396 replies to this topic

[Shinikaru]

Livewyr, on 12 May 2013 - 12:46 PM, said:

"I've come here to blow up robots, not cap!" or "CapWarrior: Online" are common (un)clever epithets regarding capping.

If anyone calls you something because you aren't fighting straight up, tell them to F-off and figure out how fights are really won.

I can tell you now, I will be capping bases until people figure it out. It could be considered trolling, but to that; I say the Assault Racket is trolling and therefore it's fair.

-Livewyr

(minor grammar edits)

My problem with your argument, and your entire mentality, is this: "You seem to personally believe the point of Mechwarrior matches are to 'WIN' the match.

Following from this you believe that 'WINNING' means that end screen after a battle where in you and everyone on your team are declared the 'VICTOR'.

Well lets examine this for a hot-second....what do you get on a fast cap win? 25,000 C-bills, and a chincy couple hundred xp.

What do get for a loss where you dish out some damage, maybe blow off a component or two, get some spotting assists, kill assists, or a personal kill?

Even if you lose that battle you still get.....25,000k c-bills, and at least the same chincy xp for fighting scores as a fast cap.

But you also probably get an additional 50-125k and an additional 150-300 xp.

Your major problem quite seriously, is that you are in denial about the fact that the games built in reward system rewards even longer losses WAY BETTER than fast minimal fighting "WINS".

I ask you WHY EVEN PLAY MWO if not to battle royale it out in a giant robot? Your ******* and moaning about the fact that most players in this game came to 1. Fight 2. Maximize a match for rewards, and when you do your personal best to avoid or minimalise those two things for them, and they call you out on it, they are the bad guy...

Your mentality is the minority i'm fairly sure.

Now if you want to tag-cap to draw an enemy or two back from their main force, PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE.

What usually happens thou, is you just sit and cap out the match with maybe 3 people dead out of 16, and literally, EVERYONE LOSES.

[Soy]

zwanglos, on 12 May 2013 - 01:12 PM, said:

Have you been in the 8-man Assault matches where the other team takes 8 ER PPC Atlases, a bag of marshmallows, some kindling for a fire, and then refuses to move more than 100m from their base?

8 MANS. SERIOUS ******* BUSINESS

[Livewyr]

Lefty Lucy, on 12 May 2013 - 01:46 PM, said:

The same tactic can be performed with a fast heavy.

IMO if they want to really highlight mediums as "light hunters" they need to give the medium class a universal bonus to acceleration, deceleration, twist speed, twist range, arm speed and range, etc. Right now all of these, barring the individual mech quirks that have been introduced to *some* but not all chassis, are tied directly to max ground speed.

Mediums need to be significantly more mobile than other classes with the same ground speed. Only then will they be effective light hunters/in fighters compared to fast heavies or some of the more proficient light chassis.

I disagree Lefty.

While it's true that Heavies can move quickly (especially in the case of the Dragon), they aren't as maneuverable, a centurion can decelerate much faster than a dragon or Catapult, acceleration too.

Speeding up the Mediums any faster would start phasing out lights again. (Similar to the 117kph 9laser hunch of old)
Mediums are excellent in that role, people just need to start trying with them.

[KharnZor]

Panzerman03, on 12 May 2013 - 01:35 PM, said:

Capping as a strategic move is fine. Capping just to spite everyone else in the game who isn't you is trolling.

wut? Do you even understand what it is you are posting? And if you really think that way about medium mechs then you need to do 1 of 2 things. Either learn to play or go back to COD you childish little troll.

[Livewyr]

Shinikaru, on 12 May 2013 - 01:54 PM, said:

My problem with your argument, and your entire mentality, is this: "You seem to personally believe the point of Mechwarrior matches are to 'WIN' the match.

Following from this you believe that 'WINNING' means that end screen after a battle where in you and everyone on your team are declared the 'VICTOR'.

Well lets examine this for a hot-second....what do you get on a fast cap win? 25,000 C-bills, and a chincy couple hundred xp.

What do get for a loss where you dish out some damage, maybe blow off a component or two, get some spotting assists, kill assists, or a personal kill?

Even if you lose that battle you still get.....25,000k c-bills, and at least the same chincy xp for fighting scores as a fast cap.

But you also probably get an additional 50-125k and an additional 150-300 xp.

Your major problem quite seriously, is that you are in denial about the fact that the games built in reward system rewards even longer losses WAY BETTER than fast minimal fighting "WINS".

I ask you WHY EVEN PLAY MWO if not to battle royale it out in a giant robot? Your ******* and moaning about the fact that most players in this game came to 1. Fight 2. Maximize a match for rewards, and when you do your personal best to avoid or minimalise those two things for them, and they call you out on it, they are the bad guy...

Your mentality is the minority i'm fairly sure.

