Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
Bronco

Would assault mode work for WoWs

19 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

108
[DETN8]
Beta Testers
760 posts
5,783 battles

Would the assault game mode where one team has a limited time to either kill all the defenders or cap the base. We currently have epicenter which is roughly equivalent to encounter mode in WoT. Just wondering if it could work, which maps would be the best candidates for this game mode and what time limit do you think would be reasonable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,192
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
21,139 posts
3,867 battles

I'd rather Assault mode from Unreal Tournament.

 

Which is basically Killer Whale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,192
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
21,139 posts
3,867 battles
7 minutes ago, Bronco said:

How does that work? It's been years since I last played UT.

 

 

Fulfill an objective (In UT, it was usually capping a point or reaching a specific place/destroying something), move forward, fulfill the next objective, sequentially until the game ends.

 

Attackers win if they complete the final objective

Defenders win if they run out the clock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,582
[SALVO]
Members
16,618 posts
17,268 battles

I wouldn't mind seeing an Encounter mode (i.e. a single cap) based on either or both the Operations harbor defense map or the harbor raid map.  The spawns would be outside the harbor as far apart as necessary, and equidistant from the cap, which would be in the innermost area of the harbor.  Then both teams would have to either engage the enemy and probably send some ships into the harbor to either take the base, or prevent the enemy from doing so. 

I think that this could make for a very interesting battle mode.  And since there are already two maps, it shouldn't be that hard to implement.  It is possible, perhaps likely, that these maps may be too small for higher tier random battles.  BUT, if the devs implemented them for the tiers that seemed to fit the maps and they were found to be popular, there's no reason that they couldn't come up with larger maps for higher tiers along the same lines.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
341 posts
1,905 battles

I'd like a mode where the defending team can't run and the assault time has a certain amount of time to completely wipe out the opposing team or they lose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,582
[SALVO]
Members
16,618 posts
17,268 battles
12 minutes ago, Greenday4537 said:

I'd like a mode where the defending team can't run and the assault time has a certain amount of time to completely wipe out the opposing team or they lose.

Honestly, an assault/defense mode doesn't excite me much outside of operations.  I'd rather have a port battle scenario as I outlined above.  I don't like the idea of a mode where I'm stuck in a harbor with no where to run and maneuver.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
4,731 posts
5,464 battles
1 hour ago, AraAragami said:

 

 

Fulfill an objective (In UT, it was usually capping a point or reaching a specific place/destroying something), move forward, fulfill the next objective, sequentially until the game ends.

 

Attackers win if they complete the final objective

Defenders win if they run out the clock.

Sounds like the "Rush" game mode in the Battlefield series.

Attackers have to complete all objectives to win, defenders have to reduce the attacker's ticket count to zero or run the clock out.

Edited by GhostSwordsman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
225
[WOLF2]
Members
860 posts
6,976 battles
1 hour ago, Greenday4537 said:

I'd like a mode where the defending team can't run and the assault time has a certain amount of time to completely wipe out the opposing team or they lose.

Yep.   It'd be fun to have an instanced mode, similar to the weekly missions, but played PVP.    Each side has an assignment to attack or defend (or something along those lines with different scenarios).   Not sure if I'd like the whole game to go that way, but have it as a mode, like Co-op or Ranked, and it'd be good to get away from passive play, as desired.

 

No need for fancy gimmicks - just load yer ships and go!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,192
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
21,139 posts
3,867 battles
38 minutes ago, GhostSwordsman said:

Sounds like the "Rush" game mode in the Battlefield series.

Attackers have to complete all objectives to win, defenders have to reduce the attacker's ticket count to zero or run the clock out.

Basically. Though it's a bit trickier in Warships since this game has no respawns, an objective-oriented Assault mode (Cap this/stop them from capping this, if they do, move to second/more defensible cap, defend/capture it) where the defenders win if the clock runs out or the attackers are all sunk-- and the attackers win if they get all the objectives (Hence, just running away to run out the clock won't be a viable tactic since it leaves the objectives unguarded) would work.

 

For instance, a PvP scenario based on the naval battle of Guadalcanal, where one fleet is moving across Solomon with the goal of seizing a cap zone, then bombarding the airstrip on the north side of the northern island, while the second fleet must protect that cap and sink or drive the enemy away before they can destroy the airfield. Airstrip only becomes vulnerable after the zone is capped.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
423
[FML]
Members
1,622 posts
9,879 battles
2 hours ago, Bronco said:

Would the assault game mode where one team has a limited time to either kill all the defenders or cap the base. We currently have epicenter which is roughly equivalent to encounter mode in WoT. Just wondering if it could work, which maps would be the best candidates for this game mode and what time limit do you think would be reasonable.

 

2 hours ago, AraAragami said:

I'd rather Assault mode from Unreal Tournament.

