Guys understand that Im only pleading the case for those want an option. Those that like this game and the mechanics of it, but wan a different style of match. Not that any of you are flaming me or this idea. Just that idea would be added in addition to the existing matches. All feed back is welcome and none have been agressive so far which I appreciate.
On that note. This community is so much better than the FFXIV:ARR community which instantly flames you and rips you apart for suggesting anything good or bad, even if it is logical, non invasive, or even and improvement. You guys are great for this. Logical (not positive feedback) is always a good thing and welcome!
1
No Cap Option
Started by Ahmose, Jul 29 2013 04:46 PM
33 replies to this topic
#22
-
-
- The Formidable
- 457 posts
Member
- LocationUnited States
Posted 29 July 2013 - 05:54 PM
A single base option is one good answer. There is only one base between you and the enemy. Game on. The other is bases that are to be destroyed with a fairly large amount of HP and even defenses as has been foretold to be in for community warfare. Run as fast as you want to my base in that spider, that colliape turret is gonna have fun with you. 
#23
-
-
- Knight Errant
- 2,290 posts
Member
Posted 29 July 2013 - 05:56 PM
I think simply changing assault from a capture point mechanism to a destruction point one would be an improvement.
#24
-
-
- Knight Errant
- 15 posts
Member
Posted 29 July 2013 - 05:58 PM
TB Freelancer, on 29 July 2013 - 05:52 PM, said:
Isn't it ironic that most of the guys who call this a thinking man's shooter are the ones that want to mindlessly death match?
"Der...da base is getting capped! Wut do we does?"
"Geez...I's dunno!? Les truh runnin' as far frum its as possibles and sees ifs theys stops..."
"Day capped our base. whats does we do now?"
"We QQ, hurlz insutlz ands blames duh game!"
"Der...da base is getting capped! Wut do we does?"
"Geez...I's dunno!? Les truh runnin' as far frum its as possibles and sees ifs theys stops..."
"Day capped our base. whats does we do now?"
"We QQ, hurlz insutlz ands blames duh game!"
LOL right. And its a good point you make, but what about those that are good pilots and want a match where you pit combat skill rather than overall zone strategy. I would like to assume that is what most of thos in favor of a capless fight area about.
Sadly, I have been in matches where the base cap causes not even a single light to go back and try to deter the capper or any other strategy on that matter when the home base is being capped.
Guys theres geat ideas coming into this thread and thats awesome. Again I love this community for this!
#25
-
-
- The Determined
- 1,102 posts
Member
- LocationThe frozen hell that is Wisconsin.
Posted 29 July 2013 - 06:03 PM
Bases... Easier to catch than my Jenner since 2012 
#26
-
-
- Elite Founder
- 1,904 posts
Member
Posted 29 July 2013 - 06:06 PM
soarra, on 29 July 2013 - 04:52 PM, said:
you need a cap or if a lone light can keep running around and kill time, but capping does need to be harder or require some defenses
Capping already requires some defenses but so many are unwilling to provide that defense.
If you didn't have the threat of capping then you really limit the idea of light mechs and scouting classes having the benefit of 'speed' to replace armor.
#27
-
-
- Elite Founder
- 23,969 posts
Member
Posted 29 July 2013 - 06:07 PM
Quote
Capping already requires some defenses but so many are unwilling to provide that defense.
Its not that. its that you get no cbills for defending. You only get cbills for damage, kills, assists, etc... so everyone wants to fight instead of defend.
#28
Posted 29 July 2013 - 06:09 PM
Khobai, on 29 July 2013 - 06:07 PM, said:
Its not that. its that you get no cbills for defending. You only get cbills for damage, kills, assists, etc... so everyone wants to fight instead of defend.
But Betty is telling them where to go if they want that fight Khobai!
Edited by Joseph Mallan, 29 July 2013 - 06:09 PM.
#30
-
-
- 8,260 posts
Member
Posted 29 July 2013 - 06:13 PM
I wish that some of the folks who think that the current caps give depth to the game could have played with us in the old mechwarrior 4 no respawn leagues.
