Jump to content

Point Of Capping In Current Game Is....?


419 replies to this topic

#341 Nick Makiaveli

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • Bridesmaid
  • 2,188 posts
  • LocationKnee deep in mechdrek

Posted 14 October 2013 - 03:36 PM

View PostKharnZor, on 14 October 2013 - 03:22 PM, said:

Until the option to win by cap in Assault is removed all arguments against capping are invalid as the point of the game is to win.
Yea you dont get the cbills but hey, its not like we get much anyway atm.


Again, there is a 6500 C-bill BONUS for winning by cap. Nothing says you can't kill 11 mechs and then get it.

Damn, TL;DR is what is wrong with the world in general, and the Internet in particular.

#342 Spawnsalot

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 352 posts

Posted 15 October 2013 - 01:04 AM

I think I *may* owe you an apology Nick, I was tired and misread an earlier post by you about heading to the cap first thing - I actually have no problem with the style of capping you're talking about.

My issue is with capping very early in a match while everyone has just started fighting.

Sorry old chap!

#343 Karl Streiger

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Wrath
  • Wrath
  • 20,369 posts
  • LocationBlack Dot in a Sea of Blue

Posted 15 October 2013 - 02:00 AM

My only problem with a cap race is: it doesn't make sense.
Look I have a strategic position and my enemy has a strategic position
My goal is to reduced the enemys abitlity to attack my position AND if possible secure his strategic position.

So both is necessary: destruction AND capping.

I don't understand why the cap is not a single large step to victory:
I have posted the ticket example somewhere:
  • Capping:
    • securing both strategic points + 6
  • Destruciton
    • every destroyed Mech counts as +1
The battle is over: if one team got 10 points OR a team is not longer able to get 10 points
gain:
you take both team stats: for example
  • Team A got 10 points
    • destruction of 10 Mechs +10
  • Team B has 8 points
    • destruction of 2 Mechs +2
    • cap +6
each income of the winning team is multipled by factor 1.25
Each income for the loosing team is multipled by factor 0.8
It is not a clear victory: no salvage is applied

Example 2:
  • Team A got 15 points
    • destruction of 9 Mechs +9
    • cap + 6
  • Team B has 3 points
    • destruction of 3 Mechs +2
Multiple for winning team is 5
Multiple for loosing team is 0.2
Salvage for winner team

cap and fighting is both necessary to get the most gain.
You can win by fighting only - but you can not win by cap only

#344 Lykaon

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,815 posts

Posted 15 October 2013 - 02:35 AM

View PostKhanHeir, on 14 October 2013 - 02:23 PM, said:

The problem with assault/conquest mode is its more like " MOBA " mode, its rules, maps and game design function exactly like it.

A majority of the time the fastest variants in weight class are more valuable simply because of the map control. It's a big reason why JJ mechs are pulled over stronger mechs. Because who wants to be dragging their feet back to base or attempting to hike up a cliff side desperately because the last mechs are you and a raven.

Capturing is a BIG problem, there is little risk for a cap victory outside reward cut and some players are so dense they'll harm anothers grind just to do so. Games types that work well in the mech genre are capture the flag and team deathmatch, CTF would give rolls to lights and mediums, crazy right?

During their gong event capping became a huge issue at the very end as the last teams literally poked around in the middle of the map while trying to slip at least one light in.

The current game mode sucks and no one but fools enjoy capping.



Here is a problem. You see capping as disruptive to YOUR content or grind and because maybe a pilot who is outnumbered 5 to 1 by mechs many times over their own tonnage doesn't suicide into your waiting arms to supply you with XPs and imaginary robot dollars makes them dense.

Sometimes the time to fight is over your team has failed in the slugfest and a solo surviving light pilot decides that fighting 4 5 or 6 assault mechs is a bad plan and caps instead.

And little risk to cap victory? guessing you missed the patch notes where the cap time was vastly increased.Do you even know how easy it is to RTB from most of our maps.Most of the time it's your team mates being dense and not responding that loses the cap.

There needs to be some sort of counter to the assault mech mafia and it's not brawling when outgunned.

As for your observations on the Gong event. Those were premade teams right? Using the treat of a cap attempt adds a level of strategy beyond hidey peeky hope for the best cover fights.

It becomes mandatory to divert resources to prevent the cap these resources are not being used against your main battle line.A strong capping attempt requires the enemy to respond with more resources thus depleting the resources used to counter your assault.

I can tell you that a very important part of organized team vs team play is removing the enemy light mechs from play while keeping yours and it's exactaly for the above situation.

Mediums and Lights do have roles.

Lights hunt and destroy other lights,recon to determine enemy location and composition,threaten caps or capture objectives.

