132 replies to this topic

[M4NTiC0R3X]

Or not leave your base undefended, 'cause a 5 minute timer on base capping during assault sounds pretty lame to me, considering it only takes just over 5 minutes on average to complete a match.

Yes I realize you're talking about how lame it is when there is no fighting at all, enemies never meet and base cap happens within a minute or two... but still, what's the point of a 5 minute lockout timer when all you have to do is defend your base? Surely the enemy would be engaged if everybody was doing their job 'n not acting like sheeple.. It's a careful balance not seperating the lances too much, 'n doesn't always work out, especially when lances aren't paying attention to eachothers position on the map. But ya, it's all about communication.. in my mind if you're not guarding atleast 2/3 of the routes to your base and each player doesn't have the ability to move inbetween the two routes (with ease, and cover) then you're doing it wrong. I almost can't stand it when everybody moves in one direction, together, far far away from the base.. unless we are directly assaulting the enemies.

There will more than likely be team deathmatch in the future if they ever decide to give that, mindless.. game mode a try. I'm certain it would cater to gamers such as yourself, and hey... there's nothing wrong with just enjoying the explosions and stompy stompy dakka dakka.

(something to add, read a couple days ago.. ' should there be rewards for preventing the enemy from capturing your base during such game modes, that would be incentive to defend.)

TL;DR

[players like myself want more things to do, always... defending the base is something to do and is very proper in assault game mode... putting a 5 minute lockout timer would not only turn the match into team deathmatch but also take away one of the things I enjoy doing very much.... so no to the 5 minute timer during assault!]

Edited by M4NTiC0R3X, 27 February 2013 - 10:55 AM.

[Roland]

M4NTiC0R3X, on 27 February 2013 - 10:36 AM, said:

Or not leave your base undefended, 'cause a 5 minute timer on base capping during assault sounds pretty lame to me, considering it only takes just over 5 minutes on average to complete a match.

Folks always say this, without realizing what they are saying.

"Defend your base" means that you are essentially forced to tether yourself to a small chunk of the map. Moving outside of that narrow area will put you into a position where the enemy can cap you, and there will be nothing you an do to stop it.

This ends up dramatically reducing the actual tactical movement which can take place. It essentially hamstrings your gameplay to a narrow band of "walk to some area around the center of the map, and engage the enemy".

To take an extreme case... Look at the Alpine map. If you are familiar with the conquest points, take the Theta cap point as an example.

In the assault game mode, have you EVER seen an engagement occur on that part of the map? I have to assume that the answer is no. In order for the engagement to occur there, one of the teams would have to leave themselves open to capping (or, split their force and just leave someone sitting back at their base alone).

This is the problem that capping introduces. You effectively reduce the size of the map to a trivial percentage of the available terrain.

[Jman5]

SCOUT THE GOD DAMMED MAP!

There is absolutely, positively, no reason to be surprised by a multi-mech cap rush. Just no reason other than sheer incompetence on your part. I'm sorry to be so abrasive, but it is a complete and utter failure on your team's map awareness when 3-8 mechs can waltz into your base unseen and unopposed. Also the power of deductive logic is quite useful. If you don't see them down Attack avenue A, then you can usually deduce correctly that they went down attack avenue B.

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 and the 7 line. 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. Turn on thermals and look with your special eyes.

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.

Alpine Peaks: Have one player go down one path, while your main force goes down the other. Use mountain peaks to spot enemy movement from afar.

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.

[Felicitatem Parco]

Hastega, on 26 February 2013 - 11:11 PM, said:

Lock base caps for 5 minutes. Was that so hard?

Don't advance half-way across the map right off the bat... why is that so hard? If you're afraid of 5-min caps, then guard the base.

Why do so many people complain about ninja caps when the first thing they do is leave their base without reconnoitering anything except the very path they are on? What really gets me are the people who rush toward the enemy base without putting an ounce of effort into scouting the map, and then complain that the match was a boring cap-race.

[Hastega]

Joseph Mallan, on 27 February 2013 - 07:25 AM, said:

Easier solution. When Betty says, "They're takin' yer stuff." Come back and fight me.

If you read the thread, you'll understand why that's not possible. Having the enemy team encroach on the base undetected means they're now closer to your base than you are. The slow moving Assault players will never make it back before its captured and the rest of the team can't handle the 8 v 5 that is about to ensue. Had scouts located the enemy team in the first place, it wouldn't have happened, but claiming returning for a fight is the answer shows you don't know how fast a base turns over when eight mechs are on it.

Thontor, on 27 February 2013 - 07:25 AM, said:

Here's a wild idea... How about you and your team go and find the enemy instead of heading straight for their base.