I suspect they would be amazed at the tactical depth that can develop when both teams are free to move around the entire map. With only simple team deathmatch, we had hour long matches with multiple engagements, disengagements, and re-engagements.
With the current simplistic capping mechanics in assault, you effectively preclude any of that, because you are tethered to a small strip of map between the bases.
That is one reason why folks think alpine is so bad. It is a huge map, but you can't really use it.
I suspect they would be amazed at the tactical depth that can develop when both teams are free to move around the entire map. With only simple team deathmatch, we had hour long matches with multiple engagements, disengagements, and re-engagements.
With the current simplistic capping mechanics in assault, you effectively preclude any of that, because you are tethered to a small strip of map between the bases.
That is one reason why folks think alpine is so bad. It is a huge map, but you can't really use it.
#31
Posted 29 July 2013 - 06:20 PM
Its why one side should randomly be defenders and one side be attackers. If I have to actually defend a base from your assault to win that is a more appropriate assault set up.
#32
-
-
- 1,168 posts
Member
Posted 29 July 2013 - 08:56 PM
It would probably be best if there was some form of moderation in base capping.
The argument I saw from the devs was that it was a way to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat - so why not use that?
Set it so you can't cap a base unless #% mechs have been destroyed.
In the aspect of a 12 v 12, make it so its the loss of a lance. A number of 4 mechs (maybe 6? testing required) destroyed - either side - woudl then allow for the base to be capped. Its an option, the threat is real - you could still cap a base, but it won't finish or won't count until that requirement is met.
The result is a bit of a more marginal leeway for the ability to respond to fast-cappers without really sacificing the intent of snatching victory in a bad spot.
The argument I saw from the devs was that it was a way to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat - so why not use that?
Set it so you can't cap a base unless #% mechs have been destroyed.
In the aspect of a 12 v 12, make it so its the loss of a lance. A number of 4 mechs (maybe 6? testing required) destroyed - either side - woudl then allow for the base to be capped. Its an option, the threat is real - you could still cap a base, but it won't finish or won't count until that requirement is met.
The result is a bit of a more marginal leeway for the ability to respond to fast-cappers without really sacificing the intent of snatching victory in a bad spot.
#33
-
-
- Elite Founder
- 2,880 posts
Member
- LocationUSA
Posted 29 July 2013 - 08:59 PM
For Solaris 7, sure, why not. But for community warfare (if we ever get it) hell no.
#34
-
-
- 8,260 posts
Member
Posted 29 July 2013 - 09:05 PM
Unbound Inferno, on 29 July 2013 - 08:56 PM, said:
It would probably be best if there was some form of moderation in base capping.
The argument I saw from the devs was that it was a way to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat - so why not use that?
Set it so you can't cap a base unless #% mechs have been destroyed.
In the aspect of a 12 v 12, make it so its the loss of a lance. A number of 4 mechs (maybe 6? testing required) destroyed - either side - woudl then allow for the base to be capped. Its an option, the threat is real - you could still cap a base, but it won't finish or won't count until that requirement is met.
The result is a bit of a more marginal leeway for the ability to respond to fast-cappers without really sacificing the intent of snatching victory in a bad spot.
The argument I saw from the devs was that it was a way to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat - so why not use that?
Set it so you can't cap a base unless #% mechs have been destroyed.
In the aspect of a 12 v 12, make it so its the loss of a lance. A number of 4 mechs (maybe 6? testing required) destroyed - either side - woudl then allow for the base to be capped. Its an option, the threat is real - you could still cap a base, but it won't finish or won't count until that requirement is met.
The result is a bit of a more marginal leeway for the ability to respond to fast-cappers without really sacificing the intent of snatching victory in a bad spot.
Back in MW4, we often had games where a single pilot would snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.
But it involved him usually killing numerous mechs, singlehandedly, to win the match.
And I must say, that was FAR more epic than standing in a little square and winning because the other team is too far away to stop you.
10 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 10 guests, 0 anonymous users
