42 replies to this topic

[Woodstock]

Hey

This has been bothering me for a while now. 'Base' capture has been around now for quite a while. It never really changes. get someone in the enemy base for 'x' amount of time and you win.

Isn't this a bit 2D ... I mean really we can't come up with anything more creative?

Sure you need some kind of win scenario that does not involve the guy with the biggest gun killing everyone. But again ... really? ... we must have more imaginative variations to try. ... Right?

My idea is to have a mixture:

Each map has 2 'Bases' per side

'Base' A ) A bunker or unarmed Dropship type of thing. - Takes a LOT of damage to destroy. To give you an idea of scale here I'm talking about it taking an assault / multiple heavies or meds several minutes to kill it.

'Base' B ) is a resource truck of some kind. Ammo/food/coolant whatever. This will be located at a random location close to the map boarder. This will allow a mech to approach and then escort it to the map boarder. It will also take about a minute or two for this to happen. It stops moving when ever the 'capturing' mech takes damage.


With this combination of win solutions strategies for maps will always be varied and challenging. It will build on the usefulness of the lighter/medium mechs and prevent this artificial effect of one team having 11 mechs kills and the other team taking zero losses ... but the light mech managed to run round and cap the base. ... seriously ... how would that be a win. sooner or later they get to the light guy in the base and splat him/her.

And if it took 1 minute or 1 hour the result would be the same - 'ALL ENEMY FORCES DESTROYED SIR.'

Who cares if they sat in the base for 1.4 minutes.

A destroyed command bunker though ... and no food for the month ... or no ammo ... this would have a lasting effect.

Edited by woodstock, 08 May 2012 - 05:25 AM.

[Threat Doc]

I think, for a MVP like MWO is going to launch as, Capture Base will do just fine (waves fingers while saying it, hoping the Jedi mind trick will work), and then more game types can be put in, later, as the game grows, in accordance with what our hosts have expressed was going to happen.

[AlanEsh]

I'm hoping they'll do more than just "x amount of time * number of mechs" for base cap as well. Having to destroy a base target or targets would go a long way to making base capture more interesting than WoT's method.

[pesco]

OP: Dou you consider all classic board games (let's say Chess and Go) boring, because of their simple winning conditions?

[100mile]

I would like to see a description of what "base capture" actually means...Then I can decide whether I like it or not (Edit:how much i like it)....

[00dlez]

pesco, on 08 May 2012 - 06:59 AM, said:

OP: Dou you consider all classic board games (let's say Chess and Go) boring, because of their simple winning conditions?

I posted this in another thread that was discussing base capture, but I think it applies to your comment perfectly. For me, it isn't the simplicity exactly, its the break in immersion. Just using WoT as an example, moving into an artificial circle on the ground and watch a meter pop up and tick up/down is not realistic (as far as that goes in the BT universe. If it is immersive and done well, base capture type games will be fine for MWO. If not, it will detract from the gameplay for me and the immersion element that I'm really looking forward too most.

[Silent]

woodstock, on 08 May 2012 - 05:24 AM, said:

Isn't this a bit 2D ... I mean really we can't come up with anything more creative?

I wouldn't get your panties in a bunch over it. The developers have stated that they going for minimal viable product on release. Once the game launches I am sure there will be more interesting modes implemented for us to play.

[Neovenator]

Don't all multiplayer modes (game types) ultimately boil down to some standard formats? i.e. deathmatch (individual or team), capture the flag (or Base as the case may be), Escorts ......

We've seen it all before but that doesn't necessarily make it a bad thing.

And as many have already pointed out, the intital open beta will likely be limited to a few mission types with more added over time.

[pesco]

00dlez, on 08 May 2012 - 07:09 AM, said:

I posted this in another thread that was discussing base capture, but I think it applies to your comment perfectly. For me, it isn't the simplicity exactly, its the break in immersion. Just using WoT as an example, moving into an artificial circle on the ground and watch a meter pop up and tick up/down is not realistic (as far as that goes in the BT universe. If it is immersive and done well, base capture type games will be fine for MWO. If not, it will detract from the gameplay for me and the immersion element that I'm really looking forward too most.

Well, that's an interesting point because it leads to the idea that maybe capping the base need not be the winning condition, but rather have the winning condition be withdrawal of the other team. And let the base (being a fortification and all) simply give an advantage. But this way it goes full circle: Because in a game, you don't care about the base per se as you would in reality. You want the game to say "ok, you win". So unless there is a timer, the other team can just sit outside to **** you off.

Of course the base shouldn't be an arbitrary circle in the sand somewhere. It should be a strategic position. But I have good faith in PGI's map designers.

[MaddMaxx]

This is just like playing "Wall Street" just one more "merge"r required and we "WIN!"

[zorak ramone]

Base capture elegently solves the problem of camping that could and would arise in a staright up lance vs lance no-respawn deathmatch.

Without a capturable base, what prevents one team from just camping out in a hole somewhere and waiting? What prevents a lone light mech from just running away forever after his lance gets destroyed? The answer to both is nothing.

The key to make it work is to make the bases pretty open with little cover (i.e. not campable), and to make the bases available for capture only after, say 5 minutes.

[Felicitatem Parco]

Methinks bump for merge Suggest a Game Type, or move to General DIscussion... I think this is either a general discussion about gametypes, or the presentation of a new suggested gametype.

