80 replies to this topic

[Javok]

Timuroslav, on 13 March 2013 - 08:48 AM, said:

This is re post of the Topic Yesterday about Capping on assault so I'm gonna copy and paste what I argued yesterday.

(The Shogun 2 Argument):
Capping points to win the battle needs to exists otherwise you have 2 stubborn opponents who don't want to lose an upfront battle camping, making battles infinitely long. <- not the way to go.

There are More options than Rush or Brawl, it's called communicating with your team, and Or Baiting or Distracting <- which also happened a lot in Shogun 2

If you take out Capping in Assault->Light Mechs become more useless (still not completely useless but more so)

...which is why you put a single cap in the middle.

[Mal]

Javok, on 13 March 2013 - 08:50 AM, said:

Yes, both have caps, which is why that needs to go from Assault in order to become the true TDM it was originally supposed to be, if you want caps you can have loads of capping fun in Conquest, I hear is a very beloved mode with lots of people playing it...

So, your argument is that PGI should remove a game mode you don't like, instead of keeping two modes people do like, and adding a third?

Seems to me, it'd make more sense to add additional game modes, instead of removing content..

[Taemien]

Easy fix is to force the players to cap in order to win. Even if you have all enemies destroyed you need to go cap the base. Failure to do in the allotted time so results in a tie.

What this does is get you all out of the mind set that Assault is Team Deathmatch. It won't get rid of all of the complaints, but at least the newer players won't be so adept to jump on the "you must fight" attitude. The gamemode has two win conditions and it would probably make better sense if you had to complete the one that the mode is named for. You are assaulting a base, after all.

Another way to fix it is quicken the capture time. Such as someone without the cap accelerator would cap it in 5 seconds (I would also increase the dimension of the base for the defender, the attacker would need to be within 10m to cap, the defender only 50-100m to stop the cap). This would make the game mode very similar to how base vs base worked in MechCommander. Adds in a more strategic dimension. Now you HAVE to defend. But do you defend with 4 mechs, 2?

[mekabuser]

Mal, on 13 March 2013 - 06:14 AM, said:

Fix for capping = Defend the base.

you know what? f that.. seriously.. What.. sit there on alpine? If three clowns decide to cap your dead in an instant.
Alpine is so large that even at 100kph we couldnt reach the one clown that decided to cap yesterday..

The timers are too fast, especially when your that special person that gets a kick out of capping with a module..

Capping is the domain of griefers who are by and large mal adjusted individuals who ENJOY ******* off the majority of players on both teams.

I cant wait to arty strike db cappers

[Znail]

Javok, on 13 March 2013 - 08:50 AM, said:

Yes, both have caps, which is why that needs to go from Assault in order to become the true TDM it was originally supposed to be, if you want caps you can have loads of capping fun in Conquest, I hear is a very beloved mode with lots of people playing it...

I think you have things quite backwards. Conquest is the closest we got to TDM, so if you like TDM, then why aren't you playing Conquest instead of Assault?

[Baltasar]

mekabuser, on 13 March 2013 - 08:58 AM, said:

you know what? f that.. seriously.. What.. sit there on alpine? If three clowns decide to cap your dead in an instant.
Alpine is so large that even at 100kph we couldnt reach the one clown that decided to cap yesterday..

The timers are too fast, especially when your that special person that gets a kick out of capping with a module..

Capping is the domain of griefers who are by and large mal adjusted individuals who ENJOY ******* off the majority of players on both teams.

I cant wait to arty strike db cappers

What hurts alpine is the current matchmaker, if you get bunch of slow mechs on one side and tons of fast mechs on the other it makes it really easy. Then again, if you see that everyone is a slow mech it gives better incentive not to really leave your base.

That said, with assault, I would actually like to see, whether than two bases, Just one base with an attacking and defending side. I would have to be looked at to balance it and prevent the one man hiding and waiting out the clock, but I think that would live up to the name Assault more than we have currently and give a better feel for having 2 forces, one defending a planet and one attacking the planet.