Mediums move in support of heavy and assault mechs if fast these mechs respond to base cap attempts.If properly outfitted hunt lights.

No one but fools enjoy losing a game they could win.

Edited by Lykaon, 15 October 2013 - 02:38 AM.


#345 Joseph Mallan

    ForumWarrior

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 35,216 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationMallanhold, Furillo

Posted 15 October 2013 - 03:32 AM

View PostSpawnsalot, on 14 October 2013 - 05:45 AM, said:


Except currently it's not. You do not get any "R&R" or "real estate" nor do you get any masses of cash equivalent to salvage money. There is next to no profit from just capping.

The only "worthwhile" thing you get from it is a win, which has no bearing on the game world outside of your ELO.
And artificially inflating that just means you'll get to a point where you get stomped by players who are much better than you over and over while being carried by your team mates.

When CW comes in sure, I'll probably defend the base with the best of them. Of course if Assault is still there you'll most likely see a sharp rise in base camping and I will most likely be playing a different game mode.

See what you are saying but it doesn't change that some folks want to try to take your stuff with minimal fighting. They have a right to win their way as you have yours. >15% Caps win. You are not happy with having the Lion's Share of victories by combat???

#346 KharnZor

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Moderate Giver
  • Moderate Giver
  • 3,584 posts
  • LocationBrisbane, Queensland

Posted 15 October 2013 - 03:42 AM

View PostJoseph Mallan, on 15 October 2013 - 03:32 AM, said:

See what you are saying but it doesn't change that some folks want to try to take your stuff with minimal fighting. They have a right to win their way as you have yours. >15% Caps win. You are not happy with having the Lion's Share of victories by combat???

That reminds me. my sig has an interesting statistic.

#347 Joseph Mallan

    ForumWarrior

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 35,216 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationMallanhold, Furillo

Posted 15 October 2013 - 03:57 AM

Thanks to Alistair Winter we find that 19% is to high. Thanks to taking away the rewards for a stealthy win are gone. ;)
I personally am to slow to cap, but I don't begrudge an opponent using my speed against me. :ph34r:

#348 Spawnsalot

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 352 posts

Posted 15 October 2013 - 04:44 AM

View PostKharnZor, on 15 October 2013 - 03:42 AM, said:

That reminds me. my sig has an interesting statistic.


Do you know over what period of time that statistic was recorded? No?

It's most likely from the beginning of open beta or even before, during the romance period where everyone was just having fun blowing people up so that data will be skewed somewhat.

And Joseph, people should play the game the way they want to, that's how it should be, but I'm allowed to grumble about it. :ph34r:

When they make alternative objectives more interesting/worthwhile I'll be all for it - I have no issue with cap wins in Conquest for example - it's fun there (although the cap times there could be shorter). Whereas quick cap wins just aren't fun in Assault.

#349 Joseph Mallan

    ForumWarrior

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 35,216 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationMallanhold, Furillo

Posted 15 October 2013 - 04:46 AM

View PostSpawnsalot, on 15 October 2013 - 04:44 AM, said:


Do you know over what period of time that statistic was recorded? No?

It's most likely from the beginning of open beta or even before, during the romance period where everyone was just having fun blowing people up so that data will be skewed somewhat.

And Joseph, people should play the game the way they want to, that's how it should be, but I'm allowed to grumble about it. :ph34r:

When they make alternative objectives more interesting/worthwhile I'll be all for it - I have no issue with cap wins in Conquest for example - it's fun there (although the cap times there could be shorter). Whereas quick cap wins just aren't fun in Assault.

Correct the Sig percentage was from Closed Beta IIRC. And Yes, you are allowed to grumble. So long as I am allowed to grumble back atcha ;)

#350 KharnZor

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Moderate Giver
  • Moderate Giver
  • 3,584 posts
  • LocationBrisbane, Queensland

Posted 16 October 2013 - 10:39 AM

View PostSpawnsalot, on 15 October 2013 - 04:44 AM, said:


Do you know over what period of time that statistic was recorded? No?


Well yes i do. The date is in the quote. And i think you'll find that the percentage hasn't changed much.

#351 Spawnsalot

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 352 posts

Posted 16 October 2013 - 01:50 PM

You maybe want to think that through again? Or better yet - show me where, in that quote, that it says when that data was recorded from.

#352 PanzerMagier

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Big Daddy
  • Big Daddy
  • 1,369 posts
  • Twitter: Link
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationSome nameless backwater planet

Posted 16 October 2013 - 02:03 PM

The point of capping is to openly admit you cannot comprehend fighting the enemy team.
That and you also want to upset people.

