52 replies to this topic

[Mystere]

WM Quicksilver, on 02 August 2015 - 03:27 PM, said:

This is based on a statement he made on twitter a while back shortly before certain people made a push to get turrets removed from Assault. That new asymmetric version of Assault that you reference, will more than likely be an additional game mode rather than a replacement because there are still many that love the old/new/turret-less Assault and it fullfills a much different role than a public queue version of Invasion mode. I believe he later alluded to make that new mode a separate game mode rather than a replacement because he was trying to come up with a new name for the game mode (which is weird since it sounds a lot like Siege from MW4).

Well, it better be an additional game mode and not a replacement lest PGI wants to get a taste of what an experienced provocateur can really do.

Edited by Mystere, 02 August 2015 - 03:31 PM.

[Kodyn]

Mystere, on 02 August 2015 - 03:27 PM, said:

You are severely underestimating the effects of massive whining on PGI's development plans and schedules. Or do you actually believe Ghost Heat was planned from the very beginning?

Hey, I'm not saying it's because of me, specifically, but like I said earlier somewhere, every other change I've asked for happened or is happening. I think it's because they were changes that were logical, and other people asked for them loud and long enough as well, so I do think it has an impact. Sometimes I almost wish less of one, since as a community we remind me of some of my bipolar exes....but that's another rant ;p

If it does turn out to be an entirely new mode, that's cool too, because then it will spread out the queue a little bit better over 4 rather than 3, and if it's got good earnings potential and some tactical aspect, then great, all good stuff.

1/4 of the time on a mode that's not quite right vs. 1/3 is a good enough change to make the current assault feel like less of a let-down when it pops, I think.

Again, I apologize for letting my anger get the better of me, I appreciate you guys giving feedback, from all sides, it's necessary for a balanced, fair, and realistic discussion, of anything, really. Don't think I don't value or respect your opinions just because I go all forum-hulk from time-to-time...that's just me. No one likes me when I'm angry... :/

[Wyndstar]

The rewards for winning by objective are too small for both conquest and assault. This is a shame, as these modes break up the experience from just killing. I also have Skirmish unselected most of the time when I drop.... so I admit bias to objective based play vs only combat.

If people whined to lower the rewards in the past, could we not now agitate to get the rewards increased again?

[Kodyn]

Wyndstar, on 02 August 2015 - 03:40 PM, said:

If people whined to lower the rewards in the past, could we not now agitate to get the rewards increased again?

You know...eventually Russ is just going to break up with us and block our number, get a restraining order, and break down into tears when we talk to him...

[Sir Wulfrick]

Kodyn, on 02 August 2015 - 07:34 AM, said:

You're unfortunately probably all too right Alistair, and we can only blame ourselves.

As a community, I have literally no idea why the devs would want to listen to us at all, when we can manage to disagree 100% on nearly every topic that involves anything about this game. I keep trying just in case some of it gets through, because for some odd reason I still love this game, and want to see it do well and grow, but if I was Russ, I wouldn't want to read any of our mess either.

TBH, and back on topic, I'd like to see anything that improves on the pointless, CBill-less cap race we have right now. Even a 40-50k increase in win-by-cap...if I have to go with that flow, at least let me make some CBills. Or discourage it again with turrets, base defenses of some kind, to at least provide some other options for gameplay besides "Skirmish and lose our base", or "Cap and make no money." It just makes zero sense as is.

This. Slightly off topic: the only things this forum have ever largely agreed about were that nobody wanted 3rd person view or coolant flush. Result? PGI added 3PV and coolant flush (of a sort) to the game

On topic: despite all the clamouring for it, removing the turrets from assault mode was a foolish step to take. These days in an assault match, as an assault mech driver I might as well hit maximum speed and sit there eating sandwiches for all the good it does me. Normally the game is over with little or no actual combat by the time I'm half way across the map. Boring!

I can only hope that PGI's ideas for an asymmetric assault mode are sensible and encourage the use of various tactics whilst not making either combat or base capping totally pointless. Both are valid ways to win but that doesn't guarantee an interesting match by any means...

[Yellonet]

It should not be both teams attacking/defending, but one team attacking and the other defending.

[Mystere]

Yellonet, on 02 August 2015 - 04:37 PM, said:

It should not be both teams attacking/defending, but one team attacking and the other defending.

I can see the whining now:

• Our starting position is horrible, - Defender
  
• Our starting position is horrible. - Attacker
  
• The base is too hard to defend. - Defender
  
• The base is too hard to attack. - Attacker

<smh>

[Kodyn]

Mystere, on 02 August 2015 - 05:00 PM, said:

I can see the whining now:

• Our starting position is horrible, - Defender
  
• Our starting position is horrible. - Attacker
  
• The base is too hard to defend. - Defender
  
• The base is too hard to attack. - Attacker

<smh>

Shhh, we have to wait til the mode drops before we all QQ about it, stay in character.

If we go pre-QQing all over the place, the Devs won't get the customary whiplash from the massive community about-face, and we simply can't have that.

[Madcap72]

Use voip and chat to lead the team to set up ambushes for the inevitable rush, kill enemy team, profit.


OR,

Use voip and chat to tactics, and send lights to start the cap, confuse team, then ambush them as they come back 1x1 to defend the base.



Lots of options that don't involve talking outside of doing.

[Ace Selin]

Conquest = Base CAP and killing.
Old Assault = Skirmish with the option to play Assault, allowed team that was losing to fall back to base and then hold off a more determined enemy for an unlikely win. Mode where a lance of lights couldnt auto base cap. Made for varied win/loss strategies.
Skirmish = NASCAR

New Assault = NASCAR (Crap)

Edited by Ace Selin, 03 August 2015 - 02:36 AM.

[Viges]

Moomtazz, on 02 August 2015 - 07:01 AM, said:

Can't please everyone. I like it with the turrets removed. NASCAR only occurs in about 85% of the matches now, instead of the usual 99.999%

BS - turrets prevented nascar much better.

[Joseph Mallan]

Kodyn, on 02 August 2015 - 07:10 AM, said:

I'm seeing 100% base cap by one side or the other in the last 4-5 days. A fight may start, but then the cap happens, everyone scrambles, and it's over. Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it's not a problem....as with every topic ever on these boards... It's still an issue that the mode has become so pointless by removing the turrets, and the reward being what it is. Please don't downplay that with the usual, "I like it, must not be a problem.." arguments. When the reward for a WIN by objective is that low, it's a problem with the mode, not player opinion.

During teh EU server event I played about 12-15 Matches in Assault to get teh prizes I wanted. 3 games ended in a cap. YMMV. But most Assaults still end in Skirmish.

[Viges]

Alistair Winter, on 02 August 2015 - 07:15 AM, said:

Apparently, PGI is working on a new, asymmetrical Assault mode. Assault mode is basically a placeholder right now. Maybe it always was, I forget.

You can safely assume that everything is a placeholder. Like skills system, clan autocannons, ghost heat (? I forgot too, but most likely ) to name a few. #neverforget