45 replies to this topic

[MadcatX]

Agent of Change, on 17 December 2012 - 12:09 PM, said:

Which means they won't happen (often or at all)

which means a shift in actual incentivised behaviour

Which means there is no reason to cap, therefore no reason to defend

Which means nothing but the nastiest firepower going straight at the enemy in most cases

Which mean mindless TDM where once there was a modicum (admittedly small) amount of tactical awareness by neccessity.

Capture had 2 incentives: Both the capture\capture assist C-bill reward. Also, there was the WIN reward. I don't believe it will cause that huge a paradigm shift in the removal of the actual c-bill reward if it can still be used as a win condition.

[Agent of Change]

MadcatX, on 17 December 2012 - 12:17 PM, said:

Capture had 2 incentives: Both the capture\capture assist C-bill reward. Also, there was the WIN reward. I don't believe it will cause that huge a paradigm shift in the removal of the actual c-bill reward if it can still be used as a win condition.

The win/loss rewards are negligible for assault, (25k for a win) I think you are still far more incentivised in the upcoming Assault setup to kill as many of the enemy as possible even if you lose.

Because it looks possible to make more as being the top of the losing team than the bottom of the winning team, unless i read it wrong.

Edited by Agent of Change, 17 December 2012 - 12:20 PM.

[Pendraco]

I think I will reserve judgement until we have had a chance to try it out. But what actually separates the winners from the losers of any given match besides the obvious win/loss stat? Did I miss something or does everyone make pretty much the same amount of C-Bills?

[Sifright]

Agent of Change, on 17 December 2012 - 12:09 PM, said:

Which means they won't happen (often or at all)

which means a shift in actual incentivised behaviour

Which means there is no reason to cap, therefore no reason to defend

Which means nothing but the nastiest firepower going straight at the enemy in most cases

Which mean mindless TDM where once there was a modicum (admittedly small) amount of tactical awareness by neccessity.

If team death match is mindless so is capture the red square.

neither required deep thought or tactical awareness or understanding.

[Lord Jay]

What is unclear to me after reading the Command Chair post is if there will still be a reward for winning over losing at all?

Are the rewards solely based on your performance in the match? If so then there is no reason to cap or defend your cap, or even try to win. Just do as much damage to as many enemy mechs as possible before you die. While this type of game play does not interest me, I can see where it might have a place in MW:O.

If there was some type of cBill bonus or even better a cBill multiplier for a win over a loss then capping and defending the cap would still have a purpose.

Overall I think these changes are a good idea worth testing.

I would just like to know if I should try to win anymore. ;-P

[Agent of Change]

Pendraco, on 17 December 2012 - 12:24 PM, said:

I think I will reserve judgement until we have had a chance to try it out. But what actually separates the winners from the losers of any given match besides the obvious win/loss stat? Did I miss something or does everyone make pretty much the same amount of C-Bills?

That's what it looks like to me. I mean basically Kills+assists uber alles. Assault becomes the mode you play only if you want to grind c-bills, and probably not even as efficiently as Conquest.

[ulziel]

HOLY ****. The RNR is gone, your in a house that pays your RNR. This is what I see what is the rewards and costs you get for win/losses. You won't get more than a merc who needs every cred to count. Nice post OP. RNR gone on ill live new mode and making people fight and not afk durdle light rush for win well my clan just has a 1% cap if we can 99% waste other me mechs.

More game modes will allow for variety and look at it like this. Your money change is for houses and we were Merck community warfare is coming. I want to see the new mode and how it will affect 8mans 4-5 lights then ECM atlases weee

[CoreHunter]

I will take my free cbills and buy an ECM raven and cap every Fing match just to **** you death match guys off

[Pendraco]

Sifright, on 17 December 2012 - 12:24 PM, said:

If team death match is mindless so is capture the red square.

neither required deep thought or tactical awareness or understanding.

I disagree, it gives you options. When you get the "base is being captured" message you have a choice, send one back to check it out (and possibly get squished by several) or split your force to deal with the situation.

In my opinion having options = tactical, you really have to be ignorant to assume otherwise.

- Oh! and I have no problem with them removing the C-Bill bonus associated with capping.

[Agent of Change]

Sifright, on 17 December 2012 - 12:24 PM, said:

If team death match is mindless so is capture the red square.

neither required deep thought or tactical awareness or understanding.

having capture "the red square" as a viable profitable option meant:

• keeping you eye on your base in case you needed to defend it
  
• going all in on a attack meant risking something
  
• It allowed for a reasonable facsimile of a static defense tactic
  
• it allowed for flanking and distraction.

