396 replies to this topic

[MrZakalwe]

Livewyr, on 16 May 2013 - 01:57 PM, said:

Yeah, that's true, I won't ever be able to stop that. *grumble*
However, I can still encourage the people they insult, to do it (responsibly) anyways by discrediting the insults for what they are: ultimately, baseless and selfish.

Agreed, sorta.
When I think of comparing MW:O to a mainstream FPS (like CoD, or Halo, etc), I don't think comparing incentives is fair because of two things. First: MW:O is a thinking mans shooter in that not everyone can run across the map inside 30 seconds (a specific role). Second:once you see a target, it isn't as quick as putting your cross-hairs on them and holding down the trigger until they're dead. You can't kill them that quickly (usually) and you still have to especially watch your own hide because there is no respawn. (One of the things I'm personally more thankful for.)

MWO the GAME does encourage camping by at least one person as part of role warfare. (CoD doesn't have role warfare.) Camping being another term for guarding in this case. The issue here is, that players [of the assault racket] are selfish and can't stand the idea of performing one of their roles in role warfare.
(One of the roles of a heavy/assault is area denial... camping/guarding.) I understand people all want to be where the action is, but this game just isn't for them. "Where the action is,"(WTAI for short) is primarily the realm of heavies and assaults. Mediums and Lights can harass WTAI, but they can't directly engage as effectively since they'd be killed easily. As a result, they're much more effective in controlling the battlefield by the use of objectives and their maneuverability.

I know there are lights and mediums out there that just want to fight/brawl and be WTAI and though I disagree with it tactically, I don't mind them doing that. My goal in a match, my source of fun in a match (when in a light/med) is having a profound impact on the match. Something I generally won't do using pewpewwooshwoosh, but something I'm almost guaranteed to do using my actual strength; maneuverability.

Now, that roundabout tangent comes back to camping: MWO doesn't encourage camping the way mainstream twitch shooters do (giving yourself the extra second and initiative on targeting for insta-gib) but it does encourage it as one of the roles of the assaults, in regards to lights and mediums. Area denial against their maneuver strength. Does that mean the whole team should sit back at base? No, because that doesn't perform the other role of heavies/assaults: direct aggression.

TL;DR MWO kinda requires camping (or keeping a maneuver piece near by) to defend objectives, just so few people want to do it because it isn't immediately rewarding. (And it isn't personally monetarily rewarding in the current system.)

I think given current player attitude, they'd still have a set of unspoken "rules" where the opposing team isn't allowed mess with flag or the escorted instead of directly engaging their mechs. (The "I came here to keel robits." thing.)

I think Boring game-play is a result of 2 dimensional play.
The roles of ECM/Missiles/BAP/AMS?/Artemis/TAG/NARC really aren't leading to roles.
ECM is just the new meta for removing missiles from the field. (Changing a little bit shortly with BAP buff)
Missiles?
BAP is a little better than standard sensors- but given that your eyes can see the mechs in LoS well before BAP does, it really doesn't aid in the scouting role. (In Tourmaline and Alpine, i can see mechs visually out towards 1600 meters or so (maybe farther, never checked to be sure) but with BAP/Sensors.. best I get is a little less than 1200.. nice for missiles, utterly useless for scouting on larger maps.
What party needs an AMS? What player who started in the last 4 months knows what the hell an AMS is?
TAG is supposed to be a missile support weapon, but was given to scouts with a range boost, which was great on the small maps, utterly garbage on the large maps.
Dafuq is a NARC?

Ironically- Scouts have no aided role in Information warfare. Their speed is the only thing that makes them a scout.
Support? Well I guess you could call Sniping "direct support" though it seems to be the standard of fighting right now, with brawler supports incase the enemy gets close... Another irony.

If they gave roles back to mechs with equipment that actually aided those roles and improved upon their strengths- you might have a bit more role warfare, and a bit less 2D combat.

Tell me about it, I came here thinking: Erhmegerd! Catapult missile support! (profound impact with range) and Info Warfare scouting! (Profound impact with information manipulation)

And here I am, in a thread defending [role warfare] (pretty much by myself since PGI has kinda screwed it up thus far)...

Ok I disagree with quite a lot of what you have posted before but ^THIS so much, this.

PGI listen to this man.

