163 replies to this topic

[warner2]

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

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.

Sure I agree with the point about more players and assault mode and larger maps.

I'm not frightened of assault mode, nor do I particularly hate it. As a unit we have good tactics for capping, and for defending base, so I'm OK with it as a win condition when we either need to use it or it's the best option. I do prefer TDM though. What bothers me is people coming up with reasons why TDM is a bad idea. It's already been confirmed, so at some point it will be playable, and it will be optional, so those who don't like it don't have to play it.

hammerreborn, on 15 March 2013 - 10:28 AM, said:

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.

I'm not crying dude, I'm just pointing out a reasonable solution to the "last man standing and running scenario". I don't even care about that scenario. I played NBT for years and we just either found and killed the last man standing, or he survived and saved his unit a mech. I don't need a way to handle that scenario, I'll just deal with it.

[Star Colonel Mustard Kerensky]

Oy of MidWorld, on 15 March 2013 - 10:30 AM, said:

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 (realisticly 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, strategical important glacier...

So if we had to shoot the base instead of stand next to it would you be happy?

[MaddMaxx]

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.

There in lies the problem. The games opening screen states 2 things.

1) Capture the enemy Base.
2) Annihilate All enemy Mechs.

When neither Team has satisfied one of those conditions by the time the game Timers winds down, a draw is declared.

So the question then becomes, which of the 2 stated requirement don't you fathom? and if you do fathom them, then why do you see one versus the other as a problem?

[Oy of MidWorld]

Astroniomix, on 15 March 2013 - 10:34 AM, said:

So if we had to shoot the base instead of stand next to it would you be happy?

Happier. Cause then you'd need to bring a little firepower. And overcome some base defense lasers. And maneuver around some walls. Now make one of those bases a Union class dropship, then i'd be happy.

This would be BattleTech.

Edited by Oy of MidWorld, 15 March 2013 - 10:43 AM.

[Star Colonel Mustard Kerensky]

Oy of MidWorld, on 15 March 2013 - 10:41 AM, said:

Happier. Cause then you'd need to bring a little firepower. And overcome some base defense lasers. And maneuver around some Walls. Now make one of those bases a Union class dropship, then i'd be happy.

This would be BattleTech.

You changed the rules, I didn't say "add walls and defense lasers" I just said "you now have to shoot the base".

[Jakob Knight]

Oy of MidWorld, on 15 March 2013 - 10:30 AM, said:

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...

Well, as we have seen to date, the Devs are tailoring MWO for the general video gamer population and not the hardcore simulation player (which I am). The latest 'laser-boundary' around the objectives, as well as the elimination of repair and rearm, are symptoms of this. Making a more realistic objective would simply fly over the heads of the gamers in the game now who need to fire their weapons from the very start of the match to know what they are, or stumble about trying to find out what to do.

I'd welcome a dropship on one end and a complex/building/base at the other, but I have to believe this would be too complex for the average MWO player. Thus, we have the generic 'objective' mining installations to represent what would be more extensive and important objectives.

Edited by Jakob Knight, 15 March 2013 - 10:46 AM.

[CDLord HHGD]

Oy of MidWorld, on 15 March 2013 - 10:41 AM, said:

Happier. Cause then you'd need to bring a little firepower. And overcome some base defense lasers. And maneuver around some walls. Now make one of those bases a Union class dropship, then i'd be happy.

This would be BattleTech.

I'd be interested in making the base a destroyable target (though in cover, no distance LRM spam) and making it a dropship instead of an oil rig. Though I am against auto-turrets. To quoteth the TRO 3025 book of the Union dropship:

"Though the ship cannot fire at low altitudes (ie, landed), its assortment of weapons can deliver massive amounts of firepower in space,......"

Just using lore to back up my "no auto-turret on a Union" statement.

[Oy of MidWorld]

Astroniomix, on 15 March 2013 - 10:44 AM, said:

You changed the rules.

I always do.

Jakob Knight, on 15 March 2013 - 10:46 AM, said:

Well, as we have seen to date, the Devs are tailoring MWO for the general video gamer population and not the hardcore simulation player (which I am). The latest 'laser-boundary' around the objectives, as well as the elimination of repair and rearm, are symptoms of this. Making a more realistic objective would simply fly over the heads of the gamers in the game now who need to fire their weapons from the very start of the match to know what they are, or stumble about trying to find out what to do.

