27 replies to this topic

[Deathlike]

silentD11, on 23 April 2013 - 03:33 PM, said:

Or... just create a TDM mode because that's what everybody is shooting for. Without the threat of fast caps or conquest points the game modes would be more meaningless than they are. Keep it as it is, add TDM.

Create your own thread about it, don't spew into another thread about the common gripe.

[Xtrekker]

I think we need a poll. Just make sure you do it in the Polls forum.

[Chillicon]

The Devs make the setting 4 players. We have to work with it. It's a beta - maybe everything will b changed. Those who think just going in the middle 2 brawl and fight might loose, by ignoring the fact of the capture win-option. As I mentioned be4 all players have 2 anticipate the gamemode and the win-conditions. If I am capped of because my team doesn't react fast enough it's ok, maybe you do the best by learning from this situation 4 future. I personally will handle with every gamechange they do. Maybe the devs hear you - I promise I will arrange with this situation. However!

If you say new player dislike loosing by enemy cap, you might b right. But if you think new players will more like being shot by monobuilds, then you r wrong.

[jay35]

I have no idea what you're trying to say. Sorry.

[Keifomofutu]

jay35, on 28 April 2013 - 08:14 AM, said:

I have no idea what you're trying to say. Sorry.

He's saying that the way to win on alpine and tourmaline is either to camp your base with your whole force. Or to leave an assault or two behind.

And apparently he's also letting you know that he doesn't know **** about how the game plays.

Camping on either of those maps is basically sitting there and letting your enemy snipe you down like fish in a barrel. And splitting your force has never worked ever in the history of the game.

Edited by Keifomofutu, 28 April 2013 - 08:39 AM.

[Voivode]

Winning conditions based on time need to scale up with the size of the map. Makes sense.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Beta is not an excuse anymore. 4-5 months to release. Means we have 8-10 patches to get everything done. And fixing game modes is not something you should be doing 1-2 months before release.

[MonkeyCheese]

jay35, on 23 April 2013 - 12:48 PM, said:

As the first thread in this new sub-forum, let's discuss the widespread desire to see adjustments/tweaks made for the Large maps to better accommodate their size and the longer average duration of matches.

Proposals:

• Adjust Assault base capture duration upward to allow for more reasonable return to base timeframes to defend against a complete capout
  
  • Reasoning: What value is there in the larger map if teams are too afraid to leave the proximity of their bases for fear of being capped out before they can respond to contest the capture?
• Adjust Conquest victory point number upward to adjust for the greater distances between resource generators that presently skews the gameplay too far in favor of the team with slightly more captured generators early on in the match.
  
  • Reasoning: A distinct likelihood exists on larger maps where the up and coming team who has successfully fought off the other team's early lead will be unable to recover and make up the lost ground before the formerly-leading team wins anyway despite having been beaten and having fewer remainingresouce generators under their control. There is a distinct (extra) advantage currently to the team in the lead the larger the map is, due to the length of time needed to traverse between the generators. Upping the total resource point victory condition will help balance that and allow a team to successfully come from behind the way they can on the other maps.
• Adjust payout on all Large maps upward to account for the longer duration of matches on those maps
  
  • Reasoning: The matches consistently take longer on the larger maps, meaning players who receive larger maps will get fewer rounds in the same amount of game time as those who happen to get smaller maps. This is a disparity that causes undue hatred of larger maps for the negative economic impact they have on players, particularly those with limited time to play, those tired of losing long fought matches on large maps, those tired of getting placed on Tourmaline or Alpine over and over again, and those who simply prefer smaller maps. An alternative to this would be to allow a map size filter but that has been rejected as allowing too much opportunity for players to build appropriate mechs for speciifc map characteristics. Simply upping the payouts for both Winners and Losers on the larger maps to accommodate for the additional time spent on those maps will at least remove or alleviate the root concern that drives much of the dislike for the larger maps.

Thanks.

YES to everything, this all needs to be done asap