23 replies to this topic

[ImIooImI]

every third match ends with this [removed censored] Capture base!!! this is not fun!
at the beginning of each fight i see chat messages "NOT CAP!"
make a "death match" mode and you'll see "popularity" [removed censored] assault (go-go cap base) mod! ))
I am sure that most of those who are now playing in an assault mode and abandoned it to play death match

[qki]

how about: L2P?

[ImIooImI]

qki, on 24 March 2013 - 03:11 AM, said:

how about: L2P?

When someone has nothing to say!
He teaches others to play! )))

[MagicHamsta]

ImIooImI, on 24 March 2013 - 04:16 AM, said:

When someone has nothing to say!
He teaches others to play! )))

No, seriously.
Learn to play.
It be practically impossible to base cap competent players in Assault mode (Conquest is a slightly different story).

Since base cap takes time: unless you were attempting to base cap yourselves, there be plenty of time to go back & deal with the issue.

In fact, me usually hope that the enemy team attempts a cap since that would split their team. (Allowing us to easily crush at least 1-3 mechs and then simply mop up the rest for an easy win.)

Either they'll send one or two players to attempt a cap & you can get back in time.
Or they will send the majority of their players & your entire team will notice the lack of enemy presence will tip you off on an attempted base rush. (Snipers will get bored & show themselves, brawlers will be spotted by your own friendly scouts, etc.)

Edited by MagicHamsta, 24 March 2013 - 04:10 PM.

[Werewolf486 ScorpS]

How about remove cap from Assault to fix the issue and cut rewards for damage and kills in conquest to less then 25% of what it is now.

Oh and L2P remake, how about understand that a lot of us that know how to play agree with getting rid of cap on assault.

[Biggieboy]

I kinda agree with the OP. Conquest simply isn't fun the way it is. either everyone ignores is, or ends up encountering no one and losing because of capture. This is especially annoying on large maps, and even more so if they have light mechs and your team doesn't.

Either drop this gamemode, tweak it, or add more (free for all, team deathmatch, objectives,...)

[ChargerIIC]

Biggieboy, on 24 March 2013 - 05:32 PM, said:

I kinda agree with the OP. Conquest simply isn't fun the way it is. either everyone ignores is, or ends up encountering no one and losing because of capture. This is especially annoying on large maps, and even more so if they have light mechs and your team doesn't.

Either drop this gamemode, tweak it, or add more (free for all, team deathmatch, objectives,...)

The problem with trying to prevent kills in conquest is you'll never get around this simple fact: If everyone else is dead, there is noone to oppose you grabbing the bases. Since most PUG groups try to snag a single base at a time, they inevitably end up in a single giant furball with the survivors either winning via elimination or mopping up the remaining capture points.

You could probably even punish players for kills and damage and still not make it more attractive than trying to base cap in an atlas.

As to the original post, the base caps are in because players would try and tie up the last 5 minutes of the game by finding nearly inaccessible portions of the map and shutting down. I think more than a few closed beta players can relate to trying to find that damnable atlas pilot that would run away at the start of the match rather than fight. Likewise, if the enemy has lights in your backyard, you should probably be grateful they haven't turned around and enclosed your group in a nasty pincher attack - which is what they would be doing otherwise. A single 64kph+ mech can cover the base in emergencies while still letting the other players fight it out.

Edited by ChargerIIC, 24 March 2013 - 05:51 PM.

[Dirus Nigh]

The bases are the goal of the match. The OP and others need to learn how to protect the base. Stop crying and protect the base. When the opposing team does attempted to base cap you will then be there to get the fight you are crying about not having.

[Blue Frog]

I think a Death Match should be instituted. It would be assault, just without the base cap. Don't drop the Assault match, just make an extra option for people to choose.

[qki]

Nah - cap is good. And my L2P was a serious comment.

