101 replies to this topic

[Kanil]

ScarecrowES, on 31 July 2016 - 02:37 PM, said:

Let's see... first, the match takes place in stages, with the combat of each stage occurring on different parts of the map. Spawns change with the progression of stages, with each team spawning on opposite sides of the current stage. Spawns for both teams will always be located fairly close to where the action is supposed to be taking place.

Still don't get how that's different than what we currently have, other than changing spawns -- you could even fake changing spawns with some clever map design and the ability to close doors. As the attackers progress, the available exits from each team's single spawnroom change. I don't know if that's easier to code or not, but I'd guess it probably is.

Quote

From the offset, the march from spawn to combat is fairly quick. Teams will find themselves in combat within the first few minutes of the match, and will never be out of combat until the match ends. There will be little downtime.

This is a map design problem, not an "invasion" problem.

Quote

There is currently one set of 3 objectives in Invasion, and all invasion maps have the same objectives. The system I'm proposing has 12 sets of objectives...

Couldn't you also just... add new objectives to invasion, and accomplish the same thing?

Quote

Further, map and stage design will vary, meaning you can have widely different terrain within the same map depending on the stage you're playing...

Again, map design problem, not invasion problem.

Quote

However, there should be no doubt that the two modes will play COMPLETELY differently.

I'm not sure about that. The only mode that's ever played differently from any other mode is Scouting, and even then the most common way to play it is like every other mode (and the alternative way to play it is phenomenally boring and comically unbalanced.)

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't think PGI should spend it's limited manpower on replacing Invasion, but instead work towards giving Invasion better/more varied maps.

[ScarecrowES]

Kanil, on 31 July 2016 - 03:01 PM, said:

<snip>

No, you're right. We could just change all the maps, change the objectives, change the spawns, change the nature of how the game flows, and basically anything else that players would recognize in the current Invasion mode to something completely different. We could completely do that. Refer to my first post as to what completely changing everything about Invasion might look like.

It's a bit like saying, "I don't see why we have to have a Domination mode. You're just capping an spot on the map like in Conquest. All we have to do is take Conquest, reduce it to one capture point, make it massive, and put it in the middle of the map. Poof, problem solved."

The core design of the Invasion mode and its maps are meant to work together. Gates, O-gens, Cannon. Gates necessitate choke points, O-gens necessitate wide open arenas, and so on. The maps PGI designed will only work with the Invasion mode, and the Invasion mode will only work with those maps. They're mutually inclusive. Neither will work without the other, and fundementally changing how either works makes it a completely new game mode.

Edited by ScarecrowES, 31 July 2016 - 03:19 PM.

[El Bandito]

Narcissistic Martyr, on 31 July 2016 - 10:44 AM, said:

Thinking of which I believe one can download the pre-alpha (anyone else miss games being released when finished?) of the new UT now.

Yep, already downloaded it. 240 ping in a twitch shooter is tough though...

[ScarecrowES]

El Bandito, on 31 July 2016 - 03:59 PM, said:

Yep, already downloaded it. 240 ping in a twitch shooter is tough though...

Ouch.

[ScarecrowES]

Cleaned up some language in the OP. Made some adjustments where some descriptions of the current mode were, perhaps, not diplomatic enough. Added a few better descriptors here and there and did a bit more to clarify core gameplay similarities and differences between Rush and Invasion. Should be a somewhat smoother read.

[Cy Mitchell]

It is a good idea. The only problem is that new maps and assets would need to be created plus the logistics to tie everything together. I would guess that it would take 6 months or more for PGI to produce this if they were inclined to do so.

Still, I think the ideas need to keep coming. Hopefully, something will get them thinking about ways they can improve Faction Play so that people will want to play it. I sure hope at some point they will make something interesting enough that I will want to try it again, join a unit and really get involved.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Mystere, on 31 July 2016 - 09:59 AM, said:

Imagine the current invasion mode as only one of several types of battles, and people often do not get to choose which battles to fight. Some would be easy, some would be hard, and some would be absolutely terrible.

