419 replies to this topic

[Mystere]

John Decker, on 22 July 2013 - 02:48 PM, said:

LOL That was never my point. It's a ludicrous laughable state that even the people that employ the strat admit they do it just to **** people off and because it's funny. That fulfills no useful function to me. I not a little surprised that people arguing the point refuse to acknowledge this on one hand while totally giving into it on the other . You guys know it's just griefing and a huge smoking pile of bs.

Games are supposed to be fun. ***** people off is funny, which equates to being fun.

Besides, capping is a legitimate tactic and is therefore not griefing.

Edited by Mystere, 22 July 2013 - 02:59 PM.

[IceSerpent]

Viktor Drake, on 22 July 2013 - 01:02 PM, said:

Change Assault to a Meeting Engagement. One base in the middle of the map....GO!!

1. Why do you want to rename "king of the hill" to something that is utterly confusing to everybody?
2. Why change assault when you can simply add KoH as a separate (3rd) game mode?

[Farix]

John Decker, on 22 July 2013 - 02:48 PM, said:

LOL That was never my point. It's a ludicrous laughable state that even the people that employ the strat admit they do it just to **** people off and because it's funny. That fulfills no useful function to me. I not a little surprised that people arguing the point refuse to acknowledge this on one hand while totally giving into it on the other . You guys know it's just griefing and a huge smoking pile of bs.

You must be facetious in calling a cap win "greifing". Capturing the other teams base is a winning condition of Assault mode, so why SHOULDN'T either team attempt to capture the other team's base? All you are doing is QQing that Assault mode is not Team Death Match.

[Thundercles]

Joseph Mallan, on 22 July 2013 - 02:52 PM, said:

No Sir, it is not. It is a victory condition in Assault. It is the FIRST condition, It needs to be made as valuable as killing the entire enemy team. Leave your base unprotected you lose all your stuff and lose the game.

Aren't the "objective complete" rewards the same for both conditions? Or do you mean the damage/salvage/combat rewards as well?

[Joseph Mallan]

Thundercles, on 23 July 2013 - 05:28 AM, said:

Aren't the "objective complete" rewards the same for both conditions? Or do you mean the damage/salvage/combat rewards as well?

Yes. Unless a wily commander removes all consumables from the base, they will eventually fall to attrition. And that usually leads to more intact salvage.

[John Decker]

Farix, on 22 July 2013 - 03:10 PM, said:

You must be facetious in calling a cap win "greifing". Capturing the other teams base is a winning condition of Assault mode, so why SHOULDN'T either team attempt to capture the other team's base? All you are doing is QQing that Assault mode is not Team Death Match.

Not at all. I am stating that the way it works today is broken. It needs improvement. It makes no sense the way it works now. Show me how it makes sense and I might agree with you. We get queued with the team we play with. We don't choose to go in there with 6 assaults and 2 heavies, the Matchmaker does. So people take a broken system like that and do what people do, they manipulate it as much as they can, in some way I don't blame them. The way the system works today ( totally FUBAR) it encourages poor play. The thing I wonder is how much the devs are just laughing their ***** off watching us have this discussion over something they created on purpose and are now claiming as some sort of sick success. By some standards, it's totally successful cause the point of 'FUN' if to **** people off.

[Tombstoner]

Aeten, on 20 July 2013 - 03:57 PM, said:

I'm sure you've been in a battle where your tonnage-heavy team is just stomping the **** out of some hapless noobs, when suddenly 2-4 enemy lights jump on your cap and you find yourselves utterly screwed. It probably happened on Alpine.

Except that those enemy lights have screwed themselves as well.

How? They won after all, won't they be rewarded???

NOT AT ALL!

Everyone loses. You get some points for damage and kills, but ultimately it's just not that much. The light mechs get base victory points and not much more. You probably never even see each other. What does this add to the game? In the current state of things, especially on big maps like Alpine, there is no risk and no reward for lights to cap. No one can oppose them, but at the same time, they only get a hollow victory.

This also made me completely give up any chance of buying the $20 Phoenix package just to receive a ****** locust. 20 tons with terrible hardpoints and a small, undercooling engine is just pointless. It would only be good for capping, which, is rather pointless.

You have a very one dimensional view of gaming. must kill stuf to have fun. i personally dont play for score or money. money happens yes i get more if more damage is done. i get squat if i'm a light using tag to help my lrm friend, but i do it cause i like to. this is the fault of the reward system not reflecting other aspects of fun.

if capping rewarded your team with 1,000,000 creds you'd see a lot more playing for caps then death match. you might change your mind about the locust. but you view of fun is kill, kill, kill.

The point in capping even for a low pay out is winning..... how much fun is face rolling the opposition for a win, for you it the only way....for me little.