That's what happens most games already. Then there's the occassional game where both teams fail to find each other and that's the case being described here. Due to ECM, long range missiles are useless and staying with your team is necessary for survival, so players have taken to closing the gap with close quarters combat. Sniper matches only occur at the highest ELO, for the most part you take what your team has available and that includes a lack of light mech scouts or multiple brawler atlas D-DCs that want to get up close and personal.

Shadowsword8, on 27 February 2013 - 07:58 AM, said:

*game start*
*Team A go left*
*Team B also go left (their left)*
*Team A and Team B reach the enemy base after 3 2 minutes*
- Team A member : "Hey guys, we haven't found the enemy, they must be near our base"
- Team A leader: "We have three minutes left before bases become vulnerable, plenty of time to turn around and get get them!"
- Team turns around and engages enemy near their base, a battle ensues.
*After 5 minutes, the bases become vulnerables, and Team A has their mechs defending their bases while Team B has no one, Team A wins by a landslide*

Fixed that for you.

ChrisOrange, on 27 February 2013 - 09:35 AM, said:

I like the idea of the lockout timer. To those saying defend...staying on your base the whole round is NOT helping your team. If you defend then only hover KIND of close to your base but don't just sit on it. You actually have a lot of time to get back.

Only issue with hovering near the base is that the hot spots tend to be near the center of the map far from the base and with all the brawler builds that queue up, they prefer being right in the center of the action. So you either let them go it alone and lose through lack of teamwork, or you support their weapon loadout choice and risk missing the enemy entirely. As stated at least a dozen times in this thread, this a very rare event that doesn't happen often, but the fact that it happens at all isn't healthy.

Elwood Blues, on 27 February 2013 - 09:37 AM, said:

I think it's fine the way it is. If you get capped by a fast team because you only have one mech with a speed over 60kph, you deserve to lose. Don't bother complaining that the other team didn't want to play AssaultWarrior with you.

Yes quite, we must not complain that matchmaker in all its wisdom felt that 6 lights 3 ecms and 3 assaults on the enemy team was balanced with our 0 lights 0 ecms and 1 assault. It's not like teams of different makeups should have a sporting chance in these events or anything. We should sacrifice more C-bills to the RNG gods in the hope for more capture modules.

Prosperity Park, on 27 February 2013 - 10:53 AM, said:

Why do so many people complain about ninja caps when the first thing they do is leave their base without reconnoitering anything except the very path they are on? What really gets me are the people who rush toward the enemy base without putting an ounce of effort into scouting the map, and then complain that the match was a boring cap-race.

It's quite the opposite actually. Either no scouts exist on the team and having a slow moving mech attempt a recon versus speedy lights would be suicide, or there are scouts on the team and due to ECM they failed miserably in spotting the enemy as it was just as that second moving behind cover or some other case. There are plenty of rocks and hills to hide behind for even a brief second that allows a light scout mech to sweep the area and find no one there.

As pointed out earlier in the thread, this is a rare occassion, it happens maybe once in 20+ matches. But it still happens, it's a derp moment for both teams involved, and it results in matches ending without a single person taking damage. This is not a complaint against ninja caps, it's a complaint against the lack of fighting that effectively makes the match a waste of time. You cannot fault the enemy team for capping because if you haven't located the enemy, they are most likely already at your base and capping is the most logical route to pursue. Even when lights do spot the enemy, if the enemy has managed to infiltrate closer to your base than you are, they can sit on point and defend your base while capturing, forcing your team to play more recklessly to prevent the capture.

There's really no incentive to preventing this when base hugging merely allows your enemy to take control of the map freely while base rushing allows them to backcap unopposed. At least base rushing you have a better chance of encountering them on the way, as is what happens 19 out of 20 games.

Vasces Diablo, on 27 February 2013 - 09:29 AM, said:

Result: large groups move to the "hot spots" on the maps (ie the ridge or the tunnel in frozen city) and hope the other team chose the same hot spot. If not, then it's a base race.

So the issue isn't the capping mechanic, it's that there is zero incentive use "roll warfare".

Ding ding ding, we have a winner.

Gevurah, on 27 February 2013 - 07:04 AM, said:

Simpler, more "I don't need the devs to do my work for me" solution - defend your objectives or be within distance to RTB and kill the offending capper

Thank you for failing to read the thread but posting your opinion on it anyway. In the case described, the offending capper is the entire enemy team.

[Mercules]

Hastega, on 26 February 2013 - 11:11 PM, said:

Lock base caps for 5 minutes. Was that so hard?

