419 replies to this topic

[Joseph Mallan]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 23 July 2013 - 08:31 AM, said:

Good lord, so once again we are going in circles.

You keep saying the same things, based on the current game.

Currently, most players don't care about or choose to ignore capping. Winning isn't really the objective. It's to have fun and shoot eachother.

When actual winning comes into play, and capping becomes the more prevalent style of play, what is the reaction?

It's to have your team stand around at your base.

I've seen it in 8 man's, two teams just standing at their bases hoping the other team goes.

What happens when this seeps into the PUG mentality?

Everyone just stands and defends.

It's stupid.

Sorry winning is my point in playing and when I win I have fun shooting you (if you are on the opponents side).

As for standing at your base, You don't do that only, but you do set up at a distance somewhere near it till the enemy either engages or is found and you can engage. But the victory conditions are listed:
* Capture the Enemy base
* Destroy the enemy team.

The funny thing is I am normally in the mix fighting the good fight from my Assault Mechs. If I can be casual and accepting of being Capped everyone can.

[Purlana]

I disagree. Capping a team when they have 6-8 assault mechs is fun!

[zraven7]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 23 July 2013 - 08:31 AM, said:

Good lord, so once again we are going in circles.

You keep saying the same things, based on the current game.

Currently, most players don't care about or choose to ignore capping. Winning isn't really the objective. It's to have fun and shoot eachother.

When actual winning comes into play, and capping becomes the more prevalent style of play, what is the reaction?

It's to have your team stand around at your base.

I've seen it in 8 man's, two teams just standing at their bases hoping the other team goes.

What happens when this seeps into the PUG mentality?

Everyone just stands and defends.

It's stupid.

My personal hope is that, once Clan Warfare is implemented, there will only be ONE (1) base on the map. One team will defend the base, and the other will try to either take the base, or destroy the team.

The would solve the double-defense issue. If the timer runs out, and a member of the defending team is alive, they win.

This would make perfect sense in CW, because the idea is we are fighting over territory and resources. One side would always be defending, or we would be playing conquest mode.

I honestly think that a lot of problems would be solved if only 1 team had a capturable base in assault. Make it into a proper attack/defense scenario.

[Aym]

A win from a cap, with it's low XP and C-bills, is still better than giving a win to the other side as we trickle into their blob instead of capping.

[Ngamok]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 23 July 2013 - 07:58 AM, said:

Which I understand, but my issues come from when winning has an actual purpose.

We don't see it right now because most people want to fight.

When CW comes out, and the power gamer decides winning is suddenly important, then what?

The problem with capping is it really requires very little skill and it could potentially lead to a lot more of teams standing at their base for 15 minutes hoping the other team gets impatient.

Which I would do if that is what the trend turns into.

[Ngamok]

zraven7, on 23 July 2013 - 08:46 AM, said:

My personal hope is that, once Clan Warfare is implemented, there will only be ONE (1) base on the map. One team will defend the base, and the other will try to either take the base, or destroy the team.

The would solve the double-defense issue. If the timer runs out, and a member of the defending team is alive, they win.

This would make perfect sense in CW, because the idea is we are fighting over territory and resources. One side would always be defending, or we would be playing conquest mode.

I honestly think that a lot of problems would be solved if only 1 team had a capturable base in assault. Make it into a proper attack/defense scenario.

What you described is how Counter Strike does it. One side is the good guys, one side is the bad guys. One side defends the hostages / base, other side has to rescue the hostages / blow up the base.

[CeeKay Boques]

Roland, on 20 July 2013 - 06:31 PM, said:

The worst is when your team has a bunch of lights who run around and cap, so you end up having the rest of your team get gutted.

Then the lights get gutted, and you lose anyway.

This, this, oh god this. I hate it when the last two lights (or worse, fast Heavy or medium) actually do win the game, because it reinforces that abandoning the fight in favor of capping is a good idea. I'd rather lose in a pile of the other teams carcasses than win posthumously.

[zraven7]

Ngamok, on 23 July 2013 - 09:04 AM, said:

What you described is how Counter Strike does it. One side is the good guys, one side is the bad guys. One side defends the hostages / base, other side has to rescue the hostages / blow up the base.

Dude, I'm pretty sure 90 percent of the players here know how counter-strike works. ;-)

[CeeKay Boques]

My fantasy for how Capping "Conquest" will work will be that when we have 4 mech dropships, that those are the points we can choose to land on. Calling in "Inbound on THETA!" and your team can book it there to support you. Meanwhile, you try to close off or close down the other teams drop points.

[Mystere]

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.

What if no one takes the bait and returns to their base? Well, if I discover my team is terribly losing in kills, I might just stay put and cap to win. It's the enemy's fault they did not send someone back to squash my pesky little spider (assuming it's a spider; it could as well be a Firebrand waiting in ambush and packing an AC20, 2 ERPPCs, and seismic).

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

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

Basically, I cap to win. It's a perfectly legitimate winning condition. If the other team sends someone back, I will either run away (especially if it was a "divide and conquer" move on my part), kill them, or die trying. It all depends on what I am running on that match.

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

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?

If the opposing team did not plan for a base defense, tough.

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.

Honestly, I like the sometimes(?) borked results of the matchmaker. It adds an element of uncertainty. Knowing beforehand the composition of the enemy team makes for "sterile" matches, which can be really boring as far as I am concerned. I don't mind the odds stacked against me more often than not. It helps in becoming a better player.

