275 replies to this topic

[Metallis]

Gevurah, on 01 May 2013 - 10:33 AM, said:

So you felt the need to defend your honor by coming to the forums to make a big, long winded post that basically boils down to 'a win is a win'? Yeah. Enjoy your micro-XP gain and 35,000 Cbills. More to the point, it simply isn't economical unless you're trying to inflate wins. There's no practical value to just 'going after a win for the sake of winning' in this game. You get more points by participating in battle. You're literally only hurting yourself in that regards. Side note, I think I'm the guy who told you not to be that guy. HOW'S IT HANGING BRO. I remember that game pretty well. It was river city. We had two down, they had two down. And you capped. I could see you from theta. I said "Don't be that guy" specifically because I was having a good run and thought "Maybe he'll be goaded into a fight." Truth be told though, the outcome was far from clear and the game ending was extremely preemptive. I have only ever slung that at one other guy, in alpine in a virtually identical situation; albeit at longer ranges. I have *NO* qualms about capping if your team was wiped out or if you're facing an impending landslide. Cool. Not a problem. But capping early just to secure a win is pretty bleh. I suppose it could have been someone else. But I'm reasonably sure I saw your name in that game lol

I'm afraid you missed his point. Maybe you failed to read his entire post or something but you really missed it. He is not talking about capping to win. He is talking about capping in a way to help his team win by dividing and conquering. I am a light pilot and I do the same thing. If I can pull 2 or more mechs to me that means less for my team to deal with on front lines. You guys really need to get a grip and understand that there are more tactics than just meet in the middle and see who has the biggest gun. The true art of war is a chess match. But many people who complain are just plain checker players.

Don't be in such a hurry to get to the middle. Hold back a few and wait for what you know is coming. You know someone is coming to cap. Your a bad player if you know this and still rush out to the middle. Don't scream at the capper, scream at yourself. Do I really need to yell at the start of a match that I am coming to cap you to make you defend? I will if you need that motivation. But hell I might do that anyway to make you leave a few mechs there so we can wipe out your lesser number team at the middle. You see how that works?

Play the game smarter. Play the game with strategy. Play the game to win.

[Rackminster]

Neverfar, on 01 May 2013 - 11:04 AM, said:

"wow really? all lights? so cheesy"

So do lights suck or do they rule? I guess both, if you're a bloat-boater with issues.

I have to admit that Lights in small numbers can be very frustrating to fight. It only takes three of them to completely decimate an Atlas in short order simply because it can never fully protect itself. I dread being the last man standing and having two-three lights find me.

The flip side of that isn't protection, but offense - it's neigh impossible to focus-fire on a single Light. You MUST lob shots at them as you see them.

Facing a team of 7 Lights would be basically infuriating for anything but 7 opposing lights because of the sheer advantage in defensive movement. A combined effort by those 7 could probably core an Atlas in seconds - but the Atlas' team will need to essentially do 600 damage spread across the entire Light team before one of them goes down.

Edited by Rackminster, 01 May 2013 - 11:17 AM.

[Coolant]

Neverfar, on 01 May 2013 - 09:42 AM, said:

By "that guy" I mean that unwashed, unsavory, horrible, terribad person who is totally unskilled and dishonorable and with my scrub ways I can not help but cap-threat the enemy base.

Why do I do this horrible thing?

In most cases, because at least one Mech from the other team is expected to come and chase me, and preferably more than one. That means people from my team have less Mechs to clash with at the front. That improves the chances for a victory.

Rage often ensues. Which works in my favor. I need them chasing me, on me, trying to drive me off, which improves my team's chances that much more.

Sometimes I continue capping. Why do I do this horrible thing?

Because my team is losing. However, the enemy team is overstretched. In strategic abstract terms applicable to the setting, they took "a bridge too far" and were cut off from behind. In more direct "this game in the here and now" terms, they overinvested in PPC bloat boats with tiny engines and lost because everyone wanted in on that instead of preparing for me.

It doesn't always work. I've been legged from over a kilometer out by a good shot. That's fine. Sometimes I tangle with another light, and that's also fine. I actually welcome it.

What I don't welcome is the shrill nasal rage I get for doing what I do. I've heard it all before, in game chat and on this forum. Nothing you can say I haven't heard already, if you're coming from the camp of "the only honorable skillful way to play is to play exactly as I expect you to, on my terms, under conditions favorable to me".

I'd welcome some metagame changes, a whole lot of them. Removing capping or other "simple" solutions would only give me a lot less to do except feed the needs of the guy in the paragraph above.