[Joseph Mallan]

John Decker, on 23 July 2013 - 05:47 AM, said:

Not at all. I am stating that the way it works today is broken. It needs improvement. It makes no sense the way it works now. Show me how it makes sense and I might agree with you. We get queued with the team we play with. We don't choose to go in there with 6 assaults and 2 heavies, the Matchmaker does. So people take a broken system like that and do what people do, they manipulate it as much as they can, in some way I don't blame them. The way the system works today ( totally FUBAR) it encourages poor play. The thing I wonder is how much the devs are just laughing their ***** off watching us have this discussion over something they created on purpose and are now claiming as some sort of sick success. By some standards, it's totally successful cause the point of 'FUN' if to **** people off.

If you have 6 assaults and 2 heavies, and your enemy is lighter and faster. the best tactic for them to win is to draw you away from your base and then take from you. Nothing stupid in using your strengths to win.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Tombstoner, on 23 July 2013 - 05:49 AM, said:

You have a very one dimensional view of gaming. must kill stuf to have fun. i personally dont play for score or money. money happens yes i get more if more damage is done. i get squat if i'm a light using tag to help my lrm friend, but i do it cause i like to. this is the fault of the reward system not reflecting other aspects of fun.

if capping rewarded your team with 1,000,000 creds you'd see a lot more playing for caps then death match. you might change your mind about the locust. but you view of fun is kill, kill, kill.

The point in capping even for a low pay out is winning..... how much fun is face rolling the opposition for a win, for you it the only way....for me little.

Winning through probably the most boring mechanic I've ever seen in a PVP game is fun for you?

Or do you just do it to pat yourself on the back?

I'm not saying the current PPC/Gauss Meta is fun either; but lets say we had finally gotten to where weapons were balanced. People sported varied builds. A lot of tactics and strategy went into each fight...would you still cap just to "win" even though it's the part of the game that requires the least amount of skill?

Joseph Mallan, on 23 July 2013 - 05:55 AM, said:

If you have 6 assaults and 2 heavies, and your enemy is lighter and faster. the best tactic for them to win is to draw you away from your base and then take from you. Nothing stupid in using your strengths to win.

Yeah but isn't that a function of a terrible matchmaker and poorly thought out game?

It's not a good thing that games like that happen, and the way to win is basically run around like crazy then stand on a box.

[Tombstoner]

I cap for 6 reasons
1- to pull of some players from the main pack and split the opposition
2- force the other teams lights for face me and not cap
3- snatch victory from the jaws of a face roll loss
4-a win is a win
5 it your job to stop me
6- i'm trying to force more depth in game play. So dont over extend the front lines

Do i like games that involve complete misses on both teams and 0 damage is done. No, but it shows how the people involved have no concept of higher levels of play. like guard the base if you miss the main thrust.... go back and find them. at no point is the atlas forced to push forward and cap. the assaults should be able to respond to a light fast cap.

Edited by Tombstoner, 23 July 2013 - 06:07 AM.

[Sprouticus]

A few points


1) I think 12 mans will eliminate this issue. With that many people, especially on smaller maps, the chance of doing an end around without being spotted is slim. It is also more viable to leave some fast mediums at base. When an engagement starts, they can easily make it to the fight since that are fast


2) As Tombstoner pointed out, the game is about fun

• scouting is fun.
  
• Tagging for LRM's is fun (again, this is more viable with 12 mans)
  
• Playing a fast medium flanker/force multiplier is fun. Nothing like swooping into a 1v1 and saving a teammates butt)
  
• Blowing up giant robots in a huge brawl is fun
  
• Sniping is fun
  
• Running an LRM boat support mech is fun
  
• Running a light who can harass or hit enemy support mechs and take them out of the match is fun (and will be more fun if they implement tonnage limits because you would be pinning down a 65-100 ton mech with a 35 ton mech, giving your team and advantage)
  
• Doing an end around and capping because the enemy did not think to play any D is fun
  
• Playing D and seeing the oh-**** look on a light mechs face when he tries to cap and has to run is fun.
  
• Escorting a fatties in a slow medium, sitting behind him and being a force multiplier is fun.

There are a TON of ways to have fun in MWO. I enjoy almost all of them. Not a huge fan of sniping, but I know others enjoy it a lot.



Sure, not all of these are viable currently due to balance issues (slow medium escorts) or lack of rewards (scouting/Tagging), but they will become more viable (I hope) in the near future. I know for sure that PGI is aware of the limitations I mentioned above. And while they can be slow at times, they DO usually fix the issues at hand


If you ONLY have fun running one type of game, you need to look at other options.

Try to master light scouting. For extra credit, try without ECM.
Try to master being a support mech (it is harder than it looks).
Try to run a fast medium force multiplier, going from one engagement to another quickly, using your speed to turn the odds/numbers in your teams favor. (Even a commando SRM mech can turn a balanced 1v1 or 2v2 into a solid win for your side, turning the tide of a drop.
Try playing D in a fast medium. You don't have to sit on the cap, just hang back enough that you can respond in either direction as needed.