[Kaarde]

I've read the first ten pages or so but couldn't bring myself to wade through the rest of the
No You
No You
Your Dismissed type posts. Not to mention after the first several pages, arguments get recirculated with precious little new content.

Bearing that in mind, here is some of the player base's developmental history I've not seen put out there yet.

Early on, anyone who ventured off from the group to eventually die was quickly and repeatedly called a Rambo and was looked down upon. Even if his intent was to flank or try to be a maneuvering/ distracting asset to the fight. This everyone was pretty much bullied into joining Le Blob through peer pressure. This holds especially true in pubs even to this day.
We saw many ELITE forum warriors making many posts about this.

Secondly, rewards for capping were nerfed when premades started abusing the system by forming light groups and zeroing the base, thereby negating the fighting aspect of the game in order to farm xp and cbills faster.
There was an uproar about this and PGI responded through the nerf. This was about Christmas time or a tad before if I recall correctly.

Third, the "Leave a defender at base" argument has been tossed about since Closed Beta and "The Bads" loose to capping because they don't defend"has also been bandied about. However, when this was attempted back in the day, light wolf packs were sent in to wipe out the one or two defenders and still cap. That led to more camping of bases by groups which then led to a backlash where capping became dezgra by people who wanted a battle Royal in the Calderra.

IMHO, what we have here now is just another in a line of play style progressions that is in response to previous experience. It too will change up as the game and players develop naturally.

Edit for autocorrect failures.
Edit 2. More autocorrect repairs. Apple will be the new Cyberdyne some day.

Edited by Kaarde, 17 May 2013 - 06:32 AM.

[Livewyr]

Kaarde, on 17 May 2013 - 05:12 AM, said:

I've read the first ten pages or so but couldn't bring myself to wade through the rest of the
No You
No You
Your Dismissed type posts. Not to mention after the first several pages, a regiments get recirculated with precious little new content.

Bearing that in mind, here is some of the player base's developmental history I've not seen put out there yet.

Early on, anyone who ventured off from the group to eventually die was quickly and repeatedly called a Rambo and was looked down upon. Even if his intent was to flank or try to be a maneuvering/ distracting asset to the fight. This everyone was pretty much bullied into joining Le Blob through peer pressure. This holds especially true in pubs even to this day.
We saw many ELITE forum warriors making many posts about this.

Secondly, rewards for capping were merged when permafrost started abusing the system by forming light groups and zeroing the base, thereby negating the fighting aspect of the game in order to farm xp and cbills faster.
There was an uproar about this and PGI responded through the nerf. This was about Christmas time or a tad before if I recall correctly.

Third, the "Leave a defender at base" argument has been tossed about since Closed Beta and "The Bads" loose to capping because they don't defend"has also been bandied about. However, when this was attempted back in the day, light wolf packs were sent in to wipe out the one or two defenders and still cap. That led to more camping of bases by groups which then led to a backlash where capping became dezgra by people who wanted a battle Royal in the Calderra.

IMHO, what we have here now is just another in a line of play style progressions that is in response to previous experience. It too will change up as the game and players develop naturally.

Interesting addition, I can't say I disagree with any facts you've posted here, they happened, and I witnessed them.

But the hang-up is.. in regards to the base, and lights/meds in general is the addition of HSR. (If I had vote "most profound change of 2012 and 2013, I'd probably vote HSR...possibly in contention with knockdowns if that makes it back this year.)

HSR has removed the fighting equality or even advantage of lights and meds that they enjoyed for almost a year.

The thread (for me) has been about "what now?" for lights/meds. They can't brawl as effectively anymore, they're not aided in (or rewarded for) scouting, and objective manipulation has become "dezgra."

What now? (Thus the point of this thread being to target the "dezgra" attitude toward bases in general.)

[Nicholas Carlyle]

This thread took a complete 180, I swear Livewyr was trolling people to start with.

This game would be in much better shape if the Devs would just sit down do kind of what they've been doing with UI2.0.

Make a thread about base capping/scouting/roles and instead of just ignoring it while we all go back and forth. Contribute, and ask for clarification, tell us what they are working on.

Also they need to get away from this "Well it's coming up in our cycle for us to look at" style of balancing.

They need to prioritize, if Base Capping isn't due for a look for another 2 months, make it a priority and do it now.

