31 replies to this topic

[Skaroth]

I was playing on TD and AP last night in conquest mode in my Jenner D. I was one of the only lights on my team so I took on the role of capper. In two games I shot no mech, yet out capped the other teams lights and we won by cap. I was listed at the bottom of the leader board and got almost no money or xp. My actions won the game for my team but it looked like (and I was rewarded as if) I had done nothing.

Suggestion to promote caps (I'd be fine if this was only applied to conquest):

• Provide 5-10 xp per cap tick (maybe less, not sure of the math) both removing enemy possession and building your team's
  
• Pay 500-1000 cbills per tick

If more than one mech is capping the cap goes faster and you would get less ticks



This would allow a light to play a role to help the team win and not always have to "be in the brawl"

This could be done for assault as well. I know many people hate the cap win (I have bitched about it in game from time to time - but really we just needed to defend our base...) but I think this should be implemented.

We need to expand strategy and reward different aspects of game play rather than just damage done, components destroyed, and kills.

I am fine with brawling in my Jenner but there needs to be options imo


JR7-D 91 57 34 1.68 108 36 3.00 30,006 62,304 09:04:36

Edited by Skaroth, 23 March 2013 - 06:12 PM.

[Biglead]

No.

[Skaroth]

Biglead, on 23 March 2013 - 06:50 PM, said:

No.

lol, so articulate... and full of feedback. come back when you have something constructive to say.

[Biglead]

Skaroth, on 23 March 2013 - 06:51 PM, said:

lol, so articulate... and full of feedback. come back when you have something constructive to say.

There was a reason why they removed it from the game. It lead to cap farming. Your reward for capping is a higher win/loss ratio.


Edit: I don't need to be constructive on a dead topic. Use the search function and you will find plenty of feedback.

Edited by Biglead, 23 March 2013 - 06:58 PM.

[Skaroth]

Biglead, on 23 March 2013 - 06:54 PM, said:

There was a reason why they removed it from the game. It lead to cap farming. Your reward for capping is a higher win/loss ratio.


Edit: I don't need to be constructive on a dead topic. Use the search function and you will find plenty of feedback.

Hardly a dead topic. A ham handed "solution" to cap farming as you call it.

My suggestion was to reward only the mech who capped, and on a per tic basis, so if you ran in for one tick you would not get full "cap" xp, you'd get one tick. Simplification of the game does not make it better.

[LittleGrim]

Maybe this should be in the conquest mode only, and 1xp per tick and 100cbills. Any more than that would make it too rewarding.

If i pilot my lights during a conquest I'll spend maybe half the match capping(just enough to make sure we have a lead or at least hold 3 points) then spend the rest of the game shooting robots. Combine the xp from damage/assists/capping and I would earn heaps of XP if capping gives more than minimal amounts of xp/cbills.

Edit: A full cap should be from 100% enemy held to 100% your team held giving something in the range of 50-100 xp (even that sounds a little much so maybe .5xp per tick giving 25-50xp @100/50cbils a tick)

Edited by LittleGrim, 23 March 2013 - 07:30 PM.

[Skaroth]

LittleGrim, on 23 March 2013 - 07:27 PM, said:

Maybe this should be in the conquest mode only, and 1xp per tick and 100cbills. Any more than that would make it too rewarding.

If i pilot my lights during a conquest I'll spend maybe half the match capping(just enough to make sure we have a lead or at least hold 3 points) then spend the rest of the game shooting robots. Combine the xp from damage/assists/capping and I would earn heaps of XP if capping gives more than minimal amounts of xp/cbills.

Edit: A full cap should be from 100% enemy held to 100% your team held giving something in the range of 50-100 xp (even that sounds a little much so maybe .5xp per tick giving 25-50xp @100/50cbils a tick)

Yep, as I said I am not sure the math, and I agree that it should not be too rewarding. However this reward would not be for lights only as brawlers that closed on and fought over these nodes would also gain for the increased risk they took by exposing themselves to sniper/lrm fire.

[Noobzorz]

I cannot think of a single valid reason why something like this should not be implemented. This would also help to differentiate conquest from assault in even the most low ELO PUGs.

If you look at something like Call of Duty domination, the most recent game, Black Ops 2, offers you progress towards killstreak rewards for completing objectives. The effect is that people play the objective much more than they used to, even in a community noted for its general ineptitude. If you can get the most chumpy gamers around to act like their supposed to with a design decision like this, you will en courage a relatively sophisticated community to get some great games going.

tl;dr this change (or at least a change of this type; tweak numbers as neccessary) is brilliant and I wish I could like it twice.

Edit: Cap farming is not a legitimate objection to this. Just don't pay out Cbills for capture in long, close games, or make caps pay out at a lower rate than damage that is still significant. I really don't buy that there isn't a simple design decision to stop cap farming, especially since random match making enforces no cooperation very effectively.

Edited by Noobzorz, 23 March 2013 - 08:04 PM.

[LittleGrim]

I was using my light as an example of why the rewards cannot be too high. If I get 100xp for full capping a point and I do that 3 times as well as harassing duties then I would be earning stupid amounts of xp. A brawler would be able to cap 1 or 2.