That's fine and a perfectly acceptable tactic, and you're right many mechs will follow you to prevent your capping the base most likely throwing off any strategy they were trying to advance. However, I just like to shoot stuff. Capping the base by a light away from the rest of his/her team makes me have to stop trying to find a mech to shoot (we have weapons after all - if the game is just capping might as well have motorcycles or horses) and go back and defend. Mechwarrior should be about combat in giant robots....

[Rackminster]

Coolant, on 01 May 2013 - 11:18 AM, said:

Mechwarrior should be about combat in giant robots....

It's actually really about tactical robot combat - which is vastly different. The previous PC versions of MechWarrior lacked tactical edge because they were, by and large, slug-fests.

A more appropriate comparison for what MechWarrior should be (IMO) is MechCommander - see Intro Video: .

Edited by Rackminster, 01 May 2013 - 11:22 AM.

[Jasen]

Coolant, on 01 May 2013 - 11:18 AM, said:

That's fine and a perfectly acceptable tactic, and you're right many mechs will follow you to prevent your capping the base most likely throwing off any strategy they were trying to advance. However, I just like to shoot stuff. Capping the base by a light away from the rest of his/her team makes me have to stop trying to find a mech to shoot (we have weapons after all - if the game is just capping might as well have motorcycles or horses) and go back and defend. Mechwarrior should be about combat in giant robots....

[redacted]. I'm sorry you just like to shoot easy targets that present themselves to you. but _I_ do not like to be shot. Me capping your base _IS_ combat in robots. Excuse me that I thought your team would have 1/2 a tactical brain between all 8 of you and STOP ME FROM CAPPING. - THUS, FIGHTING!


[redacted]

Edited by miSs, 02 May 2013 - 09:28 AM.
ad hominem

[Fate 6]

I hate PPC spam, so I like punishing slow teams of Stalkers/CTFs/Atlases by sitting on their base.

[Garth Erlam]

Volthorne, on 01 May 2013 - 10:39 AM, said:

May your engine stay big and your legs undamaged.

I love that quote, I think I will steal it.

[Jasen]

This thread is basically bads saying:

"Mommy, I don't like it when these guys beat me in a video game!"

and not-bads saying:

"Dude, quit crying, drop the PPCs, run a real engine, and quit being a fookin noob"

Neverfar, on 01 May 2013 - 11:24 AM, said:

I was with you until the last part. I wouldn't be so mean to him.

Yea, I tried the not mean approach for a while... pain is a motivator. Call stupid people stupid and give em a reason not to be stupid.

Tough love kinda thing...

Edited by Jasen, 01 May 2013 - 11:27 AM.

[Lostdragon]

I PUG so I have some issues with capping. I understand why it is in the game and why it is a valid strategy, but sometimes you just get screwed. One memorable example was a conquest match on Alpine. Everybody on my team was in a heavy or assault and the enemy team wound up having three lights. The match ended with almost no damage done and nobody dead.

If matchmaker actually worked it wouldn't be so frustrating but it seems like teams are never really balanced by weight. Some games it is pretty close, but sometimes one team outweighs the other by 300 tons, and that is not going to be fun for one side. If you have nobody who can make it to base to defend in time then you are also too slow to counter cap. Or if you are on the light team and it is full of idiots that get themselves killed by trying to take on a STK 1v1 head on in lights then you are going to get decimated.

Edited by Lostdragon, 01 May 2013 - 11:56 AM.

[MrVop]

Who the hell runs a small engine with PPC's?

[blinkin]

Neverfar, on 01 May 2013 - 11:30 AM, said:

Easy there. "Bads" come in all shapes and sizes, and there are terrible light players too. I only early cap when people are being rude crybabies, but some just do it for giggles and that's not cool to abuse.

But yes, a lot of bloat boaters are upset that lights are stinging back any way they can.

i am so confused.

what am i? i run a jenner, but it has an ERPPC. OMG WHICH SIDE AM I SUPPOSED TO BE ON!?

trolling aside, divide and conquer has been a valid combat tactic for a few thousand years. the ninja capper groups may be D-bags but they wouldn't be able to do that as easily if a few people invested in some anti light mech builds. EVERY time i build a mech i think carefully about how i can allow this build to fight light mechs effectively along with whatever primary task i want it to do.

my catapult C4 = 2x medium lasers and lots of manueverability.
catapult A1 = chain fire setup for all 6 of my SRM6
atlas = the 4x large lasers on the arms also have a group for chain fire and before when it ran on 4x ERPPC i also had a chainfire setting
my hunchback 4SP LRM boat = 3x medium lasers and 2x small lasers
and my jenners, well they are light mechs themselves

[Mr Blonde]

If I'm in a light, I will sometimes cap the base about 3/4ths of the way while spotting, then go back to the fight. Then if we get beat I can always run back and at least win. Other than that I will try to rack up kills and damage. Also, this will make a less-disciplined group split up or start turning and then my assault buddies can rack 'em up.

