29 replies to this topic

[Variant1]

is Pgi going to be changing some things for domination?
Do you guys like the current domination or do you think a few tweaks are needed?
If so do you think incorporating some pve like tanks,infantry and aircraft to defend the mobile bases?
Should the mobile bases be mobile? Should destroying them add 1 minute on top of the 1 minute instead of simply capping out at 1 minute? It would definitely add an incentive to both destroy and defend them.

I wanna hear your thoughts guys on this.

[Bishop Steiner]

Variant1, on 12 June 2016 - 08:09 AM, said:

is Pgi going to be changing some things for domination?
Do you guys like the current domination or do you think a few tweaks are needed?
If so do you think incorporating some pve like tanks,infantry and aircraft to defend the mobile bases?
Should the mobile bases be mobile? Should destroying them add 1 minute on top of the 1 minute instead of simply capping out at 1 minute? It would definitely add an incentive to both destroy and defend them.

I wanna hear your thoughts guys on this.

I'd love for Dynamic Domination zones and drop points, so that we aren't fighting for the same piece of geography each time. Domination is a good way to FORCE people from the usual choke points and such, and should be used accordingly, IMO.

[NoiseCrypt]

Someone suggested that destroying an enemy mobile unit should remove 10s from the friendly timer, which i think is a really cool idea.

Alternatively the "domination" area could shrink when a friendly mobile unit is destroyed.

Edited by NoiseCrypt, 12 June 2016 - 08:18 AM.

[Variant1]

Bishop Steiner, on 12 June 2016 - 08:14 AM, said:

I'd love for Dynamic Domination zones and drop points, so that we aren't fighting for the same piece of geography each time. Domination is a good way to FORCE people from the usual choke points and such, and should be used accordingly, IMO.

So each match has a different domination point right? sounds good

[kapusta11]

NoiseCrypt, on 12 June 2016 - 08:17 AM, said:

Alternatively the "domination" area could shrink when a friendly mobile unit is destroyed.

Awesome idea actually.

[Afuldan McKronik]

Bishop Steiner, on 12 June 2016 - 08:14 AM, said:

I'd love for Dynamic Domination zones and drop points, so that we aren't fighting for the same piece of geography each time. Domination is a good way to FORCE people from the usual choke points and such, and should be used accordingly, IMO.

This. Me and my unit were lamenting the fact it isn't used this way. Other than Alpine, it literally is in the same spot 95% of the Skirmish fights happen.

Plus, **** you whoever decided that the best spot for it in Grim is in the crater. **** you.

Not hostile, but literally, damn. It sucks bad. I don't like that crater at all. Just frustrated of Domination/Grim Portico popping up, knowing its a killzone for one team to get into the circle. One team gets the little buildings to hide behind at least.

Edited by Afuldan McKronik, 12 June 2016 - 08:33 AM.

[meteorol]

I have only ever seen Domination not be decided by kills 2 or 3 times. One teams lights were afk and the other teams lights capped before anyone could reach them.

Other than that? Every single match decided by kills. No respawns = TDM. We will play TDM until the servers shut down. Deal with it.

[El Bandito]

I want multiple domination points. Right now its just deathballing in the same place over and over again. Increase the number of mobile bases and reduce their HP, and each one of opponent's MB destroyed will shave off 10 seconds of friendly timer.

Edited by El Bandito, 12 June 2016 - 08:37 AM.

[Cabusha]

Dynamic objectives and drop points should already be in this game. That's half the reason for the repetitive gameplay is you always drop in the same place, so it encourages static gameplay. On bigger maps, they could even do alternative drops like NE vs NW, or a SW vs SE drop, that sort of thing.

Never gonna happen though.

[Mystere]

I am getting so tired of fixed bases, beacons, spawn points, and other locations. Just how hard is it to make their locations "random" especially because the scouting mode is able to do it?

[B L O O D W I T C H]

Bishop Steiner, on 12 June 2016 - 08:14 AM, said:

I'd love for Dynamic Domination zones and drop points, so that we aren't fighting for the same piece of geography each time. Domination is a good way to FORCE people from the usual choke points and such, and should be used accordingly, IMO.

Complete opposite impression.

Usually, gameplay revolves around a certain area, usually 1-2 squares each map.
now we have a gamemode which heavily enforces that behaviour, not a fan.

[Prof RJ Gumby]

More intersting places to fight in, sure.

Also, mobile bases mean nothing now. They are completely useless, as is the timer, because even if you get 00:01, all the enemy needs to do is have somebody on the circle. Mobile bases adding points only further cause lack of any importance of the timer. There is only one scenario available: everybody goes to the zone, stands on it and shoots one another. One side kills the other. The end.