The win won't matter anymore so the base tag as distraction is more or less useless now, which was up till this update a great way to break up an entrenched defense. But who's going to stop it, only an ***** would believe the enemy would cap now, because only an ***** would actually cap now with no payoff. So yeah now you can't even rely on base capping to guarantee a fight.

so yeah instead of having even some minor form of need to pay the hell attention and flank and misdirect, there is no good reason not to just slug it out every time. And that will change behaviors and builds to match the "march towards enemy shoot until they are dead or you are. I like at least a little bit of an objective beyond wipe out the enemy, it's a shame that that option isn't going to be a reasonable strategy in Assault any longer.

Edited by Agent of Change, 17 December 2012 - 12:37 PM.

[Pygar]

Sifright, on 17 December 2012 - 12:00 PM, said:

Capture the red square isn't tactical.

isn't a good objective.

and it was leading to dumb outcomes.

Those outcomes are still possible by the way.

They just aren't being incentivised.

Yeah...weird.

In real warfare, there are many objectives besides just to kill the bad guys...in fact many of those objectives are specifically aimed at reducing the enemies ability to fight so you can win the war with less outright conflict.

As far as the game we play is concerned- w/out a capture objective, and w/out any other limits set on matches, battles will degrade into everybody bringing their favorite heavy or assault, with as much armor and guns as they can fit cuz nothing else matters, ignoring everybody else on their team, skulking off to their favorite "lone wolf" hiding place on the map and only *doing* anything when somebody foolishly walks into their crosshairs, or when the match timer starts to run down and people start realizing they need to do *something*.

I had a match last night where I saw that the option to capture was wide open, so me and 2 other buddies did just that (In Mediums and Heavies)- PUG players instantly started to bellyache in open chat, they wanted to "Shoot at some robots DURRRR HURRR." So, after they complained they all came back to their base to defend.....and got blown up by me and my buddies. They lost 5-2 by base cap, so they got to "shoot at some bad guys DURR HURR" and we got to win....everybody was happy. (right?)

(It's interesting that people are thinking that base capping may be due to the C-bill rewards behind it- I find it has more to do with how many people do a terrible job of defending their base...I saw some really tough defensive strats this weekend, but it sounds like it might actually get easier to cap in PUGs if everybody suddenly thinks that capping doesn't matter now)

Edited by Pygar, 17 December 2012 - 12:53 PM.

[Bilbo]

This will change nothing in the games I play. I'll still try to make sure my base is covered and if you leave yours open, I will take it. C-bills and xp are really not a concern for me at this point.

Edited by Bilbo, 17 December 2012 - 12:55 PM.

[Pygar]

Bilbo, on 17 December 2012 - 12:54 PM, said:

This will change nothing in the games I play. I'll still try to make sure my base is covered and if you leave yours open, I will take it. C-bills and xp are really not a concern for me at this point.

Yes, a win is a win. Myself, the idea just dawned on me that if capping for wins is going to anger people then that's all the more incentive that I need. (<-- EVE online player...winning is one thing, but winning while extracting sweet succulent tears from the fallen? Priceless.)

[Avenger762]

I think this will be good for more carnage. Now if they can just penalize those fools who get an assault mech and then exit the game leaving my team shorthanded.

[Giani]

Thinking about it, I agree with those who say they should have just removed the bases and be done with it. Removal of the cap rewards and making payout focused totally on mech vs mech combat will make the bases pointless anyway. If I'm in a brawl in the middle of the map and get the "Base under attack" message, what reason do I have to break off and try to defend? I'm rewarded solely on the damage I inflict on the enemy, who I'm already engaged with. Why not stay and try to put as much hurt on the enemy as possible before the match ends? So we get capped, who cares? I might make less money trying to "win" than accepting a loss and going for maximum attrition.

I've seen people many times scolding a damaged teammate for starting to cap (and winning) rather than throwing themselves at the enemy like suicidal lemmings. Now it seems those people will get the pointless deathmatches they wanted. Guess next time I'm out of ammo and have my arms blown off I'll just run out of bounds. No reason to even try for a cap.

[Vassago Rain]

Agent of Change, on 17 December 2012 - 12:34 PM, said:

having capture "the red square" as a viable profitable option meant:

• keeping you eye on your base in case you needed to defend it
  
• going all in on a attack meant risking something
  
• It allowed for a reasonable facsimile of a static defense tactic
  
• it allowed for flanking and distraction.

