75 replies to this topic

[Ranek Blackstone]

Assault is like playing CTF with no respawns. If you're dumb enough leave the flag undefended, you deserve the lose.

Otherwise, play Conquest. The multi point system requires you to go on the attack, or the enemy will take more points then you, and win that way.

But I personally like the idea that I can win the match with out having to actually shoot anything. Victory is all I care about

[Ter Ushaka]

Motroid, on 21 February 2013 - 09:38 PM, said:

Negative. Bad idea, as someone has put it well.
I've gone through quite some serious issues with the evolution of this great game. Sacrificed a few very important things to mainstream appeal like knock-downs (-75% RVN-3L with proper collisions and knockdowns) and repair 'n' rearm (which was important for the feel of a being a mechwarrior)...but seriously a teamdeathmatch-based gameplay in a vehicle combat simulation is a total No-go and would ruin half of the well crafted and fragile gameplay.

*sigh*
Knock-downs were taken out due to code issues and other problems, it will return. Repair & Rearm was a badly crafted system, poorly implemented, and abused like crazy by many of the playerbase. That will not return.

[ParadigmShifter]

Sug, on 21 February 2013 - 09:25 PM, said:

No one has working hands.

Except the:
Banshee
Executioner
Ice Ferret
Atlas
Ursus
Hunchback
Acuma
Shadow Hawk
Banzai
Tiburon
Hollander
Aliance
Hussar
Fireball
Thorn
Cyclops

I could go on. (Not sure if all of these have WORKING hands though)

However I was thinking maybe attaching it in a fashion similar to this:



Maybe even only allow heavy/assault Mechs to carry flags, so light Mechs don't just capture it and disappear.

[Oy of MidWorld]

Novakaine, Death Mallet, Motroid, guys, i don't get this.

The topic's title already states that this is about an option. You would never have to play this. But some of us want this, so it is not a bad idea! Why do you even care to post in this thread, as clearly this topic doesn't even concern you?


Anyone who thinks that Assault and Conquest are Team DeathMatch has either not read or understood my original post. This is about NOT being forced to behave in a certain way because of a red square on the ground.
This is about concentrating solely on the enemy team and it's actions, like in a real battle, where red squares on the ground have little to no tactical value. This is actually AGAINST mainstream appeal Motroid.


And Ranek, i didn't say we lost, i said the matches sucked. You only care about victory?

I only care about good fights. See? I can do that too... These are just personal opinions. Forgive me that i don't care about yours on this matter, since, as stated above, this topic doesn't concern you.

Edited by Oy of MidWorld, 22 February 2013 - 05:29 AM.

[Lyrik]

Oy of MidWorld, on 21 February 2013 - 04:06 PM, said:

Played several matches today, where real cool battles were prevented from happening by the capping mechanism.

If capping brings disorder into your formation/battle than it wasn't a cool match

[blacklp]

God YES TDM. Listen, i appreciate the value of capture as a means to end a match where a light is hiding. I appreciate the tactical value of a good ninja cap in assault. I love that if your not actively capping points in conquest there is a good chance you will lose. I love that these two modes of gameplay work(for the most part) the way that the developers intended.
HOWEVER, I came here to blow poop up with my walking fantasy tank with giant futuretech fantasy weapons. I would love a mode where that was the ONLY goal. I would like to believe that people choosing the option of TDM would play appropriately.
I will now proceed to rile up this thread. I want straight up 24 man death match. I want to be stuck in a box and watch chaos on a epic scale ensue.

Edited by blacklp, 22 February 2013 - 05:50 AM.

[Thor77]

Oy, I wouldn't mind if there was a deathmatch mode, but to say it is more like a real battle is not accurate. Any military campaign has some larger objective, and the presence of an objective is what gives an engagement its strategic flavor. I love a good brawl, but I find deathmatch pointless. Real militaries don't fight in the absence of an objective.

[Roland]

Real militaries don't fight in giant robots either.

[Sir Trent Howell]

I don't necessarily have a problem with capping, although the mere possibility of it prevents the majority of the map from being explored and fought over. Alpine is huge, but I've only ever seen a tiny fraction of it because I have to be tethered to the cap. All the battles I've fought there have been at that one central hill, except for one drop where the enemy camped their base and we had to attack it.

[blacklp]

Honestly people. This is about an option. It would work like a TV.
Also if you don't consider the pew pew and boom boom and blat blat splodey time the most fun part of the game, WTF are you playing for?

