163 replies to this topic

[Tarman]

Oy of MidWorld, on 14 March 2013 - 08:56 AM, said:

Solaris is exactly NOT what i'm talking about. On small maps TDM would actually really suck.

But i think you're right about that flak thing. You said i'm doing it wrong, but bottom line is that you can't really do much about me doing it wrong. It's kind of sad for both of us. If i can't be bothered to play an objective i feel is silly, and think: "Meh, this is weak ****, i'm just gonna let em cap and jump into another match which might be more fun," you have every right to be pissed if you're on my team, but i still don't care. And sometimes my buddies and i do just that. We don't care about losing a match, we still win more than we lose, but it's no good for the enjoyment of either you or us.

So the flak is basically generated by people who want to play the assault mechanic and those who don't, getting on each others nerves, and then getting vocal about it in chat. This is why i'd love to have TDM, so everyone can play what he likes most.


My mates and i try out alternative tactics constantly, and i believe many of them would still work, even if the enemy team was not glued to a failsafe location by a capping mechanism. I don't mean to be rude if i say that i don't have the time to explain everything. It is actually true. So i'll try to "make you see" what i mean by linking to this video of a MechWarrior Living Legends TDM match, which i believe is very awesome. I know that it would be a very different game mechanic, and you probably wouldn't like it, but i know that i (and many others) would. It is full of tension and most entertaining.



Now i like MWO a lot better than MW:LL, but i really believe a gamemode like this one would improve it. There's really no debating about it, or making calculations like "X - Y = anything", it just comes down to "different people = different likings".

Sorry but you're still doing it wrong.

Not against anyone wanting TDM. But your assumption that current players should just deal with players playing an entirely different game that doesn't exist is faulty. You can want new game modes, everybody does, but you can't PLAY them until they exist. THAT is where the flak comes from.

You guys aren't kicking up the flak, you're the target, not because you want TDM but because you're not playing the game that we currently have. If you are, by self-admission, not even trying because you don't care, then you are being a detriment to the game as a whole. You are intentionally making games less fun for people by not actually playing them in their current form. That technically makes you a griefer, though not to an extreme extent. It's more like you're playing checkers during a chess game because the board looks the same and chess has too many rules you don't like.

It's not about what I can do about it, I can't make you play the game that we have. But if you can't be bothered to play objectives in a game with objectives, why are you even playing?

[Mystere]

Nonsense, on 14 March 2013 - 03:24 PM, said:

The point is you're "winning" but it's winning in a stupid way. People talk about "nerd rage tears" or whatever...you're being idiotic...nobody's sad because they lost, they're sad because they lost in a way that doesn't involve combat in a game based on combat.

And your nerd rage tears keep on flowing, and flowing, and ...

[Oy of MidWorld]

Tarman, on 14 March 2013 - 03:55 PM, said:

Sorry but you're still doing it wrong.

Not against anyone wanting TDM. But your assumption that current players should just deal with players playing an entirely different game that doesn't exist is faulty. You can want new game modes, everybody does, but you can't PLAY them until they exist. THAT is where the flak comes from.

You guys aren't kicking up the flak, you're the target, not because you want TDM but because you're not playing the game that we currently have. If you are, by self-admission, not even trying because you don't care, then you are being a detriment to the game as a whole. You are intentionally making games less fun for people by not actually playing them in their current form. That technically makes you a griefer, though not to an extreme extent. It's more like you're playing checkers during a chess game because the board looks the same and chess has too many rules you don't like.

It's not about what I can do about it, I can't make you play the game that we have. But if you can't be bothered to play objectives in a game with objectives, why are you even playing?

I play it because i love the game, and it's fun most matches. If it isn't, it's mostly due to the capping mechanism, that i feel is limiting and immersion breaking at the same time.

Although i'd definitely use that checkers/chess example the other way around, i completely understand your point, and i don't feel good about it either. I'd rather be an asset to my team, and i am, most of the time. I don't ignore caps on principle.

