67 replies to this topic

[Oppresor]

It's simple. Add a proximity minefield at the 50m perimeter mark around your base. Friendly's should have IFF so that the mines don't detonate as they defend. (The mines should not respawn and each mine should have the same damage output as an AC10 round).

[Foxfire]

Oppresor, on 31 August 2013 - 03:46 PM, said:

It's simple. Add a proximity minefield at the 50m perimeter mark around your base. Friendly's should have IFF so that the mines don't detonate as they defend. (The mines should not respawn and each mine should have the same damage output as an AC10 round).

Why do you want arbitrary systems that do the job you are supposed to be doing yourself?

Base capping is a legitimate strategy to draw opposing members back from the front lines.

[RedThirteen]

Anecdote: as the only remaining lance we sat on the enemy base and picked off two lances worth of assaults as they trickled back to defend. Then we just capped the damn thing as there was no point in chasing the remaining light around the map. Mechanics as they are are just fine - as it's been copied wholesale from world of tanks, it works and has been proven to work.

[Oppresor]

Foxfire, on 31 August 2013 - 03:59 PM, said:

Why do you want arbitrary systems that do the job you are supposed to be doing yourself?

Base capping is a legitimate strategy to draw opposing members back from the front lines.

Its simple, just check out this thread: http://mwomercs.com/...rs-think-twice/ . Almost everyone agrees that it is a major problem and wants something done about it.

Yes, I agree with you that it is a legitimate strategy; I sometimes resort to it when I run my Recon spider (only because it doesn't carry any offensive weapons)if I'm the only one on my lance remaining.

I think what we are saying is that capping shouldn't be as easy, there should be a price attached to it so that if the Spider, Raven, Commando or in the near future Flea just run from their own base directly to the opposing base they should at least meet with some sort of delay which would allow time for the opposing lance to take action. The idea of the minefield is good because it will have a greater affect on the lights which are usually the main problem.

However all of this has been discussed numerous times, including in the thread (link above) and nothing has happened about it. Therefore we have to assume that nothing will happen and that means that the Lance commander is going to have to take control of His or Her Lance and allocate a defender. (Now that was a good game)

[Gremlich Johns]

Actually, because of PGI's poor use of grammar, their implementaion of WIN in Assault is incorrect:

When the game is loading up, on it is displayed "win conditions"

they are:

Capture the enemy base
Destroy all enemy players

it does not say:

Win Options:
Capture the enemy base, or
Destroy all enemy players

again, the requirements are stated as

win conditions:
Capture the enemy Base
Destroy all enemy mechs

Knowing what I do of English Grammar, this leads me to read the requirements as both conditions are needed to win. All of us know that one or the other is a win condition for Assault.

Soooo, should this instead be written as either two options in order to win and not both options needing to be met in order to win?

It does not state (which would be correct)

win options:
Either capture the enemy base,
Or, destroy all enemy mechs

Frankly, I think both conditions should be met, as they are currently stated in the loading screens, for a win on any Assault map. That would make that mode more palpable.

Edited by Gremlich Johns, 21 September 2013 - 12:21 PM.

[Foxfire]

Oppresor, on 01 September 2013 - 12:48 PM, said:

Its simple, just check out this thread: http://mwomercs.com/...rs-think-twice/ . Almost everyone agrees that it is a major problem and wants something done about it.

Yes, I agree with you that it is a legitimate strategy; I sometimes resort to it when I run my Recon spider (only because it doesn't carry any offensive weapons)if I'm the only one on my lance remaining.

I think what we are saying is that capping shouldn't be as easy, there should be a price attached to it so that if the Spider, Raven, Commando or in the near future Flea just run from their own base directly to the opposing base they should at least meet with some sort of delay which would allow time for the opposing lance to take action. The idea of the minefield is good because it will have a greater affect on the lights which are usually the main problem.

However all of this has been discussed numerous times, including in the thread (link above) and nothing has happened about it. Therefore we have to assume that nothing will happen and that means that the Lance commander is going to have to take control of His or Her Lance and allocate a defender. (Now that was a good game)

That is the thing.. WE are supposed to provide those delays. It takes only a minimal amount of scouting on most maps to prevent it. What is broken about the mode isn't the way it is set up.. but that people are unwilling to play the mode as intended and then complain when someone DOES play it as intended.

