68 replies to this topic

[zraven7]

Hello, all.

This is simply a thread where people who are fine with, and enjoy, the base-capture mechanic can speak up and say so. The thread will grow, and PGI will see that a large portion of us enjoy this strategic element.

Now, people against the base-capture mechanic will post here, too. They will probably try to start an argument, and then, frankly, turn this into a QQ thread.

I encourage you to ignore them. Simply say that you enjoy the base capture mechanic. If you have some way that you think said mechanic could be improved upon, feel free to post that.

I personally am in favor of automated base defenses, and think the required capture time should scale with map size. It would encourage more teamwork when planning a capture.

[jakucha]

I'm fine with base capping, capping in general. I'll do it if I think the moment calls for it, and if an enemy wins by doing it then I'm also fine with that. Different game modes that we're getting will be welcomed though, hopefully sooner rather than later.

[MadcatX]

I've got no problems with it

[Taemien]

We don't need another thread about this. We've already argued it to death.

Use this thread instead: http://mwomercs.com/...se-cap-threads/

Edited by Taemien, 10 May 2013 - 04:50 AM.

[zraven7]

Taemien, on 10 May 2013 - 04:49 AM, said:

We don't need another thread about this. We've already argued it to death.

Use this thread instead: http://mwomercs.com/...se-cap-threads/

Oh, it's not an argument thread. Just one where people can state that they do, indeed, enjoy the mechanic. People are encouraged to ignore anyone trying to start debate here.

Thank you for the link, though. It's good reading, and anyone who hasn't seen it probably should give it a look-over. :-)

Edited by zraven7, 10 May 2013 - 04:54 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Capturing the base is the primary objective of assault. To many people forget that. Cap or crush both win the objective.

[Scandinavian Jawbreaker]

Base cap mechanic is fine now. I don't like base rush nor do I like when teams just miss each other (scouting fail). Now you can make as an strategic asset. Base capping to disoriantate enemy team or win in a bad situation FTW. I don't care what other people say.

[Stargoat]

While the specifics of base capturing could use a little work, I like it in general. What would be even better is increased rewards for base capturing, as a way to shift the metagame... creating a more dynamic environment, where there could be a legitimate reason to cap or cap rush other than a cheap, low-reward win.

Also, the capture time really should be map dependent.

[MadcatX]

IV Amen, on 10 May 2013 - 05:12 AM, said:

Base cap mechanic is fine now. I don't like base rush nor do I like when teams just miss each other (scouting fail). Now you can make as an strategic asset. Base capping to disoriantate enemy team or win in a bad situation FTW. I don't care what other people say.

Now that you mention it, an actual pre-planned base rush (not just teams missing each other) is something I havn't see in a while. And that's actually a good thing. If my team loses due to base cap by one or two light mechs, well, we deserve that loss for not having one of the faster team members (if there are any) go back and drive off the lights. IMO, it's currently the only actual strategic element in this game until they made some new modes.

[mekabuser]

Hmm . good OP, even though I am generally against capping. But with the two things you mentioned it would be vastly improved so carry on. Its not as if PGI is gonna get rid of base capture.

I would expand upon your ideas by there being at least 3 spawn points/bases per team. That way teams can spawn at different locations and when we play alpine 7 times in a row it might be interesting. The other two would be ghost bases/not active defenses, but would provide additional psuedo urban enviroments to fight in .

It would be nice to utilize the whole map. I mean does anyone even know that there are alkaline lakes on cauldron?

[Scandinavian Jawbreaker]

Neverfar, on 10 May 2013 - 05:20 AM, said:

According to a poll in the maps section of the forum, you guys are favoring a "speed based" method of winning instead of a "skill based" method of winning. Shame on you

We? I haven't even seen such topic.

[zraven7]

mekabuser, on 10 May 2013 - 05:32 AM, said:

Hmm . good OP, even though I am generally against capping. But with the two things you mentioned it would be vastly improved so carry on. Its not as if PGI is gonna get rid of base capture.

I would expand upon your ideas by there being at least 3 spawn points/bases per team. That way teams can spawn at different locations and when we play alpine 7 times in a row it might be interesting. The other two would be ghost bases/not active defenses, but would provide additional psuedo urban enviroments to fight in .

It would be nice to utilize the whole map. I mean does anyone even know that there are alkaline lakes on cauldron?

Additional spawn points could make things interesting as well, I agree. It would just be a tricky thing to balance those locations. I already feel that Gamma has a significant advantage on Alpine Peaks.

