419 replies to this topic

[ArmandTulsen]

Just had an amazing match. We were massively outgunned and outnumbered 8-6. They had four assaults, three heavies and a medium. We had just me as the assault, three heavies, and two lights.
Our team played really smart. They were all bunched up, and we split in two groups. The capture lance and the diversion lance. It worked. It really worked.
If that was TDM, we'd be mince meat. Good thing we could win by capping.

Edited by ArmandTulsen, 27 July 2013 - 03:45 AM.

[KKRonkka]

There's nothing wrong with secondary winning conditions but why capping a MISERABLY small area? What's the point? Defenders might be rushing towards that area and miss it by seconds because they would have better hopes killing an assault mech than hope hitting broken light mechs! You win the match by STANDING IDLE for heaven's sake. Good job.

So much about great mechwarriors. Trollorriors online, more likely.

Edited by KKRonkka, 27 July 2013 - 03:57 AM.

[Jestun]

I love the attitude of the deathmatchers.

It's all everyone else's fault. They are not to blame for leaving their base undefended even though it's a victory condition, no... it's the lame-*** cappers who are at fault for beating them!


The existing game modes are simple, but some people still fail to grasp them.

Edited by Jestun, 27 July 2013 - 04:24 AM.

[KKRonkka]

When there was a tonnage based matchmaking, this wasn't a problem. Current "ELO" is a problem, it's based on luck what kind of mechs you have in your team. Or do you say it's L2P situation when you have team full of mechs moving 50km/h in Alpine conquest and enemy has 4 light mechs? Apparently.

It would be more sense to have something else than capping, which is present only because it was copied cheaply from WoT. When I entered closed beta I thought it was only a placeholder for something more... suitable for Mechwarriors but alas, that wasn't the case.

Edited by KKRonkka, 27 July 2013 - 05:51 AM.

[Jestun]

KKRonkka, on 27 July 2013 - 05:49 AM, said:

When there was a tonnage based matchmaking, this wasn't a problem. Current "ELO" is a problem, it's based on luck what kind of mechs you have in your team. Or do you say it's L2P situation when you have team full of mechs moving 50km/h in Alpine conquest and enemy has 4 light mechs? Apparently.

It would be more sense to have something else than capping, which is present only because it was copied cheaply from WoT. When I entered closed beta I thought it was only a placeholder for something more... suitable for Mechwarriors but alas, that wasn't the case.

Yeah... WoT invented the premise of capturing a base as being a victory condition.

And WoW was the first MMO?


I suspect it's a playerbase size issue more than an ELO issue to be perfectly honest, but PGI continue to refuse to display the figures. High ELO players are still getting matched against trial mechs, to me that says the matchmaker is having to loosen criteria quite a bit to get a match going.

[KKRonkka]

It doesn't matter if you're playing against your ELO rank or not, what still matters is that mechs you get to your team are still random. Unless you can, for example, point a direct line between high rank and minimum amount of lights per team?

WoT reference is a "bit" exaggerated, true that. But it's been hugely popular and Makes Money, so it's easy to guess where people look when they want to copy success. You can also check how both price things and see if there are similarities... well, both have 300 gold for extra slot in garage, one week premium time costs 1250 gold... with same gold - dollar ratio.... so I wonder... / offtopic

Edited by KKRonkka, 27 July 2013 - 07:38 AM.

[Jestun]

KKRonkka, on 27 July 2013 - 07:37 AM, said:

It doesn't matter if you're playing against your ELO rank or not, what still matters is that mechs you get to your team are still random.

It kinda does, that's the point of ELO. So that it's *not* just random.

Additional weight balancing would be nice, but I have my doubts at how well the matchmaker handles the existing criteria and don't see adding more for it to skip in order to find a match as being much of an improvement.

[KKRonkka]

Quote

t kinda does, that's the point of ELO. So that it's *not* just random.

ELO ranks players, not mechs. Tonnage difference causes most problems in capraces. So ELO doesn't matter unless it would know that "this player plays x, lets put him to that team" which it certainly wont do.

[Jestun]

KKRonkka, on 27 July 2013 - 09:00 AM, said:

ELO ranks players, not mechs. Tonnage difference causes most problems in capraces. So ELO doesn't matter unless it would know that "this player plays x, lets put him to that team" which it certainly wont do.

I never said ELO ranks mechs.

Can we keep the discussion to what is actually said instead of just random statements.

Otherwise I'll start replying in kind:

"Elephants are grey, not orange."

[SprinkleFree]

Davers, on 20 July 2013 - 05:52 PM, said:

Assault and heavy pilots are the first to cry out `Lights and mediums shouldn`t be able to fight one on one with heavier mechs!`Then they complain, `Capwarrior Online!`when lights and mediums don`t line up like clay pigeons for them.

