9 replies to this topic

[Deathlike]

This potentially has the way to "fix" or at least address what is currently the state of the capping system.

How the proposed system works:
Based on the mech's top speed (which obviously is affected by tonnage and engine rating), the speed of the capping is affected by it. The faster the mech, the slower the cap. The slower the mech, the faster the cap.

In a map like Alpine (which is the fun extreme case), a light mech is able to reach its destination to cap, far more easily than a medium or heavy. So, the only legitimate method of getting to that point is by its top speed.

This is by no means a perfect system. The slowest Atlas will still take forever to get to a cap, but if you put a 350 engine on it, it will cap slower than an Atlas with a 250 engine. However, it's kinda moot when you're an Atlas.

The "penalizing" aspect is that it takes in to account newbies, as it costs a pretty penny to put in an XL engine. It also accounts for mechs that don't have comparable engines, like the Raven 3L vs the 2X and 4X or the Cent-D vs the A and AL versions.

This does not factor in mech's current speed when it it at the cap.. just the top speed of the mech.

Ideally, a light mech would cap @ a rate of 50% of the normal capping speed (assuming the light mech has the fastest engine possible)... and there would be a significantly lower rate than an Atlas (like 95 to 98% or so). The capture accelerator would factor into this of course and may need to be readjusted.

This change would affect both modes...

A secondary consideration would that the speed of capping would be affected by the map's "capping speed" value... assuming that would be instituted in the future. It would be lower in say Frozen City than it would be in Alpine due to distances traveled.

This should not "cripple" light mechs capping ability.. it should simply be used to "equalize" the playing field as I feel that mediums, heavies (and the occasional Assault mech) should be capping just as much as the light mechs in Conquest (not so much in Assault) and light mechs will still have major control over capping anyways due to their speed.

Edited by Deathlike, 29 March 2013 - 07:15 PM.

[Deathlike]

Bump

This has to be better than many of the really bad ideas to "fix" Assault capping...

[Neolisk]

Perhaps, by tonnage instead?

[Werewolf486 ScorpS]

No.....


If you really want to fix Cap Speed then it should start out Slow and become quicker the closer it gets to finished. It should also take a total of 8 minutes to cap as a single mech without cap assist. If all 8 mechs get on base then it would take 1 minute to cap it out.

[Deathlike]

Neolisk, on 31 March 2013 - 04:25 AM, said:

Perhaps, by tonnage instead?

Tonnage does not address specific issues like "engine equality". The 3L in the obvious example has the fastest engine vs its 2X and 4X brethren. The Jenner has the fastest engine of the 35 tonners. Then again, you have the Cataphract-4X being the slowest of the phract variants.

Look at the 50 tonners. There are max engine differences between each other. Top speed already factors in the engine rating AND the tonnage of the mech already. The only difference is that the larger mechs are not as fast with acceleration.

Do you see why this matters?

Werewolf486, on 31 March 2013 - 08:59 AM, said:

No.....


If you really want to fix Cap Speed then it should start out Slow and become quicker the closer it gets to finished. It should also take a total of 8 minutes to cap as a single mech without cap assist. If all 8 mechs get on base then it would take 1 minute to cap it out.

Technically, the current system already does that, but I assume you mean you need a progressively faster capping speed with more people capping instead of strictly cumulative capping.

Edited by Deathlike, 31 March 2013 - 09:13 AM.

[Neolisk]

Deathlike, on 31 March 2013 - 09:07 AM, said:

Tonnage does not address specific issues like "engine equality".

I am just trying to make it more logical. The bigger the engine, the faster capture should be, which is contrary to what you are suggesting. Tonnage on the other hand is another logical way of doing it. And it makes sense that a heavier mech will capture it faster.

[Thurheim]

here's a thought about the engines. Engines that are larger and faster, such as an atlas with an XL 350 or what ever, as it is HUGE, and has an engine to work a cap, should BLAST through a cap easily.

[Phaesphoros]

Werewolf486, on 31 March 2013 - 08:59 AM, said:

If you really want to fix Cap Speed then it should start out Slow and become quicker the closer it gets to finished.

Then implement that and apply the inverse function to the cap indicator bar. Result for 1 mech capping: none.
For 1 mech capping, only changing the capping speed dependent on remaining "base health" doesn't change anything but a less intuitive display of the cap indicator.

Neolisk, on 02 April 2013 - 06:10 AM, said:

I am just trying to make it more logical. The bigger the engine, the faster capture should be, which is contrary to what you are suggesting. Tonnage on the other hand is another logical way of doing it. And it makes sense that a heavier mech will capture it faster.

Capping doesn't seem to me to be neither realistic nor logical, just as Deathlike stated. Staying near some indestructible thing in a field that is marked by a laser fence?

[Deathlike]

Neolisk, on 02 April 2013 - 06:10 AM, said:

I am just trying to make it more logical. The bigger the engine, the faster capture should be, which is contrary to what you are suggesting. Tonnage on the other hand is another logical way of doing it. And it makes sense that a heavier mech will capture it faster.

What I'm suggesting is the inverse/reverse. The faster the mech, it'll get there quicker and accelerating the cap speed is NOT the way to go.

Just compare the 3L to its brethren, the 2X or 4X. The engine speeds on the 2X and 4X is technically a "handicap". Why penalize the 2X and 4X for being unable to use a faster engine? By adjusting the capping speed to favor the slower mech by design, the 3L will still benefit because it'll get there first, and overall it will still be more effective at capping, but the 2X won't be penalized for lagging behind.

Tonnage is not the solution. For the sake of argument, you have a PB, that has a 400XL engine. Compare that to the stock Catapult engine (260). The PB will get there quicker than the stock Catapult. It doesn't mean the PB is strictly "better at capping" overall, but if used in that role, it would be better at getting to the caps.

Top speed factors in BOTH tonnage AND engine rating. The major difference (which I've repeated before) between tonnages is strictly between acceleration to the top speed on slower mechs, due to tonnage.

Thurheim, on 02 April 2013 - 06:17 AM, said:

here's a thought about the engines. Engines that are larger and faster, such as an atlas with an XL 350 or what ever, as it is HUGE, and has an engine to work a cap, should BLAST through a cap easily.

Engines are not equal to the variants, let alone the tonnages that use them. Raven 3Ls can use a bigger engine, the 2X and 4X cannot. Between the Awesome variants, the PB is the fastest, with the 9M barely trailing it.

My point from all of this is that the naturally slower mechs that don't quite have the engine to get there would benefit from my suggested change (especially stock mechs) and those that are naturally good at them (light mechs) get a much bigger nerf relatively to capping speed, so that they can't control caps at the rate that they do due to their much faster top speeds.

Edited by Deathlike, 02 April 2013 - 11:08 AM.

[Neolisk]

Phaesphoros, on 02 April 2013 - 06:32 AM, said:

Capping doesn't seem to me to be neither realistic nor logical, just as Deathlike stated. Staying near some indestructible thing in a field that is marked by a laser fence?

The bigger your engine, the more processing power your internal computer has, for hacking the circuits and ultimately changing them to work in your favour. Now how does that sound?