Bistrorider, on 24 November 2020 - 02:53 AM, said:
For me one of the problem with Incursion is that it is very unattractive objective to attack the base. Nothing encourage players to do it. What I really miss in MWO is some mode with fight for dropship (one of the biggest, armed like it should be). Simplest way would be to replace bases with landed dropships (one for a team) and see how it will go.
EDIT:
Or something as simple as putting heavily armed dropship in place of cannon in Siege, or other little/bigger change in objective. Likke few types of siege mode, maybe selected by random. Like you have to destroy the dropship/cannon/something else.
Incursion was meant to be a replacement for Assault in QP when it first hit the drawing board.
With a single wave with random players and mixed mechs you don't have the same sort of co-ordination as you do in FP so Incursion plays out as Skirmish most of the time and you take a poke at the base after killing the mechs.
But because you can do a co-ordinated rush in FP we quickly found that the mission didn't fit that well.
That goes back to the suggestion that the mission needs to be designed with the drop deck in mind and built for FP.
With that said, it could be a bit better for QP as well probably.
Personally I would flip Incursion around a bit and make it more of a capture and hold sort of mission.
That is:
-have 3 individual smaller bases split across the centre of the map.
-have each base represent one of the three towers (radar, jammer, air support) and randomise which base has which for each match.
-maybe have some unpowered defences at each base (various turrets)
-put the power cells at the drop locations
The primary objective for the players on both teams would be to capture and hold these bases and fight off the enemy. Use the power cells at the drop location to power the base function (and defences if that is used)
Because there are three separate locations, trying to hold all three would mean having to divide a team up, therefore the defences could provide some help against a combined push. But it incorporates a little of the conquest function that creates that moving battle back and forth. Three individual locations should see a bit of tug of war over the different locations throughout an extended match like we have in FP.
Randomising the locations gives a little value to scouting as does needing to check where an attack might be coming from if the radar isn't powered.
Maybe have the big Overlord dropships at the drop zones fully armed for this to emphasise the objective of holding the bases for the win.
I imagine there are holes and flaws that would be found in this sort of mission but in trying to aim it at FP first it's very easy to adapt it for QP because you don't worry about the additional waves.
Hammer Hand, on 23 November 2020 - 06:15 AM, said:
@ 50 50
I understand what you are saying about a player not wanting to wait for a fast group game. It is a valid concern/point.
Possible spawn camp solution - Being able to shift where and when people drop. Not move the drop zone but if Alpha is over run then they automatically shift to a different drop zone. Another option would be that if a drop zone is over run all drops are a lance at a time. Usually you know if the enemy is pushing the spawns. I am not a fan of Spawn camping but it is a good tactic to win. It is not good for the game or the other players, especially new to faction players. It feels like bullying, or getting bullied.
There was a rumor in the past that there was a way to change which drop zone people dropped in...
If we could get games in FP as quickly as we can in QP it might be a different story.
I would like to see siege (and scouting) added to QP to see how it plays out with a single wave (and for scouting just to see what happens with 12 mixed players) of mixed mechs.
Much of the appeal of FP is having the longer game with more mechs but it might be worth debating if that was/is the right approach.
Maybe it should have been that when you play FP you pick a drop deck and have to use that drop deck across 4 missions with a single drop in each mission and carrying damage/destroyed mechs from one mission to the next so there is a sense of continuation.
Maybe subsequent drops is an option a player can elect to do or not or perhaps you have to achieve certain objectives to be allowed a second drop.
Take siege for example. Not naming a particular map, but sometimes a team fails to open the gates and could burn 1 or more waves just doing that. I've seen teams hold fire in these situations and provide guidance just so the fight can continue. What if you could not drop in your second mech unless a gate had been opened? Have a quick win victory for the defenders "You successfully defended the gate." Done. Drop again.
You can change your drop location at the moment by moving yourself or another player to a different lance. The lances are tied to particular drop locations and also to particular dropships. Alpha goes in Alpha dropship to Alpha dropzone and so on. So if you move yourself to Beta lance you will take Beta dropship to Beta dropzone.
This unfortunately means that you also move some poor sod from Beta to Alpha and if Alpha is overrun.... well, you can imagine the salt.
The function isn't good enough and there needs to be some real thought and testing put into how to manage the drop zones and locations.
Here's a simple truth though: If we don't have respawns, there is no spawn camping.
Just thinking about this a little and be good to get some thoughts on it, given the above about having an options drop again or drops tied to objectives should there be an option to eject?
4
