179 replies to this topic

[Atheus]

Joseph Mallan, on 08 May 2013 - 05:04 AM, said:

But why should another game mode be added?

Assault victory conditions:
CAPTURE THE BASE
or
Destroy the enemy force

See that? Two ways to win the match!

Now if the enemy has someone on your base and you want a fight, what should you do? Come on the forums and whine or turn your Mech around and try to stop the Cap? If you want to play a strategic game you have to make choices! If you want mindless smashing, well go find the guys who are taking your stuff. Betty is telling you where they are after all. No hunting involved, they are standing there WAITING FOR YOU TO COME & SAY HI!!!

Go ahead and read the thread. The answers are out there!

Zerberus, on 08 May 2013 - 04:26 AM, said:

I never said that and you know it. Thank you for proving my assessments of you as spot on, sometimes trash is easy to smell but hard to describe.

So you don't like the game how it is? Why not say something if that's the case.

You're not here to tell me how to play, you're just telling me that if I'm losing matches for whatever reason, it's my fault, and I have no right to complain. Is that better for you? That's not anything new, and it's not any more compelling when you say it than the first 25 times it's been said. I still don't want to deal with cap rushers when I play mwo. That's not going to change.

[hammerreborn]

Zerberus, on 08 May 2013 - 05:05 AM, said:

Again, putting words in my mouth and weakening your own credibility.

I have never argued AGAINST TDM, or any other game mode. In any thread, of any forum., of any game, ever.

I am arguing against the people complaining 24/7 instead of acting as rational, intelligent human beings, which would either :

A. Accept that it`s not here, the game is currently no fun, and either take a break or leave completely.

or

B. Adapt and overcome for the time being until it is implemented.


But instead, we reroll the age old "Planting the bomb is dumb /rescuing histages is dumb" CS discussion that was idiotic 15 years ago and is idiotic today. 15-20 times a week.

Some of our members biggest mistake (and I include myself here) is probably attempting to be a voice of reason in this endless sea of qq and often ruining our own perception of the game and it`s community in the progress. But our efforts are rewarded by knowing that without us to balance out the whiners this game would have devolved into Rock-Em Sock-Em robots online weeks after closed Beta. In other words, by having a game that is actually still playable and fun to play. Yeah, it has problems, but we have patience because we ALSO understand that the alternative would be that none of us would be here and the game would be released w/o any player input sometime in 2014-2015. I often wish PGI would have taken taht route and saved themselves the cancer this once helpful and levelheaded community is slowly becoming.

This community will destroy MWO long before the Devs do, and tbh many of you are actively trying but don`t realize it because your vision ends at the tip of your gun barrels and all arguments from others are immediately invalid in your minds.

Let's be honest here, can the TDMtards really further ruin the perception of the community? It's abysmal already.

[Atheus]

Zerberus, on 08 May 2013 - 05:05 AM, said:

...I am arguing against the people complaining 24/7 instead of acting as rational, intelligent human beings, which would either :

A. Accept that it`s not here, the game is currently no fun, and either take a break or leave completely.

or

B. Adapt and overcome for the time being until it is implemented.

So.... if you don't like it, leave or shut up? lol? Thanks for clearing your position up. I didn't quite get it the first time. I had the options out of order.

Yes, it is clearly a mistake for you to try to be a voice of reason.

hammerreborn, on 08 May 2013 - 05:17 AM, said:

Let's be honest here, can the TDMtards really further ruin the perception of the community? It's abysmal already.

You're accusing "TDMtards" of potentially harming the perception of community. I wonder if you're aware of the irony.

Edited by Atheus, 08 May 2013 - 06:17 AM.

[hammerreborn]

Atheus, on 08 May 2013 - 05:20 AM, said:

So.... if you don't like it, leave or shut up? lol? Thanks for clearing your position up. I didn't quite get it the first time. I had the options out of order.

Yes, it is clearly a mistake for you to try to be a voice of reason.



You're accusing "TDMtards" of ruining the perception of community. I wonder if you're aware of the irony.