If Medium Mech sizes aren't a priority for a while, change it.

[Livewyr]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 17 May 2013 - 05:37 AM, said:

This thread took a complete 180, I swear Livewyr was trolling people to start with.

This game would be in much better shape if the Devs would just sit down do kind of what they've been doing with UI2.0.

Make a thread about base capping/scouting/roles and instead of just ignoring it while we all go back and forth. Contribute, and ask for clarification, tell us what they are working on.

Also they need to get away from this "Well it's coming up in our cycle for us to look at" style of balancing.

They need to prioritize, if Base Capping isn't due for a look for another 2 months, make it a priority and do it now.

If Medium Mech sizes aren't a priority for a while, change it.

Well, in truth, the beginning was a troll to the Assault Racket. (RG, Poster #3 who I still giggle at, Void, those people.. ) they got all sorts of bent out of shape, which advertised my thread in order to have actual conversation with people like Alistair, Xyre, and the others.

(And admittedly.. it WAS really fun dismissing people who had only their fun to support their case.)

[RG Notch]

Livewyr, on 17 May 2013 - 05:45 AM, said:

Well, in truth, the beginning was a troll to the Assault Racket. (RG, Poster #3 who I still giggle at, Void, those people.. ) they got all sorts of bent out of shape, which advertised my thread in order to have actual conversation with people like Alistair, Xyre, and the others.

(And admittedly.. it WAS really fun dismissing people who had only their fun to support their case.)

So a discussion is only with people who agree with you, or don't probe too hard at the obvious fallacies of your arguments? Must make it seem like everyone agrees with you.
Good luck getting people to enjoy camping. As the evidence of the "assault racket" and the over 80% non cap wins in assault show, people want to fight, not run to the Red Square or camp to wait of the Red Square.
Now if there were tweaks made to assault or new modes added, this wouldn't be much of an issue. Instead of arguing for that you would rather encourage people to grief in order to change the meta game.
Now the People of the Red Square are numerous in these threads, cackling to themselves how they are ruing the game for those who won't play their game. Stats show 80% of games end in non caps, my experience shows similar numbers in my matches.
I'm all for roles for all mechs. I'm all for capping when it's appropriate. I am against cap racing and camping. And yes one can defend without camping, just not in this game on the big maps.
You can dismiss me and cackle with the other People of the Red Square, but I still get 4/5 matches where I get a good fight, no matter what mech I bring and I still fight until the counter ticks down when some cap racer decides to ruin the fighting fun. He who laughs most (80%) laughs best. I guess it's ok for YOUR fun to trump others.
In all seriousness, I'd rather we had roles for all mechs, real objectives and more game modes to provide fun for all players without there being some awful childish rivalry.

[Kaarde]

Change in tactics come slowly in this game. Usually as a result of the nerf/buff cycle.
Months were spent any many pixels died to get people to advance together. It will be the same process to get them to want to pair up and do other things.

In truth, such things tend to work the way they do in other mmo's. The top groups adopt new tactics and eventually it filters down through the workaday crowd. Be it Goons, Ponies or Hells Own Ice Cream Vendors, if a notable group starts working a new system that works, eventually it will catch on unless its eclipsed by another system.

Till then all we can do is wait and dream of Charger Assault mechs running past Jenners in a foot race.

[Alistair Winter]

I just spent 30 minutes writing a reply and the god of the internet ate it, so I'll make this blunt and brief.

Livewyr, on 16 May 2013 - 01:57 PM, said:

Yeah, that's true, I won't ever be able to stop that. *grumble*
However, I can still encourage the people they insult, to do it (responsibly) anyways by discrediting the insults for what they are: ultimately, baseless and selfish.

And more power to you! I don't intend to stop it, although I do think this problem comes from the game, not the community. Haters gonna hate, cappers gonna capp, brawlers gonna brawl. Unless the rules change
A better community doesn't hurt either.

Livewyr, on 16 May 2013 - 01:57 PM, said:

MWO the GAME does encourage camping by at least one person as part of role warfare. (CoD doesn't have role warfare.) Camping being another term for guarding in this case. The issue here is, that players [of the assault racket] are selfish and can't stand the idea of performing one of their roles in role warfare.