But i'm just being honest here. If i do something on my spare time, i don't get paid doing it, i absolutely can't be bothered to do it in a way that i don't feel like doing, unless it's for someone i like, but definitely not for people i don't even know. And i think it's realistic to assume that most people will act this way. I'm truely sorry about it. But i won't change it.

If you consider intentionally making games less fun for other people griefing, you're going to have to call all the goons griefers, and i'd be with you on that one.

If you consider not going back for a capped base a mild form of griefing, i plead guilty. Like i said, just being honest about it. My intention though is not to make it less fun for anyone, that's just something i approve of eventually.

Edited by Oy of MidWorld, 14 March 2013 - 05:08 PM.

[Nonsense]

Mystere, on 14 March 2013 - 04:50 PM, said:

And your nerd rage tears keep on flowing, and flowing, and ...

You're a worthless troll. You have nothing to add to the conversation but attempts to antagonize people. Add some substance or go run your awesome cap squad.

Edited by Nonsense, 14 March 2013 - 07:51 PM.

[Mystere]

Nonsense, on 14 March 2013 - 07:45 PM, said:

You're a worthless troll. You have nothing to add to the conversation but attempts to antagonize people. Add some substance or go run your awesome cap squad.

What's the point in engaging a conversation with you when you start by calling people stupid and idiotic and tell them to shut up?

Edited by Mystere, 14 March 2013 - 09:15 PM.

[Mercules]

Oy of MidWorld, on 14 March 2013 - 03:24 PM, said:

Don't worry, no insults whatsoever in your post. You start to get as predictable as those cheese mechanics you, for some reason, refer to as tactics though. I knew that you'd try to analyze and dismiss the tactics in the video and you didn't fail me. Your stubbornness is amazing, attempts to explain therefore useless. Again, no offense intended.

I asked you if you could provide an example of a tactic that exists under the, "Kill all Enemies" that doesn't exist under "Kill all Enemies - Capture Enemy Base". You provided a TDM video that had minimal tactical maneuvering evidenced. You guys did some talking about tactics even had some great suggestions of drawing them to a point where your Bushwackers would be posted and able to fire upon them. Your team never really followed through and in fact got drawn out away from your Awesome and needed to defilade back to a stronger position where your main mechs were.

You guys discussed some valid tactics... however... not any that wouldn't exist under two objectives as well. That is my point you keep ignoring.

Oy of MidWorld, on 14 March 2013 - 03:24 PM, said:

Both of us just have to know that there's people out there whose opinions differ from our own. Both of us are just going to have to accept it. And, as i stated in the post before this one, i believe MWO would be a better game if both of us could play the gamemode we like better, without having to deal with each other. You wouldn't get on my nerves capping, and i wouldn't get on yours by not caring, or calling it lame.

Actually... you don't get on my nerves. I still believe wasting resources at this point on a game mode that is a lesser version of two existing modes is silly. You want to shoot mechs? Get scouts out, find out where the enemy is, counter them, and I guaranty you will have a fight. Run in a clump towards where the enemy "should be" and you will probably get capped.

Nonsense, on 14 March 2013 - 03:24 PM, said:

Yeah. See...the game mode is a placeholder. They would've done TDM but they added the base capping so people couldn't go shut down in a corner and waste peoples' time. It's not well designed and it will probably be replaced because it's boring compared to what could be.

Supposition. I would posit that the reason you win from killing the other mechs is because there is no one left to stop you from the capture and they have decided not to waste your time making you walk over there and stand there. This is obvious. Capturing/Protecting the base is the goal. One way to do that is to kill anyone who could oppose that.

Nonsense, on 14 March 2013 - 03:24 PM, said:

The point is you're "winning" but it's winning in a stupid way. People talk about "nerd rage tears" or whatever...you're being idiotic...nobody's sad because they lost, they're sad because they lost in a way that doesn't involve combat in a game based on combat.

You really need to realize that combat does not equate to shooting. Maneuvering and taking objectives is as much a part of combat as firing a weapon.