I'm a gold, I'm the living embodiment of what the community is supposed to be, winners, and awesome.

We're the master race of the forums.

Edited by hammerreborn, 08 May 2013 - 06:16 AM.

[Foust]

If your intent is to make sure you engage in combat on every assault match, when in your opinion more and more people are trying to circumvent combat by capturing your base, would it not be reasonable then to stay at your base to force that combat that you so desire?

This strategy would prevent the enemy from completing one of their listed objectives unopposed, as well as give you the chance to display your combat prowess.

http://penny-arcade....omic/2012/01/06

[Atheus]

Foust, on 08 May 2013 - 06:26 AM, said:

If your intent is to make sure you engage in combat on every assault match, when in your opinion more and more people are trying to circumvent combat by capturing your base, would it not be reasonable then to stay at your base to force that combat that you so desire?

This strategy would prevent the enemy from completing one of their listed objectives unopposed, as well as give you the chance to display your combat prowess.

http://penny-arcade....omic/2012/01/06

No, staying in the base is not a reasonable solution. It's been mentioned plenty of times. The reasons are obvious if you think about how that strategy plays out in reality.

[hammerreborn]

Atheus, on 08 May 2013 - 06:39 AM, said:

No, staying in the base is not a reasonable solution. It's been mentioned plenty of times. The reasons are obvious if you think about how that strategy plays out in reality.

Lol ya, because tactics are boring and this is a thinking game, and you're thinking about running to the center of the map and hopping up and down, like the smart person you are.

Edited by hammerreborn, 08 May 2013 - 06:44 AM.

[Foust]

Atheus, on 08 May 2013 - 06:39 AM, said:

No, staying in the base is not a reasonable solution. It's been mentioned plenty of times. The reasons are obvious if you think about how that strategy plays out in reality.

Staying at the base results in the opposing force closing to their objective, which is your base. You now have moved the engagement zone from the middle of the map (which makes your base vulnerable to capture) to a location where you can both engage the enemy and be in a position to defend your base against capture.

This has been mentioned a multitude of times because it is a valid strategy. I'm slow though, can you provide the obvious reasons that make this solution unreasonable?

[Plavis]

Atheus, on 05 May 2013 - 05:20 AM, said:

Recently a provocative thread has emerged from a light pilot who loves to use preemptive base capture as a major tactical tool. I'll let the poll speak for itself, for now.

Caping is part of the game and is 1 of the win conditions, Caping is the best strategy vs ppc snipers and poopturds.

[Zerberus]

Atheus, on 08 May 2013 - 05:20 AM, said:

So.... if you don't like it, leave or shut up? lol? Thanks for clearing your position up. I didn't quite get it the first time. I had the options out of order.

NO, but it was to be expected that you still don`t get it.

Say it once, fine,
say it 2x, fine,
hell say it 3x, 10x, still fine.

BUT quit spamming the forums with nothing else for weeks every time you don`t like something You people whine in the morning, you whine in the evening, you whine 2 weeks after the devs have announced the exact changes you`ve been harping on and usually continue to whine after theyve been implemented.

In other words, you whine so much that you can`t realistically be playing to begin with, or rather prefer FWO to MWO. And since so many such at reading , you often continue to whine long after the problem itself is solved, lending further weight to the notion of playing the "wrong" game.

Honestly, Is it hard to be intentionally dense? I might just try it if it`s as easy as whining and poptarting are....

Atheus, on 08 May 2013 - 06:39 AM, said:

No, staying in the base is not a reasonable solution. It's been mentioned plenty of times. The reasons are obvious if you think about how that strategy plays out in reality.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH!!!!!!!

Seriously, try to break into a military base if you really believe this. 3 rounds of 5.56 to the heart and head may convince you that in REALITY military planners DO think ahead.

Edited by Zerberus, 08 May 2013 - 07:37 AM.

[Atheus]

Zerberus, you clearly said exactly what you claim you didn't. The rest of that - who are you even talking to? You seem to have built an imaginary enemy who you despise and now suddenly I'm him. Come back to reality, then maybe we'll talk.

