237 replies to this topic

[Scratx]

Roland, on 15 April 2013 - 07:29 AM, said:

Uh, there are already multiple solutions for that problem, including multiple solutions which have been presented in this very thread.

You just forced me to go through the thread and I failed to see any solution for pure team deathmatch. Everything that I saw was tuning the assault mode to make base capping mostly pointless and/or effectively remove the tactical effect of having cap zones for the rough (current) average duration of a match.

I remind you the OP wanted a PURE team deathmatch mode. You know what that is, right? No cap zones, just "kill or be killed".

Sigh.

[Joseph Mallan]

MeiSooHaityu, on 15 April 2013 - 07:54 AM, said:

I disagree. Alpine has a LOT of base rushing. I actually think the bigger maps are worse for this because the capper knows that the other team has to run FARTHER to get back to their base. If anything, Alpine always seems to have capping going on. What makes Alpine bad for this is not just the large distances you need to run, but with the layout, it is possible for both teams to completely miss each other and both base cap (base race). Also, Alpine sets up a condition where one team defends (high ground) and the other has to go on the offensive (low ground). Alpine is just plain BROKEN.

Tourmaline is a bit different. When I play Tourmaline, it seems like only one base ever seems to get capped and not the other. I want ot say it is the side closest to the drop ship that doesn't ever get capped (seemingly).

Tourmaline offers overall good visibility in all directions, so I notice that it is hard for a team to out flank without being seen. I think that is why base racing doesn't happen as often there.

Either way, Base capping is a huge problem on Alpine, and marginally for Tourmaline if you are the one side and not the other.

Capping may be going on but I don't often lose to it If my Team is on the ball and has lights of its own.

[Pygar]

/Notsigned

The current "peek-a-boo" sniper meta has me thinking they need to bring the reward for base rushing back on the level with kill wins. I actually salvaged my sanity this weekend by switching from playing assaults to playing all conquests instead....in assaults I was seeing almost the same battle every time this weekend.

I'm sorry that guy in his Jenner is keeping you from lurking in your favorite part of the map where you and your mech hold all the cards... but that's the point, the cap goal is there to keep the underdog on even terms with the guys that "camp out" with Assault mechs every time.

Edited by Pygar, 15 April 2013 - 08:09 AM.

[Mercules]

Roland, on 15 April 2013 - 07:51 AM, said:

And again, if you removed the conquest game type from those heat maps, you'd basically see a single red strip between the two bases... The only real movement you see off to the sides, even in those maps, is minor traffic heading out to cap the auxillery cap points in conquest.

If you removed the bases I think you would still see nothing but a single red strip between the two spawn points.

Your assumption that the reason for the straight line is because to wander elsewhere means you will be capped doesn't seem logical. One would think those that would try to avoid the cap would fan out across the multiple approach points to the base and then converge once contact was made with the enemy. That is not what we are seeing on the map.

What we are seeing is two groups of people rushing straight at the other spawn point to fight the other mechs and then wondering how those little green heat spots flanking them and moving to the base got there because everyone "just wants to fight, right?"

[Roland]

Scratx, on 15 April 2013 - 07:58 AM, said:

You just forced me to go through the thread and I failed to see any solution for pure team deathmatch. Everything that I saw was tuning the assault mode to make base capping mostly pointless and/or effectively remove the tactical effect of having cap zones for the rough (current) average duration of a match.

I remind you the OP wanted a PURE team deathmatch mode. You know what that is, right? No cap zones, just "kill or be killed".

Sigh.

The OP, as well as everyone else who complains about capping, would be perfectly fine with having SOME capping mechanic.. such as a cap point that opens up after a certain number of the enemy team have died, or after a given time limit.

They just don't enjoy matches where someone rushes directly to the cap point, limiting their ability to move around the map.

Lots of games, like TF2, have such a system implemented. It's not a complex solution, and it works fine.

[John MatriX82]

I think a simple way to address the capwarrior mechanic is to introduce "forward bases" or "outpost(s).

In few words the enemy must capture a specific base (or more) or cap point to unlock the main base, that when captured, will make the team win by base capture.

By this, it won't be so easy to capture the enemy base, because you'd be warned faster of the intentions of the team.. or it could be used to lure or distract the main force as a tactic to deal with less enemies at once.

This should be introduced specifically for very large maps such as Alpine, Tourmaline and the other "big ones" that will be introduced in the next months.

Weight matching mechanic should ease the capwarrior problem, but I think the above could work, especially when 12 vs 12 teams will be introduced.

Edited by John MatriX82, 15 April 2013 - 08:04 AM.

