396 replies to this topic

[Alistair Winter]

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.

You're repeating points I have already addressed, so I don't see any point in repeating my counterarguments.

In short, one way of playing is not smarter or better than the other. There are two different ways of playing the game, and different people prefer different things. That is all. Unless the game mode is changed, this will never change. Trying to belittle people who have different ideas of what is fun will get us nowhere.

Jman5, on 17 May 2013 - 08:21 AM, said:

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.

It's hard to compare games that are so completely different. You might as well compare different business strategies in Transport Tycoon. In RTS games, working with different resources is a major part of the game. The way to win is to ensure that you have a bigger army than your enemy, most of the time. That is quite different from MW:O.

But most games and sports do have rules that allow for a playing style that others find boring. In most ball games, defensive play is considered boring. In combat sports, a very cautious game is considered boring. People have different ideas of how those games and sports should be played.

Ideally, you want a game where 99% of the players agree on the most fun way to play the game. There are FPS games (and RTS games and MMORPGs) out there where people don't argue about which victory condition should be pursued. Usually this is accomplished by having different game modes that cater to different players. Quake 2 had both Capture the Flag and Deathmatch, for example. I don't recall ever seeing anyone complaining in CTF that the match didn't turn into a Deathmatch. People who wanted a Deathmatch played Deathmatch.

I've lost the will to go on explaining myself. I hope PGI will create more game modes that cater to different players, so everyone can get what they want. That ther are only 2 game modes, which are so similar, is one of the reasons this game isn't doing better than it is. They're working on an assymetrical game mode, perhaps something along the lines of a base attack. That is my only hope for the longevity of this game.

[Keifomofutu]

Jman5, on 17 May 2013 - 08:34 AM, said:

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.

I'll just hit this one point. For a battle to actually happen on either of the two really big maps one or both teams are forced to overextend. If both actually sat close enough to base to defend it they would be too far from the each other to be in weapons range. The tether game mode(the base) doesn't work when the tether is too short for the map. All of this has been said read the actual thread.

And lolz at your Atlas marching south on its own in alpine somehow being this amazing contribution to base defense. Not only would you still not be helping your team fight, but you wouldn't be defending the base either. What is to stop the light or pair of lights from simply breezing past you?(Or ganging up on you for that matter).

Edited by Keifomofutu, 17 May 2013 - 09:12 AM.

[Jman5]

Keifomofutu, on 17 May 2013 - 09:11 AM, said:

I'll just hit this one point. For a battle to actually happen on either of the two really big maps one or both teams are forced to overextend. If both actually sat close enough to base to defend it they would be too far from the each other to be in weapons range. The tether game mode(the base) doesn't work when the tether is too short for the map. All of this has been said read the actual thread.

And lolz at your Atlas marching south on its own in alpine somehow being this amazing contribution to base defense. Not only would you still not be helping your team fight, but you wouldn't be defending the base either. What is to stop the light or pair of lights from simply breezing past you?(Or ganging up on you for that matter).

See this is the problem with arguing theorycraft. It lacks the physical details necessary to prove something one way or the other. I'm going try to visually explain how you can scout in an atlas on Alpine Peaks without over extending, being solo'd or being too late to stop the cap.



The main force (green) heads to or around the ridge so at least one can peak over. From there, you can see anything heading toward your base from the middle or north. There is so little atmospheric haze that you can see mechs all the way at the top of perimeter mountains.

The orange, is your scout for the alternate path. He goes slightly down the south pass, but he doesn't need to go far. Any mech that tries to cap, no matter how sneaky will either run straight into you or have to pass multiple gap points that completely expose him to anyone looking. Notice how you don't have to over extend? You are always relatively close to your team. Faster mechs can be more bold and push forward further.

Any mech pushing toward your base in alpine peaks can easily be spotted well before he gets close to your cap.

This concept of smartly positioning to watch for rushes applies to every map if you sit down and really think about intelligently positioning. You don't need to be tethered to your base or sit on your base, or just pray that you don't get capped. It's all about putting minimal effort into scouting.

It's even easier to prevent caps if you follow the principle of counting mechs you spot. Then there is no guesswork or estimation needed once you have accounted for all 8 mechs.

This is all stuff that anyone can do in Pug games and premades. In assault mechs and light mechs. All it takes is some initiative on your part and not dismissing it out of hand.

Edited by Jman5, 17 May 2013 - 10:41 AM.