But I have long thought cap-speed should be based off of map size. It needs to be longer on Tourmaline and Alpine. Conversely, I sometimes feel it could almost be shortened on some maps, primarily Forest Colony. I son't want to make Capturing easier, mind you, but I feel that on the smaller maps, it might pressure people to turn back to base more, or enforce the idea that, on those maps, base capture is an imminent threat. Still, the primary thing is the increase on the huge maps.

[Scandinavian Jawbreaker]

zraven7, on 10 May 2013 - 05:41 AM, said:

Additional spawn points could make things interesting as well, I agree. It would just be a tricky thing to balance those locations. I already feel that Gamma has a significant advantage on Alpine Peaks.

But I have long thought cap-speed should be based off of map size. It needs to be longer on Tourmaline and Alpine. Conversely, I sometimes feel it could almost be shortened on some maps, primarily Forest Colony. I son't want to make Capturing easier, mind you, but I feel that on the smaller maps, it might pressure people to turn back to base more, or enforce the idea that, on those maps, base capture is an imminent threat. Still, the primary thing is the increase on the huge maps.

I agree, but I do like the long cap time on smaller maps. That means you don't have to react on that instant you can take your time dealing with the situation and then intercept the capper. On the other hand if on Alpine, you have to rush to base or else you'll be capped. With slower mech left, no way your team has a chance.

[RG Notch]

The funny part is if people didn't have an issue with the current cap mechanic there would be no need for a post such as this. It's very existence and the need for some people to constantly defend the current mechanic is clear evidence that the player base, not the forum base has issues with it. As usual a vocal minority forgets the minority part.

[Scandinavian Jawbreaker]

[zraven7]

IV Amen, on 10 May 2013 - 05:48 AM, said:

I agree, but I do like the long cap time on smaller maps. That means you don't have to react on that instant you can take your time dealing with the situation and then intercept the capper. On the other hand if on Alpine, you have to rush to base or else you'll be capped. With slower mech left, no way your team has a chance.

That's the thing. I think that, on smaller maps, Capture should be an imminent threat. I actually think that would honestly discourage lights from capping ********. I know, sounds backwards. See, if it takes a while to cap, someone can step on base, and people might not rush over instantly. They will try to finish what they are doing, then get to the base and stop the cap. However, a lot of the time, they get tied up in the battle they are having, or someone takes longer to destroy than they thought (some Centurions just will not die, I swear), and the base is too close to capture by the time they are done.

Now, on the other hand, if the time was shortened on those maps, everyone suddenly knows that someone on base is a big, big problem. So, if you're in a light mech and you're thinking about going for the capture, you have to weight the fact that, likely, half the team is going to turn towards you the moment you start.

Given, if they shortened the time to cap, they would absolutely have to increase the rewards for it. At lease double the current C-bills and EXP would be needed to balance the risk.

As said, however, that is more an idea than a want or need. The capture time on the larger maps needs to be increased, or something like base-defenses added. I honestly base-rush on Tourmaline as a defense a lot of the time, now. If I'm not there to start capture, we have no chance of beating the guy who just started capturing my base. increasing the time by 50 percent or so would help a lot.

[Joseph Mallan]

Neverfar, on 10 May 2013 - 05:20 AM, said:

According to a poll in the maps section of the forum, you guys are favoring a "speed based" method of winning instead of a "skill based" method of winning. Shame on you

LOL Doing things fast requires skill AND timing. They can keep the skill only game!

[The Last Blade]

Capping is for cowards that don't know how to fight. Last I checked it was "Battletech" not "Cappertech"

[Keifomofutu]

RG Notch, on 10 May 2013 - 05:50 AM, said:

The funny part is if people didn't have an issue with the current cap mechanic there would be no need for a post such as this. It's very existence and the need for some people to constantly defend the current mechanic is clear evidence that the player base, not the forum base has issues with it. As usual a vocal minority forgets the minority part.

/\

Everything is just fine PGI. People make threads about assault not working on the big maps because it's perfectly awesome! Nothing to see here nope. 90%(by ingame poll of seeing who bothers walking back 2.5km) of the playerbase basically saying "screw it" to base defense on the large maps doesn't indicate a problem at all nope.

Also was fun seeing the OP post that capping works fine and then five posts later change his story to say that capping time should be based off map size. Which quite a few of the "rest" of us have been saying all along.

Edited by Keifomofutu, 10 May 2013 - 08:53 AM.

[Sturmforge]

My problem with capping is not the idea behind it, it is more the execution. You just stand there. You should have to destroy something. Then when the defenders come back you can't just hide in a corner. You either continue destroying whatever it is, fight the returning defenders, or run away.