The game is as fun as you make it. Use your imagination and you will be surprised at how it can be fun to play different roles.

Edited by Sprouticus, 23 July 2013 - 06:13 AM.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Sprouticus, on 23 July 2013 - 06:08 AM, said:

Doing an end around and capping because the enemy did not think to play any D is fun

It's funny out of your entire list, I agreed with all of it. Except this one.

It stands out as being different from all of the rest.

It's the only one where you are basically avoiding the enemy and not really engaging in the match.

Why is this fun?

The only reason I can think it would be fun is because you are literally trying to troll the other team.

When I played my 2X and 4X to Elite my 3L; I did a lot of capping because they basically suck. I was just trying to end games quickly and earn my 300 exp.

There was nothing fun about it, and nothing hard; especially on Tourmaline/Canyons/Alpine.

You just sneak around, and go stand on a square. With capture accelerator it's cake.

Edited by Nicholas Carlyle, 23 July 2013 - 06:19 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 23 July 2013 - 05:56 AM, said:

Winning through probably the most boring mechanic I've ever seen in a PVP game is fun for you?

Or do you just do it to pat yourself on the back?

I'm not saying the current PPC/Gauss Meta is fun either; but lets say we had finally gotten to where weapons were balanced. People sported varied builds. A lot of tactics and strategy went into each fight...would you still cap just to "win" even though it's the part of the game that requires the least amount of skill?



Yeah but isn't that a function of a terrible matchmaker and poorly thought out game?

It's not a good thing that games like that happen, and the way to win is basically run around like crazy then stand on a box.

Really? I mean if you and your team are good light pilots, and you drop against a Assault force do you really think Fighting them to the death is a good idea? The problem I keep seeing is folks think that every match needs to be a stand up fight, and I remember a time when 3-4 Ravens in a match ensured victory for the Raven's side. I have seen a team of 4 YLW destroy an entire side by themselves. It actually is a good game if you don't know what to expect when you drop. Combat should not always be fair and balanced.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Joseph Mallan, on 23 July 2013 - 06:20 AM, said:

Really? I mean if you and your team are good light pilots, and you drop against a Assault force do you really think Fighting them to the death is a good idea? The problem I keep seeing is folks think that every match needs to be a stand up fight, and I remember a time when 3-4 Ravens in a match ensured victory for the Raven's side. I have seen a team of 4 YLW destroy an entire side by themselves. It actually is a good game if you don't know what to expect when you drop. Combat should not always be fair and balanced.

Yeah but my debate is a light team shouldn't be dropping against an assault team.

The problem comes down to the fact that if capping takes over CW; you are going to see two teams standing at their starting points not doing anything.

And if 4 YLW destroy an entire side by themselves, there was a major skill discrepancy.

[Sprouticus]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 23 July 2013 - 06:29 AM, said:

Yeah but my debate is a light team shouldn't be dropping against an assault team.

The problem comes down to the fact that if capping takes over CW; you are going to see two teams standing at their starting points not doing anything.

And if 4 YLW destroy an entire side by themselves, there was a major skill discrepancy.

To answer your first question you simply need look at the last post by tombstoner. He lists multiple reasons why capping can be fun. Is it fun to win by cap with no engagement where both teams just run past each other. Not really. But then again it is the fault of the teams in question, not the game. No one was watching other approaches. No one was scouting. No one was playing D. No one ran back to sacrifice themselves to prevent the other team from capping and allow your team to cap.


There ARE options, if no one uses those options, whose fault is that.


Side note: I especially like making teams split to RTB to prevent cap and allow my team a numerical advantage. If the other team is too stupid to only send 1 guy back, then they deserve to lose.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Sprouticus, on 23 July 2013 - 06:36 AM, said:

To answer your first question you simply need look at the last post by tombstoner. He lists multiple reasons why capping can be fun. Is it fun to win by cap with no engagement where both teams just run past each other. Not really. But then again it is the fault of the teams in question, not the game. No one was watching other approaches. No one was scouting. No one was playing D. No one ran back to sacrifice themselves to prevent the other team from capping and allow your team to cap.


There ARE options, if no one uses those options, whose fault is that.


Side note: I especially like making teams split to RTB to prevent cap and allow my team a numerical advantage. If the other team is too stupid to only send 1 guy back, then they deserve to lose.

Ok now what about people who do it purposely? A lot of people have stated they TRY to cap. What you are talking about is basically accidentally capping.

I'm fine with the splitting up concept; but that's basically supposed to be, you stand on the cap for a few then jump off and join the battle.

