61 replies to this topic

[JC Daxion]

I see constantly on these forums, people hate conquest, (only real objective based mode, though assault is kinda) all others people call death match.

they make domination, and i see the same thing.. it's nothing more than deathmatch. So come on people, What kind of Objective based match do you want? Serious question.

[AEgg]

Maybe we just need two queues: Skirmish and Not Skirmish.

Edit: Not that we really have a big enough playerbase for that.

Edited by AEgg, 16 March 2016 - 03:00 PM.

[Bilbo]

Can't help you as I really like conquest. I'll let you know what I think of domination after I've had a chance to play it. Seems like domination wouldn't bother people so much as it should concentrate gameplay to an area, which is what skirmish seems to do.

[Scout Derek]

I propose my idea here:

http://mwomercs.com/...tion-game-mode/

It's barebones though and needs more ideas.

[Deathlike]

People wanted Skirmish... not because they liked Assault.

It's not Deathmatch if there are objectives that are far greater than just outright murdering everything on the field... and that's what's really lacking in the modes in the game.

[Ryllen Kriel]

I still am trying to suggest that Conquest be fixed by giving a central capture zone that needs to be held by the end of the round surrounded by smaller cap zones with various statistical bonuses for sensors, rearmament, beneficial artillery strikes, ect. Victory is about defeating the enemy or holding the main base, not about running in circles chasing ECM mechs for "points."

[Queen of England]

I don't think they've done a very good job introducing objectives. Regardless of game mode, the most successful strategy is:

• Form up into a deathball,
  
• Kill every red dorito you see.

This is also the strategy that pays the most c-bills and XP.

Beyond that problem, the non-murderball objective in all non-skirmish modes is a variation on standing in a fence and waiting for a progress bar.

In order to fix this, they need to alter each non-skirmish mode so that deathballing isn't the best way to win.

[FalconerGray]

My original vision of MWO way back when involved an online multiplayer version of what you might find in a campaign mission in the earlier MW games. Asymmetric base attacks, extraction missions, info gathering runs, urban warfare, where the objective would be for one team to destroy a number of physical targets, whilst the other defends. That's just a small example of what we should have been enjoying.

I still have that vision, but not for MWO.

[Lykaon]

JC Daxion, on 16 March 2016 - 02:57 PM, said:

I see constantly on these forums, people hate conquest, (only real objective based mode, though assault is kinda) all others people call death match.

they make domination, and i see the same thing.. it's nothing more than deathmatch. So come on people, What kind of Objective based match do you want? Serious question.

Here is the issue with dominion.

There is only one control point. This means that what we get is skirmish mode with a dictated location. There are no reasons to not ball up and attack the objective point because there is but one point to control. So it's skirmish with a dictated focal point. And to be honest,most maps already have an organicly evolved focal point based upon the pattern of flow the players use when moving on certain maps.So little difference overall.

Here are some ideas for dominion.

Multiple control points. there are multiple points to capture with a fixed timers.Unlike conquest where the point can be uncapped and control may swing back and forth.Once a team has capped out a dominion point it is in their control and goes inactive.

Dynamic capture point locations. The cap point is not always in the same spot at the start of each match. At the begining of a match several arrays are spawned but only one is the active objective. A mech must approach within (XX) distance and remain in this radious for (XX) second to determine if the array is the active objective.

Dynamic shifting capture points. Like above except the active array remains active for (X) minutes and then switches to another array. Victory condition is based upon what team manages to control an active array for the longest time.The time is based upon length of time controling a single array not total accumulated time controling any arrays.This would mean that active pursuit of capturing arrays remains relivant for most of the match.

Assault mode: Place an actual base at the "base" that must have multiple items destroyed before the capture sequence can begin. A generator or HQ vehicle and a few defensive turrets. For added excitement the base locations can be dynamicly spawned so they are not always in the same spot every match.


Conquest: Each team begins the match located at their landed drop ship (a big one like a Union or Overlord) Each objective point has a mining rig and a small vehicle hangar located at it.Once the point is under control the vehicle hangar located at the controlled point spawns a convoy tanker vehicle that will begin to travel back to the controling team's dropship. Once the tanker reaches the drop ship the controling team earns points. First team to the determined point cap wins. And of course the tanker trucks can be destroyed.

