26 replies to this topic

[Bridgeboy]

I can't vote because I don't like any of the options. You should probably have that listed as part of the poll.

I'm thinking just moving the cap points closer might fix most of the grief. More cap points means even more advantage to lights.

[XSerjo]

Then you'll turn Conquest to yet-another-team-deathmatch. Please, don't touch anything: this map forces players to take faster chassis. Poptard-teams avoiding this game type and this map - is't it good? Medium and light mechs work as intended here - is it bad?

Edited by XSerjo, 12 May 2013 - 08:42 PM.

[Bridgeboy]

Another fix is just to let people know what map they're entering before they pick their mech. I think PGI said this option was in the works.

[coolcook007]

This is the worst map I´ve ever played in any game. Loved Modern Warfare 3 maps in relation to Alpine Peaks.

Edited by coolcook007, 13 May 2013 - 06:19 PM.

[Corvus Antaka]

Shifting the cap limit to 1000 seems possibly reasonable.

Still, these gamemodes are currently the ONLY thing saving us from pure hvy/assault warrior online, and as such it continues to force teams to anticipate these issues and taked mixed lance loadouts.

90% of the QQ related to this is due to to many slow fat mechs being caught out of position and teams not smartly covering the maps.

[Werewolf486 ScorpS]

I don't agree with any choices.

Make Alpine and Tourmaline 12v12 maps, pitting 12 players per side against each other. Load up three 4man teams, or four 3 man teams, or two 6 man teams or a 12 man team I don't care, but those maps were meant for 12 v 12 and should be played that way. One lance would guard cap, one would scout, the other would support whoever needs it.

I was very disappointed when they released those maps and we still can't field 12 man teams on them in pug matches, 8 v 8 is getting stupid with no one to guard cap and almost no way to split forces to do it without screwing yourself in the process.

Please add this to the choices: Make Alpine 12 v 12

[zraven7]

I've got a few threads on similar topics. So far, the point where the arguing seems to quiet and people start agreeing falls around the idea of capture rate/resource acquisition rate being dependent on map size, and the addition of some sort of automated base defenses, or some action being needed to acquire said resources, e.g. attacking the pylon while withn the capture zone, standing on a button/weight panel, etc.. Those might not be the only answers, but most people seem to think one or both of those additions would help thing a lot.