67 replies to this topic

[ZonbiBadger]

Remember how MW3 campaign was? You had to destroy the base defenses before you could move into the facilities? That would be fun.

[Training Instructor]

The people who are talking about rallying the pugs are being way to idealistic. Also, just because you're a smart person giving orders that make sense, doesn't mean that people are going to even be reading the chat, following the orders, or that some jackass who doesn't have a clue is also giving out orders and strategy.

Simplest solution is a king of the hill mode. One base in the center.

Not everyone wants to jump on comms for every match, not everyone feels like teaming up. Some people just want to have fun playing stompy robots with guns. Get off your high-horse about what a great strategist and tactician you are. I've seen plenty of you get mercilessly gunned down by some random l33t dude who emphasized piloting/gunnery over strategy/tactics. It's fun to attack, and when you have a game mode called ASSAULT, most people reasonably expect that assaulting enemy mechs is on the menu.

[-Natural Selection-]

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

The problem then isn't the game mechanics.

Then the problem is exactly game mechanics.. You design a game with a mode that requires strat and then give no means to execute with ease. Either give both teams a common objective that all can easily focus on without orders, or provide a better system of communication.

[Zerberus]

PropagandaWar, on 31 August 2013 - 03:14 PM, said:

We have been.

And because you haven`t been given your special box of cereal (yet), you feel it`s prudent to **** in the wheaties of those that enjoy them instead, eh?

That`s what sucks the most about this community, the "I didn`t get my toys the way I wanted them, so now I`m going to try to break yours." mentality that runs rampant.....

[PropagandaWar]

Zerberus, on 18 September 2013 - 04:55 AM, said:

And because you haven`t been given your special box of cereal (yet), you feel it`s prudent to **** in the wheaties of those that enjoy them instead, eh?

That`s what sucks the most about this community, the "I didn`t get my toys the way I wanted them, so now I`m going to try to break yours." mentality that runs rampant.....

Wait WTF. Don't try and twist what I said. It was referring the the annoying state of Base capping especially when there are tonnage discrepencies. Before you get on your soap box you should look at other post. I'm not a blind follower but I support PGI verbally and financially. I also play every single day, so yeah its extrememly frustrating watching a cap on tera therma or another map where 5 lights swarmed 2 guys protecting the base because hey all they dropped you with was big slow mechs. There is no gain from a quick cap whatsoever. People want to fight. If you want to cap and play tag the base they have conquest for it. All Assault cap should be for is that last ditch effort to get the win, not the first ditch.

[Zerberus]

PropagandaWar, on 18 September 2013 - 08:12 AM, said:

Wait WTF. Don't try and twist what I said. It was referring the the annoying state of Base capping especially when there are tonnage discrepencies.

That was not my intent, and I`m sorry if it came off that way. I was responding only to what you said in that post and the way I understood it.

Quote

Before you get on your soap box you should look at other post.

With all due respect, you know just as well as I do what an asinine amount of effort it is to open someone`s profile, search for and peruse entirely unrelated posts, just to rebut to another post. The kind of work that everbody says they do but has almost never actually done. but either way, your views on other topics do not concern me here.

Quote

I'm not a blind follower but I support PGI verbally and financially. I also play every single day.....

The exact same applies to my person, so that would make our opinions equally valuable worthless

[Helican]

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.

That's part of the problem though. "IF" you deviate from that predetermined path, your odds of even seeing, much less fighting the other team drop dramatically. Even with scouts, some maps are now big enough that you still won't be able to get there...

[Mark D Stroyer]

The way I see it, base capture in Assault is an outlet valve for a match. It allows a way for the game to end if some players try their hardest to avoid being killed and subvert the intended purpose of the mode: two teams brawling it out until only one team remains.

As it stands, there definitely is a trend towards the focus of the mode becoming capture, and regardless of other factors, it does lead to uninteractive and unfun games where two teams slide past each other to capture. The only solution can be to refocus on the idea behind the mode - kills - and seek to make the game mechanics reinforce that, than overcomplicating it by diverging.

I see a straightforward solution to the mode's problems: Capture points begin locked, and remain locked until, say, six mechs on the enemy team are destroyed.

That way, should both teams have the exact same but opposite plans, they still need to interact with the other team, and still need to have it out anyway. This prevents the feel-bad of capture races, forces the kinds of interaction we play this game for, and gets the mode back to blowing up giant robots. The capture points remain a concern, but not the focus they've had, and instead return to being the escape valves they were intended as.

Of course, there is still the issue of one team coordinating to remove interaction, like forming an all-light mech team and running around the map and hiding. To alleviate this, also add a reasonable time period, say around ten minutes, at which point the bases unlock regardless of the enemy team's status. Thus, positioning is still strategically important, because you still don't want the entire other team standing on your base, but it will take more than that to simply win.

[Ghogiel]

Assault the enemy base.

[Chrithu]

He, who speaks of wanting a fight but does not fight to defend his base shall be reffered to as a hypocritic whiner.

Look, with the increased cap time there is just no excuse anymore to NOT go back to base and defend. I mean honestly, what you guys are really mad about in the situation is that you were stupid enough to all follow the first guy that moved adn ended up too far off base only to find out the enemy didn't run for the same position as your team. That's why you scout.

Looking at you lights and cicadas: It is your damned responsibility to scout out the enemy (BUT NOT BLINDLY ENGAGE THEM UPON SIGHT!!!!) and react to base caps.

Got no lights and CDAs in your Team? Either send the next best mediums or setup a base defense right away.

All that I read here is: I am too impatient to wait in defensive position. I'd rather rush ahead and start a mass brawl within two minutes, please force my enemies to do the same.