First of all, defending isn't camping. Those are two different things, at least the way I use the word. If we're playing CounterStrike and I'm a Terrorist with Hostages, then defending the Hostages isn't camping.

Camping is when you sit still with no strategic purpose other than getting kills. If you're a CounterTerrorist standing behind a door to kill any passing Terrorists, instead of trying to rescue the Hostages like you should be doing, then you're camping. If you're a Splatcat in Conquest mode, hiding inside a cave instead of fighting or capping, then you're camping. But it doesn't normally happen in MW:O, because good gamedesign makes it a bad choice. In Quake, it happened a lot. Because bad game design made it a sensible choice.

Second of all, a good game expects people to be selfish to a very large degree. If altruism is a pillar in your FPS game, you're in for a big surprise. A good game builds a system where selfishness actually works out in everybody's favour, kind of like market economy. A bad game builds a system where selfishness ruins it for everybody, kind of like communism. Guilds aren't altruistic communities. I've never seen a guild dedicated to gathering resources from its own members are just giving it to other guilds, for example. Guilds primarily exist as a self-serving construct that ultimately is to the advantage of all its members. The rewards are greater than the cost.

In MW:O the cost (boring gameplay) is greater than the reward (30,000 c-bill victory bonus, or whatever it is), so it doesn't happen.

Livewyr, on 16 May 2013 - 01:57 PM, said:

Now, that roundabout tangent comes back to camping: MWO doesn't encourage camping the way mainstream twitch shooters do (giving yourself the extra second and initiative on targeting for insta-gib) but it does encourage it as one of the roles of the assaults, in regards to lights and mediums. Area denial against their maneuver strength. Does that mean the whole team should sit back at base? No, because that doesn't perform the other role of heavies/assaults: direct aggression.

How does it prevent the heavies / assaults from performing direct aggression? If you're defending and the enemy is attacking your base, then direct aggression will follow. Defending is a good way to disable the advantage of lights while maintaining the advantage of heavies. As long as the spawn point doesn't present a distinct disadvantage, then defending is a viable strategy in Assault mode.

Livewyr, on 16 May 2013 - 01:57 PM, said:

TL;DR MWO kinda requires camping (or keeping a maneuver piece near by) to defend objectives, just so few people want to do it because it isn't immediately rewarding. (And it isn't personally monetarily rewarding in the current system.)

And this is decreasingly relevant, as more and more players have more C-bills, mechs and XP than they really need. I don't want to save up money for Double Heat Sinks and Modules on all four Commando variants. I don't have any Commandos. And I don't want them. I have all the mechs I want. And hundreds of thousands of XP points. And a lot of people are in this situation.

As I mentioned elsewhere, I saw 4 matches in a single day where one or both teams were camping in Assault Mode. In one match, both teams were camping on Tourmaline, and we were just watching each other for 5 minutes without moving, like North and South Koreans on the border. That didn't happen 3 or 4 months ago. But I think it could be increasingly common, as players are bored with predictable gameplay and don't really care about grinding matches as quickly as possible to earn more C-bills.

Livewyr, on 16 May 2013 - 01:57 PM, said:

I think given current player attitude, they'd still have a set of unspoken "rules" where the opposing team isn't allowed mess with flag or the escorted instead of directly engaging their mechs. (The "I came here to keel robits." thing.)

That's uncharacteristically skeptical of you, who are trying to change the community

But I refute your argument on the grounds that it didn't happen in CounterStrike, or a number of other multiplayer games. In CounterStrike, I never saw anyone complain when CounterTerrorists tried to rescue the Hostages, or Terrorists tried to plant the Bomb. Because those game modes were excellent and fun to play

Livewyr, on 16 May 2013 - 01:57 PM, said:

