49 replies to this topic

[Hammerfinn]

Hey there rookie pilots!

This post is meant for you. Someone else tried this, but the post got moved because of excessive argument obscuring the useful information. I will distill this issue here:

1. Base-capturing is a viable way to win a game.

It's an objective, and when Community Warfare comes into the game, it will be the most important objective. For now, it gives you more Experience than killing enemy mechs, but killing enemy mechs will give you more C-Bills.

2. Base-capturing is not always the best option in a given situation, but sometimes it is the best option available.

Sometimes it is a good tactical move to capture, sometimes your best decision will be to stand and fight with your team. If you are down several kills in a fast light, it can pull a win for your team. If you run off by yourself and capture before the fight engages, you could split the enemy team, or you could deprive your team of a valuable resource in the battle. Work on learning when to capture and when to fight.

3. Many players who wish to fight find base-capturing boring and even offensive, so if you do base-capture, prepare to be raged at by some people.

Regardless of whether it is the best decision in a situation or not, there are a large number of players who want to fight, regardless of the tactical availability of a capture win. Whether they are right or wrong is not the point of this post: you should know these people are out there. Sometimes they will rage because you made the wrong decision about capturing. Sometimes they will rage at you because they hate the mechanic of base-capture. If they have reasons, listen and learn. If they simply rage, tune them out and continue to make your decisions tactically.
As mentioned above, eventually the win will mean more than anything else; until then, however, the win means less to some people than the experience of the big brawl and explosions. This is not a judgement call on them; right now, it's a perfectly understandable desire. But don't let anyone tell you how to play unless they're actually trying to help you improve.

I've tried to be impartial about capture here, just present the important points for educational purposes. Please keep replies to additional helpful information for new players. If you want to argue about base-capture, please go to the Maps and Modes forum.

--Hammerfinn

[Void Angel]

Did I miss a Dev post on Community Warfare? I haven't seen anything about it's implementation, so I'm curious as to why you're telling me that base capping will be the most important objective when Community Warfare comes out?

[Deathlike]

Selective base capturing is better than being a complete nuisance. There is no wrong answer... just a lot of bad answers.

Edited by Deathlike, 13 May 2013 - 01:38 PM.

[Troggy]

@ All,

I like the treatment of the post Hammer and Void.

Furthermore, in all honestly, I think the group of people who think that "capping is for looosers" is pretty thin. Everyone understands you can win that way. Most people here are capable of the math regarding c-bills and xp, and most use base cap to some degree or another. It's a vocal minority that actually gets angry when someone pulls off a good faith win by cap.

However, I wanted to add a second/third/fourth? side(s) to this. The problem with capping occurs in a few very specific cases.

It is a major problem when players, new or old, actively avoid combat and let their team get wrecked, because they are focused on caps and/or points that they have NO REALISTIC HOPE of achieving. That is an entirely different thing and will make you the focus of criticism.

Likewise, if your team is winning and you "sneak a cap" you may get a few more xp yourself, but you will cost all of your team a lot of c-bills and some xp. Nonetheless, in this case you do assure the win for your team (which is never guaranteed), so it is definintiely a grey area. But, don't expect thanks for winning a game that is already won. Nobody likes the guy who shows up late for the war. This is fundamentally a team game (even when pugging), so if your team asks you not to cap, and you do anyway, expect derision.

Finally, there is the case of the large maps in a PUG set-up. If you get 3 friends together and sneak a cap, you can almost always do it. With friends in fast mechs and the super-fast cap rate and a plan - how will anyone stop you. And, it is, according to the rules of the game, a legit win. But, it can be is un-sporting, and not really in the spirit of the game. This is especially bad, if you do it "hoping for certain maps" so that you can guarantee a win, two times in five. The problem is that the matchmaker will have trouble finding another 4-man, all light group, and will have to make up with singles. IMHO, this is a borderline match-maker exploit - play 8-mans, see how this tactic stacks up against some organization. In short, it's technically okay, but it's pretty cheesy, and you should expect some derision for this.

What this all comes back to is advice for new players. In the current game situation, (especially at higher skill levels) it is routine to ambush people in caps. I think the first and foremost, the critical thing is for new players to learn to fight their mechs effectively, because let's face it, even when capping, you get stuck fighting. A lot. Once you can fight properly in a light mech (any mech), then you will certainly have a feeling for the timing and etiquette of capping in a PUG type match, and there will be no problems.

I think the thing that drew most of the original QQ into the earlier thread (at least at the start) was actually about the bad advice, rather than the cap vs. no cap argument.

--
Troggy

[Hammerfinn]

Void Angel, on 13 May 2013 - 01:34 PM, said:

Did I miss a Dev post on Community Warfare? I haven't seen anything about it's implementation, so I'm curious as to why you're telling me that base capping will be the most important objective when Community Warfare comes out?

So far what they've said is imbalanced game modes involving base defense, and territorial control combat. Which I (perhaps wrongly) read as: win a battle, gain territory. In which case the win is what really matters.

