237 replies to this topic

[Custom3173]

Caladan Nix, on 14 April 2013 - 06:24 PM, said:

I'll keep saying it-

PGI needs to make them REAL bases. The capper should have to get past Turrets, Calliopes, troops with SRM launchers, then break open some Blast Doors and have to stand in that area and hold ground...

It would make it more of an actual "capture" than just standing in a highlighted route...

This is the best idea I've ever seen on the forums.

[Reitrix]

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

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

You love those heatmaps, but obviously only the ones that appear to support your argument against caps.
https://static.mwome...m/img/heatmaps/
Here. ALL the Heatmaps. Everyone have a scroll through them. Pay especial note to all the maps that are not Alpine or Tourmaline.
Notice something amazing?
The dots are all over the map! On all the maps! Movement, kills and Deaths are in every grid! ITS CRAZY@!1!

Tourmaline has that distribution for one reason. Once at the middle point of that map, you can see fairly clearly almost all the other approach vectors.
You can easily start shooting at the slower team before they get a chance to get into the cover on their side.

On Alpine, that big red cluster happens for the same reason, the lower Base team goes to that hill because it offers a good amount of cover from the higher Base team going up that way.
If they're not, the team swings right and heads up the 7 line, or continues up the left side into that narrow valley that leads to the top of the higher Base. the latter being the more common approach.
The second reason the red is so thick in those 2 places, is that the higher team has a height advantage over the lower team who has little to no cover once leaving the base, with the higher team able to utilize the higher hills to snipe down at approaching 'mechs while also having good visibility on half the map., which lets that teams brawlers get close enough to smash into the Enemy hunkering down at the base of that hill.

The 7 line is VERY unpopular because the high team generally sets up on the hills above it, which leaves your entire force open to fire all the way up the valley to the base area, which is why you see Lights utilizing this path while the larger brawl is taking place.

So you are actually reading the data wrong. Unsurprisingly.

[DerSpecht]

Reitrix, on 15 April 2013 - 09:20 AM, said:

You love those heatmaps, but obviously only the ones that appear to support your argument against caps.
https://static.mwome...m/img/heatmaps/
Here. ALL the Heatmaps. Everyone have a scroll through them. Pay especial note to all the maps that are not Alpine or Tourmaline.
Notice something amazing?
The dots are all over the map! On all the maps! Movement, kills and Deaths are in every grid! ITS CRAZY@!1!

Tourmaline has that distribution for one reason. Once at the middle point of that map, you can see fairly clearly almost all the other approach vectors.
You can easily start shooting at the slower team before they get a chance to get into the cover on their side.

On Alpine, that big red cluster happens for the same reason, the lower Base team goes to that hill because it offers a good amount of cover from the higher Base team going up that way.
If they're not, the team swings right and heads up the 7 line, or continues up the left side into that narrow valley that leads to the top of the higher Base. the latter being the more common approach.
The second reason the red is so thick in those 2 places, is that the higher team has a height advantage over the lower team who has little to no cover once leaving the base, with the higher team able to utilize the higher hills to snipe down at approaching 'mechs while also having good visibility on half the map., which lets that teams brawlers get close enough to smash into the Enemy hunkering down at the base of that hill.

The 7 line is VERY unpopular because the high team generally sets up on the hills above it, which leaves your entire force open to fire all the way up the valley to the base area, which is why you see Lights utilizing this path while the larger brawl is taking place.

So you are actually reading the data wrong. Unsurprisingly.

BOOMHEADSHOT!

[Roland]

Reitrix, on 15 April 2013 - 09:20 AM, said:

You love those heatmaps, but obviously only the ones that appear to support your argument against caps.

Because they clearly highlight the issue. You can't just ignore them.

Certainly, on many maps its less of an issue, simply because some of the maps are so small that there just isn't much else going on. The entire map consists of an area which is pretty much the central strip of alpine (smaller, actually).

Quote

The dots are all over the map! On all the maps! Movement, kills and Deaths are in every grid! ITS CRAZY@!1!

That's because those maps are fairly small.
On all of the large maps, you have dead zones outside the central area between the spawns.

And, again, the data is being clouded by the conquest data. In conquest, you have travel to all of the cap points... but this type of movement rarely exists in the assault game type.

Quote

On Alpine, that big red cluster happens for the same reason, the lower Base team goes to that hill because it offers a good amount of cover from the higher Base team going up that way.

No dude, the reason that both teams move in that strip is because if you move outside of it you are multiple kilometers from your base.. which means that OPFOR can basically cap you at will.

Seriously man, next time you are on alpine, go run off to the edge of the map to the north.. or southwest from the SW spawn point... I think you will be surprised at how far you have to go beyond where you've ever gone before on that map before you hit the boundary.

