396 replies to this topic

[Lostdragon]

Zerberus, on 13 May 2013 - 10:35 AM, said:

And we don`t want to be forced into assaults instead of lights simply because brawling against heavies and assaults with lights is a fool`s errand and equally as little fun, and some of thje people we drop with don`t want to play conquest exclusively. I usually play atlases, but I don`t go careening into the enemy firing line at 140 kmh in my commando like many are trying to get us to do. I will ALWAYS come from behind in a light, everything else is suicide. And if another iobjective is closer.... Well, hey, that`s why they`re called "Targets of Opportunity".

But once again, the "It`s always only one light that intentionally ruins the game for everybody else(including his frioends that he may be dropping with)" logical fallacy strikes.

The fact of the matter is that we get your point, why can´t you get ours, or at least accept it as equally valid? Becasue everything else is basically being a pompous jerk by implying that your fun is more important that ours.

Based on the gibberish you just posted I would say you do not get the point. Who said anything about eliminating lights? Had you actually bothered to read my suggestion a few posts back I advocated making scouting and drawing off the enemy more meaningful. I play lights too. I want every weight class to be good and have a role, but I also want that role to be fun and to me playing lights in the current game modes is the opposite of fun because of the mechanics. If you are not capping in a light then you are usually hurting your team as things stand now but I think there is a better way.

Edited by Lostdragon, 13 May 2013 - 11:31 AM.

[Livewyr]

Lostdragon, on 13 May 2013 - 08:30 AM, said:

The easiest fix is to just change Assault mode from the broken POS it is now. If one team was defending an objective and the other was dropped in a random location to destroy or capture the objective it would change things a lot.

Scouting becomes important for both teams. Drawing the enemy away from the fight or into an ambush becomes something other than standing in a square hoping someone shows up to defend. Powering down to ambush might actually happen.

Most importantly you eliminate cap rushes where there is not a shot fired.

Roland, on 13 May 2013 - 08:31 AM, said:

Agreed. Making it such that only ONE team is defending would greatly improve the game type.

Joseph Mallan, on 13 May 2013 - 08:32 AM, said:

Only if the defending team does not rage quit cause they have to guard a colored box in the sand that is.

Roland, on 13 May 2013 - 08:34 AM, said:

Setting up a defense when you know the enemy is going to assault you isn't that terrible... it's the current situation of not knowing whether the enemy team is gonna bother coming to you, or whether you have to go hunt them down, that makes it exceedingly stupid.

Likewise, the assaulting force is then freed up to maneuver however they like, and attack the enemy base from anywhere.

They thought that Assault/Defend modes would be well received in World of Tanks as well..

It turns out: if you can take cover and jumpsnipe the people who have no choice but to advance on you, (similar to WoT TDs sitting in bushes shooting invisibly) the match becomes a lot less enjoyable.

Keifomofutu, on 13 May 2013 - 08:38 AM, said:

If it takes very little skill to shoot an unarmed man, what does it say about the unarmed man's level of skill that he can't prevent it?

SEEWUTIDIDTHAR?

lolwut?
Yeah.. a face plant.

General Taskeen, on 13 May 2013 - 10:58 AM, said:

MW:LL's Terrain Control is the best Mech game mode. Certainly better than anything in this game.

Sounds remarkably like Conquest.. (where light's rule)

ArmageddonKnight, on 13 May 2013 - 11:18 AM, said:

While i understand what the OP is talking about, i feel ur.his post is made in such a way to negate any possible argument against it as "ur one ofhte assualt racket". So theres a mark down on ur position there.. sry.

The intention was not to negate every possible argument; just the ones that say "Your fun is ruining my fun and therefore you're stupid!" type of responses. (Negating the self -important supposition that anything outside of their goals is unsuitable.)
I don't feel that fighting shouldn't happen, I just feel that indirect styles should not be shunned. (Or TK'd as Poster #3 would like..he was a perfect example of who I was addressing even before he made his post.)

ArmageddonKnight, on 13 May 2013 - 11:18 AM, said:

Anyway im all for caping being in Assualt mode BUT only if they change it. As it stands atm capping is almost always used (in pugs) as a troll move. Somtimes it used as a last resort when a team is loosing. (which is fine).