I'd welcome a dropship on one end and a complex/building/base at the other, but I have to believe this would be too complex for the average MWO player. Thus, we have the generic 'objective' mining installations to represent what would be more extensive and important objectives.

You probably underestimate the players. People are not stupid on average. They are... average? In my experience most gamers enjoy a little more complexity, especially in a game that is not tailored directly to the twitch-fps crowd.

I predict that dumbing the game down is a dangerous thing for MWO. It will frustrate and alienate a lot of the BT/MW fancrowd, and casual players will likely leave anyway when the next big thing comes around. The core of BT/MW fans, probably even infecting new fans, is a huge asset to this game in my opinion. Drive them away and you'll be in trouble.

No, i think this game could well do with a little more complexity.

Edited by Oy of MidWorld, 15 March 2013 - 11:11 AM.

[Mercules]

Oy of MidWorld, on 15 March 2013 - 10:30 AM, said:

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...

There are published battles where the objective is to get as many of your mechs into certain hexes on the other side of the map or otherwise not destroy something but simply go to location X and be there for Y amount of time. The very first battle of "Sword and Dragon" a very famous scenario book deals with a Recon in Force. The primary objective that earns you most of your points is simply go to where these buildings are and stand next to them. This objective is used again in future missions in the pack. That is literally standing at a location on the map.

So I don't know what sort of BT you have been playing, but most people I know have played through "Sword and Dragon" at least once.

[Oy of MidWorld]

Mercules, on 15 March 2013 - 07:58 PM, said:

There are published battles where the objective is to get as many of your mechs into certain hexes on the other side of the map or otherwise not destroy something but simply go to location X and be there for Y amount of time. The very first battle of "Sword and Dragon" a very famous scenario book deals with a Recon in Force. The primary objective that earns you most of your points is simply go to where these buildings are and stand next to them. This objective is used again in future missions in the pack. That is literally standing at a location on the map.

So I don't know what sort of BT you have been playing, but most people I know have played through "Sword and Dragon" at least once.

Your logic is faulty. You're talking about recon here. Getting to a certain position to gather recon data about a complex of buildings. You're not really going to suggest that this is in any way akin to the horrible MWO capping mechanism?

There are a lot of examples where reaching a certain position would be strategically important, for example bringing firepower/scouts to a position where they could fire at something/relay artillery coordinates or some such. Again none of this applies to the capping mechanism, which is basically a variant of capture the flag, so most akin to the objectives in paintball.

So basically you prove my point.

I don't know Sword and Dragon, i believe it was published in 2007, but i doubt it features capture the flag style objectives. My buddies and i used to play from around 1996 up until 2001. Most of the time our tabletop battles were embedded inside a MechWarrior pen and paper roleplaying campaign. Our gamemaster came up with the scenarios, he used some sourcebooks, none of which featured such objectives.

They might make sense in a Solaris VII style environment.

[Joseph Mallan]

Oy of MidWorld, on 16 March 2013 - 06:11 AM, said:

Your logic is faulty. You're talking about recon here. Getting to a certain position to gather recon data about a complex of buildings. You're not really going to suggest that this is in any way akin to the horrible MWO capping mechanism?

That is exactly what it is!

Go stand here to win. Is that different to go stand here to win of Cap?

[Oy of MidWorld]

Joseph Mallan, on 16 March 2013 - 06:27 AM, said:

That is exactly what it is!

Go stand here to win. Is that different to go stand here to win of Cap?

Man did you even read my post? Recon: Win by getting to a position where you have sufficient line of sight to start camera feed, electronic eavesdropping, whatever. Best is to be able to get out again.

MWO cap: "OH, i got it. They run a middle of the battlefield mining operation with some sort of steampunk extractor! I'll step into their high voltage laser fenced 40 meter square, which is visible from more than two clicks away, to start a counter which will end the match. I am so 1337!"

I know a lot of you guys like the assault gamemode as is. I don't wanna take it away from you. But if you want to insist that it is not totally abstract, i'm just gonna have to laugh about you.

[Joseph Mallan]

Oy of MidWorld, on 16 March 2013 - 07:04 AM, said:

Man did you even read my post? Recon: Win by getting to a position where you have sufficient line of sight to start camera feed, electronic eavesdropping, whatever. Best is to be able to get out again.

MWO cap: "OH, i got it. They run a middle of the battlefield mining operation with some sort of steampunk extractor! I'll step into their high voltage laser fenced 40 meter square, which is visible from more than two clicks away, to start a counter which will end the match. I am so 1337!"

