396 replies to this topic

[Zerberus]

Lostdragon, on 13 May 2013 - 09:09 AM, said:

Except that Sun Tzu was fighting real wars where losing probably meant dying. We are playing a game that is supposed to be fun. Scoreless cap rushes are not fun to me and many others.

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.

Edited by Zerberus, 13 May 2013 - 10:42 AM.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

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

And we don`t want to be forced into assaults instead of game mode simply because brawling against heavies and assaults with lights is a fool`S errand and equally as little fun.

We get your point, why can´t you get ours, or at least accept it as equally valid?

So why don't you ask for a better game mode, that is actually fun for everyone?

Conquest and Assault suck. They are a step backward in terms of dynamic objective based gaming.

Everyone knows it.

So why is anyone trying to stick with the status-quo.

We should all be asking for something better.

[Roland]

Quote

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

Actually, good light mech pilots can quite effectively take out assaults and heavies.

This isn't WoT.. light mechs can kill any mech in the game.

Most light mech pilots aren't good enough to do this, but there are a number of folks out there who are absolute terrors on the field, even with the improved netcode.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Roland, on 13 May 2013 - 10:40 AM, said:

Most light mech pilots aren't good enough to do this, but there are a number of folks out there who are absolute terrors on the field, even with the improved netcode.

This is true, it's very frustrating to go up against them.

[Braggart]

any kind of team game pretty much forces people to take roles.

If we had a tonnage limit, People would have to fill those roles. Just like other games have limits to how many of such and such classes are available at a certain time. We should have it here.

Because the game does not have tonnage limits, nor does it have battle values, which are designed to balance. We end up with 1 team with a stalker, and the other a hunchback. The hunchback was not designed to take on a stalker, It would be a Hunchback and a light vs a stalker.

Tonnage limits will give Assaults their role on the battlefield as absolute demolishers, heavies as a good mix of damage and armor, and Mediums as versatile mechs, and lights as harassers. With an overall decrease in total tonnage on a team, the amount of damage they are capable also decreases. Making mechs like mediums be able to fill a role because the other team doesnt have 5 mechs capable of instantly destroying them.

Sure Tonnage limits will sometimes force a player into a mech they dont want to play. But guess what, Same thing happens in Team fortress, and pretty much any other objective based team focused game. You play the roles needed at the time. Holding this game to the same standard should be expected.

On another note, I think VIP mode would be nice. 1 player on the team is randomly chosen to be the VIP, and the team has to Escort him to the dropship, The other team has to stop them. The other team does not start off at the defend zone either. Lights will need to get there fast, or scout to find the route the other team is taking,

Edited by Braggart, 13 May 2013 - 10:47 AM.

[Zerberus]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 13 May 2013 - 10:39 AM, said:

So why don't you ask for a better game mode, that is actually fun for everyone?

Very simple: Because I understand and enjoy the current game modes and see no reason to post qq threads about them just because everybody else is. My answer to the old question was always "I prefer to stay on the building`s roof and watch them fall."

Just as it was in the old CS days, I see what is offered, offer ways to improve it from MY POV, and either accept any changes that are made or search for a different game.

IMO its not the game modes that are broken, it`s the community and playerbase`s delusional "understanding" of what a TEAM based TACTICAL game is supposed to be. That is not something PGI can fix, as educational software is not their forté.

The fact of the matter is that people are not mad that their TEAM is losing, or they would not be citing their personal issues at progressing /grinding or how much it "annoys everybody else" despite who knows how many posts in teh last 12 months to teh contrary. They`re just mad that it`s happening to them specifically over and over again. People soloing in PUG not typing jack **** in chat or caring about what betty or the scouts say have equally few legitimate reasons, as it`s still basic TEAM play and tactics that they are failing at. While one good pilot can make a difference, even the most rudimentary teamplay negates and tricks a single pilot may have up his sleeve.

But Seriously, this whole circlejerk is boring as **** and getting nobody anywhere, so here is my challenge to "everybody":

PROVE to me beyond reasonable doubt that "everybody" hates capping (I`ll be nice and easy on you, say, 66% or more of the entire playerbase, not just the forums) and I will immediately stop capping. 66% is far from "everybody" , but I can abide by a 2/3 majority rule.

Until then, I will continue to cap, and continue to savor every tear like a keg of rum, because My fun is just as valuable as yours, just like my money is.

Roland, on 13 May 2013 - 10:40 AM, said:

Actually, good light mech pilots can quite effectively take out assaults and heavies.

The key word being: CAN.

Most of us still do not go out actively searching for heavies and assaults to solo, that is a myth as far as I can tell.

