Jump to content

Make Invasion First And Skirmish Last

Mode

17 replies to this topic

#1 Holy Jackson

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 222 posts

Posted 20 February 2017 - 09:26 AM

There are 6 unique maps for the invasion game mode and we never see them anymore. Placing invasion first in the order insures that dropping at the beginning of a cycle lets you see the maps. There are assets that people put a lot of work (TREES) into that are now sitting idle.

Also it makes RP sense that you have to, you know, invade the planet first before you fight to control the rest of the planet.

Also one would think that this would be and easy patch if the community wanted this. swap two batches of tags and labels.

#2 Husker Dude

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Överste-Löjtnant
  • Överste-Löjtnant
  • 319 posts

Posted 20 February 2017 - 11:11 AM

Yeah, I definitely miss Invasion maps. It's so rare that we get to the mode now.

#3 Positive Mental Attitude

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 393 posts
  • LocationWAYup

Posted 20 February 2017 - 12:38 PM

I think youre underestimating how much work that would take now for pgi. Their energy expended in implementing the walls into qp maps was pretty much all they had. Also the only feedback they seem to get now is more conquest which is exactly what every mwo pilot thinks when they think about faction warfare.

So plan on that, more conquest.

#4 QueenBlade

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • WC 2017 Bronze Champ
  • WC 2017 Bronze Champ
  • 711 posts

Posted 20 February 2017 - 01:00 PM

not to mention they still have to add in Skill Tree revamp and the Incursion Game Mode, both have been delayed.

#5 Rexxxxxxxxx

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • The Money Maker
  • The Money Maker
  • 69 posts

Posted 20 February 2017 - 02:22 PM

Miss the old FP maps. Rarely play them anymore.
The mix should be more random.

Conquest is great in FP, the longer times and multiple drops makes it worth wile and much better than the Quick Play version

Domination and Assault is OK, but too easy to wipe out a wave and run the timers out.

Skirmish sucks, should be left in Quick Play only.

Either way the wait times are a lot better now.
Very glad they implemented the single planet tug of war.

#6 Deathlike

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Littlest Helper
  • Littlest Helper
  • 29,240 posts
  • Location#NOToTaterBalance #BadBalanceOverlordIsBad

Posted 20 February 2017 - 02:33 PM

Right now, the mode you get depends on where the bar has reached (each landmark point changes the actual mode, instead of being purely random).

Invasion ONLY happens near the end threshold (it might even be in the same fixed areas/locations everyday).

It didn't actually dawn on me despite having that awful event to have played the required FP mode for the prizes.

#7 QueenBlade

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • WC 2017 Bronze Champ
  • WC 2017 Bronze Champ
  • 711 posts

Posted 20 February 2017 - 02:42 PM

Players have been requesting more randomization towards Game modes. If possible, I’m wondering if the engine could handle changing the value of a variable based on the changing of the tug of war progress bar. As the bar crosses into the different thresholds that would normally change the gamemode entirely, how bout instead it would change the weights of the possible gamemode that would get picked. Similar to the weight of a map being picked.

Example:

0-20%:
Skirmish = 1
Conquest = .8
Domination = .6
Assault = .4
Invasion = .2

21-40%:
S = .8
C = 1
D = .8
A = .6
I = .4

41-60%:
S = .6
C = .8
D = 1
A = .8
I = .6

61-80%:
S = .4
C = .6
D = .8
A = 1
I = .8

80-100%:
S = .2
C = .4
D = .6
A = .8
I = 1

Edited by QueenBlade, 20 February 2017 - 02:42 PM.


#8 DarklightCA

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Heavy Lifter
  • Heavy Lifter
  • 774 posts
  • LocationToronto, Ontario

Posted 20 February 2017 - 03:19 PM

I would rather they just take the gamemode conquest and modified it for Faction Play. Having each team starting off with a point pool, every death contributes points lossed in your teams pool. Capturing the objectives bleeds points from the other team.

