1
So, the new Incursion Game-mode is here, and - what a surprise - it is being criticized by the community. *waves at Garfuncle and -> his related post here*
It has also been called to be broken, due to having Light-Rushable objectives (Faction-Warfare Veterans will remember this problem) -> thanks Snuggles Time for -> demonstrating this here.
My critic with this game-mode goes far beyond this point, however.
It will go far beyond this game-mode, as well.
But I will try to be constructive. (I can not promise that, though.)
tl,dr:
It seems to me as if PGI has looked at other games to see what kind of game-modes exist and are popular,
and then try to make them playable with their franchise (BattleFreakingMechs!)
What I think they should have done is:
Look at what kind of franchise they have (BattleFreakingMechs!)
and THEN find some game-modes that suit this franchise. Or make them up.
It seems PGI is only looking at popular games on the market,
instead of looking at the other Mechwarrior-Games and their missions... and the various Battle-Tech Novels.
If you, PGI, have done the later one, it is not very noticeable.
At least to me.
In any case, given PGIs track-record on creating interesting and immersive game-modes.... I will not pre-purchase MW5 - no matter WHAT goddies you will throw at us - unless I see something solid and entertaining.
tl;dr /end
ACCESSING THE SITUATION - SO YOU WANT TO BECOME A MECHWARRIOR? WHY?
We have "giant stompy robots" on the one hand,
and "things you can do with giants stompy robots" on the other hand.
Hence we have game-modes with different goals:
Symmetrical Goals:
Skirmish (aka Death-Match)
Assault (aka cap the enemies Base)
Conquest (aka cap 5 resource points and hold them)
Domination (aka King of the Hill)
Incursion (aka destroy the enemies Base)
Asymmetrical goals:
Escort (aka Escort the big stoopid Robit to his extraction-point / prevent just that)
Scouting (aka collect data randomly placed on the maps / prevent just that)
Siege (aka destroy the enemies Big Gun / prevent just that)
Counter Attack (aka destroy the enemies and their Mobile Field Base / prevent just that)
We also have two different Scenarios with different spawn-methodes:
- Quickplay (QP): singular Drop, no respawn, 15 minutes playtime
- Faction Warfare (FW) Dropdeck, spawn up to 4 times, 30 minutes playtime
FW also features a Galaxy-Map, that can be conquered by the two factions in game.
As of now, all modes can be played in FW and QP alike, with the exception of Siege, Counter-Attack and Scouting, which are FW-exclusive modes.
LETS PAUSE HERE FOR A MOMENT.
What game-modes, scenarios and respawn-types do OTHER games feature?
I can only speak of limited experience here.
I have played Counter-Strike (CS; waaay back, up until CS 1.6; I stopped before HalfLife 2 came out) and Call of Duty (CoD; MW1, 2 and 3, then stopped playing it; mostly played Domination and Death-Match).
(I have NOT played any Battlefield games, but am aware of their ticket-based respawn-system.)
I know it is not fair to compare First Person Shooters like CS and CoD with a "vehicular"-game such as MWO.
But since PGI seems to try to mimic several game-modes from CoD, I think it IS fair to compare.
Counter-Strike:
Scenario: Counter-terrorism units (CT) vs. Terrorist
Goals: asymmetrical
Respawn: none
Game-Lobby: no; after the map loaded you self-assigned to one of the teams
Time on map: a round lasts for about 3-4 minutes; play 1 map for a fixed amount of time (usually about 30 minutes) before another map will be used.
Gamemodes:
Counter-Strike (CTs have to rescue 4 hostages and bring them back to their spawn)
Defusion (Terrorists plant a bomb on one of two sites; CTs can defuse it once planted)
Extinct gamemodes due to lack of popularity:
Assassination (CTs have to escort one randomly chosen player to an extraction-point; that player has double the health, but can only use the standard-pistol.)
Escape (Terrorist have to escape to a certain location on the map; the spawn with only pistols and can not buy better weapons, unlike the CT's)
Map-Mode-relation: Maps where designed with a specific mode in mind; no mode-switching possible.
Call of Duty:
Scenario: basically "Western Military" vs. "Terrorists"
Goals: the most popular ones were symmetrical
Respawn: depends on the mode; in most cases "yes" and "infinitive".
Game-Lobby: yes; players will be auto-assigned.
Time on map: varies; mostly about 10 minutes, then another map in the same mode.
Gamemodes (I will focus on the two modes I a most familiar with; there are multiple others):
Death-Match (infinite respawn: kill enemies until a Kill-Limit has been reached; singular respawn: kill all enemies; in both cases on time-out team with most kills win)
Domination (capture 3 flags on the map and gain points for holding it; infinite respawn; team who reached 200 points wins / on time-out highest score wins)
Map-Mode-relation: all modes can be played on all maps
So in short:
Counter-Strike has custom maps for each mode, you had no respawn and each team had different, OPPOSING goals; pacing is all in all relative slow.