[Lostdragon]

Jman5, on 17 May 2013 - 10:02 AM, said:

See this is the problem with arguing theorycraft. It lacks the physical details necessary to prove something one way or the other. I'm going try to visually explain how you can scout in an atlas on Alpine Peaks without over extending, being solo'd or being too late to stop the cap.



The main force (green) heads to or around the ridge so at least one can peak over. From there, you can see anything heading toward your base from the middle or north. There is so little atmospheric haze that you can see mechs all the way at the top of perimeter mountains.

The orange, is your scout for the alternate path. He goes slightly down the south pass, but he doesn't need to go far. Any mech that tries to cap, no matter how sneaky will either run straight into you or have to pass multiple gap points that completely expose him to anyone looking. Notice how you don't have to over extend? You are always relatively close to your team. Faster mechs can be more bold and push forward further.

Any mech pushing toward your base in alpine peaks can easily be spotted well before he gets close to your cap.

This concept of smartly position to watch for rushes applies to every map if you sit down and really think about intelligently positioning. You don't need to be tethered to your base or sit on your base, or just pray that you don't get capped. It's all about putting minimal effort into scouting.

It's even easier to prevent caps if you follow the principle of counting mechs you spot. Then there is no guesswork or estimation needed once you have accounted for all 8 mechs.

This is all stuff that anyone can do in Pug games and premades. In assault mechs and light mechs. All it takes is some initiative on your part and not dismissing it out of hand.

Standing around in an Atlas guarding the base on Tourmaline and Alpine sounds very boring to me and it also sounds like a good way to leave your team a man down if the enemy doesn't cap.

You can try to justify it all you want but forcing players to do something boring is bad design. It is painfully obvious the current game modes were thrown together really quickly and not well thought out.

The only kind of game where it even remotely makes sense to have a team be on both offense and defense at the same time is a strategy game, and even in those it is typically very clear based on your current circumstance which you need to focus on. With the current Assault mode there is never a distinction between offense and defense so you are either forced to pick one or split your forces, potentially leaving your team at a major disadvantage that is often insurmountable if the enemy chose the opposite approach.

Your glorious wait and see strategy leaves your team at a big disadvantage if they are missing 100 tons when 8 enemies roll up on them. Or what if 3 lights show up at your base? Three lights can destroy an Atlas and probably cap the base before your team can respond, especially if the other team is trying to prevent them from getting to the base.

The fact of the matter is your strategy relies on luck just as much as the strategy of moving as one big group does.

[Alekzander Smirnoff]

I'll take 12 v 12 then everything will be fine. Two lances go brawl, one lance goes scout.

[Joseph Mallan]

Alekzander Smirnoff, on 17 May 2013 - 10:59 AM, said:

I'll take 12 v 12 then everything will be fine. Two lances go brawl, one lance goes scout.

Which will become one lance fins the enemy first an the rest catch up. LOL

[Burakumin1979]

I cap to split units, but always announce to my own team "capping to 75-80% and then fighting". This sets us up for a win later if the other team decides it wants to cap.

What we need is a reason to split units or a reason to move as one.

For assault...make it an assault. Remove one base randomly at the beginning of every match.

For conquest....make multiple mechs required to cap a point or make points require someone standing in another point. Make points defense spots with npc turrets.

And for the love of god: Stop letting mechs climb up the side of impossible slopes. Make terrain matter. Make trees destructible and allow them to absorb the shot that destroys them. Add destructible walls, gates, fortified defense positions...anything that makes tactics a big deal.

[Burakumin1979]

Here's a way to encourage conquest split groups. Have the number of nodes you control in conquest add a exponential multiplier to your damage cbills. Make holding nodes and capturing nodes the focus! Assault has salvage (which should be slightly upped) and conquest should have this!

1 - x1
2 - x2
3 - x4
4 - x8
5 - x16

[Livewyr]

Edited post; Alistair.

[Jman5]

Quote

The fact of the matter is your strategy relies on luck just as much as the strategy of moving as one big group does.

The fact of the matter is you don't want there to be an easy, in-game solution to base capping. You want PGI to have to "fix it" because otherwise it implies you were doing something wrong. And admitting that you may need to learn to play better is an uncomfortable thought for some.

This is initial placement. You don't have to sit there very long and for brawlers, there isn't a whole heck of a lot to do in the opening minute when everyone is walking up. If you're a brawler, you have to find an avenue of approach that wont get you smashed by sniper fire. So you're looking around anyway.

