13 replies to this topic

[Omega Hisshou]

how about a capture and defend mode where only 1 side had the defend point ?

and yes im on about quick play

Edited by Omega Hisshou, 02 July 2019 - 12:59 AM.

[50 50]

Meaning a single objective that one team has to capture and then defend to win like Domination?
Or something like Siege where one point is the defender and the mode is asymmetrical?

Without knowing more of your thoughts on the mode, what would make it different to the ones we have already?

Edited by 50 50, 02 July 2019 - 01:11 AM.

[Omega Hisshou]

more like siege

also maybe a mode where nascar isnt needed

or just give 1 side a base in incursion ?

Edited by Omega Hisshou, 02 July 2019 - 01:30 AM.

[Peter2k]

At this point I think I'd enjoy siege with infinite respawns a lot more then a new mode
At least it should be easily doable with the little resources PGI gives to MWO

All the things are already in place, especially in siege

[Kotzi]

Sorry to burst your bubble. But a lot of good suggestions had been made by the community before. PGI didnt do them when they had good revenue i doubt they will spend a lot on gamedesign nowadays.

[John McClintock]

I like the idea of asymetric games

[C H E E K I E Z]

Omega Hisshou, on 02 July 2019 - 12:53 AM, said:

how about a capture and defend mode where only 1 side had the defend point ?

and yes im on about quick play

So...siege mode, you are literally describing siege mode. Lol

[50 50]

Omega Hisshou, on 02 July 2019 - 01:20 AM, said:

more like siege

also maybe a mode where nascar isnt needed

or just give 1 side a base in incursion ?

Ok.While it's not quite Capture and then Defend as you posted, Siege covers it pretty well.

Given time, resources and cost etc. pushing to get Siege added as mode with all it's maps to Quick Play would be the most likely option for success.

Where there might be some complications:
1. It's unclear if adding Siege as a mode to QP is a simple process as it is the one mode that was designed with the drop decks in mind and therefore it might require dev work that we are not aware of.
2. Siege mode had the door generators, the OGen Generators and the various turrets so it is also 'balanced' for multiple waves of mechs. This would likely require dev work to allow the mode to cater for a single wave. It might be as simple as removing the turrets and adjusting the generator health but we don't know.
3. There may be some work needed to seperate the mode from some of the other features in Facton Play like the rewards and also the impact of Scouting on the mode. Again, not sure.

However, there are several pros to that suggestion:
1. It's been requested a lot.
2. Having the Siege Maps in QP will give players a chance to play on those maps and learn them outside of FP which is good.
3. It is a new mission for QP that comes with 6 new maps which is good.
4. There is also the 'Counter Attack' variation which is essentially skirmish on the Siege maps.
5. Missions like Incursion, Conquest and Assault (I don't see Domination working that well) could be adapted to the Siege maps expanding the options for those missions.
6. With the team tonnage, weight class limits, mix of clan and IS mechs and a single wave it will be a different experience to play.

[Vellron2005]

At this point, it seems to me that a "new anything" other than mechs is very low on the Dev team's priority list, prior to making MW5 a success..

So moot point.

[LordNothing]

objective oriented modes really dont make sense if there is no respawn, because the 'just kill everything' strategy remains in play. the limited respawn of fp helps make some modes better, like conquest, but then you have other modes which are subject to rushes due to static objectives (namely siege and incursion). however siege uses objective chains that requires targets be hit in a particular order which makes rushes possible to intercept. scouting also had a problem with static beacon placement, once you played a level a few times you could easily memorize all the beacon placements, so people familiar with the maps could locust rush and dive the drop zone.

what you need are moving objectives that require the teams to be in multiple places simultaneously. escort provided a moving objective. the fact that you didnt know the route of the atlas (though the routes were more or less static and thus predictable, a major downside) meant that you had to do some scouting early on to find it, and while rushing it at this point would be a viable strategy it would just devolve into skirmish because the other team didnt have anything to do but kill mechs. it did bring good features to the table but the implementation was pgi grade excrement at its finest. replacing the atlas with a long strung out convoy that had multiple routes would help a lot.

