6 replies to this topic

[Homeless Bill]

TLDR: Assault mode is a broken version of team deathmatch right now. They should change the objective from capturing the enemy base to destroying it, add a base destruction bonus, and perhaps add a small base damage bonus.

The Problem: Ever since the new patch got rid of rewards for base capture in Assault Mode, almost every match I've played has boiled down to team deathmatch with a chance of someone screwing things up by capturing earlier.

Ninja captures don't happen often anymore, but when they do, they **** me off even more than they used to (because capture is worth nothing). Beyond that, shouldn't Assault be more about assaulting the enemy base instead of standing next to it or killing everyone off?

The Solution: To fix these problems, I suggest making the objective of Assault mode destroying the enemy base, rather than capturing it. Not only does this make more sense, but it would make for better gameplay.

I would implement a bonus for destroying the enemy base (similar to the capture bonus of pre-patch times) and a bonus for damage dealt to the enemy base (small, but enough to encourage people to play for the objective). These changes would have a number of positive benefits:

1. Restore Assault to an objective-based game type. Right now, there's no incentive to capture unless you're losing. Why should capturing be used solely as an easy-out when the rest of your team got rolled? Why should it even be able to be used that way?
2. Eliminate ninja capturing. No longer can one or two lights show up at base while the rest of their team is eaten alive and take the win. They could still show up and draw the other team off by laying down some damage, but it wouldn't make lights as over-powered (since right now, speed is king for capturing). Lights could get to objectives before anyone else, but they wouldn't put out nearly as much damage as a heavy / assault that made it to base.
3. Encourage more tactical play. Right now, the team that blobs together is the team that wins together. Drawing enemies off has little to no benefit - again, as a result of base capture being worth nothing.
4. Make more sense. This one is really more nit-picky seeing as the idea of large, slow, bipedal tanks using traditional ballistics over a millennium from now is preposterous. But standing next to someone else's house for a minute or so to win a game mode called "Assault" just doesn't jive with me. I like the idea of blowing a base up a lot more than standing next to it.

Suggestions? Thoughts?

Edited by Homeless Bill, 24 December 2012 - 11:19 PM.

[Aedensin]

Lol the first time playing I thought you had to destroy the base, so I would hunt for it.. and hunt.. and hunt, it took me a while to realize the base was a tiny little node that you were supposed to stand next to.

The base is more visible now which is nice but it still feels like I should be shooting at it, not standing beside it twiddling my thumbs.

So with that little story out of the way.

+1

[Necromantion]

The only issue i see is the removal of some capture bonus to capping the base. Otherwise i feel assault is fine.

Conquest on the other hand seems not too well thought out with no incentive to cap bases.

[Homeless Bill]

Necromantion, on 24 December 2012 - 09:26 PM, said:

The only issue i see is the removal of some capture bonus to capping the base. Otherwise i feel assault is fine.

Conquest on the other hand seems not too well thought out with no incentive to cap bases.

I'll agree that it was fine how it was, but I think changing from capture to destroy would do a lot to improve the game mode as a whole (particularly in regards to ninja captures).

And yes, Conquest sucks =P

[Rivy]

Yeah, I have thought about something like this as well. We should shoot the crap out of the enemy base, it would make way more sense (and it would also make it easier to defend, since attackers are not fighting back if they are "capturing" it).

[Necromantion]

I wonder if this is something they considered since when you shoot the base it shows you as doing dmg with your reticle.

It would add an interesting context sine youd have to prioritize between damaging the base and damaging enemy mechs that come close. On the flipside of that too teams with more firepower would be able to win faster. Of course thats dependant on a lot of factors but i guess its something they could look into.

[Homeless Bill]

Necromantion, on 25 December 2012 - 07:04 PM, said:

On the flipside of that too teams with more firepower would be able to win faster.

I agree this would be the biggest concern. If it was too easy to destroy, it would turn it into ultimate base rush 9000. I'd think it'd need to be able to withstand two or three short-range assault 'mechs worth of damage for a minute. Attacking a base would be a much more explicit investment than it is now.