Edited by Zerberus, 13 May 2013 - 11:07 AM.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Zerberus, on 13 May 2013 - 10:48 AM, said:

Very simple: Because I understand and enjoy the current game modes and see no reason to post qq threads about them just because everybody else is. My answer to the old question was always "I prefer to stay on the building`s roof and watch them fall."

IMO its not the game modes that are broken, it`s the community and playerbase`s delusional "understanding" of what a TEAM based TACTICAL game is supposed to be. That is not something PGI can fix, as educational software is not their forté.



The key word being: CAN.

Most of us still do not go out actively searching for heavies and assaults to solo, that is a myth as far as I can tell.

Do you really believe what you type? So the sentiments of at least half, and maybe 75% of the player base thinking capwarrior is bad, is because we can't grasp the complexities of this poor excuse for a game mode?

You know who you sound a lot like, the devs who thought ECM was great because it was polarizing. 7 adjustments later, look where we are now.

I think you are the delusional one who will be better served on my ignore list.

Edited by Nicholas Carlyle, 13 May 2013 - 10:51 AM.

[MaddMaxx]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 13 May 2013 - 10:39 AM, said:

So why don't you ask for a better game mode, that is actually fun for everyone?
Conquest and Assault suck. They are a step backward in terms of dynamic objective based gaming.
Everyone knows it.
So why is anyone trying to stick with the status-quo.
We should all be asking for something better.

Not everyone knows it btw. Stop speaking for everyone ffs. So this Better Game Mode would be?

1 objective/Attack or Defend? Who attacks and who defends? Chance/Roll the Dice. Think not.

Straight TDM. Chase the rabbit around and round until 15 minutes runs out. Sound Fun? Think not.

Capture the Flag? Really? Who gets the Atlases? Sound Fun? Think not.

You currently have 2 Match options. A or B. A is not worse then B and B no worse than A. Pick one and defend against the other.

Edited by MaddMaxx, 13 May 2013 - 11:02 AM.

[Agent of Change]

RG Notch, on 13 May 2013 - 09:48 AM, said:

Who's crying? I mean other than the people who get their fragile ego hurt when some one makes comments about how lame cap racing is. I'm not going to bother numbering your post to respond because I don't need to. People of the Red Square seem fine with stereo typing everyone who doesn't want to stand in the Red Square as some simpleton who only runs small engine pop tarts, so I just feel turnabout is fair play. Same as using strawmen. Not everyone who doesn't run to the Red Square to "win" is driving a slow pop tart sniper loaded with PPCs. If you can't manage anything between cap racing and being someone else's target, that's on you.
As I said, I'm not here to defend the play style that leads to 80% of matches ending without a cap. The player base is doing that for me. I'm here to shake up the echo chamber the People of the Red Square are setting up to defend their unpopular cap racing fun ending style.
State your opinion all you want, I know I will. I'm not saying that the majority is right, just that the majority doesn't like cap racing no matter how you try to spin it. In my opinion, if you wanted to fight, or could fight you would fight. I fight in every type of mech I own and while I don't win every time I don't skirt the map edge to avoid action to stand in a Red Sqaure and then run when anyone returns. I don't get off on ruining the game for people who do want to fight like some folks here. I don't have to do anything to change the game to match the way I enjoy playing. I don't chastise the cap racers, because that just feeds them. I just ignore them. I encourage others to react the same. Without the attention they get they will likely get bored and stop. Even if they don't, 4/5 matches are ending with fighting and I earn enough rewards and have enough fun in the fighting that results before they come along and ruin it.
I'm not saying don't cap, do whatever is fun for you. I am saying not to berate them, because it will not change people who are intent on grief and in fact feeds them. I'm just saying that I will play as I like, you play as you like and 4/5 time I'll have fun.

I never said everyone who doesn't cap runs PPC assaults, I said i would cap on people who run PPC assaults.

I will do what is effective in my chosen style of play. I will fight the fights i think i can win, i will flank if it will improve my odds, i will try to force out numbered engagement and I will cap if i think it will get me any of the above. Personally speaking to me the challenge is arrange the fight i want and avoiding the fight i don't. My personal philosophy says a fair fight is a stupid fight, the fun for me is not in the actual fight but in arranging the fight i want.

The noise I hear from a number of people on the forums is that part of my tactical tool box is bad and wrong because they don't like it. To them I say "suck it up and adapt or lose" which coincidentally is the same same thing I or anyone else is told when any one challenges any popular trend. Parity must be a real ***** when you are on the other side of the argument.

