48 replies to this topic

[InfinityBall]

Lykaon, on 21 August 2017 - 08:39 PM, said:

Another solution is asymetric objectives.

Why do we need two bases? Or for that matter why are there two opposing forces that have bases within a kilometer or two of each other?

One team has to assault a base the other defends a base. There may be need to tweak the game mode to equalize the forces because there is an innate advantage to defending on a mode like this but...honestly why two bases? We don't have two VIP mechs in escort.

And they've tweaked Escort so well that the defenders have an enormous advantage

[Khobai]

Quote

Another solution is asymetric objectives.

asymmetric objectives only work IMO if both teams get a chance at being attacker/defender

it should be a set of 2 games, and whichever team has a better combined average in both games, wins the set

[Savage Wolf]

Fleeb the Mad, on 21 August 2017 - 05:44 PM, said:

If anything the base capture timer needs to be shorter than it is now. Do you know how rare it is that someone actually succeeds in capturing the base? It takes so long for anything short of half a team to capture the base that it can generally only happen after the fight's already over. There's no need to watch for flanking or maneuvers because only an incredibly negligent team will lose to one or two enemy mechs on the cap. There's enough response time that virtually any mech on the field can return to deal with it.

I will add that any team that loses their match because they allowed a base cap to happen while 'winning' the fight deserves it.

There's just no excuse for a team with the advantage to not be able to deal with it. Either the enemy team played their strategy better or, more commonly, nobody on a team with the advantage feels like saving the base is their particular problem.

Hence the multiplier for enemy mechs destroyed. The cap time is only higher when no fighting has occured yet. Once only few mechs are remaining, capping is fast because of high multipliers.

QuantumButler, on 21 August 2017 - 04:49 PM, said:

That was just his position at the time.

Just steal the blue circle mechanic from Player Unknown's Battlegrounds for Skirmish, with the out of bounds area of the map gradually shrinking as the match progresses, forcing people to converge on randomly selected circles of the map so they have to move and fight.

Boom, Skirmish is fixed and made much more dynamic.

Sounds like another good way to fix it. Maybe your fix for Skirmish and mine for Assault. Then we have two good combat modes for a combat queue.

[Savage Wolf]

Lykaon, on 21 August 2017 - 08:39 PM, said:

Another solution is asymetric objectives.

Why do we need two bases? Or for that matter why are there two opposing forces that have bases within a kilometer or two of each other?

One team has to assault a base the other defends a base. There may be need to tweak the game mode to equalize the forces because there is an innate advantage to defending on a mode like this but...honestly why two bases? We don't have two VIP mechs in escort.

Asymmetry doesn't work unless both teams get to be both attacker and defender because you can never balance asymetric modes fully. At least for QP. I'm still hoping FW is turned into the Objectives queue with longer matches which opens up for more interesting game modes. But QP needs to be quick.

[Methanoid]

1 team attacks, 1 team defends an objective, similar to UT99 Assault mode.

i mentioned in a different threat that assault would be better in the above format to avoid deadlocks, 1 team must advance, 1 must defend, have a rectancular(ish) map, 1/2 of it the advance area the other the actual stronghold/base, deep within the base have a generator or other important objective which needs destroyed to win the match for the attackers, wiping out the attackers or letting the time run out being a win for the defenders.

The base in question can have multiple routes inside to advance, 2-3 main entry points which can be defended, areas that the defending team can still defends from if they are pushed back, throw in some sneaky entry points for lights/jumpjet users, basically make it more than just a fortress with 1 door in. Maybe throw in a few optional sub objectives, like destroying some smaller generators that control automated base defences just to make things interesting.

Theres all sorts of ways to make assault a bit better, same for conquest which ideally needs suitable maps made for those capture zones to be contested in better ways.

Edited by Methanoid, 22 August 2017 - 12:55 AM.

[Savage Wolf]

Methanoid, on 22 August 2017 - 12:55 AM, said:

1 team attacks, 1 team defends an objective, similar to UT99 Assault mode.

i mentioned in a different threat that assault would be better in the above format to avoid deadlocks, 1 team must advance, 1 must defend, have a rectancular(ish) map, 1/2 of it the advance area the other the actual stronghold/base, deep within the base have a generator or other important objective which needs destroyed to win the match for the attackers, wiping out the attackers or letting the time run out being a win for the defenders.

