419 replies to this topic

[Mystere]

Purlana, on 25 July 2013 - 05:41 PM, said:

Summary: I drop with 8 Assaults, but your light team should charge into our fire anyway!

Half a league, half a league,
Half a league onward,
All in the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.
"Forward, the Light Brigade!
"Charge for the guns!" he said:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.

"Forward, the Light Brigade!"
Was there a man dismay'd?
Not tho' the soldier knew
Someone had blunder'd:
Theirs not to make reply,
Theirs not to reason why,
Theirs but to do and die:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.

Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon in front of them
Volley'd and thunder'd;
Storm'd at with shot and shell,
Boldly they rode and well,
Into the jaws of Death,
Into the mouth of Hell
Rode the six hundred.

Flash'd all their sabres bare,
Flash'd as they turn'd in air,
Sabring the gunners there,
Charging an army, while
All the world wonder'd:
Plunged in the battery-smoke
Right thro' the line they broke;
Cossack and Russian
Reel'd from the sabre stroke
Shatter'd and sunder'd.
Then they rode back, but not
Not the six hundred.

Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon behind them
Volley'd and thunder'd;
Storm'd at with shot and shell,
While horse and hero fell,
They that had fought so well
Came thro' the jaws of Death
Back from the mouth of Hell,
All that was left of them,
Left of six hundred.

When can their glory fade?
O the wild charge they made!
All the world wondered.
Honor the charge they made,
Honor the Light Brigade,
Noble six hundred.

The Charge of the Light Brigade
Alfred, Lord Tennyson

[Mystere]

PeenyPoke, on 25 July 2013 - 11:56 PM, said:

So what you're saying is you deserve to lose if:
You play an assault or heavy.
You like fighting the enemy.
Your team stays together.
You don't leave combat to walk for a minute, then stand inside a square, or perhaps be killed by lights.

You seem to be implying that playing a heavy mech is bad, fighting as a team is bad, and that walking around the map standing in squares or chasing lights is good.

You got it all wrong.

Seriously though, what Dracol is saying is that it is entirely your team's fault if you decided to play the match without forming a plan on how to defend your base when the need arises.

[Mystere]

One Medic Army, on 26 July 2013 - 12:01 AM, said:

Possible solution:
When both teams have players present in the other team's cap zone, all capping ceases.

That'd put an end to both teams missing each-other and going straight for a basecap.

Well, just to add a little bit of RP to this discussion ( ):

You reaching my base to destroy my stock of ice-cold beer does not in any way stop me from killing your general while he sips tea inside his tent.


But then again, maybe it does. My beer is more important than your useless general.

Edited by Mystere, 26 July 2013 - 09:39 AM.

[JingleHell]

Mystere, on 26 July 2013 - 09:30 AM, said:

Well, just to add a little bit of RP to this discussion ( ):

You reaching my base to destroy my stock of ice-cold beer does not in any way stop me from killing your general while he sips tea inside his tent.

Although actually having to shoot up the general's tent, and the generators, and the repair facilities could alleviate some of the complaints.

Let's face it, if the Jenner has to actually blow up some portion of the materiel in your base, it might take him longer, or it might make it easier to stop him capping from outside the base by shooting at him. (Accurately, at least, otherwise you'd just help him.)

I'm all for capping and similar alternate wincons, anything to spread out viability is a good thing. But making them require you to actually do something besides stand there trying to find cover couldn't hurt. It could even make a base race more fair for assaults, if they could snipe down the enemy generator from a kilometer out, where the Light has to basically be sitting on it.

It also makes capping a more dynamic wincon, as suddenly protecting your base means more than "have at least one really fast light".

[Jestun]

JingleHell, on 26 July 2013 - 09:40 AM, said:

Although actually having to shoot up the general's tent, and the generators, and the repair facilities could alleviate some of the complaints.

Let's face it, if the Jenner has to actually blow up some portion of the materiel in your base, it might take him longer, or it might make it easier to stop him capping from outside the base by shooting at him. (Accurately, at least, otherwise you'd just help him.)

I'm all for capping and similar alternate wincons, anything to spread out viability is a good thing. But making them require you to actually do something besides stand there trying to find cover couldn't hurt. It could even make a base race more fair for assaults, if they could snipe down the enemy generator from a kilometer out, where the Light has to basically be sitting on it.

It also makes capping a more dynamic wincon, as suddenly protecting your base means more than "have at least one really fast light".