I'm an Assault pilot and I endorse this message.

[Roland]

Jestun, on 27 July 2013 - 04:24 AM, said:

I love the attitude of the deathmatchers.

It's all everyone else's fault. They are not to blame for leaving their base undefended even though it's a victory condition, no... it's the lame-*** cappers who are at fault for beating them!

If you capped the enemy base, it means you didn't defend your own.

[Xandre Blackheart]

The point of capping is that they only gave you two modes. Capfest 1 and Capfest 2, "the Cappening".

People get bored as crap with these two basically identical modes and want to play something different, then get pissy because people who can't understand the idea of wanting to just fight play the crappy game modes as PGI presented them.

It's a conflict of metaviews.

Personally, I think cappers are prissy little fragile flowers that should be stomped into the mud, but that's just because I find capping to be yawn inducingly easy.

[Khobai]

We were originally told base assault was just a placeholder for another game mode... which we have never heard anything about since.

What we need is a domination style gamemode with respawns. The entire reason you need respawns is to avoid the whole snowball effect that can currently happen in MWO (the team that loses the first 1-2 almost always loses 90% of the time and cant make a comeback). Respawns prevent bad players from ruining the game and give good players the oppurtunity to make a comeback. It makes games much more exciting when the possibility of a comeback exists. This why nearly every other game has respawns.

This is what PGI needs.

1) Domination Mode on Extra Large Maps only.
2) Each team starts with 2000 reinforcement tickets, first team to get to 0 loses.
3) Five objectives spread out on the map, controlling an objective bleeds 1 ticket per second from the enemy. Each objective also gives a global bonus to your whole team (like controlling a satillite uplink might give your team vision of the entire map)
4) Destroying a mech bleeds 25 tickets from that team, but you respawn at your base after dying.
5) Bases protected by turrets/dropships to prevent spawn camping

Edited by Khobai, 28 July 2013 - 12:16 AM.

[Xandre Blackheart]

Respawn would be a nice game mode. I'd sure as hell play it as opposed to capfest 1 and capfest 2.

[Ax2Grind]

Roland, on 27 July 2013 - 10:31 PM, said:

If you capped the enemy base, it means you didn't defend your own.

This is simply not an accurate statement. While it may be true some time, it is certainly not true in the majority of games I have played, only in a minority. Capping doesn't take a whole team, it can take one mech...which is why playing with some defense in mind is important. Some teams can fight, defend and cap all at the same time. Yes, even PUG teams are included in that statement. : )

If you play matches and you often get capped, you should learn how to keep that vital resource safe from the enemy. Neither the game nor any player forces you to leave your cap undefended. Its a choice. A choice you as a player makes.

If you think Assault is a Capfest that is a clear sign you or the enemy team is playing recklessly or poorly. Playing with some teamwork and strategy doesn't mean you wont get capped, but you shouldn't see a "Capfest". You can make the enemy have to pay for it every time.

As for a Deathmatch or Respawn mode, awesome, I hope they all become possible. It would be great to have lots of options opposed to two. I'd be down for an arena style non-team deathmatch as well as team DM for large maps. I love game mode variation and don't need all modes to have caps. However, I am tired of the base cap whining in the current modes. Its there as an objective people!

Ironically, I often choose to forgo capping to battle, even when the opportunity is made so easy by the other team its silly. I may change that tactic and start capping more just based on this thread...after all, there is something seriously wrong with your team if I got my lumbering Atlas all the way to your base with no resistance...seriously wrong! You want some better brawls to go down? Protect your half of the map and it will happen. It's leaving your cap wide open that's causing the battles to be cut short! How ironic is that!

~Ax

[MustrumRidcully]

Jestun, on 26 July 2013 - 11:48 PM, said:

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?

The failure in design, if any at all, is that capping is often not as much fun as duking it out with blobs.

If you can find a way to make capping (and defending against a cap) and all that more fun, and more engaging, I think that would be good.

Maybe the teams should be actively forced to cap by the rules, but also forced to defend your cap points.

Say, if none of your team is within 750m of your own cap point, you start losing your cap point.
If after 2 minutes of play none of your team is within 750m of the enemy cap point, you start losing your cap point, too. (The loss might be 1/4th or 1/3rd of the speed of a single mech capping. On large maps that makes having lights extremely valuable, since an Assault or Heavy might not made it in time to avoid the cap counter to start ticking).