If 'basses' were defended by turrets, had a lockout period b4 caping could start so people cant start caping instantly..or some other mechanic to make it more complex, then yes Caping would be fine, but atm all that happens is a person ..or 2 decide i want fast matches so i can farm credits so im gunan run a 150+kph mech and ru nstraight to the cap.

"Why dont u get ur light mechs to sort them out ?" i hear u say, well this is a pug we are talking about and alot of light pilots, pilot lights becouse they use them as OP brawlers vs heavier mechs. they dont actually use them as light mechs. Whilst this issue is related to another broken game mechanic (the hardpoint system) which shouldnt be discussed here (dont want to drail this thread), it does contribute to the reason caping atm is crap.
Lets face it , this is a FPS mech sim, why play if ur just gunna run to the cap point and sit there. You;d be better of playing a online racing game


Again, im not against a well implemented Caping system, but the current one is naff.

I don't like timed invulnerability (or if they did that, make it ridiculously short) because timed invulnerability gives a team the feeling of complete freedom of aggression and I think it would exacerbate the current (charge) monotony problem.

I would like it changed in one of 2 ways:
1: If you leave the cap box, the base recovers your damage, or if you're shot, the base recovers your "damage." (pretty much how WoT has it. This means that even a person in a slower mech can defend base with his ranged weapons.
or
2: If a friendly player starts defending base from on it, rather than just stopping base cap, it starts recovering. The same for the enemy mech leaving the base.

[Lostdragon]

Livewyr, too hard to quote and edit on my mobile, but the devs are making adjustments to make jump sniping less easy mode. They are adding reticle shake in the next patch. But other than that I would say this is where scouting and flanking come in to play. Also remember that in round 2 the jump sniper's team will be on attack so he must advance then and face your defending snipers.

I think this type mode would be much more conducive to determining the winning team based on tactics and teamwork than the current modes, which are determined by team comp more than anything usually.

[Livewyr]

Lostdragon, on 13 May 2013 - 12:40 PM, said:

Livewyr, too hard to quote and edit on my mobile, but the devs are making adjustments to make jump sniping less easy mode. They are adding reticle shake in the next patch. But other than that I would say this is where scouting and flanking come in to play. Also remember that in round 2 the jump sniper's team will be on attack so he must advance then and face your defending snipers.

I think this type mode would be much more conducive to determining the winning team based on tactics and teamwork than the current modes, which are determined by team comp more than anything usually.

It *IS* possible, but I think more than likely what would happen is since one team doesn't have to worry at all about going out and getting the enemy, they could just camp defensively.. there would be no incentive to go out of their defensive position.
They shoe might be on the other foot in the next match, but it'd still be the same shoe.

[Keifomofutu]

Livewyr, on 13 May 2013 - 12:43 PM, said:

It *IS* possible, but I think more than likely what would happen is since one team doesn't have to worry at all about going out and getting the enemy, they could just camp defensively.. there would be no incentive to go out of their defensive position.
They shoe might be on the other foot in the next match, but it'd still be the same shoe.

Almost need some indirect fire support to deal with a static blob... I'm not saying LRMs are getting buffed enough next patch because they probably aren't.

[Livewyr]

Keifomofutu, on 13 May 2013 - 12:49 PM, said:

Almost need some indirect fire support to deal with a static blob... I'm not saying LRMs are getting buffed enough next patch because they probably aren't.

It's almost as if LRMs are completely useless against an entrenched enemy with ECM..

[Lostdragon]

Livewyr, on 13 May 2013 - 12:43 PM, said:

It *IS* possible, but I think more than likely what would happen is since one team doesn't have to worry at all about going out and getting the enemy, they could just camp defensively.. there would be no incentive to go out of their defensive position.
They shoe might be on the other foot in the next match, but it'd still be the same shoe.

The point of such a mode is that it forces confrontation. You can't win by avoiding the other team and base capping. It also does not grant the team with more lights left an automatic win at the end of a close battle on big maps.

Such a mode would also give lights of both teams incentive to scout. A properly placed objective could be accessible from many approaches so you need to know where the attackers are and where they are going in order to defend. Random drop location for the attackers would make scouting on defense even more vital.