The base in question can have multiple routes inside to advance, 2-3 main entry points which can be defended, areas that the defending team can still defends from if they are pushed back, throw in some sneaky entry points for lights/jumpjet users, basically make it more than just a fortress with 1 door in. Maybe throw in a few optional sub objectives, like destroying some smaller generators that control automated base defences just to make things interesting.

Theres all sorts of ways to make assault a bit better, same for conquest which ideally needs suitable maps made for those capture zones to be contested in better ways.

Dude, you just described Siege mode. We already have that. Just sadly, stuck in FW.

[Khobai]

Id like to see a dropship defense gamemode where one team has to disable a union class dropship and the other team has to defend it until it can refuel and launches

there would be two capturable refueling depots that would speed up the refueling process

and when the dropships fueling got to a certain point (50%>) its gun turrets would go online

[Insanity09]

Two words: Mobile base.

Think of it less as a base, but more a source of information you need to decrypt and download. You don't want to lose the info, so you can't just blow it up, and you need your own base nearby because it has the storage and processing power to handle the relay link from the friendly mechs, and distance introduces too much noise. But that is merely color.
Anyhow...

Have the friendly base either move around along a defined path, or follow the friendly team at some distance (wherever the greatest concentration of friendly mechs is). If both side had this happening, especially if they did not show up on the enemy map, that would make the whole game mode a little more dynamic.

I know most folks hate escort, but part of that issue is that the VIP does stupid things and walks around getting killed. The latter wouldn't a be a problem here, and as far as pathing, well, even if it stops (gets stuck), it still needs to be captured, so also not an issue, per se.

In assault, you would need to capture the enemy's mobile command post, not destroy it.
That would be the sole victory condition. Killing the enemy team does not win the game for you. You either cap the enemy base, or the best you can hope for is a tie.

Further, I'd suggest that the base make a beeline for the edge of the map if its defending team were destroyed, so if you don't know where the enemy base is, and can't find it in time, it's a tie (neither base captured). (having more ties would be... novel)
Since the bases move, the game mode as a whole would be a bit more dynamic (not always the same exact spawn points), and more of the maps might be used (thinking of forest colony in particular).

A few conditions though...
One, the mobile base would absolutely be required to follow a path as out of sight as possible. (unlike the idiot VIP) So, hugging walls, moving between rocks and buildings, etc.
Two, when being captured, the base would stop moving and appear on radar. Also, the base could be targeted (as alpha/beta are currently in Dom), and would then appear on radar.
Three, the bases probably need to be equipped with ECM.
Four, while not destroyable, the bases should stop moving if they are hit by enemy fire, so even if you can't target them (due to ECM) you can still make them hold still until you get close.
Five, if the mobile base is not trying to follow or stay near the owning team, the path absolutely MUST be shown on the map (even if it is just a marker saying it is heading to a spot, with that spot changing at times, waypoint-like) (and I still don't understand why the VIP in escort can't do this).
Six. The base has to be amphibious. Too many maps have enough water that in order to get around without being funneled through very easily located bottlenecks (ahem, like escort), the bases should be more free to move.


However, one uncertain thing, should the bases be easier, harder, or the same difficulty to capture?

[Methanoid]

Savage Wolf, on 22 August 2017 - 01:02 AM, said:

Dude, you just described Siege mode. We already have that. Just sadly, stuck in FW.

get it in QP and make it not suck.

[Khobai]

well one idea for fixing assault could be to turn it into a sortve CTF gamemode

there could be intel beacons spread out on the map and the objective would be to collect intel beacons and bring them back to your base.

but you would also be able to go to the enemy base and steal any intel theyve collect. mechs could only carry one at a time though and if theyre destroyed they would drop it.

first team to get X intel would win

[Savage Wolf]

Methanoid, on 22 August 2017 - 01:14 AM, said:

get it in QP and make it not suck.

Absolutely. Though still requires a drop deck. So probably requires a new queue bucket, but absolutely. If I could play Siege and FW Conquest all day in a pug queue, I would.

[Dimento Graven]

Actually this brings to mind something that has annoyed me about MWO for a long time:

Why don't bases/facilities you own or have captured provide sensor intel for your team?

I'm not talking providing whole map information, just information on a 200 meter diameter around them?

And at an absolute minimum, as soon as someone steps into a 'capture square' of a base/resource you own, they should show up on the minimap.