I think Boring game-play is a result of 2 dimensional play.
The roles of ECM/Missiles/BAP/AMS?/Artemis/TAG/NARC really aren't leading to roles.
ECM is just the new meta for removing missiles from the field. (Changing a little bit shortly with BAP buff)
Missiles?
BAP is a little better than standard sensors- but given that your eyes can see the mechs in LoS well before BAP does, it really doesn't aid in the scouting role. (In Tourmaline and Alpine, i can see mechs visually out towards 1600 meters or so (maybe farther, never checked to be sure) but with BAP/Sensors.. best I get is a little less than 1200.. nice for missiles, utterly useless for scouting on larger maps.
What party needs an AMS? What player who started in the last 4 months knows what the hell an AMS is?
TAG is supposed to be a missile support weapon, but was given to scouts with a range boost, which was great on the small maps, utterly garbage on the large maps.
Dafuq is a NARC?
Ironically- Scouts have no aided role in Information warfare. Their speed is the only thing that makes them a scout.
Support? Well I guess you could call Sniping "direct support" though it seems to be the standard of fighting right now, with brawler supports incase the enemy gets close... Another irony.
If they gave roles back to mechs with equipment that actually aided those roles and improved upon their strengths- you might have a bit more role warfare, and a bit less 2D combat.

I agree 100%.

BAP + Advanced sensor range = Congratulations. You can now target enemies beyond your weapon range. With Advanced Zoom, you can even see them laugh as your LRMs explode harmlessly in the air in front of them.

TAG now has extended range, so lights can more easily use it on their targets. It also lets heavies and assaults use it on their targets, by bringing their own TAG, so they don't really need light mechs any more. Oops.

[Livewyr]

Alistair Winter, on 17 May 2013 - 06:33 AM, said:

I just spent 30 minutes writing a reply and the god of the internet ate it, so I'll make this blunt and brief.

(I know all about that- happened a few pages ago. F5 is execute/debug/launch in Visual Studio.. refresh in browser...)

Alistair Winter, on 17 May 2013 - 06:33 AM, said:

And more power to you! I don't intend to stop it, although I do think this problem comes from the game, not the community. Haters gonna hate, cappers gonna capp, brawlers gonna brawl. Unless the rules change
A better community doesn't hurt either.

The game needs to adjust things, totally agree with that; a better community would be an improvement..but until then, I'm going to encourage people to play how they like (as long as it isn't cheating) and Assault Racket be damned.. they KNOW how to deal with it, they'd just rather not bother (for one reason or another) and get angry at the people for playing the way they do.

Alistair Winter, on 17 May 2013 - 06:33 AM, said:

First of all, defending isn't camping. Those are two different things, at least the way I use the word. If we're playing CounterStrike and I'm a Terrorist with Hostages, then defending the Hostages isn't camping.

Camping is when you sit still with no strategic purpose other than getting kills. If you're a CounterTerrorist standing behind a door to kill any passing Terrorists, instead of trying to rescue the Hostages like you should be doing, then you're camping. If you're a Splatcat in Conquest mode, hiding inside a cave instead of fighting or capping, then you're camping. But it doesn't normally happen in MW:O, because good gamedesign makes it a bad choice. In Quake, it happened a lot. Because bad game design made it a sensible choice.

Agreed- Camping and defending are different in intent. (I just lumped them together because in actual action, they're the same.)

Alistair Winter, on 17 May 2013 - 06:33 AM, said:

Second of all, a good game expects people to be selfish to a very large degree. If altruism is a pillar in your FPS game, you're in for a big surprise. A good game builds a system where selfishness actually works out in everybody's favour, kind of like market economy. A bad game builds a system where selfishness ruins it for everybody, kind of like communism. Guilds aren't altruistic communities. I've never seen a guild dedicated to gathering resources from its own members are just giving it to other guilds, for example. Guilds primarily exist as a self-serving construct that ultimately is to the advantage of all its members. The rewards are greater than the cost.

In MW:O the cost (boring gameplay) is greater than the reward (30,000 c-bill victory bonus, or whatever it is), so it doesn't happen.

Altruism isn't my game here. I've no problem admitting I'm selfish.. I want to have fun: impacting the game in a most profound way and practically guaranteeing victory. (Victory will always be more fun.)

I want other players to be selfish too.. don't cave to the "requirement" of straight up fighting.. use the base to your advantage. (That's not to say be an absolute douche and fast-fullcap every game, but don't be afraid to make the enemy very uncomfortable about their base situation.)

Alistair Winter, on 17 May 2013 - 06:33 AM, said:

How does it prevent the heavies / assaults from performing direct aggression? If you're defending and the enemy is attacking your base, then direct aggression will follow. Defending is a good way to disable the advantage of lights while maintaining the advantage of heavies. As long as the spawn point doesn't present a distinct disadvantage, then defending is a viable strategy in Assault mode.