Quote

If they're not, the team swings right and heads up the 7 line, or continues up the left side into that narrow valley that leads to the top of the higher Base. the latter being the more common approach.

The second reason the red is so thick in those 2 places, is that the higher team has a height advantage over the lower team who has little to no cover once leaving the base, with the higher team able to utilize the higher hills to snipe down at approaching 'mechs while also having good visibility on half the map., which lets that teams brawlers get close enough to smash into the Enemy hunkering down at the base of that hill.

Again, I think your perspective is being clouded by the current limitations of the game type.

For instance, that southern approach... there's actually enough terrain down there that you COULD orchestrate a southern flank, and have cover going almost the entire way in. The only traffic you tend to see on that route though is during conquest, in a capper moving between kappa and theta. Because in Assault, if you tried to move your whole lance down along that route, then you get capped. You're much too far away from your base to defend it then.

I honestly wish that we had access to the heat maps for ONLY the assault type, as I think it'd make the point so clearly that even you would be unable to deny it.

Seriously, the fact that there's a quarter of the map to the north, which you have almost certainly never even seen, doesn't bother you in the least?

[MeiSooHaityu]

Joseph Mallan, on 15 April 2013 - 07:59 AM, said:

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.

Yea, that's always the issue (from a PUG standpoint anyway) isn't it. Rarely often can we coordinate well enough to not loose the base, or loose the fight.

I still would like to see this system tweaked a bit. I'm not saying it shouldn't be there, but the way bases are handled need to be re-addressed.

Also, I still think this is a bigger issue on the bigger maps where the ability for a team to respond is hampered by distance. Maybe with a 12 vs 12 setup, this will be less of an issue.

[Caladan Nix]

I stand by my idea about bases being upgraded into actual bases with defensive systems as the best option. It fits both practically and thematically. Most if not all of the basses in MechWarrior games had at least a couple laser turrets, no? Of course Mechs are best, But not having basics just because Mechs are best, is stupid. It's like not giving soldiers sidearms anymore just because Bullpup rifles are the best.

Still, I understand that may not be a technically achievable goal right now.

For a 'quick' fix, they can just easily modify cap rules a bit-

1. Make enemy's 'drop' the cap when they're under attack- inspired by World of Tanks, if you're a capper and you suddenly get hit by enemy fire, whoops, you dropped half or all of the cap points you gained back into the base because defense is in progress and if you want to cap successfully you better actually handle the defense

2. Like in pretty much any other capping game, make friendly units 'heal' a base when they stand in it after wiping out enemies. I really don't understand why this isn't here, it's worked well and proper since BattleField 1942. And besides, the enemy is just STANDING in the base, they aren't actually attacking it.

And I'd like to point out something to the anti-DM mode people

Scratx, on 15 April 2013 - 07:27 AM, said:

No, we don't need a TDM mode for f'ing fast mechs to grief the (basically winning) other team by outrunning them for 15 damn f'ing minutes.

UNLESS YOU HAVE A DAMN GOOD SOLUTION FOR THIS PROBLEM THERE CAN NEVER BE A TEAM DEATHMATCH GAME MODE, PERIOD, END OF LINE, STOP ASKING, STOP WHINING.


Get it?

Thing is, Lights do this anyway in the larger maps during Conquest. I've literally lost matches simply because the Matchmaker gives the enemy one or more Lights with XL engines and even ECM that our team can't possibly catch because the Matchmaker didn't even give us a single Light mech.

Edited by Caladan Nix, 15 April 2013 - 09:54 AM.

[Agent of Change]

Tell you what Roland if you can give a convincing argument that you are not suffering from confirmation bias in regards to the heat maps by addressing the "laziness/routine" theory then you'd have a leg to stand on.

the problem is you are saying that gameplay will some how become more complex and interesting by removing one of the few things that is designed to get you to move and maneuver. The hypothesis doesn't hold water IMO.

[Taemien]

Muffinator, on 14 April 2013 - 06:20 PM, said:

Everything else in this game I can live with but something has to be done about base caps. We need a pure TDM mode or just to have base caps disabled for the first 5 minutes of each match.

On bigger maps the only defense against getting capped is to leave mechs at base. How much fun is it to sit at base on the off chance someone comes to cap? And if you do that you leave your team a mech down if the enemy doesn't do the same. I accept capping is a legitimate win in this game mode but honestly how much fun is it really getting a cap win and how frustrating is it to get capped when you're enjoying a battle and literally no one is fast enough to get back and stop it.

The game is meant to be about giant robots blowing **** up, not giant robots standing in a square faster than the other team.

I was the one that capped your base yesterday that probably promoted you to post this.

What the OP is failing to do is tell the story of what actually happened. I'll leave him to tell his side, but I will tell our side. My buddy and I were running a Raven and a Centurion and went looking for any solo PPC, Gauss, or ERLL boats we could find. We had like one or two following us as well. We encountered a solo Stalker with 5 ER Large Lasers and summarily cut it down. The two that were following us ran off to join the rest of the team.