Edited by Jason Parker, 19 September 2013 - 12:18 AM.

[NRP]

It takes so freakin long to cap a base now that base caps by one or two mechs are basically not possible. So it seems like this issue can be put to rest.

[KhanCipher]

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

The problem then isn't the game mechanics.

ok... compare MWO's capping mechanics to WoT's then try to tell me that MWO's capping mechanics are just fine.

NRP, on 19 September 2013 - 03:55 PM, said:

It takes so freakin long to cap a base now that base caps by one or two mechs are basically not possible. So it seems like this issue can be put to rest.

Did you even play Alpine on Assault (or Conquest now that i'm thinking about it)?

Edited by KhanCipher, 19 September 2013 - 04:24 PM.

[NRP]

Yeah, quite a bit actually. Some people still try to cap, but it's easy for even a slow assault to RTB.

[Dortoth]

IMO after supporting playing and reading I see no reason why we don't have another option those who just want a death match. how would a simple addition to the game of Deathmatch break or change anything.
1. Those who want to just blow stuff up would be happy.
2. Those who want a bit of tactics would be happy.
3. those of us who don't care either way would be happy.
4. there is no reason for a game not to have more options for players to just play whatever they want. The community would settle down over a subject and smile.
5. a happy community is a spending community
6. Add some different play styles to the game. As a whole what i have read through this post screams give us a few different options please. Everyone here is begging for a few minor adjustments that would solve issues with a few hours of programming adjustments that make all of us smile to see that applied to the game. skip the next hero mech give us another game mode.
7. Make this game just a bit more awesome then it is now.

I think its been mentioned I think its been asked for and i'm pretty sure its not that hard to implement why has it not been?

[Urdnot Mau]

They won't change the capping system. The C-bill nerf is a proof. They want us to win as less as possible, so we play as much as possible. Every "Cap warrior" match is a point in their favour, since we don't get that many c-bills for it and we'll most likely play again..

[Gauvan]

Mark D Stroyer, on 18 September 2013 - 11:34 PM, said:

The way I see it, base capture in Assault is an outlet valve for a match. It allows a way for the game to end if some players try their hardest to avoid being killed and subvert the intended purpose of the mode: two teams brawling it out until only one team remains.

The ability to cap is critical to keep assault viable for this very reason. I'd hate to have a bunch of matches with some griefer powered down in an odd corner.

I PUG, and what I generally see is folks fighting it out because it helps folks earn XP and C-bills. Now and again there will be a strong push to cap by one team, either by plan or herd thinking. This will cause some head scratching (which I understand) and some rare shouting (which I find silly and uncalled for), but on the whole my experience is folks want fight it out and use capping as it was intended: to pull opponents off the front line, to give a team with less firepower a viable option to win, and to counter end of match griefing.

Perhaps team play is different--some of the posts here describe a different experience to mine.

It would be nice if time-to-cap scaled with map size. When you are PUG-ing, most folks know what to do but it takes a little longer to decide to do it, because you have to figure out what the rest of the team are doing. On small maps there is plenty of time for a PUG to react, on large maps it potentially takes so long to get back that the time to figure out who is doing what precludes preventing the cap.

[Livewyr]

Funny thing: these threads would be unneeded, if people didn't have the mentality: "I shouldn't have to defend base. PGI, defend the base for me or get rid of it!"

I ran an experiment a few days ago where I stayed back and defended base. Half the time people were like "awesome!" and half the time people were like "wow what a waste, way to cost us the game," followed by some basement dwelling ignorance.

If nobody came to the base, and we lost.. it was all my fault. (Because they didn't get above 100 damage because I wasn't there...)
If someone did come to the base and I defended it.. no comment (or sometimes "awesome!")



Nothing PGI can do will offset the stupidity of players.
Blob around -> insult anyone who caps, no matter what team they're on -> insult anyone who mitigates the capture threat, for not blobbing with you -> whine to PGI that someone didn't play the game the way you wanted them to -> be absolutely offended that they don't care about the way you want to play the game.

[KhanCipher]

Livewyr, on 25 September 2013 - 01:41 AM, said:

Funny thing: these threads would be unneeded, if people didn't have the mentality: "I shouldn't have to defend base. PGI, defend the base for me or get rid of it!"

these threads wouldn't be here if the capping mechanic here actually made actual sense and doesn't break immersion (which comparing to WoT's capping mechanic, i'm honestly not surprised why people hate it here and like it in WoT).

[Earl White]

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

The problem then isn't the game mechanics.

You can change the mechanics, you can't change the players.

KhanCipher, on 25 September 2013 - 06:18 AM, said:

these threads wouldn't be here if the capping mechanic here actually made actual sense and doesn't break immersion (which comparing to WoT's capping mechanic, i'm honestly not surprised why people hate it here and like it in WoT).

WoT is much better in this respect, because the maps are designed to funnel players down a few routes and maps are smaller, flanking and avoiding fire is much harder in that game too. Also the tank speeds do not vary as much, so getting back to cap isn't a problem. Capping speed is slower and the cap points are reset for whichever vehicle you hit in the cap.

Edited by Earl White, 25 September 2013 - 07:43 AM.

[Livewyr]

KhanCipher, on 25 September 2013 - 06:18 AM, said:

these threads wouldn't be here if the capping mechanic here actually made actual sense and doesn't break immersion (which comparing to WoT's capping mechanic, i'm honestly not surprised why people hate it here and like it in WoT).

I agree that the mechanic could use a change (like dealing damage to an object to bring down some defense system or something like that- or even just make the base recoverable..)

However, it still wouldn't stop the flow of threads whining about some light or mediunm mech that didn't "man" up and go toe-to-toe with the slow (f)Atlas..