17 replies to this topic

[SirNotlag]

I honestly think that moving Domination into FP would be a good idea. This would allow the quick play maps to be played in FP and i think the game mode itself would be much more interesting with respawns as a team could potentially win by Capping instead of just eradicating the enemy.

Currently the game mode just plays like skirmish except confined to a small area of the map.

[Mystere]

That is not a bad idea at all.

Heck, better yet, make it part of a new air support or artillery barrage system similar to Long Toms. <maniacal >

[El Bandito]

I agree with incorporating QP modes in FW. Not everyone is patient enough to wait 20-30 minutes until the match actually starts.

[LordNothing]

i tried to make this case for conquest. its really the one qp mode that most definately needs to be in fp.

[SirNotlag]

LordNothing, on 30 July 2016 - 09:08 PM, said:

i tried to make this case for conquest. its really the one qp mode that most definately needs to be in fp.

A version of conquest in FP would also be a nice idea. Especially if they allowed people to select where they re spawn as well as what mech they spawn with.

[LordNothing]

SirNotlag, on 30 July 2016 - 09:31 PM, said:

A version of conquest in FP would also be a nice idea. Especially if they allowed people to select where they re spawn as well as what mech they spawn with.

thats similar to the idea that i had in this thread. im thinking it will have drop decks, a 30 minute clock, a really high cap goal (like 2500), and dynamic spawns. cap zones would also have respawnable fortifications, walls, turrets, sensor towers etc.

[SirNotlag]

LordNothing, on 30 July 2016 - 09:46 PM, said:

thats similar to the idea that i had in this thread. im thinking it will have drop decks, a 30 minute clock, a really high cap goal (like 2500), and dynamic spawns. cap zones would also have respawnable fortifications, walls, turrets, sensor towers etc.

Ooooh ooh! Why not use the quick play maps but reduce the cap points down to 3 to still focus the fighting so if the spawn points are on both sides the cap points are spread out top middle and bottom. The cap points now have prefab walls and 4 turrets 2 with medium lasers and 2 with lrms so the things are a bit more interesting to fight over.

[LordNothing]

yea im thinking something where when you cap a base, all the existing (potentially damaged) walls and turrets are demolished, and then a wing of drop ships comes and drops new structures on the foundations.

definately going to use the qp maps. i think any new fp modes should, so pgi just has to worry about developing one set of maps for both areas of the game. new maps should benefit all areas of the game.

3 bases might work if the other 2 bases become drop zones (a home base if you will). it might be benefitial to have a fall back zone in case you dont own any of the cap points and cant spawn there.

Edited by LordNothing, 30 July 2016 - 10:34 PM.

[Talorien]

All Quick Play modes should count towards FP.

[Besh]

I think it has been brought up somewhere already, but Ill just throw this out there :

If there was a Series of "QP" Matches required to be played - and won - before an actual Invasion can start on a Planet, and those Games would happen under the "FP" heading, but contribute to player and 'Mech exp., it would probably help .

Kindof like

• Faction/allied Forces need to win one or a number of Skirmishes with varying Team Sizes ( 4men, 8 men ) to simulate the initial movement of the invading Force towards the various Objectives on the Planet ( you dont drop an invading Force onto a Planet to take out a BigGun and they all just March there unnoticed....);
  
• Faction/allies Forces need to win Conquest Game(s) to simulate any kind of objective which would make sense XD ;
  
• Faction/allied Forces needs to win Domination to simulate securing of a Strategic position ;

or any alteration of that . Could actually be that Series of Games need to be done for each Slice on the Planet, and only if and when all of the above Objectives have been met, does the Slice open for an Invasion Match . Could also easily incoorporate Assault into this List ( probably after the Domination Match ) .

Would give some meaning to the Game Modes . Would probably make the whole thing a bit more attractive .

Edited by Besh, 31 July 2016 - 01:07 AM.