#353 Stormyblade

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 187 posts
  • LocationSomewhere around Portland, OR

Posted 17 October 2013 - 04:29 AM

View PostIceSerpent, on 20 July 2013 - 04:43 PM, said:

That just means that you don't play a lot. I am currently sitting on almost 100 mil c-bills and I am fairly certain that it puts me squarely into the "poor, qualified for asking for spare change" category in comparison to other veteran players.


I know of only a couple guys in my clan that are over the 100 million C-bill mark. I've been playing since closed beta and am currently sitting on 32 'mechs - 12 of those are the new Phoenix Project, 4 are original Founders, and I've bought the other 16, some with c-bills and some with MC. I don't have fancy modules in all my 'mechs - I have ONE target decay and ONE seismic sensor. I'm sitting on 22 million. I had 35 million a couple of months ago, but buying another 2-3 'mechs and kitting them out with DHS and Ferro and Endo takes away that stash quickly.

As for the "Capwarrior Online" argument where teams get mad that 2 or 3 lights cap in just over a minute, I've been on both sides of that and realize it's just part of the game. If I chose to bring an Atlas to the battle, well then, I can't get mad when a Commando caps our base and I'm still 1.2Km away.

#354 Joseph Mallan

    ForumWarrior

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 35,216 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationMallanhold, Furillo

Posted 17 October 2013 - 06:27 AM

View PostPanzerMagier, on 16 October 2013 - 02:03 PM, said:

The point of capping is to openly admit you cannot comprehend fighting the enemy team.
That and you also want to upset people.

The "Point" of Capping is to acquire your Objective with minimal loss. There are more ways to beat your enemy than with a stand up fight. But then again some folks cannot see a big picture.

Greatest victory in all of CBT, Phelan Wolf capturing a world(Gunzburg) alone, without a shot fired!

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 17 October 2013 - 06:29 AM.


#355 Nik Van Rhijn

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,905 posts
  • LocationLost

Posted 17 October 2013 - 12:02 PM

I run fast mediums. If we are getting Roflstomped by an all Heavy/Assault team why wouldn't I go for the cap?
Nearly 2/3rds of all players in a match on average will be in heavies or assaults. Relatively few use mediums as they are an acquired taste.
Until PGI remove the mechanic (which they have shown no sign of considering) it is a valid, if rarely used, tactic.
If you lose to capping all the time - someone doesn't like you. Or is it that even one cap loss in a few hours play is just too much to bear?

#356 Rick Atlastley

    Member

  • Pip
  • 13 posts
  • LocationChicago, IL

Posted 18 October 2013 - 11:36 PM

The game used to be about skill where you have to use better tactics and piloting to kill your enemies. Now, we have an abused mechanic where some kid can just stand in a square and feel validated by either drawing off the enemy or capping out. It's also bad when our "teammates" turn into cap warriors and leave the rest of us shorthanded to stand in a square. The old guard that grew up with BattleTech will be the long term players. We loved the MechWarrior series, but I see so many friends getting frustrated and leaving. The capwarriors will just move on to the next flavor of the month game their parents buy them. Team Deathmatch would only involve removing the cap. This is what the people who helped fund this game through Beta want. I see far too many of my friends leaving the game and others refusing to spend any more money because they are near quitting.

#357 Kutnarb

    Member

  • PipPip
  • 20 posts

Posted 19 October 2013 - 02:21 AM

Whenever you get this issue raised you get a bunch of people jumping all over the OP because he's somehow less of a Mechwarrior than everybody else. I hate to say it but this is the worst online community I've ever experienced. That said, capping is a problem. Basically saying "deal with it" in whatever terms or explanation of gameplay doesn't really cut it because, well, it is a game. Games are played for fun. Maybe not for everyone, but definitely for others. Especially if you want to pay for it/have paid for it. Saying defend it doesn't cut it either for other reasons mentioned above. And if you're in a pug and decide to defend it yourself you're still screwed because hit registration doesn't work. Been there a million times myself. Defend the base...2 lights come in. They stand in front of you absorbing everything you can bring to bear and just keep machine gunnin you in the nuts.

There is a large population of this community that would love a straight up deathmatch game mode. This is evidenced by the very fact that this topic keeps coming up so much. But there's the problem of annoyances with light mechs at the end. Definitely would be a problem.

So why not add a game mode that is of the king of the hill variety? If you're concerned about it being a cap rush and only fighting on one part of the map or if you're concerned that it doesn't fit with the role playing so many like to do, here's a solution:

Whatever ship/resource/comms equipment to get off planet is going to be dropped somewhere for one of the teams. The other team knows of the equipment and needs to get it for themselves to get off planet or whatever. So you have two teams in the same general vicinity sluggin it out until the {Scrap} drops...say like 5 min or something. After 5 min the cap point drops and then you can try to maneuver to cap it or continue to fight.

