215 replies to this topic

[Teralitha]

Bluten, on 28 March 2013 - 10:19 PM, said:

More people hit NO, so I hope you're all happy with your capracing.

The poll hasnt ended yet, give it a few days, I think they will find that there are alot more yes votes on the way, and then they will cry....

The poll I made has 268 'yes' votes. This poll only has 130 'no' votes. Id say the 'no' voters arent even close to winning.

Edited by Teralitha, 28 March 2013 - 10:27 PM.

[xxx WreckinBallRaj xxx]

Funny thing is that in the actual games, EVERYONE hates it when a game ends due to a cap rather than a wipe. Yet the poll reflects the opposite. I guess the players aren't voting, or the voters aren't playing.

[Marj]

Bluten, on 28 March 2013 - 11:25 PM, said:

Funny thing is that in the actual games, EVERYONE hates it when a game ends due to a cap rather than a wipe. Yet the poll reflects the opposite. I guess the players aren't voting, or the voters aren't playing.

Of course. ForumWarrior is far more fun that assault or conquest!

[MacKoga]

I like the tactical vulnerability and options that having a cappable base that assault brings. But sometimes I want to be able to be in a game, in which everyone has agreed it's a no-holds-barred destruction derby. Rather than trying to negotiate this in chat between all of us PUGs, it'd be nice to have an optional mode.

But again, as I suggested, I'd be as or more interested in many-team deathmatches and free-for-all. That wouldn't be too hard to implement, either.

[Corwin Vickers]

Bluten, on 28 March 2013 - 11:25 PM, said:

Funny thing is that in the actual games, EVERYONE hates it when a game ends due to a cap rather than a wipe. Yet the poll reflects the opposite. I guess the players aren't voting, or the voters aren't playing.

But the opposite is worse. Having 3 assault mechs left over after the brawl and 1 light mech hiding behind a crate shutdown making you search for him for 10 minutes. Or worse, 25 minutes because the brawl only takes 5 minutes but people want TDM to last 30.

[Asmudius Heng]

Just include TDM for 8 man groups only if its such a huge issue for PUGs.

Only organised 8 man groups use this game mode to its most awesome potential anyway because pugs are a flock of ******** sheep most of the time, it doesnt matter WHAT game mode it is.

The benefits of TDM far outweigh some of the negatives. I want to use ALL of these awesome maps not be strangled into certain areas because of the fear of base capping. Good TDM teams will range far and wide to jostle for the best position, only to be outflanked anf forced to move or die.

I have played a few game son Alpine where teh bases were ignored and players used terrain, speed, and tactics to fight and gain advantage. IT WAS ***** GLORIOUS!

Then I played a game of conquest on it where it was like a benny hill scene as people chased the lights all over the maps ... it was just plain silly.

I bet if you look at all the yes people on this poll they are 8 vs 8 competative players ... so let those people have it.

Random pugs are mostly prettydamned foolish and NEED an objective to give some sort of motivation because well run TDM needs fantastic co-ordination to unlock the best aspects of it. Let pugs have assault.

I also want to see asymetric game modes and the dropship mode - I think they will be super fun, but TDM has enormous potential even with some of the drawbacks - but only for organised groups IMO.

I have a daughter now and cannot spend the time I did meching and arguing on forums or I would make another video on the limitations of assault and how TDM is better for organised play.

[Teralitha]

Corwin Vickers, on 29 March 2013 - 02:43 AM, said:

But the opposite is worse. Having 3 assault mechs left over after the brawl and 1 light mech hiding behind a crate shutdown making you search for him for 10 minutes. Or worse, 25 minutes because the brawl only takes 5 minutes but people want TDM to last 30.

Can say the same thing for the ones who are fanatically against TDM without reason.

[Belorion]

I will never understand people's insistence that other people play a certain way.

[Marj]

Just spent the day capping in assault. Unopposed about half the time. Fun!

[Egomane]

Removed several posts that are attacks against each other or against parts of the community.
The next offense will result in the offender spending the rest of the long easter weekend without posting privileges. All unconstructive posts (off topic- insulting etc) will be deleted without any further advice.

No more flamebaits! No more insults! This goes for both threads in question!

There is room enough on these forums for two poll threads on TDM.

Edited by Egomane, 29 March 2013 - 09:44 AM.

[Angus McBeef]

I voted "Who Cares?" because this poll will be as effective at getting what we want as the 3PV polls were.

[Mercules]

1sh0t, on 28 March 2013 - 04:57 PM, said:

I agree with the second part of your post, a big problem is the average skill level and lack of communication. Is this a new problem that the devs didn't foresee? Of course not, it's an obvious issue relevant to all f2p games. That's why we're arguing for a better mode for pugs.