[Honiara]

I have thought of this multiple times, in my view all the QP game modes and maps should be moved into FW, and the bottle neck / chock point bad game design that is FW be trashed entirely. After all the reason people don't queue in FW is that the game mode is BORING and BAD!

If you look at other games, must of their 'end game' so to speak would be a extension of the quick play, if you look at WoT where their end game uses the same maps and modes as the normal QP game.

If you take MMO's like WoW, the raids are the same as dungeons just with more players, but the basic game mode is identical - get to the end of the RAID and kill the boss.

For some reason MWO's end game is totally different to the QP game, this causes the issue that new players to FW have no idea how to play the mode.

The QP maps are now not bad, the recent changes to Viridian Bog has drastically improved the map. We all know that PGI are slow at releasing new maps, so if you moved the QP game modes and maps into FW you are effectively reducing the amount of time required to for a new map for your preferred game mode by 2. All of the map development time would be used for all games modes and not half.

The new 'Assault' game mode that is coming to QP, should be used as well, but in FW one of the bases is removed to make it a asymmetrical style map, heck it could start in QP as asymmetrical in the first place so its the same game mode, with a drop deck in FW.

These changes would allow EVERYONE who plays FW to understand HOW the mode plays, no more tutorials are needed, FW becomes an extension to the QP mode, like it is in EVERY other game I have played.

edited - spelling

Edited by Honiara, 31 July 2016 - 01:58 AM.

[SirNotlag]

Honiara, on 31 July 2016 - 01:56 AM, said:

I have thought of this multiple times, in my view all the QP game modes and maps should be moved into FW, and the bottle neck / chock point bad game design that is FW be trashed entirely. After all the reason people don't queue in FW is that the game mode is BORING and BAD!

If you look at other games, must of their 'end game' so to speak would be a extension of the quick play, if you look at WoT where their end game uses the same maps and modes as the normal QP game.

If you take MMO's like WoW, the raids are the same as dungeons just with more players, but the basic game mode is identical - get to the end of the RAID and kill the boss.

For some reason MWO's end game is totally different to the QP game, this causes the issue that new players to FW have no idea how to play the mode.

The QP maps are now not bad, the recent changes to Viridian Bog has drastically improved the map. We all know that PGI are slow at releasing new maps, so if you moved the QP game modes and maps into FW you are effectively reducing the amount of time required to for a new map for your preferred game mode by 2. All of the map development time would be used for all games modes and not half.

The new 'Assault' game mode that is coming to QP, should be used as well, but in FW one of the bases is removed to make it a asymmetrical style map, heck it could start in QP as asymmetrical in the first place so its the same game mode, with a drop deck in FW.

These changes would allow EVERYONE who plays FW to understand HOW the mode plays, no more tutorials are needed, FW becomes an extension to the QP mode, like it is in EVERY other game I have played.

edited - spelling

I think QP and FP should still be different in some ways like QP shouldn't have respawns but FP should allow people to bring their drop decks and respawn 4 times. To bring that to the QP maps they need to allow you to choose your spawn point so people don't get spawn camped. And i also don't think there should be skirmish because then the game is decided after the first confrontation whichever side managed to wipe out the wave of the first one will win and the rest of the match is just a waste of time. Making it objective based like conquest or domination allows a team that has lost more mechs to still grab a win if they play their cards right and i think would make the game more interesting.

I also actually like the invasion game mode, sure its not the best and I only play it with my unit but I think its supper fun and I don't want it scrapped.

Edited by SirNotlag, 31 July 2016 - 09:50 AM.

[Honiara]

SirNotlag, on 31 July 2016 - 09:49 AM, said:

I think QP and FP should still be different in some ways like QP shouldn't have respawns but FP should allow people to bring their drop decks and respawn 4 times. To bring that to the QP maps they need to allow you to choose your spawn point so people don't get spawn camped.