Protect your base... Or is that too hard?

[J0anna]

Alvor, on 27 February 2013 - 03:51 AM, said:

I see the other points on R&R but this would only be part of the solution not "The" solution. I did not mentioned being blocked to loggiong on(Where did that come from?).

You should read the page you posted more carefully: "Although typically meant in a permanent sense,"

This is the reason for the strong stigma. Dispossessed means the mech is gone forever. You might get it back, or another one, but that was very rare. Thus since we can easily afford many copies of the same mech, to add the negative stigma of losing your mech, you have to make losing it hurt. Whether it's having to spend 100 mil cbills to get a new one, or forcing the loser to not be able to log into the game for a while (like a month or so). Then you get a situation where people will dread losing a mech.

Given this ridiculous scenario, do you think making losing a mech hurt will make people more likely to fight and risk their mechs?

Alvor, on 27 February 2013 - 03:51 AM, said:

Perhaps down time between missions based on damage taken vs. salvage. Also no one bothered to bring up what I stated about retreating/surrender/eject options. Again I state if there is not any penalty for careless tactics/suicidal game play it will usually digress into rush over the hill robot bumper cars. Have a better solution? Great! Please state it. Using "Sigh", "Seriously" and making trite comments do not make a productive posting. Lastly why would one state if you hate base cap to play conquest? Conquest = Base Cap x5.

Conquest is not = Base Cap x5, most conquest games end with one side or another getting wiped out. Usually Conquest means fighting all over the map, and thus the tried and true strageties in 'assault' are out the window. Games last longer on average, and you wind up fighting in areas of the map you've never seen.

Nonetheless, making losses hurt the player isn't going to lead to players willing to risk more.

[Hastega]

Mercules, on 27 February 2013 - 03:15 PM, said:

Protect your base... Or is that too hard?

Reading threads... too hard, right?

[Mal]

Hastega, on 26 February 2013 - 11:11 PM, said:

Lock base caps for 5 minutes. Was that so hard?

Defend your base.

That takes even less coding time.

[Mercules]

Hastega, on 27 February 2013 - 03:19 PM, said:

Reading threads... too hard, right?

I did. The easiest solution is still learning how to play.

[Rakashan]

Roland, on 27 February 2013 - 10:42 AM, said:

"Defend your base" means that you are essentially forced to tether yourself to a small chunk of the map. Moving outside of that narrow area will put you into a position where the enemy can cap you, and there will be nothing you an do to stop it.

This ends up dramatically reducing the actual tactical movement which can take place. It essentially hamstrings your gameplay to a narrow band of "walk to some area around the center of the map, and engage the enemy".

So, lemme see if I have you right. You're advocating some form of forcing all teams into a deathmatch mode for at least 5 minutes (or moving the caps to a location where teams are forced to fight over them or otherwise forcing all matches to result in engagement in roughly the same place on the map) and yet you think that actually spending some time defending limits your tactical options?

First off, every cap on every map has terrain features around it which means that without moving too much you can make tactical choices to defend. Second, if you're bothering to scout you'll know where the enemy is coming from before he's closer to your cap than you are which means that you *can* turn and get back on D if you are bothering to read or listen to scouting reports. Finally, anyone who has replied that defending means splitting your forces doesn't know how to defend and I encourage you to think about it some more before you dismiss it.

[Hastega]

Mercules, on 27 February 2013 - 03:20 PM, said:

I did. The easiest solution is still learning how to play.

Oh wow, that logic is truly devastating. You took apart my entire 20 post argument with a single sentence, congratulations.

[Mercules]

This thread comes up every other day. I have constantly given people advice on how to prevent a base cap. I'm tired of it. Go read any one of the hundred plus OTHER threads just like your thread. If the base cap is happening it is because you and your group are letting it happen. If your team is base capping the opposition against your wishes... well... that is the other team's fault.


It really is not hard to scout, find out where the enemy is coming from, and STOP THEM. At that point you get the fight all the "We need to end base capping." people keep claiming they want.

[Tarman]

Hastega, on 27 February 2013 - 03:24 PM, said:

Oh wow, that logic is truly devastating. You took apart my entire 20 post argument with a single sentence, congratulations.

He's right, because your problem isn't a problem except for players who only want a deathmatch game. Note carefully how we do not yet have such a mode. Petition PGI, and until then get your scouts on some routes with their eyes open. You want a game-rewriting solution to a minor issue that can be resolved with even the most basic of tactical awareness.

[Hastega]

Mercules, on 27 February 2013 - 03:32 PM, said:

It really is not hard to scout, find out where the enemy is coming from, and STOP THEM. At that point you get the fight all the "We need to end base capping." people keep claiming they want.

