101 replies to this topic

[ComradeHavoc]

I'd buy that for a dollar.

I'd buy more mech packs if this gamemode was made.

[ScarecrowES]

ComradeHavoc, on 13 August 2016 - 12:11 PM, said:

I'd buy that for a dollar.

I'd buy more mech packs if this gamemode was made.

And THIS might be the big selling point that we'd need to push for PGI to take notice. A more compelling and exciting game mode will keep more current players engaged, retain players who were on the fence about leaving, and perhaps bring back players who've lingered on the fringe waiting for something worthwhile to bring them back into the fold. Moreover, an engaging mode will likely lead to higher rates of conversion for those folks who want to spend some time trying a game before they're willing to invest financially in it.

Or in simplest terms, a game that is more fun and engaging to play will yield better, long-term financial gains. Better game = more money.

So along those lines, I implore those folks here in the community... I know uncontroversial ideas tend to not get a lot of traffic - as there's no need to argue about something everyone agrees on, but...

If you believe that a game mode like what I've described in the OP would be engaging enough to hold your attention and prompt you to open your wallets and buy more mech packs, premium time, MC, etc, please don't hesitate to say so here.

A "like" goes a long way, so please stop by the OP and click that button. But nothing is more clear to a business than the sound of wallets - long closed - finally reopening.

And, if there are any questions, concerns, or debate to be had, please don't hesitate to engage in it.

[ComradeHavoc]

PGI

Make This game mode

You make money

here lookee pgi *jingle jingle jingle*

Edited by ComradeHavoc, 13 August 2016 - 04:08 PM.

[Gattsus]

Yes, please.

[ComradeHavoc]

This, do it pgi.

[ComradeHavoc]

[ScarecrowES]

OoT. Perfect game. Yes, even Navi.

[Braireos]

Nice write-up, and a very valid idea. Love to see something like this in the game. . .

[ScarecrowES]

http://www.gamespot....t/1100-6442734/

Objective-based attack/defend game mode with 3 sequential stages? Wow... that DOES sound great. Sounds suspiciously familiar though.

[Dredger]

I would like to voice my support for this idea. Hopefully PGI reads their forums...

[ComradeHavoc]

I too would like to voice my opinion.

[ScarecrowES]

I know it's a bit shameless at this point, but this topic had fallen out of my mind with the ED debacle. And then last night I was online having a conversation with some of my unit members about their builds, and one of them reminded me about the topic and wanted to ensure it was getting the views it needed.

I promised to come in and give it a bit of a nudge.

I thank everyone for the positive support the topic received thus far - that's a lot of likes - and a lot of positive posts.

Keep them up. This might just go somewhere.

[ScarecrowES]

Well, it seems like we're getting QP modes in FP, and limited respawns for those modes... both things I've advocated pretty hard for.

And those didn't have nearly the universal support that this idea does. Maybe it's time PGI turned an eye this way.

[Speedkermit]

Mystere, on 31 July 2016 - 09:26 AM, said:

Why remove something that already exists and replace it with something else, thus wasting a whole lot of development effort? Instead ...

Because what we have now is horrible.

[Mystere]

Speedkermit, on 08 September 2016 - 02:28 AM, said:

Because what we have now is horrible.

Attack/defend and counterattack are fine. The real problem is that that's all there is to CW (pre-scouting mode, of course). So adding more game modes -- and tying them together into a campaign -- is a good thing.

[ScarecrowES]

Mystere, on 08 September 2016 - 07:07 AM, said:

Attack/defend and counterattack are fine. The real problem is that that's all there is to CW (pre-scouting mode, of course). So adding more game modes -- and tying them together into a campaign -- is a good thing.

I do tend to agree with this. While I'm sure the proposed mode would greatly eclipse the existing Invasion mode in popularity, there is no need to immediately strip Invasion from the game. If for no other reason, keeping it allows you to phase in Rush rather than requiring it to drop fully formed onto the servers. This has all sorts of bonuses for players and devs.

Still, some of the community does kinda like Invasion, and it's fairly functional as-is. Not good, but functional. Keeping it provides options for game variety which should always be welcome.

[ScarecrowES]

Been a few weeks since I last checked in. With so much of the focus lately on ED and trying to perfect my TT-translated heat system, I haven't had much opportunity to revisit this concept. Still, I think it's pretty servicable as-is, so I suppose this serves as little more than a topic bump.

Latest news is there is no latest news.

[Wecx]

ScarecrowES, on 29 September 2016 - 05:07 PM, said:

Been a few weeks since I last checked in. With so much of the focus lately on ED and trying to perfect my TT-translated heat system, I haven't had much opportunity to revisit this concept. Still, I think it's pretty servicable as-is, so I suppose this serves as little more than a topic bump.

Latest news is there is no latest news.

Cool idea, What are the rewards for winning other than C-bills? Awesome game-mode, but if the result is just adding a tag to a planet, than it is just as pointless.

We need Salvage, Economy, Factories, and actual rewards for taking a planet.

[Grim 13]

*bump*

Also

Mystere, on 31 July 2016 - 09:26 AM, said:

Why remove something that already exists and replace it with something else, thus wasting a whole lot of development effort? Instead ...

Sure, we could have the current model for counterattack and the rush style for invasion.

[YourSaviorLegion]

As a MechWarrior who is tired of clubbing seals I approve this thread and think this needs much more attention.