It isn't about difficulty, it is about not being engaging at all, Invasion is easily the worst game mode in this game. If they are going to keep it around as part of several battle types, it needs serious reworking.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 01 August 2016 - 01:56 PM.

[pyrocomp]

ScarecrowES, on 31 July 2016 - 09:14 AM, said:

I think this mode would appeal to both players who currently prefer the smaller scope and variety of Quick Play AND the objective-focused nature of Faction Play. I've played a lot of both over the years, but I've never felt quite at home with either of them. I've always wanted to put the best of both modes together, and fix the things about both modes that doesn't really work. I quite honestly believe this mode would do that.

Take time to look at UT2004 Assault Mode. Specifically the Tank mission. Scale up for mrchs and it will fit better your description.

[Jables McBarty]

Alistair Winter, on 31 July 2016 - 09:29 AM, said:

May read this later, don't have time now. Any chance of some glorious MS Paint illustrations and a TL;DR?


Despite the fact that I recently made a thread about not removing features outright, I feel like what we have now is absolutely appalling and disgusting to the majority of MWO players. If they're going to keep it in the game, it needs to be in a way where fans of current Invasion mode can actively pursue it. But then you end up splitting the buckets.

I just don't want there to be a FP voting screen where we vote between Rush and Invasion mode and I end up playing a 30 minute match of Invasion mode that I absolutely despise. I would probably just disco if that happened.

Alistair Winter, on 31 July 2016 - 09:29 AM, said:

Despite the fact that I recently made a thread about not removing features outright, I feel like what we have now is absolutely appalling and disgusting to the majority of MWO players. If they're going to keep it in the game, it needs to be in a way where fans of current Invasion mode can actively pursue it. But then you end up splitting the buckets.

Alistair Winter, on 31 July 2016 - 09:29 AM, said:

But then you end up splitting the buckets.

Alistair Winter, on 31 July 2016 - 09:29 AM, said:

buckets.

I'm flashing back to the Roundtable.

How about a Trigger Warning next time?

[ScarecrowES]

Rampage, on 01 August 2016 - 01:20 PM, said:

It is a good idea. The only problem is that new maps and assets would need to be created plus the logistics to tie everything together. I would guess that it would take 6 months or more for PGI to produce this if they were inclined to do so.

Honestly, there probably hasn't ever been a better time for PGI to put in the time and energy necessary to do this.

PGI has just hired a slew of new artists, coders, etc. And many of the asset creation folks are largely working on updating and fixing the current slate of maps.

I think most people can agree that Invasion is a dead end, and we're probably better off not wasting any resources trying to make that mode better if there is an option of adding a better one instead. The map effort for QP is centered mostly around getting all of the existing maps up to the more modern format. I don't think too many people would shed a tear if PGI were to staff off of making Canyon Network bigger, for example, and put them on creating maps for a mode like I've described.

Luckily, there's no more difficulty involved in creating maps to function in this "Rush" mode than there is in creating existing maps. Nearly every system to make the mode work already exists in the game. All of the objective types will be (if only at first) adapted from ones that already exist. Introductory maps for the mode can make use of the extensive catalog of existing art assets. Invasion already features multiple sequential objectives and triggered events. It's just a matter of putting it all together.

The one thing that really doesn't exist is spawn locations that change depending on the state of the match. But this is actually ridiculously easy to "code." I'm not even sure it would take anything so complicated as coding to accomplish.

Realistically, these maps can be rolled out and tossed into FP as they become available as an optional mode within the Invasion queue. That way we wouldn't have to wait until 6 or so maps were fully formed and ready to drop at once. It would also provide an opportunity for PGI to test the waters on a trial basis with the community to tweak and tune the mode before taking what they've learned into the remaining maps.

So I suppose I'd have to pose the question to the community at large:

Where would PGI's resources be better spent? New or updated maps for Quick Play, or new maps and new mode for Faction Play?

pyrocomp, on 01 August 2016 - 02:10 PM, said:

Take time to look at UT2004 Assault Mode. Specifically the Tank mission. Scale up for mrchs and it will fit better your description.