Lights on defense could also try to split the attackers by getting people to chase them or draw attackers into ambushes. The current modes don't really encourage role warfare in this way and I think new modes could go a long way toward that.

[Void Angel]

Livewyr, on 13 May 2013 - 03:09 AM, said:

You forgot a lesson to add:
"If the light or medium on your team decides to go and cap because he's completely outgunned by the effective blob, call the little **** out on being the dumb*** coward he is."

You got close with "bug abuse" (using maneuverability is bug abuse...Assault Racket)

So very enlightening.

I've probably forgotten more about tactics and warfare than you know.

Again, you are using a straw man in an attempt to browbeat others and justify your own misbehavior. Unsurprising, since this was exactly what you've done here from word one. If it wasn't so petty (and ineptly done,) I'd find the unintentional irony hilarious - because you wrote this post to do exactly what you're accusing other people of doing to you. That's what your lying about a mythical "Assault Racket" boils down to: you don't like fighting a group who uses massed firepower (and from your descriptions of the "problem," you seem to be doing that wrong,) so you set out to make CapWarrior tactics "socially acceptable instead." In short, like so many dishonest thinkers, you are accusing the innocent of what you actually do yourself.

Lest there be any doubt about what's really going on here, let me throw your own words back at you:

Livewyr, on 12 May 2013 - 01:17 PM, said:

I haven't seen the full 8man Atlas team, but I have seen 6 ER/PPC assaults and a couple of Ravens or Jenners pull that stunt.

If I see that, I personally would be more than content leaving one light mech to keep an eye on enemy movement, and have everyone else on my team minimize, check e-mails, peruse the forums, etc.. just stay on TS until the other team decides to get off their duff.

This puts the lie to all your gabbling about tactics and the supposed "non-viability" of light and medium 'mechs. You claim that an imaginary conspiracy of mean people is trolling you in order to make sure the game is played how they want to play it, not how it should be played - they just don't want to adapt to your smart CapWarrior tactics! But when they do just that, what's your preferred response? You troll. You refuse to play and just run out the timer unless they play the game the way you want to play it. You are truly without shame, and your hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Finally, if you were my professional equal in military tactics, you wouldn't be so totally unable to translate the relevant aspects of real tactics into what is essentially a loose armor/cav simulator with sci-fi weapons and vehicles. But again, same MO: attempting to use social status as a weapon to enforce your point of view. Precisely the thing you're accusing your made-up "Assault Racket" of doing.

[Void Angel]

Caustic Canid, on 13 May 2013 - 02:01 AM, said:

While I agree that the capture system may need improvement, people shouldn't feel bad about using it. If I saw the whole enemy team in slow assaults in the middle of the map, and my team was severely outgunned, I would cap too. I'm not just gonna feed your k/d cause you're in bigger 'mechs. Just sayin'.

Sure; I've done the same thing, and no one really minds if you're responding to a force imbalance (either from the perspective of a lost force-on-force or a drop tonnage imbalance.) What people get angry about is stuff like the 3-4man Raven premades that simply avoid combat and run to the drop zone - especially since so many lights in a team tends to cause the matchmaker to break tonnage matching.

Understand, this is from the perspective of a Light and Medium pilot, as well as a Heavy/Assault pilot. What the OP conveniently ignores is that a lot of the people yelling at him for capping without even trying to find/fight the enemy are the Light/Mediums on his own team.

[Livewyr]

Ah, he returns. (Considerably less "witty" than before though.)

Look for the bold:

Void Angel, on 13 May 2013 - 12:56 PM, said:

Again, you are using a straw man in an attempt to browbeat others and justify your own misbehavior. What's the straw man? Explain for me your true meaning... Unsurprising, since this was exactly what you've done here from word one. If it wasn't so petty (and ineptly done,) I'd find the unintentional irony hilarious - because you wrote this post to do exactly what you're accusing other people of doing to you. That's what your lying about a mythical "Assault Racket" boils down to: you don't like fighting a group who uses massed firepower (and from your descriptions of the "problem," you seem to be doing that wrong,) That, is a strawman, I don't mind people doing "massed firepower" so long as they don't whine, *****, and moan when I use their shortsightedness against them, and cap. It *IS* true that I don't like the monotony presented by making any other tactic socially unacceptable. so you set out to make CapWarrior tactics "socially acceptable instead." Well yes, I don't believe in the "my way or the highway" mentality for tactics. In short, like so many dishonest thinkers, you are accusing the innocent of what you actually do yourself. Explain.