It's stupidly obtuse and totally f's up immersion to have some 'invisible' thing beating away at your base with absolutely no intel being provided...

[Fleeb the Mad]

Savage Wolf, on 21 August 2017 - 11:58 PM, said:

Hence the multiplier for enemy mechs destroyed. The cap time is only higher when no fighting has occured yet. Once only few mechs are remaining, capping is fast because of high multipliers.

Uh, I'm afraid you missed the point there. Having the cap timer be tied to kills is a mistake. It shouldn't be that difficult for mechs that slip past early in the match to have an impact on the cap, otherwise it gathers zero attention as opposed to the tiny bit it does now.

Early in the match usually gives the best opportunity for a team to respond. Again, if they lose it's their own fault.

[Lanzman]

Skirmish is fine. Sometimes you just want to march out and beat on the bad guys. Only thing I'd change is do random spawn points.

Assault usually winds up being Skirmish, altho I've been in plenty of matches that have been decided by base cap. I'd change it so that you can only win by capturing the enemy base.

Conquest usually devolves to a battle at one cap point. Which is fine, except it tends to always be the same cap point. Ergo, randomize the cap point locations. Fixed.

Escort just needs the VIP to be able to shoot back and also move with some intelligence instead of wandering like a zombie waiting for a headshot.

Incursion needs something done so that one team doesn't bum-rush the other base and blow it up before the other team can react. Like you can get the fuel cells for your own base OR you can get explosives to plant on the enemy base. Heh heh heh.

For a new mode, something I call Salvage. Once you kill an enemy mech, you have to cap it as you would a cap point in Conquest. Capture more than half of the enemy team to win.

Siege mode brought into quick play sounds good.

Lastly, it should be possible for the survivors of a team that's losing badly to withdraw off the edge of the map, but only on the side where they spawned. So if it's down to 10 on 2, the 2 can "escape" (which could be a whole mode, now I think about it) off of the map.

[Savage Wolf]

Fleeb the Mad, on 22 August 2017 - 05:44 PM, said:

Uh, I'm afraid you missed the point there. Having the cap timer be tied to kills is a mistake. It shouldn't be that difficult for mechs that slip past early in the match to have an impact on the cap, otherwise it gathers zero attention as opposed to the tiny bit it does now.

Early in the match usually gives the best opportunity for a team to respond. Again, if they lose it's their own fault.

Yes, exactly. This makes Assault a better pure combat mode, which is what it mostly was anyway. It was miles away from being an interesting objective mode anyway, so I see no reason to try and make it one. If you wanted objectives, assault was never really interesting. I love objectives, but running past the enemy and sit in their box for a while is not interesting objective play. But it can be made into an interesting combat mode, so why not?

[Savage Wolf]

Lanzman, on 22 August 2017 - 07:03 PM, said:

Skirmish is fine. Sometimes you just want to march out and beat on the bad guys. Only thing I'd change is do random spawn points.

Assault usually winds up being Skirmish, altho I've been in plenty of matches that have been decided by base cap. I'd change it so that you can only win by capturing the enemy base.

And this is where you get the best of both modes. It's about shooting the bad guys and the game mode actually makes it important. And if the enemy doesn't want to fight? Cap their base. Is that not better than just basic skirmish?

[AssaultPig]

the current assault mode is redundant with skirmish and ought to be disabled

if they want to re-imagine assault as some new type of asymmetric game then great, but get rid of the current one in the meantime

[Savage Wolf]

AssaultPig, on 23 August 2017 - 01:41 AM, said:

the current assault mode is redundant with skirmish and ought to be disabled

if they want to re-imagine assault as some new type of asymmetric game then great, but get rid of the current one in the meantime

Yes, that's why I tried to fix it. Any comment on that?

[Niebaum]

InfinityBall, on 21 August 2017 - 07:22 AM, said:

15 minute matches where the last 10 minutes are a powered down light hiding someplace and the other team running around trying to find it

Thats player griefing. Thats not the game modes fault.

[Savage Wolf]

Niebaum, on 23 August 2017 - 03:38 AM, said:

Thats player griefing. Thats not the game modes fault.

Actually, it is. The game is there to set the goal and the motivation. If that goal can be achieved in a manner that is not fun, the game mode has failed. Hence why Skirmish is flawed because for a game mode that is all about combat it has no mechanic to actually encourage combat and punish cowardice.
There are also other factors, like the ranking and reward system, but it is certainly part of the problem.