15 replies to this topic

[GabrielSun]

Seriously, I'm getting tired of destroying all but two guys and then racking up a loss because I can't run fast enough to counter a cap. The cap in assault should just end the game with the victory bonus being split up between the teams based on their damage percentages.

[blah40000]

it's a legitimate tactic and form of victory. if you don't want people capping your base send someone to defend it if you're currently at an advantage.

if you can't reach the cap because you're at the wrong side of the map you should lose. why? because you got outplayed.

[Makenzie71]

I had to go with "other". I think it should set up so that if you cap the enemy's base, your team wins, and the enemy learns that if they don't want to lose that way then maybe they should have fought a little smarter.

[MasterErrant]

likwise
I would support some sort of delay...get kind of tired of dropping in with slow mechs and finding a fast eam running straight for the cap...it's not that it's not a valid tactic it's just boring.
there are several teams who employ this tactic.

[Alamarian]

blah40000, on 19 April 2013 - 09:36 PM, said:

it's a legitimate tactic and form of victory.

The question is not whether it's legitimate, that much should obviously be settled by the fact that capping is built into assault. That would be the end of the story if this was like reality and things were governed by fixed laws. However, the game can be changed. The rules are not permanent. So the question becomes "should it be a legitimate method of winning?"

[Troutmonkey]

Guys, check this thread http://mwomercs.com/...r-assault-mode/

We've come up with some pretty good ideas, such as scaling cap speed to be slower the more surviving mechs there are.

[MuadXDib]

oh good, this again

[blinkin]

since there was no option for leave it alone, i voted "other".

and as instructed i will leave a description of my suggestion:

leave it alone the system is fine.

[Corvus Antaka]

hmm..I guess someones team shoulda used enough strategy to defend their base.

Edited by Colonel Pada Vinson, 20 April 2013 - 09:10 AM.

[Makenzie71]

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 20 April 2013 - 09:10 AM, said:

hmm..I guess someones team shoulda used enough strategy to defend their base.

Isn't that how all thes conversations start?

Mr is walking along, minding his own business when a Cataphract, hidden under the cover of a teammate's ECM, jump jets up and kills him with a slew of PPC blasts. Then his team loses because no one guarded their base and a spider cap'ed.

Resulting coversations?

PPC's should be nerfed.
Jump sniping should be more difficult.
ECM's are overpowered.
Base capping should be banned.

etc....

[GabrielSun]

blah40000, on 19 April 2013 - 09:36 PM, said:

if you can't reach the cap because you're at the wrong side of the map you should lose. why? because you got outplayed.

By that logic every battle would be stalemated because the entire team stays around their own base.

[GabrielSun]

Makenzie71, on 19 April 2013 - 09:45 PM, said:

I had to go with "other". I think it should set up so that if you cap the enemy's base, your team wins, and the enemy learns that if they don't want to lose that way then maybe they should have fought a little smarter.

Smarter has nothing to do with it and you know it. The maps either need to be completley redesigned or the rules of victory need to be focused so more of the team is invested in a fight than a waste of time victory.

[Makenzie71]

GabrielSun, on 20 April 2013 - 01:10 PM, said:

Smarter has nothing to do with it and you know it.

No, I don't know it, because I've seen cap tactics repulsed effectively on EVERY map multiple times. MY Catapult can cross tourmaline and alpine to ward off a cap. There's no reason to try and completely revamp the game just because a select few people don't want to have to learn how to properly play within a team.

[Klaa]

Heaven forbid someone defends the base... voted Other since the poll options are biased towards an anti-cap stance. Defending the base is part of the map mode victory conditions, deal with it.

Now I am not against having some kind of "deathmatch" mode where the victory condition is defeat all enemies within a certain time period. If the timer runs out, victory can be determined on some mix of mech types surviving and dmg dealt.

For a mission setting call it a "Search and Destroy".

[Makenzie71]

Klaa, on 20 April 2013 - 04:08 PM, said:

Heaven forbid someone defends the base... voted Other since the poll options are biased towards an anti-cap stance. Defending the base is part of the map mode victory conditions, deal with it.

Now I am not against having some kind of "deathmatch" mode where the victory condition is defeat all enemies within a certain time period. If the timer runs out, victory can be determined on some mix of mech types surviving and dmg dealt.

For a mission setting call it a "Search and Destroy".

I made a new poll about this. I would love to see a last man standing scenario.

[Egomane]

Closed for not following the rules for polls in the suggestion forums.
http://mwomercs.com/...estion-polling/

Please contact me if you want to edit this poll to follow the rules. Or recreate the thread while following the rules.