[Reitrix]

Sir Crashalot, on 15 April 2013 - 07:50 AM, said:

The trouble is, Assault in this game is misnamed. You are not really "assalting" anything, the base is just a little square that any Tom, **** or Urbanmech can run into. A good base would be well defended and difficult to breach, perhaps with automatic turrets (which will only work if there are defenders in the base). Right now it is pretty much TDM with a couple of capture points thrown in for good measure, of course there are a few who are smart enough to use these to dictate the course of the battle but if the majority are not interested then it will cause the issues you see in this thread.

How can assault be made more interesting and true to its name?
Perhaps a true assault mode could be added where one side has to attack a fortified base while the other has to defend.
A full frontal assault could be made harder by the addition of fortifications and turrets which would force the attackers to use tactics like sending lights around to "disable" them before charging in. To make things fair the attacking side could be larger (3 lances instead of 2) than the defending side. Bonuses can be rewarded for tactical play as well as fragging. (ie. scouts awarded for disabling base defences) defending team gets a bonus for successful defence etc. Of course it wouldn't be quite so straight forward as this is just off of the top of my head but it would certainly add a new level of challenge and interest to a game that is currently not much more than Quake with mechs. (Ok I might be a little harsh there but still...)

I think both sides of this debate have points, it isn't about right and wrong just differing opinions and I think many of the people in this thread are smart enough to find a real solution and make the game more enjoyable.

Theyve already stated that sort of thing is under development.

I really would like the Base to have something you have to actually shoot at, when they first added the big drill thing to the very tiny base square, shooting it would cause the target reticle to turn red, as though you damaged something.

And for crying out loud, make the base square much larger for defense, with the inner square we have now as the capture point at least. Its awfully silly to lose a very close game whereby all except 2 Lights are dead, and those lights are fighting for a basecap (I rationalize the current stand here to cap as your Pilot hacking the base computer XD), and your base gets slightly more capped the instant you step a fraction of a millimeter out of the line. Would allow the use of cover for lights defending a base against an Atlas for example.
And yes, i did have a recent game where it came down to my Spider vs 2 (mostly undamaged) Atlai, and they stood in my base while i tried desperately to keep moving and stay in the box at the same time. To my credit i nearly cored one of them >_>
And then died to an AC/20 round to the face. lol.

[Roland]

Mercules, on 15 April 2013 - 08:02 AM, said:

If you removed the bases I think you would still see nothing but a single red strip between the two spawn points.

As I said, years of experience in MW4 suggest that you are absolutely incorrect.

Without cap points, you wouldn't move directly towards the enemy, because you would instead want to make sure that you engaged from a position of strength. Unless that was a location on a the center of the map, which you could reach first, and which projected strength in every direction, then your assertion here is incorrect.

Quote

Your assumption that the reason for the straight line is because to wander elsewhere means you will be capped doesn't seem logical. One would think those that would try to avoid the cap would fan out across the multiple approach points to the base and then converge once contact was made with the enemy. That is not what we are seeing on the map.

That's actually what you are seeing. Engagement is always taking place along a fairly narrow strip. No one bothers checking in large portions of the map which are off that strip, because if the enemy moves over there it'll essentially take too long for them to get to the cap point, and they are putting themselves into a position where they cannot defend against the cap.

At some point, if you can't see this clear pattern in the heat maps, nothing is going to convince you. The man sees what he wants to see, and disregards the rest, I suppose.

Quote

What we are seeing is two groups of people rushing straight at the other spawn point to fight the other mechs and then wondering how those little green heat spots flanking them and moving to the base got there because everyone "just wants to fight, right?"

What you're seeing is both teams advancing along a central corridor, because that's the only path for advancement which keeps them in between the main body of OPFOR and their base, which is where you have to be in order to prevent a cap.

This is clearly presented in the heat maps.. and would be even more clearly presented if you remove the conquest games, because even in these maps you can see that there is really only token traffic off to the sides, and that traffic itself is all focused on those cap points.

Essentially, what the cap points do is create tethers for all mech movement... and this results in large sections of various maps going completely unused.

[Draco Harkins]

Sorry OP but it has been pretty much confirmed from the devs (cant recall if from Russ or Bryan) that TDM WONT BE be ingame ever. I blame profitability A.K.A. greed. I would link you to it but i really dont care anymore with 3pv coming, TDM off the table and CW becoming mech assault with time.

Edited by Draco Harkins, 15 April 2013 - 08:16 AM.

[Pygar]

Roland, on 15 April 2013 - 08:10 AM, said:

Essentially, what the cap points do is create tethers for all mech movement... and this results in large sections of various maps going completely unused.

I think not having a secondary objective makes even more of the map useless... people will just find their favorite hiding place and stay there until the clock runs down... and it makes Jump Snipers or "Pop Tarts" that much more viable because they don't have to go anywhere besides their favorite spot on a given map.

[FupDup]

Scratx, on 15 April 2013 - 07:58 AM, said:

You just forced me to go through the thread and I failed to see any solution for pure team deathmatch. Everything that I saw was tuning the assault mode to make base capping mostly pointless and/or effectively remove the tactical effect of having cap zones for the rough (current) average duration of a match.