Guarding your base with your entire team isn't aggressive, it's defensive.
(Offense and Defense are mutually exclusive.. "The best defense is a good offense" just means not having to defend is much better than any solid defense...

Alistair Winter, on 17 May 2013 - 06:33 AM, said:

And this is decreasingly relevant, as more and more players have more C-bills, mechs and XP than they really need. I don't want to save up money for Double Heat Sinks and Modules on all four Commando variants. I don't have any Commandos. And I don't want them. I have all the mechs I want. And hundreds of thousands of XP points. And a lot of people are in this situation.

As I mentioned elsewhere, I saw 4 matches in a single day where one or both teams were camping in Assault Mode. In one match, both teams were camping on Tourmaline, and we were just watching each other for 5 minutes without moving, like North and South Koreans on the border. That didn't happen 3 or 4 months ago. But I think it could be increasingly common, as players are bored with predictable gameplay and don't really care about grinding matches as quickly as possible to earn more C-bills.

Well there's that.. and also the whole "get seen, get cored" meta going on right now. (It's most obvious in Frozen city.. same thing they used to do.. only now even more hardcore prancing since just being on your side of the dropship isn't good enough anymore.)

Alistair Winter, on 17 May 2013 - 06:33 AM, said:

That's uncharacteristically skeptical of you, who are trying to change the community

But I refute your argument on the grounds that it didn't happen in CounterStrike, or a number of other multiplayer games. In CounterStrike, I never saw anyone complain when CounterTerrorists tried to rescue the Hostages, or Terrorists tried to plant the Bomb. Because those game modes were excellent and fun to play

In counter strike: (I only ever played it once.) The action is much faster.. you don't usually go more than 20 seconds without some combat.. just simply because of the simple nature of combat in that game (and those like it.)

There was no real "attention investment" to lose.

Alistair Winter, on 17 May 2013 - 06:33 AM, said:

I agree 100%.

BAP + Advanced sensor range = Congratulations. You can now target enemies beyond your weapon range. With Advanced Zoom, you can even see them laugh as your LRMs explode harmlessly in the air in front of them.

TAG now has extended range, so lights can more easily use it on their targets. It also lets heavies and assaults use it on their targets, by bringing their own TAG, so they don't really need light mechs any more. Oops.

Among other things, sadly.

Edited by Livewyr, 17 May 2013 - 11:49 AM.

[Jman5]

YES, YES, YES!

I'm not sure how else to say it, but I strongly agree with your opening post Livewyr.

The current attack on base capturing is nothing, but a racket by slow, or bad players who want to shame others into not taking advantage of their weakness. They want to destroy role warfare and turn it into a shallow game of artillery exchange. You meet wherever you can snipe, and wait for the enemy team to come in range. Then you trade volleys for a few minutes until one team is weakened enough to be charged. Positioning, communicating, and overextending isn't so important when you don't need to worry about spotting and reacting to base attacks.

In your standard non-competitive game, there is little to no discussion about enemy positioning. there is no discussion about your positioning after your initial set up spot. There is no discussion about how to divide your forces because there is an insistence that you must blob up 100% of the time (leaving you exposed to a base cap).

The standard strategy in most mechwarrior online games is so deeply flawed that the only reason it works is because people let them get away with it. It's beyond frustrating to walk through the cave on Frozen City unwatched and uncontested. To see the completely open path to the base right before me. To then get yelled at for winning the game because the other team thought scouting was optional and returning to base was just too much effort.

Edited by Jman5, 17 May 2013 - 07:32 AM.

[trollocaustic]

I'd rather lose to a kill match than win a cap one.

Both on morality and on rewards. Cappers are just selfish pompous arrogant hypocrites creating a "capmyth" or myth that capping takes skill.

Yeah, walking around a side route and sitting in a square takes skill.

Lower cap speed so people can get back. Make it so taking damage pauses your capping (Ala WoT) and add landmines or whatever.

[Alistair Winter]

Livewyr, I will respond when you've had time to edit your post

Jman5, on 17 May 2013 - 07:30 AM, said:

The current attack on base capturing is nothing, but a racket by slow, or bad players who want to shame others into not taking advantage of bad game design . They want to destroy our race to stand on a square first and turn the game into fighting. You meet wherever you can snipe, and wait for the enemy team to come in range. Then you trade volleys for a few minutes until one team is weakened enough to be charged. Positioning, communicating, and overextending isn't so important when you don't need to worry about spotting and someone standing on a square for 60 seconds.