domination (as well as conquest) is pretty successful for its map control requirements. but it suffers from the fact that an aggressive push and control of the far side of the cap zone can end the game quickly with little in the way of score. it also suffers from meaningless side objectives. rarely hitting a side objective can turn the tables, but most of the time you can ignore them. this was also an issue on counter attack, omega was there but it was just like mario jumping on the flagpole, playing no actual role in the game.

incursion towers, often too weak to really make a large difference in the outcome. you need to send a light out to get a battery to enable an intermittent ability, 2 of which center around missile use/counter, and the other is only useful in the fp edition that everyone wants removed. destructible walls are nice but they are not employed well at all in incursion. why punch a hole in a wall if there is an opening you can walk through.

also rewards for objective are practically nonexistent, so players will always prefer to skirmish it out no matter what the objective is. objectives should be at least equivalent to killing a mech in terms of rewards.

what works:
moving objectives
multiple objectives
control of territory objectives
limited respawn
destructible objects (which limit movement or open new routes)
objective chains
time sensitive objectives
points for objectives

what doesnt:
meaningless side objectives
easy to rush static objectives
weak non objective side targets
static objective placement/objective routes
singular objectives
standardized scoring

with that in mind a mode where we leverage the pros and avoid the cons. the ideal mode would have multiple objectives, sequenced primary, secondary and tertiary objectives. with singular targets of opportunity including objectives which aides in the completion of other objectives (capturing a new drop zone in a more strategic location or controlling a weapons battery/airfield/arty base etc). objective sequences should be reversible, say you need to hold a cap zone to open a route to the next objective, the enemy can take it back and stop you forcing you into an expensive fight to reclaim it. some objectives may require speed and others may require force, so an enemy rushin one objective may be woefully unprepared for the next objective.

the primary, secondary, and tertiary objectives should put you at cross purposes forcing you to prioritize one over the other or partition your forces as necessary or simply write it off as a lost cause. time crunches may force you to break off a fight in order to deal with another situation elsewhere, thus keep the skirmish outcome from dominating. you would then score on objetcives completed (and in fp those objetives scores would advance or diminish your progress in the story).


what i described here is mission oriented gameplay and you can build it with features already implemented in the game. the problem is pgi thinks they are done. enjoy your arena shooter.

Edited by LordNothing, 03 July 2019 - 12:02 AM.

[LordNothing]

50 50, on 02 July 2019 - 09:54 PM, said:

Ok.While it's not quite Capture and then Defend as you posted, Siege covers it pretty well.

Given time, resources and cost etc. pushing to get Siege added as mode with all it's maps to Quick Play would be the most likely option for success.

Where there might be some complications:
1. It's unclear if adding Siege as a mode to QP is a simple process as it is the one mode that was designed with the drop decks in mind and therefore it might require dev work that we are not aware of.
2. Siege mode had the door generators, the OGen Generators and the various turrets so it is also 'balanced' for multiple waves of mechs. This would likely require dev work to allow the mode to cater for a single wave. It might be as simple as removing the turrets and adjusting the generator health but we don't know.
3. There may be some work needed to seperate the mode from some of the other features in Facton Play like the rewards and also the impact of Scouting on the mode. Again, not sure.

However, there are several pros to that suggestion:
1. It's been requested a lot.
2. Having the Siege Maps in QP will give players a chance to play on those maps and learn them outside of FP which is good.
3. It is a new mission for QP that comes with 6 new maps which is good.
4. There is also the 'Counter Attack' variation which is essentially skirmish on the Siege maps.
5. Missions like Incursion, Conquest and Assault (I don't see Domination working that well) could be adapted to the Siege maps expanding the options for those missions.
6. With the team tonnage, weight class limits, mix of clan and IS mechs and a single wave it will be a different experience to play.