Now if you want to tag-cap to draw an enemy or two back from their main force, PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE.

What usually happens thou, is you just sit and cap out the match with maybe 3 people dead out of 16, and literally, EVERYONE LOSES.

I do like winning, true, but that isn't the ultimate goal of this thread.

The idea behind this thread is to break the assault generated monotony of "blob towards enemy and fight like it's the 1700s in Europe" without any thought to maneuvering and tactics.

I personally don't like to win by capping, what I *DO* like doing is breaking the blob monotony by capping the enemy base; if they left no defense for it, that is their own damned fault, if they send someone back? great, we'll fight, and their team will be down 1-2 mechs and I'll flank their main force to create confusion.

I just want to break the mentality of mindless attrition blob fighting being the only acceptable style. (Example being a certain obvious card-carrying member...)
People are complaining about mediums being underpowered because they aren't fitting into the heavy/assault category, and they aren't fitting into the light category.. thus far the only recommendations have been to turn the mediums into lights rather than recognizing and using the advantage that mediums actually have.

[Stone Profit]

You realize lances are SUPPOSED to stick together so as to work as a team... but you would rather people wander off alone cod style huh?

[Livewyr]

Stone Profit, on 12 May 2013 - 02:07 PM, said:

You realize lances are SUPPOSED to stick together so as to work as a team... but you would rather people wander off alone cod style huh?

Lances, yes. Entire units- no.

[Vassago Rain]

Shinikaru, on 12 May 2013 - 01:54 PM, said:

My problem with your argument, and your entire mentality, is this: "You seem to personally believe the point of Mechwarrior matches are to 'WIN' the match.

Following from this you believe that 'WINNING' means that end screen after a battle where in you and everyone on your team are declared the 'VICTOR'.

Well lets examine this for a hot-second....what do you get on a fast cap win? 25,000 C-bills, and a chincy couple hundred xp.

What do get for a loss where you dish out some damage, maybe blow off a component or two, get some spotting assists, kill assists, or a personal kill?

Even if you lose that battle you still get.....25,000k c-bills, and at least the same chincy xp for fighting scores as a fast cap.

But you also probably get an additional 50-125k and an additional 150-300 xp.

Your major problem quite seriously, is that you are in denial about the fact that the games built in reward system rewards even longer losses WAY BETTER than fast minimal fighting "WINS".

I ask you WHY EVEN PLAY MWO if not to battle royale it out in a giant robot? Your ******* and moaning about the fact that most players in this game came to 1. Fight 2. Maximize a match for rewards, and when you do your personal best to avoid or minimalise those two things for them, and they call you out on it, they are the bad guy...

Your mentality is the minority i'm fairly sure.

Now if you want to tag-cap to draw an enemy or two back from their main force, PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE.

What usually happens thou, is you just sit and cap out the match with maybe 3 people dead out of 16, and literally, EVERYONE LOSES.

He wants to rescue the archon's daughter, who's trapped inside an oilrig, that team red has decided to use to drill for gundanium.

It's really srs. We are incapable of grasping this.

[Tor6]

Vassago Rain, on 12 May 2013 - 02:10 PM, said:

He wants to rescue the archon's daughter, who's trapped inside an oilrig, that team red has decided to use to drill for gundanium.

It's really srs. We are incapable of grasping this.

I think this should be the official fluff reason for base capture.

[Lefty Lucy]

Livewyr, on 12 May 2013 - 02:09 PM, said:

Lances, yes. Entire units- no.

What happens when a lance runs into a group of 6 mechs working as a team?

[Caustic Canid]

Part of the reason people call it "grief capping" is because the rewards are so small, for everyone involved. Right now, with the current "bonus" that you get for capping, most people just see it as ruining their fun.

PGI should really give more incentives to take part in the objectives, as opposed to only rewarding people who brawl. Increase the win xp/cbills for cappers, and give bonuses to people who defend their base and you'll see a lot more people trying to find ways around the big boys to cap and Mediums taking their place as fast and agile defenders against lights.

The meta would be unbalanced for a short while because you would see more lights show up first, as capping would now offer greater rewards, but soon the medium population would increase as well to combat them.

People would actually have to decide how many to leave on their base, and how many to take with and push.

[Livewyr]

Lefty Lucy, on 12 May 2013 - 02:18 PM, said:

What happens when a lance runs into a group of 6 mechs working as a team?

(Assuming they didn't communicate with their scouts, or their scouts weren't doing their job, and they DID run into a group of 6 by themselves..)

They retreat.

Caustic Canid, on 12 May 2013 - 02:18 PM, said:

Part of the reason people call it "grief capping" is because the rewards are so small, for everyone involved. Right now, with the current "bonus" that you get for capping, most people just see it as ruining their fun.