Nonsense, on 14 March 2013 - 03:24 PM, said:

You can "win" at a game and the game might be stupid. It's like winning at tic tac toe or something. Most children can take the game to a cat's game every time...there's nothing engaging about it once you figure it out. Same goes for cap wins in assault. Sure it might be enjoyable in an organized team environment where you can prepare for it, but that isn't the case with pugs.
In a pug it's mostly hopeless to try and organize people via chat, so you have to either hope it doesn't happen or try and do it yourself. Sure I could (and have) gotten a group of 4 people together to just get cap win after win, but it's incredibly mind numbing and you get a LOT fewer cbills.

I PUG and somehow my team doesn't lose to a cap win all that frequently nor do they win by cap all that frequently. No need to use PUGs as an excuse.

Nonsense, on 14 March 2013 - 03:24 PM, said:

Furthermore, comments such as "just go play TDM if they implement it" are similarly silly. This game has a relatively small community...why split it further when assault could just be changed to have a better design that promotes fun gameplay for all styles?

That was my point with the TDM proponents. Why play something like TDM when you can play Conquest/Assault which both are better designs and promote fun gameplay for all styles. Both those modes encompass everything TDM has but with additional options and strategies.

Edited by Mercules, 14 March 2013 - 11:41 PM.

[ShadowDarter]

Defend your base or it will be mine...

[Kanatta Jing]

The key to Team Death Match is to take the best most defensible ground that offers the largest line of sight for the surrounding are and sit on it hoping that enemy is dumb enough to fight you for it.

The key to Assault is to get your team into the enemy's base and defend it.

The thing with Assault is that you can force the enemy's hand.

In Team Death Match you can find two teams on two different hills patiently waiting for the other to get bored and come over to be slaughtered. He with the most patience wins.

This doesn't happen every time. Sometimes you can take the hill by force and sometimes you can stomp the enemy team that is at your base. And sometimes teams engage each other before reaching their objectives.

But in the perfect game where nothing goes wrong, Assault is just less boring then Team Death Match.

There is an extra layer of frantic excitement in fighting off a base cap. Anything else just seems leisurely.

[Capp]

I kind of like the name CAPWARRIOR, it makes me feel like the game is about me.

[PurpleNinja]

Two kinds of people cap:
- Bored players which we have many, since we have too few content.
- New players, who want to play the objective, even if there's no point in that.

[Yokaiko]

PurpleNinja, on 15 March 2013 - 05:15 AM, said:

Two kinds of people cap:
- Bored players which we have many, since we have too few content.
- New players, who want to play the objective, even if there's no point in that.

There is no point in suiciding into a superior force either. That is usually when you'll find me capping.

Or I'm just annoyed and capping to **** people off either or.

[PurpleNinja]

Yokaiko, on 15 March 2013 - 05:18 AM, said:

There is no point in suiciding into a superior force either. That is usually when you'll find me capping.

Or I'm just annoyed and capping to **** people off either or.

In many cases, if you're the last man standing on your side, it's more rewarding (c-bills and XP) to hunt some stray mechs than capturing the enemy base.

On the other hand, I too cap just to annoy the enemy team and hear their curses (bored player).

[Viper69]

This whole argument is almost as funny as the people who complain about conquest turning into a killfest instead of capping. I see the people who are complaining about people capping are probably the ones killing all the whiners in conquest who think its just about capping.

Cant wait for the next game mode, I hope it only has one means of victory and both complaining groups go there and die.

[Mack1]

Once TDM is introduced no one will play Assault mode ever again.

Capping the base at the start or middle of a game is utterly pointless as you get less XP and less C-Bills then you would by participating in the battles. Add to this the whole point og MWO is to shoot eachother and have fun piloting your Mech...why would anyone even consider capping the base?

Fair enough if you have a fast Mech and are the last man on your team but all other instances are just pointless.

[Spawnsalot]

Kanatta Jing, on 15 March 2013 - 12:36 AM, said:

The key to Team Death Match is to take the best most defensible ground that offers the largest line of sight for the surrounding are and sit on it hoping that enemy is dumb enough to fight you for it.

The key to Assault is to get your team into the enemy's base and defend it.

The thing with Assault is that you can force the enemy's hand.