But here's the ironic part. The OP and his team were beelining to our base. Basically trying to 6 man cap it before we could get anyone back to stop them. So with our capture modules (equipped for situations like this), we entered their base and capped it before their slower heavies and assaults could get into our base.

So what we have here is the OP complaining about capping simply because he couldn't cap first. That is what we would call a hypocrite in most communities. I will give his team credit though. They left behind a defender or two. We just tore them a new one.

[DerSpecht]

Caladan Nix, on 15 April 2013 - 09:53 AM, said:

I stand by my idea about bases being upgraded into actual bases with defensive systems as the best option. It fits both practically and thematically Most if not all of the basses in MechWarrior games had at least a couple laser turrets, no? Of course Mechs are best, But not having basics just because Mechs are best, is stupid. It's like not giving soldiers sidearms anymore just because Bullpup rifles are the best.

Dropships.. oberon class maybe? If the base can defend itself like a dropship you'd need a full assault lance to conquer it. What would be the light mechs good for then?

[Mercules]

Roland, on 15 April 2013 - 09:41 AM, said:

Because in Assault, if you tried to move your whole lance down along that route, then you get capped. You're much too far away from your base to defend it then.

Thank you for proving my point.

"...if you tried to move your whole lance..." I think you meant to say Team, not Lance as in 4 mechs. This is why the base exists, to keep you from moving everything in one blob but to have to make tough decisions. Can you flank while your other half holds them in place? Is it worth the risk that they might overrun 4 of your mechs and then be closer to your cap than you are?

The mode is set up to avoid things like moving around in a blob to the best location.

[Joseph Mallan]

Roland, on 15 April 2013 - 09:41 AM, said:

Seriously, the fact that there's a quarter of the map to the north, which you have almost certainly never even seen, doesn't bother you in the least?

If the enemy has never been there... no it doesn't bother me. I'm a old devildog exploring is for the scientists.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 15 April 2013 - 09:58 AM.

[Roland]

Agent of Change, on 15 April 2013 - 09:53 AM, said:

Tell you what Roland if you can give a convincing argument that you are not suffering from confirmation bias in regards to the heat maps by addressing the "laziness/routine" theory then you'd have a leg to stand on.

the problem is you are saying that gameplay will some how become more complex and interesting by removing one of the few things that is designed to get you to move and maneuver. The hypothesis doesn't hold water IMO.

The clearest illustration to address your point here is simple experience from MW4 No-respawn league play. Matches were never simply trots to the center of the map. Lots of folks here played in UTS and NBT... I'm certain they can confirm that in those games, over a period of years, you didn't have folks simply run to the center of the map and engage each other.

If you look up the old NR guide that was posted back then, there's actually an AAR from a battle between HRR and Wolf, in the final battles for Terra in UTS cycle 1. The battle involved maneuvering all over the map throughout the course of the battle (a fairly large map, although certainly not the largest.. I believe it took place on Timberline. Maps like Equinox were significantly larger)

Again, this is simply by virtue of the fact that you want to engage the enemy from a position of strength... and that is very rarely going to mean you walk straight ahead until you hit them.

[Hammerfinn]

This again?

Please try to come up with an original topic next time.

I can't even remember how many of these threads I've seen, rehashing the exact same debate with slightly different people.

Yawn.

One Side:
Defend your base, send out scouts, repeat ad nauseum.

Other side:
Make the base defend itself, lock it for the first five minutes, take the caps out for TDM, repeat ad infinitum.

We've done this. Please stop.

[Mercules]

Roland, on 15 April 2013 - 09:59 AM, said:

Again, this is simply by virtue of the fact that you want to engage the enemy from a position of strength... and that is very rarely going to mean you walk straight ahead until you hit them.

Buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut... you are talking about people who literally can't figure out how to stop 1 or two mechs from reaching a location on the map maneuvering tactically? Come on.....

[Roadbeer]

You know where base capping is frowned upon?

MARIK MONDAY MADNESS: 10PM Eastern, NGNG TS3 server, Bay 16 (or close to it). Shenanigans Sync Drops of 50-100+ players. Being Marik not required. Come join the fun.

[Taemien]

Roland, on 15 April 2013 - 09:59 AM, said:

The clearest illustration to address your point here is simple experience from MW4 No-respawn league play. Matches were never simply trots to the center of the map. Lots of folks here played in UTS and NBT... I'm certain they can confirm that in those games, over a period of years, you didn't have folks simply run to the center of the map and engage each other.