PGI should really give more incentives to take part in the objectives, as opposed to only rewarding people who brawl. Increase the win xp/cbills for cappers, and give bonuses to people who defend their base and you'll see a lot more people trying to find ways around the big boys to cap and Mediums taking their place as fast and agile defenders against lights.

The meta would be unbalanced for a short while because you would see more lights show up first, as capping would now offer greater rewards, but soon the medium population would increase as well to combat them.

People would actually have to decide how many to leave on their base, and how many to take with and push.

I'm inclined to agree, that would help.

[OneEyed Jack]

Livewyr, on 12 May 2013 - 12:46 PM, said:

There was a state of mind bred by the first 4 maps and their alternates: The Blob mentality.
The whole team sticks together and moves as a single blob, focuses targets and attempts to take out the other team faster.

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.

Livewyr, on 12 May 2013 - 12:46 PM, said:

If anyone caps, they're automatically a noob/loser/*******/jerk/*****/moron/etc...
This is blob mentality- or what I personally call; The "Assault Racket."

So, what is the weakness of the Assault mech? Being the slowest on the battlefield.. that makes them vulnerable to being outmaneuvered. Now, as an assault mech, players know they can't go fast AND have ridiculous firepower so in order to negate their maneuverability disadvantage, they've made it socially unacceptable to outmaneuver them: "I've come here to blow up robots, not cap!" or "CapWarrior: Online" are common (un)clever epithets regarding capping.

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.

[Lefty Lucy]

Livewyr, on 12 May 2013 - 02:21 PM, said:

(Assuming they didn't communicate with their scouts, or their scouts weren't doing their job, and they DID run into a group of 6 by themselves..)

They retreat.

That's the thing though, and it's the reason why you see so many 8 man teams running 2 scouts and 6 heavies/assaults: all mechs move faster forward than back. Once you engage the enemy, retreat is generally not a good option.

[Accursed Richards]

Saying "stick together" is a quick way to up the chance of winning in a PUG, and I make no apologies for doing it every match (when text chat isn't bugged). It's easy to understand and follow even for new players, and it provably increases my chance of winning and getting a fun game if I can get, say, half of the team walking in the same direction.

In PUG's, those fancy advanced tactics just plain don't work. If you start a tactical flanking manouvere, everyone else will get confused, stumble around and somehow, it's now just you facing four of the enemy.

[El Bandito]

It is very satisfying for me to head back to my base, kill the cappers, and type "F@CK your strategy! EAT SSRMs!"

[Caustic Canid]

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

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.

Then why did the devs put objectives into the game? Why does the loading screen tell you that capping the enemy base is one way to win at assault?

If the game was meant ONLY for mechs to duke it out, why are there even light mechs in the game?

[Livewyr]

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.

Incidentally, it's the same tactic of 1700's Europe, only without the cavalry..

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

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.

Barring the hostile nature of the post, it was pretty good. There are some points I disagree with however.

Splitting up beyond ability to support is bad. (I did and do study warfare.)
However, splitting up with maneuver units(That is what my unit was, as Stryker mounted Infantry, we were maneuver pieces.) in order to manipulate the battlefield is a good thing. They can cause havoc, and leave the area, that is what mediums are supposed to do.

The issue I raise is:

People want mediums to be viable.. but they also don't want to make the medium's role viable.
Ergo the Assault Racket (which was demonstrated very well in the 3rd post of the whole thread.)

I'm not asking everyone to hop into a medium. (I did say "start capping/maneuvering" to those who do want to run mediums.)

I *AM* angered by people who prefer their blob game harassing those who want to play a maneuver game. (Again, perfect example being the 3rd poster..)

Also: your three "tactics" are loaded; It's easy to out maneuver the enemy.. I do it frequently, and I do effect the outcome frequently.

[Livewyr]

Accursed Richards, on 12 May 2013 - 02:53 PM, said:

Saying "stick together" is a quick way to up the chance of winning in a PUG, and I make no apologies for doing it every match (when text chat isn't bugged). It's easy to understand and follow even for new players, and it provably increases my chance of winning and getting a fun game if I can get, say, half of the team walking in the same direction.

In PUG's, those fancy advanced tactics just plain don't work. If you start a tactical flanking manouvere, everyone else will get confused, stumble around and somehow, it's now just you facing four of the enemy.

Yes, it IS easier to blob around and focus fire.. rather than use "fancy" tactics.

it's also incredibly monotonous and removes the role of the medium from the game. (2 of the more popular complaints recently..)

[Keifomofutu]

Caustic Canid, on 12 May 2013 - 03:20 PM, said:

Then why did the devs put objectives into the game? Why does the loading screen tell you that capping the enemy base is one way to win at assault?

If the game was meant ONLY for mechs to duke it out, why are there even light mechs in the game?

Why did they remove all rewards from capping? Maybe the devs were concerned with the 2min cap trade matches hmm?