Edited by Mystere, 23 July 2013 - 09:20 AM.

[Ngamok]

zraven7, on 23 July 2013 - 09:06 AM, said:

Dude, I'm pretty sure 90 percent of the players here know how counter-strike works. ;-)

I am sure they do.

[Mystere]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 23 July 2013 - 07:16 AM, said:

CW introduces a new meta; it's the "I want more planets and loyalty points" meta.

And in that meta, your entire goal is to win the game and win quickly.

So what happens when people realize that the best way to accomplish that is by capping as quickly as possible?

Well guess what, the odds on seeing more light teams with cap accelerators suddely goes up.

I expect the better players will get the drift and start planning for base defense. As for the rest, i expect them to go to the forums and incessantly whine about it.

[Mystere]

JagdFlanker, on 23 July 2013 - 07:44 AM, said:

but assault - the point of assault is to kill other mechs so the base shouldn't appear until 1 side is outnumbered 2-1 to give the losing side a chance to still win

And what do you expect the lights to do in the meantime, wait by the sidelines or go toe-to-toe against the heavies/assaults? No, heading straight for the enemy's base at start of match should be a valid move.

Besides, you see the "Assault" game mode as just killing the enemy team (i.e. TDM). I, on the other hand, see it as taking the enemy base and killing any defenders that stand in my way. And if no one is defending, tough, the base is mine.

Edited by Mystere, 23 July 2013 - 10:38 AM.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Mystere, on 23 July 2013 - 09:28 AM, said:

I expect the better players will get the drift and start planning for base defense. As for the rest, i expect them to go to the forums and incessantly whine about it.

Yes, but what happens when drops start becoming both teams standing at their bases "defending".

It doesn't happen now because unlike you, most of us aren't playing exclusively to "win", we're playing to shoot eachother with Battlemechs.

But when winning becomes important to the entire player base exclusively; then what?

No one has answered that.

Lets get something straight, I don't particularly care about capping now. I don't care that you only care about winning. I don't care that it's listed as an objective.

I'm not worried about any of that.

What I am worried about is when CW comes out, and winning becomes a real necessary objective; which it is not now.

So stop talking to me about the game now; the game now is a SHELL. It's crap really. The objectives are all crap.

So stop spouting crap at me.

What happens when 12 cap accelerators come stand on your base and instantly cap you a bunch of times?

Everyone will adjust by full on defending; then we will all just stand around waiting.

[Mystere]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 23 July 2013 - 10:11 AM, said:

Yes, but what happens when drops start becoming both teams standing at their bases "defending".

Again, for the better players, I expect them to adjust accordingly. I expect them to start learning how to punch through a base defense - using snipers( ), poptarters( ), and any underhanded( ) -- but game legal -- way to either kill the enemy or force them to move to a less favorable position. I also expect PGI to significantly buff and/or change artillery and air strikes to make them really hurt a team hell-bent on a static defense.

Once a number of teams learn how to do this effectively, I fully expect the munchkins and "monkey see, monkey do" types to ... do whatever it is they do.

When CW finally hits, the question now becomes: Are you one of those "better" players?

Edited by Mystere, 23 July 2013 - 10:40 AM.

[Sprouticus]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 23 July 2013 - 10:11 AM, said:

Yes, but what happens when drops start becoming both teams standing at their bases "defending".

It doesn't happen now because unlike you, most of us aren't playing exclusively to "win", we're playing to shoot eachother with Battlemechs.

But when winning becomes important to the entire player base exclusively; then what?

No one has answered that.

Lets get something straight, I don't particularly care about capping now. I don't care that you only care about winning. I don't care that it's listed as an objective.

I'm not worried about any of that.

What I am worried about is when CW comes out, and winning becomes a real necessary objective; which it is not now.

So stop talking to me about the game now; the game now is a SHELL. It's crap really. The objectives are all crap.

So stop spouting crap at me.

What happens when 12 cap accelerators come stand on your base and instantly cap you a bunch of times?

Everyone will adjust by full on defending; then we will all just stand around waiting.

I think you underestimate the desire to shoot stuff.

Perhaps in the 12 man queue there will be more of this, but in reality most pug games will end up similar to games we have today. If it ends up with a more conservative game, where people are hesitant to leave their base exposed...GOOD. That is what we want.

I suppose it is possible that full on camping will occur. I am not saying you are wrong. I am just saying I think it is unlikely. People are WAY to impatient, especially in pug-land.

[Mystere]

Sprouticus, on 23 July 2013 - 10:50 AM, said:

People are WAY to impatient ...

And that is one of the things I will most certainly exploit to the fullest.

[ArmandTulsen]

One thing is for certain:

BASE CAPTURE NEEDS A HIGHER C-BILL REWARD!

LIGHTS AND MEDIUMS ARE COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT OTHERWISE!

[One Medic Army]

ArmandTulsen, on 23 July 2013 - 12:48 PM, said:

One thing is for certain:
BASE CAPTURE NEEDS A HIGHER C-BILL REWARD!

LIGHTS AND MEDIUMS ARE COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT OTHERWISE!

Lights and mediums are irrelevant because people refuse to accept them being good at anything other than capping, and complain bitterly when they can actually fight assault mechs.

[Hellcat420]

the point of capping is to win.

Edited by Hellcat420, 23 July 2013 - 01:08 PM.