You look at what your team is doing on the big map, you position to cover any hole. You look around while teams are setting up initially. About a minute later, you get a good idea of where everyone is and you push on. It's extremely simple, but I get it: You don't want a solution. You want an unsolvable problem that justifies your inaction.

Edited by Jman5, 18 May 2013 - 06:14 AM.

[Keifomofutu]

Jman5, on 17 May 2013 - 12:05 PM, said:

The fact of the matter is you don't want there to be an easy, in-game solution to base capping. You want PGI to have to "fix it" because otherwise it implies you were doing something wrong. And admitting that you may need to learn to play better is an uncomfortable thought for some.

The ingame defense of the capping can't be way harder than the capping itself is to accomplish. On small maps this works ok. But on the big maps there is simply too much ground to cover in anything but a light. It becomes a strategy for a light that has no risk/reward. It's all reward no matter how the enemy team responds to it.

1)They come back in force REWARD light runs off anyone who didn't return is now outnumbered. Or they all come back and they are trapped in a tiny base zone by the enemy team who will be in a better postion with more options.

2)They send one back REWARD light runs off one guy just got isolated and his team is still outnumbered only not as much.

3)They don't come back WIN.

The only time that it won't work out for the capper is if the defense happens to have more lights. Only sometimes the defense has none. Basically this leads to a light arms race on the big maps.

And the other side of the coin is if the other side has more lights why aren't they just cap racing your single light?

Edited by Keifomofutu, 17 May 2013 - 12:17 PM.

[Livewyr]

Keifomofutu, on 17 May 2013 - 12:16 PM, said:

The ingame defense of the capping can't be way harder than the capping itself is to accomplish. On small maps this works ok. But on the big maps there is simply too much ground to cover in anything but a light. It becomes a strategy for a light that has no risk/reward. It's all reward no matter how the enemy team responds to it.

1)They come back in force REWARD light runs off anyone who didn't return is now outnumbered.
2)They send one back REWARD light runs off one guy just got isolated and his team is still outnumbered only not as much.
3)They don't come back WIN.

The only time that it won't work out for the capper is if the defense happens to have more lights. Only sometimes the defense has none. Basically this leads to a light arms race on the big maps.

Actually.. for quite a few games I used my own advice and had my jagerbomb sit near the our base on (on any map, including River City)

Imagine the surprise of the 1-legged Jenners, Ravens, Spiders, Commandos...

I had the satisfaction of negating a substantial negative impact on my team, as they got to focus on what they were doing.. and the enemy team is down a light.

In effect, to be blunt; I saved those matches...because my team didn't have to be concerned with whether they were moving too far away, they already knew they'd be down a heavy so they compensated before it could become important.

(Not an anecdote: A concept.)

[Lostdragon]

Jman5, on 17 May 2013 - 12:05 PM, said:

The fact of the matter is you don't want there to be an easy, in-game solution to base capping. You want PGI to have to "fix it" because otherwise it implies you were doing something wrong. And admitting that you may need to learn to play better is an uncomfortable thought for some.

This is initial placement. You don't have to sit there very long and for brawlers, there isn't a whole heck of a lot to do in the opening minute when everyone is walking up. If you're a brawler, you have to find an avenue of approach that wont get you smashed by sniper fire. So you're looking around anyway.

You look at what your team is doing on the big map, you position to cover any hole. You look around while teams are setting up initially. About a minute later, you get a good idea of where everyone is and you push on. It's extremely simple, but I get it. You don't want a solution

You are right in one respect, I don't want an in game solution to capping, I want game modes that make sense. The fact that I and many others don't want to play Assault the way it is now doesn't mean we are playing wrong. I understand the way the mode works very well and I know how to do what it takes to win. The problem is sometimes what it takes to win is not fun.

Short of drawing this in crayons I don't know how those of us who do not like Assault could make that point any clearer or easier to understand. I am not an elite player but I am pretty good. I usually do pretty well in my matches, win or lose. I understand the game enough to know that it could be better and that what is there now is less than optimal.

I really don't even have a problem with Assault mode except on Alpine and Tourmaline because those maps are the only maps large enough to make the dumb mechanics of that mode matter. The fact of the matter is on those maps Assault mode wins can come down to simply who has the most lights and that should not be the case.