[OznerpaG]

i think the solution is too simple - some maps should only be played as assault or conquest, not both. Tormaline, alpine, and terra should NEVER be played as assault as they are too big and capping is stupidly easy. also both forest colonies are (arguably) too small to be played as conquest so they should always be played as assault. the rest seem to be able to be played under both game types ok

i personally only ever play conquest so i can enjoy playing the big maps properly since they show up often as a whole. playing forest colony as conquest isn't that big a deal, but it stinks i can't play assault mode ever to avoid the torture of playing the big maps in that mode

[Tyrnea Smurf]

On the older smaller maps base capture is not a problem. If your on one of them and your base gets captured, the issue is you ignoring the base capture warning expecting someone else to go deal with it while you rack up damage and kills.

On the newer bigger maps it can be an issue, but so is one team steamrolling the other 12 - 0 or 12 - 2. Or someone on your team running as fast as possible into the enemy to get a few quick hits in, get killed and hopping into the next match to grind c-bills, leaving the rest of the team holding the bag. Its a part of the game, and opens up some tactical possibilities.

As to the issue of base capture on the bigger newer maps, try base defense.

No really. I've fought on Terra Ferma dozens of times now, but of the 6 times I've convinced my team to stay back and defend the base, we have won.

Every.

Single.

Time.

Without fail, someone on the other team trickles over to check on our base, gets ambushed, dies quickly, rage quits, and now we are up 1 - 0.

At that point the other team has no choice but to find us to fight or they lose the match. Even a well organized team was beaten by using the game shattering tactic of holding the high ground over looking the chokepoints to our base, and focusing fire on our targets as opportunity allowed.

Might I suggest to those who are annoyed by the base capture mechanic, and may also be a bit bored of the 2 game modes, commit themselves to some self made defend the base matches. Who knows you might like the change up. All it takes to trying to convince your pugs to try to win the match. Getting the pug to follow your suggestion doesn't work all the time, but that's what makes the win sweet when they do.

[qki]

No. Not almost everyone agrees base capture is a problem.

This is only true, if "everyone" is limited to scrubs who can't be bothered to learn to play properly, and want a whole game mode changed so their current, meager skill counts as good going forward.

If you are caught out of position, it's your damn fault.


Initiating a cap is a valid strategy, because it forces a response. It is a bit of a gamble, because you never know if your team can last until you complete the cap, or if enemy response will be what you hope, but it is a valid tactic.

Basically what you keep asking for is for the devs to literally do your job and deny, or outright destroy any force short of an assault lance that tries to initiate a capture.


L2P damn it!.

[Windsaw]

Oh man, I think I have to collect some statistics.
I mean, I hardly see captures anymore and reading threads like this I wonder if it is just my imagination.

So just from memory, this is what I ancountered today:
- seven battles that didn't have any capping worth mentioning.
- two battles with some capping but without serious chances of success.
- three battles for capping. Meaning serious capping attempts either failed because of base defense or the capping succeeded despite cap defense.
- one, repeat one base rush. And you know what the funny thing is? It was on Caustic. Not Alpine, not Terra Thema and certainly not Tourmaline.

One out of twelve games got ruined because of capping. Two of the games actually got more fun because of the capping. And you know what? More games got awful because awful players and brawling without sense and tactics. There are tons of problems with this game but capping is onty a comparably little one.

[Mr Andersson]

Original post delivered two great ideas:

1. Double the cap time

2. Have only one base (capturable by both teams) situated on equal distance from both teams' dropzones. There could be several possible base locations, one is randomly chosen at the start of the match.


I would prefer 2, but I would be perfectly fine with 1 as well.

Edited by Mr Andersson, 03 September 2013 - 03:45 AM.

[VeryVizzy]

I really like the sound of:

'2. Have only one base (capturable by both teams) situated on equal distance from both teams' dropzones. There could be several possible base locations, one is randomly chosen at the start of the match.'

I was thinking of ideas for an attack/defend style mode where each team gets to play each side, but the above sounds like a great solution. It would need some creativity and thought into where the possible base locations are, but it would be definitely worth trying.

Edited by VeryVizzy, 03 September 2013 - 04:57 AM.

[Deathsani]

The reason why no one can return to there base is that most of the team is heavies and assaults. The game is supposed to be around balanced lances consisting of all of the mech types working in concert. You are not supposed to all move in a straight line and shoot the guys who have the wrong color indicator, even in true deathmatch you need to strategize. I can agree that it is aggravating to lose to a single zombie-light sitting in your base but if teams were balanced and people thought about what they were doing it would be a much more rare occurrence. Hopefully the forthcoming patches will sort out this issue by diversifying the team structure and give people who want deathmatch the ability to shoot at each other in the same bland way every other game lets them.

