16 replies to this topic

[Redwood Elf]

Presumably the purpose of base capture in Assault missions is not to make an easy "I win" button, but to prevent an enemy light mech from being able to force a tie by simply running away forever.

So, how about this: double the capture time for each active enemy mecha above 1. So if there is only one Jenner out there running away, it would use the capture time as it is currently, but if a Jenner runs to the enemy base while there are still 8 enemies walking around, they have plenty of time (128 times the current capture time) to turn around, walk to the base, and crush him like a beer can.

[TLBFestus]

Which would likely end up with the light running away and hiding, therefore wasting everyone else's time.

I do like the idea of slowing the cap somehow so "those people" who run around in groups of 2-3 lights and simply try to cap every game can't do it so quickly that you can't respond. Simply removing the cap speed bonus for mutliple mechs would be a good first step.

As far as finding that one pesky light mech who decides to hide to preserve his almighty KDR, I'l like to see the team that gets a decided advantage in mumbers (after eliminating most of the opposition) get something along the lines of satellite control of the battlefield and thus be able to see the last mech or two on the map. No hiding because the winning team has got control of the airspace.

Heck, why not even make that a little side mission in which if your side destroys a surface based missle station of the enemy (one for each side) you get satellite intel. Simplistic, yes, interesting though.

[GeneralFitzhugh]

How about you all just learn to play the game instead. Defend your base.

[Redwood Elf]

TLBFestus, on 20 July 2013 - 11:30 AM, said:

Which would likely end up with the light running away and hiding, therefore wasting everyone else's time.

Try reading the OP before commenting, it makes the thing a whole lot more organized. A solo light should not be able to win just by capturing the base against a full group of active mechs. The full group of active mechs would walk to the LIGHT'S base and capture it in the normal time, duh.

GeneralFitzhugh, on 20 July 2013 - 11:47 AM, said:

How about you all just learn to play the game instead. Defend your base.

Sorry, but "L2P Noob" isn't a valid response. Until the matchmaking system guarantees equal numbers of fast moving mechs on each side, just running around behind the battle to the enemy base against two lances of assaults and heavies just because you have a light should not be an "I Win" button.

Edited by Redwood Elf, 20 July 2013 - 05:11 PM.

[Pearnicious]

I think the base capture option should be completely removed from Assault.

Too many times it happens that the whole team is composed of slow heavies and assaults, and on large maps like Alpine, even slightly faster mediums can't return to the base quick enough to prevent a capture from halfway across the map.

In huge maps like Alpine and Tourmaline, it isn't viable to leave 1 or 2 mechs at the base to protect it, because they will likely be overrun, and then see above. Even if the base isnt overrun, the remaining force of 6 mechs will be outgunned by the opposing force, and the game will already be over. Maybe this will be different in 12-man teams where a lance of 4 mechs can be on "guard duty", but 8 is too few to leave anyone behind.

Instead of it being a tie when a light mech runs away indefinitely, why not award the victory to the team with more mechs at the end of the time? That way there would be no incentive for the light mech to run away, other than to preserve their K/D ratio.

For people who like assault in its current state, just add a new game type and call it "Attrition" or something.

Edited by Pearnicious, 20 July 2013 - 09:04 PM.

[DaffyGKH]

In war, sides aren't balanced. You work with what you have.
In war, you don't know what you're going to go up against. You train and prepare for whatever may be coming.
In war, you don't to say, "Hey! That guy is using -two- cannons and I've only got one! That guy is OP!" You play smart, use cover, communicate with your team, and take out the threat.
In war, you're probably going to die.

Please stop complaining and play this (remarkably balanced) game as it is and as it comes, please? All you're doing is screwing it up for the rest of us by trying to get things changed that is already near perfect.

Rather than lose the same way over and over again, why don't your strategize so that your base is covered? Why is it the game's fault that you can't say, "Hey, I'm going to hang back a little incase they've got a cap lance. Anyone want to join me?"

inb4 '"remarkably balanced" lolwut'

Edited by DaffyGKH, 20 July 2013 - 11:44 PM.

[00 Newb]

That is the problem with the base capture system, it DOES NOT in any way simulate what actually happens in war and really makes the game annoying and painful at times.

In war, you do not loose the battle if your base has a tank show up on it. And even if the tank is able to "capture" it, your forces have all the time in the world to regroup and figure out how to retake the base if it is key terrain. In war the main concerns you have is 1) stay alive, 2) maintain defensive positions, 3) maintain offensive advantage and initiative, and 4) keep logistics flowing.

