Posted 05 January 2015 - 08:54 PM

While I have been on vacation the past few weeks, to keep my mind flowing (and prevent my family from driving me completely off the deep end,) I felt like solidifying some personal thoughts in regards to MWO in its current state, and how the already engaging game play can be improved on as we go into the new year. So with a few of these documents down, I felt like sharing.

Forgive me for the length, but I felt it was a good way to pitch changes and garner some discussions on topics that I would at least like to see looked into coming into the New Year.

Current Issues With Assault Mode:

Game mode has not scaled with the present game. (Was ok in 4v4, was “meah” in 8v8, but in 12v12 it is not viewed favorably.)



Objective is currently a joke. No one likes going for it making assault essentially “Skirmish with Turrets.” And when they do, it’s to the ire and detriment of the players playing the game.



Objective is simply not fun to go for. Nor are the rewards for taking the base (the primary objective in the game mode.)



Nearly no incentive to act as the offensive party due to the turrets acting as a force multiplier.



On smaller maps, engagements turn into dull stand offs with no one wanting to make advancements into the forces protected by turret cover.

Proposed High End Direction of The Assault Game Mode:

A refocus on the primary objectives as the primary interest of the game type.



Retool the base health bar to also account for the destruction of base structures.



At time out, Victory goes to the side that has applied the most damage to the opposing base rather than the one with the higher kill count.



Restructure the current bases to provide smaller “non-lethal” objectives to help damage the total base in addition to the lethal turrets.



Allow for scaled base HP based on map size / base structures around the map.

Base HP.

Non-Lethal objectives: 30% of the base’s Health



Lethal Objectives: 40% of the base’s Health



Capturing the Base: Reduces the base health in the exact same way it does now. (But at a slower rate then it currently is to encourage going out and destroying objectives in addition to capping the base.)

Layout of The Bases.

Why?

Make Assault its own unique and engaging game mode.



Promote a tactical loop to deepen the amount of ways you play the game and engage on the map.



Promote engagements to be spread out and not revolve around an “attack vs defense” of singular areas off the entire map.



Promote the use of lower tonnage chassis and “role warfare” by giving lighter chassis that are lesser armed more options to approach contributing to a match that go beyond engaging the singular mech ball.



Provide additional targets that can provide additional earnings to people that wish to go for objective wins over mech kills.

To kick things off, I would like to propose a re-evaluation of the “Assault game mode.” And with it possibly use it as a test bed to not only make its own game mode better, but to additionally attempt to potentially diversify the game systems present in this game.At the core of this proposal is the idea that the base is no longer represented solely by a single cap objective that accounts for the entire bar. But instead is a “health” like HP bar that is affected both by traditionally capping of the main base objective, and the destruction of both lethal (turrets) and non-lethal objectives scattered around the battlefield.Winner of the match would be the first to reduce their opponent’s base bar down to zero, or to the side that deals the most damage to their opponent’s base by the end of the match timer. Mech kills would only act as a secondary objective.The base’s total health would be dependent on the total number of objectives scattered across the field. With a proposed breakdown that the total base health would consist of the following:The core idea around this is that suddenly, those turrets around the base are no longer simply structures that hamper progress, but part of the “main objective” itself. Taking both turrets and added “non-lethal” objects out of an enemy’s control zone will end up affecting the overall health of an opposing base. Suddenly putting a more “defensive” minded team on the back foot when the offensive team can at any point pull back to their base for support, and what before turned into a camp feast has an immediate incentive for the team that did not take initiative early in the game to “chip away” at base objectives to suddenly need to go on the offensive of their opposing base when the victory condition is triggered by the physical base health over how many mechs you killed. (Further re-enforcing the modes own niche rather than just being an alternative skirmish mode with an objective no one likes to go for.)Rather than the bases being little forgettable outposts in the corner of the map easily ignored by the opposition, I would like to think of the bases in assault mode as being arranged in a “layered defensive” area of control along a tight “no man’s land” that leads to about 70 – 80% of the map being a rough zone in which some kind of objective is scattered in order to defend or destroy. Roughly laid out in a way that allows for multiple ways to approach the gameplay. To that end, dividing up each base into 4 major “zones.”For this proposal, I will use the following rough breakdown of Tourmaline desert as my example:The base central HQ tucked away at the back of the map which must be secured through capping similar to how the game plays now. Still defended by a light amount of turrets.The area of the map that is re-enforced and protected by static defenses. Farther out then the current turrets go in this mode, these structures not only act as a much earlier warning system for mechs attempting a base rush on larger maps but provide a moderate amount of firepower to units attempting to defend the territory across a wider area.This is the area of the map that is littered with non-lethal targets that do not attack back, but are still tied to the base’s overall hit points. And dependent on their nature, could provide secondary “sensory” information to the base defenders (physical seismic sensors, buildings that simply blind lock onto a single target, some that simply do nothing.) This zone covers the widest area of the map, which encourages scouts and recon mechs to scout out across the battlefield destroying non-lethal targets to chip away and damage the base without putting themselves at sever risk of the turrets pelting them to death.Hotly contested areas of the map that hold no base assets. Making them valuable territory to defend in a mech on mech engagements, but has no long term strategic value if a force is able to get around them.Beyond simply providing something fresh, the main goals of these changes are to encourage the following:One of the greater balance concerns I have in this game as it currently is laid out is the over reliance on the “death ball” and singular mech ball groupings engaging with other larger groups. Its reduced the time to kill, it’s made even large maps like alpine and tourmaline revolve around the same singular patches of territory game after game, and probably most importantly, it’s made the overall meta of the game revolve solely around “ball vs ball” combat rather then reinforce the “role warfare” aspect of the production that drew many people to this games production at its on-set. Which has seen mechs that simply do not conform to that style of play left by the wayside and virtually useless in this game.With that being said, I do not believe in completely trying to de-incentive its use, as it is currently the only effective way to play the game, but instead promote alternative methods of play by introducing elements within the game mode that encourages the use of smaller strike teams accomplishing objectives over a wider area of the map just as much as it promotes the Ball on ball play. And provide a bit more give and take that sees both of them as being valid options for use with in the game. I feel that a re-examination of assault mode like this has the potential of doing this by creating a tactical loop.Death balls would be good at focusing down smaller strike teams, but smaller strike teams would be able to better focus on the objective win across a large battlefield over the death ball.With a wide field with objectives scattered across the entire battlefield as opposed to a singular spot on the map, spreading out your forces to attempt an objective win, or to pull ahead by attacking multiple fronts in the “recon corridor” to do damage to the opposition will allow for a mode where more than just a singular tactic is considered “viable” all while attempting to bring the assault mode into a much better spot and make it a tense “give and take” mode that promotes more than just another flavor of skirmish mode.This proposal is by no means an air tight design pitch, and is mostly presented as a “broad idea” to attempt to breathe a bit more life into the mode while promoting a bit more tactical depth to the game through game play objectives rather than just quirking everything to hell and back.I’m interested in hearing what people think about a re-evaluation like this into the assault mode, and if there is anything you would like to add to it. And if it interests anyone else to see at the very least some of the broad ideas presented here looked into as we all look forward to the New Year with MWO.Thanks for your time in reading through this admittedly long proposal.

Edited by SpiralFace, 05 January 2015 - 08:55 PM.