[Edson Drake]

A victory is a victory, the problem is, we currently grind for C-Bills, you get far less C-Bills from cap games if you don't kill.

If you don't care for C-Bills go for it. I don' mind anyway as long as I'm having fun, it's alright.

[Mycrus]

Capping per se is not bad - if you are several mechs down, then go for it

Rush capping is stooooopid

Stepping on cap to draw mechs back or to turn enemy mechs around is a viable tactic

The best thing for new player is to be in the main strike force and learning gunnery and piloting skills and not running around in a laser box expecting a "win"

There is no grinding in this game, only natural real skill progression - mechs and kit come as a result of improving your skill and not the other way around

[Void Angel]

Mycrus, on 13 May 2013 - 08:05 PM, said:

Capping per se is not bad - if you are several mechs down, then go for it

Rush capping is stooooopid

Stepping on cap to draw mechs back or to turn enemy mechs around is a viable tactic

The best thing for new player is to be in the main strike force and learning gunnery and piloting skills and not running around in a laser box expecting a "win"

This is exactly my position, as I argued in "that other thread."

Rush capping in the two large maps is also understandably reviled, because there really isn't any way for a PuG team to cover all the avenues of approach without splitting up to the point that they get defeated in detail by a concentrated force. And, since they have to make the decision to split or not before they know what the enemy's doing, the only sure way to stop a rush cap is to camp the base - and then maybe neither side gets to play. So, to resolve this, our community evolved the current set of tactical conventions: split up if you want, or stay together; just don't rush cap as a primary tactic, so we can all play this game with/against each other. The people who just want to rush cap so they can get a low-exp and low-cbill "win" to their credit (capping gives exp, but combat will often give more) aren't brave visionaries who are just using the game's mechanics as is their right - they're unwashed barbarians who scoff at the idea that the valuables in your house should be left there even though they can break a window to burglarize your home.

But, that's a bit off-topic. =)

[BoPop]

if dual ac20's is cheese, then skirting alpine or tourmaline and capping with an accelerator in the first two minutes is cheese.

nor is it profitable mech xp wise, or cbill wise for the capper, ironically. And cbills/mechXP is all that matters now in the present, where we live.

people in the forums discourage others from quick basecap to help them make more cbills and mech xp. it's odd people take it personally, and defensively. it's like, "Dude, you coulda made way more money and xp and still won...." but whateva it's your game play how ya wanna.

Spoiler

http://mwomercs.com/...__fromsearch__1

we'll keep dreaming about this clan warfare and exactly how and when it will work.

Edited by BoPop, 13 May 2013 - 09:54 PM.

[Hammerfinn]

BoPop, on 13 May 2013 - 09:51 PM, said:

nor is it profitable mech xp wise, or cbill wise for the capper, ironically. And cbills/mechXP is all that matters now in the present, where we live.

Actually, a cap-win will usually net you more XP, especially as a new player, say in a non-leveled or trial light.

But that's beside the point--and we're pretty much keeping it informational so far. Thank you! Let's make sure this thread doesn't get hijacked into argument.

[BoPop]

Hammerfinn, on 13 May 2013 - 11:12 PM, said:

Actually, a cap-win will usually net you more XP

wrong.

Hammerfinn, on 13 May 2013 - 11:12 PM, said:

and we're pretty much keeping it informational so far. Thank you! Let's make sure this thread doesn't get hijacked into argument.

and i AM giving you information: skirting the outside of the map on tourmaline or alpine and capping the flag in two minutes without letting your team fight is not profitable. that IS the information. There IS no argument. An argument exists when one side of the debate could be right. Insta capping is wrong, and dumb. Period.

It's REALLY dumb for the capper themselves which is the hugest irony to defenders of the insta cap method. That's my information for you on your thread.

Saying "a win is a win" is like saying, "purple is purple" At this juncture of the game all that matters is Cbills and XP.

If your aim by posting this thread is to help players in some way, then you do them a great disservice by suggesting they go straight to the flag and cap it. but whateva makes ya feel good.

[Modo44]

Sad but true. The rewards for capping are puny compared to spotting/shooting stuff. It would be much more interesting if a base cap actually mattered for your XP and cash pile.

[Void Angel]

The difficulty with increasing cap rewards is that we don't have a way to really be effective at guarding the base while still engaging the enemy. If the base became vital to defend (instead of a secondary way to win, as it is now) then we'd be faced with the prospect of having to camp near our base and cautiously scout, split our forces somehow, or just throw caution to the winds and move in force. Any of the latter two options court a crushing loss based purely on what the enemy happens to do, and the first gets to be a lot like MechWarrior's verision of 1984: "You want to know what the future holds? Imagine an ERPPC, engaging at just short of its maximum range, forever."

However, we're veering pretty far off course here - this thread is intended only to define the issue for new players, not to present an argument for either side - be they decent, upstanding, worthwhile, intelligent and thoughtful people, or the rush cappers who should all be shot. =) I'm as guilty of derailing the thread as anyone, but we really ought to be courteous to the OP.