Regarding the first part of your post, no, for the average pug player there isn't anything they could do different. Disengaging from battle is extremely difficult in this game. You want someone who's barely piloting their mech to turn around and slowly run back to their base while getting shot in the rear? That's a death sentence.

As I said in what you responded to, there are times you can't break away. As I also said it is very rare when no one on the team can break away. You know what works even better than having to break from combat? Intercepting people before they get to your base.

I AM the average PUG player. I do hop on with one or two friends from time to time, but I spend more time in a PUG than in a group. Do you know how often my team has to worry about someone capping? Maybe 1 in 7 games might be less often than that but I'm going to play it safe. That isn't win from a cap, that is the enemy hits our base.
In match VOIP would go a long way towards correcting these issues. A matchmaker that functioned would go a long way towards correcting these issue. As it is we have matches where 1 Assault and 3 heavies and 4 slow Mediums are thrown up against a more balanced team or maybe a very imbalance team with 6 Assault and 2 lights. We end up in matches where a team can easily outgun or outrun another team.

If this matchmaker sticks around as is and we implement TDM You really will see a move to Assaults. You still won't have communication for pulling off any combat maneuvers you might want in TDM. If people can't coordinate WHO is going to the base to clear out a capper, how are they ever going to coordinate a flanking maneuver? There are not. Instead people will pilot the heaviest mech they feel comfortable in, blob up since that is the main way to be safe, and turtle up so they are not the team getting strung out and killed one at a time.

Marj, on 28 March 2013 - 06:57 PM, said:

If you can't see the advantages of TDM over assault I'm probably not going to convince you. I hope the devs put a bit more thought into it though. Because as far as competitive play goes (NOT pugs), the current modes are awful.

So you are saying TDM would not be good for PUGs but others are saying it would be better for PUGs. Something isn't working here.

Thank you for at least listing things you believe would work better in TDM than they do in Assault or Conquest. I am going to have to consider them a bit but at least you could give me a reasonable description of tactics you believe work better in that mode than the current ones. You may be right about a couple there from first glance I'll need to think about it more though.

Seriously thank you I've been asking for that in multiple post and no one else has provided any.

Bluten, on 28 March 2013 - 11:25 PM, said:

Funny thing is that in the actual games, EVERYONE hates it when a game ends due to a cap rather than a wipe. Yet the poll reflects the opposite. I guess the players aren't voting, or the voters aren't playing.

When discussing things and making a point it is probably best to stay away form absolutes. For example, I know I at least don't hate the game ending to a cap. I realize that it is one of the objectives of the game and so it will happen. In fact it is the primary objective and you only win from killing all your foes because there is no one left to oppose you and the devs don't make you walk over there and stand there.

[Noobzorz]

Vahnn, on 28 March 2013 - 09:27 PM, said:

I voted moments before you changed the subject. I am not able to recast my vote... My vote still stands. So...

How is this poll now "unbiased" and "no-nonsense," and a "do-over?"

A) You can use the "Delete My Vote" button to re-cast a vote.

B ) One other person brought this up, and I don't understand it. The poll reads:

"Do you want TDM?"

"Yes"

"No"

"Who cares"

The wording is as simplistic and direct as possible to avoid prompting a response. I challenge you to make a poll that asks the question more plainly. The OP asserts (correctly, in at least two cases) that TDM ******* sucks without powerful resources to compete over (a la UT99 or Quake III), and that it would be a silly mode, but that I still want it in the game because other people want it. From this point, the poll stands alone, and the OP was in response to the ridiculous griping that expresses that capping is "cheap" and TDM is the "true" way to play the game.

C) See B.

D) This is the poll that inspired this topic, I suggest this one: http://mwomercs.com/...2#entry2121522. I initially voted yes, then as I read through the discussion, I grew increasingly annoyed with the level of temerity on display from the more vociferous of the "pro" side.


As I mentioned previously, if these people just said "assault is too complex" (that word is not intended as an indirect insult; "Simplicity is the highest form of sophistication" after all) then they'd find a lot more sympathy. As it is, a disturbing number of the folks who are vocalizing their desire are basically just complaining that they lost to cap and that it is unfair that the jenner played the objective instead of trying to mano a mano with their stalker.

Marj, on 29 March 2013 - 04:10 AM, said:

Just spent the day capping in assault. Unopposed about half the time. Fun!

There is no way this is true. I am never, ever, ever unopposed when I cap (statement of fact; I have literally never won by cap victory with 0 damage done on assault; i cannot recall a time I attempted to cap that I didn't have to duke it out with a cicada that came back to defend). Even on tourmaline, someone always comes back to defend. My W/L would be much higher if they didn't.