[Vodrin Thales]

Alistair Winter, on 17 May 2013 - 09:08 AM, said:

You're repeating points I have already addressed, so I don't see any point in repeating my counterarguments.

In short, one way of playing is not smarter or better than the other. There are two different ways of playing the game, and different people prefer different things. That is all. Unless the game mode is changed, this will never change. Trying to belittle people who have different ideas of what is fun will get us nowhere.


It's hard to compare games that are so completely different. You might as well compare different business strategies in Transport Tycoon. In RTS games, working with different resources is a major part of the game. The way to win is to ensure that you have a bigger army than your enemy, most of the time. That is quite different from MW:O.

But most games and sports do have rules that allow for a playing style that others find boring. In most ball games, defensive play is considered boring. In combat sports, a very cautious game is considered boring. People have different ideas of how those games and sports should be played.

Ideally, you want a game where 99% of the players agree on the most fun way to play the game. There are FPS games (and RTS games and MMORPGs) out there where people don't argue about which victory condition should be pursued. Usually this is accomplished by having different game modes that cater to different players. Quake 2 had both Capture the Flag and Deathmatch, for example. I don't recall ever seeing anyone complaining in CTF that the match didn't turn into a Deathmatch. People who wanted a Deathmatch played Deathmatch.

I've lost the will to go on explaining myself. I hope PGI will create more game modes that cater to different players, so everyone can get what they want. That ther are only 2 game modes, which are so similar, is one of the reasons this game isn't doing better than it is. They're working on an assymetrical game mode, perhaps something along the lines of a base attack. That is my only hope for the longevity of this game.

Personally I'm completely ok if they added a deathmatch mode. I would not play it, but that would be fine if they added it for the players that are so averse to the idea of objective based victories.

I see a lot of potential problems with the game mode, from removing the one incentive there currently is to play lights and mediums (that being out-maneuvering a larger slower opponent and winning via cap) to the game being extended ridiculously by one pilot running away and shutting down.

[Lostdragon]

Livewyr, on 17 May 2013 - 12:21 PM, said:

Actually.. for quite a few games I used my own advice and had my jagerbomb sit near the our base on (on any map, including River City)

Imagine the surprise of the 1-legged Jenners, Ravens, Spiders, Commandos...

I had the satisfaction of negating a substantial negative impact on my team, as they got to focus on what they were doing.. and the enemy team is down a light.

In effect, to be blunt; I saved those matches...because my team didn't have to be concerned with whether they were moving too far away, they already knew they'd be down a heavy so they compensated before it could become important.

(Not an anecdote: A concept.)

The concept of playing goalie is really only a good idea if you are sure the other team is doing it too and even then it is risky.

You never know what the other team is bringing to the fight so you may stand around and leave your team down a man while they fight 8 heavies and assaults. You may get swarmed by 3-4 lights and before your team can get in to position to support you are too dead for it to matter or the base is capped.

So how do you avoid those scenarios? The only logical conclusion is that the best way for your team to win is to keep every single mech playing defense. It is the only way to be sure you can stop a cap group and you can match mech for mech if the enemy moves as one big unit. Guess what happens when both teams do this? Absolutely nothing. This concept is why Assault mode is not good.

[Livewyr]

Lostdragon, on 17 May 2013 - 12:59 PM, said:

The concept of playing goalie is really only a good idea if you are sure the other team is doing it too and even then it is risky.

You never know what the other team is bringing to the fight so you may stand around and leave your team down a man while they fight 8 heavies and assaults. You may get swarmed by 3-4 lights and before your team can get in to position to support you are too dead for it to matter or the base is capped.

So how do you avoid those scenarios? The only logical conclusion is that the best way for your team to win is to keep every single mech playing defense. It is the only way to be sure you can stop a cap group and you can match mech for mech if the enemy moves as one big unit. Guess what happens when both teams do this? Absolutely nothing. This concept is why Assault mode is not good.

There is no Risk in the entire team camping, but there is no Reward either.
There is Great deal of Reward in sending everyone to the fight, but also a great risk.

There is Risk vs. Reward in only leaving one mech back.
It's the middle ground between two cheeses.

[Jman5]

Keifomofutu, on 17 May 2013 - 12:16 PM, said:

The ingame defense of the capping can't be way harder than the capping itself is to accomplish. On small maps this works ok. But on the big maps there is simply too much ground to cover in anything but a light. It becomes a strategy for a light that has no risk/reward. It's all reward no matter how the enemy team responds to it.