Edited by Lykaon, 16 March 2016 - 03:39 PM.

[1453 R]

People want objective modes wherein the objective is more important than the combat. Currently, as has been pointed out, death-ing the entire enemy team is usually the surest way to achieve the objective, and as such the objective becomes secondary. Folks want that to stop being the case.

Or, alternatively, the Skirmish folks want all other game modes to be excised from the game because [Skirmish grognard rant of choice here].

Hopefully the upcoming Assault redux will change things up. Beyond that, we'll have to see how things go.

[Johnny Z]

I don't know if this would be good or not but I would really like to see a protect the VIP mode. I actually think it will be added some time.

Protect the VIP would offer a mobile objective and should be easy to do. Not knowing anything about how they would make a game mode though.

One VIP on one team while the other team tries to get him is the idea. Randomly chosen?

Maybe this will just turn into TDM? But that the objective could choose their ground does change things a bit.

Edited by Johnny Z, 16 March 2016 - 03:38 PM.

[Deathlike]

Lykaon, on 16 March 2016 - 03:32 PM, said:

Here is the issue with dominion.

There is only one control point. This means that what we get is skirmish mode with a dictated location. There are no reasons to not ball up and attack the objective point because there is but one point to control. So it's skirmish with a dictated focal point. And to be honest,most maps already have an organicly evolved focal point based upon the pattern of flow the players use when moving on certain maps.So little difference overall.

Here are some ideas for dominion.

Multiple control points. there are multiple points to capture with a fixed timers.Unlike conquest where the point can be uncapped and control may swing back and forth.Once a team has capped out a dominion point it is in their control and goes inactive.

Dynamic capture point locations. The cap point is not always in the same spot at the start of each match. At the begining of a match several arrays are spawned but only one is the active objective. A mech must approach within (XX) distance and remain in this radious for (XX) second to determine if the array is the active objective.

Dynamic shifting capture points. Like above except the active array remains active for (X) minutes and then switches to another array. Victory condition is based upon what team manages to control an active array for the longest time.The time is based upon length of time controling a single array not total accumulated time controling any arrays.This would mean that active pursuit of capturing arrays remains relivant for most of the match.

Assault mode: Place an actual base at the "base" that must have multiple items destroyed before the capture sequence can begin. A generator or HQ vehicle and a few defensive turrets. For added excitement the base locations can be dynamicly spawned so they are not always in the same spot every match.


Conquest: Each team begins the match located at their landed drop ship (a big one like a Union or Overlord) Each objective point has a mining rig and a small vehicle hangar located at it.Once the point is under control the vehicle hangar located at the controlled point spawns a convoy tanker vehicle that will begin to travel back to the controling team's dropship. Once the tanker reaches the drop ship the controling team earns points. First team to the determined point cap wins. And of course the tanker trucks can be destroyed.

I've yet to see in any game mode any dynamic features... whether it be spawns or different locations of points to goto and/or cap.

So, it may as well be Lostech™.

[Coolant]

I don't hate deathmatch (we called it Destruction in MW4), I just want respawn.

[LordNothing]

i really just view domination as "get in the ring and brawl!" its sort of like how all the maps that people hate (you know the ones with big central features) play out, except now on every map.

Edited by LordNothing, 16 March 2016 - 03:53 PM.

[Impyrium]

You're not going to get anything but a skirmish as long as there's no way to respawn. That's the reality of it. A lot of players here either don't want to believe that or can't think that far judging by my last thread on the matter.

Again, while killing the enemy team causes the game to end (and killing a player permanently reduces the opposing side's ability to fight thus leading to rolls), that will always be the quickest and most effective way to win regardless of map objectives.

The solution to that in new games modes needs to be a way to make that killing objective no longer the most viable, or remove it as an objective all together. A CW dropdeck would mean killing off the enemy team would take far longer and thus allowing map objectives to have greater viability. A straight up respawn, which wouldn't be a bad thing either, means that the map objective would become the only objective.