Lest there be any doubt about what's really going on here, let me throw your own words back at you:This puts the lie to all your gabbling about tactics and the supposed "non-viability" of light and medium 'mechs. You claim that an imaginary conspiracy of mean people is trolling you in order to make sure the game is played how they want to play it, not how it should be played - they just don't want to adapt to your smart CapWarrior tactics! Well given that the weakness of an assault mech is being too slow to deal with a base cap, what reason would YOU give for an assault mech being pissed that he got outmaneuvered? (I'd say he didn't like someone not fitting into his rigged combat box.) But when they do just that, what's your preferred response? You troll. You refuse to play and just run out the timer unless they play the game the way you want to play it. Can you show me where you got that? I'm curious. You are truly without shame, and your hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Finally, if you were my professional equal in military tactics, you wouldn't be so totally unable to translate the relevant aspects of real tactics into what is essentially a loose armor/cav simulator with sci-fi weapons and vehicles. But again, same MO: attempting to use social status as a weapon to enforce your point of view. Precisely the thing you're accusing your made-up "Assault Racket" of doing.

"Mass up everything, the tanks, the men, the planes, everything, and send it all in that way- F the supply depot and HQ." -Said no military officer, ever.

Tell me, what relevant tactic involves leaving your base completely undefended and being utterly insulted when the enemy takes advantage of it?

I am most curious.

[Void Angel]

Sorry, I'm not required to answer insult after insult, explain tactics I have not advocated, or defend things I have not said. The burden of proof is on you, and you have failed utterly to answer even one of my objections, or to offer an objection of your own that passes muster. You made claims, and those claims were debunked and argued against.

Trying to say "Oh, really? Explain that. And that, and that. Oooh, explain. Explain..." without ever actually defending your own ideas is an amateur's rhetorical trick. I'm unsurprised, but then I knew you weren't interested in truth here from word one.

Thanks for losing the argument - next time, try to do so gracefully.
/ignore.

[Livewyr]

Another anecdote, similar to last one, only we won.

In centy again (sorry.. I just like the centurion) on Alpine.

My team went the usual direction, right toward the enemy and I went southeast (from the southwest base) until, to my north, I saw a jager and a stalker taking position on a tall hill. I harassed with my Gauss rifle until both followed me.. obviously never getting to make much contact as I was over the next hill popping a shot by the time they crested.. they chased me all the way back to my base.
(I relayed to my team that we had those mechs in our backfield)
I went up the hill behind my base and started shooting down at them as they started to take it. The Jager was finished off by one of our snipers as he had to try and take cover from me. (He was AC20s so range wasn't his strong suit) and the Stalker, relatively fresh was on the base..

I ran down to the base and just sat on the other side of the structure from him so he couldn't shoot me. (Of course I couldn't shoot him, but that wasn't the point, I was stalling for backup.. and it worked perfectly.) I got to pull of some shots as my team approached and his attention was divided, eventually I got to remove both torsos and finish him myself.

What should be taken away from this anecdote: Medium using speed and maneuverability to draw 25% of their team away from the fight (effectively giving my team an advantage in the fight) and then using superior maneuverability and toughness to weather the dings and scrapes from holding a stalker at bay while back-up arrived.... eventually killing him with a Gauss rifle.

I didn't fight him face to face, I used my armor and maneuverability to survive his attempts to kill me, and eventually my firepower to kill him.

Just another anecdote...

Void Angel, on 13 May 2013 - 01:27 PM, said:

Sorry, I'm not required to answer insult after insult, explain tactics I have not advocated, or defend things I have not said. The burden of proof is on you, and you have failed utterly to answer even one of my objections, or to offer an objection of your own that passes muster. You made claims, and those claims were debunked and argued against.