And again i like many others don't play MWO for mindless blowing up stuff, I have space ninjas for that, I want to take my time, use my brain, and win through maneuver more than firepower in MWO.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

MaddMaxx, on 13 May 2013 - 10:54 AM, said:

Not everyone knows it btw. Stop speaking for everyone ffs. So this Better Game Mode would be?

1 objective/Attack or Defend? Who attacks and who defends? Chance/Roll the Dice. Think not.

Straight TDM. Chase the rabbit around and round until 15 minutes runs out. Sound Fun? Think not.

Capture the Flag? Really? Who gets the Atlases? Sound Fun? Think not.

You currently have 2 Match options. A or B. A is not worse then B and B no worse than A. Pick one and defend against the other.

And this is why you are so bad at debating on the boards. You have 0 imagination.

There have been a ton of posts detailing fun and interesting ways to create fun dynamic objective based missions for this game.

Go do some reading.

[General Taskeen]

MaddMaxx, on 13 May 2013 - 10:54 AM, said:

Not everyone knows it btw. Stop speaking for everyone ffs. So this Better Game Mode would be?

1 objective/Attack or Defend? Who attacks and who defends? Chance/Roll the Dice. Think not.

Straight TDM. Chase the rabbit around and round until 15 minutes runs out. Sound Fun? Think not.

Capture the Flag? Really? Who gets the Atlases? Sound Fun? Think not.

You currently have 2 Match options. A or B. A is not worse then B and B no worse than A. Pick one and defend against the other.

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

[Braggart]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 13 May 2013 - 10:57 AM, said:

And this is why you are so bad at debating on the boards. You have 0 imagination.

There have been a ton of posts detailing fun and interesting ways to create fun dynamic objective based missions for this game.

Go do some reading.

as a competitive game. No reason we cant have attack/defend scenarios. 2 rounds, swap sides. Whoever deals the most damage to the objective wins. shorter time limit than usually, to prevent people from simply choosing to kill the other team.

[MaddMaxx]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 13 May 2013 - 10:51 AM, said:

You know who you sound a lot like, the devs who thought ECM was great because it was polarizing. 7 adjustments later, look where we are now.

Ignore list me as well then, You can't even stay on topic and every time someone says something constructive you haul out your old ECM baggage. ECM was a solid addition to MWO, you just can't see past your nose to see that. 7 adjustments later and all is well.

Combine that with that silly Signature that is nothing more than a sadly clung to grudge and an even worse attempt to be funny, which it isn't, you had better just move on. MWO is obviously not for your game play style.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Braggart, on 13 May 2013 - 11:00 AM, said:

as a competitive game. No reason we cant have attack/defend scenarios. 2 rounds, swap sides. Whoever deals the most damage to the objective wins. shorter time limit than usually, to prevent people from simply choosing to kill the other team.

Yeah there are a lot of ways to do things.

The fact that Mr. Maxx can't seem to think of 1 better mission type than the current 2 we have now is really the sad state of debate on these boards.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

MaddMaxx, on 13 May 2013 - 11:00 AM, said:

Ignore list me as well then, You can't even stay on topic and every time someone says something constructive you haul out your old ECM baggage. ECM was a solid addition to MWO, you just can't see past your nose to see that. 7 adjustments later and all is well.

Combine that with that silly Signature that is nothing more than a sadly clung to grudge and an even worse attempt to be funny, which it isn't, you had better just move on. MWO is obviously not for your game play style.

Nah, you throw up funny gems which I can laugh at. You keep it entertaining. Like I said you don't have the imagination for proper debate, it's a different situation.

I do have a grudge, I hate that Garth gets paid to be miserable while posting on message boards. It's not fair to the rest of us.

I just honestly can't believe you are incapable of coming up with a better match type than Assault and Conquest.

[MaddMaxx]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 13 May 2013 - 11:01 AM, said:

Yeah there are a lot of ways to do things.

The fact that Mr. Maxx can't seem to think of 1 better mission type than the current 2 we have now is really the sad state of debate on these boards.

I can think of tons. I would just rather the Dev Team spend time on CW than appease those who just can't deal with anything other than mutual destruction mode.

P.S. Area control is the same as Conquest. If it is a "block of space" or a series of points in different blocks of space, what the hell is the difference?

Edited by MaddMaxx, 13 May 2013 - 11:06 AM.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

MaddMaxx, on 13 May 2013 - 11:05 AM, said:

I can think of tons. I would just rather the Dev Team spend time on CW than appease thosewho just can't deal with anything other than mutual destruction mode.

P.S. Area control is the same as Conquest ffs. If is a block of space or a point in a block of space what the hell is the difference?

