14 replies to this topic

[warner2]

Apparently the Escort game mode is gone...

Incursion doesn't seem popular. It doesn't need to die.

PGI please rethink Incursion, get feedback from the community, improve it iteratively, and work towards something that people actually vote for.

I'm pretty sure I would vote for an asymmetrical incursion mode if it were balanced. I know people have said that that would be too similar to invasion or whatever it's called in faction play, but this isn't faction play. Also, some have said that it'd be too similar to domination but I don't see that. One defender and one attacker would be worth trying IMO.

[Blhurr]

asymmetry is too hard to balance in public games

[Jiang Wei]

Blhurr, on 10 June 2017 - 10:16 AM, said:

asymmetry is too hard to balance in public games

That is objectively false.

They need to make it one base, one attacker, one defender.

Edited by Jiang Wei, 10 June 2017 - 04:43 PM.

[Khobai]

id rather they just added a new gamemode called dropship defense

where one side has to attack a union class dropship and the otherside has to defend it until it can refuel and take off

to break up the defender advantage there could also be two refueling depots that would have to be defended, and if the attacker destroys them it would slow the refueling process

[Andi Nagasia]

warner2, on 10 June 2017 - 08:13 AM, said:

Apparently the Escort game mode is gone...

Incursion doesn't seem popular. It doesn't need to die.

um Escort is coming back with the June Patch, with many Fixes,

warner2, on 10 June 2017 - 08:13 AM, said:

PGI please rethink Incursion, get feedback from the community, improve it iteratively, and work towards something that people actually vote for.

im sure they are already doing this, listening to feedback and looking at the Data on how the mode is working,
making changes to improve the game mode, i think is a given as it would make no sense for them not to do this,

warner2, on 10 June 2017 - 08:13 AM, said:

I'm pretty sure I would vote for an asymmetrical incursion mode if it were balanced. I know people have said that that would be too similar to invasion or whatever it's called in faction play, but this isn't faction play. Also, some have said that it'd be too similar to domination but I don't see that. One defender and one attacker would be worth trying IMO.

i dont think so, i think its good as it is with 2 bases, though i agree it could be improved,
personally i like it better than Assault, as Assaults not much more than Skirmish + a cap point,

[Kiiyor]

warner2, on 10 June 2017 - 08:13 AM, said:

Apparently the Escort game mode is gone...

Incursion doesn't seem popular. It doesn't need to die.

PGI please rethink Incursion, get feedback from the community, improve it iteratively, and work towards something that people actually vote for.

I'm pretty sure I would vote for an asymmetrical incursion mode if it were balanced. I know people have said that that would be too similar to invasion or whatever it's called in faction play, but this isn't faction play. Also, some have said that it'd be too similar to domination but I don't see that. One defender and one attacker would be worth trying IMO.

I want PGI to combine the escort and incursion modes.

You have to escort smaller vehicles to base segments on different parts of the map. The vehicles then power each base segment.

3 or 4 vehicles leave at once. You have to choose what to protect.


Nerdy details:

Spoiler

One vehicle could power ECM, another could power turrets at strategic locations (large laser turrets), one could power radar, and if you get 2 or 3 base segments powered, a heap of LURM turrets activate (remember those bloody things?). Mechs can also power these installations by standing in a cap zone there, but it takes much longer.

Once you power X number of installations, a friendly artillery installation powers up and starts shelling the enemy base. A dropship is then called in to evacuate the personnel from their base, and artillery starts dropping in random locations on it. This is the only time the game can be ended by base destruction. You can either destroy the landing platform (but you have to get close, and risk getting nailed by artillery), or do enough damage to the dropship to cause it to abort the evacuation (the dropship will be a much tougher target).

This way, your team could split to protect carriers and theoretically power up faster at greater risk, or ignore the escort and murderball to different nodes and power up with the whole team - safer, but slower.

[John1352]

In terms of easily implemented (lazy) changes, perhaps changing the charge capture and dropoff mechanism to holding the cap point (like conquest) would make it more interesting. Driving a light mech back and forwards between the base and the battery charger is not fun and for the most part a poor use of the light.