Making every situation "he who has more guns wins" would be a horrible move on PGIs part.

Unless they intend to remove non-assault mechs.

[JingleHell]

Jestun, on 26 July 2013 - 09:48 AM, said:

Making every situation "he who has more guns wins" would be a horrible move on PGIs part.

Unless they intend to remove non-assault mechs.

I'm not saying it should take a thousand damage to do it. I'm saying that making it slightly more complicated than playing king of the hill against people in wheelchairs might make it a more reasonable win condition.

[Jestun]

JingleHell, on 26 July 2013 - 09:58 AM, said:

I'm not saying it should take a thousand damage to do it. I'm saying that making it slightly more complicated than playing king of the hill against people in wheelchairs might make it a more reasonable win condition.

A single light mech capping isn't exactly quick. How long exactly should it take for a mech to cap (or destroy) a base that the enemies foolishly walked away from and left no one guarding, despite being a victory condition?

:edit:

I wasn't aware the complexity was an issue.

Edited by Jestun, 26 July 2013 - 10:16 AM.

[hammerreborn]

Being able to shoot the base from far out is a terrible idea. You can already basically see the other teams base in River City, and is completely reachable by PPCs.

You're just going to have people bum rushing cave with heavies through the shortcut caves, ignoring the other team and just opening fire from long range.

[JingleHell]

hammerreborn, on 26 July 2013 - 10:17 AM, said:

Being able to shoot the base from far out is a terrible idea. You can already basically see the other teams base in River City, and is completely reachable by PPCs.

You're just going to have people bum rushing cave with heavies through the shortcut caves, ignoring the other team and just opening fire from long range.

Which lets them walk into a giant stompy robot meat grinder, which brings tactical consideration into capping, where right now it's basically just a balancing act of preventing the cap with just enough firepower without screwing yourself over. Sure, that's got some gameplay element to it, but it's not much.

I like capping, I just think that right now it's too independent of any external pressures.

[Ansel]

Well, the way I would have set up for assault would be much different than what we have now. (until clan stuffs anyways)

• Killing a mech nets 1 point, capturing a base nets 4 points. (equal to a lance)
  
• Caping a base starts the "timer", when timer runs out game is over.
  
• Once one base is captured the other base "locks" and is not capturable.
  
• 5-10 minuite timer starts. Might should depend on map size.
  
• Time runs out and team with most points wins.

I think this would open up more tactical options for "lightweight" teams, meaning that they could win through stealth and maneuverability, while giving the "heavy" team a chance to hunt them down, or be hunted as they split up to cover more ground, so they won't feel cheated that the match just ends suddenly because of a base cap.

[Jestun]

Ansel, on 26 July 2013 - 10:55 AM, said:

Well, the way I would have set up for assault would be much different than what we have now. (until clan stuffs anyways)

• Killing a mech nets 1 point, capturing a base nets 4 points. (equal to a lance)
  
• Caping a base starts the "timer", when timer runs out game is over.
  
• Once one base is captured the other base "locks" and is not capturable.
  
• 5-10 minuite timer starts. Might should depend on map size.
  
• Time runs out and team with most points wins.

I think this would open up more tactical options for "lightweight" teams, meaning that they could win through stealth and maneuverability, while giving the "heavy" team a chance to hunt them down, or be hunted as they split up to cover more ground, so they won't feel cheated that the match just ends suddenly because of a base cap.

If the heavy teams were willing to split up we wouldn't have these complaints. Some would defend the base.

[Marlowe Lecter]

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.

Just assuming that "most people" like the same things you like is not a good way to go through life. It’s quite possible that winning is more important to more of the player base then you think it is. If you haven’t done any actual research you don't know for sure. (and just to clarify, a poll on the forums doesn't count as research) I enjoy capping for all the reasons stated in this thread.
It’s obvious from your numerous posts that you can’t fathom that other people find capping fun for all the reasons given in this thread. From the rest of your ranting in the post I quoted it is almost as if you don’t like this game at all, so why are you playing it then?
You seem very intent on “winning” this argument by refusing to see other people’s side of things. Well some people feel the same way about winning matches in MWO. (Except for the fact that you can actually win a match of MWO and there isn’t really a “winning” when it comes to opinions)

[One Medic Army]

Jestun, on 26 July 2013 - 11:13 AM, said:

If the heavy teams were willing to split up we wouldn't have these complaints. Some would defend the base.