Yes I agree, it keeps the QP as a quick game and FW as a more in depth version of QP

SirNotlag, on 31 July 2016 - 09:49 AM, said:

I also don't think there should be skirmish because then the game is decided after the first confrontation whichever side managed to wipe out the wave of the first one will win and the rest of the match is just a waste of time. Making it objective based like conquest or domination allows a team that has lost more mechs to still grab a win if they play their cards right and i think would make the game more interesting.

Yes I agree, nothing worse than in a invasion game you loose 12-0 in drop 1 and that means you basically can't win.

SirNotlag, on 31 July 2016 - 09:49 AM, said:

I also actually like the invasion game mode, sure its not the best and I only play it with my unit but I think its supper fun and I don't want it scrapped.

Yes, that's why the invasion game mode, is replaced with the new assault game mode PGI is currently working on. using a asymmetrical base.

Edit - Spelling

Edited by Honiara, 31 July 2016 - 10:00 AM.

[Cy Mitchell]

SirNotlag, on 31 July 2016 - 09:49 AM, said:

I think QP and FP should still be different in some ways like QP shouldn't have respawns but FP should allow people to bring their drop decks and respawn 4 times. To bring that to the QP maps they need to allow you to choose your spawn point so people don't get spawn camped. And i also don't think there should be skirmish because then the game is decided after the first confrontation whichever side managed to wipe out the wave of the first one will win and the rest of the match is just a waste of time. Making it objective based like conquest or domination allows a team that has lost more mechs to still grab a win if they play their cards right and i think would make the game more interesting.

I also actually like the invasion game mode, sure its not the best and I only play it with my unit but I think its supper fun and I don't want it scrapped.

I saw (heard) discussions about having the spawn points move if the spawn point is being contested by the enemy. That makes sense as no DropShip pilot is going to fly into a hot drop zone and dump his Mechs. He would relocate to a secondary drop. That does not seem like it would be an insurmountable amount of coding for PGI to do.

The QP maps and modes could be effectively added to FP with or without the re-spawn drop deck much like Scouting does not have re-spawn. In addition, the FP maps could be added to QP without re-spawn so that new players could learn the basics of the map and mode before diving into the FP meat grinder.

PGI needs to make full use of their game assets to raise the level of play(fun) in Faction Warfare.

Edited by Rampage, 31 July 2016 - 10:14 AM.

[Johnny Z]

Personally I like the idea of quickplay matches being added to faction play. But that's just me. I havnt commented on it before because its such a huge change and its not an easy one like some other topics.

It does seem like an obvious choice though. That's easy.

Edited by Johnny Z, 31 July 2016 - 10:15 AM.

[Mystere]

Besh, on 31 July 2016 - 01:04 AM, said:

I think it has been brought up somewhere already, but Ill just throw this out there :

If there was a Series of "QP" Matches required to be played - and won - before an actual Invasion can start on a Planet, and those Games would happen under the "FP" heading, but contribute to player and 'Mech exp., it would probably help .

Kindof like

• Faction/allied Forces need to win one or a number of Skirmishes with varying Team Sizes ( 4men, 8 men ) to simulate the initial movement of the invading Force towards the various Objectives on the Planet ( you dont drop an invading Force onto a Planet to take out a BigGun and they all just March there unnoticed....);
  
• Faction/allies Forces need to win Conquest Game(s) to simulate any kind of objective which would make sense XD ;
  
• Faction/allied Forces needs to win Domination to simulate securing of a Strategic position ;

or any alteration of that . Could actually be that Series of Games need to be done for each Slice on the Planet, and only if and when all of the above Objectives have been met, does the Slice open for an Invasion Match . Could also easily incoorporate Assault into this List ( probably after the Domination Match ) .




Would give some meaning to the Game Modes . Would probably make the whole thing a bit more attractive .

Oh, you mean something like this ...

Imagine the following (and shamelessly "borrowed") directed graph as a representation of a planetary campaign for "minor" planets:

• Each node is a location on a planet.
  