To be clear, I'm just suggesting that the three charge capture points are changed over to conquest-like points that give the same bonuses to the holder.

[Accused]

Andi Nagasia, on 10 June 2017 - 05:27 PM, said:

im sure they are already doing this, listening to feedback and looking at the Data on how the mode is working, making changes to improve the game mode, i think is a given as it would make no sense for them not to do this,

It would make sense to listen to what we said during public testing before they shoved it on us just like how their going to do again.

Edited by Accused, 10 June 2017 - 05:58 PM.

[Mazen Drakhov]

I don't understand the logic behind making players shoot at things that don't require skill to shoot at. This was Escort's major failing. It's not fun to shoot the VIP, so everyone shoots the other team and it becomes a type of skirmish.

Same thing with Incursion. Running power cells takes no talent. Shooting walls / base facilities takes no skill. So people either just skirmish (which takes skill) or zerg the base to get it over with.

Introducing new game mode mechanics that require active FPS-style skills is what's needed. Not more "stand in this box" or "shoot at that box".

I'm glad Escort is gone, and I won't miss Incursion if it goes either (though I hate it less than Escort).

[Ted Wayz]

warner2, on 10 June 2017 - 08:13 AM, said:

PGI please rethink Incursion, get feedback from the community, improve it iteratively, and work towards something that people actually vote for.

Imagine if PGI took feedback before devoting resources to features, maps and modes.

Oh wait, they told us we have no idea what we want. Silly me.

Tackles, on 10 June 2017 - 07:07 PM, said:

I don't understand the logic behind making players shoot at things that don't require skill to shoot at.

You mean like using direct fire on mechs? Or did mechs suddenly get the ability to slide, roll, or in anyway dodge incoming fire?

[Andi Nagasia]

Accused, on 10 June 2017 - 05:58 PM, said:

It would make sense to listen to what we said during public testing before they shoved it on us just like how their going to do again.

they did listen on alot of things, but just because they listen doesnt mean they will implement every idea,
some times their are limitations on what can be implemented fixed or changed before the release,
and no i dont agree with the PTS until Perfect then release Crowd,

if things were in testing like that, they would never be released,
its best to do as much as you can, make it the best it can be on the PTS, then release it ,
you can always make more changes later, with the full data, PTS is just for initial thoughts,

[Commander A9]

If anything, Incursion should be kept out of Faction Warfare.

It's just going to be a baserushfest.

Edited by Commander A9, 10 June 2017 - 09:05 PM.

[Ruar]

Andi Nagasia, on 10 June 2017 - 09:00 PM, said:

they did listen on alot of things, but just because they listen doesnt mean they will implement every idea,
some times their are limitations on what can be implemented fixed or changed before the release,
and no i dont agree with the PTS until Perfect then release Crowd,

if things were in testing like that, they would never be released,
its best to do as much as you can, make it the best it can be on the PTS, then release it ,
you can always make more changes later, with the full data, PTS is just for initial thoughts,

What would be nice is if they told us which areas were design limitations and which areas are subject to change improvement. It would reduce a lot of the frustration knowing that something just can't be changed because of the coding mechanics.

And there is a massive different between "these things would make this game mode so much better and would be easy to implement" and "don't release it till it's completely fixed".

The sad truth is PGI is fixated on their internal ideas and routinely reject better ideas from the community and forums. I've been around six months and I can see it. There is so much room for PGI to actually listen and implement, provide truthful feedback on why they don't implement, and explain some of the limitations that prevent implementing player ideas.

This game would be so much better, and more profitable, if PGI would only be humble and listen to their players instead of insisting only PGI knows the way forward. The only time I've seen them adopt player suggestions is when the player outcry was so great there was no doubt something had to change or there would be very few players left.

[LORD ORION]

It's not even hard... just turn everything ON at the start of the match
Nothing powers down for 5 minutes.

[Shifty McSwift]

The destructible terrain is nice