Although I agree with you @Djemo-SRB, I also have to point out the success of MOBA's, which are incredibly repetitive, and often have no point nor lasting effect other than what's going on in that particular game. We can obviously go straight for the competitive factor (which there certainly is), but there's a huge slice of the community that plays the ARAM's and would probably play the URF mode 24/7 just for the shits and giggles.
They are different animals so to speak. Games the likes of MOBAs, games like CS and Quake 3, games like fighters prescribe to the "quick fix" mentality. Contrary to that people dont play RvR games for a quick fix. If people sought such a quick fix there are many other games to sate that hunger. RvR games are played mostly to get the feeling of being a part of something bigger, contributing to the faction/server/alliance/whatever you are sworn to and seeing it come out on top as a giant team effort. And when you dont have the background systems to back that up, it starts to get repetitive and boring sooner or later. Games like the before mentioned have a longer lifetime cause in general there is more emphasis on the individual, even if there are teams they arent as large as seen in RvR games. In RvR games the emphasis is not so much on the individual as it is on groups and factions. Being but a small cog in the machine can be fun if you can see a tangible end result that has some permanence and makes your prolonged weekly or monthly struggle matter in some way, which is sadly what tends to lack in many RvR experiences.
So then perhaps the solution would be to find a way to satisfy the individual and community by combining elements of both short term MOBA/Battlefield's "evolving battlefield" objectives (Turret, Turret, Turret, Inhibitor/Barracks, Turretx2, Nexus) and long term RvR (Territory Control) within EC - That seems exactly what's going on with FA anyway... All of that builds into meaningful campaign victories, while the individuals are still free to find their path to victory with what I was talking about earlier.
Never said anything contrary to that, by what we currently know objectives will indeed be evolving as Steven mentioned before, being able to approach the same objective different ways (meatgrinder, "the sneaky path", etc). Though i dont really want to see us taking note from MOBAs, dont see what we would have to take from then anyway. My primary concern is avoiding the pitfalls of purposelessness, cause no amount of interesting objectives will be able to cover that gaping hole. And RvR games before EC failed in stepping over that hole.
The disdain of MOBA's aside, the take away from them is how to design balanced base destruction maps. For groups above 5 people, 3 lanes of traffic is manageable while remaining a challenge to hold, especially with paths crossing in-between. In terms of EC, a fortress will probably want a similar design of a main wall with a main gate and path directly to the keep, a side gate/destroyable wall that has another path directly to the keep, and the "secret entrance," that leads directly to the keep. Inside this keep however is another zone, practically another map within the map. Also, the maps are designed with the classes in mind. In MOBA's, grass and winding paths with short LoS's are used to give an advantage to ambush characters and CC brutes, open lanes to DPS, and pockets to tanks that can shove a squishy into a hole and have the team wipe the floor with their supple entrails. In EC these abilities and gameplay is obviously going to be much different, but you can already see that the Dev team is exploring along those same lines. Narrow bridges open to Heavy Bolter nests and Assaults. Enclosed objectives to deny those advantages and open Tatical play. Jumbled corridors to break firing lanes, or long ones for a Heavy to cover. I'd definitely expect to see some similarity in a fortress to a MOBA map using all of these things and more depending on where their exploration takes them. I sincerely hope they take a really good look at lower ceiling maps (or jumbled ceiling maps) that will give a serious challenge to the assault class.. a MOBA jungle with Verticality would be absolutely nuts.
Okay, I'll give an example here how NOT to do it: Mechwarrior Online (MWO) + a hundred characters to choose from and they can be customized to a wide degree - In the end, only 10 characters are used and with identical loadout + various kinds of missions that each requires its own tactic - You memorize pretty quickly where the important sports on each map are and from there on it's not missions you play, it's maps you play. + campaign-mode - Nothing you do in the campaign has an influence on the campaign. Both sides are equally strong at the beginning of a match. Any victories/losses your faction has had before do not matter in the least for this match or anything else. ("A planet has changed color! Yay! Now let's make the next planet change color!") + The random matches are in some way more fun than campaign-matches because they are smaller, but more chaotic. Survival-instincts kick in, because the match is over for you once you die. The campaign-matches require the whole team to follow a plan and if anything goes wrong, one side has effectively lost after 5 minutes, with 25 more minutes to go. But grinding campaign-matches brings rewards. My suggestions: # Make the classes equally good with any loadout. # Maps that allow many kinds of tactics # A randomized element for each match # Victories must mean more than a score changing. Losses must mean more than a score changing. The player must feel it. # Exploit the thrill of the survival-instinct. Respawns can lead to suicidal, boring tactics.
1. I disagree with this statement because of asymmetrical balance. Not every class is going to be "equally good" as another because it may not fit the situation at hand as well as another. An Assault in a long narrow corridor without cover against a Heavy Bolter is going to have a hell of a time getting to him, this situational inequality is especially apparent when things are reversed in an open field. 2. Yes. 3. Controversial. Personally I'd like to see players in control of the elements of each match. Mostly in the form of Warlords pregaming a little bit by trying to steal the initiative from each other and then choosing what their faction will be trying to achieve that game. 4. I'm with the Dev team on saying positive feedback is part of the answer. Losing sucks... really it chokes on its own reward. It doesn't need to be reinforced any further than to have them witness the victor's take what could have been, or already was your's. If you disagree, play a game you're not good at competitively, and know that everyone is better than you, you suck, you're never getting better, and all you're doing is supplying rank to players that will always be better than you. No one will care when you lose 5 times in a row today, especially your crappy team that everyone blames anyway. Failing that, play Mount and Blade without knowing how the F to play and go fight the Sea Raiders at level 1, then keep doing it, you'll win the game... at some point. In terms things for the victor, I would agree with @Djemo-SRB; this is part of the meta game. The reward is getting one step closer to it, and being recognized as part of the machine cog driving you towards it. 5. Battlefield's Jihad Jeep is hilarious. If the Orks are not encouraged to have suicide tactics in this game, something has gone terribly wrong.
There is always going to be a danger of repetitiveness or grinding with any number of genres of games, not just MMO's, As long as they create good and consistent levels of Variation and Progression it can counter or work around that. I like the notion of Randomized Element's be it Weather, Events or other ideas. Certainly if the range and scope is big enough on them it can mean tactics and interaction across a zone is fluid and prone to change
Imagine an EC where everyone is fielding either a Lascannon-Devastator or a Powerfist-Assault. E-v-e-r-y-o-n-e. (Plus the occasional token Tactical.) Imagine an EC where these two builds can comfortably beat 80% of whatever the enemy will throw at them. Why would you even go for a HB-Devastator or a Plasma-Devastator? Why would you even go for a Chainsword-Assault or a Powersword-Assault? Why would you even play Tactical unless you absolutely have to take the fall for the team?
maybe that is too extreme (but possible) instead that there will be only one or 2 sidegrade of weapon with exactly certain mods for be competitive is sure. of all the 349 possible combination for the bolter only 1-3 will be the effective build, because the game have a lot of weapon ao other weapons will be better for a certain role.