Trying to say "Oh, really? Explain that. And that, and that. Oooh, explain. Explain..." without ever actually defending your own ideas is an amateur's rhetorical trick. I'm unsurprised, but then I knew you weren't interested in truth here from word one.

Thanks for losing the argument - next time, try to do so gracefully.
/ignore.

Umm ok.

That's not hypocritical at all.. (at least when I dismiss someone, I give them straight answers to backup my statements.)

Have a good one!

Edited by Livewyr, 13 May 2013 - 01:41 PM.

[Lostdragon]

Livewyr, on 13 May 2013 - 01:17 PM, said:

Ah, he returns. (Considerably less "witty" than before though.)

Look for the bold:


"Mass up everything, the tanks, the men, the planes, everything, and send it all in that way- F the supply depot and HQ." -Said no military officer, ever.

Tell me, what relevant tactic involves leaving your base completely undefended and being utterly insulted when the enemy takes advantage of it?

I am most curious.

"We hold an oil rig that can be captured by standing near it for a minute or so. The enemy also has one close by, neither have any sort of static defenses. We will attempt to capture their rig or destroy the enemy, but if they capture ours first we will just quit, no matter if we all still live," said no military strategist ever.

[Livewyr]

Lostdragon, on 13 May 2013 - 01:52 PM, said:

"We hold an oil rig that can be captured by standing near it for a minute or so. The enemy also has one close by, neither have any sort of static defenses. We will attempt to capture their rig or destroy the enemy, but if they capture ours first we will just quit, no matter if we all still live," said no military strategist ever.

That's comical.

(It should be indicative of something about your post, that RG liked it..)

[Lostdragon]

Livewyr, on 13 May 2013 - 02:04 PM, said:

That's comical.

(It should be indicative of something about your post, that RG liked it..)

I don't know RG but from his posts I have read so far he seems to be a reasonable and intelligent person.

My broader point besides being comical is that once you start bringing real life into it you see how silly it is to try to compare this or any other game to a real war. The game should be fun and a lot of people think the way capping works now often leads to not having fun, thus it should be re-evaluated.

I would guess that if they kept the current game modes and added a base defense mode you would see lots of folks queue for only the new mode. I know I would.

[Donas]

stjobe, on 13 May 2013 - 07:10 AM, said:

There is a great way to make this happen, which will also stop the capping: Don't drop in a slow assault or heavy every time, drop in a fast heavy, a fast medium, or in a light some times - and go fight where the fight is to be had, be that in the middle with the fatties or at the cap with the lights.

If more people actually had the means (and inclination) to respond to the both visual and aural message "The other team is stealing your shiny!", there would be much less unopposed caps, and there would be more fighting.

But sometimes it seems that "fighting" is only meant to be "plod to the middle and ridgehump/poptart". That's a pretty narrow definition of a fight, don't you agree?

As I said earlier in the thread, some of the best fights I've had has been around the cap. But for that to happen, people need to stop always bringing their slow fatties to the fight and start mixing it up with dropping with something that's able to respond to a "base is being captured" message.

<<< This. This really is the perfect response.

If your team is all slow, set up somewhere close enough to your own base that you can react to caps. If you have a mix of weight classes, you can get further out and be more aggressive with your positioning.

And mediums do have at least one thing they can do well, Kill lights to get them away from your slow mechs. A good spider pilot can stay behind an atlas and core his rear, but a hunchback nearby will quickly either kill him or run him off.

Also, I fully support a game mode with zero capping.

Edited by Donas, 13 May 2013 - 02:33 PM.

[Livewyr]

Lostdragon, on 13 May 2013 - 02:13 PM, said:

I don't know RG but from his posts I have read so far he seems to be a reasonable and intelligent person.

My broader point besides being comical is that once you start bringing real life into it you see how silly it is to try to compare this or any other game to a real war. The game should be fun and a lot of people think the way capping works now often leads to not having fun, thus it should be re-evaluated.

I would guess that if they kept the current game modes and added a base defense mode you would see lots of folks queue for only the new mode. I know I would.

(You didn't read many of them then.)

