ItsAPotato, on 13 March 2013 - 12:49 PM, said:
This is exactly why my regular group has adopted the mantra of "Never go back".
If we go back with enough mechs to guarantee that we secure the base (It could be 2 ac20 cats standing on base, we don't know), then we get steamrolled by the main force of the enemy team as they crest the middle.
If we all go back, we are getting shot in the back by the main enemy force AND in the end we're stuck in a very bad position (aka: we get steamrolled).
If, instead of going back, we press forward en masse, we will catch the enemy main force outnumbered, which will usually mean we win. We can usually even do this AND circle back to finish off the 1 or 2 cappers before they can finish.
Option 3 has proven to be very successful (if you can get your pugs to do it with you). Even if we still lose, then our next match will be easier (thanks, Elo!) and we'll make more $$ than the cappers.
With two mechs with Capture Assist you will not have time to circle back after beating the remainder of the opposing force IF the skills are roughly equal. Trust me... I've been doing it. When the opposing team decides to press on the game ends before our guys are wiped out unless we step off the point. The only exception is when we can watch our team do suicide runs 1 at a time into the enemy force right from the beginning which would be a loss no matter the tactics we were using. The only map we had issues on was River City which is a super tight map to begin with.
Oy of MidWorld, on 13 March 2013 - 02:48 PM, said:
Team DeathMatch haters, please understand that TDM is just something some (a lot) of us want to play. Please don't insult us by proclaiming that we are too stupid to defend a glowing square. Some of us just don't want to.
TDM is tactical in a game like MWO. It's about finding the other team, and maneuvering into a favorable position. Done correctly, this requires just as much skill as defending a glowing square.
Hate to tell you this, no it doesn't. Since the enemy HAS to come kill you and you have to go kill them it leads to even less strategic play. Basically you clump up and move from good position to good position until the enemy is engaged. At that point you -might- consider sending a flanker out. If your whole team moves at 45 kph it doesn't matter because the main thing with TDM is stick together and focus fire.
Now if you are an 8 man you could build a team with fast spotters a couple brawlers that could stall the enemy and long range support but let's face it.. ."Stick together and Focus Fire" brawlers works so well on the majority of the maps that even when there IS a base you can cap it works.
Right now you have ALL the tactical maneuvering of TDM and in addition the need to defend and/or capture a location. That is actually more skill reliant than TDM.
To explain it another way. TDM is Conquest without bases. So all the TDM strategy, tactics, and skill exists in Conquest with additional strategy, tactics, and skill. It's not that TDM doesn't take any skill, it's that it takes the same skill minus the base capturing/defending skill... AKA LESS SKILL.
Oy of MidWorld, on 13 March 2013 - 02:48 PM, said:
The momentary assault mechanic leads to totally predictable battles at the same three locations of every map, 95% of the time. The maps are big and have some cool spots, you never get to see on assault. The momentary conquest mechanic is not something i want to play.
Please explain how TDM would change this. It wouldn't change it at all and when both sides ignore the bases you fight in the "same three locations".
Oy of MidWorld, on 13 March 2013 - 02:48 PM, said:
Anything that feels a little more MechWarrior than that "stand in the middle of the magic glowing square" game. The core of this game really feels like MechWarrior, the gamemodes' objectives don't. It's frustratingly immersion breaking to me. This game has a BattleTech core. Among newer "fans" it is also played by BattleTech fans. Give us some BattleTech objectives.
TDM has never felt like Mechwarrior to me in any of the previous games. At LAN parties and online we always played with objectives. What happened there is you often had very odd builds for exactly those objectives. The "Destroy/Defend the Mansion" mission, for example. On offense there was typically a fast mech with NARC and an Artillery Beacon. The other attacking mechs ran a bunch of LRMs and long range weapons and would ignore mechs once they could get close enough to the Mansion to shoot it. ONE Artillery Beacon would take out the mansion so the defending team needed mechs with good sensors that were fast enough to find and intercept the opposing light(s). They also needed to have enough fire power and speed to engage heavier mechs that might get into long range and fire upon the mansion.
Destructible objectives are almost worse, trust me. Bases you would have to fire upon will be the target of Airstrikes and Artillery since they can't clear out, or sniped long before the lights show up. This mechanic is far from ideal but it is better than alternatives that are not carefully thought out and put into the game. It has to be carefully balanced and they still don't have the mech/weapon/tech balances in the game correctly right not so having the same mechanic work for both sides really is best... at the moment.
6
?