You could engage the enemy at the beginning from varying position etc, and you wouldn't have a cap rush at the beginning, and you would have a way to stop a light from shutting down to wait out the timer.


And I have yet to have someone give me a good reason for not including a simple game mechanic like deathmatch/king of the hill etc. It's a game...you want people to play your game and give you money...listen to your customers. Want to know why so many people have stopped playing? This is one of those reasons.

#358 Farix

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 890 posts

Posted 19 October 2013 - 02:44 AM

Capping isn't a problem. Teams defending their bases when the enemy is there IS the problem. That the performance rewards are screwed up is also another problem. Assault isn't a deathmath, it is Capture-the-Flag. In Capture-the-Flag, you are required to defend your flag. If you fail to defend your flag, it will be captured by the other team. If you attempt to play Capture-the-Flag as some other game, your flag will be quickly captured. Complaining that you keep losing in Capture-the-Flag because someone on the other team isn't playing it like a deathmatch makes YOU look silly. Besides, PGI is working on a deathmatch. It will come eventually.

Edited by Farix, 19 October 2013 - 02:45 AM.


#359 Joseph Mallan

    ForumWarrior

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 35,216 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationMallanhold, Furillo

Posted 19 October 2013 - 02:57 AM

View PostKutnarb, on 19 October 2013 - 02:21 AM, said:

Whenever you get this issue raised you get a bunch of people jumping all over the OP because he's somehow less of a Mechwarrior than everybody else. I hate to say it but this is the worst online community I've ever experienced. That said, capping is a problem. Basically saying "deal with it" in whatever terms or explanation of gameplay doesn't really cut it because, well, it is a game. Games are played for fun. Maybe not for everyone, but definitely for others. Especially if you want to pay for it/have paid for it. Saying defend it doesn't cut it either for other reasons mentioned above. And if you're in a pug and decide to defend it yourself you're still screwed because hit registration doesn't work. Been there a million times myself. Defend the base...2 lights come in. They stand in front of you absorbing everything you can bring to bear and just keep machine gunnin you in the nuts.

There is a large population of this community that would love a straight up deathmatch game mode. This is evidenced by the very fact that this topic keeps coming up so much. But there's the problem of annoyances with light mechs at the end. Definitely would be a problem.

So why not add a game mode that is of the king of the hill variety? If you're concerned about it being a cap rush and only fighting on one part of the map or if you're concerned that it doesn't fit with the role playing so many like to do, here's a solution:

Whatever ship/resource/comms equipment to get off planet is going to be dropped somewhere for one of the teams. The other team knows of the equipment and needs to get it for themselves to get off planet or whatever. So you have two teams in the same general vicinity sluggin it out until the {Scrap} drops...say like 5 min or something. After 5 min the cap point drops and then you can try to maneuver to cap it or continue to fight.

You could engage the enemy at the beginning from varying position etc, and you wouldn't have a cap rush at the beginning, and you would have a way to stop a light from shutting down to wait out the timer.


And I have yet to have someone give me a good reason for not including a simple game mechanic like deathmatch/king of the hill etc. It's a game...you want people to play your game and give you money...listen to your customers. Want to know why so many people have stopped playing? This is one of those reasons.

There is a large population of the game that actually get TDM 85% of the time or more. So maybe they should be happy that the massive majority of the time they get the game they want. If losing to a cap 15% of the time is causing this much consternation we have some poor sports in this community.

#360 Poerisija

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 80 posts

Posted 19 October 2013 - 04:54 AM

Let's do some logical thinking.

Everyone wants to win, right? Let's look at ways to win.

A) Kill everyone

B) Cap

If you attack the enemy base with whole team, you risk losing to lights capping your base while you duke it out with their defenders.

If you leave some people defending, you'll risk losing getting picked apart by entire enemy team while yours is split.


So, to avoid losing... you must defend your base AND keep people alive. Best way to do this? Sit in base with a 12-man team. That's the least risky tactic. Worst that can happen is the enemy pulling the same tactic and match ending in a draw - which is preferable to a loss. Otherwise you'll either pick them apart as they come at you in waves, or if they all come, you can send a quick light or 2 to take their base while rest of your group holds yours from prepared positions.

This is why having 2 bases sucks. It sucked in World of Tanks, it sucks in MWO. It doesn't discourage camping, it discourages offensives.

Edited by Poerisija, 19 October 2013 - 04:54 AM.






3 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users