Taemien, on 04 May 2013 - 10:25 AM, said:
Apparently you didn't read what I said. You're putting me in situations that are entirely unrealistic and thats not how I play. Others may do that, but as I said before, I don't go out of my way to tell them how to play. If they have fun doing it, thats on them. Remember, they are PUGs, they are going to do PUG things, leave them alone. I doubt your unit does that when they drop together. If they do, then perhaps you should find one that better fits your playstyle. I doubt they do however so that part shouldn't be an issue.
Unfortunately it's the majority of those nitwits who do NOTHING BUT cap that are the problem, that make capping a problem.
The game gives rewards based on the level of destruction meted out, and a mech that is cap'ing is not rewarded to any extent the same as 'mech that battles, because it has a significantly less amount of risk in doing it, especially on the larger maps. Those that go exclusively for the cap are doing it ONLY FOR the "win", artificially inflating their W/L ratio, and preventing their team from maximizing their battle based rewards.
Again, there's no real logic to cap'ing in Assault in the first place, OTHER THAN having a mechanism where by if a 'mech client goes 'ape do-do' and you've got a DC'd mech dry humping a mountain, or have some jerk who found a hiding spot and shut down and now wants everyone to wait the remaining 8 minutes for the game to end, a way out.
Placing a single cap point equidistant to the drop points still gives that way out.
Quote
Devs put the stats out, less than 12% of Assault games end in a cap. So this idea that people who want to fight are being pushed out of the gamemode is false. Out of all the games I have played, I have only seen a handful where a player runs to the enemy base and thats all they do.
Devs put out a lot of stats and have done a lot more significant things based on much smaller percentages than that (ala: only 10% of pug stomps were happening with premades of more than 4 people, yet they totally f'd up match maker to limit pre-mades to no more than 4, or a hard 8, didn't they?) so quoting their statistics (which I don't neccessarily believe are ALWAYS presented to the player community accurately) and saying "it's ok as is because it's a small number" won't wash here.
Quote
I will admit, fighting mechs is more fun than capping, and 9 out of 10 matches, we go looking for a fight to go tear up the enemies long range support. If I had it my way I'd bumrush the heck out of the enemy team with my lance. But what happens if we do that, their lights and fast movers will break for our base. So in order to pull off a win we have to be close or in their base when we fire on their supports or we'll get capped.
We don't see this as an issue, we see it as a tactical challenge. See if it were deathmatch, we couldn't simply bumrush them at all. If you've played MWLL you would know that in TDM, a team will bunch up together in one part of the map to increase their chances of survival. And it works very well they'd be able to 8 mech focus fire the first thing that comes in LOS. But I think we can both agree that we don't want that, judging by your idea of a single base in the middle.
The single base in the middle circumvents that problem nicely, UNLESS they happen to 'bunch up' on the cap point, in which case your superior tactis will be neccessary to pull them off. After all, the cap point still provides you and your team the avenue of practicing "capping tactics" if you want, it's just not going to be such an overwhelmingly finale tactic, especially on the larger maps.
Heck, you could even improve the quality of neccessary tactics needed by making the cap point a random spot each drop so that the point has to be located by scouts.
Quote
Now to comment on that idea, we've already got Conquest which puts 3 bases in the middle. I doubt we're going to get a simplified version of that, so we have to be realistic here. We do know there will be asynchronous gamemodes by some of their comments in Ask the Devs lately. So you will be getting your wish there.
I'm not sure why we'd need a 'simplified version' of that. Conquest is all about capture, Conquest is fine as is.
Quote
But I will reiterate the point I made before. Its been proven that less than 12% of games in Assault end in a cap. So I really don't see what your issue is. Personally I think you have an issue with PUGs doing things you don't want them to do. Now before you make a retort on that, know that I define a PUG as any who hit launch outside of an 8 man group, and not personally in my 2-4 man group. So that includes 2, 3, and 4 man groups on my team or not on my team that isn't mine.
So with that said, PUGs will do PUG things. They can't help themselves. They aren't stupid, they're ignorant. They aren't noobs, they're just not taking the game seriously. They aren't unreliable, they're just flaky. Don't worry about what they do. Just be gracious when they do something good. Shrug it off when they don't. Just play how you want to play and do the best you can and don't worry about winning or losing.
When you run in a group, or 8 man, then you can hold your groupmates accountable. Thats different. People who you choose to group with are there for a common goal and they of course should work together to achieve that. Its like the other day my buddy wanted to run a 4 mgun spider. I told him no. I told him he can drop solo all day in the thing, but not in the group. We goof off quite a bit, but we do have standards for the group.
Now I'll try to work with a PUG. As anyone should. I'll let them know information and give suggestions. But if they don't want to listen to me, I cannot force them. I just accommodate for it as best I can and don't bother getting upset about it. If I lose because of something they did, I just shrug and tell myself I could have done something different to pull off the win.
You're never really forced to play in any certain way by how other players play. You have to play the cards you are dealt. The PUGs are going to do what they want to do regardless of what you say or do in the forums. As the saying goes, change the things you can (your group), and accept the things you can't (the PUGs).
You're still acting a bit snarky, but at least you stopped the direct insults. That is an improvement thus far.
It's not been proven that less than 12% end in cap, it's only been stated. To "prove" it, we'd need access to the actual statistics, not to have it propagandized by PGI, beyond that again, the cap'ers get to have their way, but the majority of us just have to "deal with it", being held hostage to lazy minority, dumbing down the gaming experience.
As far as what PGI says, and what actually comes to pass, I only believe what I actually see when its delivered. PGI has back peddaled, 'reversed course', and otherwise changed their mind so often on what they've said, promised, and otherwise communicated that I've got a bad case of propoganda whiplash.
If the 10% or less of pugs that were getting stomped can influence PGI to bastardize grouping to the point they have, surely 12% of cap'ed games should influence a change in/addition of the game modes.
As far as the personal insults go, I give when I receive. Insult me, and I'll be happy to insult you back. I realize that you probably don't 'notice' the insults from those that are posting in agreement with your POV, but they are there, and they've been just as vehement in telling me how "I" should play as I've been about getting either a new game mode, or the Assault game mode updated.
3
