304 replies to this topic

[Esplodin]

Odins Fist, on 13 February 2013 - 10:50 AM, said:

.
Can't fight then Cap huh..??
.
Nobody plays MechWARRIOR Online to cap, they play it to use their Big Stompy Robots to kill other Big Stompy Robots..
.
QUESTION: how many Conquest games do you see end in capping as the factor for the win..??
ANSWER: 4%.. LOLZ <---- EDIT: Rough estimate
.
Case closed... Splitting hairs is "NOT" an argument, and "SEMANTICS" are the last resort of those desperate to "TRY" and justify "THEIR" opinion versus the "REALITY" of a situation...

Win condition listed on the load page. All the rest is verbal farting.

[Novawrecker]

Esplodin, on 13 February 2013 - 10:55 AM, said:

....verbal farting ....

Best gimmick poster/post EVAH!

[ArchMage Sparrowhawk]

Yeah it all comes down to light pilots feeling the need to justify their existence. They feel they can't contribute anything to a battle but their small targeting profile and their speed, so they do tunnel runs and basecap threats. Yes, we can leave a person behind to guard base for "proper strategy", but people seem to have made agreements to not cap but destroy each other. since it's more fun for them. Yes even lights. And as far as pug matches, I agree. It takes so long to queue up a proper fight, I don't feel like capping. I just use the same old tactics to do flanking assaults.

[Zero Neutral]

Esplodin, on 13 February 2013 - 05:42 AM, said:

I've been seeing a lot of pre-match "don't cap noobs" in all chat lately, as well as here on the forums. Like it or not (and I don't particularly like it btw) it is a win condition of the mission, such as we have available at this point. Most of us that have been playing a while have plenty of GXP and C-bills, so the limited rewards argument is kinda pointless unless you are new.

The answer why hit me last night as my pug got steamrolled while we were arguing about it in all chat. (BTW, thank you for actually holding targets long enough for my LRMs to kill two and make the rest look like they were in a fight - you guys were awesome!) Put enough of a negative stigma on the "race to cap" and you don't need to upgrade your engines for the 4 man Atlas Steiner patrol, or take lights that are less effective now in melee since you can hit them.

I think it is time to finally finish leveling my spiders and do NOTHING but base caps until the opposition learns that this is a game of balance between tonnage, speed, and heat. If you don't want to play all dimensions of this game, fine. I'd rather take 300ish xp and 25K c-bills over the bigger rewards for rockem sockem robots because it also comes with gallons of man/woman/transgender tears.

Maybe the "only carry AC20 and Gauss" teams will reconsider their builds. Probably not, since whining about a built in mechanic is easier then having a strategy for it.

People don't like to cap because:

Less rewards

Want to blow stuff up

Want deathmatch

Are a PUG

[MischiefSC]

Esplodin, on 13 February 2013 - 10:50 AM, said:

Just wow. You are so blind you don't see the difference in a tactic that takes advantage of the schmitty matchmaker and a win condition listed right on the load screen.

No, the point is that the win condition is every bit as 'valid' as the nature of the matchmaker. Sync-dropping 8-mans is not against the rules. It's a facet of the matchmaker system in every single way that the capture mechanic is a part of the Assault game mode.

That doesn't make either of them good. The main difference is that you have to go out of your way to sync-drop for 8 mans, making it a jerk move with effort while the capture mechanic in Assault is a clearer, easier mechanic to use but that doesn't make either of them a brilliant design idea.

Base capping absolutely is built into the Assault game mode mechanic. I understand that completely. My point is that it's a bad mechanic in terms of tactics and depth of game play. My main thrust is that saying that it's somehow more tactical and not less tactical is a misnomer. It reduces the options available to teams and belittles the value of scouting, unit placement and map position. It's a built in 'cheap trick' (legitimate trick I agree, but trick none the less) to win. Just like sync dropping. 8 man sync-drops are not cheating. They're not an 'abuse'. They do not draw punishment or censure from PGI. It's the matchmaking mechanic at work. If someone takes advantage of it all they're doing is using an existing in game mechanic to get an advantage. Just more people condemn sync-dropping than base capping, obviously.

Once again, if you like Assault then great. Keep it. Don't pretend it's tactical though. Play Conquest. That's got a more tactical approach. Also PGI, give us something deeper. And TDM for those who want it. Some people play a combat game for the combat.

[DreyfussFrost]

Hate to break it to you, but this is a war game, not Time Crisis 3050. Shooting giant robots is certainly a major aspect of war in the 31st century, but, like all wars throughout history, search and destroy missions make up only a small part of military operations. Usually the enemies are in the way of some objective or trying to capture or destroy some important resource. If you happen to reach that objective without encountering a single enemy, that is a mission perfectly accomplished.