Call of Duty mixes all modes with all maps, you have infinite respawn and each team has the SAME goals; pacing is usually very quick and action-packed.
In hindsight I remember CS as to be much more immersive and thrilling then CoD, while CoD was much more action-packed.
NOW BACK TO MWO:
Here it seems as if PGI wants to implement symmetrical modes like in CoD (like Domination, which here is called Conquest and has 2 additional "flags") with the respawn-methode of CS (= no resapwn) on ONE hand (in Quickplay),
while on the other hand (in Faction Warefare) we have asymmetrical modes like in Counter-Strike mixed with the respawn-methode of CoD (respawn, although limited to 4).
The only exceptions here are:
Skirmish (Death-Match, symmetrical goals, no resapwn)
Scouting (Data-Extraction, asymmetrical goals, no respawn)
Escort (well, Escort, asymmetrical goals, no resawn)
To me it seems as if PGI has mixed the game-modes and respawn-methodes BACKWARDS to what CS and CoD do.
I.E., modes designed to have no respawn work less good with respawn (Siege),
and modes designed with respawn in mind work not as good with no respawn (Conquest).
Incursion is another good example:
Both teams have a base AND need to destroy the enemies base while protecting their own.
No Respawn.
If in the original Assault-game-mode only ONE team would have had a base, and the other team would have had to take it (out), I firmly believe it would have been more fun.
No cap-race, for instance.
Furthermore most Quick-Play game-modes look and feel.. kinda goofy.
Not... immersive. (there, I wrote it)
In fact, most Quick-Play game modes have so weird objectives, so weird setups, that the only environment they would be believable in... to me as a player.. as a MECHWARRIOR.. would be in an Arena.
So, to all the people that want Solaris VII (-> Solaris VII is famous for its BattleMech fights, which are operated there as a sport in the Solaris Games. ).. we already have it!
Faction Warfare also is not ideal.
The scenarios look right (taking out a giant gun / re-taking the base via killing the invaders), but the tactical flexibility that comes with the repawn is not always benefitial to the gameplay.
First of all it allows for quick-wins due to optimized dropdecks (Light-Rushing the generator and gun, game was over in less then 5 minutes; was not much fun and PGI had to remodel quite a lot to prevent it; while singular respawn would have prevented Light-rushing much better).
The Scout-Mode is fun, and the only point of critique I have is the lack of Immersion.
(Why store data in 20 random locations on the map where it can be stolen? What kind of sensors are that, what kind of data do they collect? Especially at the locations they are sitting at?
Would have been more fun to have like 4 installations on the map, random spawns, each with 5 targets inside that needed to be targeted/scanned once for spotting, then escape with at least 10 scans (no shared data, so the escaping mech needs to have made the scans personally -> forces the scouts to stick together and not split out).)
NOT TO THE CONSTRUCTIVE PART:
Incursion, what I was hoping for:
Spawning:
Attackers will be dropped of at one of two points.
Defenders have two bases, one is active and they spawn in it, the other is unimportant. Defenders spawn in Hangars with doors closed (they will open after the dropships are out of sight.
As spawn you can have only A OR B and 1 OR 2.
While the general locations of the spawns are known, one does not know where the enemy actually spawn.. Since the spawns are so far away from each other, you can not move your entire team to one of them without knowing the enemy is there -> fast mechs needed for scouting.
Note that one team will get either A or B, the other team will get 1 or 2 then - or vice versa.
For example, Attackers will be randomly assigned to get A, then Defenders will NOT get B... but eiterh 1 or 2.
This is to keep the distance between the spawns somewhat consistent.
NO RESPAWN!
Intelligence / Scouting:
NO RADAR-SWEEPS!
On that note: I have no idea where PGI had the idea with the energy cells; just to give the Scouts something to do?
They are SCOUTS!
SCOUTING is their role!
Giving us a Map-wide Radar-Sweep makes their actual role obsolete!
It was a bad idea for Faction Warfare, and should be abandoned, not re-used. IMO.
Intelligence is offline/has been destroyed by an air-raid, so the defenders had no way of seeing where the dropships landed.
(If that is not immersive enough, just spawn the attackers; they have walked to that point they spawn at from... beyond the map... something like that.)
Attackers now need to figure out which of the two installations is their target -> scouts ftw!
Defenders can choose to hide in the hangers til the last moment to make it harder for the enemy scouts to find the relevant base (if they walk around they can be spotted from farther away)
The scouts need to come very close to see if the turrets around the base deploy or not.
If the do, BINGO, its the base they want. If not, it's the other one.
The defenders can choose to send out scouts as well, but have to be cautious not to give away their base that way.
Win-Conditions and Payout:
The resulting battle will determine the winners in the following way:
Lets say there are 5 installations targeted for destruction.