Real life or video game, the concept remains the same: If you leave a vital position undefended, you're going to lose.
A game should be fun for everyone- but not everyone's fun is derived from driving headlong into the enemy. Mediums and lights don't fair particularly well when they can be one-shot or two shot in an open engagement. being one-shot or two-shot in a fight isn't fun. So why should I indulge others' (basic battle) fun when it is inherently not fun for me? As I explained earlier in the thread, the people who find the most fun in fighting are probably the heavies and assaults with lots of armor and firepower. The people who find the least fun in straight-up engagements are probably the lights and mediums that die fairly early with little impact.

A light or medium has the distinct advantage of determining a battle not through brute firepower, but through maneuvers and objectives manipulation. (as repeatedly stated in this thread)

And I did see a new game mode like that added to WoT, it was not well received.

Donas, on 13 May 2013 - 02:32 PM, said:

Also, I fully support a game mode with zero capping.

I was with you until this.

What would be the way to stop a spiteful light mech from prolonging the game to the full match length and really wasting everyone's time? (not sarcasm or barbed, just a question)

[Lostdragon]

Livewyr, on 13 May 2013 - 02:37 PM, said:

(You didn't read many of them then.)

Real life or video game, the concept remains the same: If you leave a vital position undefended, you're going to lose.
A game should be fun for everyone- but not everyone's fun is derived from driving headlong into the enemy. Mediums and lights don't fair particularly well when they can be one-shot or two shot in an open engagement. being one-shot or two-shot in a fight isn't fun. So why should I indulge others' (basic battle) fun when it is inherently not fun for me? As I explained earlier in the thread, the people who find the most fun in fighting are probably the heavies and assaults with lots of armor and firepower. The people who find the least fun in straight-up engagements are probably the lights and mediums that die fairly early with little impact.

A light or medium has the distinct advantage of determining a battle not through brute firepower, but through maneuvers and objectives manipulation. (as repeatedly stated in this thread)

And I did see a new game mode like that added to WoT, it was not well received.



I was with you until this.

What would be the way to stop a spiteful light mech from prolonging the game to the full match length and really wasting everyone's time? (not sarcasm or barbed, just a question)

I pilot Jenners so I understand what you are trying to say but I still do not agree with you. I quit playing Conquest on my Jenners because I was not having fun doing nothing but running around Alpine and Tourmaline capping and being involved in very little fighting.

I swapped to Assault only drops but I am still often doing nothing but running around trying to cap or prevent caps when I would rather be skirmishing and annoying the other team. I try to do what is best for my team but that often winds up not being much fun for me. I would rather have a mode where scouting then skirmishing is what lights do because that is the fun part to me. If you like standing in squares and running around doing nothing then more power to you, keep doing what you enjoy but I am going to ask for a mode I will enjoy more.

[Livewyr]

Lostdragon, on 13 May 2013 - 02:45 PM, said:

I pilot Jenners so I understand what you are trying to say but I still do not agree with you. I quit playing Conquest on my Jenners because I was not having fun doing nothing but running around Alpine and Tourmaline capping and being involved in very little fighting.

I swapped to Assault only drops but I am still often doing nothing but running around trying to cap or prevent caps when I would rather be skirmishing and annoying the other team. I try to do what is best for my team but that often winds up not being much fun for me. I would rather have a mode where scouting then skirmishing is what lights do because that is the fun part to me. If you like standing in squares and running around doing nothing then more power to you, keep doing what you enjoy but I am going to ask for a mode I will enjoy more.

I have no problem skirmishing and annoying the other team- I just do it in a medium. And I don't blame you for wanting to scout and harass in a jenner, that's what I do in mine- I'm not asking anyone here to suddenly start capping every game, I'm asking that if they feel it is necessary to win the game, do so, and for the group that left their base open to capture to quit whining about their mistake.

I still stand by what I said, that I will cap every game I see fit to do so. (Namely if the enemy is traveling in a giant firepower blob of slow mechs- I will start capping to break them apart for my team.. if they choose to ignore me, than I will cap because since I'm not with my team, theoretically they have an 8v7 advantage and I can't let them exploit that.)

