155 replies to this topic

[SFC174]

For the people who assert that boosting the c-bill/xp rewards for completing the objectives would fix non-skirmish modes, why do you believe this?

I'm no whale, play a decent amount, and am probably perfectly average in most ways and I don't ever feel like I'm hurting for c-bills or xp. When I log in to play I never find myself thinking, "Self, you really need more c-bills and xp to enjoy this game".

Just seems to me that the game economy doesn't drive a lot of gameplay decisions for the majority of players.

[Khobai]

changing the rewards would not fix non-skirmish modes at all.

unless you wanna get rid of the whole concept of winning, and just reward everyone equally for "participation"

there are no winners and losers, just "participants"

[TorinZ]

Incursion just needs to change to 1 side attacking and 1 side defending the base.

Attackers get a mobile field base that controls an assault drop ship (or maybe Aerospace Airstrikes instead would be better) to flyby the base to attack from time to time. Defenders can run out to destroy it. Destroyed sends a message to the attackers "Zone is too hot for air support" for a little flavor.

Defenders get the Radar Tower and Jammer Tower. Its their home turf so they should start with them. Maybe have them off to the sides of the base where they could be destroyed without being in the main base proper.

No need for respawns in Quick Play. Revamp some numbers for respawn in CW.

[Alexander of Macedon]

SFC174, on 19 April 2017 - 04:30 AM, said:

For the people who assert that boosting the c-bill/xp rewards for completing the objectives would fix non-skirmish modes, why do you believe this?

I'm no whale, play a decent amount, and am probably perfectly average in most ways and I don't ever feel like I'm hurting for c-bills or xp. When I log in to play I never find myself thinking, "Self, you really need more c-bills and xp to enjoy this game".

Just seems to me that the game economy doesn't drive a lot of gameplay decisions for the majority of players.

Because that would (presumably) go hand in hand with increasing the score rewards for doing so. And because it would at least allow for objective play. As it currently stands, if you play anything other than Skirmish or Skirmish With Extra Map Markers, your score is in the dumpster and you earn next to nothing. That's an active disincentive to do something which is already often less entertaining than shooting 'mechs.

[Mystere]

Kiran Yagami, on 18 April 2017 - 09:12 PM, said:

I hate Incursion. The worst is when you lose and you have to wait for the enemy team to damage your base. Seriously, just end the damn game.

What's stopping you from just leaving the match after you died?

Oh! You want your little precious? Well, that's what spares are for.

Scout Derek, on 18 April 2017 - 10:18 PM, said:

W R O N G.

<3

A picture is so much better:

[Alexander of Macedon]

Incursion is a fun, balanced, and well-tested game mode. Pic related.

[Moonlight Grimoire]

Alexander of Macedon, on 19 April 2017 - 01:58 PM, said:

Incursion is a fun, balanced, and well-tested game mode. Pic related.

PGI "listened" so well on our feedback to rewarding players for completing objectives that everyone got screwed in that match

[Dryderian]

Well the answer I posted in another thread also fits in here.

No respawns!

The problem of the incursion mode is not that there are no respawns(it would just mean the skirmish slaughter takes longer), the problem is, that the maps are too small. Only polar highlands would come to mind as a map where this mode would have possibly an impact and I would even consider that map too small for this mode to play it's tactical and strategical strengths out. Also I consider the 15 minute time limit too short for such a mode.

[Clownwarlord]

respawn defeats the purpose of quick play being quick

just because you have 15 minutes for a match doesn't mean we need to use all 15 minutes and respawn will extend the average time in a quick play match

[Alexander of Macedon]

Moonlight Grimoire, on 19 April 2017 - 02:02 PM, said:

PGI "listened" so well on our feedback to rewarding players for completing objectives that everyone got screwed in that match

It's not even worth it though. I'm pretty sure that nobody in that match broke 100k CB income. Anything with more than ~20pt of armor per component can ignore the turrets, and the base elements all die in 2-3s. Three lights can kill the whole thing in maybe fifteen seconds.

[Moonlight Grimoire]

Alexander of Macedon, on 19 April 2017 - 02:54 PM, said:

It's not even worth it though. I'm pretty sure that nobody in that match broke 100k CB income. Anything with more than ~20pt of armor per component can ignore the turrets, and the base elements all die in 2-3s. Three lights can kill the whole thing in maybe fifteen seconds.

