DUST Search - [SUGGESTION] Defender has no MCC.

The Black Jackal wrote:

This style of gameplay was seen back in replication with the Two-Stage Map.

For those of your unfamiliar with this style of game, the attacker started at one end of a 'pathway' style of map. (In this instance a canyon) and had to destroy 2 'security points' to access the last portion of the map (the installations we have now). Then you had to disable the NULL cannons on that facility (holding the points so they don't get reactivated) until your MCC docks at the base and takes control of it.

All the time during this game mode, your MCC is under fire from the NULL cannons. If, during the first stage, your MCC loses its shields before the security points are taken out, the MCC withdraws, battle is lost. If the checkpoints are taken out, your MCC will press on through armour and be destroyed if the NULL Cannons are not disabled for a great enough length of time.

The most prevalent part of this, however, is that the defender had no 'MCC'... why would they? They have the ability (when defending) to base their operations out of the installation they own instead.

This entire gameplay mode was, by far, a much better sense of tactical and progressive gameplay, and while the defenders had the advantage, that is how it really should have been.

On that note, the defenders also got a short time before the attackers deployed to 'set their defences' so to speak. Since all turret installations were initially in the hands of the defender, and not 'neutral'.

Pages: [1] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
The Black Jackal The Southern Legion RISE of LEGION 325	Posted - 2013.03.31 22:10:00 - [1] - Quote This style of gameplay was seen back in replication with the Two-Stage Map. For those of your unfamiliar with this style of game, the attacker started at one end of a 'pathway' style of map. (In this instance a canyon) and had to destroy 2 'security points' to access the last portion of the map (the installations we have now). Then you had to disable the NULL cannons on that facility (holding the points so they don't get reactivated) until your MCC docks at the base and takes control of it. All the time during this game mode, your MCC is under fire from the NULL cannons. If, during the first stage, your MCC loses its shields before the security points are taken out, the MCC withdraws, battle is lost. If the checkpoints are taken out, your MCC will press on through armour and be destroyed if the NULL Cannons are not disabled for a great enough length of time. The most prevalent part of this, however, is that the defender had no 'MCC'... why would they? They have the ability (when defending) to base their operations out of the installation they own instead. This entire gameplay mode was, by far, a much better sense of tactical and progressive gameplay, and while the defenders had the advantage, that is how it really should have been. On that note, the defenders also got a short time before the attackers deployed to 'set their defences' so to speak. Since all turret installations were initially in the hands of the defender, and not 'neutral'.
M4D DOG'S DUSTBUNNIE ROYAL SQUAD 1	Posted - 2013.03.31 22:27:00 - [2] - Quote The Black Jackal wrote: This style of gameplay was seen back in replication with the Two-Stage Map. For those of your unfamiliar with this style of game, the attacker started at one end of a 'pathway' style of map. (In this instance a canyon) and had to destroy 2 'security points' to access the last portion of the map (the installations we have now). Then you had to disable the NULL cannons on that facility (holding the points so they don't get reactivated) until your MCC docks at the base and takes control of it. All the time during this game mode, your MCC is under fire from the NULL cannons. If, during the first stage, your MCC loses its shields before the security points are taken out, the MCC withdraws, battle is lost. If the checkpoints are taken out, your MCC will press on through armour and be destroyed if the NULL Cannons are not disabled for a great enough length of time. The most prevalent part of this, however, is that the defender had no 'MCC'... why would they? They have the ability (when defending) to base their operations out of the installation they own instead. This entire gameplay mode was, by far, a much better sense of tactical and progressive gameplay, and while the defenders had the advantage, that is how it really should have been. On that note, the defenders also got a short time before the attackers deployed to 'set their defences' so to speak. Since all turret installations were initially in the hands of the defender, and not 'neutral'. I made a post about this very same things into 1 the game mode was called conquest. See my post "return of conquest." Maybe CCP will combine our post
Brush Master HavoK Core 313	Posted - 2013.03.31 22:53:00 - [3] - Quote ya I liked the staged defense and it really makes sense for planetary conquest to use this method instead of MCC vs MCC
M4D DOG'S DUSTBUNNIE ROYAL SQUAD 1	Posted - 2013.03.31 22:57:00 - [4] - Quote Brush Master wrote: ya I liked the staged defense and it really makes sense for planetary conquest to use this method instead of MCC vs MCC Agreed It would be the perfect game mode for planetary conquest
slypie11 Planetary Response Organisation Test Friends Please Ignore 81	Posted - 2013.03.31 23:02:00 - [5] - Quote Sounds cool. But if defenders were to have the advantage, attacks should get a greater reward.
Scheneighnay McBob Bojo's School of the Trades 1152	Posted - 2013.03.31 23:09:00 - [6] - Quote slypie11 wrote: Sounds cool. But if defenders were to have the advantage, attacks should get a greater reward. Could be balanced out with the new MCCs. Back when this was the only skirmish game mode (and line harvest was the only skirmish map), we didn't spawn on the MCC, as it would be slowly flying north the whole battle.
The dark cloud Seraphim Initiative. CRONOS. 1191	Posted - 2013.04.01 00:58:00 - [7] - Quote in my opinion they should bring back the skirmish from the E3 build where the MCC was moving accross the map. defenders didnt had a MCC but had all points to defend. The attackers spawned at their starting area and had to actually take the objectives. If the attackers took a nullcanon then it deactivated to give the MCC time to dock up. When the MCC docked the defenders tac net went down resulting in a win for the attackers. Because the MCC is moving it would be interesting to see how the MCC spawnpoint would work out cause CCP added that on the codex build.
Piercing Serenity Pink Fluffy Bounty Hunterz Noir. Mercenary Group 214	Posted - 2013.04.01 01:07:00 - [8] - Quote I like the "Pull a victory out of nothing" aspect, but there was a reason we moved away from that. The attackers are starting out in a red line position. I have a few questions for you: How would you make "making a push" attractive to the attackers? We get just as much if we win or lose. The players who switch to their sniper load out when the match goes south would just begin the match that way. How would Manus Peak work? Currently one side already has an advantage on the map. How could the attackers make a push if all of the defenders spawned on B and moved against them? Would you give the attackers 'tactical' (read: random) installation drops to help them in their push? If you can answer those questions, I'll be pretty close to sold.


Pages: [1] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page