If you look up the old NR guide that was posted back then, there's actually an AAR from a battle between HRR and Wolf, in the final battles for Terra in UTS cycle 1. The battle involved maneuvering all over the map throughout the course of the battle (a fairly large map, although certainly not the largest.. I believe it took place on Timberline. Maps like Equinox were significantly larger)

Again, this is simply by virtue of the fact that you want to engage the enemy from a position of strength... and that is very rarely going to mean you walk straight ahead until you hit them.

Those matches in MW4 also could last from 2 to 4 hours, or longer. The fifteen minute limit in MWO could not accommodate that. Neither could the impatience of the general PUG community.

I'm not saying match lengths of that magnitude is a bad thing. I'd welcome it, but this community would go ape----.

[Roland]

Mercules, on 15 April 2013 - 10:02 AM, said:

Buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut... you are talking about people who literally can't figure out how to stop 1 or two mechs from reaching a location on the map maneuvering tactically? Come on.....

Again, it's not really a case of it being too hard to do it. It's a case of the maneuvering options being restricted by the fact that you must keep your forces in position to retreat to a fixed location at any given time.

Honestly, it's the main reason why lots of us have moved on to Conquest mode.. not because conquest is particularly entertaining, but rather that you get to use slightly more of the map, and you are virtually guaranteed to get to fight at least a little bit.

Do this experiment... while you are playing assault, make note of how many different ways a match on a given map plays out, in terms of where the engagement takes place. Don't tell me now how varied you think it'll be.. just make note of your own experience the next time you're playing. I think that perhaps you may be surprised.

Or, another experiment... take a mech and walk the edge of alpine. Again, I think you may be surprised at how much of that map you have literally never seen before... and which you really can never move into unless you are willing to let your team lose (unless they can win without your mech).

Quote

Those matches in MW4 also could last from 2 to 4 hours, or longer. The fifteen minute limit in MWO could not accommodate that. Neither could the impatience of the general PUG community.

Well, not quite that long. In the league matches, the time limit was generally set to 30 minutes or 1 hour. But you're right.. I don't think the attention span of a lot of MWO players would be up for that.

[Whompity]

LOL, dropped in conquest mode this morning in a group with FIVE atlas, a Trebuchet, a Dragon, and a Jenner.

The jenner won it for us, bravely legging the enemy spider and then running away before his naked CT could get blown up (sacrificing the kill) to let us cap on resources.

[Mercules]

Roland, on 15 April 2013 - 10:12 AM, said:

Or, another experiment... take a mech and walk the edge of alpine. Again, I think you may be surprised at how much of that map you have literally never seen before... and which you really can never move into unless you are willing to let your team lose (unless they can win without your mech).

Done, but 75% of the mechs I play move 100kph or more and I like to flank. I rarely get capped, occasionally cap, and have more wins than losses. Typically I find the enemy fast mechs flanking and help make my team aware of them and kill them. I see all those places you state people don't see.

[Agent of Change]

Roland, on 15 April 2013 - 09:59 AM, said:

The clearest illustration to address your point here is simple experience from MW4 No-respawn league play. Matches were never simply trots to the center of the map. Lots of folks here played in UTS and NBT... I'm certain they can confirm that in those games, over a period of years, you didn't have folks simply run to the center of the map and engage each other.

If you look up the old NR guide that was posted back then, there's actually an AAR from a battle between HRR and Wolf, in the final battles for Terra in UTS cycle 1. The battle involved maneuvering all over the map throughout the course of the battle (a fairly large map, although certainly not the largest.. I believe it took place on Timberline. Maps like Equinox were significantly larger)

Again, this is simply by virtue of the fact that you want to engage the enemy from a position of strength... and that is very rarely going to mean you walk straight ahead until you hit them.

Ok so Mercules responded in part with this:

Mercules, on 15 April 2013 - 10:02 AM, said:

Buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut... you are talking about people who literally can't figure out how to stop 1 or two mechs from reaching a location on the map maneuvering tactically? Come on.....

And that is a fraction of my larger point. Yes a a TEAM you want to engage the enemy on your terms where you can be effective as a TEAM you want to win and as a TEAM you need to work together. Currently the cap loses i suffer while i'm still alive are the ones where i don't have anyone i trust in a fast enough mech to get back or somehow we had no one scout the enemy and the whole team did an end run around us.

In both cases it's not capping that is the problem it's either a failure of teamwork or a failure of a mech performing it's role. you want to build a heavy sniping team you best have something to screen you, to watch your flanks and your 6, to prevent the enemy closing quickly and quietly. What capping currently provides is a mechanical reinforcement of the idea that you need to have your **** together and planning for the enemies approach.

Don't assume where the enemy is find them, are they flanking better deal with that, going to cap have a plan for that. Roland you may be one of the handful that actually believes a TDM will lead to a more dynamic tactical engagement, in fact if that's the case i'm sure yourself and those like you would do their best to make it happen. But open your eyes this is F2P the LCD will dominate the meta and you will be trolled and b-lined at.