So there is the rub. Keeping your base is a logistical requirement for sustainability NOT a deciding factor to a battle. Keeping your base or the supplies flowing is the LAST item you worry about. At the tactical level if you loose your base, i.e. supplies, you can go capture/acquire others if you need and set up a new base.

It makes no sense to have a base capture system that works the way it does in this game other than to force players into a state of confusion over an unrealistic objective.

Here are some quick suggestions to make the base capture system more acceptable, in order of precedence.

• TIME LIMIT: Put a limiter on base capture initiation. Do not allow base capture to be available for seven minutes <or> unless over 33% of the mechs have been destroyed. (If the devs do nothing else other than this ONE thing, it will dramatically improve overall morale of the players.) Make the base border glow red to the opposition until this limit is hit and it changes to green. Base capture would only increase the rate of the game play clock by a factor of 1.5 or 2.0.

• REDUCE SENSORS: Implement a reduced sensor capability for mechs whose base has been captured. Assuming a base works to sync and link mechs, then its loss should reduce the supported mechs ability to communicate. Drop sensors by 25% for supported mechs, make LOS required between friendly mechs for targeting of hostiles. This would make the base FAR more valuable then it is now. (Implementing this option alone will make 12vs12 more fun and tactical planning of force options would be required.)

• PING SWEEP: Provide the capturing mech an ability to conduct a ping sweep temporarily illuminating all opposing mechs on the field.

• BASE SENSORS: Make the capturing mechs targetable. The base should have relay sensors attached to it. If a mech moves withing 250m of the base, it becomes targetable and a klaxon bell it rung. Lets also assume the base is running a portable Beagle Probe. So if the aggressor is using ECM, the klaxon and target do not pop until 150m.

• CAPTURE SWAP: Make the base capture force a capture swap within a certain time. If a base is captured the losing force has 7 minutes to capture the enemy base and reverse the balance.

• FLEXING CAPTURE TIME: Adjust the capture time based on several factors. If the capturing force is taking fire then the capture time slows down. (It is absurd to see five heavies standing around a light mech at a base and to think that the base would be magically lost to that one light had the time not been cut short.) However, the longer the capturing force withstands assault the rate starts increasing. Also, capture time slows as forces get closer with respect to the map size.

• BASE DEFENSES: Put some automated defenses around the base. Nothing fancy. Just something that an opposing force would have to negotiate.

Any one of these options would make the assault play a little bit more realistic and enjoyable. Implementing them all would create a whole new perspective on base management from both an offensive and defensive perspective. But hear me oh great devs of this glorious game, something must be done.


As a side note I personally have stopped purposefully capping or running to stop people who cap the base. If they want the game over, so be it, I don't need to play with them any longer than necessary.

[soarra]

DaffyGKH, on 20 July 2013 - 11:41 PM, said:

In war, sides aren't balanced. You work with what you have.
In war, you don't know what you're going to go up against. You train and prepare for whatever may be coming.
In war, you don't to say, "Hey! That guy is using -two- cannons and I've only got one! That guy is OP!" You play smart, use cover, communicate with your team, and take out the threat.
In war, you're probably going to die.

Please stop complaining and play this (remarkably balanced) game as it is and as it comes, please? All you're doing is screwing it up for the rest of us by trying to get things changed that is already near perfect.

Rather than lose the same way over and over again, why don't your strategize so that your base is covered? Why is it the game's fault that you can't say, "Hey, I'm going to hang back a little incase they've got a cap lance. Anyone want to join me?"

inb4 '"remarkably balanced" lolwut'

remarkably balanced? i hope you're trolling

[zolop]

Ask oine of your teammates to defend the base, maybe a heavy? If no-one is staying backt ot defend the Base I usuauly do. Some exceptions if my entire friendly team is going around the edge of a map to do a base capture.

But yeah, PGI doesn't need to adjust this mode with capture time as it makes the teams relay on teamwork, allowing a smart team to defend their base in strategic locations. Now automated defenses and a ACTUAL base I agree with, as I made a suggestion of this months ago. In the short term, PGI needs to put in a mission mode called "Team Deathmatch mode" with no base cap and shrinking mission size every x minutes. Of course the C-Bill payout for team deathmatch should always be less than modes that are team centric / more complex missions.

Edited by zolop, 21 July 2013 - 08:41 AM.

[KharnZor]

Lots of these type of threads lately.
My sig has a rather interesting fact in it.

