27 replies to this topic

[jay35]

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.

Edited by jay35, 23 April 2013 - 01:06 PM.

[Roadbeer]

All good points.
I give these ideas...

THE ROADBEER STAMP OF APPROVAL.

[hammerreborn]

OH LOOK ITS THIS THREAD....

Oh wait....carry on I guess.

[LockeJaw]

Roadbeer, on 23 April 2013 - 12:50 PM, said:

All good points.
I give these ideas...

THE ROADBEER STAMP OF APPROVAL.

Must be a cold day in hell.

Edit: I like these suggestions. Also, for assault, I'd suggest keeping the base locked until a set number of mechs are destroyed.

Edited by LockeJaw, 23 April 2013 - 01:02 PM.

[Hellcat420]

no. cap times are long enough as it is. either defend your base or deal with the conquences of leaving it undefended.

[Chillicon]

HI Jay!

Nice your 1st Thread here - my 1st answer! Capture Duration is ok, also the victory point number... Why taking lighter mechs advantages? If everybody plays assault and heavies - don't wonder if u r capped off! I think this is kind of balancing. Every Player has the chance to use his brain and react in the right or wrong way - not meaning of situation awareness in a match - meaning which mech u choose before launch! Before Alpine Peaks there surely was no need of overthinking taking anything else than a brawler / assault / heavy --> you launched, met in middle and brawled... Now you have to overthink your weapons range... I like the way the devs turn in!
More payout for longer matches - this is the only point I share with you.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Hellcat420, on 23 April 2013 - 01:02 PM, said:

no. cap times are long enough as it is. either defend your base or deal with the conquences of leaving it undefended.

Bzzt. wrong.

That is not good gameplay.

If a new player comes in, and immediately gets backcapped by 4 lights. What is his impression of the game?

He wanders out in the middle of the map to fight, only to have it end suddenly.

These are the new player experiences we need to limit. It will cause them to quit. Free to Play games do not cultivate loyalty through the initial purchase.

So the first experience has to be good.

Chillicon, on 23 April 2013 - 01:05 PM, said:

HI Jay!

Nice your 1st Thread here - my 1st answer! Capture Duration is ok, also the victory point number... Why taking lighter mechs advantages? If everybody plays assault and heavies - don't wonder if u r capped off! I think this is kind of balancing. Every Player has the chance to use his brain and react in the right or wrong way - not meaning of situation awareness in a match - meaning which mech u choose before launch! Before Alpine Peaks there surely was no need of overthinking taking anything else than a brawler / assault / heavy --> you launched, met in middle and brawled... Now you have to overthink your weapons range... I like the way the devs turn in!
More payout for longer matches - this is the only point I share with you.

I hate that this has come down to "Why take a light mech if not to cap?"

Capping is a terrible mechanic to begin with.

If PGI would have fleshed out the IW pillar instead of just using ECM as the end-all-be-all, and created situations where scouting was important. We wouldn't need capping to give lights a role.

[hammerreborn]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 23 April 2013 - 01:07 PM, said:

If a new player comes in, and immediately gets backcapped by 4 lights. What is his impression of the game?

He wanders out in the middle of the map to fight, only to have it end suddenly.

These are the new player experiences we need to limit. It will cause them to quit. Free to Play games do not cultivate loyalty through the initial purchase.

So the first experience has to be good.

If a new player comes in, and gets instantly cored by a ppc stalker, what will he think of the game

What if a new player comes in, and gets instantly cored by a poptart, what will he think of the game

What if a new player comes in, and gets instantly cored by <insert other high damage alpha build here>, what will he think of the game.

Glad you agree, remove the alpha builds!

[hercules1981]

Hellcat420, on 23 April 2013 - 01:02 PM, said:

no. cap times are long enough as it is. either defend your base or deal with the conquences of leaving it undefended.

I'm gonna b the 1st to say that is a rediculous statement, devs have already said they where looking at making the cap times longer on the bigger maps. I'm guessing u win most of your games buy capping and not the way this game was primarily intended for (blowing up robots with your robot) I don't care what any1 says. U say mechwarrior they think blowing up big robots not running into a stupid square with a robot and standing there. I do how ever think all the points brought up by jay35 r good!

