419 replies to this topic

[Roland]

Mystere, on 28 July 2013 - 09:18 AM, said:

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.

So you are clearly stating that capping is effectively trolling.

[Corbon Zackery]

I feel for you man.

Read the rules for Assault.

[Mystere]

Roland, on 28 July 2013 - 09:36 AM, said:

So you are clearly stating that capping is effectively trolling.

Well, since capping is also a winning condition, it is both. But the tears sure make the win even more delicious. Don't you agree?

Edited by Mystere, 28 July 2013 - 09:42 AM.

[JingleHell]

MustrumRidcully, on 28 July 2013 - 07:37 AM, said:

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.

And that still doesn't fix the "I only want to play giant slow stompy robot meatgrinder" attitude, because nobody is willing to be a team player who gives up on some shooting to do objectives, and slow mechs would never get that close to the enemy base on big maps quickly, especially with the enemy team in the way.

If you don't keep eight in a tight ball, you lose a slugging match, and if you keep eight in a tight ball, you lose a cap race, and until people start treating PUG games like a team game, and have matchmaking that makes sure the PUGs have some sort of tactical options, people will continue to blame anything besides themselves for the losses.

[Farix]

Roland, on 28 July 2013 - 09:36 AM, said:

So you are clearly stating that capping is effectively trolling.

It's only "trolling" because of the QQing. If there wasn't any QQing, then there wouldn't be any "trolling". Instead, players would just shrug their shoulders, say that they were outplayed, and move on.

[Mystere]

JingleHell, on 28 July 2013 - 09:46 AM, said:

And that still doesn't fix the "I only want to play giant slow stompy robot meatgrinder" attitude, because nobody is willing to be a team player who gives up on some shooting to do objectives, and slow mechs would never get that close to the enemy base on big maps quickly, especially with the enemy team in the way.

If you don't keep eight in a tight ball, you lose a slugging match, and if you keep eight in a tight ball, you lose a cap race, and until people start treating PUG games like a team game, and have matchmaking that makes sure the PUGs have some sort of tactical options, people will continue to blame anything besides themselves for the losses.

That tight ball isn't really what it's cracked up to be. I've had several wins where the battle looked like the Roman slaughter at Teutoburg Forest.

"Quintili Vare, legiones redde!“ ('Quintilius Varus, give me back my legions!')

Edited by Mystere, 28 July 2013 - 09:54 AM.

[The pessimistic optimist]

Ummmm winning what a dumb question.

[Mystere]

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.

Did it ever cross your mind that maybe, just maybe, that is what the team agreed to do? And that maybe, just maybe, they also have a defense plan just in case they are the ones being capped?

Given the current preponderance of players who have nothing else in mind other than playing "TDM blob at center of map", as evidenced by the heavy and assault-oriented team compositions, playing a capping game has a very high chance of actually winning.

And here is another point of capping: divide and conquer.

Edited by Mystere, 28 July 2013 - 10:13 AM.

[Master Q]

Capping is a very viable mechanic. The problems with it right now are:

- Game balance is leading to matches that are 6-8 Heavy/Assaults slugging it out, and only 1-2 lights. Mediums are almost extinct. So when someone goes for a cap, it's "well hope the light can get home in time" moment or the "Well let's just slug it out till whichever side got there a fraction of a second first triggers basecap on timer" moment.

- Game rewards for winning - XP, Cbills - are far greater for slugging it out than capping. I have played games where we LOST, but I made more in XP and Cbills than I see if we have people playing to basecap. That encourages the previous "go for the heavy duty mechs" problem. Unless you're exploiting lagshield and bugged hitboxes in a Spider, being the Light on the field is just shooting yourself in the foot for XP and Cbill growth.

Edited by Master Q, 28 July 2013 - 10:10 AM.

[Roland]

Mystere, on 28 July 2013 - 10:03 AM, said:

Did it ever cross your mind that maybe, just maybe, that is what the team agreed to do? And that maybe, just maybe, they also have a defense plan just in case they are the ones being capped?

While that is certainly possible, it's generally not what is happening in these pug games.

[Ax2Grind]

Roland, on 28 July 2013 - 10:25 AM, said:

While that is certainly possible, it's generally not what is happening in these pug games.

While basic teamwork and positioning may not be happening in your PUG games, it has happened in mine enough that I haven't given up on PUG games. I find that even on the largest map there are positions to place your force that allow for offense and defense without moving the whole force so far out you leave an undefended path to your base. Does that mean that everyone will play along? No, but as stated earlier this is a team game, and the possibility exists for everyone to be in a position to battle and yet mobile enough to defend. There is nothing boring about playing with some defense unless you have nothing to defend against...which was also pointed out earlier in this thread to equal = then why all the qq'ing about capping if there is indeed nothing to defend against? Sorry Roland, but the fact remains, there would actually be more combat if there was proper defense of caps within the current assault mode. You don't have to leave someone sitting at base to defend. There are defensive points on every map that work well for either team that also allow for an offensive push if the threat of CAP goes away or the risk seems worth the possible reward.