In your standard non-competitive game, there is little to no discussion about enemy positioning. there is no discussion about your positioning after your initial set up spot. There is no discussion about how to divide your forces because there is an insistence that you must blob up 100% of the time (leaving you exposed to a base cap).

The standard strategy in most mechwarrior online games is so deeply flawed that the only reason it works is because the alternative is boring. It's beyond frustrating to walk through the cave on Frozen City unwatched and uncontested. To see the completely open path to the base right before me. To then get yelled at for ending the game because the other team thought scouting was useless due to game design and returning to base was just too boring.

I have taken the liberty of fixing your post. Since you've chosen to explain the problem from one perspective, I've explained it from the other.

My point is, the problem isn't that some players are dumbing the game down. It's not that they can't comprehend the complexities of the game or lack the strategic sense to enjoy its full potential. It's just that they don't find Assault mode, as it is shaped by PGI, intellectually stimulating or challenging.

Edited by Alistair Winter, 17 May 2013 - 07:44 AM.

[Jman5]

trollocaustic, on 17 May 2013 - 07:37 AM, said:

I'd rather lose to a kill match than win a cap one.

Both on morality and on rewards. Cappers are just selfish pompous arrogant hypocrites creating a "capmyth" or myth that capping takes skill.

Yeah, walking around a side route and sitting in a square takes skill.

Lower cap speed so people can get back. Make it so taking damage pauses your capping (Ala WoT) and add landmines or whatever.

This attitude really ****** me off. Base capturing is only easy when the enemy team makes it easy. When they don't bother scouting the alternate attack avenue, or scanning the battlefield for flanks. This has nothing to do with the skill of the base capper and everything to do with the skill of the losing team.

99/100 base caps are the result of the losing team dropping the ball on the scouting front, not positioning to spot/deny flanks, or failing to return to base because everyone assumes someone else will do it.

[Alistair Winter]

Jman5, on 17 May 2013 - 07:46 AM, said:

This attitude really ****** me off. Base capturing is only easy when the enemy team makes it easy. When they don't bother scouting the alternate attack avenue, or scanning the battlefield for flanks. This has nothing to do with the skill of the base capper and everything to do with the skill of the losing team.
99/100 base caps are the result of the losing team dropping the ball on the scouting front, not positioning to spot/deny flanks, or failing to return to base because everyone assumes someone else will do it.

Victory conditions are an arbitrary way of making players have fun. When victory conditions don't lead to players having fun, the lose their function and may be disregarded.

[Jman5]

Alistair Winter, on 17 May 2013 - 07:43 AM, said:

Livewyr, I will respond when you've had time to edit your post


I have taken the liberty of fixing your post. Since you've chosen to explain the problem from one perspective, I've explained it from the other.

My point is, the problem isn't that some players are dumbing the game down. It's not that they can't comprehend the complexities of the game or lack the strategic sense to enjoy its full potential. It's just that they don't find Assault mode, as it is shaped by PGI, intellectually stimulating or challenging.

The problem is that your idea of fun is essentially Trench Warfare. You want to get into your little trench and exchange fire until the charge signal is sounded. Then you rush ahead in your blob and brawl it out.

Having to position/scout properly and continually scan the battlefield for flankers puts a wrench in your dull gameplay. It requires you to actually put effort into your win.

I see this argument all the time, but there seems to be some sort of inability to understand that by playing properly, you prevent the base capture and ensure you get the fight you so desperately want. The only difference is that players who aren't suited for artillery exchange, or damage soaking brawl builds, can fight in a way that works for them.

This is entirely an issue of poor planning and forethought on the losing team's side. What makes it worse is just how trivial it is to counter. One mech is all you need and you will guarantee a good fight. If you think scouting should be unimportant, then perhaps you shouldn't be playing this game. Mechwarrior online is all about role warfare and map awareness is a big part of that. This will never change.

[Keifomofutu]

Jman5, on 17 May 2013 - 08:06 AM, said:

The problem is that your idea of fun is essentially Trench Warfare. You want to get into your little trench and exchange fire until the charge signal is sounded. Then you rush ahead in your blob and brawl it out.