[hammerreborn]

Scraper, on 13 March 2013 - 06:09 AM, said:

While I do think that capping adds a last ditch effort for the last man standing in Assault, it's more often used as an easy win. I agree with points to both sides of the argument, but it's hard to fix for PUGs AND Premade at the same time. What I propose is that you cannot win by cap on Assault, however the longer you stand on the enemy base, the less points the enemy team will get for winning, down to 0 C-Bills/XP on the win (with the exception of points for combat related actions of course). While some may grump that the 8th man on the losing team can no longer win the match, I argue that the losing team still gets a feeling of accomplishment for denying the enemy full rewards. Can this system be griefed? Possibly. However, the ultimate result should lead to less sneak around the back and cap tactics.

You know whats a better way to fix assault capping? Stop running in groups of 4 D-DCs then whining when 2 cicadas caps. Defend your base

[mekabuser]

Baltasar, on 13 March 2013 - 09:04 AM, said:

What hurts alpine is the current matchmaker, if you get bunch of slow mechs on one side and tons of fast mechs on the other it makes it really easy. Then again, if you see that everyone is a slow mech it gives better incentive not to really leave your base.

That said, with assault, I would actually like to see, whether than two bases, Just one base with an attacking and defending side. I would have to be looked at to balance it and prevent the one man hiding and waiting out the clock, but I think that would live up to the name Assault more than we have currently and give a better feel for having 2 forces, one defending a planet and one attacking the planet.

I envision that for dropship mutator with assymetrical number of forces. . Should be the epic many of us are looking for with this title.

[Tickdoff Tank]

bigrigross, on 13 March 2013 - 06:17 AM, said:

My idea on how capping should work is this, give the base a high HP point value. The area of the base which you use to cap would have a shield extended out to that mark. And when a mech gets to it to cap, they go inside the shield and start shooting it. So if a light mech made it there fast, it would take them forever to destroy it compared to a slower Atlas which could beat it down in a minute or so. Just an idea that I had floating around in my head. And yes I know, no shields are invented at this point in time.

The problem is that a fast mech can do quite a bit of DPS (note that I did not say "light mech"), especially if the fast mech is left unmolested. The heavier mechs typically have a higher alpha strike and/or weapons that have a higher damage per shot (AC20, gauss, etc.), but some of the best weapons in the game are rather light on tonnage (ML, SL, SRM6)

The only way to do it would be to balance the base HP around the concentrated fire of 2 or 3 mechs. But that would just lead to pre made teams designing "fast base assault" squads. That may or may not be good for the game.

[Tice Daurus]

Rehashed topic still smells like day old corned beef hash.

Again, the DEV's are not going to change Assault.

Again, if you want to stop base capping, either make sure there are some fast mechs that can return to base to prevent the cap OR leave a goalie to protect your base to keep the cap from even happening.

Finally, capping is a viable win, it's not a cheap win either. End of story. Have a nice day.

[Timuroslav]

Adding a Third Base to Assault is basically removal of Assault as a game type from the game BECAUSE
it turns into Conquest

The base win, encourages scouting and Communication instead of obliteration aka Mindless PUGing.
IF true Team Death Match exists without the Fix in Tonnage Based Balancing Then Everyone will pick Assaults because of the the Armor

Edited by Timuroslav, 13 March 2013 - 09:13 AM.

[Javok]

Znail, on 13 March 2013 - 09:04 AM, said:

I think you have things quite backwards. Conquest is the closest we got to TDM, so if you like TDM, then why aren't you playing Conquest instead of Assault?

You are clearly clueless if you think that is the case.

[Tabrias07]

Tice Daurus, on 13 March 2013 - 09:10 AM, said:

Finally, capping is a viable win, it's not a cheap win either. End of story. Have a nice day.

Capping is ******** and not fun for either team.