Plavis: Did you just copy paste that from page one of the thread, or did you bother to type it out manually?

Foust: If you can't be bothered to read the threads on the subject, fine. But then don't come around spouting things off the top of your head which have already been discussed to death, and expecting people to explain everything from scratch.

[Foust]

Atheus, on 08 May 2013 - 08:50 AM, said:

Foust: If you can't be bothered to read the threads on the subject, fine. But then don't come around spouting things off the top of your head which have already been discussed to death, and expecting people to explain everything from scratch.

Fair enough, so I went back to page 2 to find at least one of your responses that dealt with my top of the head spouting.

Atheus, on 05 May 2013 - 06:12 PM, said:

This is not healthy for a game — it is one thing to be frustrated about being outplayed and defeated head-on. It's entirely another to feel your presence was pretty much circumvented in a way you could not reasonably contest. It will leave you with negative feelings toward the other players, and negative feelings toward the game.

Any "Defend the base" concept is just unrealistic in a map where the halfway point is literally 2.5 km away from the bases (~2 minutes of walking at 70 km/h). Both teams can not defend their base on such a map while also attacking the enemy forces without dividing up in a rather suicidal manner, just as lights can't both attack the enemy base and defend their own base. It's no secret that most base rushers who admonish you for not defending your base had no base defense on their side either.

Snipped for space.

"It's entirely another to feel your presence was pretty much circumvented in a way you could not reasonably contest."

How is staying at or near your base unreasonable, when it allows you to dictate where the engagement occurs and prevents the early game capture that you so despise and gives you the combat that you want. Win Win Win?

To the splitting your force argument. The solution is simple, don't. The half way point at 2.5 km away is invalidated if you stay near your base. If your team is defending your base, your lights do not need to attack. In fact, if they are out performing recon and see that the opposing force has now closed and engaged on your side of the map, as you pointed out now their base is open for capture with a much higher chance of a successful capture considering they are now well over the half way point and have no chance to return in time. If a fight with a capture isn't your cup of tea, then your lights could engage the opposing force from the rear.

How does this look in a pug? Bad. Difficult at best. I get it, 9/10 times the majority of a pug is going to go full throttle into the middle of the map to pew pew and dakka dakka and get themselves obliterated, hoping to take one with them. It is the nature of the current FPS mindset. However, this does not invalidate the tactic. If anything it would make it more effective if you could get your pug to cooperate.

You are correct with the last line. Rarely does anyone defend, especially if there is a light or two determined to go for the early cap. It is generally everyone going for the middle to duke it out. Pick your favorite meta and see who is left standing when the smoke clears. Today that favors high damage alpha builds, something light/medium mechs struggle to deal with. The tactically sound response from a light (this has already been beat to death) is to pressure the enemy base. The decision is then left to the opponent to respond, or hope to call the bluff.

Seems more and more light pilots aren't bluffing.

[Plavis]

Atheus, on 08 May 2013 - 08:50 AM, said:

Zerberus, you clearly said exactly what you claim you didn't. The rest of that - who are you even talking to? You seem to have built an imaginary enemy who you despise and now suddenly I'm him. Come back to reality, then maybe we'll talk.

Plavis: Did you just copy paste that from page one of the thread, or did you bother to type it out manually?

Foust: If you can't be bothered to read the threads on the subject, fine. But then don't come around spouting things off the top of your head which have already been discussed to death, and expecting people to explain everything from scratch.

i dont see anything in page 1 that is a copy of what i wrote.

[Atheus]

Foust, on 08 May 2013 - 09:34 AM, said:

How is staying at or near your base unreasonable, when it allows you to dictate where the engagement occurs and prevents the early game capture that you so despise and gives you the combat that you want. Win Win Win?

To the splitting your force argument. The solution is simple, don't. The half way point at 2.5 km away is invalidated if you stay near your base. If your team is defending your base, your lights do not need to attack. In fact, if they are out performing recon and see that the opposing force has now closed and engaged on your side of the map, as you pointed out now their base is open for capture with a much higher chance of a successful capture considering they are now well over the half way point and have no chance to return in time. If a fight with a capture isn't your cup of tea, then your lights could engage the opposing force from the rear.

