102 replies to this topic

[Cato Zilks]

If you want respawns, play FP. Respawns are not the solution for QP incursion.

Now, I proposed this in the PTS and it was well received:
I think one core problem is the war over the center that the game forces on us. Lights will have to snag these batteries in the middle of the battle. Essentially, we end up with skirmish in the middle again. To avoid this, I think the bases should be off to the side. This means the main forces have a more direct path of attack while the lights have to fight over on the far side over the batteries.

For my example maps, Blue and Green are the two opposing bases while gold stars are the batteries. On Alpine I added pink lines to show how this changes how we fight over the map, and teal for the two key positions to protect the base.

[Jables McBarty]

I approve.

At one point I may have suggested something similar for Domination (can't remember if I ever posted it; definitely started some maps that never made it to the forums). Basically make the Dom point off to the side, rather than directly between the two teams' starting points.

You're applying the same basic concept here, only it's even better because you have to make strategic decisions between how much to allocate to straight defense of the base, and how much to allocate to "upgrades" in the form of fuel cells.

+1

[Cato Zilks]

Yeah, right now it is a stupid game mode that needs real editing.

[Accused]

Simple enough to test on PST....

[Cato Zilks]

Accused, on 18 April 2017 - 03:02 PM, said:

Simple enough to test on PST....

I asked, I posted to every PGI staff member that I know on Twitter... and crickets.

[Pr8Dator2]

Sorry but CW is broken as it is now so I won't play it even with respawns so I would like to see respawns in QP too!

[Cato Zilks]

Pr8Dator2, on 18 April 2017 - 03:10 PM, said:

Sorry but CW is broken as it is now so I won't play it even with respawns so I would like to see respawns in QP too!

Bummer. Russ has been clear that QP is for quick matches and if you want respawns then go to FP. Lets focus on how to fix this particular game mode, on not be distracted by your desire to overhaul all of QP.

[Pr8Dator2]

Cato Zilks, on 18 April 2017 - 03:17 PM, said:

Bummer. Russ has been clear that QP is for quick matches and if you want respawns then go to FP. Lets focus on how to fix this particular game mode, on not be distracted by your desire to overhaul all of QP.

Sorry, but as long as killing everyone wins exists, it defeats the whole point of having other objectives. Next!

[Cato Zilks]

Pr8Dator2, on 18 April 2017 - 03:19 PM, said:

Sorry, but as long as killing everyone wins exists, it defeats the whole point of having other objectives. Next!

Conquest works, balance is possible. Yes, killing everyone CAN work, but that does not make it the best (or only) strategy. We need to create a balanced mode. Now go away, or stay on topic: fixing Incursion for QP.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

I don't see how this makes the game mode any better, just makes the objectives even more ignorable and puts more emphasis on just face rushing the enemy given how close you spawn, if I'm understand correctly.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 18 April 2017 - 03:34 PM.

[Wild_Alaskan]

Cato Zilks, on 18 April 2017 - 12:44 PM, said:

I think one core problem is the war over the center that the game forces on us.

I certainly won't disagree with this, but in my opinion PGI has made every single objective that isn't "kill enemy mechs" not worthwhile in either cbills or XP. Thus, every single match devolves into Skirmish.

[Cato Zilks]

wfischer, on 18 April 2017 - 03:35 PM, said:

I certainly won't disagree with this, but in my opinion PGI has made every single objective that isn't "kill enemy mechs" not worthwhile in either cbills or XP. Thus, every single match devolves into Skirmish.

So, I think we also need a stronger bases that have LLas Turrets powered by one of the Battery systems. I think having all three battery systems powered on should help even the balance for a team that is down on players (say 12-9). I think this layout gives a side mission for the lighter mechs to do that outside of the central conflict that is the first step in differentiating this from Skirm.

[Khobai]

Quote

Now, I proposed this in the PTS and it was well received:
I think one core problem is the war over the center that the game forces on us. Lights will have to snag these batteries in the middle of the battle. Essentially, we end up with skirmish in the middle again. To avoid this, I think the bases should be off to the side. This means the main forces have a more direct path of attack while the lights have to fight over on the far side over the batteries.

and how does this prevent the game from devolving to skirmish? oh it doesnt. so basically youve fixed nothing.

Quote

So, I think we also need a stronger bases that have LLas Turrets powered by one of the Battery systems. I think having all three battery systems powered on should help even the balance for a team that is down on players (say 12-9). I think this layout gives a side mission for the lighter mechs to do that outside of the central conflict that is the first step in differentiating this from Skirm.

so your grand solution is camping? lmao

this idea keeps getting worse...

one of the whole reasons skirmish is toxic is because of camping. increasing that toxicity and still having it be skirmish just makes it an even worse version of skirmish.

Edited by Khobai, 18 April 2017 - 03:51 PM.