It balances both the need to play for kills, the need to try and survive and the need to play for objectives. Would also be nice if they spread out the capture towers more to force teams to spread out and actively choose objectives to play for. So much areas of maps like Forest Colony don't get played on because there is never any point to.

That would be my ideal gamemode atleast as all the quick play ones aren't really doing it for me in faction play.

#9 Tarl Cabot

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Tai-sho
  • Tai-sho
  • 7,827 posts
  • LocationImperial City, Luthien - Draconis Combine

Posted 20 February 2017 - 03:32 PM

Change the percentage for each battle from 3.33 to 2%, then make Invasion be 33-50%, no need to make each segment equal to the next.

I would actually like the each battle percentage be different for each planet, ranging from 1% for Capitols for each state, 1.33% for District Capitals, 2% for Prefecture/important worlds due to manufacturer/elite-vet canon House units stationed there, 3.33% for general planets then 5% for periphery/border/least important worlds.

Wait, that means introducing actual game lore.. we are soo fraking lost..

Sorry...

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 20 February 2017 - 03:33 PM.


#10 QueenBlade

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • WC 2017 Bronze Champ
  • WC 2017 Bronze Champ
  • 711 posts

Posted 20 February 2017 - 03:45 PM

Each battle can sway the capture percentage from two to five percent.

Crushing Victory - Win with more than 36 mechs difference for your side, 5% pull (kill score)
Clear Victory - Win with 35-24 mechs difference for your side, 4% pull
Average Victory - Win with 23-12 mechs difference for your side, 3% pull
Close Victory - Win with less than 12 mechs difference for your side, 2% pull

This would create a more dynamic approach to the battles. PGI and players would be able to clearly see the outcomes of each drop, which faction is getting more sway (whether it be from population, or quality of players, or maybe the matches are close?) and be able to set / offer contracts to better suit the faction that isn't doing as well.

For many, there will be the argument that is makes the main objective less. In that case, how about introducing cases for them as well.

Conquest:
750 - 1250 resource difference, 5% pull
749 - 550 resource difference, 4% pull
549 - 350 resource difference, 3% pull
349 - 1 resource difference, 2% pull

Assault: % of base bar remaining
75 - 100% difference, 5% pull
74 - 50% difference, 4% pull
49 - 25% difference, 3% pull
24 - 1% difference, 2% pull

Domination:
1:00 - 1:30 difference, 5% pull
:59 - :45 difference, 4% pull
:44 - :30 difference, 3% pull
:30 - :01 difference, 2% pull

Skirmish:
Use the formula at the top

#11 justcallme A S H

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • CS 2020 Referee
  • CS 2020 Referee
  • 8,987 posts
  • LocationMelbourne, AU

Posted 20 February 2017 - 04:43 PM

View PostQueenBlade, on 20 February 2017 - 03:45 PM, said:

Each battle can sway the capture percentage from two to five percent.

Crushing Victory - Win with more than 36 mechs difference for your side, 5% pull (kill score)
Clear Victory - Win with 35-24 mechs difference for your side, 4% pull
Average Victory - Win with 23-12 mechs difference for your side, 3% pull
Close Victory - Win with less than 12 mechs difference for your side, 2% pull



Now this is a good idea I haven't really seen mentioned.

#12 Crockdaddy

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 1,684 posts
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationSaint Louis

Posted 20 February 2017 - 05:15 PM

The invasion maps are horribad. There isn't much good to be said about the typical 2 to 3 choke point maps. On defense, EZ ... on attack ... if your team is organized and they aren't you win. If both are organized you lose.

Stupid maps need re-working.

Yes, I do understand the QP maps were never really suited for FP game mode. But that doesn't change the need for re-working of the maps for traditional FP.

#13 BearFlag

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary
  • 374 posts

Posted 23 February 2017 - 06:30 PM

View Postjustcallme A S H, on 20 February 2017 - 04:43 PM, said:


Now this is a good idea I haven't really seen mentioned.