"time tickets" should slowly bleed in favour of the side having more bases standing. That would make people move

Destruction of mobile bases should not only remove some seconds from your timer/add to enemy timer, but should also result in points 'bleeding out' on a slower pace in favour of the side with more mobile bases (assuming that they're here to jam enemy communication systems). FOr example, if side 1 has both bases intact, while side 2 has one base destroyed, side 1's timer should still go down with both teams in the zone, only like 1 point every 3 seconds (1 point every 2 seconds with both enemy bases destroyed, but both your intact).

This way domination would not be such a stale shootout, but allow for diversion and forcing teams to move a bit, allow more tactical options (like setting c-ssrm ambush near your mobile bases, forcing enemies to split or leave their positions by destroying their base, etc. etc.

[Yellonet]

Bishop Steiner, on 12 June 2016 - 08:14 AM, said:

I'd love for Dynamic Domination zones and drop points, so that we aren't fighting for the same piece of geography each time. Domination is a good way to FORCE people from the usual choke points and such, and should be used accordingly, IMO.

I remember making a thread about this last year for the other game modes. I think the game would become much more interesting if you would start in a new location every match, and didn't know exactly where the enemies were.
http://mwomercs.com/...ty-to-gameplay/

LOADED, on 12 June 2016 - 09:31 AM, said:

Complete opposite impression.

Usually, gameplay revolves around a certain area, usually 1-2 squares each map.
now we have a gamemode which heavily enforces that behaviour, not a fan.

At least it makes nascar less likely to happen.

Edited by Yellonet, 12 June 2016 - 10:14 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

LOADED, on 12 June 2016 - 09:31 AM, said:

Complete opposite impression.

Usually, gameplay revolves around a certain area, usually 1-2 squares each map.
now we have a gamemode which heavily enforces that behaviour, not a fan.

which is why I want a dynamic MOVING domination point to at least alternate fighting areas. Because as is, ALL fights on all maps happen in the same 2 squares.

[Variant1]

Bishop Steiner, on 12 June 2016 - 10:16 AM, said:

which is why I want a dynamic MOVING domination point to at least alternate fighting areas. Because as is, ALL fights on all maps happen in the same 2 squares.

So i guess put spider legs on the domination point and make it move? sounds interesting but it needs to be able to have lasers to shoot at anyone trying to get close to it.

[Bishop Steiner]

Variant1, on 12 June 2016 - 10:27 AM, said:

So i guess put spider legs on the domination point and make it move? sounds interesting but it needs to be able to have lasers to shoot at anyone trying to get close to it.

Uh, no.

It's pretty simple to have a rotating set of locations where the domination point is at, instead of one spot that also happens to coincide with where every brawls in every other game mode to begin with.

mark say...6 different possible domination points per map. And give each team 3 possible spawn point sets. And each match, the MM randomly selects which domination and spawn point.

Not sure what's hard to grasp with this?

[Jiyu Mononoke]

Quote

which is why I want a dynamic MOVING domination point to at least alternate fighting areas. Because as is, ALL fights on all maps happen in the same 2 squares.

Might be interesting to have it "actively moving" during the game forcing people to move, relocate, reacquire lanes and positions as the dom-point trolls along at it's own pace... Kinda like escort, but with both sides trying to take it.
- There could a any number of pre-set paths that it might take, and you just wouldn't know which one ya got until it's been under way a while.

Edited by Freebrth, 12 June 2016 - 12:06 PM.

[Afuldan McKronik]

Freebrth, on 12 June 2016 - 12:05 PM, said:

Might be interesting to have it "actively moving" during the game forcing people to move, relocate, reacquire lanes and positions as the dom-point trolls along at it's own pace... Kinda like escort, but with both sides trying to take it.
- There could a any number of pre-set paths that it might take, and you just wouldn't know which one ya got until it's been under way a while.

/facepalm. That would be interesting also. Bishops point is having randomly spawned domination points, ie "moving." As in different locations the domination point spawns inside.

You are talking about a new game mode, which would probably be called Escort. Could make for a neat round based game, one side attempting to defend a mobile point vs attackers, best of 3, flipping attackers/defenders.

[Mystere]

Bishop Steiner, on 12 June 2016 - 10:30 AM, said:

Not sure what's hard to grasp with this?

GO ask PGI. I'm sure they have "technical reasons" for not doing it.

Edited by Mystere, 12 June 2016 - 12:26 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Mystere, on 12 June 2016 - 12:25 PM, said:

GO ask PGI. I'm sure they have "technical reasons" for not doing it.

Touché