Oh so now you can think of tons?

MaddMaxx, on 13 May 2013 - 10:54 AM, said:

Not everyone knows it btw. Stop speaking for everyone ffs. So this Better Game Mode would be?

1 objective/Attack or Defend? Who attacks and who defends? Chance/Roll the Dice. Think not.

Straight TDM. Chase the rabbit around and round until 15 minutes runs out. Sound Fun? Think not.

Capture the Flag? Really? Who gets the Atlases? Sound Fun? Think not.

You currently have 2 Match options. A or B. A is not worse then B and B no worse than A. Pick one and defend against the other.

So what is this post about then?

You are contradicting yourself.

So now the argument isn't that the game modes are good. It's that you want them to focus on CW?

Who wants to play CW with crappy game modes. CW and Game Modes go hand in hand. Both need to be good to succeed.

MaddMaxx, on 13 May 2013 - 11:05 AM, said:

I can think of tons.

Give us some examples then bud.

Edited by Nicholas Carlyle, 13 May 2013 - 11:08 AM.

[RG Notch]

Agent of Change, on 13 May 2013 - 10:55 AM, said:

I never said everyone who doesn't cap runs PPC assaults, I said i would cap on people who run PPC assaults.

I will do what is effective in my chosen style of play. I will fight the fights i think i can win, i will flank if it will improve my odds, i will try to force out numbered engagement and I will cap if i think it will get me any of the above. Personally speaking to me the challenge is arrange the fight i want and avoiding the fight i don't. My personal philosophy says a fair fight is a stupid fight, the fun for me is not in the actual fight but in arranging the fight i want.

The noise I hear from a number of people on the forums is that part of my tactical tool box is bad and wrong because they don't like it. To them I say "suck it up and adapt or lose" which coincidentally is the same same thing I or anyone else is told when any one challenges any popular trend. Parity must be a real ***** when you are on the other side of the argument.

And again i like many others don't play MWO for mindless blowing up stuff, I have space ninjas for that, I want to take my time, use my brain, and win through maneuver more than firepower in MWO.

I never said your tools of choice are bad or wrong. I have said and continue to say cap racing is not fun for me and I seem to not be alone. Like you I will fight the fight I want to fight. So if your choice of "fight" involves going off to avoid fighting me while you cap, I say have your win. W/L doesn't mean anything now. Stats will be wiped when achievements arrive. "Winning" like that or "losing" like that doesn't mean anything to me. Except that I will have to wait for another match to have more fun fighting. You don't want to be forced to play someone else's game and neither do I. Hey you even get to "win" if I don't play your game. Me I just lose some time until another match with 4/5 chances it won't end on a boring note.
So have fun your way and I'll have mine. I'll use my brain to fight, you use yours to avoid fighting and we're both happy. All along I've said for people to let folks like you play and just speed the boring matches up by not even responding. People on your own team may have different opinions if they consistently get **** for rewards and little fighting but oh well.
As to when or if winning will matter in CW, well then I won't be playing in PUGs and I won't have to herd cats to get anything more than blob forming done.
I say let the People of the Red Square have it. Those of us who wish to fight still get our fights most times.The faster the lame cap race is over the faster one gets to a match with great chances of not having in ruined by the People of the Red Square.

[Zerberus]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 13 May 2013 - 10:51 AM, said:

Do you really believe what you type? So the sentiments of at least half, and maybe 75% of the player base thinking capwarrior is bad, is because we can't grasp the complexities of this poor excuse for a game mode?

Constant repitition of personal opinion does not constitute fact. Please provide hard, undiscreditable proof of your otherwise uncredible and obviously opinionated statement. 50 people out of 200 is not a majority, nor anywhere close to "everybody" but I have a hard time finding 100 different "capping sucks "posters, and we are easily more than 200 users.

Quote

You know who you sound a lot like, the devs who thought ECM was great because it was polarizing. 7 adjustments later, look where we are now.

OMFG!! HES DISAGREES W/ ME, HE MUST BE A DEV WORSHIPER, PAID BY PGI TO DISCREDIT ME!!!
Do you buy your tinfoil hats premade or bend your own?

Quote

I think you are the delusional one who will be better served on my ignore list.

I could not care less what a group of pixels incapable of backing their own points up andthat grabs wildly at asinine accusations during a rational debate thinks about me, feel free to add me to or remove me from whatever lists you desire..

Edited by Zerberus, 13 May 2013 - 11:19 AM.

[ArmageddonKnight]

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.

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.

Edited by ArmageddonKnight, 13 May 2013 - 11:20 AM.