808 replies to this topic

[palebear]

Interesting suggestion, but I'm not a fan of the 'group respawn' cap idea.
I don't want some maniac in a light mech dying 10 times in a game I'm playing.

[docmorningstar]

Kaemon, on 26 March 2012 - 07:44 AM, said:

That's because their maps are small, and promote deathmatch above all else, couple that the geo-spatial view of arty, and their effectiveness and you get deathmatch a majority of the time.

***edits***
tangetial post!

True - but - that's the point. If the 'alternate objectives' are harder to accomplish than the kill-victory, then kill-victory becomes the default mode.

With limited or no respawn, exterminating the enemy becomes a totally viable method of winning.

Example: CTF on a no-respawn map -> thats a camping trip death match.

Quote

Game Mode - Tour de' Force
... (depending on effectiveness).

Sexy. Well presented, too.

I like how it gets away from the 'both teams trying to do the same X' mode that so many games get stuck on.

[docmorningstar]

guardian wolf, on 27 March 2012 - 04:50 AM, said:

Okay, I've got an idea. This probably won’t be implemented for a while as it’s pretty lengthy, and in depth.
.....
(If any of you wonder where this came from, it was a scenario that me and a couple of friends RPed a while back, that was one hell of a friggin drop, and boy, where we in one hell of a fight.)

TL:DR

no seriously - it's a great campaign scenario, but, I think it's too involved for the type of game that will appeal (or work) with larger groups of people. Not because we aren't interested in playing a great battle like that, but that scenario looks to be really time consuming. Some folks still want to get that feeling of epicness without having to spend all afternoon playing (stupid job...). But I really like where you are trying to go with it. I'ma write up a 'campaign series mode' that expands on my original post here http://mwomercs.com/...post__p__169209 into the campaign setting. I'll do my best to include the kind of flavor that you are describing in your post.

[Siilk]

palebear, on 27 March 2012 - 06:38 AM, said:

Interesting suggestion, but I'm not a fan of the 'group respawn' cap idea.
I don't want some maniac in a light mech dying 10 times in a game I'm playing.

It could be easily balanced: each team had a fixed amount of respawn tickets. The more experienced player is the more tickets it cost for him to respawn. MWLL done that to balance their team tickets and it works quite nicely.

[guardian wolf]

docmorningstar, on 28 March 2012 - 01:11 AM, said:

TL:DR

no seriously - it's a great campaign scenario, but, I think it's too involved for the type of game that will appeal (or work) with larger groups of people. Not because we aren't interested in playing a great battle like that, but that scenario looks to be really time consuming. Some folks still want to get that feeling of epicness without having to spend all afternoon playing (stupid job...). But I really like where you are trying to go with it. I'ma write up a 'campaign series mode' that expands on my original post here http://mwomercs.com/...post__p__169209 into the campaign setting. I'll do my best to include the kind of flavor that you are describing in your post.

Actually this would be only a pitched battle between Faction players, and merc units, that would take maybe 15 minutes at most. The thing that we RPed was an actual campaign across the planet, as this was just to establish the staging area.

[palebear]

Siilk, on 28 March 2012 - 06:02 AM, said:

The more experienced player is the more tickets it cost for him to respawn.

Yes, but this is just what I'd hope to avoid - I don't want to unduly advantage or disadvantage players with a game mechanic that makes no sense. Poor mechjocks should get to play less (in a battle) because they're bad, rash or don't follow orders. I don't want to be propping bad players up so they can go on annoying the good players.

[Siilk]

palebear, on 28 March 2012 - 09:18 AM, said:

Yes, but this is just what I'd hope to avoid - I don't want to unduly advantage or disadvantage players with a game mechanic that makes no sense. Poor mechjocks should get to play less (in a battle) because they're bad, rash or don't follow orders. I don't want to be propping bad players up so they can go on annoying the good players.

But what are the alternatives? Not-yet-good players need their time to practice and gain combat skills while not being a dead weight for the team. With randomly matched teams it could be a serious problems to the point of players quitting the match as soon as they see that there are more than 1-2 rookie players in the team.

[palebear]

I'm not sure about rewarding for bad play - ever. I mean it's different if everyone is equally bad, but mixed-skill matches are going to be messy regardless of how much we prop up bad or inexperienced players.
It's a tough issue to address - it'll be up to the matchmaking algorithm, I suppose.