Having to position/scout properly and continually scan the battlefield for flankers puts a wrench in your dull gameplay. It requires you to actually put effort into your win.

I see this argument all the time, but there seems to be some sort of inability to understand that by playing properly, you prevent the base capture and ensure you get the fight you so desperately want. The only difference is that players who aren't suited for artillery exchange, or damage soaking brawl builds, can fight in a way that works for them.

This is entirely an issue of poor planning and forethought on the losing team's side. What makes it worse is just how trivial it is to counter. One mech is all you need and you will guarantee a good fight. If you think scouting should be unimportant, then perhaps you shouldn't be playing this game. Mechwarrior online is all about role warfare and map awareness is a big part of that. This will never change.

Tell you what. Pull a heavy or assault and camp on or near base for ten matches on the big maps. Tell us who wins.

You don't have to camp base on the smaller maps hence they usually don't get capped out.

[Jman5]

Alistair Winter, on 17 May 2013 - 07:56 AM, said:

Victory conditions are an arbitrary way of making players have fun. When victory conditions don't lead to players having fun, the lose their function and may be disregarded.

In the RTS genre, people will often rush or harass an opponent in the early game to put pressure on them. If their opponent did not scout or prepare for an early rush, he can lose quite anti-climatically. Should the game be rebalanced because he didn't want to bother countering a "boring" strategy? Should the attacking player pull his punches because he sees the other player tried to fast expand or fast tech? After all it's not as fun to end the game so quickly, however, if he lets him live, he might get an advantage later on.

Of course, the reality is that the player needs to learn to play and babying him by removing rush-tactics will only make the game 1 dimensional.

Just like in RTS genre, in Mechwarrior online, there has to be some level of personal responsibility that the team needs to accomplish to win. Positioning, scouting, aiming, communicating, flanking, and map awareness are all equally important. If you refuse to focus on everything except aiming your crosshairs, you have no right to complain.

[Jman5]

Keifomofutu, on 17 May 2013 - 08:13 AM, said:

Tell you what. Pull a heavy or assault and camp on or near base for ten matches on the big maps. Tell us who wins.

You don't have to camp base on the smaller maps hence they usually don't get capped out.

The idea that you have to sit on your base and camp to prevent a base capture is an absurd fallacy.

All maps except frozen city have only two mutually exclusive attack avenues. If you go down one, you can't see the other and vice-verse. This applies to the big maps as well which have next to no atmospheric haze. What this means is that if you see your team going down Attack Avenue A, you only need one person to go down Attack Avenue B to completely shut down the base capture.

On top of that, you don't even have to be fast. You just need to peek over and take a look from a clear vantage point.

Believe me, I do this all the time in my 60 kph atlas when I pug and my team refuses to scout the alternate attack avenue. I simply reposition slightly away from the group and use my eyes for a bit to spot any potential rush. I can muddle through in a slow assault, but it's child's play in a faster mech.

99/100 base captures happen because either the whole team balled up and left an attack avenue wide open, or they overextended pushing toward the enemy base without any map awareness.

[Belazaar]

Capping is another tactic just like boating or poptarting they are all legal ways to play the game as it is now. You must find a way counter them.

You can either set up a kill zone closer to your base so you can defend it or Assault their base. Going to same spot in the middle of the match isn’t very logical and complaining about players sniping because they know where someone is going to be or lights capping is pretty lame. If the whole group defends and waits for the other team there will still be a fight and the lights can still scout to see where they are coming from or find the kill zone. But you wouldn’t have to worry about a light capping the base.

Edited by Belazaar, 17 May 2013 - 09:10 AM.

[Atheus]

Belazaar, on 17 May 2013 - 09:03 AM, said:

Capping is another tactic just like boating or poptarting they are all legal ways to play the game as it is now. You must find a way counter them.

You can either set up a kill zone closer to your base so you can defend it or Assault their base. Going to same spot in the middle of the match isn’t very logical and complaining about players sniping because they know where someone is going to be or lights capping is pretty lame. If the whole group defends and waits for the other team there will still be a fight and the lights can still scout to see where they are coming from or find the kill zone. But you wouldn’t have to worry about a light capping the base.

Boring, unbalanced, inane objectives are bad no matter how bold you type.