[Noobzorz]

LittleGrim, on 23 March 2013 - 07:59 PM, said:

I was using my light as an example of why the rewards cannot be too high. If I get 100xp for full capping a point and I do that 3 times as well as harassing duties then I would be earning stupid amounts of xp. A brawler would be able to cap 1 or 2.

Sure, of course. You've got to get the numbers to a nice sweet spot to prevent it from become abusive. But as I envision it, there is a feasible number of cbills per cap that would encourage players to play the objective, reward those who play the objective and contribute to the team, and result in higher quality conquest games that didn't feel just like matches of assault.

As it is now, a light who effectively controls capture points will probably win marginally more games and pick up more of those 22.5k CBill bonuses, but if he wins even 10% more games because of it (which is probably much more than your average capping light mech can manage in solo queue), he would still be much better served by hopping in a brawler and butting heads.

[Gaan Cathal]

It would work well for Conquest at least, and probably Assault. There really is no reason not to reward one of the win conditions in a two-win-condition game.

Plus it will be amusing to see all those posters who say you shouldn't cap "because it's not rewarded" jump on this to keep the quote that lets them avoid admitting they only want to play Rock-Em Sock-Em Robots.

[LittleGrim]

Noobzorz, on 23 March 2013 - 08:10 PM, said:

Sure, of course. You've got to get the numbers to a nice sweet spot to prevent it from become abusive. But as I envision it, there is a feasible number of cbills per cap that would encourage players to play the objective, reward those who play the objective and contribute to the team, and result in higher quality conquest games that didn't feel just like matches of assault.

As it is now, a light who effectively controls capture points will probably win marginally more games and pick up more of those 22.5k CBill bonuses, but if he wins even 10% more games because of it (which is probably much more than your average capping light mech can manage in solo queue), he would still be much better served by hopping in a brawler and butting heads.

Yep, pretty much agree with all of that.

And as for including it in assault, I don't think it would add anything to the gamemode but rather see an increase in "non-strategic caps" by players who just want the bonus all for themselves and everyone else be damned.

[Skaroth]

LittleGrim, on 23 March 2013 - 08:22 PM, said:

Yep, pretty much agree with all of that.

And as for including it in assault, I don't think it would add anything to the gamemode but rather see an increase in "non-strategic caps" by players who just want the bonus all for themselves and everyone else be damned.

Yea, the numbers need to be balanced and the bonuses should not be so high that you'd avoid fighting all together and just cap but there needs to be something. Assault could use it but may need some "tweaking" as you say, people may go cap even though their team is winning so that they get more reward for themselves.

[LittleGrim]

Maybe make a post in the suggestions forum with the proposed changes? Might even get the go ahead since we haven't been invaded by the "ZOMG capwarrior online!!!!" masses yet.

[Skaroth]

LittleGrim, on 23 March 2013 - 08:46 PM, said:

Maybe make a post in the suggestions forum with the proposed changes? Might even get the go ahead since we haven't been invaded by the "ZOMG capwarrior online!!!!" masses yet.

Done

[M0rpHeu5]

Cap need to be more meaningfull not meaningless

[Grand Ayatollah Kerensky]

Pubbies walking away from a sure cap win to fight a losing battle should be a reportable offense. It's pretty much griefing.

[Voidsinger]

The rewards need to be more related to the mission.

Certainly, for Conquest mode, 5XP and 20 C-bills per tick is not unreasonable.

Assault mode is badly named. A true assault is about capturing the objective, and thus should be rewarded far greater than current capping points. Perhaps Assault should be renamed something like "Intercept" to indicate that the primary mission is to combat the enemy mechs, not capture anything. In that case, leave it how it is. Renaming to intercept would make a capping a failed intercept.

[Exoth3rmic]

If you win by cap you're already rewarded by getting the win bonus.

I really don't want an increased reward for anything that doesn't involve shooting mechs/spotting mechs etc.

Talk tactics all you want in relation to aoviding a fight, at the end of the day I simply couldn't face playing it if the mere objective was capping. Plenty of other games do that and do it better.

[Voidsinger]

Exoth3rmic, on 24 March 2013 - 01:59 AM, said:

If you win by cap you're already rewarded by getting the win bonus.

I really don't want an increased reward for anything that doesn't involve shooting mechs/spotting mechs etc.

Talk tactics all you want in relation to aoviding a fight, at the end of the day I simply couldn't face playing it if the mere objective was capping. Plenty of other games do that and do it better.

Here's the problem.

Combat is rewarded on an individual basis.
Spotting/Tagging is rewarded on an individual basis.

Capping, which is a very time consuming, risky, payment deciding and ultimately the alternate decider in Conquest games is rewarded to each member of the team equally.

That means a mech who spends the match ensuring control of resource points, and it is usually a light because of speed, may end up with the least XP and C-Bills for the match. This in spite of possibly ensuring the team's victory.

That isn't fair, that has to change. As I said, make the rewards related to the mission objectives.