[PropagandaWar]

I hate base capping. Been openly venhement about it for assault. Not at the fault of players that do it half way through a game, but with teams sometimes swarming with lights that can easily take down a 100 ton mech sitting in the back defending base and then using cap accelerator is still silly. Especially on the big maps. However I run a lance of fast mechs that are great at taking out lights. We sit back wait for them kill them and then catch up with team. If they don't run for cap after a certain period of time we bail and go help group. Just keep in mind this lance's slowest speed is 85 kph, and packs tons of anti light firepower.

[Navy Sixes]

PropagandaWar, on 30 August 2013 - 05:01 PM, said:

Yep, and they will keep appearing till something happens.

Something like you quit asking PGI to waste time and money to facilitate your lack of tactical prowess? Something like you drop one of those PPCs and put in a bigger engine so you can actually RTB in time to stop a cap?

Foxfire, on 30 August 2013 - 05:50 PM, said:

The problem then isn't the game mechanics.

this...

RedThirteen, on 30 August 2013 - 06:10 PM, said:

It's the tendency to follow the same route like MOBA creeps EVERY SINGLE ******** TIME. And when someone deviates from your entrenched system, you whine, cry and lash out at the side who had the presence of mind to .. well use their brains.

Case example - Moving up to the caldera in terra therma, bottlenecking each other and creating a shooting gallery ALL THE TIME.

...and this.

PropagandaWar, on 30 August 2013 - 10:29 PM, said:

I don't see how hard it would be to either A)give us death match or Write a program where static defenses roll a stupid die and they hit or miss.

Probably a lot harder than you figuring out how to jam-up a fast cap. Maybe. You say it keeps happening all the time, so maybe you're the type that insta-blames PGI rather than finding any flaw in your own tactics. There's a lot of that around here...

PropagandaWar, on 31 August 2013 - 08:17 AM, said:

Why is it most people hate it as a game aspect and want a TDM?

Because they don't. Then you'll say, "Well, I'll do a Poll!" Then I'll say, "F**k! Not another TDM poll!" Then you'll say, "Wow, how come so many people voted to keep the capping rules as they are?" Then you'll grumble to yourself until some other Fatlas jock comes along with OT's just like the ones you used to post, and the whole thing starts over.

I promise never to click on one of these again.

[PropagandaWar]

Tycho von Gagern, on 04 September 2013 - 08:24 AM, said:

Something like you quit asking PGI to waste time and money to facilitate your lack of tactical prowess? Something like you drop one of those PPCs and put in a bigger engine so you can actually RTB in time to stop a cap?



this...



...and this.




Probably a lot harder than you figuring out how to jam-up a fast cap. Maybe. You say it keeps happening all the time, so maybe you're the type that insta-blames PGI rather than finding any flaw in your own tactics. There's a lot of that around here...

Yeah I blame them for everything. Pfft. Get off your high horse. When they have Tonnage drops all fair and square I'll agree with you. However with Maps like Alpine and Tourmaline where you only drop with one light to the opposing teams 5 and you have no idea that they actually have that number yet your sitting there thinking its great fight because your engaged with a large force only to have 4 lights capping your base to your 1 that dropped with you is bs. Oh and keeping those 2 guys out of the game to sit and guard the damn thing only to get chewed up by bugged spiders who have major hit registration issues isn't cool. But you are right thats why I have to sit back at base with a buddy half the time missing out on the fun and not being able too work flanks pinchers etc., etc.. Yet you basically are stating "Communication, and relying on Pugs" is so good in the game (Both them relying on me and me them).

[TB Freelancer]

I see it happen time and again. A team blindly runs to either C2 or C5 on Canyon Network for example, in the first minute of the game guys are already actively warning the team that the enemy is pushing for the base, and they ignore it....

...or nearly as bad, even if they do 'chase away' the base harassers, they completely ignore the base once they see no enemies within sight (even though they have 3+ lights and the base is at a sliver) and go right back to pushing for the farthest point on the map from either base yet again. Then of course lose to a cap anyway. Then cry about it.

Now to me this isn't a problem with the game type, with capping mechanics. The problem is people who use tactics and strategies that intentionally defy all logic or intelligence. Its like you're trying to intentionally throw the match.


Why leave the base completely undefended without knowing enemy positions or intentions?
Why push as far from your base and the enemies as possible?
Why keep pushing away from base when a scout says the enemy is pushing for base?
Why ignore the base when it is threatened and continue pushing away?
Why avoid fighting the enemy when you know exactly where they are?
Why insist on occupying a piece of land with zero tactical value?
I could go on and on....