You guys kind of keep jumping back and forth on what version of capping you are discussing which makes it difficult.

Do you think it's good for the game when a 4 man drops in 4 lights with ECM and cap accelerators with the express purpose of avoiding all contact with the opposing team and capping before ANYTHING can possibly be done?

[Sprouticus]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 23 July 2013 - 06:29 AM, said:

Yeah but my debate is a light team shouldn't be dropping against an assault team.

The problem comes down to the fact that if capping takes over CW; you are going to see two teams standing at their starting points not doing anything.

And if 4 YLW destroy an entire side by themselves, there was a major skill discrepancy.

I agree with your first point. IMO they should implement role selection when you ready up, and then place people in drops based upon role (say 2 scouts, 2 support, 5 offense, 2 defense, and 1 commander per 12 man drop) as well as ELO. It would solve a lot of issues. (and you could customize awards based upon role so people would be discouraged from deviating from their roles)

As for people in CW camping, I would rather doubt it, but then again, I think this game could do with a little more cautious play. Again though, I think 12 mans will make capping much harder, so that would make camping less necessary. The battle lines that were setting up in 12v12 testing (without ANY coordination) were kind of awesome to watch. And while some said smaller maps were too crowded, I LOVEd that a battle line could extend 3/4 of the way across a map.

[Sprouticus]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 23 July 2013 - 06:41 AM, said:

Ok now what about people who do it purposely? A lot of people have stated they TRY to cap. What you are talking about is basically accidentally capping.

I'm fine with the splitting up concept; but that's basically supposed to be, you stand on the cap for a few then jump off and join the battle.

You guys kind of keep jumping back and forth on what version of capping you are discussing which makes it difficult.

Do you think it's good for the game when a 4 man drops in 4 lights with ECM and cap accelerators with the express purpose of avoiding all contact with the opposing team and capping before ANYTHING can possibly be done?

People who just troll cap do annoy me, but I can't really blame them. In the end ANY cap is ultimately the fault of the defending team. Do I personally think it is fun? No. But I suppose someone does and I'm not going to berate them, just like I don't berate people who love to snipe. (which I also think is boring)

As for 4 man lights cap mobbing.....well that may turn into an issue in 12 mans (it happens so infrequently in 8 mans that on the rare occasion it does occur, I just chalk it up to a bad game). And if it does, people will adapt. Again, I really think 12 mans will allow for better cap defense.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Sprouticus, on 23 July 2013 - 06:50 AM, said:

People who just troll cap do annoy me, but I can't really blame them. In the end ANY cap is ultimately the fault of the defending team. Do I personally think it is fun? No. But I suppose someone does and I'm not going to berate them, just like I don't berate people who love to snipe. (which I also think is boring)

As for 4 man lights cap mobbing.....well that may turn into an issue in 12 mans (it happens so infrequently in 8 mans that on the rare occasion it does occur, I just chalk it up to a bad game). And if it does, people will adapt. Again, I really think 12 mans will allow for better cap defense.

Well the problem right now is...the games are in the end meaningless.

Winning does absolutely nothing.

Earning C-bills and XP faster is a luxury.

Once CW comes out; suddenly we'll have (hopefully) some reason to want to win every game.

And then this will become a larger issue if left the way it is.

Lets say you have 12 vs 12 on Alpine. And like you said you have a line of mechs that can see lights moving around. But this time instead of 4 lights with cap accelerators, it's 8?

Or what if it's 12?

How about 12 Spiders with borked hit boxes, ECM, and cap accelerators?

What about when they potentially add MASC in on top of that?

It can get messy very quickly.

[Sprouticus]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 23 July 2013 - 07:00 AM, said:

Well the problem right now is...the games are in the end meaningless.

Winning does absolutely nothing.

Earning C-bills and XP faster is a luxury.

Once CW comes out; suddenly we'll have (hopefully) some reason to want to win every game.

And then this will become a larger issue if left the way it is.

Lets say you have 12 vs 12 on Alpine. And like you said you have a line of mechs that can see lights moving around. But this time instead of 4 lights with cap accelerators, it's 8?

Or what if it's 12?

How about 12 Spiders with borked hit boxes, ECM, and cap accelerators?

What about when they potentially add MASC in on top of that?

It can get messy very quickly.

First and foremost, getting more than 4 will be tough without sync dropping. If you are in the 12 man queue and you let them cap race you in 12 spiders, you deserve to lose. Even in a PUG game, if you fail to see 8 spiders base rushing, you need more scouting.

Aside from that:

• Spider hit boxes are a known issue, hopefully they will fix them.
  
• Alpine is really the only map where this could occur regularly.
  
• Atry strikes will get a buff, hopefully that would hellp
  
• I have already stated in the test thread that think they need to up the cap timer when 12 mans go into effect to mitigate this (or possibly max out the rate of capping).