Edited by Noobzorz, 29 March 2013 - 06:48 AM.

[Marj]

PUG's in TDM behave basically as you'd expect...assault without the bases. There's no communication so there's little coordination. You wouldn't just see assault mechs though...this is a game people play for fun. If the game was just a bunch of assaults duking it out it'd get pretty boring. People will play whatever they enjoy. Not only that, but think about modern militaries. They don't just have all tanks or all bombers. They need a variety of units to be effective. And there's plenty of people that will enjoy just having a fight in the mech of their choice, although there's always the risk a griefer will run and hide to stop that death showing up on their stats. Something the devs will need to deal with somehow since many people won't want to spend 5-10 mins hunting for one light mech on Tourmaline.

Mech is nowhere near as complex as a real military engagement obviously, but the same basic principles apply. You need scouts to tell the other mechs where the enemy is. You can use fast units to outmanouvre slow units, hitting them from unexpected angles so they can't return fire. You will need units capable of defeating the enemy's scouts and harassers, otherwise the assaults are just sitting ducks.

This is where TDM really shines. When two coordinated teams on comms play to out manouvre and outwit each other. The idea that two teams will simply walk into each other and start shooting is utterly absurd, you won't gain an advantage doing that. Each will be thinking up loadouts and strategies to gain an advantage over the enemy. The more balanced the ruleset the better the game will be. MW4 used a tonnage limit to ensure both teams dropped with the same weight. Each team had to come up with a loadout within that limit then use the given terrain to beat the other team. The better the game balance the more varied those loadouts will be. Both trying to find some way to divide/outrange/sneak up on and outbrawl the other. It's true that some units in MW4 leagues just used one loadout all the time. But others liked to experiment with different loadouts and the strategies those loadouts allowed. House Jurai was one of the latter.

With bases all the above is impossible. You MUST defend the base. To not do so is to lose. Whether you do that from the cap square or the center of the map is irrelevant. You are bound to the two cap points on the map. Without bases you are free to use the entire map in your efforts to gain an advantage, be it setting up a line of snipers with a defensive line of brawlers, a group of harassers flanking the enemy and distracting them from your LRM boats, a group of brawlers shutting down in a ravine waiting as an enemy spotted by your scouts approaches. There is a vast number of possibilities, which is what keeps the game interesting. Having the same fight around the dropship on Frozen City or the caldera on Caustic Valley is going to get old. TDM allows more possibilities which extends the life of the game. At least for people that like to see something new every now and then.

Edited by Marj, 29 March 2013 - 06:48 AM.

[0X2A]

If I wanted TDM, I'd go play COD.

[Marj]

Noobzorz, on 29 March 2013 - 06:42 AM, said:

There is no way this is true. I am never, ever, ever unopposed when I cap (statement of fact; I have literally never won by cap victory with 0 damage done on assault; i cannot recall a time I attempted to cap that I didn't have to duke it out with a cicada that came back to defend). Even on tourmaline, someone always comes back to defend. My W/L would be much higher if they didn't.

Try it again. Take a fast trebuchet (~100kph) with jj's designed to take out lights. Take a fairly safe path to the base, e.g. far south on tourmaline. DON'T get spotted. Wait until the main forces have engaged then cap. By then, if the lights on your team are any good, they'll have tied up the enemy's lights and you'll be free to cap. I did it pugging, but a 4 man who targets the enemy's fast response units would make it much easier (don't know why people always target the assaults first).

As for my stats,

Kills / Death 2,410 / 1,047 C-Bills 16,287,535 Experience Points 1,535,851 Wins / Losses 1,730 / 928 Kill / Death Ratio 2.30 Accumulative C-Bills Per Match 118,948.87 Avg. XP Per Match 577.82


Not great, but not bad for someone who experiments with builds and pugs. Take from that what you will.

[Mercules]

Marj, on 29 March 2013 - 06:46 AM, said:

The idea that two teams will simply walk into each other and start shooting is utterly absurd, you won't gain an advantage doing that.

It's not absurd, my evidence is more than 50% of the PUG Assault matches where no one bothers with cap. That is EXACTLY what happens.

[Marj]

Mercules, on 29 March 2013 - 07:00 AM, said:

It's not absurd, my evidence is more than 50% of the PUG Assault matches where no one bothers with cap. That is EXACTLY what happens.

I was referring to team games on comms...guess I should have made that clearer!

[Noobzorz]

Marj, on 29 March 2013 - 07:10 AM, said:

I was referring to team games on comms...guess I should have made that clearer!

How is capping a problem in these?

Make up your mind.

[Mavairo]

TDM is for Call of Doody.

Not for this game.
I vote no.