Indeed, it's not hard, and that's what happens 95% of the time. It's the matches where that doesn't happen that are the source of the discontent. Blame the scouts (or lack thereof) if you wish, it won't alter the occurence. The fact that every last person here has experienced matches where no one on either team has died is proof enough of the issue. You can get into the gritty details of casting blame, but it won't salvage the match. This is the difference between objective reasoning and your sensationalist views. The fact it can happen at all is the issue once you acknowledge that scouting failures WILL happen on occasion, especially in solo queue and doubly so when the matchmaker is being a *****.

[Corvus Antaka]

defend your base!

(and slow the cap timer down to 3 mechs with adv cap module speed max)

[Hastega]

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 27 February 2013 - 03:45 PM, said:

(and slow the cap timer down to 3 mechs with adv cap module speed max)

Or heaven forbid one. Might actually create incentive not to have your entire team sitting on the capture point when a single light mech will do. Wonder if we can find a job for the other 7 mechs... like attacking the enemy?

[Rakashan]

Hastega, on 27 February 2013 - 03:44 PM, said:

Indeed, it's not hard, and that's what happens 95% of the time. It's the matches where that doesn't happen that are the source of the discontent. Blame the scouts (or lack thereof) if you wish, it won't alter the occurence. The fact that every last person here has experienced matches where no one on either team has died is proof enough of the issue. You can get into the gritty details of casting blame, but it won't salvage the match. This is the difference between objective reasoning and your sensationalist views. The fact it can happen at all is the issue once you acknowledge that scouting failures WILL happen on occasion, especially in solo queue and doubly so when the matchmaker is being a *****.

It's easy to cast blame in this case. Everyone who wanted to engage the enemy but failed to do so is to blame. If you were one of the people on that list, then wear the mantle with pride. You could have 1) scouted, 2) defended, 3) gotten other people to defend, 4) not rushed the enemy cap.

If you want to engage the enemy, then it's easy to make that happen.

[MischiefSC]

All scouting does is likely leave you 1 mech short when your remaining 7 mechs, sitting around and waiting for a scout report, get attacked by the full 8 man rush of the other team - who crosses any map except Alpine in the same time it takes for 1 light to get cautiously halfway across the map.

I hear all the 'tactics' talk about Assault but I've never seen it. Ever. Not in over 1600 games. Aside from just camping your own base (a good idea in Alpine) every single attempt to 'scout' or 'defend your base' with anything other than 8 mechs is simply an invitation to failure and nobody ever does it because it's a bad idea.

It takes about 40 seconds for 8 mechs to cross from their spawn point to firing range of the other base. If you're pugging it takes longer than that to express a plan, figure out who on the team is both in a fast moving mech and willing to recon.

Rushing the enemy conveys a HUGE advantage since they're not normally set up and it allows you to focus fire on sections of the enemy force before they have time to set up or even tell what's going on. Defensive positions are almost universally inferior to offensive ones unless you've had time to dig in and organize. It happens sometimes on Caustic and Alpine, more rarely on River City (if one side gets fully into high town first) but otherwise...

All this epeen waving about 'just play more tactically' is utterly ridiculous posturing with no basis in reality. if you're not an 8 man team on voice-chat with a pre-discussed approach it's illogical and disadvantageous to try any tactics more complex in Assault than 'high town' or 'low town' or 'set up for defense' depending on your start position.

Conquest is the tactical, combat driven game mode. Assault is the Barbie version with a cheap-trick option. pretending that cap rushing in Assault is anything other than My First Tactics is just people wanting to pretend they've got some amazing skill everyone else doesn't have.

Want respect? Win Conquest on caps against numerically superior forces after your team gets rolled. That's tough capping that requires competency and skill. Capping on Assault is a tactically viable option - in the same way that getting shoes on your My First Barbie makes you a fashion consultant.

[Tarman]

Hastega, on 27 February 2013 - 03:44 PM, said:

Indeed, it's not hard, and that's what happens 95% of the time. It's the matches where that doesn't happen that are the source of the discontent. Blame the scouts (or lack thereof) if you wish, it won't alter the occurence. The fact that every last person here has experienced matches where no one on either team has died is proof enough of the issue. You can get into the gritty details of casting blame, but it won't salvage the match. This is the difference between objective reasoning and your sensationalist views. The fact it can happen at all is the issue once you acknowledge that scouting failures WILL happen on occasion, especially in solo queue and doubly so when the matchmaker is being a *****.

Hrm, by your own admission this barely even happens unless someone sucks at opening their eyes. So open your eyes.