163 replies to this topic

[Ransack]

Sometimes it just makes more sense. I know for a fact that when I get to that stupid 4MG Spider, I'm heading to a base near you as fast as I can get there. No point in fighting in that thing. Same goes for a couple of Ravens.

[Mavairo]

Defend your base.

Problem solved.

Look, maybe you should have thought about the possibility of needing to defend your base instead of just dropping with a bunch of Fatties.

I cap because I can. If your team is too dumb to defend the base I'm not going to step off the base to go fight you and your group of 100 ton fatties.

I'm going to make you lose for taking so many Fatties and not bothering to defend your base in the first place.

[Valleye]

I have little need for cbills, I play the same two mech and two variants (CN9 and CPLT) 90% of the time. I play to win.

[Ngamok]

OneManWar, on 14 March 2013 - 11:36 AM, said:

TDM lovers, have fun chasing that lone Spider running around the map for 15 min at 150 clicks, and get ready for lots of draws!

Because it would be hard to design the system to choose a winner based on how many are alive on a team. So even if it's 7-4 and that lone spider is running around, the team with the least deaths wins.

[Ngamok]

Mavairo, on 15 March 2013 - 07:18 AM, said:

Defend your base.

Problem solved.

Look, maybe you should have thought about the possibility of needing to defend your base instead of just dropping with a bunch of Fatties.

I cap because I can. If your team is too dumb to defend the base I'm not going to step off the base to go fight you and your group of 100 ton fatties.

I'm going to make you lose for taking so many Fatties and not bothering to defend your base in the first place.

Great, let's all sit at base waiting for those lights to come run in and shoot 10000 SRMs at them. Because all fatties have multiple of them.

[Mavairo]

I don't think it's terribly difficult to assign either your lights for cleaning off the base, or in the case of a Fatty Team, having 1 to 2 guys back there as a goalie.

Or even a fast heavy or medium for that matter.

If you play stupid, expect to lose by ''stupid'' behavior.

[RG Notch]

Ngamok, on 15 March 2013 - 08:53 AM, said:

Because it would be hard to design the system to choose a winner based on how many are alive on a team. So even if it's 7-4 and that lone spider is running around, the team with the least deaths wins.

Yeah after the fighting has been over for 5 minutes and you're waiting for the timer to tick down, sounds awesome.

[xxx WreckinBallRaj xxx]

Just give us a separate TDM mode already. Then the people who want to race across the map, waving to the enemy team as they pass each other going to the cap, can have their base cap racing while the rest of us that actually queue up to fight move to TDM. Everyone would be happy. Just copy/paste Assault, name it something new, and yank out the bases in it. This is not a complicated concept or solution. You could even call it "Team Death Match", for all anyone cares.

Edited by Bluten, 15 March 2013 - 09:44 AM.

[Mystere]

TDM is for coattail hangers!

I want a 16+ no-holds-barred winner-take-all last-man-standing game mode.

[Bilbo]

Bluten, on 15 March 2013 - 09:43 AM, said:

Just give us a separate TDM mode already. Then the people who want to race across the map, waving to the enemy team as they pass each other going to the cap, can have their base cap racing while the rest of us that actually queue up to fight move to TDM. Everyone would be happy. Just copy/paste Assault, name it something new, and yank out the bases in it. This is not a complicated concept or solution. You could even call it "Team Death Match", for all anyone cares.

I wouldn't be at all happy to have to find/chase down the lone light mech that doesn't want to come out and play, or the guy wit JJ that knows he's done for but can stand on top of a building/hill that you can neither aim at or get to. There are reasons this game mode does not exist beyond everyone's silly idea that the devs have the mental capacity of a rock.

[warner2]

Bilbo, on 15 March 2013 - 10:06 AM, said:

I wouldn't be at all happy to have to find/chase down the lone light mech that doesn't want to come out and play, or the guy wit JJ that knows he's done for but can stand on top of a building/hill that you can neither aim at or get to. There are reasons this game mode does not exist beyond everyone's silly idea that the devs have the mental capacity of a rock.

There are lot's of solutions to that problem that don't require us to avoid team death match as a game mode (I won't give examples as it's been done to death) and stick with what we have.

This was given way back as the reason to avoid team death match way back but it's flawed. Can you really play the current assault mode on a big map? Bigger than Alpine? The assault game mode limits the size of the map, it limits how much of the map you see, and how much of the map you fight on. There is no good reason IMO to be frightened of this last man standing scenario and avoiding TDM as a game mode.

Also PGI have said it's coming so it's a moot point anyway.

[hammerreborn]

Quote

Capwarrior is Again On The Rise

More like Notdefendingmybasewarrior is Again on The Rise

warner2, on 15 March 2013 - 10:15 AM, said:

There are lot's of solutions to that problem that don't require us to avoid team death match as a game mode (I won't give examples as it's been done to death) and stick with what we have.

This was given way back as the reason to avoid team death match way back but it's flawed. Can you really play the current assault mode on a big map? Bigger than Alpine? The assault game mode limits the size of the map, it limits how much of the map you see, and how much of the map you fight on. There is no good reason IMO to be frightened of this last man standing scenario and avoiding TDM as a game mode.