I remind you the OP wanted a PURE team deathmatch mode. You know what that is, right? No cap zones, just "kill or be killed".

Sigh.

Well, an easy fix could be to just make the team with the most kills by the end of the timer win (so that last shutdown Spider griefer would end up losing).

[Joseph Mallan]

Roland, on 15 April 2013 - 08:10 AM, said:

As I said, years of experience in MW4 suggest that you are absolutely incorrect.

What you're seeing is both teams advancing along a central corridor, because that's the only path for advancement which keeps them in between the main body of OPFOR and their base, which is where you have to be in order to prevent a cap.

This is clearly presented in the heat maps.. and would be even more clearly presented if you remove the conquest games, because even in these maps you can see that there is really only token traffic off to the sides, and that traffic itself is all focused on those cap points.

I don't know Roland, I would think that if the bases are always spawning in the same place, the path of least resistance is what we are seeing. It is the easiest path to find the main body of the enemy force. A straight line from my base to your base will yield me the battle I want. If the bases appeared equally on east/west as it does North/South we would probably have a near perfect X. where the main battle almost always happens in the middle. the less travels paths are likely the scouts trying to avoid detection while scouting or capping.

[Roland]

Joseph Mallan, on 15 April 2013 - 08:25 AM, said:

I don't know Roland, I would think that if the bases are always spawning in the same place, the path of least resistance is what we are seeing. It is the easiest path to find the main body of the enemy force. A straight line from my base to your base will yield me the battle I want. If the bases appeared equally on east/west as it does North/South we would probably have a near perfect X. where the main battle almost always happens in the middle. the less travels paths are likely the scouts trying to avoid detection while scouting or capping.

Your mistake here is in determining "the battle you want".

You don't want a battle that begins with the enemy looking at you. You want the engagement to begin with your main force hitting them from a flank, or better yet, their rear.

That means that just walking towards them on the central line is generally going to be a bad idea. We used to scout around with light mechs, and then flank the main force into position on a flank.

[DerSpecht]

Roland, on 15 April 2013 - 08:10 AM, said:

What you're seeing is both teams advancing along a central corridor, because that's the only path for advancement which keeps them in between the main body of OPFOR and their base, which is where you have to be in order to prevent a cap.

This is clearly presented in the heat maps.. and would be even more clearly presented if you remove the conquest games, because even in these maps you can see that there is really only token traffic off to the sides, and that traffic itself is all focused on those cap points.

Essentially, what the cap points do is create tethers for all mech movement... and this results in large sections of various maps going completely unused.

Thats actually totally wrong. We see the same Game-Concept in world of tanks. Where people actually flank and contribute to the win and main forces use different approaches on the maps. This is working in this game too. Flanking and picking off slow stragglers nakes fun. But people with long range alpha cheesebuilds dont do this. They need a place to hide and a good view.

[Joseph Mallan]

Roland, on 15 April 2013 - 08:40 AM, said:

Your mistake here is in determining "the battle you want".

You don't want a battle that begins with the enemy looking at you. You want the engagement to begin with your main force hitting them from a flank, or better yet, their rear.

That means that just walking towards them on the central line is generally going to be a bad idea. We used to scout around with light mechs, and then flank the main force into position on a flank.

The battle I want is your side quits at the sight of my Atlas!

Seriously though, Getting the fight you listed takes communication that PUGs don't often have.

[Roland]

DerSpecht, on 15 April 2013 - 08:41 AM, said:

Thats actually totally wrong. We see the same Game-Concept in world of tanks. Where people actually flank and contribute to the win and main forces use different approaches on the maps. This is working in this game too. Flanking and picking off slow stragglers nakes fun. But people with long range alpha cheesebuilds dont do this. They need a place to hide and a good view.

You can say it's wrong all you want, but the heatmaps clearly prove otherwise.

[Agent of Change]

Roland, on 15 April 2013 - 08:45 AM, said:

You can say it's wrong all you want, but the heatmaps clearly prove otherwise.

I don't see how they do.

I see more people complaining about how long matches take, about how the last mech should just run into the enemy to die to get the match over with, about how fast matches are the best matches.

The simple fact you assume that the heat maps show some kind of conscious choice to prevent capping rather than just simply the fastest route between them and the enemy means you give the majority of the player base far more credit than i will probably ever be willing to give them.

Those heat maps show me a number of potential scenarios not the least of which is simple laziness and impatience. TDM will look exactly the same, because for every team that genuinely wants to use the whole map to maneuver and use tactics in a kill or be killed only scenario you will have 5 or more that will simply set auto pilot directly towards enemy spawn and brawl just to get the match done so they can drop again.