[Jasen]

You guys keep saying divide and conquer... but that never meant in a physical sense.

It means, divide allies and conquer them separately.


I mean, we cant just twist 1000 year old sayings around...

[ArchMage Sparrowhawk]

I'm torn. Sometimes I feel like it's a terrible tactic that makes this game no longer fun because I had to stomp across a field at 50kph and that was ALL I got to do.

Other times I feel like the terrible human being I am, and I feel like doing terrible things to other people, so I run my Raven 3L into the other base.

sometimes I'll even announce my rotten intentions over ALL chat, and dare the other team to ignore me. Sometimes I'll even show up before they've left.

Bottom line is, I want a reaction. I don't care about the cap, but I want to affect the battle, and I want to do it in my favor. If spitting in your eye does that, then get ready for a loogie.

NOW, it's part of the game, and it's a valid part of the game. It's no fun having to sit at base waiting for some jerk in a light mech to show up. BUT people need to keep some kind of defense and strategy, some kind of awareness of the ENTIRE battle, and not just 2 lances shuffling up to the mid point in a straight line so you can unload your AC20s into each other's fatatlasses. We have entire maps that we ignore, just so we can go to the quickest path of least waiting resistance because time = pain in this game. Time to load, time spent just trying to play the game. Any time spent not fighting robots is a minus. And then you don't get to fight at all, because of a cap. I understand.

Even if you try to force the other team to fight in a different area, the ENTIRE OTHER TEAM WILL AVOID THAT AND WALK TO YOUR BASE AT 30 KPH!!$#%% You will have to chase them just to get a fight. It's maddening.

So. Something has to be done about the game play and the capturing dynamic. Maybe once they include strategic base defenses and artillery things will head in the right direction. But for right now, always keep someone in the middle distance between the battle and the base. Because the psychology that makes us HATE base capping and base cappers, is the same that makes it such an attractive and effective strategy.

blinkin, on 01 May 2013 - 11:56 AM, said:

the ninja capper groups may be D-bags but they wouldn't be able to do that as easily if a few people invested in some anti light mech builds. EVERY time i build a mech i think carefully about how i can allow this build to fight light mechs effectively along with whatever primary task i want it to do.

nice concept, but every time I run into an Unkindness of Ravens, I end up having left my light masher at home, and end up hoping to get lucking with an AC20 pop, or that they stand still long enough to get ripped apart by my 3 pulse lasers or 3 srm4s. Right now the inability to prep for a match, and everything being random from the map youre on to the mechs youre with and against, you can't PREPARE for anti-light tactics unless you decide to stick to piloting your light hunter.

Putting on some kind of weaponry to defend against lights is a necessity, or you're a sitting duck. But that will only buy you time. 2 or more lights and you're toast, and that just shouldn't be.

It won't be for long, once tripping and crushing are enabled, but right now, it's like getting attacked by demonic spiders or ******* bats. Annoying speed and almost unfair tactics until madness or death, whichever takes you first. Rage quit and try not to punch the monitor, because it's not a CRT anymore. They can't handle it.

Edited by ArchMage Sparrowhawk, 01 May 2013 - 12:25 PM.

[Gevurah]

Neverfar, on 01 May 2013 - 10:39 AM, said:

So you felt the need to defend your "honor" as you put it by coming to this thread and hurf-blurfing in it?

I get a lot more points and c-bills than you claimed I get if someone tries to intercept me and I blow them up, for starters.

I don't know who you are, "Bro", but there certainly a lot of blowhards like you that are highly forgettable in spite of their attempts to throw their weight around. The few rare times I do cap early are when people scream and have tantrums in advance. I assume it was one of those times and you were one of the screamers. "Bro".

Actually I said bro deliberately (as evidenced by the caps) as a jab, a subtle way of nudging at your insistence that I'm some kind of mouth breather because I disagreed with you. Too high brow, I suppose. I literally said "A cap win? Come on - don't be that guy." If you take that as being a blowhard, forgettable and having a tantrum, I don't know what to say. Then calling me a sperg kid on page 2? Wow. That's classy.

As I quite clearly said before, I was using a goad (note for the unwashed masses: that means a taunt). It's called psychology and it works more often than not.

In this case, it didn't. I can't fault you for securing a win. The game allows it, after all. My primary complaint would be lodged around this being a tournament period and that we don't get sufficient points for a win. That's not really your fault unless you helped code the tournament. However, it's annoying to have to play against you in those conditions as you obviously aren't in it for the tournament. Which is surprising, because that's another yet unstated reward you missed out on. A 'special bobblehead'? No interest in unique vanity items I suppose..