If you really, really, really don't want to play the game and you only want to shoot at moving targets, change your game mode from "All" to "Conquest." There's nothing wrong with Assault. You don't see adults asking baseball leagues to switch to tees because they only want to hit balls and the pitcher gets in the way. We don't need yet another game added to the overflowing cauldron of instant gratification FPS.

[MustrumRidcully]

SI The Joker, on 13 February 2013 - 08:11 AM, said:

Hey, good on ya for wanting to fight. You are a minority.

Read the thread... read the responses. Underlying all the anger about capping is the simple fact that no one likes to lose.

How does one not lose when one of (technically listed as the first objective of Assault on the screen btw) the objectives is to assault a base? Well, as many have already stated... taking up position near your base until you know the enemy intentions is always a wise move.

Would you move your bishops or castles forward blindly in a game of chess or would you be informed as to the strategy of your opponent before deciding your move?

Strange thing is, most replies seem to imply that people want to fight. They don't care whether capping leads to winning or losing.

Capping is only "fun" IMO if it's used to create the tactical choice of whether to split or not, and how to commit your resources.

I wonder if another capture mode wouldn't be better. Imagine a 12 man group defending 2 capture points, and an 8 man group having to take both. Now it's a matter of scouting well enough to find the weakest spot, or find who is attacking where. Or even riskier, trying to take 8 mechs and locate the enemy team.

[Odins Fist]

Novawrecker, on 13 February 2013 - 10:51 AM, said:

You fail to realize that, despite being disliked, capping is still a tactic to capitize on.

The problem is most do not know when to properly make use of that tactic which tends to lead to very quick (not to mention, very boring) matches.

.
I fail to see nothing, I see the reality of the situation, I totally understand capping as a tactic, please try again...
.
THE REALITY: Nobody plays MechWARRIOR Online to cap, they play it to use their Big Stompy Robots to kill other Big Stompy Robots..
ANOTHER REALITY: Sitting in an enemy cap while the "ACTION" is somewhere else on battlefield is not fun..
.
QUESTION: What's more enjoyable to you, sitting in an enemy cap, or knocking the arms off an Atlas, using futuristic laser weapons that create an action packed experience..??
.
I understand doing "ANYTHING" it takes for the "WIN", and yes it's a viable tactic, but is sitting motionless in an enemy cap your idea of action packed fun..??
.
People play MechWARRIOR Online to use their Big Stompy Robots to kill other Big Stompy Robots..
People do "NOT" download the game because they saw the "CAP", they saw a mean looking Atlas in the advertisement and said to themselves "I can have Lasers on a Big Stompy Robot.... YES".
.
Splitting hairs is "NOT" an argument, and "SEMANTICS" are the last resort of those desperate to "TRY" and justify "THEIR" opinion versus the "REALITY" of a situation...

Edited by Odins Fist, 13 February 2013 - 11:10 AM.

[Ngamok]

TheBaron, on 13 February 2013 - 11:03 AM, said:

Hate to break it to you, but this is a war game, not Time Crisis 3050. Shooting giant robots is certainly a major aspect of war in the 31st century, but, like all wars throughout history, search and destroy missions make up only a small part of military operations. Usually the enemies are in the way of some objective or trying to capture or destroy some important resource. If you happen to reach that objective without encountering a single enemy, that is a mission perfectly accomplished.

If you really, really, really don't want to play the game and you only want to shoot at moving targets, change your game mode from "All" to "Conquest." There's nothing wrong with Assault. You don't see adults asking baseball leagues to switch to tees because they only want to hit balls and the pitcher gets in the way. We don't need yet another game added to the overflowing cauldron of instant gratification FPS.

Conquest and Assault are essentially the same thing. Both modes are capturing positions. Conquest just has a timer built into it.

[Wispsy]

You are going to get so rolled by ravens going for cap every game in a spider :/

[Garth Erlam]

MischiefSC, on 13 February 2013 - 11:01 AM, said:

No, the point is that the win condition is every bit as 'valid' as the nature of the matchmaker. Sync-dropping 8-mans is not against the rules.

Going to have to disagree with you there.

[Zeroskills]

Just put one flag in the middle of the map.

[MaddMaxx]

Quote

"When both teams do this it's a draw."

Your incoherent ramblings were going great guns until then. You know why right? There is no such thing as a Cap draw.