Now you basically need a goalie, but you also need someone to move out and strike. Neither side can risk sitting around. And since the enemy doesn't have to exactly at the cap point, you might also need to scout your defense line constantly to ensure that the enemy hasn't secretly positioned a mech near the cap point so that their counter doesn't start counting down from their inactivity.

If you still want to stick together and move as a blob, you need to do it quickly.

[Roland]

Ax2Grind, on 28 July 2013 - 03:08 AM, said:

This is simply not an accurate statement. While it may be true some time, it is certainly not true in the majority of games I have played, only in a minority. Capping doesn't take a whole team, it can take one mech...which is why playing with some defense in mind is important. Some teams can fight, defend and cap all at the same time. Yes, even PUG teams are included in that statement. : )

I'm not talking about the team. I'm talking about you, personally, as an individual pilot who is capping the enemy base.

If you are doing that, then you aren't defending.

Effectively, you are depending upon someone else defending your base, because you yourself are doing exactly what some appologists here are saying you shouldn't do... you are running off and not defending your base. The "obvious answer" to base capping is exactly what you aren't doing. You're just running off, and expecting someone else to do that "obvious" thing.

But you're not doing it. And why aren't you doing it? Because you don't feel like just standing there on the red square. And yet you have an expectation that someone else on your team should do exactly what you yourself don't feel like doing.

And really, if EVERYONE on the team does it, then everyone on the enemy team does it.

Just face it. The capping mechanics in Assault are terrible. It's not a well designed game mode.

[Jestun]

Roland, on 28 July 2013 - 07:47 AM, said:

I'm not talking about the team. I'm talking about you, personally, as an individual pilot who is capping the enemy base.

If you are doing that, then you aren't defending.

Effectively, you are depending upon someone else defending your base, because you yourself are doing exactly what some appologists here are saying you shouldn't do... you are running off and not defending your base. The "obvious answer" to base capping is exactly what you aren't doing. You're just running off, and expecting someone else to do that "obvious" thing.

But you're not doing it. And why aren't you doing it? Because you don't feel like just standing there on the red square. And yet you have an expectation that someone else on your team should do exactly what you yourself don't feel like doing.

And really, if EVERYONE on the team does it, then everyone on the enemy team does it.

Just face it. The capping mechanics in Assault are terrible. It's not a well designed game mode.

If you want a debate about how much "depending on others" should be a part of the game then that's something for somewhere else and it will apply regardless of the victory conditions of the match.

The reality is that this is a team-based multiplayer game.

2 teams each with their own base to defend and the enemy base to attack is hardly some freaky new experimental game mode, it's one of the oldest, most basic types of objective based game modes I can think of. And also one of the simplest.

[Roland]

Jestun, on 28 July 2013 - 08:21 AM, said:

If you want a debate about how much "depending on others" should be a part of the game then that's something for somewhere else and it will apply regardless of the victory conditions of the match.

I'm just pointing out the hilarious idiocy of people saying, "You should defend the base!" while they themselves do not in fact defend the base.

Jestun, on 28 July 2013 - 08:21 AM, said:

2 teams each with their own base to defend and the enemy base to attack is hardly some freaky new experimental game mode, it's one of the oldest, most basic types of objective based game modes I can think of. And also one of the simplest.

Oh? What other games implement this game mode? WoT has it, but its implemented in a far better fashion, where you really only need to touch the capping tank to reset it.

What are the games that have a game type like Assault as implemented in MWO?

[Mystere]

Xandre Blackheart, on 27 July 2013 - 11:50 PM, said:

The point of capping is that they only gave you two modes. Capfest 1 and Capfest 2, "the Cappening".

People get bored as crap with these two basically identical modes and want to play something different, then get pissy because people who can't understand the idea of wanting to just fight play the crappy game modes as PGI presented them.

It's a conflict of metaviews.

Personally, I think cappers are prissy little fragile flowers that should be stomped into the mud, but that's just because I find capping to be yawn inducingly easy.

If your team had planned for a base defense -- just in case the need arises -- before all deciding to blob into the middle of the map, then you just might get the fight you were wishing for, But, no, you all just mindlessly want to brawl at map center. That is why you lose to a capper. It is your team's fault and no one else's, most certainly not the game mode's.

And just to reiterate, I cap for the tears, the vast flowing rivers of male nerd rage tears that capping seems to produce. Your post and others like it just indicate that it still works marvelously.

And finally, I think Team Death Match is for people who like to hang on the coattails of their team mates. I would rather have a 24-way no-holds-barred winner-take-all free-for-all game mode. Imagine the temporary alliances, the anticipated backstabbing, the eventual treachery. Now that will be interesting to play and watch.

Edited by Mystere, 28 July 2013 - 09:23 AM.