5 replies to this topic

[Sharg]

TL;DR: Seems like "Assault" mode should be about destroying something and Conquest should be about capturing. Remove the capture mechanic from Assault and scatter some destructible objects around the map that the teams must defend/destroy.

Assault needs a little extra flavor to differentiate it from Conquest. To me, "Assault" means destroying something valuable to the enemy.

After the increase in kill/assist/damage rewards and the removal of the capture rewards, it seems like the capture win condition is a little superfluous. It feels a little "out-of-place". I bet PGI thinks the same, or they wouldn't have moved in the direction they did.

So here are some changes that might spice it up:

• Remove the capture square
  
• Create a small number (maybe 3) important objects scattered on each team's side of the map. Like supply depots, mining rigs, etc. These objects belong to the team.
  
• Give each objective 500 hit points, or whatever amount works
  
• Give players rewards for damaging them (maybe 25 C-bills per point?) and the whole team a bonus for destroying them (maybe 2,000 C-bills?).

Here are the new win conditions:

• Destroy the enemy team
  
• Destroy all enemy objectives (there could be a counter at the top showing the number of objectives remaining, right where the capture bars are now).

Here are the changes that would involve:

• Destructible objects.
  
• Small additions to the Assault maps.
  
• Changes to the HUD readout
  
• Adding waypoints to the Assault maps indicating the location of friendly/enemy objectives

I know a lot of people are advocating a "base assault" with A.I. controlled turrets, but that sounds like a lot of new work and code development for PGI. Not to mention significant changes to some maps.


With these changes Assault becomes a variation on Conquest mode where firepower and range are sometimes more important than speed. This makes larger 'mechs more important. To balance it out, these changes could be coupled with some tweaks to Conquest mode that make it geared towards light-mechs.


Note: I made this suggestion in a different thread, but realized it was a little out of place, so I moved it to its own thread.

[Elyam]

Your idea has merit. I'd like to see an assault mode be the actual assault and defense of an installation with variable mission parameters that could include capture, denial, destruction, etc. This can include some versions, as you suggest, where various objectives are destroyed. Keep in mind the normal definition of a military assault is a direct engagement of an important object with serious force to achieve some end (which is only sometimes all about destruction).

Edited by Elyam, 22 December 2012 - 01:54 PM.

[Sharg]

That's true that IRL assault doesn't always mean "destruction". I agree that there needs to be more game modes that involve some different mechanics besides capturing and/or destroying.

The reason I started with simple, destructible objects is that it means the least amount of work for PGI (I think), and the current Assault maps can stay pretty much the same.

[EmGooser]

I approve

[Joseph Mallan]

Quote

Assault

Military
the stage of close combat in an attack.

So when we Assault the Base (the primary Mission) and you are not there. You are not cooperating with my Assault.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 20 December 2012 - 11:56 AM.

[Sharg]

Not sure I follow what you mean:

Joseph Mallan, on 20 December 2012 - 11:54 AM, said:

So when we Assault the Base (the primary Mission) and you are not there. You are not cooperating with my Assault.

But by the definition you posted, Assault should be about "attacking", not capturing. I like to think of it as a strike against enemy assets.