How does this look in a pug? Bad. Difficult at best. I get it, 9/10 times the majority of a pug is going to go full throttle into the middle of the map to pew pew and dakka dakka and get themselves obliterated, hoping to take one with them. It is the nature of the current FPS mindset. However, this does not invalidate the tactic. If anything it would make it more effective if you could get your pug to cooperate.

You are correct with the last line. Rarely does anyone defend, especially if there is a light or two determined to go for the early cap. It is generally everyone going for the middle to duke it out. Pick your favorite meta and see who is left standing when the smoke clears. Today that favors high damage alpha builds, something light/medium mechs struggle to deal with. The tactically sound response from a light (this has already been beat to death) is to pressure the enemy base. The decision is then left to the opponent to respond, or hope to call the bluff.

Seems more and more light pilots aren't bluffing.

You don't get to dictate where the engagement occurs by staying in your base, you only get to dictate where it will not occur (outside your base). Your enemy fully has the option to stay in their base as well, and if that is your common wisdom for preventing premature caps, that's what they should be doing too, right? Anywhere you go, they don't have to go there either. The only way you can choose where the engagement occurs is by attacking the enemy base, or cornering your enemy, (though if you attack the enemy base, they may have just walked around you to do the same to you, so no engagement). Any team that starts out a match by standing around in their base is probably just wasting their time, and as you correctly identified, any PUG who starts out by standing in their base will be alone very soon, and is either wasting their time, or committing suicide as they get rushed by a wolf pack of lights.

Plavis, on 08 May 2013 - 09:38 AM, said:

i dont see anything in page 1 that is a copy of what i wrote.

Read the whole thread and you'll find pretty much exactly what you just said stated 5 or 6 times in different ways. Same with the 4 other threads on this subject in this section of the forums.

Edited by Atheus, 08 May 2013 - 09:53 AM.

[Foust]

Atheus, on 08 May 2013 - 09:46 AM, said:

You don't get to dictate where the engagement occurs by staying in your base, you only get to dictate where it will not occur (outside your base). Your enemy fully has the option to stay in their base as well, and if that is your common wisdom for preventing premature caps, that's what they should be doing too, right? Anywhere you go, they don't have to go there either. The only way you can choose where the engagement occurs is by attacking the enemy base, or cornering your enemy. Any team that starts out a match by standing around in their base is probably just wasting their time, and as you correctly identified, any PUG who starts out by standing in their base will be alone very soon, and is either wasting their time, or committing suicide as they get rushed by a wolf pack of lights.

By the engagement not occuring outside your base, would it not then occur in your base? Where you wanted the engagement?

We are talking paper rock scissors here. The difference being that you keep playing rock and are shocked and offended when the opponent starts utilizing paper.

Edited by Foust, 08 May 2013 - 10:08 AM.

[Atheus]

Foust, on 08 May 2013 - 10:08 AM, said:

By the engagement not occuring outside your base, would it not then occur in your base? Where you wanted the engagement?

We are talking paper rock scissors here. The difference being that you keep playing rock and are shocked and offended when the opponent starts utilizing paper.

If there is an engagement, yes, but how long are you going to sit in your base? How long is the enemy going to sit in their base? The answer is, just as much time as they want to waste doing absolutely nothing.

[Foust]

Atheus, on 08 May 2013 - 10:13 AM, said:

If there is an engagement, yes, but how long are you going to sit in your base? How long is the enemy going to sit in their base? The answer is, just as much time as they want to waste doing absolutely nothing.

You got it. You can just about guarantee that no one will wait on their base for 5 minutes let alone the whole match. This makes defending all the more viable if you want to secure the win.

[Atheus]

Foust, on 08 May 2013 - 10:25 AM, said:

You got it. You can just about guarantee that no one will wait on their base for 5 minutes let alone the whole match. This makes defending all the more viable if you want to secure the win.