1)They come back in force REWARD light runs off anyone who didn't return is now outnumbered. Or they all come back and they are trapped in a tiny base zone by the enemy team who will be in a better postion with more options.

2)They send one back REWARD light runs off one guy just got isolated and his team is still outnumbered only not as much.

3)They don't come back WIN.

The only time that it won't work out for the capper is if the defense happens to have more lights. Only sometimes the defense has none. Basically this leads to a light arms race on the big maps.

And the other side of the coin is if the other side has more lights why aren't they just cap racing your single light?

There isn't too much ground to cover. You position yourself ever so slightly off from the main group and your team has eyes on every single avenue of approach. Are you completely ignoring the picture I posted of Alpine Peaks? It's so freaking simple and takes minimal effort in your initial set up. You have gobs of time to respond to incoming cap rushers because the map has near limitless visibility.

Any mech can do this and you don't have to sit there for long. Just long enough to get eyes on them.

Part of me thinks you really don't understand what I'm saying. The point is to spot the base cap before they get to the base and at the same time position in a way that allows mechs of moderate speed to save your base in time. That way you can respond appropriately with the right mechs. If you see 1 light heading to base, you send something back to deal with it. If he runs off you keep eyes on him and return to front as he runs back.

Mechs do not just magically show up in places and then vanish. They have to walk there, and this means you have easy opportunities to spot them, let your team know, and respond in an appropriate capacity. It's so mind bogglingly easy to counter that it frustrates me to no end that so many teams refuse to do the absolute minimum. Then again the loudest complainers are always the guys in the 50kph PPC boats who are useless outside of an artillery exchange.

Edited by Jman5, 17 May 2013 - 01:45 PM.

[Chavette]

Livewyr I think you have some good insights, and good ideas, but arguing over pug tactics is the stupidest thing of all time! All time!

[Lostdragon]

Livewyr, on 17 May 2013 - 01:16 PM, said:

There is no Risk in the entire team camping, but there is no Reward either.
There is Great deal of Reward in sending everyone to the fight, but also a great risk.

There is Risk vs. Reward in only leaving one mech back.
It's the middle ground between two cheeses.

And that is exactly why Assault mode is bad and needs to be revamped. When the best strategy FOR BOTH TEAMS is to turtle up and try to wait out the other team that is an issue. If one team is on offense and one on defense then that changes everything.

I am not saying teams turtle up all the time, I rarely see it, but it is undeniably the best strategy with the current mechanics.

[Zerberus]

Keifomofutu, on 17 May 2013 - 12:16 PM, said:

1)They come back in force REWARD light runs off anyone who didn't return is now outnumbered. Or they all come back and they are trapped in a tiny base zone by the enemy team who will be in a better postion with more options.

2)They send one back REWARD light runs off one guy just got isolated and his team is still outnumbered only not as much.

Teams are 8 vs 8, later 12 vs 12, not 8+1 vs Keifomofutu`s 8.

If one mech runs off to cap, then that team is down 1 mech to start with.

If one mech runs to stop him, it is now 8-1 vs 8-1 at the front line, that is EQUAL, as opposed to before where the defenders were UP one mech and should have used that advantage to weaken teh forces. But is is still now EQUAL, not "def team one down", you had the greater numbers to start with. Unless your team was capping, too.

If three mechs stop teh cap, they should be competent enough to at least leg the capper if not destroy him. Enemy team loses one again, def team should theoretically be up by 2 at this point, in this situation the front line was down 2 men (but again, from being up one man at the beginning) but will quickly be reinforced by 3 bringing it back to it`s original strength. Unless your team was capping, too.

If the entire team falls bach, the scout should most definitely be toast, leaving the def team again up at least one mech. Unless your team was capping, too.

Basic arithmetic fails to prove your point, it actually does more to disprove it.

So you either suck badly at basic math, or you are intentionally falsely portraying the defending team as outnumbered to add false clout to your argument... Or your team is capping, too, and your entire argument and position are therefore wholly invalid.

If on the other hand you`re regularly dropping with only 7 that is a matchmaking issue, not a tactics and game modes issue, and your criticisms are being voiced towards a game mechanic that is entirely unrelated to the actual cause of your sub-par playing experience.

There is no other logical explanation for your team to always be outnumbered in the fashion you portray.

Edited by Zerberus, 17 May 2013 - 01:42 PM.