[JackRabbtT]

Pubby game - "Outpost\King of the hill"
First team to take others bace\hold middle outpost for 10mins win - extra xp and credits for taking main bace
Simple pub game that would hopefuly get people to work as a team

O - Team 1 main bace w/ammo+repair bay

o - outpost w/ammo

o - outpost w/repair bay

o - outpost w/ammo

O - Team 2 main bace w/ammo+repair bay

[cardinal vice]

I had posted this a couple weeks ago, but the topic was a duplicate and wound up Jettisoned, so I'll quote myself

cardinal vice, on 15 March 2012 - 09:24 PM, said:

The planetary conquest concept would be a spectacular way to introduce multiple game modes.

We will be earning faction/loyalty points to start with, which determines who gets the meta-game bonus.
So why not expand on this as the game develops to make multiple stages for controlling planets?

Stage 1 - Invasion - Throughout history, getting a foot on the ground you want to control has been difficult, to say the least. The enemy has advantages on their home turf that you need to overcome.
Stage 2 - Defense - Once your team establishes the DZ, you'll need to defend against an angry opponent.
Stage 3 - Expansion - Push the opposing forces back to their own bases.
Stage 4 - Siege - Take control of the enemy's bases.

Now the home team angle...
Stage 1 - Interception - The bad guys are coming! We have to stop them from landing.
Stage 2 - Offense - They have a base of operations that must be destroyed
Stage 3 - Defense - We need to hold the line and keep them from expanding.
Stage 4 - Last Stand - If they take our bases, we'll lose the planet.

Ok! So Stage 5 is victory for the invading team and Stage 0 is success for the defending faction.

So... say you have chosen a faction or merc group and landed in a specific region... You would now be able to survey the surrounding planets and choose to take part in a certain stage of the planetary control. Pick your own fights!

I think it beats the hell out of farming reputation/loyalty points for planetary control. If it's done right we could have multiple options for game modes that actually have an impact on the Inner Sphere dynamics.

Basically, I was thinking of a way to expand on the faction point system for planetary control that would give us players a more concrete measurement of our battle contributions.

It is similar to the idea Guardian Wolf suggested yesterday, but less of a campaign action and more of a phasing feature for determining house influence on planets in contention.
I can also imagine end-game content involving 2 battalion sized elements (72 players OMG) based on these game modes as the invasion and last stand phases.

[palebear]

So how long would this scenario take, cardinal vice?
Seems like a 4 stage completion could be in the several hours range.

[guardian wolf]

cardinal vice, on 28 March 2012 - 07:46 PM, said:

I had posted this a couple weeks ago, but the topic was a duplicate and wound up Jettisoned, so I'll quote myself





Basically, I was thinking of a way to expand on the faction point system for planetary control that would give us players a more concrete measurement of our battle contributions.

It is similar to the idea Guardian Wolf suggested yesterday, but less of a campaign action and more of a phasing feature for determining house influence on planets in contention.
I can also imagine end-game content involving 2 battalion sized elements (72 players OMG) based on these game modes as the invasion and last stand phases.

I would to be able to see us perform raids on planets, you know, hit supply convoys, and **** with the garrison forces.

[Cyrusxs]

How about a game mode similar to GOW's guardian. Though it would be a 6v6 and 1 player on each team could perhaps, for example be an Atlas or some other assualt mech. This "leader" mech would be able to always see enemies on radar. The leader could then relay this info to his/her teamates and the teamates would all be a medium or light mechs and this would emphasize teamwork to win. To win the other team would have to be destroyed or possibly the leader mech would have to be killed. (I don't really like the 2nd idea to win, just throwing it out there.)

[guardian wolf]

GOW? Never heard that one. Though the 6v6 seems to be a decent idea.

[FinnMcKool]

sombody get the torches , Ill get the pitch forks

Help we need to get that thread back, it was full of

invaluable Information, and ya I posted in it too.

[Belial]

Wait, what? Apparently I missed something.

[Agent CraZy DiP]

He deleted every post he's ever started or made. We need a web mod to recover that and start a new pinned thread.

[Fooooo]

Well, Im guessing the only one who voted to ban him was Paul........

Point all the forks at paul guys!


Most likely its just a devlish payback for his recent post and not a permanant thing..........


Tho who knows with Paul around.

Edited by Foòóoo, 29 March 2012 - 09:35 PM.

[Agent CraZy DiP]

Even if it wasn't Paul... I think we all know he's somehow indirectly responsible.

[Paul Inouye]

No, it's not us deleting and he isn't banned nor would he be. We will not recover unless he wants us to.