Now if you had said..."Caps limit the ability of a team to maneuver on the map, without leaving the cap undefended, and that maneuvering is what would be fun for me and the people I play with."..well, then I would have no argument with you. Caps do limit the team, unless you want to risk a cap victory, and I can understand frustration over that, especially considering that teamwork in PUG games can be hard to come by. But then, just in the same way I can lose a straight up no cap fight due to bad teamwork too...game mechanics can't fix teamwork issues...those are people problems. If we had a mode with no cap, we could explore those super wide flanks with no fear of lights capping, its true. And that could be very fun. But if your issue is capping vs combat, and you want the answer to more combat? Well, its playing your third of the map well and being able to defend your cap, or gather enough intel to know it can't be threatened. I also find this encourages more variation in mech load-out...which is arguably better for PUG matches if there is more variation out there in matchmaker, and better for the game as a whole, including 4 man and 8 man matches and presumably 12.

So for what its worth I hope you get the game mode you want, but I appreciate the strategic value of the caps in the current game modes. Of course that wouldn't stop me from joining you in the frag fest now and again. ; )

~Ax

[Ngamok]

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.

But in your sceanrio, what happens when it's 1 mech on each side both sitting on base? You think one of them is going to move to kill the enemy on their base?

[Tora Shin]

Agreed. Base capping is really annoying and downright boring. The least you can do is make a new game mode without it.

[Roland]

Mystere, on 28 July 2013 - 09:42 AM, said:

Well, since capping is also a winning condition, it is both. But the tears sure make the win even more delicious. Don't you agree?

Not really.

I wouldn't generally cap rush, because doing so means that I don't get to actually play the game.

I'd rather actually fight enemy robots and lose, than not fight enemy robots and win via cap... because winning in that manner isn't actually fun.

Imagine, if you would, that you had a magical button on your desk that you could push, and you would just automatically end the game and win... but you'd have to push it at the beginning of the match.

Would you sit there pushing that button all day? Would that be fun? It seems like it wouldn't, because simply winning isn't actually fun.

[One Medic Army]

Ngamok, on 30 July 2013 - 11:27 AM, said:

But in your sceanrio, what happens when it's 1 mech on each side both sitting on base? You think one of them is going to move to kill the enemy on their base?

Sounds like a draw to me.

Honestly, how often do we end up with 2 mechs left, on opposing teams, both at each other's base.

Usually I see one light and one assault, and in this case the assault already usually has time to reach the cap before the light finishes a full cap bar.

Edited by One Medic Army, 30 July 2013 - 12:11 PM.

[Ngamok]

Roland, on 30 July 2013 - 12:00 PM, said:

Not really.

I wouldn't generally cap rush, because doing so means that I don't get to actually play the game.

I'd rather actually fight enemy robots and lose, than not fight enemy robots and win via cap... because winning in that manner isn't actually fun.

Imagine, if you would, that you had a magical button on your desk that you could push, and you would just automatically end the game and win... but you'd have to push it at the beginning of the match.

Would you sit there pushing that button all day? Would that be fun? It seems like it wouldn't, because simply winning isn't actually fun.

You mean like aim botting or other fun hacks people use in FPS games? if people could cheat, they would or use an iWin button.

[John Decker]

Excuse me I'm sorry, no capping is not silly. I take it all back. I'm going to make a mech that all he does is wait for you guys to come to base. That ought to be fun., it's all good because the reason we play games is to **** people off. That's why after all , and it's all in good fun to **** people off so, I bow to your greater wisdom . After all that's in the EuLA somewhere 'we have the right to **** people off as much as we can within the parameters of the game because it's good fun!' right?

It's human nature to take something stupid and try to make sense out of it. Hell if you throw enough money at anything you can even make it fly..to the moon if you like. So go ahead continue to live your fantasy. Hope it floats your missile boat.

[Volomon]

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.

That is the draw back isn't it. There not really a clear cut answer to this, because the bases should be there I think. The ability to cap them should be there or else lights wouldn't have as much value as they do now. If you increase the reward for base capping that would also be a problem.

Maybe instead of increasing the value across the board give more credits depending on how many team mates are left? I mean what chance does one light have against three of four assaults? They should be given some chance to pull out a victory.

[John Decker]

Yeah this issue that we are bandying about as the issue with capping is much bigger than just capping. Rewards for lights need to be balanced, with those for Heavies etc, the matchmaker needs fixing and frankly ( I may be the only one advocating this) there needs to be a lot more reason to go into a match other than just killing the other guy or capping their base. The way things stand right now I want to play mostly heavies because I can 1. Make the most money. The reward system is based almost entirely on how much damage you do and frankly its just a heck of a lot easier to do that with a mech that can take damage as well as dish it out. If this dynamic is changed properly the 'death-match' mentality wont have the same pull it does now. This mentality is promoted by the same system many are defending.

1. Large maps need to have the capping time period changed to reflect the greater distances involved in travel.

2. Rewards for capping need to be greater for mechs that are involved in that activity especially lights.

3. Rewards for winning need to be more graduated and not predicated mainly on damage delivered.

4. Other types of 'capping rewards need to be introduced for said Lights and other mechs that are traveling the 4 corners of the map, so that their scores can equal 'Deadeye PPC stalker'

5. Other types of games need to be designed, capture the flag, bring the black box back to base etc etc etc.

Capping needs fixing but a LOT needs fixing.
2.

[StaIker]

In Mechwarrior4, when players themselves chose what kind of games to host, deathmatch outnumbered every other game type combined by about 100:1.

It staggers me that PGI would choose a game mode that literally no one chooses as their default. The handful of dedicated capture the flag types would be lost in a sea of people wanting to shoot robots, if only we had the choice.