Regardless capping for the sake of a win is pretty bleh, as stated before. If that's what gets you off though, more power to you. Even if it's probably the most boring way to play a game possible. Though in reality given your responses and preferred method of play it appears your only real enjoyment is getting a rise out of others, so you do it the only way possible. You even chose a game which was still quite contentious during a tournament weekend. Ah troll culture, how we love thee.

So congratulations. You win the internet. You had enough ego stroking for today or do you need more?

[NinetyProof]

Jasen, on 01 May 2013 - 10:40 AM, said:

If your team can handle a lonewolf light bumrushing your base, you are the ones that need to lrn2play.

Did you mean Can't? Lrn2Spell?

When you say "team", your obviously talking out of context of this thread. I would hardly call random groups of 8 people that MM puts together a "team". Next time you are on a map like tourmaline, and the MM doesn't give you a single lite, try to get one of the puggies to hang back and "protect" the base ... then let me know how that works for you huh?

Generally speaking, puggie lites in puggie games that insist on just rushing the base and capping for capping sake is frowned upon. Especially when there is a pair of them and they both have cap modules ... and all they are doing is boosting their win/loss by grouping together, choosing assault only, and cap rushing match, after match, after match.

Lost a pug match the other day because the team had no lites at all, on tourmaline, 7-0 loss .. we where the 8 ... didn't lose a guy, but their last one had cap mod, and was fast, and got back to our base before we could get into range of him. And yes, I mentioned that somebody should stay close, but folks wanted the Cbills/XP more then the win/loss number ... and I agree'd. Still a pain in but though.

Edited by NinetyProof, 01 May 2013 - 12:38 PM.

[Purgatus233]

The fundamental problem is one of map/game type design.

Having two bases is just simply poor design.

Imagine a game of football where both sides have a ball, and both are trying to get their ball to the other end zone AT THE SAME TIME.

It is not a conflict driver, because conflict is driven by having mutually desireable objects that only one party can possess.

The whole design is flawed.

That being said, it's even worse in a PUG environment. In an organized group, you would adjust to the gamestyle and you would need to have some members of your team that could both threaten and respond to cap threats.

As it stands, the teams are often unbalanced, with way more people on the heavy side than the light/medium side.

Going back to the football analogy, now both teams have a ball, they are both trying to get to the enemy end-zone, but now 7 out of 8 players are linemen, and one of them is a wide-receiver.

So you have 14 slow ******** beating the **** out of each other in the middle, purely for fun, because they have literally zero impact on the game objectives and outcomes.

The wide receivers then just run around this mass of flesh and go to the other end zone. First one there wins.

In a real game of football, the line exists because without it you will simply hand the ball to someone tough who will run up the middle of the field for the win. The defensive line exists to stop the offensive line.

But you also have running backs, wide receivers, line backers, etc. etc. because you have to be able to have a variety of attack vectors, and on the defense you have to be able to respond to a variety of attack vectors.

That is what is missing in that game style. There are no attack vectors, there are no tensions between roles, etc.

TL:DR don't blame players for behaving as the system compells them to behave. Look at the system design for the problem.

[Cubivorre]

Well said, fellow capper-in-arms.

Garth Erlam, on 01 May 2013 - 11:24 AM, said:

I love that quote, I think I will steal it.

But Garth, you couldn't even find it in your heart to like that man's post? D:

For shame.. For shame.

Edited by Cubivorre, 01 May 2013 - 12:45 PM.

[blinkin]

Jasen, on 01 May 2013 - 11:59 AM, said:

You guys keep saying divide and conquer... but that never meant in a physical sense.

It means, divide allies and conquer them separately.


I mean, we cant just twist 1000 year old sayings around...

are these not groups of allies that we are dealing with? i will admit the term is often used to mean actually turning enemies against one another.

besides twisting words is a time honored tradition of these forums.

[Nmementh]

Purgatus233, on 01 May 2013 - 12:37 PM, said:

Imagine a game of football where both sides have a ball, and both are trying to get their ball to the other end zone AT THE SAME TIME.

It is not a conflict driver, because conflict is driven by having mutually desireable objects that only one party can possess.

Now both teams have a ball, they are both trying to get to the enemy end-zone, but now 7 out of 8 players are linemen, and one of them is a wide-receiver.

So you have 14 slow ******** beating the **** out of each other in the middle, purely for fun, because they have literally zero impact on the game objectives and outcomes.

This. Just this. One base in the middle of a game would be epic... But it'd have to be conquest otherwise it'd just be fastest team wins, no time for kills. Also MekTeks CTF variation was epic, one neutral flag in the center get it to the enemy's base for a cap.