[Jman5]

Quote

So, for the rest of us: numbers generally decide an engagement. The greater the disparity of numbers, the more decisive the outcome. By leaving a defensive force behind means that you have split your force. If the enemy has not, likewise, split their force, you have opened yourself up to be defeated piecemeal. For instance, if my team leaves 4 mechs to defend the base and the enemy force rolls the tunnel and comes pouring out with 7 or 8 mechs the defenders will rarely stand a chance. Even if they are assaults, they will be ground up in less than a minute against a solid attack force. Even if the other 4 mechs rush back, if they are far enough away, even most medium mechs will not make it back in time to prevent the defenders from being pounded down to combat ineffective status

See this is my problem. You seem to be playing this game under the assumption that it's impossible to position yourself aggressively, spot a rush, and defend against it in time. It's simply not true.

Let's go through the maps:

Caustic Valley: Your team heads to ridge normally, AND ONE SCOUT peeks over to 3 line (left side). The main force keeps an eyeball on the other side from the ridge. Congratulations you have eyeballs on 100% of attack avenues.

River City: Holy crap, you can freaking see the enemy base FROM YOUR BASE. There is absolutely no excuse to be surprised by anything on this map. NO EXCUSE.

Forest Colony: Move forward with your main force and send 1 guy up by the arch or into the cave. Main force can easily see middle map and water pushes. You have 100% of the map covered.

Frozen City: put one set of eyeballs on cave and scout ridge. If you don't see anyone they are going Jenner alley and you have plenty of time to get back or push their cap instead. Bonus points for pro-actively scouting jenner alley.

99% of anti-capping strategies rely on a SINGLE INDIVIDUAL spending 5 seconds peeking down an attack avenue, while the rest of your team goes down the other. One person. (AKA YOU).

I almost never lose to capping in assault because I proactively make sure either myself or some light checked those alternate routes. It's really not hard and doesn't split your forces because the scout can quickly regroup in a matter of seconds after you confirm they aren't base rushing.

[DEN_Ninja]

I only hate capping when teams just switch sides and the game ends in 2 minutes. It isn't even about scouting. If we switch sides we practically know that we avoided each other and went to the bases.

Not only does it really make it 'Who is faster' but a game about moving. Any attempts to split apart and you might just find yourself alone. A like to pilot a spider too. I am not going to smash my face into the enemy team alone for a delay of maybe one second on the cap clock.

It is pointless to play like that. If we engage in the middle of the map and you guys cap then GG one of lights should of gone back. Otherwise Capping is a very stupid way to win if all you do IS cap.

Edited by Tichorius Davion, 13 February 2013 - 11:12 AM.

[Bogus]

People hate the cap because it invalidates their carefully engineered cheese builds and ratio-based epeen party. Y'all know it's true.

[MischiefSC]

Garth Erlam, on 13 February 2013 - 11:08 AM, said:

Going to have to disagree with you there.

Well...

Okay then. My bad.

[Bryan Kerensky]

Garth Erlam, on 13 February 2013 - 11:08 AM, said:

Going to have to disagree with you there.

I would quote something if I were you. I do frown upon 8 man sync dropping for the sole purpose of making life difficult for PUGs but it would be nice if there was a written rule that expressed this as illegal.

[Bilbo]

Atlas Ninja Cap....FTW

Defend your base or lose. It really is that simple.

[Znail]

MischiefSC, on 13 February 2013 - 11:01 AM, said:

No, the point is that the win condition is every bit as 'valid' as the nature of the matchmaker. Sync-dropping 8-mans is not against the rules. It's a facet of the matchmaker system in every single way that the capture mechanic is a part of the Assault game mode.

That doesn't make either of them good. The main difference is that you have to go out of your way to sync-drop for 8 mans, making it a jerk move with effort while the capture mechanic in Assault is a clearer, easier mechanic to use but that doesn't make either of them a brilliant design idea.

Base capping absolutely is built into the Assault game mode mechanic. I understand that completely. My point is that it's a bad mechanic in terms of tactics and depth of game play. My main thrust is that saying that it's somehow more tactical and not less tactical is a misnomer. It reduces the options available to teams and belittles the value of scouting, unit placement and map position. It's a built in 'cheap trick' (legitimate trick I agree, but trick none the less) to win. Just like sync dropping. 8 man sync-drops are not cheating. They're not an 'abuse'. They do not draw punishment or censure from PGI. It's the matchmaking mechanic at work. If someone takes advantage of it all they're doing is using an existing in game mechanic to get an advantage. Just more people condemn sync-dropping than base capping, obviously.

Once again, if you like Assault then great. Keep it. Don't pretend it's tactical though. Play Conquest. That's got a more tactical approach. Also PGI, give us something deeper. And TDM for those who want it. Some people play a combat game for the combat.

How is Conquest, ie Team Death Match more tactical then Assault? I understand that some may find it booring with a game ending in a cap or dislike the lack of rewards for winning such a game. But how is it less tactical to have to keep an eye out for enemys trying to sneak in to your base, sneak in to the enemy base, stall the enemy while capping etc rather then just killing the most enemies?