In Team Death Match you can find two teams on two different hills patiently waiting for the other to get bored and come over to be slaughtered. He with the most patience wins.

The exact same tactic works in Assault too - if one team just sits on their own base and digs in they can usually murder anything that stumbles too close. It's very effective but also terribly dull, you saw it a lot in 8-mans with assault heavy teams (I don't know if its still practiced I don't play 8-mans much).

In PuG games this either devolves into the enemy team rushing in in small numbers and getting wiped out before the defending team mop up people hanging back or a loooong stand-off of sniping and hiding, occasionally the attackers will storm en masse and a really good fight happens.

This is why you'll find most PuG players out looking for a fight, because it's more fun because explosions and lasers.
I have a feeling a lot of people vying for TDM will carry on looking for a fight and maybe end up using currently less used parts of the map to create some really enjoyable scraps, especially with the larger maps coming in. (Of course you will have the tacticool sit in a super defensible spot teams now and then, there are people who like playing that way and they have every right to be dull I guess , but hopefully artillery and air strikes will help dislodge them)

[Viper69]

Mack1, on 15 March 2013 - 05:34 AM, said:

all other instances are just pointless.

So if your scouts reveal you have no chance of standing up against their DDC swarm of mechs, your Ravens and spiders should still try to fight them instead of letting them over extend and cap? Yeah makes a lot of tactical sense to throw yourself onto the stats of others for enjoyment sake.

I understand where you are coming from but it is only logical if you are fighting from a point of weakness in firepower that you exploit your strength in maneuverability/speed and cap. Sure you could probably kill them or even die a fiery glorious death.

[SC1P1O]

Why fight so many boats when you can cap, if they want to try to lrm us to death with 80 lrm builds, sure ill take your base.

[MaddMaxx]

Just wait for "DropShip" mode. Then everyone will get what they want.

The mindless killing (for the e-peen based K/D crowd).
The hunting down of those cowards (no base to cap as an offset)
Get to do it in 4 Mechs in one Match (for those who die way to fast but have a deep seeded need and want to be able to do it over and over and over and over again, but quicker than is currently allowed.



Should be a blast and hope everyone that enjoys it un-ticks "any" in their game mode selection list.

[Bilbo]

MaddMaxx, on 15 March 2013 - 06:23 AM, said:

...Get to do it in 4 Mechs in one Match (for those who die way to fast but have a deep seeded need and want to be able to do it over and over and over and over again, but quicker than is currently allowed......

Priceless

[Jakob Knight]

Spheroid, on 13 March 2013 - 10:53 AM, said:

That is really not what Battletech was ever about. Where in the boardgame would you have two equally valuable targets on the same mapsheet?

One side defended a target and the other was the attacker. The planetary militia would defending some high value target against attack or they themselves would chase a lance back to a dropship to destroy it before it lifted offworld. If you were playing an open mapsheet it was merely an abstraction of two forces intercepting each other before coming to a populated area.

If you read the actual scenerios for the game and the tons of fiction, an attacking force that left its dropship/base of operations undefended ended up trapped and unable to retreat once their mission was complete, while defenders who failed to protect the asset they were in place to defend ended up either courts-martialled (if they survived fighting) or branded as renegades/turncoats.

Many battles involved one side trying to find the other prior to either one of these happening, and the side that learned their own 'base' was being assaulted when they were too far away to return ended up surrendering due to the above. Or going to ground and hoping for evac from a friendly force later. Either way, the battle ended for the cut-off unit at that point unless they had no hope of rescue.

Protecting your home base of operations is just as critical in warfare to attacking enemy assets, and has always been in Battletech. Just because the basic TT game didn't make this more evident in favor of playability for the masses of light gamers who never wanted to be bothered with anything but rock-em-sock-em-robots didn't mean it wasn't there, and a great many of the players in established campaigns -did- have all that and more to worry about when they conducted a battle. Feel lucky you don't have to worry about being stuck with the same ammo and with only minimal bolt-on repairs over a series of battles, and being forced to use only the same mech for your entire career. That is what actual Battletech was.

Edited by Jakob Knight, 15 March 2013 - 06:52 AM.