ticking back to neutral.

Edited by wanderer, 04 March 2016 - 07:33 PM.

[Anjian]

I never heard of any game with this, and I don't think its practical since it would require larger numbers of players and longer play times. Player and time resources are just limited. What is being proposed seems something that can be of more us in a more enduring and persistent form of combat, like Planetside 2.

[Yosharian]

wanderer, on 04 March 2016 - 04:32 PM, said:

Conquest, Assault, soon Domination: We stand in squares. Generally, we don't need to hold a position, because once we're done, it stays that way unless actively changed by other teams.

What if control over points required staying with them?

That is, a point not being occupied reverts to it's original state over time. Conquest points eventually yellow again, bases recover if not completely captured (or alternatively, recover to the nearest 33/25% fraction), etc. It can even be expanded further.

Weapon systems on maps that only remain active with friendly units "protecting" them, like artillery or missile turrets. Cargo vehicles that will only progress if a 'Mech is within a certain distance towards a staging area to score points. And so on.

I've made this point many times before, the problem is getting PGI to take notice.

But yeah, essentially what take 'n hold gamemodes need is the hold part.

The strategic value idea you propose is also smart.

[Duke Nedo]

While I think I catch the drift, seems to be boring to be assigned squaresitter of the team... Who would do it in the solo queue?

[Jabilac]

What about having more "effects" for having a higher cap amount. Capture a point on Conquest and it starts to produce immediately but if you continue to cap the point at half way (or where ever) then a small laser gets activated then at the max cap amount a medium laser gets activated. Obviously there could be more useful effects those are just placeholders.

Could be used to activate more assistance for each team in the new Domination mode or the future Assault mode. Cap a point on Domination and it increases your point gain, cap it halfway through and it slows your opponents point gain (or whatever) then cap it fully and get a small UAV effect (or whatever). Then the capture bar ticks down until halfway (or whatever) so there is a point in revisiting cap points but not have to sit there to activate anything.

[Tristan Winter]

What if PGI just used the dozen or so successful game modes from the most popular FPS games out there, enjoyed by millions all over the world, adapted for multiple titles since the 1990's, whether the player is on foot, in a space ship, in a tank or in an airplane.

<sigh>

Anyway. I see what you're trying to do, but it would lead to more static gameplay, IMO.

[SplashDown]

El Bandito, on 04 March 2016 - 06:31 PM, said:

So we get to stand in squares more often? Hmm, I dunno. Do you have an example of another game doing that successfully?

LOL

[Mithris]

first change, if they did that, was to shift it from a capture point to a capture region so we can maneuver a bit. One of the things I like about the CW maps is the objects are damaged, so you can move around a bit.


The other issue with just using other FPS versions of the game modes, is most of them are set up to work with (or because of) a respawning mechanic. MWO doesn't do that...it changes the dynamics a lot.

[wanderer]

Anjian, on 05 March 2016 - 02:56 AM, said:

I never heard of any game with this, and I don't think its practical since it would require larger numbers of players and longer play times. Player and time resources are just limited. What is being proposed seems something that can be of more us in a more enduring and persistent form of combat, like Planetside 2.

Um, why? It's a 12v12. We play Conquest with it as-is, this merely means that if you want to win by points, you actually hold those positions and defend them- and if you don't want to lose by points, you darn well make sure you get 'Mechs out there, rather than being a 12-man full of slowboats that can't catch up to the more nimble mediums and lights.

A role for mobility. Heaven forfend we have a reason not to all be in heavies all day every day.