hammerreborn, on 29 July 2013 - 04:38 AM, said:
What bad game design? Bad game design means something doesn't work properly.
Players being too stupid to defend their base isn't the devs fault, it's the damn players.
And it's working fine. Crybabies will cry because they lost because we didn't play the game their way.
Tell me, do you also cry when the enemy team in counter strike rescues the hostages while you sit in a corner with an AWP? When your team is camping A and they plant the bomb in B? Cause it's exactly the same damn thing, except in this game the light has to remain in a single not very defensible position for nearly 2 minutes rather than the 45 seconds and the ability to hide in CS
If you can't stop me in two minutes as I stand completely still in a box, you deserve to lose because you are awful.
Christ, lights use the only downside to bringing an assault against them and all they do is throw temper tantrums and cry that they should be nerfed. What's next, making the game auto walk us to the center and stand still so you can shoot us? Would that stop the constant tears? How about the game just being a tiny circle of mechs that can't move? Is that what you want?
Cause god forbid you have to think before doing something in a 85 ton ppc boat that can fire halfway across the map.
But hey, at least 8 mans have intell......hahahahaha who am I kidding I out capped a try hard team of clanner wannabes running 8 highlanders, who did nothing but "lol no honor" *****ing for the 2 mins from the point I touched their base until a minute after it was over.
Hey morons, stop typing start walking
Ok, let me explain.
Games are made for the user to experience fun , so I would define a facet of a game that is not fun as "not working properly".
Calling people stupid for not doing an activity that isn't fun seems a bit asinine. Fun is the most important factor in influencing player behavior, but winning is not the most important factor in determining fun. One of the reasons people don't defend the base is that it is not fun. (Another reason is that it's not the best tactic).
Crybabies might cry when they lose, but personally I don't cry at all. I do get frustrated however, when I lose (or win) without any combat occurring, or if I lose (or win) before the combat has had a chance to fully play out, or if I lose after our team was clearly superior in combat, simply because someone on the enemy team stood in some arbitrary locations faster and more often than we did. I also get annoyed when I'm forced to run around capping to win. A victorious match where all I did was cap points is not a fun match. If I won every game on caps, I would not be happy, because capping is not fun.
For me, the appeal of MWO is mech combat, not in "winning" matches that have arbitrary game rules that don't necessitate getting involved in combat at all. Let's face it, if all you do is cap, you could do that in a car.
Counterstrike is an example of
good game design. The objectives on each map are clearly defined (e.g. rescue or defend the hostages), and each team is encouraged to work
together to achieve their goals. In counterstrike, if you're in an unwinnable position, it is because of either bad choices, or you were outplayed. Furthermore, players will get into combat
as a result of trying to achieve the other objectives.
In MWO, you don't know before you start a match what your team composition will be, or what the enemy team composition will be. You don't know if you need to defend your base or not - many games have no-one attempting to capture it. The mech you chose may disqualify you from achieving the map objectives (e.g. you can't expect to win conquest on alpine by capping in an atlas). And the members of the same team are only loosely encourage to play together, because the mechs are of vastly different speeds and combat effectiveness.
Playing an assault does not make you a bad player, just as playing a light does not make you a good player. You should not be penalized based on the mech you decide to play (or else why have all the mechs in the game?). Saying that not being able to stop a cap makes you awful is, at best, as valid as saying "if you can't win in combat, you are awful". You are ignoring the different capabilities of the different mechs. Assaults are not designed for capping.
Some of your arguments are straw man arguments. Here are a couple of things that
nobody is arguing for:
* making the game auto walk us to the center and stand still so you can shoot us
* the game just being a tiny circle of mechs that can't move
* premades of 8 assaults playing against pugs
What
I am arguing is that the current game modes aren't consistently fun for anybody. The reasons I have already explained in other posts. Look up my posts if you're interested.
SumoRex, on 29 July 2013 - 07:43 AM, said:
Capping is a valid part of the game.
Capping is a valid way to "win".
11