When I see most of you people out there who are completely ignoring an obvious push and then crying about it, I'm honestly astounded by the stupidity of it all. Its not like the enemy just waltzed up to your base and took it. You had to actively move off to one side, avoid fighting them, give them an opening, and ignore all the blatant warning signs that they are going to take advantage of your stupidity.

The capping mechanic isn't stupid....unfortunately that can't be said of the anti-cap-crowd.

[Lycrius]

How about just give the players that want good old king of the hill? All the mechanics are in place and "hill" positions usually well placed as the middle point of conquest modes.
I usually run solo and as pugs are and the target demo moving towards the 12 year old "follow the shiny" AND pgi assuring us that there are enough players for separate ques... king of the hill, fixes pretty much the whole lemmings problem when the only win condition is to have a nice fight on the middle.
And not just base cap, bleed ticket system would work perfectly.

[Ninjawolf]

personally if they instituted a limit that half of one team must be dead before you can cap I would be happy. still keeps the cap as a viable tactic but ensures that there must be at least some fighting

[IanSane]

TB Freelancer, on 04 September 2013 - 09:09 AM, said:

I see it happen time and again. A team blindly runs to either C2 or C5 on Canyon Network for example, in the first minute of the game guys are already actively warning the team that the enemy is pushing for the base, and they ignore it....

...or nearly as bad, even if they do 'chase away' the base harassers, they completely ignore the base once they see no enemies within sight (even though they have 3+ lights and the base is at a sliver) and go right back to pushing for the farthest point on the map from either base yet again. Then of course lose to a cap anyway. Then cry about it.

Now to me this isn't a problem with the game type, with capping mechanics. The problem is people who use tactics and strategies that intentionally defy all logic or intelligence. Its like you're trying to intentionally throw the match.


Why leave the base completely undefended without knowing enemy positions or intentions?
Why push as far from your base and the enemies as possible?
Why keep pushing away from base when a scout says the enemy is pushing for base?
Why ignore the base when it is threatened and continue pushing away?
Why avoid fighting the enemy when you know exactly where they are?
Why insist on occupying a piece of land with zero tactical value?
I could go on and on....

When I see most of you people out there who are completely ignoring an obvious push and then crying about it, I'm honestly astounded by the stupidity of it all. Its not like the enemy just waltzed up to your base and took it. You had to actively move off to one side, avoid fighting them, give them an opening, and ignore all the blatant warning signs that they are going to take advantage of your stupidity.

The capping mechanic isn't stupid....unfortunately that can't be said of the anti-cap-crowd.

There are a bunch of flaws in that but much is true.
My first issue is this. There are some maps that make it impossible in anything other than a medium or light to return to base once capping has started simply due to the sheer size of the map. You will say well don't push out so far. Okay, our team doesn't push out so far and THEIR team doesn't push out so far the next thing you know on some maps there is 2,000 meters seperating the heavies and assaults. If you stay back and defend and the enemy stays back and defends then what? If you leave 1 or 2 back to defend and they are outgunned not only did you lose 2 mechs you also lost them from the main fight for however long it took for them to sit back at base twiddling their thumbs on the off chance an enemy tries to cap.

People who say pshaw throw a bigger engine in it are completely ignorant. The CTF-4X can only use a 255 engine max giving it a top speed of just shy of most snails, the Atlas with maximum engine is even slower so its not as easy as just slap another engine in it. Can tactics work to help prevent this SURE they can but in 90% of PUGs that isn't going to happen so instead of tailoring the game for the pre-mades who communicate and work together it needs to be tailored for players without teamspeak and who in many cases don't even speak english.

I have ZERO problem with capping its a good tactic and has won many a "lost" match my problem is with the earliness at which some people cap. We have ALL been on those teams, even those who say capping as it currently sits is fine, where 2 minutes into the match the game is capped out with 0 kills on either side with both teams making about 89 cents and completely wasting their time.

I love all the holier than thou stuff here. Everyone is talking about fundamental changes to a mobs mentality. I have railed long and hard about the complete and utter lack of strategy and tactical common sense I have seen in this game but the problem is its a PUG and no one is going to change once they have gotten it ingrained in them. Just look at a drop what do you see? 99.9% of the time its 1 strung out line of mechs all heading to the same place and even hiding behind the same bloody rock sometimes. There is no thoughts to defend the east gap or defend the right flank and why? Because they KNOW the other team is going to be in THEIR single line of mechs and anyone caught in their path not part of a vast group will be stomped into the dirt.