The current cap mechanics aren't perfect, but at this point they are good enough to at least force some form of movement and provide a counter for the imbalanced overly heavy, overly specialized teams, and provide a reason for fast mechs to exist for both capping and cap prevention purposes.

What amazes me is that this discussion is still going on.

Edited by Agent of Change, 15 April 2013 - 09:06 AM.

[Rasilon]

hammerreborn, on 14 April 2013 - 06:21 PM, said:

You know what can be done? Defend your damn base.

/thread

Hammer, I think it's obvious that this issue is with the LARGE maps that are now being added. You and I have both been in games where there is no way to get back to base in time when a cap starts on these maps (Alpine and Tourmaline). As was mentioned before, leaving someone to defend base is a) boring as hell for the guard, and statistically a great way to make your team lose (from your own research on being a man down). One solution is fairly simple.. scale the cap time based on the map size.

[Mercules]

Roland, on 15 April 2013 - 08:10 AM, said:

As I said, years of experience in MW4 suggest that you are absolutely incorrect.

I played both MW3 and MW4 in LANs where lag was not an issue. What happened when objectives were removed was the two teams moved towards each other and engaged What I posted was an exaggeration, but what you most often see is an "Eye" shaped heat map with the points being at the spawn point and a narrow one at that. It would alter slightly based on the terrain.

The main battle took place where every the pupil of the eye would be. Really, no different than what you currently see with bases in the Assault maps.

Roland, on 15 April 2013 - 08:10 AM, said:

Without cap points, you wouldn't move directly towards the enemy, because you would instead want to make sure that you engaged from a position of strength. Unless that was a location on a the center of the map, which you could reach first, and which projected strength in every direction, then your assertion here is incorrect.

Yes, what you are describing is basically what is currently happening. Each side moves to the closest position of strength and camps there. The fact that they can be capped forces them to leave that position of strength and/or split up their forces. Given the maps the "Postion of Strength" wouldn't change much without the bases. The line behind the dropship on Frozen for example is a strong position and no one would ever go into "Jenner Highway" where you would have a harder time firing up at your enemy than they usually have firing down upon you.

The Cave would be avoided at all costs as it is too easy to get stuck in and is used mostly because it is a short route to the opposite base and thus worth the "gamble" of getting stuck.

Roland, on 15 April 2013 - 08:10 AM, said:

That's actually what you are seeing. Engagement is always taking place along a fairly narrow strip. No one bothers checking in large portions of the map which are off that strip, because if the enemy moves over there it'll essentially take too long for them to get to the cap point, and they are putting themselves into a position where they cannot defend against the cap.

If slow mechs do so, yes. This means that a fast team can essentially avoid combat with a slower team and force them to engage on their terms. Without the bases the slow team can simply find a piece of terrain that is good for their style of fighting and force the other team to engage there. Why bring maneuverable mechs when maneuvering around the enemy doesn't count for much?

As it exists a team made up of fast mediums can set up a false front, maneuver around and cap the base of an all assault team. Without a base mechanic they would be forced to eventually close in on the assaults and fight a battle on their terms.

Roland, on 15 April 2013 - 08:10 AM, said:

At some point, if you can't see this clear pattern in the heat maps, nothing is going to convince you. The man sees what he wants to see, and disregards the rest, I suppose.

I can see the pattern clearly, I don't think it means what you think it means. We both see the same pattern but attribute different causes to it. You believe it is because of fear of capping. I think it is because of "Derp... derp... enemy be ovar der so I go shoot dem."

Roland, on 15 April 2013 - 08:10 AM, said:

What you're seeing is both teams advancing along a central corridor, because that's the only path for advancement which keeps them in between the main body of OPFOR and their base, which is where you have to be in order to prevent a cap.

What I am seeing is what I stated above. Idiots running straight at a fight to get into stompy mech on mech action.

Roland, on 15 April 2013 - 08:10 AM, said:

Essentially, what the cap points do is create tethers for all mech movement... and this results in large sections of various maps going completely unused.

In some ways yes, but in others no. What it does is free faster mechs up from having to come into engagement range of slow mechs. The tether instead of being attached to the enemy team and thus allowing one team to dictate where the combat takes place, is attached to different locations and forces both teams to consider them.
Without bases the tether is the enemy team and the best tactic is to blob together, pick a defensive position force the enemy to approach you. Bases break that up at a slight cost of freedom. They force you to not blob up because doing so means the enemy can bypass you and capture your base, but blobbing means focus firing which is effective in combat. So it makes you choose tactically how you are going to solve that dilemma. It really opens more "routes" to victory than TDM does by far.

[Sahoj]

I feel like base caps in Assault are less of an issue when your team doesn't move in a giant blob.

Many teams simply ignore flankers so they can steamroll the center in the old pain train (ultra-effective).

Try and dedicate a couple anti-flankers/flankers yourself to put pressure on the other team's base and skirmishers.