[Woodstock]

I think immersion was my point too ... it is a base cap game but lets be creative.

[Garth Erlam]

00dlez, on 08 May 2012 - 07:09 AM, said:

I posted this in another thread that was discussing base capture, but I think it applies to your comment perfectly. For me, it isn't the simplicity exactly, its the break in immersion. Just using WoT as an example, moving into an artificial circle on the ground and watch a meter pop up and tick up/down is not realistic (as far as that goes in the BT universe. If it is immersive and done well, base capture type games will be fine for MWO. If not, it will detract from the gameplay for me and the immersion element that I'm really looking forward too most.

I do, in many ways agree. However: How does destroying an enemy base 'capture' it?

[Aegis Kleais]

The act of "capturing a base" by sitting within it's perimeter is not meant to be taken literally. It is a gameplay mechanic which offers an alternate objective in order to meet the winning criteria. Of course it would be silly to assume that simply occupying space for a duration equated to some kind of forced surrender by all living enemies.

Alternate objectives like this prevent a game from becoming mindless. In a deathmatch, there is only 1 objective: kill all humans.... er.... Mechs. You can employ many strategies and tactics to that end, but the objective is still the same. 1 course of action to achieve a win.

With there being another win objective in place, it means you have to be aware to not only be out and looking for an engagement, but be close enough to your base to defend it. As an offense player, you can either go look for fights, or think about taking the enemy base. This breathes more life into the game since it opens up tactical avenues of play.

However, though 1 objective to win is too little, 2 would indeed be better, IMO, but you CAN go so far as to having too many objectives to constitute a win. This then dilutes the gameplay because the chances of a team collectively working to address the offensive/defensive needs of each objective is just less than probable.

[Woodstock]

Aegis Kleais™, on 08 May 2012 - 01:22 PM, said:

The act of "capturing a base" by sitting within it's perimeter is not meant to be taken literally. It is a gameplay mechanic which offers an alternate objective in order to meet the winning criteria.

I understand the purpose of the game mechanic but why does it have to break immersion?

Also ... Garth ... I know the name is base Capture but really the purpose is to deny the region to your enemy. Removing their C&C HQ or supplies would force them to regroup in another area. Right?

Edited by woodstock, 08 May 2012 - 01:38 PM.

[Aegis Kleais]

woodstock, on 08 May 2012 - 01:37 PM, said:

I understand the purpose of the game mechanic but why does it have to break immersion?

I guess that's kind of subjective. I'm a BIG proponent of immersion (not to the point of roleplaying, mind you), loving features like head tracking, and visual/audible effects in the game that help "sell" my position as a pilot in a war machine.

But as objectives go, I think it suffices for a decent alternative. I think down the line, PGI will introduce new game winning objectives and even maybe get to a point where there might be 7-8 different winning objectives, and the map you play on might randomly pick 2 to keep things spicy. You wouldn't know what to expect going into a map; once you drop, you check objectives. "Ah, we're defending an emplacement or capturing a base".

What level of immersion were you talking about particularly?

[Red October911]

Well i would enjoy something like this, i mean it seems every game nowadays is same cookie-cutter game modes. Why not put more time and effort into a more BT-like game type?

[Attalward]

Using another Freetoplay example. Even league of legends beaing a Dota clone, i mean based only in one single map with one single target, has introduced another type of map with different winning conditions, it being the capture of several points. Which in the end is also base capture but a bit different.

Lets think we have simple circle base cap, just adding a new circle in the center of the map creates a king of the hill type of scenary. So it is really easy to add variety using simple elements.

As some have stated it would be fun if the scenario cometimes the base has buildings to destroy and sometimes it is an area for capture.
The great thing is you dont need to create full new maps, just use little changes in targets as makeups for the maps so it keeps them a bit fresh,

[Woodstock]

Aegis Kleais™, on 08 May 2012 - 01:47 PM, said:

But as objectives go, I think it suffices for a decent alternative.

What level of immersion were you talking about particularly?

For me immersion breaking is about being asked to do things which are 100% a 'game mechanic action' and not a 'game world action'. The first being the win/lose mechanic ... the other being a story telling device that represents the win/lose mechanic.

But the thing that worries me most about your reply is the apathy I read in it. No offense intended ... We are in the F&F beta stage ... rapidly approaching beta and open beta ... this is when we should be setting our standards high. Letting the devs know what we dream of.

Sure ... I doubt any of us think we will get everything we want ... but if we give the devs excuses to 'fail' then we will end up with a game that is more World of Mechwarriors and not Mechwarrior: Online!

This is one of the best managed forums I have ever come across. The dev's are clearly listening. Back in Nov/Dec I started a thread all about customisation and variants. I was a proponent for 'Only Variants!' its the only Canon option! Rarrrr!!! I don't think i was in the majority, but enough people agreed with me to keep the convo alive for a pretty long time. And look what we have now - A mech lab that factors in Variants, but at the same time balances that rather extreme idea with free form customisation of MW4.

If we tell the dev's an immersion breaking mechanic like base capture is 'ENOUGH FOR US' (when the alternative (to me) doesn't feel such a complicated alternative) then we will put it on their ... 'meh ... well they don't care much about that' pile.