Nothing's wrong with the current skirmish or conquest (and the new upcoming assault rework sounds fun as well), but if people want a mode beyond another skirmish they're going to have to start thinking outside the box.

[NeoCodex]

MW4 had perfectly good game modes. There was solo deathmatch and team deathmatch. What more do you need?

[Lukoi Banacek]

JC Daxion, on 16 March 2016 - 02:57 PM, said:

I see constantly on these forums, people hate conquest, (only real objective based mode, though assault is kinda) all others people call death match.

they make domination, and i see the same thing.. it's nothing more than deathmatch. So come on people, What kind of Objective based match do you want? Serious question.

I enjoy DM. I enjoy Conquest (minus the recent new mechanic where the match doesn't end till you hit 750 even tho entire enemy team is dead....there's gotta be a way to tweak that with some math eh). I even enjoy Domination thus far.

I think what the QPlay needs is an asymetric mode...an attacker/defender scenario that includes spread out objectives (so a team cannot just deathball and hover over a single cap point) and forces people to make decisions on where to risk a move, or splitting up etc. Objectives that can be recaptured potentially.

Winner is the team that gets 2 of 3 (or whatever arbitrary set up they wanna try) and can also win by killing the enemy.

[Lukoi Banacek]

Johnny Z, on 16 March 2016 - 03:34 PM, said:

I don't know if this would be good or not but I would really like to see a protect the VIP mode. I actually think it will be added some time.

Protect the VIP would offer a mobile objective and should be easy to do. Not knowing anything about how they would make a game mode though.

One VIP on one team while the other team tries to get him is the idea. Randomly chosen?

Maybe this will just turn into TDM? But that the objective could choose their ground does change things a bit.

Escort mode BUT the person who takes command gets to guide it via a control rose to positions on the board or map to get it from one point to another. So the defender decides, do we interdict it or wait at the "cap point/exit" etc. The escort decides to maneuver it on a bee-line, some rambling route or to park it and hide it and try to use some or all of the team to kill the enemy defending the "exit."

[LordNothing]

Dingo Red, on 16 March 2016 - 03:53 PM, said:

You're not going to get anything but a skirmish as long as there's no way to respawn. That's the reality of it. A lot of players here either don't want to believe that or can't think that far judging by my last thread on the matter.

Again, while killing the enemy team causes the game to end (and killing a player permanently reduces the opposing side's ability to fight thus leading to rolls), that will always be the quickest and most effective way to win regardless of map objectives.

The solution to that in new games modes needs to be a way to make that killing objective no longer the most viable, or remove it as an objective all together. A CW dropdeck would mean killing off the enemy team would take far longer and thus allowing map objectives to have greater viability. A straight up respawn, which wouldn't be a bad thing either, means that the map objective would become the only objective.

Nothing's wrong with the current skirmish or conquest (and the new upcoming assault rework sounds fun as well), but if people want a mode beyond another skirmish they're going to have to start thinking outside the box.

have to agree here. once the enemy team is dead the objectives become meaningless as there is no longer anything keeping you from completing those objectives. the idea at the town hall was that you cant win if you dont do the objectives, but that doesn't work at all. players are still playing it like skirmish, ignoring objectives, and winning. these kind of game modes work fine in any other shooter and thats because of the respawns. these modes need decks.

of course you get into that and you might as well just make those modes part of faction play, with 30 minute game clocks. they would be side missions to the main attack lanes to give the attackers/defenders extra goodies. quick play is more for your adhd instant gratification crowd who wants a simple mode they can play in 15 minutes. quick play modes need to be basic stuff: skirmish, free for all, last man standing, last lance standing (solaris would be ranked versions of same). domination, conquest, and skirmish really dont factor in here.

[Krivvan]

I like deathmatch with an objective to force movement and prevent static gameplay.

Like really, who actually wants to play a game mode that is completely objective focused without combat? Obviously objectives exist for combat to occur.

Edited by Krivvan, 16 March 2016 - 05:45 PM.