The problem is that currently, if the heavy team does split up, and the enemy team is also heavy and doesn't, then the one that stuck together blobs the one that didn't, brutally destroys them, and wins.

Fighting lights vs fighting assaults requires completely different strategies, you don't know which you're doing on map start, and it's fairly common that you're stuck with no scouting-capable mech to find out.

[JingleHell]

One Medic Army, on 26 July 2013 - 01:31 PM, said:

The problem is that currently, if the heavy team does split up, and the enemy team is also heavy and doesn't, then the one that stuck together blobs the one that didn't, brutally destroys them, and wins.

Fighting lights vs fighting assaults requires completely different strategies, you don't know which you're doing on map start, and it's fairly common that you're stuck with no scouting-capable mech to find out.

Wait, so there could be an advantage inherent to running a non-boat? That almost sounds like there's room for the meta to evolve, from big stompy robot meat grinder to people actually exploiting some of the depth to get an advantage that can't be quantified on a spreadsheet!

[One Medic Army]

JingleHell, on 26 July 2013 - 01:33 PM, said:

Wait, so there could be an advantage inherent to running a non-boat? That almost sounds like there's room for the meta to evolve, from big stompy robot meat grinder to people actually exploiting some of the depth to get an advantage that can't be quantified on a spreadsheet!

Who said anything about boats?
Oh, and I run a Jenner or medium typically these days (unless I'm leveling a Victor) so it's not my team getting capped or smashed due to lack of recon (unless they don't listen).

[JingleHell]

One Medic Army, on 26 July 2013 - 01:39 PM, said:

Who said anything about boats?
Oh, and I run a Jenner or medium typically these days (unless I'm leveling a Victor) so it's not my team getting capped or smashed due to lack of recon (unless they don't listen).

Right, so you're reinforcing my point, and what you just said kind of suggests that you don't entirely believe what you said about all heavy winning against the team with a recon element. Since the whole "Boats just wanna blow **** up" argument is what causes this thread, then it stands to reason that we're actually agreeing that it's the failure of the players to conform to the available win conditions that causes cap loss, rather than a "need" for more big stompy.

Maybe I read you out of context, this thread is hard to keep track of.

[One Medic Army]

JingleHell, on 26 July 2013 - 01:43 PM, said:

Right, so you're reinforcing my point, and what you just said kind of suggests that you don't entirely believe what you said about all heavy winning against the team with a recon element. Since the whole "Boats just wanna blow **** up" argument is what causes this thread, then it stands to reason that we're actually agreeing that it's the failure of the players to conform to the available win conditions that causes cap loss, rather than a "need" for more big stompy.

Maybe I read you out of context, this thread is hard to keep track of.

If you read the comment, I was referring to two heavy teams without a recon element, because that's fairly common.
If one team leaves a guy to guard base (in case the other guys have lights) they get rolled because the other team stayed bunched up.

Also heavy/assault=/=boat.
My Blackjack 1X is a boat, my Victors are not boats.

Edited by One Medic Army, 26 July 2013 - 01:47 PM.

[Master Q]

Jestun, on 26 July 2013 - 11:13 AM, said:

If the heavy teams were willing to split up we wouldn't have these complaints. Some would defend the base.

Or sit there bored the entire game while the rest of their team is fighting a battle midmap?

I can see it now.

The 6 guys who fought from each team: "Whoah cool fun"
The 2 guys who sat on their butts from each team: "Man I'm so bored... why do I play?"

[JingleHell]

Master Q, on 26 July 2013 - 01:46 PM, said:

Or sit there bored the entire game while the rest of their team is fighting a battle midmap?

I can see it now.

The 6 guys who fought from each team: "Whoah cool fun"
The 2 guys who sat on their butts from each team: "Man I'm so bored... why do I play?"

Ok, but that leaves a conscious decision: To blob or not to blob. Flexibility and firepower. Decisions establish a healthy, fluid metagame, where different things are positioned differently against other things. If matchmaking wasn't a soup sandwich, that wouldn't be a huge problem.

[Jestun]

Master Q, on 26 July 2013 - 01:46 PM, said:

Or sit there bored the entire game while the rest of their team is fighting a battle midmap?

I can see it now.

The 6 guys who fought from each team: "Whoah cool fun"
The 2 guys who sat on their butts from each team: "Man I'm so bored... why do I play?"

The only way this would be true is if capping was a very rare occurrence. Otherwise those 2 defending would be busy.

If that's the case then why does it need so many threads to whine about it?