I think you could safely say that game types like UT's Assault mode are certainly the spiritual parents of Rush. Anyone who's enjoyed UT's Assault or similar modes would probably love what I'm putting forth here.

[pyrocomp]

ScarecrowES, on 01 August 2016 - 03:03 PM, said:

I think you could safely say that game types like UT's Assault mode are certainly the spiritual parents of Rush. Anyone who's enjoyed UT's Assault or similar modes would probably love what I'm putting forth here.

Sure. The comment was more about scale. Original UT Assault maps were smaller and if I remember correctly did not feature so pronounced stages and spawn zones progression.

[Davers]

One concern that I don't see addressed...


It looks like one big deathball rolling to each objective. Still no reason to split up.

[Mystere]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 01 August 2016 - 01:56 PM, said:

It isn't about difficulty, it is about not being engaging at all, Invasion is easily the worst game mode in this game. If they are going to keep it around as part of several battle types, it needs serious reworking.

Frankly, I like the current invasion mode -- as one of many possible game modes. The real problem is that for a very long time, it has been the only game mode. As such, after playing is so and so times, it gets boring.

Thus, what we need variety. What we need are more game modes.

Finally, we need a planetary-level campaign system to tie all these game modes together.

Edited by Mystere, 01 August 2016 - 03:34 PM.

[ScarecrowES]

Davers, on 01 August 2016 - 03:28 PM, said:

One concern that I don't see addressed...


It looks like one big deathball rolling to each objective. Still no reason to split up.

The most valid tactics for each objective type and stage terrain combination will likely be different.

There's always been a great difficulty in getting MWO players thinking about strategy and tactics when looking at objective game modes. In part, I think, some of this comes right down to lazy objective design. Asymmetrical game modes afford the option of pushing players toward a desired manner of playing, though this isn't well-used in MWO currently. But a bit of smart stage design can go a long way.

For instance... stage 1 in my spaceport attack scenario - destroy the orbital cannon. What if, say, we design the attacker approach to the cannon so that the most direct route is a straight march into a shallow valley into which the defenders can overlook from a low cliff wall directly ahead?

Death balling into the cannon would be suicide. But the defending team might be vulnerable from the sides. The best way to tackle the cannon would be to bypass the direct route and engage the defenders on the flank, while you send a small force - likely a pair of light mechs - to deal with the cannon directly.

A small bit of map design can effectively push players to rethink normal best practices.

And when it comes to capture or scan-type objectives? You'll have to tackle those smartly too.

I think short of a sheer mismatch between teams, you won't be likely to see a team death balling their way to victory through every stage.

And remember, difficulty should be tuned so that the second stage is somewhat in favor of the defending team. This one will test each team's metal.

Interestingly, outright wiping an enemy wave before tackling the objective is actually harmful for your team, as you'll put them in a scenario where they have time and position to prepare a better defense for the next stage.

Edited by ScarecrowES, 01 August 2016 - 04:04 PM.

[Davers]

ScarecrowES, on 01 August 2016 - 03:58 PM, said:

The most valid tactics for each objective type and stage terrain combination will likely be different.

There's always been a great difficulty in getting MWO players thinking about strategy and tactics when looking at objective game modes. In part, I think, some of this comes right down to lazy objective design. Asymmetrical game modes afford the option of pushing players toward a desired manner of playing, though this isn't well-used in MWO currently. But a bit of smart stage design can go a long way.

For instance... stage 1 in my spaceport attack scenario - destroy the orbital cannon. What if, say, we design the attacker approach to the cannon so that the most direct route is a straight march into a shallow valley into which the defenders can overlook from a low cliff wall directly ahead?

Death balling into the cannon would be suicide. But the defending team might be vulnerable from the sides. The best way to tackle the cannon would be to bypass the direct route and engage the defenders on the flank, while you send a small force - likely a pair of light mechs - to deal with the cannon directly.

A small bit of map design can effectively push players to rethink normal best practices.

And when it comes to capture or scan-type objectives? You'll have to tackle those smartly too.

I think short of a sheer mismatch between teams, you won't be likely to see a team death balling their way to victory through every stage.