[General Taskeen]

Its quite simple. People are opposed to options, because they are like kids who can't stand the thought of other kids having fun playing a different game so they have a tantrum. Let the other people have fun in their own way. Choices matter in creating a variety of match types within the context of the game. It helps the player base grow by having options for all kinds of players otherwise how is this game going to grow, just on Mech Warrior fans alone? BF3, for example, has a variety of filters to search for specific types of game modes, random map and specific map play, 'realism mode', etc.

People can't stand the thought of a popular mode, like MW:LL's Terrain Control, a true conquest mode either, huge maps with long 2 hour matches of actiony Mech combat. MWO, and other Mech titles, are from simulations anyways. IL-2, Cliffs of Dover, and Blackshark, are simulations, which I play.

Imagine, for a moment, the following options:

* No Respawn/Random Mode (Specific map selected) - Matched against other players selecting the same (Assault, Conquest, TDM) on a specific map
* No Respawn/Random Mode/Random Map - Same as above with random map
* No Respawn/Specific Mode/Specific Map/Mode - Ohhh, more options!

AND vice versa for respawn modes Dropship, Respawn version of TDM, or a future awesome "Terrain Warfare."

[Oy of MidWorld]

Thor77, on 22 February 2013 - 06:07 AM, said:

Oy, I wouldn't mind if there was a deathmatch mode, but to say it is more like a real battle is not accurate. Any military campaign has some larger objective, and the presence of an objective is what gives an engagement its strategic flavor. I love a good brawl, but I find deathmatch pointless. Real militaries don't fight in the absence of an objective.

That i am aware of. The real objective would be, say the city in River City. Militaries fight for cities if they have a harbour and a spaceport . Or the industrial complex on Caustic. Or the strategically valuable err... glacier?

I thought more in terms of, the map itself is the strategical factor.

[Mercules]

Oy of MidWorld, on 21 February 2013 - 04:06 PM, said:

Forces are in place at tactical positions,

No they aren't or you wouldn't have gotten capped. You forgot one of the tactical considerations.

[MrLiNcH]

Current maps with hiding places would be bad for TDM, for the cowards concerned about KDR etc would hide all the time.

Now give us some proper Solaris arenas and I'm all good with it.

[Oy of MidWorld]

Mercules, on 22 February 2013 - 01:34 PM, said:

No they aren't or you wouldn't have gotten capped. You forgot one of the tactical considerations.

Like i said, we have not been capped. It was all rushing back into a chaotic lagging-through-each-other-fest. This is about the gameplay suffering from a bad mechanism, not crying about being capped. Try to understand what you read.

Edited by Oy of MidWorld, 22 February 2013 - 02:10 PM.

[Mercules]

Oy of MidWorld, on 22 February 2013 - 02:07 PM, said:

Like i said, we have not been capped. It was all rushing back into a chaotic lagging through each other fest. This is about the gameplay suffering from a bad mechanism. Try to understand what you read.

Did someone slip past your tactical brilliance and get to the most important point on the map? Yes. Were you in tactical positions? Not the proper ones or no one would have reached your cap. Try to understand "Tactical".

[Oy of MidWorld]

Mercules, on 22 February 2013 - 02:09 PM, said:

Did someone slip past your tactical brilliance and get to the most important point on the map? Yes. Were you in tactical positions? Not the proper ones or no one would have reached your cap. Try to understand "Tactical".

Try to understand that some of us think capping is for idiots.

[Mercules]

Oy of MidWorld, on 22 February 2013 - 02:12 PM, said:

Try to understand that some of us think capping is for idiots.

I get it, you don't understand that the most important ten meters in the game is supposed to be guarded. I don't understand why you would think others who do understand this are idiots.

[Oy of MidWorld]

I don't understand why you argue with me about a proposed gamemode, that would be purely optional. As stated before, if this is not for you it doesn't even concern you. Also it is a perfectly viable tactic to advance a little further in an assault match, if reaching your base is still possible.

Some of us just think it sucks that we have to do it. We would like a Team DeathMatch. Why do you even care?

[Sean von Steinike]

Oy of MidWorld, on 22 February 2013 - 02:12 PM, said:

Try to understand that some of us think capping is for idiots.

Try to understand you loose control of the most important spot you loose the match. The ones that let themselves get capped without a fight are neither tactically brilliant nor very situationaly aware.

Edited by Sean von Steinike, 22 February 2013 - 02:21 PM.