52 replies to this topic

[Tweaks]

A lot of people just like to fight and don't care about capping. They want quick brawls and no "chase the cappers". I can see the appeal for many. Especially on pug games, I think this would create better teamplay as more lances would concentrate fire on enemy 'Mechs rather than leaving teammates to die while they sneak around the battle to cap a base.

+10

[Gremlich Johns]

Okay, based on two things, this may get nowhere.

Rememebr all of the threads/polls about 3PV that indicated the majority of the player base did not want 3PV got labeled by PGI as not representing the majority of the player base.

YET, when PGI did a poll asking whether the player base would go for 1PV only 12v12 queues, THEN the most votes for that option by the responders were identified as the will of the majority of the player base. This makes me confused.

regardless, if the conditions for Assault were as posted (grammatically) - destroy all enemy mechs AND capture the enemy base, then assault mode would be okay for the majority desiring team death match.

read the loading screens, the win conditions state that both modes must be met for a win, not either, BOTH.

Edited by Gremlich Johns, 07 September 2013 - 02:36 PM.

[Tweaks]

Gremlich Johns, on 07 September 2013 - 02:35 PM, said:

read the loading screens, the win conditions state that both modes must be met for a win, not either, BOTH.

Although what you say is true, there would still be players who would abandon their team 3/4 in a fight just to get ahead start on the capping of their base. This is what I hate about this mode; being left to die while your team rushes for the cap instead of assisting you in the fight.

By having a mode where your only mission is to kill the enemy (aka Team Deathmatch in FPS), it makes it much easier for strangers (pugs) to focus on the same thing, and this makes fights a whole lot better for the majority of us.

[Mr Andersson]

I voted 'No' on the first question because of one simple reason:

Every game mode needs a mechanic to drive it forward. By that I mean something that gives an incentive to fight, and not just hang back and wait for it to end. Having a pure deathmatch mode does not satisfy this requirement. What would prevent a team from getting into a defensive position and wait for the other team to attack (at a disadvantage)?

What I propose is instead to have only one base, situated at neither team's drop zone, that is capturable by both teams (like in conquest). That would force both teams to advance and to fight each other over that one base. For variability reasons the base could have several possible locations on each given map.

[-Muta-]

I would suggest that CAP becomes available only on certain situations like ONLY if 50% of the team has been destructed.

[blinkin]

Sean von Steinike, on 06 September 2013 - 02:48 AM, said:

I have. I had no weapons left, the other person had no ammo left.

RAMMING SPEED!!!

[Borengar629]

Taynak, on 23 August 2013 - 06:32 AM, said:

I know that this is probably already somewhere, or in the works, but could we please speed up the release of a mode that doesn't include any bases??

To many times have I dropped into a match and it be nothing but Cap Warrior Online. It's become ridiculous. I ran a match a little while ago and there was 2 lances of lights on the other side and only 2 lights on my team. The other team waited for us to engage and then ran right for the base and capped us out... completely pointless. Waste of a match.

I don't even understand why people would do this. It makes no sense. Yeah you won the game, but you just got no experience, no money, no glory. What was the point in you showing up?

Can we have a mode that is nothing but just a Deathmatch? Is this a hard thing to do? Is it going to be in a later release of the game? I for one would like to know.

Basically I really like your idea but it has two major flaws in it.

1.: If you had 2 lights and your opponents 2 lances of light mechs that is the worst matchmaking possible to begin with and should not be compensated by a new game mode. Just matchmaking need a grave redesign.

2.: In MWO a pure deathmatch would always run the risk of ending up with 2 UAC-5 Jaegers with no ammo left. So what to do about that? There has always to be at least one alternative to pure massacre as this is not a CoD-1-shot-in-the-head-game. (Ok... match time's limited but it would still be a major disappointment. I don't think that just ramming speed would be such a great thing to watch especially because it would be a mechanic that favours only the heavier classes which should be not to be wanted by the designers.)

But like I said. Fix these problems and you won't hardly find anyone to disagree... only those who always do for the disagreeings sake.

And what concerns the asynchronous gameplay I think we all agree that we're all waiting for them to come up with that for a long time.