 

Which is basically Killer Whale.

 

4 minutes ago, AraAragami said:

Basically. Though it's a bit trickier in Warships since this game has no respawns, an objective-oriented Assault mode (Cap this/stop them from capping this, if they do, move to second/more defensible cap, defend/capture it) where the defenders win if the clock runs out or the attackers are all sunk-- and the attackers win if they get all the objectives (Hence, just running away to run out the clock won't be a viable tactic since it leaves the objectives unguarded) would work.

 

For instance, a PvP scenario based on the naval battle of Guadalcanal, where one fleet is moving across Solomon with the goal of seizing a cap zone, then bombarding the airstrip on the north side of the northern island, while the second fleet must protect that cap and sink or drive the enemy away before they can destroy the airfield. Airstrip only becomes vulnerable after the zone is capped.

 

I like the idea in theory, but wows has a strong advantage for the defending team, primarily the combination of smoke, longer effective range of Torps, and kiting with longer effective range fire. There is also an issue if teams are structurally unbalanced, eg no DDs to provide smoke, IJN bbs defending with German bbs attacking, lack of radar cruisers on attacking team, etc, that can make balancing the optimal time really difficult. Even before player skill. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
608
[NMKJT]
Members
2,676 posts

Would rather see it without a cap zone, that seems land based. Naval objectives were more task based. Bombard that airfield. Escort those transports. Sink those carriers. 

 

The whole invasion fleet of Midway was a simple ruse to draw the USN carriers out and sink them. The carriers were the objective

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,799
[SYN]
Alpha Tester, Beta Testers
30,523 posts
4,417 battles

Did encounter/assault in tanks. IT SUCKED. Rather not see that hot mess come to ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
108
[DETN8]
Beta Testers
760 posts
5,783 battles

Played WoT when the assault mode was first introduced and it was highly dependent on the map. On certain maps, upon first inspection, it would seem that the defensive team would have a huge advantage to simply turtle up around the base. But people adjusted and learnt to attack the base from multiple fronts causing the defenders to come under fire from multiple directions. 

In WoWs, the choice of map would play a large part in making this mode fun. I was thinking that land of fire would be good if played east to west with the defenders on either end. With all those islands along the central axis could provide both teams with equal cover. 

In either case, I was just wondering if there would be enough interest in this type of mode and which maps people think would be good for this mode.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,582
[SALVO]
Members
16,618 posts
17,268 battles
33 minutes ago, Bronco said:

Played WoT when the assault mode was first introduced and it was highly dependent on the map. On certain maps, upon first inspection, it would seem that the defensive team would have a huge advantage to simply turtle up around the base. But people adjusted and learnt to attack the base from multiple fronts causing the defenders to come under fire from multiple directions. 

In WoWs, the choice of map would play a large part in making this mode fun. I was thinking that land of fire would be good if played east to west with the defenders on either end. With all those islands along the central axis could provide both teams with equal cover. 

In either case, I was just wondering if there would be enough interest in this type of mode and which maps people think would be good for this mode.

Oh, come on!  If you're doing an assault/defense mode in a naval game, it's beyond obvious that the maps should be PORT maps!!!  And, heaven forbid, we have two of them already in the game.  That is, the two port maps used in the port assault and the port defense operation scenarios.  That's where any assault mode should start when looking for maps for the mode!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
108
[DETN8]
Beta Testers
760 posts
5,783 battles
1 minute ago, Crucis said:

Oh, come on!  If you're doing an assault/defense mode in a naval game, it's beyond obvious that the maps should be PORT maps!!!  And, heaven forbid, we have two of them already in the game.  That is, the two port maps used in the port assault and the port defense operation scenarios.  That's where any assault mode should start when looking for maps for the mode!!!

You make a good point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,582
[SALVO]
Members
16,618 posts
17,268 battles
1 hour ago, Destroyer_Suzukaze said:

Would rather see it without a cap zone, that seems land based. Naval objectives were more task based. Bombard that airfield. Escort those transports. Sink those carriers. 

 

The whole invasion fleet of Midway was a simple ruse to draw the USN carriers out and sink them. The carriers were the objective

The thing is that WoWS isn't a strategic game.  It's just a game whose intended purpose is to allow people to play warships and shoot at enemy warships.  What you're describing sounds a lot more like the Operations mode.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
741
[NG-NL]
Members
4,949 posts
8,094 battles

Would a new game mode be worthwhile seeing as ignorant players (maybe even griefers and dumb lemmings) will come and swamp it with stupid decisions that throw the match?

 

On one hand yes, it'll make a stronger case for divs with good players, and breathe a little life into WOWS. If WG rotates these missions along other campaigns, it'll make them very interesting.

 

It'd be interesting if WG adds a variation where the 7-man division must bring a T8-10 CV because only DB can destroy a few objective forts, you know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×