So your sure-fire strategy for maximum fun and a sure win is to stand on your base until the cows come home? You have to realize that if this is actually a good strategy, you should expect your opponent to be doing the same. Thus, if it's a good strategy, that makes it not a good strategy. Quite the paradox, huh?

[Foust]

Nothing is a sure win, just improving the odds.

Yes, they should be doing the same thing. It remains the lowest risk strategy, no paradox involved. Should end in a draw. The thing is, as you pointed out, is that no one does it. Someone will get bored and wander off to go find glorious combat.

So we go full circle. No one wants to stay at the base, so they all run out to fight. The meta is currently large alphas, something that lights and mediums are very disadvantaged against. The lights make the correct tactical decision to pressure the base knowing that a heavy team will have trouble responding, if they respond at all. This improves the chances that the light can influence the win versus the light trying to engage and more than likely getting destroyed by the previously mentioned meta.

If a heavy team is now constantly losing to early base capture, the correct tactical decision for the heavy team is to remain at the base or within reasonable response distance to the base to deal with this threat. Suddenly the light wants nothing to do with early base capture and starts scouting and looking for someone who might be separated from the herd.

Then the heavy team discovers that no one runs at the base anymore but they are being picked apart one by one, so they start clumping up again, going to middle of the map.

So the lights start capping bases...

[Atheus]

Foust, on 08 May 2013 - 11:04 AM, said:

Nothing is a sure win, just improving the odds.

Yes, they should be doing the same thing. It remains the lowest risk strategy, no paradox involved. Should end in a draw. The thing is, as you pointed out, is that no one does it. Someone will get bored and wander off to go find glorious combat.

So we go full circle. No one wants to stay at the base, so they all run out to fight. The meta is currently large alphas, something that lights and mediums are very disadvantaged against. The lights make the correct tactical decision to pressure the base knowing that a heavy team will have trouble responding, if they respond at all. This improves the chances that the light can influence the win versus the light trying to engage and more than likely getting destroyed by the previously mentioned meta.

If a heavy team is now constantly losing to early base capture, the correct tactical decision for the heavy team is to remain at the base or within reasonable response distance to the base to deal with this threat. Suddenly the light wants nothing to do with early base capture and starts scouting and looking for someone who might be separated from the herd.

Then the heavy team discovers that no one runs at the base anymore but they are being picked apart one by one, so they start clumping up again, going to middle of the map.

So the lights start capping bases...

Ok so, coming full circle, defending your base is not a good strategy unless you're perfectly happy to hang out for an extra 5-8 minutes or more every match doing nothing more than waiting for the enemy to arrive. You don't expect your opponents to do this, so you can't reasonably expect your team mates to have any interest in doing this either.

That said, I have done this very thing before on Caustic twice, more as a joke than anything else. We hung out behind the big hill, then blew the snot out of the confused enemy as they came along one by one trying to figure out were the heck our team was. It worked, and it was funny, but I'm not going to stand around for an extra 5-8 minutes every match waiting for the enemy to get bold/impatient and push all the way to my base. When a scout spots your team you have to wait even longer while the enemy comes up with their own plan. The fun just isn't worth the long wait.

The light mech is not such a pathetic machine that the best thing they can do is walk around the enemy and go stand on their base. If it is, that's a problem with the pilot, or the game design, or both, and that should be resolved. It is pretty consistent with my experience if I do go back and defend the base that the pilot of the base stomper is usually not all that good at fighting, which only serves to fortify my suspicion that most do it because they're unable to fight well in the first place. Certainly some say at the high end of ELO it's just about nothing but assaults and heavies, which indicates there are balance issues, but that basically means that lights aren't going to be in the high ELO matches at all (unless they cap race their way into an ELO they don't have the skill to function at). It's no wonder cap racers have struggle to be seen as solid, respectable players by anyone other than other cap racers. They win matches against players they can't possibly win against in a fight, artificially inflating their ELO until they get embarrassingly blasted by someone, further reinforcing their notion that lights just can't fight, and are only good for cap racing.

I'm just rambling now. The end.