Consider this - one light sneaks by the fighting, and goes for the cap. What are you gonna do? Keep fighting? You lose. Send 2 mechs to deal with the cap? Just what the other team would like to see - the light gets away, and you end up in an uneven 6v7.

That's called strategy. And if you take a slow mech, then serves you right for not paying attention.

If anything, I'd like resource collection rate to increase in conquest, to force caps, to the point when it becomes mandatory that you cap, and prevent enemy from capping, or yoy'll lose quickly, regardless of remaining forces.


Anything, really, to split up the deathball. There are times, when both teams miss eachother completely, and go for a base race, and the one with faster mechs wins. But that's life.

And you people are so ignorant it hurts my brain. Did any of you neanderthals realise, that light mechs are balanced partially around their mobility, and ability to do stuff like harrasment, captures etc?

If you want a pure "shoot stuff without having to worry about tactics dumbed-down simple mode for autistic children", then no dice.

[IceSerpent]

Blue Frog, on 25 March 2013 - 07:59 AM, said:

I think a Death Match should be instituted. It would be assault, just without the base cap. Don't drop the Assault match, just make an extra option for people to choose.

It's a good idea, provided that PGI changes mode selector to allow us to exclude a specific mode instead of just picking a specific mode PRIOR to introducing TDM (not 3 month after, not at the same time, but have it implemented and bug-free before TDM makes it into the game). This is an absolute must-have, because frankly, the idea of having to chase the last OPFOR mech for ten minutes every freaking match isn't gonna sit well with the majority of players.

[Tarl Cabot]

I would go for an assault/defend, where only one team as the base, making it random on which side the base would be. For the defender it is to survive and protect the base from cap for the assault team it is to destroy the defenders or cap. If the defenders are not killed off or the base is not capped in time, the defenders win.

A pure assault mode will not work all the time. Example, there are DC mechs or match starts off at 5 vs 8. Of the 5, 4 are destroyed but survivor hides from the the 3 surviving enemy and/or evades til the timer runs out. Enemy destroyed is 4 vs 5, the group with the smaller number killed actually wins. This is the way the current setup works with the cap on each side.

[ChargerIIC]

From the latest Dev Q&A:


Gameplay/Game modes/Issues

Oy of MidWorld: Are there any plans for an optional real Team DeathMatch gamemode, without basecapping or resource collection?

A: We’re toyed around with the idea for a while. At this point we do not feel it adds enough value and will segment the user base further.

So on the one hand they are looking into it, but it's not looking like a good value at the moment for the playerbase.

[Kenyon Burguess]

instead of everyone yelling L2P, how about we all start yelling L2R (learn to read) other game modes are coming, its been stated by multiple devs in multiple places. you will also have the option of selecting the mission type you wish to play.

[WardenWolf]

What about a deathmatch game mode with a twist: once half the mechs have been destroyed (counting those on both sides) a 60 second timer starts. If that timer goes off, the team with more surviving mechs wins... and the only way to reset the timer is for a mech to hit an opposing mech with weaponsfire. That means the timer won't go anywhere while the battle is 'hot', but if one team or the other disengages then the side with superior remaining forces wins - unless the underdogs try and force to keep the fight up.

This sort of fits real-life warfare: how often does one army completely destroy the other? It is usually the case that both sides take losses, and the side taking the worse losses pulls out (loses).

I would also argue that there should be attack / defend game modes: where one side has a clear win condition (capture enemy base) and the other side simply has to prevent it, rather than split attention between guarding and capturing the enemy's base. Again, this is more realistic than both sides having bases mere kilometers apart that are both at risk of being overrun.

[Josef Koba]

WardenWolf, on 25 March 2013 - 04:02 PM, said:

This sort of fits real-life warfare: how often does one army completely destroy the other? It is usually the case that both sides take losses, and the side taking the worse losses pulls out (loses).

I would also argue that there should be attack / defend game modes: where one side has a clear win condition (capture enemy base) and the other side simply has to prevent it, rather than split attention between guarding and capturing the enemy's base. Again, this is more realistic than both sides having bases mere kilometers apart that are both at risk of being overrun.