[Vasces Diablo]

Javok, on 13 March 2013 - 08:52 AM, said:

...which is why you put a single cap in the middle.

OMG no, no, no.... and no some more.

Single cap in the middle = everyone grab your atlas and head to the middle every single time.
No variation, no tactics, just run to the middle and brawl. Holy crap that would be boring after about 2 matches.

[Javok]

Mal, on 13 March 2013 - 08:54 AM, said:

So, your argument is that PGI should remove a game mode you don't like, instead of keeping two modes people do like, and adding a third?

Seems to me, it'd make more sense to add additional game modes, instead of removing content..

I think it is more likely for them to modify something than to add new content, if they add a third along the lines I sketched great, I finally get to avoid those other modes that are impractical until we can have more mechs in a battle.

[Timuroslav]

@Javok

You're asking for the conversion of Assault into Conquest

The whole point was so that people could have different Game types
They added Conquest before Team Death Match and King of the Hill because those last two require Tonnage Based Balancing to WORK which it doesn't at the moment

Convoy/Ambush
Siege mode
Tug of War
Hot Drop/Attrition mode
are Really complicated to program and more people want more mech and Maps at the moment

just No, Say No to altering Assault

Edited by Timuroslav, 13 March 2013 - 09:21 AM.

[Javok]

Vasces Diablo, on 13 March 2013 - 09:14 AM, said:

OMG no, no, no.... and no some more.

Single cap in the middle = everyone grab your atlas and head to the middle every single time.
No variation, no tactics, just run to the middle and brawl. Holy crap that would be boring after about 2 matches.

That is the best way to go if you want a quick fight, otherwise have fun chasing lights in conquest.

[Mal]

mekabuser, on 13 March 2013 - 08:58 AM, said:

you know what? f that.. seriously.. What.. sit there on alpine? If three clowns decide to cap your dead in an instant.
Alpine is so large that even at 100kph we couldnt reach the one clown that decided to cap yesterday..

If your whole team hadn't moved like a giant blob towards where Epsilon is on Conquest... and you'd oh, left a 'Mech behind to.. defend... while that 'Mech might have died... he'd have slowed down the cap enough for reinforcements to arrive (or, conversely, for other fast 'Mechs on your team to get to the other base and start capping it).

It's not griefing, it's meeting the victory condition for the map.. if you, and your team, fail to prevent that from happening... it's not the capper's fault.

Granted, Alpine is a bit more challenging, while they're looking at increasing the number of conquest points needed to win on Alpine, they should probably look at increasing base capture time a little bit on that map as well.

[Critical Fumble]

Vasces Diablo, on 13 March 2013 - 09:14 AM, said:

OMG no, no, no.... and no some more.

Single cap in the middle = everyone grab your atlas and head to the middle every single time.
No variation, no tactics, just run to the middle and brawl. Holy crap that would be boring after about 2 matches.

WoT did this. . . And that's about what happens as far as I've seen.

They did offset the cap from a line between the two spawns, but that mostly achieved two fronts: one at the cap, and one at an interception point.

The fundamentals of assault are OK, as far as I'm concerned. It could certainly be improved, but we're not going to see fundamental changes or modes without cap points - see also, cap accelerator.

[Star Colonel Mustard Kerensky]

Mal, on 13 March 2013 - 09:21 AM, said:

If your whole team hadn't moved like a giant blob towards where Epsilon is on Conquest... and you'd oh, left a 'Mech behind to.. defend... while that 'Mech might have died... he'd have slowed down the cap enough for reinforcements to arrive (or, conversely, for other fast 'Mechs on your team to get to the other base and start capping it).

It's not griefing, it's meeting the victory condition for the map.. if you, and your team, fail to prevent that from happening... it's not the capper's fault.

Granted, Alpine is a bit more challenging, while they're looking at increasing the number of conquest points needed to win on Alpine, they should probably look at increasing base capture time a little bit on that map as well.

Alpine is also designed for 12v12. So that should help once that gets implemented.