Greetings

Edited by Trickshot, 10 September 2013 - 09:58 PM.

[Skoll Lokeson]

Here's what I'm wondering: What keeps my team from camping the the best defensive position on the map (or near our base)? "First make yourself undefeatable..." Sun Tzu. I Can live with draw. Can your? Will you make a glorious charge or let game time out?

[Kaijin]

The most brilliant of all ideas would be to make the bases immune to capture for the first 10 minutes of the match. An outward perimeter of destructable 360 degree ECM-nullifying sensor positions would only improve gameplay. The trouble is, plenty of people have been throwing excellent ideas at PIG since closed beta, and I can't think of any of them that have been implemented. This forum section is just for show.

[Tweaks]

Mutaroc, on 07 September 2013 - 07:18 PM, said:

I would suggest that CAP becomes available only on certain situations like ONLY if 50% of the team has been destructed.

That's what I just wrote a few posts above yours... sort of.

Kaijin, on 11 September 2013 - 02:29 AM, said:

The most brilliant of all ideas would be to make the bases immune to capture for the first 10 minutes of the match. An outward perimeter of destructable 360 degree ECM-nullifying sensor positions would only improve gameplay. The trouble is, plenty of people have been throwing excellent ideas at PIG since closed beta, and I can't think of any of them that have been implemented. This forum section is just for show.

I agree. This would work very well! And PGI does check this forum... even if they don't implement ideas exactly as they were suggested, they often get inspired by them and complete them with their own modifications.

I can think of one idea that has been adopted actually: Missile bay doors that can be toggled open/closed on the Catapult and Centurion. That wasn't there originally and it's people that suggested it.

Edited by Tweaks, 11 September 2013 - 08:54 PM.

[Kaijin]

Tweaks, on 11 September 2013 - 08:50 PM, said:

I can think of one idea that has been adopted actually: Missile bay doors that can be toggled open/closed on the Catapult and Centurion. That wasn't there originally and it's people that suggested it.

The doors themselves were already on the mechs. As I recall, there was a huge ****storm about the firing-delay caused by what were purely aesthetic missile bay doors, that other mechs with missile bays didn't have. Cat and Centurion drivers wanted the doors removed. They were toggled instead, the indicator lights for which are tiny and the color difference between yellow (closed) and green (open) is not much. I've actually found a use for 3PV in checking that my bay doors are open or not.

[Tweaks]

Kaijin, on 11 September 2013 - 10:04 PM, said:

The doors themselves were already on the mechs. As I recall, there was a huge ****storm about the firing-delay caused by what were purely aesthetic missile bay doors, that other mechs with missile bays didn't have. Cat and Centurion drivers wanted the doors removed. They were toggled instead, the indicator lights for which are tiny and the color difference between yellow (closed) and green (open) is not much. I've actually found a use for 3PV in checking that my bay doors are open or not.

Yeah I know the story very well, I was there and I remember. <-- Legendary Founder here. I remember people suggesting that the bay doors could be toggled open/closed. The rants and complaints about the delay just put more emphasis on it. It was still community-suggested, and PGI did it. I actually think I wrote one of those suggestions about how doors could be toggled open and also act as extra armour on the pods when closed. That's exactly what they did. I wish I could find that post but it's too old and I can't find it anymore.

[blinkin]

Tweaks, on 12 September 2013 - 04:59 AM, said:

Yeah I know the story very well, I was there and I remember. <-- Legendary Founder here. I remember people suggesting that the bay doors could be toggled open/closed. The rants and complaints about the delay just put more emphasis on it. It was still community-suggested, and PGI did it. I actually think I wrote one of those suggestions about how doors could be toggled open and also act as extra armour on the pods when closed. That's exactly what they did. I wish I could find that post but it's too old and I can't find it anymore.

i kinda liked the delay because it made me feel even more powerful when i could murder enemy mechs with my SRM catapult while still having to deal with the firing delay. picking your shot required far more care and that made my SRM cat one of the only ones on the field. i kinda miss those days. having a weapons system that could easily murder any mech but requiring you to get in very close and time your shots perfectly.