I know a lot of you guys like the assault gamemode as is. I don't wanna take it away from you. But if you want to insist that it is not totally abstract, i'm just gonna have to laugh about you.

But not necessarily a part of said scenario. Those Scenarios were not always Recon. They were captures or kidnaps.

I would like to see some more features added to Assault such as capture and retreat but the DEVs haven't gone that far, yet. So for now, capturing the enemy base is still the (even if unpaid) primary goal of the the mission.

[Oy of MidWorld]

Joseph Mallan, on 16 March 2013 - 07:12 AM, said:

But not necessarily a part of said scenario. Those Scenarios were not always Recon. They were captures or kidnaps.

I would like to see some more features added to Assault such as capture and retreat but the DEVs haven't gone that far, yet. So for now, capturing the enemy base is still the (even if unpaid) primary goal of the the mission.

I don't know about capturing, usually MechWarriors don't capture anything or kidnap anyone. At the most they provide cover, while infantry units perform said tasks. Providing cover for an ai troopcrawler to get into a (real) enemy base would actually be a nice (however optional) possibility of winning a game.

Until then, i'll just think of downing all enemy mechs as the primary goal of the mission.

[Joseph Mallan]

Oy of MidWorld, on 16 March 2013 - 08:07 AM, said:

I don't know about capturing, usually MechWarriors don't capture anything or kidnap anyone. At the most they provide cover, while infantry units perform said tasks. Providing cover for an ai troopcrawler to get into a (real) enemy base would actually be a nice (however optional) possibility of winning a game.

Until then, i'll just think of downing all enemy mechs as the primary goal of the mission.

Thats cause the other folk(Who wants to be the deuce and a half driver?) are not cool enough to be in the game. We don't have a whole game comlaining about Capping is just foolish. It is the sign you(generalized use not specific) recognize a failure in your game play and instead of accepting you made the mistake, asking for rules to make it so no one can beat you like that again.

Betty told me three tmes that an enemy was trying to take my stuff. So three times I had to go back and fight him. Yeah had to go back and fight the enemy three times on the base. But you see the pinch... We fought him... on the base. You know cause we went back!

[Lege]

In other news: matchmaking is now worse than ever, you can get teams with 200+ more tons than you. There needs to be a total tonnage check when putting in the last two mechs per side. Just get it within 50 tons and I'd be ok with it. Taking on 6 Atlas with 6 lights is rediculous, of course the lights are going to cap.

[Oy of MidWorld]

Joseph Mallan, on 16 March 2013 - 08:21 AM, said:

Thats cause the other folk(Who wants to be the deuce and a half driver?) are not cool enough to be in the game. We don't have a whole game comlaining about Capping is just foolish. It is the sign you(generalized use not specific) recognize a failure in your game play and instead of accepting you made the mistake, asking for rules to make it so no one can beat you like that again.

Betty told me three tmes that an enemy was trying to take my stuff. So three times I had to go back and fight him. Yeah had to go back and fight the enemy three times on the base. But you see the pinch... We fought him... on the base. You know cause we went back!

Yeah, i kinda understand. You went back and fought him. On the the base, right? Yeah, i sometimes do that too.

I don't think there's a failure in my gameplay, i just long for a gamemode without the mechanism. For reasons stated a thousand times before by me and others. I don't think we don't have a whole game. Sometimes mechs fight on their own.

[Joseph Mallan]

You just need to avoid assault if you don't like to be capped. Takes a long time to cap a victory in teh other mode I hear.

[Valcoer]

WOW!
the conditions of the game are known. each side has the same options. the side that chooses the best option and executes the plan the best will win.

this mode will be intergral to planet capture. more maps and assets are in the works. its almost like you people that are complaining believe that pgi can make the game of your dreams overnight.

Assault is not in a finished version ... obviously. if you have done the reading you kwow what is coming if you havent well then go read.

Im through with this thread dont bother responding to me directly I wont be watching.

[Oy of MidWorld]

Joseph Mallan, on 16 March 2013 - 09:00 AM, said:

You just need to avoid assault if you don't like to be capped. Takes a long time to cap a victory in teh other mode I hear.

I tried that other mode some times when it was new. Found it to be even more abstract, just not my cup of tea. Now that the statistics have been redone, i'm determined to not have it in there, as if i had not played it even once.