[Modo44]

Void Angel, on 14 May 2013 - 01:02 AM, said:

The difficulty with increasing cap rewards is that we don't have a way to really be effective at guarding the base while still engaging the enemy.

I think "issues" like that make games more competitive, and increase the skill cap. Meaning more fun in the long run. Once the UI makes communication easier, I believe the five bases should matter more.

Void Angel, on 14 May 2013 - 01:02 AM, said:

Imagine an ERPPC, engaging at just short of its maximum range, forever."

No need, I have watched a few World of Tanks matches. I agree that this would be an issue with just one base, so maybe completely remove it in the Assault mode?

[Void Angel]

Well, you seem to misunderstand the terminology a bit here; "capping" refers only to Assault matches, so you don't have five bases to defend. =) I actually do think the rewards for Conquest should be greater; you don't get as much money from playing that mode.

However, the "issue" isn't that we need more communication and a higher level of skill. The problem is that in certain cases you literally cannot stop a CapWarrior team from capping unless you camp on your base. For example, I have seen teams of 3-4 Raven-3Ls deliberately running around the fringes of the battle to cap the base. Even though we usually had lights and mediums of our own, we still were not always able to stop these people, because they were using the most powerful light chassis with capture mods. On one occasion, they capped our base in Forest Colony before I could even get back to base from the middle of the map in my Hunchback - at 92kph, they capped before we could respond. It's even worse on Alpine and especially on Tourmaline, where it is physically impossible for your team to cover all the approaches and still be close enough to support each other in a fight.

Given that there are ways to cap which are almost unavoidable unless your team is right by the base, the tactical standard would have to shift toward base camping - leaving most parts of the maps simply unused. But at the same time, base areas are inherently indefensible, because the enemy can encircle them in order to always have a shot at someone's rear armor. So you have a situation where players can end up arbitrarily punished no matter what they do, while the CapWarriors just get an ego trip from "winning" meaninglessly small prizes.

Edited by Void Angel, 14 May 2013 - 02:10 AM.

[Modo44]

Void Angel, on 14 May 2013 - 02:06 AM, said:

Well, you seem to misunderstand the terminology a bit here; "capping" refers only to Assault matches, so you don't have five bases to defend. =) I actually do think the rewards for Conquest should be greater; you don't get as much money from playing that mode.

Ahh, I see. No contest in that case. I have been in a few of those strange "battles".

What Assault needs, is more starting locations, maybe even separate for each lance. Just to make positioning/joining the fight more interesting.

Edited by Modo44, 14 May 2013 - 02:10 AM.

[Harleen Quinzel]

This is starting to get like a cracked record - these threads of It is / is not ok to base cap.....

On the "other" thread I've also posted my views on this many a time. But, I was thinking about this whilst skim reading this particular thread.

If you're a new pilot or an old pilot in one of the inferior light mechs, would base rushing and winning net more XP/C-Bills per hour than running around in Raven 4X or similar, desperately trying to tag mech kills for C-Bills before being cored by a pop tart?

[Deathlike]

C-bills will still accumulate whether or not you kill a target. The money aspect is moot IMO.

XP is PRIMARILY GIVEN if the target you dealt to is dead. If you lose 0-8, you will get the bare amount of XP possible. That's the truth of the matter.

If you aren't doing any damage, don't expect to get XP in return. It's that simple.

[Deathlike]

Here's a small breakdown.. for those of you inclined to do some math:
Win = 300XP
Loss = 100XP

So, for those looking at trying to get XP, you are given a great incentive to win since the value is tripled. If you suck at dealing damage, this looks very appealing.

If you are a capper involved in a cap win, you get a small bonus:
50XP Capture Assist (also applied in a Conquest win by resources) + 75XP Objective Win (both Assault/Conquest)
I may have messed up which goes where, but if you win by strictly capping, you get effectively 425XP minimum by being a successful capper.

In order to accumulate the XP to simply MATCH the Win-Loss differential (minus the extra cap bonuses), you must deal essentially 200 points of damage that is converted into ASSISTS (every point of damage you deal in an assist = XP you gain IIRC). It is 325 pts of damage if you factor in the outright capping bonus. The requirement is lessened if the target is if you get ONE savior/defensive kill. You gain 150XP for assisting in that manner, so your damage required becomes 50 points of damage that is converted into assists. You will need only 175 pts of damage if you are factoring the capping bonus.

The math says that if you are not doing inconsequential damage and/or can't kill stuff, capping suddenly becomes a lot more palatable.

Edited by Deathlike, 14 May 2013 - 04:58 AM.

[Deathlike]

I guess I have one more thought.

If they allowed damage dealt in a non-kill to be even half the XP (and c-bills) of what you would get in an assist, you would at least see more reason for people to fight it out instead of outright capping.

The reality is that if you are doing very little offensively in dishing damage and not killing anything, you are getting nothing out of it. You could dish 1000 damage, and the team gets 0 kills out of it, you get the BASE LOSS XP and are simply not rewarded.