And remember, difficulty should be tuned so that the second stage is somewhat in favor of the defending team. This one will test each team's metal.

Interestingly, outright wiping an enemy wave before tackling the objective is actually harmful for your team, as you'll put them in a scenario where they have time and position to prepare a better defense for the next stage.

I don't see it playing out like you do. If 2 light mechs can take out the objective, why not send in 6 and avoid the the defender's superior position entirely? Why not leave the lights at home and just deathball into the flank? Haven't we seen that splitting firepower leads to losing games? The target isn't going anywhere so unless there is an urgent need to knock it out while also attacking into an enemy force, why would you? What happens when 2 lights run off to cap the base on assault? Usually it doesn't turn out good for their team.

[Shevy]

ScarecrowES, on 01 August 2016 - 03:03 PM, said:

I think you could safely say that game types like UT's Assault mode are certainly the spiritual parents of Rush. Anyone who's enjoyed UT's Assault or similar modes would probably love what I'm putting forth here.

PGI already has the Redeemer coded into invasion it just needs to be player guided

MONSTER kills all round

[ScarecrowES]

Davers, on 01 August 2016 - 04:11 PM, said:

I don't see it playing out like you do. If 2 light mechs can take out the objective, why not send in 6 and avoid the the defender's superior position entirely? Why not leave the lights at home and just deathball into the flank? Haven't we seen that splitting firepower leads to losing games? The target isn't going anywhere so unless there is an urgent need to knock it out while also attacking into an enemy force, why would you? What happens when 2 lights run off to cap the base on assault? Usually it doesn't turn out good for their team.

Assault is poorly designed and thus a bad example. For non-respawning objective modes to work properly, the objective has to be extremely easy to take. In assault it's not. Hence there's no real incentive to attack or defend bases. On the other hand, single o-gens or orbital cannons ARE easy to kill. So are the bases in domination. If you place one of those as your stage objective, there is great incentive to attack or defend them.

If a defending team has superior positioning on your approach to a target, you're going to get chewed up walking through a kill zone. You see that play out in both QP and FP time and again. You never want to be the guy stuck in a valley or having to walk around the corner into the guy who's ready for you.

In the scenario above, the only way to ensure victory is to send a main force to flank from the sides and draw attention away from the central approach, then send mechs into the objective while the defending team is distracted.

Sending a large force into a killbox will just see you lose whatever was in that killbox.

[PyckenZot]

El Bandito, on 30 July 2016 - 08:20 PM, said:

So basically Assault mode from Unreal Tournament. I loved that mode.

Agreed and indeed

[pyrocomp]

Davers, on 01 August 2016 - 04:11 PM, said:

I don't see it playing out like you do. If 2 light mechs can take out the objective, why not send in 6 and avoid the the defender's superior position entirely? Why not leave the lights at home and just deathball into the flank? Haven't we seen that splitting firepower leads to losing games? The target isn't going anywhere so unless there is an urgent need to knock it out while also attacking into an enemy force, why would you? What happens when 2 lights run off to cap the base on assault? Usually it doesn't turn out good for their team.

The reason is that from the initial description and from the description above (and from previous experience with the game) you are under the impression of a single objective existing. If the objectives are multiple or require simultanious presence in several key locations (as we dug up UT then we can bypass UT classical domination as it is present Conquest and get into the double domination, which will require to split forces). Again, there should be not a single main objective, but several.

To strengthen the defenders position and to aleviate the same `kill'em all and then cap` attitude problem (if you think that is severe) bring back LongTom (or just artstrikes) active when at least n out of N objectives are not captured after M minutes into the stage. Here can be any number of rules and scenarios. Look at MechCommander missions. Some had timers and required splitting forces.
Anyway, not a single attack direction, not a single objective, forced need to get'em fast and not as a back thought.

[Lostdragon]

Nice write up, this type mode would be much better than what we have now and would make me want to play FW if had decent maps. Invasion is easily one of the worst modes in any game out today. If PGI wants people like me to reopen their wallets then Invasion needs to go away and be replaced with fun and interesting modes like this, escort missions, asymmetrical base assaults, etc.