Jump to content

Would You Have Played This Faction Warfare


4 replies to this topic

#1 Rhaythe

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • Philanthropist
  • 4,203 posts

Posted 24 October 2016 - 05:13 AM

This is a slew of gameplay ideas and mechanics that, in my opinion, would have made a much-more intriguing in-game experience than the current faction warfare. This was written with the idea of minimal development effort from what currently exists.

MAPS
The biggest component of Faction Warfare should have been advancing objective points. Existing FW maps (and some of the larger remakes) can be cordoned off to allow for more linear gameplay, setting up a series of objectives for attackers to take out. This very much follows the "Rush" gamemode from Battlefield (Specifically, Bad Company).

Objectives do not have to be complex. "Go here, shoot this" suffices to start. The "capture" mechanic introduced in 4vs4 FW game modes could be used here as well.

RESPAWN
Players are granted 1 respawn per objective. This means that if you die during one objective, you do not respawn again until that objective is cleared.

SAMPLE GAMEPLAY
The very first objective point for a given map is the "Hot Landing" objective. We'll say it takes place on Forest Colony.

Defenders start the match grounded and are given 30 seconds to get to the Attacker's landing zone highlighted on the map. It's on the beach and is some distance away. Defenders have to choose between fielding fast but lighter mechs versus lumbering assaults that may be more useful later on.

The initial objective is fairly simple for the attackers - destroy defender anti-air emplacements on the beach, allowing future dropship insertions. While the Defenders are moving into position, attackers get a small cut-scene of their (customized and personalized) mechs walking into the battlefield via the open water, with a voice-over explaining their objective is to destroy the AA emplacements.

Battle then begins, with attackers taking cover amongst some sparse rocks while attempting to push on the exposed AA batteries. Long range fire wins the day here, and the AA emplacements are destroyed.

A small cutscene plays for both teams as the attackers move forward in their cutscene and defenders fall back in theirs. During the cut-scene, each surviving player is given the option of keeping their current mech or respawning in another. Attackers respawn via dropship insertions, while defenders march out of secondary barracks. Any player that chooses to remain in their current mech is "warped" to the starting point as well.

The second objective is a wide-open area. In this case, it is the forested open area laid against the rock cliffs near the massive communications emplacement. It involves battlefield control, and plays out very similarly to a standard Skirmish, where one side must defeat the other (Alternatively, the conquest mechanic of capturing and holding static emplacements could be implemented if the arena area is big enough). Battle is confined to this single open-area however, resulting in a much quicker game pace. Should the attackers win, they push forward onto the next objective area.

This cycle is repeated throughout the cordoned map, with a culminating "final battle" in some iconic spot on the map. It could even re-use the orbital gun assets in FW and possibly involve the same "shoot the vital spots" mechanic.

TL;DR
Rescope existing MWO maps to feature advancing objective points. Use respawns only in a limited basis, at one "life" per objective. Feature multiple gameplay types in match, including shoot-to-win, capture, and skirmish game modes. Introduce cut scenes mid-objectives to further immersion.

#2 Mole

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 3,314 posts
  • LocationAt work, cutting up brains for a living.

Posted 24 October 2016 - 07:39 AM

It's certainly a lot better than what we have. I'd give it a try, certainly.

#3 Tyler Valentine

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Senior Corporal
  • 1,472 posts
  • LocationChandler, Arizona

Posted 24 October 2016 - 07:05 PM

Yes

#4 AnTi90d

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 1,229 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • Facebook: Link
  • Twitter: Link
  • Twitch: Link
  • Locationhttps://voat.co/

Posted 24 October 2016 - 08:12 PM

I'd rather PGI have downloaded and played the fan-created Mechwarrior 4 non-skirmish maps.

We had two base assaults.

We had one base assaults.

We had one team vs the parked dropship assaults.

We had one team vs the dropships-about-to-take-off assaults.

We had weird objectives like hit the beacon and summon hovercraft AI for one team.. we had base generator rushes.. we had destroy the base building objectives.. we had destroy the recon craft to disable the base turrets objectives..

..all on player created, nonlinear maps with multiple paths to the objective. It wasn't "choose one of two chokepoint paths" maps like PGI created. It allowed for dynamic gameplay. It was god damn beautiful.

..but PGI is going to PGI..


Posted Image



#5 Belacose

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Vicious
  • The Vicious
  • 539 posts
  • LocationArlington Texas

Posted 24 October 2016 - 08:23 PM

I'd like some sort of an all out death mode. Every man for himself. Base the queue around the various weight classes. At least remove +15 center torso structure quirk off the Kodiak 3 though.





5 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 5 guests, 0 anonymous users