Exactly. Incursion as is, is laughable. If put in CW? Workable and probably enjoyable to a degree, but, bases give **** all payout and damage to base elements don't count towards damage so they don't give you pay or XP. Making Incursion asymmetrical would help as one team would be on the defensive, so the base would be defended, you would be fighting the enemy team, you would be doing damage and taking damage thus the normal reward system would work (less work for PGI). Through in bigger rewards for powering up the towers giving lights something to do with their suicide runs to get fuel cells instead of doing damage or hiding from skillboats. But, PGI decided, Symmetrical for QP was best with rewards that are nonexistent for doing the mode exclusive things, because for some reason PGI is scared to give us more cbills. I don't understand it.

[HGAK47]

I have been playing this game for some time and have never wanted respawn in the quick play game modes before but I have to admit, I really do feel that respawns and just a little tweaking could actually make Incursion a really fun game mode.

[PhoenixFire55]

Incursion needs to be reworked removed.
FTFY

I don't understand why they needed to go over base-with-turrets-static-camping-sh!tmode yet again. Already done assault with turrets, already failed, already removed that one.

But then again ...



What else is new ...

[Moonlight Grimoire]

PhoenixFire55, on 19 April 2017 - 03:07 PM, said:

Incursion needs to be reworked removed.
FTFY

I don't understand why they needed to go over base-with-turrets-static-camping-sh!tmode yet again. Already done assault with turrets, already failed, already removed that one.

But then again ...



What else is new ...

I actually enjoyed Assault with turrets, including the LRM turrets, I just wished the turrets had AMS pods on them as well, and instead of firing through ECM (though that is lore accurate for LOS LRM's to have tracking through ECM, lol) dumbfire them at players under ECM (which wouldn't fire off the incoming missile warning, hilariously enough). Like 2x1LL 1xLRM10 1xAMS turret per base, 4x2ML 2SRM4 BAP turrets per base, the LL ones typically placed higher up if applicable or with longer lanes of fire, but, players can't get locks off of them. Have them go down after taking say 50 damage? Typical mech now could blow them away in an alpha, most lights would just have to be careful with them. Also noticed turrets now seem to randomly pick a component and shoot it, not just your CT or legs, so it seems PGI has it roll a 1d7 every time the turret fires so you can effectively roll turret damage (they fire 2xISML's currently).

[MW222]

Deathlike, on 18 April 2017 - 05:42 PM, said:

You can turn the voice messages off. You'd also make Betty shut up.

Been there done that, ran repair tool, submitted trouble ticket still hearing them. It's a bug.

[MW222]

Alexander of Macedon, on 19 April 2017 - 01:58 PM, said:

Incursion is a fun, balanced, and well-tested game mode. Pic related.

We Have a WINNER, WINNER CHICKEN DINNER!

[Alex Morgaine]

Deathlike, on 18 April 2017 - 04:16 PM, said:

I think based on CS, I have some rudimentary ideas on some gamemodes (it's still going to be Skirmish-like, but there's a purpose).

If we consider CS's hostage mode, we could consider having like a CTF/Steal the Beacon type thing, where on opponent has to get into a base... &quot;steal&quot; the objective and reach a position to dump off the objective (something half-way between both team's spawn points). So, you'd have two places to cover (you can protect the objective or the dropoff area). Probably would need like 2-4 &quot;data objectives&quot; captured in order to give the attacking team a win. Getting the objective delivered would be a massive bonus to the attacking team (in the form of C-bills) or killing an objective carrier (which will be a risk-reward type of deal).

If we consider CS's bomb mode, we could consider having two potential bases to be attacked, and the attacking team can &quot;cap&quot; (1-3 seconds uninterrupted) to start a bomb/long tom timer (time of which needs to be determined - maybe 30s to 60s) where the team with the base to protect has to get to the correct base (it won't be told to all which base needs the defusing - that's what scouting and relaying info is for) to defuse/stop it (it will take 3-5 seconds uninterrupted to disable it).

It's rough/basic as I said before, but it's close enough to simulate the same CS modes... then again it's not really that interesting (but functional).

Whatever.

Would still have kill em all first issues.
1)Kill all, get 4 info cap.
2)kill all, set 3 bombs for lulz.

[Deathlike]

Alex Morgaine, on 19 April 2017 - 04:02 PM, said:

Would still have kill em all first issues.
1)Kill all, get 4 info cap.
2)kill all, set 3 bombs for lulz.

Well, you know that game ends up like that anyways, but the action is forced at the very least.

[Ted Wayz]

Alexander of Macedon, on 19 April 2017 - 01:58 PM, said:

Incursion is a fun, balanced, and well-tested game mode. Pic related.

Seen the same in Assault and Conquest. Point being?

[PAYWALL]

A slow repairfunction at the mobile fieldbase would be interesting. The battles would take place near the base more often. Also powercells should be needed.