Yes, that's a good point, however, in real-life, the combat doesn't end when you're base is over-run. I think that this could be done a lot better, and I have some ideas about what I'd like to see, but I'm not sure how well received they would be. I do like your idea about an attack/defend mode. I would love to see the opportunity to literally defend or attack a fixed position. In that case, you could have an actual capture mode and that would make sense. It would be fun alternating between attacking and defending.

Otherwise, I think that the capturing option is a bit over done. Yeah, yeah, I know. Learn to play and all that. I think that's sort of a false argument, but it is what it is. I haven't played in a couple of weeks, but the last time I did, it seemed that two out of three matches ended with little or no combat. I noticed that it was a trend. Over the course of about a week I saw more and more matches end with a capture. I don't have a problem with the tactic as a last resort measure; one mech remains and he elects to capture the opposition's base. In that case, the team is RTBing anyway. It's when everyone's still alive and it's simply a mad rush to capture the base. It's called Mechwarrior, not Mechcapturer. I just personally found it frustrating to wait for a match, wait for it to load, and then never get to shoot at anything.

[Elder Thorn]

Tarl Cabot, on 25 March 2013 - 03:12 PM, said:

I would go for an assault/defend, where only one team as the base, making it random on which side the base would be. For the defender it is to survive and protect the base from cap for the assault team it is to destroy the defenders or cap. If the defenders are not killed off or the base is not capped in time, the defenders win.

either this, or a king of the hill mode, with one base in the middle of the map. That could encourage some great fights while maintaining the strategy aspect

Edited by Elder Thorn, 26 March 2013 - 07:31 AM.

[Koniving]

Oh how I wish I could moderate...

This topic does nothing here; barely any moderators read this section as this is a community helps community section. Sometimes I agree with the original poster, sometimes I disagree. I think it should be removed from smaller maps.

That said. This topic does nothing in a player help thread. It should be placed in the suggestions thread with the dozens of others like it, or asked in the next "Ask the Devs to get rid of unwanted game mechanics."

Arguing here is pointless.

[MagicHamsta]

Koniving, on 26 March 2013 - 08:17 AM, said:

This topic does nothing here; barely any moderators read this section as this is a community helps community section. Sometimes I agree with the original poster, sometimes I disagree. I think it should be removed from smaller maps.

Sowwy, the silliness of your statement forces me to ask "Why smaller maps"?
In Assault mode, me would understand removing it from the very big maps (like Alpine) where it could be difficult for slow moving close range brawlers to get back to position in time without being majorly exposed to long range fire.

In smaller maps (every map that's not Alpine & arguably Caustic) even an Atlas, the slowest mech in game, has ample time and warning to get back into a favorable position & all small maps have favorable and easy to defend positions which overlook ALL possible entrances.

River City:
Starting on the top? Hiding in Upper City gives a view of Upper, Water, and Lower city. Staying in base does as well.
Starting on bottom? Peak from water shows enemy mech movement. Either Upper or Lower will give a vantage point of all other pathways.

Frozen City:
3rd pathway is practically never used.
Basically just go dropship, have someone stare in caves or go caves.

Caustic:
The entire map basically be an open area....
Though 3 line could arguably sneak past.

Forest Colony:
Ruins + Tower = view of all pathways + close to cap.
Water = Close to cap.
Archway = View of all pathways + close to cap
Water = Close to cap.

Edited by MagicHamsta, 27 March 2013 - 07:31 PM.

[Phatel]

Capping is fine. Defend your base instead of expecting everyone to charge the hill, it's really not that hard. if you are to slow then either change your mech, engine size or commit to the base not being your issue and blame the loss on someone else.

As stated there are only two maps that really put a heavy/assault in a position to be unable to RTB but either of those you can choose to play closer to home or commit full offense. Holding the middle and being upset someone went around you, well that is just good tactics on their part.