Thus far today, I've had relatively good matches, the bases and harassers have been used to make the battlefield more complicated (both to my benefit, and to my detriment) and games have been won with tactics. (There are still the people who whine and complain when they get the cap warning.. and I just tell them to "hush- it's our own fault.." while I'm on my way back.)

[Antarus]

OneEyed Jack, on 12 May 2013 - 02:41 PM, said:

Yes, you look much smarter if you take a basic tactical precept and stick a goofy name on it. Defeat in detail. Divide and conquer. Heard those terms? look them up. When units split up beyond their ability to support one another, they've done half or more of the enemy's work for them. Actually a pretty decent attempt to preemptively shoot down any counter-point, by just lumping any dissenting opinion into a group you've already implied isn't smart enough to counter your oh-so brilliant "tactics". It's not about social acceptability. Most of us installed the big, stompy, fighting robot game to play with big, stompy, fighting robots. If you want a game that's not about fighting, there's much better games out there in which you can have fun just running around and no one tries to fight you. Intentionally trying to ruin other's fun by attempting to force force them to play the run-around-and-don't-shoot-each-other game, while they're trying to play the big, stompy, fighting robot game, falls pretty squarely into the definition of trolling. I want to have fun playing my way in a game intentionally designed to be played that way. If you want to have fun playing a completely different way, more power to ya, but wouldn't it make sense to find a game designed to be played that way? Unless, of course, you're just a troll looking to ruin the fun of others. Incidentally, I do encourage the use of considerably more and/or better tactics than just charging the ridge, as you described above. I don't enjoy or promote a long, drawn-out ridge-humping game. Nor do I endorse attempting to fight one's way up the big hill behind Epsilon while it's covered in snipers. I'll more than gladly move enough to the side to force an enemy out of their preferred positions, and actively try to teach people to not let the enemy dictate the battle. On the other hand, there are sound tactical reasons why the fights on the larger maps mostly take place where they do. As I said, splitting up beyond the ability to support each other is doing half the enemy's work for them. That means the non-scout bulk of your force has 3 basic options.

• Camp your base. It's a valid tactic, and works... unless both sides decide to do it, in which case anyone but the scouts may have just wasted 15 minutes. At best it's just another way to cause the scouts to be the entire deciding factor of the match, if they meet and fight. Whichever side's scouts won now has a numerical advantage and the only mechs fast enough to return to base (just in case), allowing them the freedom to advance, assuming there's enough time left in the match to do so.
• Advance and meet the enemy. The most-used option, which you've so generously labeled as Blob Mentality. It's popular because it gets to the point, keeps the enemy's main force occupied and is generally the most fun option for those that came to play the big, stompy, fighting robot game.
• Attempt to "outmaneuver" the enemy. While this can occasionally work if the enemy scouts are of the "we're not all scouts" mentality, it basically requires not advancing along the shortest path between bases. You really just have to hope that your enemy is of a more ... cautious nature, and opted to hide behind their traditional cover and wait for you, instead of scouting or otherwise attempting to see if you came to meet them. If they are a bit bolder, or their scout are... you know... scouting, you just went the long way and gave them a quick and direct route to your base, effectively conceding the game to a quick cap.

Since only one of those is both tactically sound and fun more often than not, it tends to be the default.

It's a crying shame we never get to play that Option 2, because a wall of charge particles comes over a hill and we all die because people are using the *canonical base defending assault mech* designed to go back and forth over friendly walls, or drop on top of people, as an offensive, bnever exposed for more than 3 second powerhouse.

We need some tactical levity, because without maneuvering MW:O is a terrible fish in a barrel shooting simulator right now. I will never cry a single tear for the wall O' PPC assaults and heavies being stuck in their position on a ridge, thinking they are in their wheelhouse, when a light captures their objective out from under them.

I am pretty pleased in fact that those people might actually admit that there is some sort of non ideal part of 'playing to win at any cost'. We'll stop gunning for bases to win (and ruining their shooty) when they stop using flavor of the month to win (and ruining our shooty), and nullifying the 'fun' of big stompy fighting robots, I suppose...

Of course, it's arguable that some people might be here for the idea of lances of mechs moving after objectives in some kind of tactical way, which is as much part of BT as Big Stompy Robot Shooty is, frankly..