I've brought it up before. The idea is borrowed from wargaming. MWO uses a simple three point system - Victory, Draw, Defeat. Wargames can have 3,5,7 and even 9 level systems. A common 7-point looks like this:

Overwhelming Victory
Significant Victory
Marginal Victory
Draw
-mirror defeat

Draw occurs far too little in MWO. A 48-46 ending could easily be called a draw or you could insert between Draw and Marginal a "Pyrrhic Victory." "Auto-victory" (another wargaming concept) should be considered at the "Overwhelming" threshold to mitigate and shorten stomps.

As for the OP's topic of Invasion (now Seige) first and more often...

https://mwomercs.com...g-back-planets/

#14 Vellron2005

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Blood-Eye
  • The Blood-Eye
  • 5,445 posts
  • LocationIn the mechbay, telling the techs to put extra LRM ammo on.

Posted 01 March 2017 - 02:38 AM

In my humble opinion, the FW modes should be like this:

1) Create a beachead - Siedge mode (Ex Invasion) - destroy orbital cannons so you can land forces

2) Advance forces - Skirmish mode - Round up and defeat main opposing forces to proceed onward

3) Cut supply lines - Conquest - starve the enemy of valuable resources.

4) Capture key military sites - Assault or Incursion when it gets done - purpose to annihilate military opposition by taking key strategic sites and bases

5) Last stand - Invasion - counter attack - destroy the last remaining forces holding you back from eliminating planetary leadership

6) Hearts and minds - Escort - Eliminate planetary VIP leadership and lay claim over the planet.

Edited by Vellron2005, 01 March 2017 - 02:39 AM.


#15 Jman5

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Littlest Helper
  • Littlest Helper
  • 4,914 posts

Posted 01 March 2017 - 08:44 AM

If you put Siege first, you're just creating a new problem: Players who can't log on within the first hour of an attack phase will rarely be able to play Siege.

I'm with the people who say it should either be random, or else have some sort of limited voting system.

#16 Jeff on a Buffalo

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • The Messenger
  • The Messenger
  • 120 posts

Posted 06 March 2017 - 10:42 AM

I agree that the invasion game mode needs to be moved up the pecking order....
The main reason is because....if I am to be brutally honest though... is that I miss knocking down all those trees!! What good is riding a buffalo if one cannot knock down a few bushes and trees?

#17 The Errant

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 54 posts

Posted 06 March 2017 - 11:19 AM

Given that in FP you know ahead of time what map you're going to be dropping in and therefore what decks/mechs/loadouts to bring, I think making it totally random would be better than a voting system. Assuming such a vote would come before drop deck selection, almost every way you implement it (individual votes or group lead votes) would allow large premades to dictate the terms of the fight via map selection, skewing FP even more towards large groups and making it even more inaccessible to anybody else. If you put such a vote AFTER drop deck selection then you get the same kind of build/map mismatches you get in QP and personally I'd view that as a step backwards for FP.

While I like the idea of the game modes following a logical chain of progression, I'd rather not have to play multiple matches (sometimes an entire evening) of the same game mode. Decoupling game mode selection from the tug-of-war and making mode random gives everybody an equal chance (theoretically) of getting a game mode they like. Map selection is already random and I feel like that part works out fine, why not mode?

EDIT: Also I'm for taking Skirmish out of FP. I like having objectives as an option for winning teams to deliver a mercy-killing and for losing teams to turn the tables and claw out a win. Skirmish is the only game mode that MAKES you farm all 48 of them.

Edited by The Errant, 06 March 2017 - 11:22 AM.


#18 Positive Mental Attitude

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 393 posts
  • LocationWAYup

Posted 06 March 2017 - 11:19 AM

View PostJeff on a Buffalo, on 06 March 2017 - 10:42 AM, said:

I agree that the invasion game mode needs to be moved up the pecking order....
The main reason is because....if I am to be brutally honest though... is that I miss knocking down all those trees!! What good is riding a buffalo if one cannot knock down a few bushes and trees?


If only you could knock down those stupid walls they so expertly placed.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users