28 replies to this topic

[Ryokens leap]

Davers, on 11 April 2013 - 01:43 PM, said:

It's a bit late in development for these game modes to be placeholders. Thats like saying "These maps are just temps until CW then we get the real maps."

I can't imagine fighting along a multi-system front and losing a planetary system and all it's resources because an ECM Spider capped your base. If this is the future reality of CW then i predict hardcore Btech players will run away screaming. It is my hope that this does not become the reality of MWO because if it does boredom will ensue.

[Deathlike]

The mode is only flawed if you're playing it wrong.

The only tweakage needed is for early-game capping (slowing down the speed in some way, either by time or tonnage/top speed)... not for "people camp", because, it doesn't happen that often, and it's still yet beatable.

[Davers]

Ryokens leap, on 11 April 2013 - 02:07 PM, said:

I can't imagine fighting along a multi-system front and losing a planetary system and all it's resources because an ECM Spider capped your base. If this is the future reality of CW then i predict hardcore Btech players will run away screaming. It is my hope that this does not become the reality of MWO because if it does boredom will ensue.

It already is the present of the game, and the game is doing well (or so it seems). Hopefully CW will add more depth to the fact that the Spider stood in the red square. I imagine it will be a common tactic actually.

[Ryokens leap]

Davers, on 11 April 2013 - 02:35 PM, said:

It already is the present of the game, and the game is doing well (or so it seems). Hopefully CW will add more depth to the fact that the Spider stood in the red square. I imagine it will be a common tactic actually.

Boo-urns, booooo-urns.

[ThinkTank]

DeadlyNerd, on 11 April 2013 - 01:46 PM, said:

Assault needs a fortress on the one side, force field protected exits and tickets.
Dead players get replaced by new ones.
That way 1 team would be, you guessed it, ASSAULTING the other.

Yo PGI, how was that so hard to think of? Dice has it going for 3 BF sequels so far.

There are no force fields in BattleTech/MechWarrior. The day they but in a force field is the day I'm leaving. I can deal with magic coolant and I don't mind ECM or crit only Machine guns, but force fields are over the line.

[Davers]

ThinkTank, on 11 April 2013 - 03:01 PM, said:

There are no force fields in BattleTech/MechWarrior. The day they but in a force field is the day I'm leaving. I can deal with magic coolant and I don't mind ECM or crit only Machine guns, but force fields are over the line.

Can I have a force field around my mech for MC?

[M4NTiC0R3X]

[Kahoumono]

There has been a push in the forums to remove base capping for a pure death match mode. All this will do is push the style of play to teams going to the best defensive position and camping there. The next push would be for respawns so teams can get dislodged from this position. The more important issue is to look at why teams cap and I don't think they do so purposely 90% of the time. Team caps generally happen because entire teams stay away from the center of the map (the shortest line to the enemy base), why? Because sniping/LRM weapons are far too effective when stacked with no penalties. No one wants to get sniped by 6PPC stalkers, 5 large laser mechs, twin gauss rifle mechs or get pummelled by 100 LRMs. Where is the fun in getting picked off in less than 30 seconds, especially when fighing well organised groups?

I have always pointed a large problem to the state of play is the effectiveness of stacked builds. Yes, they exist in the TT environment but players have taken this to the extreme by capitalising on all technology available (double heatsinks, changing engine size at will, etc.) which we rarely see in stock mechs. Perfect weapons convergence is the other main issue. Weapons mounted on torsos or arms without lower actuators should only converge at an optimal distance and not converge perfectly at all ranges. Better yet, a simpler solution to this problem is diminishing returns for weapons damage or geometric increase in heat build up when stacked weapons are fired within x amount of time. Having to better manage your weapons rather than alphaing all the time would increase the skill level needed to be an elite pilot. Battles will also be more drawn out and be much more intense. You could wade out in an Atlas and live longer than 2 salvos of enemy fire.

I have asked the devs about weapons convergence and diminishing damage in "Ask the devs" and been completely ignored. I don't think they will address this issue unless there is more of a push by the community.

[Captain Stiffy]

Jman5, on 11 April 2013 - 12:47 PM, said:

Because most spawn points are wide open and offer little cover beyond that central building. There are a few exceptions such as upper spawn River City, and Forest Colony, but all the rest will leave you completely exposed while enemy snipers can use cover to annihilate you.

So while one or two players could cower behind the building, the rest of your team gets absolutely mauled.

People don't camp their base because it's a nearly surefire way to lose on most maps. Now if you are talking about teams that move out but stay close to base, that's a different story. However, we would need to address it on a case by case basis because they all have vulnerabilities.

This is simply not true. Nobody means stand right on the base, either, use the immediate surrounding terrain. Durhey.