Upon timeout: more then 50% of the targeted installations destroyed attackers win, else defenders win.
100% of the targeted installations destroyed: attackers win immediately.
Bonus: there is a 10% exp/cash-bonus for the final score related to each installation.
The more is destroyed, the more bonus the attackers get, the more is left intact, the more bonus the defenders get.
Example: on timeout, 3 of 5 installations are destroyed.
Each attacker gets 30% bonus exp/cash based on his personal score.
Each defender gets 20% bonus exp/cash based on his personal score.
Bonus for destroying stuff is not limited to the ones shooting at the targets; you want some people of your team to keep the defenders busy while someone else destroys the actual targets.
Possible problems and possible solutions:
Depending on who much time is available to the players, the game may revert to simple Skirmish until one team is destroyed (much like most game-modes currently do), resulting in the bonus going fully to only one team.
Since wiping the opposing team out takes time, it might be necessary to reduce the time available to the players.
Also: some of the key-targets could be placed outside of the base to encourage some movement.
The turrets outside of the base could contribute to the bonus exp/cash, though to lesser degree. If they count to the win-conditions itself, they should make up LESS then 50% of the targets that needs to be destroyed... so, killing ALL the turrets is still not enough to win.
But you will get a "you at least tried"-Bonus.
(There are certainly more flaws I did not think of right now. So, my proposal is certainly far from being perfect. However, I leave the question if my proposal is more interesting then the current Incursion-Mode up to you, fellow Mechwarriors.)
I think this could encourage a couple of things:
- Scouts need to ACTUALLY scout!
- Both teams have an actual objective to care for that is rewarding in itself!
- hence: no separate rewards needed to fulfill certain objectives!
- Immersive game-play! (... at least more immersive then picking up glowing cubes...)
WHILE WE ARE AT IT - CASUAL VS. PRO-GAMERS:
Why do we have two different Scenarios with different game-modes in the first place - Quickplay and Faction Warfare?
I am not that much of a competitive player, but did a bit back in my Counter-Strike days.
Had a couple of Clan wars, as they were called.
Did we had special game-modes or scenarios for Clan-Wars?
No.
We used the existing maps (and thus modes) provided by the game itself.
How did we define which team won?
We played the map for a fixed amount of time, say 20 minutes in total (the number of rounds played could vary, of cause).
One time as the CT's, and another 20 minutes as the terrorist.
The Clan with more won matches in total won the Clan War.
I do not understand why it was necessary to create separate new game modes for Faction Warfare.
Why not use the existing ones?
If the answer is "because they are not good enough for a competitive environment", doesn't that mean you were creating better game modes exclusively for the hard-core players?
As I just pointed out, in Counter-Strike both the Casuals and the Pro-Players played on the same maps/modes.
The Pro-Players were just better at it.
As for Drop-Decks: I understand how this helps with match-making.
But - at least for me - it does add nothing to the gameplay-experience.
The game did not become more tactical or thrilling due to it. Actually it feels less thrilling to me.
It just lasts longer.
Which is especially bad when you are part of a worse team, because it only prolongs the suffering, thus creating frustration.
Faction-Warfare, conquering the Inner Sphere:
I think this - conquering the Inner Sphere - should be the only difference between Casual and Pro-Players.
You can fight for planets according to your faction.
If you are in a Unit and are good enough, you might be able to even capture a planet for yourself (due to the planets being potentially less numerous then player-units, this should be limited to.. say, the top 5 units of each house/clan).
Each planet they have gives them a revenue in X MC, but cost X C-bills to keep up.
For each addition planet they own the upkeep-cost raise exponentially (i.e. if cost is 1 Million C-Bills per Day for the fist planet and the cost triple, the second planet cost 3 million C-Bills per day, the third cost 9, the forth costs 27, and so on, until a point is reached where a unit just can't keep up with the costs).
That way the number of planets each unit can own will be self-limiting at one point.
Numbers as suggested above can vary.
Could be tied into the numbers of members each unit has, too, for further balancing.
Given that each planet generates an MC-income for the unit, the numbers of planets ownable SHOULD be limited, anyway.
IN CONCLUSION:
Sorry for producing such a massive wall of text.
The entire way PGI produced game-modes, created an entirely new game around Faction-Warfare - instead of making actually interesting, challenging and immersive gamemodes and just tying them to the Inner-Sphere-Map for the Faction oriented Hardcore players to create Faction-Warfare - made me want to write something like this for at least a year.
Incursion was just the last stray to make me actually do it.
P.S.: Sorry for wasting your time, dear reader who has made it this far - I know you disagree with me and can't wait to pick my post apart with one simple, short, but smart reply. Feel free to do so.
And sorry @ PGI for wasting their time as well... I'll be back on my islands ASAP. o7