[hammerreborn]

hercules1981, on 23 April 2013 - 01:11 PM, said:

I'm gonna b the 1st to say that is a rediculous statement, devs have already said they where looking at making the cap times longer on the bigger maps. I'm guessing u win most of your games buy capping and not the way this game was primarily intended for (blowing up robots with your robot) I don't care what any1 says. U say mechwarrior they think blowing up big robots not running into a stupid square with a robot and standing there. I do how ever think all the points brought up by jay35 r good!

Pretty sure the game says that capturing the base is a winning condition so....you're wrong?

[Keifomofutu]

Hellz yes this needs to happen. Its not like just camping your base on alpine is really an option. You'd get surrounded and killed every time. And the way weight matching works you might not have a light of your own to counter cap their base.

[hercules1981]

hammerreborn, on 23 April 2013 - 01:14 PM, said:

Pretty sure the game says that capturing the base is a winning condition so....you're wrong?

Dude I'm talking about in real life conversation like if I was at work and gabbing about mwo with my co worker he is gonna think of shooting mechs with other mechs not capping a base so u r wrong!

[Deathlike]

Capping points on Conquest should be faster actually... since it takes in an insane amount of time to get to point to point, it should be easier to cap.

I'm not entirely against increasing the conquest scoring "cap" of 750 in the bigger maps... but I would be more in favor of a map score multiplier or something that allows the rewards to be desirable on a bigger map. This would go in conjunction of "reducing" the "scoring" speed of the capping points (they should be inversely related).

Edited by Deathlike, 23 April 2013 - 02:25 PM.

[Soulscour]

I would normally agree that increasing cap times for conquest on the two larger maps would be a good Idea. I think the increase to 12 player teams may change that dynamic however.

[hammerreborn]

hercules1981, on 23 April 2013 - 01:18 PM, said:

Dude I'm talking about in real life conversation like if I was at work and gabbing about mwo with my co worker he is gonna think of shooting mechs with other mechs not capping a base so u r wrong!

Well then you're not gabbing correctly about the game and your coworker is an ***** if he can't figure out from the giant splash screen with "capture base" as an objective if he plays.

I don't talk about Poptarting at work, that's not how the game was meant to be played! Let's remove that too.

[Selbatrim]

Just add another game mode with no capping element for those that hate losing on caps. I personally like that the maps offer a different dynamic because of size. Yes it can be looked at and tweaked but for those that want longer cap times they mostly just don't want a game to ever end due to capping.

Bigger rewards for bigger maps... I don't know. You're not going to get more per kill regardless. Perhaps make the bigger maps the first to have 12 v 12 mechs. Have another resource point or two (and a subsequent increase in resources)

[hercules1981]

hammerreborn, on 23 April 2013 - 02:40 PM, said:

Well then you're not gabbing correctly about the game and your coworker is an ***** if he can't figure out from the giant splash screen with &quot;capture base&quot; as an objective if he plays.

I don't talk about Poptarting at work, that's not how the game was meant to be played! Let's remove that too.

I dont care about what u talk about at work i never asked i was giving a scenario for u thats it. Wow Man U r going way off point with this 1, I really got nothing else to say at this point but ill try it once more for u in the simplest form I can yes I know it's an objective but any1 who has not played at all ever but may have heard about the game a little or other mechwarrior titles and i say to them hey i played this game mech whatever the dude thinks robots shooting robots not capping a base. Ok, that is about as simple as it gets to describe a scenario for u hope it helps and how about that I didn't even insult u at all can't say the same for u busting on my co workers.

Edited by hercules1981, 23 April 2013 - 02:58 PM.

[Cur]

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.

I think you are sort of on the right track OP... but....


PGI - You cannot help balance or give purpose to light and medium mechs purely with the capture mechanic. It's pretty lame that it's the only thing you could come up with to make them usefull - with pathetic and flawed reasoning behind how capping bases helps bring balance and "makes the game better" than pure TDM matches.

The game is still turning out to be heavy / assaults only with select "cheese" builds being used repeatidly. And will not change untill PGI changes the way they are going about things

[silentD11]

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.

[hercules1981]

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.

The only problem with that is what is to stop a kdr freak from just hiding with his light n some group of buildings then u have to run around for the rest of the time waiting till the counter gets to zero no way. Just make there b a 3 to 5 min no cap time at the start of assults.