The win won't matter anymore so the base tag as distraction is more or less useless now, which was up till this update a great way to break up an entrenched defense. But who's going to stop it, only an ***** would believe the enemy would cap now, because only an ***** would actually cap now with no payoff. So yeah now you can't even rely on base capping to guarantee a fight.


so yeah instead of having even some minor form of need to pay the hell attention and flank and misdirect, there is no good reason not to just slug it out every time. And that will change behaviors and builds to match the "march towards enemy shoot until they are dead or you are. I like at least a little bit of an objective beyond wipe out the enemy, it's a shame that that option isn't going to be a reasonable strategy in Assault any longer.

It's the worst game mode I've ever been subjected to, honestly.
I mean that seriously.

There's no fun in capture the red square, and it shouldn't have gone live like this. Counter-strike solved it by making only one square, and the second is an item you must bring into it.

You can do however well you want. You can have 8 fatlases that are undamaged, against one raven, but that raven can and will grief you with basecapping. It's not stimulating for giant robots fighting, and is generally made fun out of everywhere outside tacticool clans, who feel they're awesome for bypassing guys in autistic valley, and capping for a win in one minute and thirty seconds.

[Agent of Change]

Vassago Rain, on 17 December 2012 - 01:12 PM, said:

It's the worst game mode I've ever been subjected to, honestly.
I mean that seriously.

There's no fun in capture the red square, and it shouldn't have gone live like this. Counter-strike solved it by making only one square, and the second is an item you must bring into it.

You can do however well you want. You can have 8 fatlases that are undamaged, against one raven, but that raven can and will grief you with basecapping. It's not stimulating for giant robots fighting, and is generally made fun out of everywhere outside tacticool clans, who feel they're awesome for bypassing guys in autistic valley, and capping for a win in one minute and thirty seconds.

Really you shouldn't have had 8 fatlases that isn't really stimulating either.

That games mode + reasonably balanced drops = a great time. It's dynamic, you have different mechs for different roles, a reason to scout and flank. Scouts to find the enemy mediums to run those scouts off your base and heavies+assaults to lay into the enemy and provide fire support. That's what the game is supposed to be, but that is not what is incentivised.

Current changes + community = 8 fatlas hurr durr because why not. I won't be surprised that if you run a medium or heavy you might have a hard time finding a match playing Assault.

[Lord Jay]

Giani, on 17 December 2012 - 01:06 PM, said:

... they should have just removed the bases and be done with it. Removal of the cap rewards and making payout focused totally on mech vs mech combat will make the bases pointless anyway.

QFT

I would have rather seen capping become much more difficult. For example if a single enemy mech walks on the red square while you are capping, no matter how many of your team are on the cap, it is reset back to maximum.

Then actually capping the base would be quite difficult if the enemy tried to defend. In that scenario a successful cap could be rewarded and at the same time a successful defense could be rewarded as well.

This would also encourage more balanced drops.

Alternatively they could implement a single capture point in the center of the map. This would seriously encourage direct engagement.

Edited by Lord Jay, 17 December 2012 - 01:39 PM.

[Tesunie]

I feel, with the lack of a repair and rearm build, what is stopping everyone from just loading up on XL Engines, Endo-steel, FF armour, Artumis and all the other "expensive lost tech that should be rare"? All I'm going to see now is a complete lack of regard to any lore of the whole Battletech universe, and just everyone getting the best items as they no longer have to concider the repair cost on fixing that Engine. That rare XL engine. That rare, expensive to fix, repair, replace and get parts for, rare lost tech engine that the Inner Sphere shouldn't be handing out to every mechwarrior and their brother. Want an XL Engine? Going cheap! One time fee of... and you're all set to go!

I'm going to go from running more lore accurate mechs because it made sense to running more powerful and expensive deisgns that shouldn't be seen as common in the Inner Sphere till after the clans invade... Why not? That XL Engine wont cost me much to repair anymore...

I think the lack of a repair and rearm bills are going to be more of a problem than the removal of extra c-bills for caping a base. And if I know someone is still suffering from black screen/yellow screen/etc I'll still ignore them (if they are powered down and let us all know they are having problems) and cap the base. Show mercy. Now, I don't know why someone with a glitch problem will stay logged on. Just disconnect, don't get a prize (as you wont anyway really) and just hope into another mech in a different match. No more repair costs to cover...

[Apoc1138]

rush capping was boring... having multi-rush capping at least improves the chances of some kind of fight to win the round, and removal of cap bonus and general bonus just for winning without doing anything also means more fighting

sorry, but I play this game for the fighting, not the running the full length of the map without seeing anyone on the opposing team

latest patch gets the thumbs up from me

conquest is more interesting than assault was, and converting assault in to favouring more combat (you know, like the name, assault) means there is a game mode for people that prefer fighting to capping

Edited by Apoc1138, 18 December 2012 - 08:17 AM.