Also PGI have said it's coming so it's a moot point anyway.

Uhh...ya...just yesterday we had a cripple hunch (no weapons) vs a 6 ppc stalker. The hunch hid for 9 minutes and the game ended in a draw.

If you don't think that a great majority of TDM matches would end this way you're delusional, especially with the larger maps coming out.

Edited by hammerreborn, 15 March 2013 - 10:18 AM.

[CDLord HHGD]

Ngamok, on 15 March 2013 - 09:14 AM, said:

Great, let's all sit at base waiting for those lights to come run in and shoot 10000 SRMs at them. Because all fatties have multiple of them.

At least you'd be defending your base .

[Star Colonel Mustard Kerensky]

Bluten, on 15 March 2013 - 09:43 AM, said:

Just give us a separate TDM mode already. Then the people who want to race across the map, waving to the enemy team as they pass each other going to the cap, can have their base cap racing while the rest of us that actually queue up to fight move to TDM. Everyone would be happy. Just copy/paste Assault, name it something new, and yank out the bases in it. This is not a complicated concept or solution. You could even call it "Team Death Match", for all anyone cares.

Please implement TDM so I can park a spider on top of buildings to keep people locked into matches for 15 minutes.

[BlackJackRaider]

Spheroid, on 13 March 2013 - 10:42 AM, said:

Why is this being done? With the new savior and other bonuses there ever less reason to go for turbo cap.

XP farming is stupid, don't people want the money more? I know I sure do.


If it is being done to quickly end River City Night, the capper will only find his reward the same map repeated next map. Where is TDM? Where is true base attack/defend mode?

I would say it has something to do with the shittastic weight balancing in the ELO mm at the moment. We have 5 lights, they have 5 assaults, what other strategy is going to win us the game? I've seen this a lot lately, completely unbalanced teams lead to either slaughters or quick base caps. If PGI could build a proper matchmaker, it wouldn't be a problem.

[Bilbo]

warner2, on 15 March 2013 - 10:15 AM, said:

There are lot's of solutions to that problem that don't require us to avoid team death match as a game mode (I won't give examples as it's been done to death) and stick with what we have.

This was given way back as the reason to avoid team death match way back but it's flawed. Can you really play the current assault mode on a big map? Bigger than Alpine? The assault game mode limits the size of the map, it limits how much of the map you see, and how much of the map you fight on. There is no good reason IMO to be frightened of this last man standing scenario and avoiding TDM as a game mode.

Also PGI have said it's coming so it's a moot point anyway.

The assault game mode doesn't limit the size of the map. Number of players in the match is a limiting factor to some degree. The greatest factor in limiting map size, currently, is the tactics or lack thereof that players choose to employ. I'm not frightened of the game mode. The last man standing scenario plays out, even with the current Assault game mode, when people waste time blindly hunting for the last kill instead of utilizing the second match victory condition.

[warner2]

hammerreborn, on 15 March 2013 - 10:18 AM, said:

More like Notdefendingmybasewarrior is Again on The Rise



Uhh...ya...just yesterday we had a cripple hunch (no weapons) vs a 6 ppc stalker. The hunch hid for 9 minutes and the game ended in a draw.

If you don't think that a great majority of TDM matches would end this way you're delusional, especially with the larger maps coming out.

Um...no...there are mechanics you can put in to avoid it.

For example, one reasonable suggestion is a single, capable base that you ordinarily wouldn't try to cap (for example it might be in a really exposed area) that you would use to just cap and win if the last mech was hiding..

I'm not saying I'm in favour of that solution, there are others.

I wonder which one PGI will come up when they introduce TDM as they've already confirmed it?

[hammerreborn]

warner2, on 15 March 2013 - 10:26 AM, said:

Um...no...there are mechanics you can put in to avoid it.

For example, one reasonable suggestion is a single, capable base that you ordinarily wouldn't try to cap (for example it might be in a really exposed area) that you would use to just cap and win if the last mech was hiding..

I'm not saying I'm in favour of that solution, there are others.

I wonder which one PGI will come up when they introduce TDM as they've already confirmed it?

And when 8 lights charge to this point at the start of the map, and cap it before you can conceivably kill them all, you'll be right back in here crying.

[Orbson]

win = win

[Oy of MidWorld]

Jakob Knight, on 15 March 2013 - 06:51 AM, said:

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.

Protecting your home base, actually requires a base. Protecting a dropship requires a dropship. See my point? Never in BattleTech was attacking said objective ever achieved by... standing next to it in a glowing square for one and a half minutes? Don't know what kind of BattleTech you used to play, but in my opinion these gamemodes are as BattleTech as CounterStrike is...

In most maps the objective (realistically speaking) would really be the map itself. Like a city with a port and spaceport as a base of operations. Or some industrial volcano area, quarry or, errr, strategically important glacier...

Edited by Oy of MidWorld, 15 March 2013 - 10:34 AM.