[Cato Zilks]

Khobai, on 18 April 2017 - 03:49 PM, said:

and how does this prevent the game from devolving to skirmish? oh it doesnt. so basically youve fixed nothing.



so your grand solution is camping? lmao

this idea keeps getting worse...

one of the whole reasons skirmish is toxic is because of camping. increasing that toxicity and still having it be skirmish just makes it an even worse version of skirmish.

No. So far camping is not a problem. I had played on the PTS, I have played it several times here. People play this as skirmish but with a Locust giving us 2 minutes of radar.

Putting the bases closer together allows the defenses to aid in the scrum of heavy mechs. It also can help prevent nascaring, as you don't want to have your backs to the enemy defenses.

Edited by Cato Zilks, 18 April 2017 - 04:06 PM.

[Marquis De Lafayette]

Personally, I have been pleasantly surprised in the 5 or so games I have played....but my expectations were really, really low. Yes, some games have played like skirmish (a brawly sort of skirmish for the middle) , but a couple have played out more like assault or Siege (from FW). The 2 most interesting games where a game we lost 11-12 (enemy all dead), but the enemy did far more damage to our base and a 2-0 win on Crimson, where the enemy team just went to where they normally go on skirmish and didn't defend their base at all. It got wrecked fast (was almost like a gen-rush...the horror!).

I am going to give it a few days before I settle on a opinion though. It doesn't seem as obviously messed up as Escort was, but I came in skeptical and I want more games before I would go and say it is a "good addition" to MWO.

[Kubernetes]

I think this mode will only work in CW. A single wave of 12 mechs is not enough to make the objective more worthwhile than simply killing all the enemy first. With respawns you could find yourself in seesaw battles in which bases are attacked in waves. Right now it's no different than assault--everyone could base rush for victory, but people would rather see all 12 enemy mechs smashed first.

[Cato Zilks]

Kubernetes, on 18 April 2017 - 09:39 PM, said:

I think this mode will only work in CW. A single wave of 12 mechs is not enough to make the objective more worthwhile than simply killing all the enemy first. With respawns you could find yourself in seesaw battles in which bases are attacked in waves. Right now it's no different than assault--everyone could base rush for victory, but people would rather see all 12 enemy mechs smashed first.

Yes, I think it can be great in FP. Especially with super beefed up bases.

Part of the reason I want the map change is to try to see if we cant force a different type of gameplay here like we do in conquest. Killing mechs is good in conquest but you need to keep an eye on caps. I think it is possible to make this game mode winable with strategies other than murderball.

And look, I will probably always vote skirmish; I am playing to shoot other stompy robots. But that doesn't mean I don't want to give this mode a fair shake in QP. Right now it plays like bad assault (at least in that mode you can stop the cap with a light and arty strikes. A full lance can hardy slow down the base cap in this mode. The mode needs an overhaul.

[JigglyMoobs]

I had an incursion game on Polar that was actually won by playing the objective in a smart way.

We went to attack and right away one of our lights got an Energon cube. Used it to power radar and we saw that the entire enemy team was playing skirmish around the Energon points. Our PUG commander smartly called an sneak attack on their base while a few of us held the enemy team at our current position. It got pretty hairy but our guys ninjaed the base before their team figured out that there were only 3 of us there in the center. Whole thing was caught on video by yours truly.

I had my doubts during the match but this time at least the strat worked well.

Edited by JigglyMoobs, 18 April 2017 - 11:16 PM.

[Johnny Z]

My first thought when I heard the details of this objective was to have the energy stockpiles behind or to the side of the bases so that it would reward actually trying to get the base running, but still leave room for the other team to cut off supplies and lay siege. This would be way more sim like as well.

Maybe the maps are not big enough for this? But either way for obvious reasons trying to get any of the energy in the middle without the other team knowing when/where the opposing team player is trying to do this is rather ignorant of a few factors of the live game.

Its a new mode so I am not worried about it to much at the moment.

But honestly this game mode does stink of "game design" instead of trying to make a good game mode, a serious problem with games lately. Again its new to me so I am hesitant to say this.

Edited by Johnny Z, 18 April 2017 - 11:28 PM.

[JigglyMoobs]

Johnny Z, on 18 April 2017 - 11:23 PM, said:

My first thought when I heard the details of this objective was to have the energy stockpiles behind the bases so that it would reward actually trying to get the base running, but still leave room for the other team to cut off supplies and lay siege.

Maybe the maps are not big enough for this? But either way for obvious reasons trying to get any of the energy in the middle without the other team knowing when/where the opposing team player is trying to do this is rather ignorant of a few factors of the live game.

Its a new mode so I am not worried about it to much at the moment.

I have yet to make up my mind about this. The key to what they did here is that the base is so weak a lance of lights or mediums could very quickly take it out. This could change the way you have to play this map.

I've been on a winning match above and a losing match today where this happened. So, it seems guarding the base is actually more important in this mode then in assault.

My feelings at this point is give it a few weeks and see what people do with the mode once they are more familiar, then we can see where we are in terms of adjustments needed.