i think the shortest path to converting siege maps to qp is just removing all gates and gens, and they would easily support assault/incursion/skirmish quite well. some might handle conquest, like sulfurous rift or emerald taiga. and some small modifications may be needed, like alternative routes, sulpherous in particular could use some tunnels or valleys to cut through the long linear stretches of mountains between the paths. hellbore might remove the mesa between the defence drop zone and the goat path (a good place to put theta). im totally for this kind of conversion just to get more maps into quick play. i still prefer playing them in fp, but as it stands thats never gonna happen, games are rare, and siege is unobtanium.

eventually a merge of some sort is going to have to happen, though id like to try 8v8 before that happens (12v12 would still be available in custom games). ultimately the more popular mode will win out, that being qp (as much as i would rather see it go the other way). biggest issue would be the need to refund drop decks or find a way to use them in qp. i like the idea of repurposing them for pre-game mech select, like after the vote result is revealed. like make them an 8 mech deck, must all be the same weight class but can be mixed and you can pick the one you want to use. maybe even allow multiple decks so as to make people buy more to increase their mech choices.

another alternative is my 'embrace the arena shooter' idea where you just do a lobby browser and make it a custom games only affair. the full gamut of game types would be available, even more advanced map/mode settings. would be albe to do everything from solaris drops to full on fp matches, and other settings that arent available in any of the standard modes of the game, like stock mechs, time of day, cap limits, mech limits, weapon limits. you know just be like unreal tournament, with mechs.

idk what becomes of scouting. i for one wouldnt miss it, but there is some scouting fan out there who would be furious at me even suggesting such a thing. i like the idea of 4v4 modes but there arent really that many maps out there that would be a good fit. maybe classic maps. and its kind of the oddball that just doesnt fit everywhere, except the pure arena shooter idea. keep in mind things will need to get pretty grimdark for any of this to happen and pgi might just pull the plug at that point.

Edited by LordNothing, 03 July 2019 - 04:53 AM.

[John McClintock]

there are some very successful pvp and mmo games. Maybe pgi should take a look at some of them and emulate some of the better parts. I would think that is logical.

[Ted Wayz]

Let's make the defend point more dynamic. Let's make it a mech that is moving, maybe an Atlas..

John McClintock, on 03 July 2019 - 10:28 AM, said:

there are some very successful pvp and mmo games. Maybe pgi should take a look at some of them and emulate some of the better parts. I would think that is logical.

Would have been 7 years ago. Now no $$.

Want to buy a...what, they are not even releasing a mech pack every month!

[50 50]

LordNothing, on 03 July 2019 - 04:33 AM, said:

idk what becomes of scouting. i for one wouldnt miss it, but there is some scouting fan out there who would be furious at me even suggesting such a thing. i like the idea of 4v4 modes but there arent really that many maps out there that would be a good fit. maybe classic maps. and its kind of the oddball that just doesnt fit everywhere, except the pure arena shooter idea. keep in mind things will need to get pretty grimdark for any of this to happen and pgi might just pull the plug at that point.

Scouting is in a bit of an odd place in my opnion.
We have this little 4v4 queue with a single drop and only one type of mission. (scouting)
Compare that to Quick Play as 12v12 with all it's different maps and all the different missions and Invasion in FP which also has the drop decks.

One suggestion would be to add more missions to Scouting as a queue but at this stage I would have to say I am completely against leaving it as it's own separate queue.

Instead, it should be merged into the Invasion queue and we should have a function in the match maker that utilizes that mission when the player numbers are low. ie. There isn't enough players to make 2x12 player teams but we have enough for 2x4 player teams..... they do a scouting mission.

LordNothing, on 03 July 2019 - 12:02 AM, said:

objective oriented modes...........

Agree with what you are saying here and I would also suggest that an objective that wins/ends the match when it is destroyed also gives way to the objective rush tactic. (ie. Incursion)
Love the idea of using objectives to progress a mission, bit like how Siege does it, but perhaps making use of the out of bounds to control the engagement area.

Imagine a map like new forest colony where one team lands out in the water around D9/E10 and has to secure the beach (capture an objective) to open up the map further. Have the drop (spawn) locations change according to wave and which objective is being controlled.
Maybe that's what 'Assault' should be......

That whole suggestion for progressive objectives fits in nicely with the OP's request.