• Location 3 is a beachhead mission. If the invaders lose, then the invasion is cancelled.
  
• Locations 1, 4, and 5 involve skirmishes.
  
  • If the invaders lose on 1 or 5, the defenders get to counterattack 3.
    
  • If the invaders lose at 4, they are pushed back to 5.
• Nodes 2 and 6 are assaults.
  
  • While 6 is still in defenders' hands, they get to skirmish on 4 and counterattack on 2.
• Location 7 requires a successful recon mission, before assaults on 2 and 8 are allowed.
  
• Node 8 is an assault on the capital city.
  
  • Invaders take the planet if they win here.
    
  • Defenders get to counterattack at 6 while they hold the capital.
    
  • Defenders get to skirmish at 7, and if successful, push the invaders back to 1.

That is just one way of configuring a campaign using the very simple graph above.


Note that by itself it already has a little more depth than the "take majority of pie slices for the planet" "campaign" "system" we have now.

The above provide the following:

• Directed graphs give players a better feeling of having campaigns and their progress because they actually do have and see them.
  
• There can be several different campaign types and sizes, depending on planet being invaded.
  
• If the CW planetary interface would allow it, small factions can decide when and where to allocate their scarce resources (e.g. send only 3 crack 12-mans to defend assets 6, 7, and 8; alternatively, have their best unit make a last stand at the capital).
  
• Factions can coordinate their units to successfully stall or even halt the enemy's invasion using less resources.
  
• Factions can divert their forces to other "campaigns" that require them.
  
• Ceasefire periods are not required (!!!).

For more ideas, go here.

Edited by Mystere, 31 July 2016 - 10:24 AM.

[Besh]

Mystere, on 31 July 2016 - 10:21 AM, said:

Oh, you mean something like this ...

Imagine the following (and shamelessly "borrowed") directed graph as a representation of a planetary campaign for "minor" planets:

• Each node is a location on a planet.
  
• Location 3 is a beachhead mission. If the invaders lose, then the invasion is cancelled.
  
• Locations 1, 4, and 5 involve skirmishes.
  
  • If the invaders lose on 1 or 5, the defenders get to counterattack 3.
    
  • If the invaders lose at 4, they are pushed back to 5.
• Nodes 2 and 6 are assaults.
  
  • While 6 is still in defenders' hands, they get to skirmish on 4 and counterattack on 2.
• Location 7 requires a successful recon mission, before assaults on 2 and 8 are allowed.
  
• Node 8 is an assault on the capital city.
  
  • Invaders take the planet if they win here.
    
  • Defenders get to counterattack at 6 while they hold the capital.
    
  • Defenders get to skirmish at 7, and if successful, push the invaders back to 1.

That is just one way of configuring a campaign using the very simple graph above.






Note that by itself it already has a little more depth than the "take majority of pie slices for the planet" "campaign" "system" we have now.

The above provide the following:

• Directed graphs give players a better feeling of having campaigns and their progress because they actually do have and see them.
  
• There can be several different campaign types and sizes, depending on planet being invaded.
  
• If the CW planetary interface would allow it, small factions can decide when and where to allocate their scarce resources (e.g. send only 3 crack 12-mans to defend assets 6, 7, and 8; alternatively, have their best unit make a last stand at the capital).
  
• Factions can coordinate their units to successfully stall or even halt the enemy's invasion using less resources.
  
• Factions can divert their forces to other "campaigns" that require them.
  
• Ceasefire periods are not required (!!!).

For more ideas, go here.

Thanks a lot for posting up your much more detailled and worked out Idea .

I knew the general Idea was floating around, just was not sure where...else I would have referenced to your post myself .

Edited by Besh, 31 July 2016 - 11:54 AM.

[Honiara]

Rampage, on 31 July 2016 - 10:12 AM, said:

PGI needs to make full use of their game assets to raise the level of play(fun) in Faction Warfare.

So so true, like all small companies