[DaffyGKH]

soarra, on 21 July 2013 - 08:27 AM, said:

remarkably balanced? i hope you're trolling

As a player of all mech types, yes. Remarkably balanced. Especially for a game where every mech is as versatile as it is.

[Redwood Elf]

DaffyGKH, on 21 July 2013 - 12:11 PM, said:

As a player of all mech types, yes. Remarkably balanced. Especially for a game where every mech is as versatile as it is.

Just started playing about a month ago...so how, exactly, can an Atlas defeat a Spider that gets behind it and stays there? Unless they add some rear-firing weapons capability, lights are an almost guaranteed win against an Atlas 1V1 unless there is a building or mountainside the Atlas can put it's back to. Out in the open, the Atlas is dead, 100%, assuming the light pilot has any skill at all.

Yeah, unrelated to base capture, but that "Leave a heavy alone to defend the base" comment has it's own problems.

[Leafia Barrett]

TLBFestus, on 20 July 2013 - 11:30 AM, said:

Simply removing the cap speed bonus for mutliple mechs would be a good first step.

Pretty much this.

[Oppresor]

00 Newb, on 21 July 2013 - 08:16 AM, said:

That is the problem with the base capture system, it DOES NOT in any way simulate what actually happens in war and really makes the game annoying and painful at times.

• BASE DEFENSES: Put some automated defenses around the base. Nothing fancy. Just something that an opposing force would have to negotiate.

Automated Defence

I have suggested this one before for exactly the same reason. Nine times out of ten it's a Raven, Spider or Commando that takes the fastest possible route to your base in Assault missions; in some cases I have actually seen them running towards me without even trying to engage me, so set is their desire to get to my base. the big problem with this is that a mission can be completed in about five minutes; war was never meant to be like this!

Area Denial or Point Defence

The question is which method of defence should we ask PGI to opt for? These are my proposals:

1. An active Mine Field set around the Mining structure and extending to the perimeter laser lines. The field would be supplemented with an IFF node that would allow friendly units within the boundary. In terms of power there would be eight mines evenly spaced and each capable of producing the same damage effect of an LBX20 Scattershot, that is 24. This should provide a deterrent against a light Mech, but not make it impossible if He or She was adamant.

2. Traditional MG Turrets or Light Lasers x 4 with interlocking arcs of fire. The difference would be that these would not be limited to one shot as with the Mines; they would form a constant defence screen again controlled by an IFF node. However, to make them into a deterrent as opposed to an effective killing field, the AI would be adjusted to give them a fifty / fifty hit ratio. The turrets would also be susceptible to enemy fire.

What do you think?

[DaffyGKH]

Redwood Elf, on 22 July 2013 - 11:25 AM, said:

Just started playing about a month ago...so how, exactly, can an Atlas defeat a Spider that gets behind it and stays there? Unless they add some rear-firing weapons capability, lights are an almost guaranteed win against an Atlas 1V1 unless there is a building or mountainside the Atlas can put it's back to. Out in the open, the Atlas is dead, 100%, assuming the light pilot has any skill at all.

Yeah, unrelated to base capture, but that &quot;Leave a heavy alone to defend the base&quot; comment has it's own problems.

If you're going to quote me, please quote me - don't use your interpretation of what I said.
As for the Spider vs. Atlas bit, the Atlas can win if he has any skill - I've seen it done plenty of times and done it myself plenty of times to know.

[Hellcat420]

they should make one team attackers, one team defenders, and remove one base. win conditions are either base is captured by attackers or defenders destroy all attackers. if time runs out before base is captured defenders win(even if they are all dead).

[Redwood Elf]

DaffyGKH, on 24 July 2013 - 02:46 PM, said:

If you're going to quote me, please quote me - don't use your interpretation of what I said.
As for the Spider vs. Atlas bit, the Atlas can win if he has any skill - I've seen it done plenty of times and done it myself plenty of times to know.

Since you are apparently unable to cite the exact method of doing so, I'm going to assume that in the cases where the Atlas actaully wins, the light mech pilot was unskillful and made the mistake of standing still or not concentrating on staying behind the Atlas. The only time I ever killed a light in an Atlas that was trying to harass me, the light stopped and stood right in front of my mech, assuming that I had my arms locked, I suppose.

And it was Zolop I meant to talk about on the "leave a heavy" part, not you...but in any case, your comment about the game being "Remarkably balanced" breaks down when it's an assault versus a light, which was my point. The assault only wins if the light is unskillful, or if the terrain gives it something to put to it's rear.

Edited by Redwood Elf, 24 July 2013 - 05:08 PM.