

#1
Posted 20 February 2017 - 09:26 AM
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
Posted 20 February 2017 - 11:11 AM
#3
Posted 20 February 2017 - 12:38 PM
So plan on that, more conquest.
#4
Posted 20 February 2017 - 01:00 PM
#5
Posted 20 February 2017 - 02:22 PM
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
Posted 20 February 2017 - 02:33 PM
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
Posted 20 February 2017 - 02:42 PM
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
Posted 20 February 2017 - 03:19 PM
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
Posted 20 February 2017 - 03:32 PM
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
Posted 20 February 2017 - 03:45 PM
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
Posted 20 February 2017 - 04:43 PM
QueenBlade, on 20 February 2017 - 03:45 PM, said:
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
Posted 20 February 2017 - 05:15 PM
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
Posted 23 February 2017 - 06:30 PM
justcallme 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
Posted 01 March 2017 - 02:38 AM
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
Posted 01 March 2017 - 08:44 AM
I'm with the people who say it should either be random, or else have some sort of limited voting system.
#16
Posted 06 March 2017 - 10:42 AM
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
Posted 06 March 2017 - 11:19 AM
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
Posted 06 March 2017 - 11:19 AM
Jeff on a Buffalo, on 06 March 2017 - 10:42 AM, said:
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