20 replies to this topic

[Tweaks]

Several players have been asking for capture to be completely removed from the Assault game mode. The main counter argument to that is always: This will only encourage the last players to power-down and hide until the game timer expires, and it's very boring!

I have a solution to this, or at least, think this could work...

1. Remove capture points completely
2. Replace the capture bars by a victory bar for each team.
3. When half or more of the enemy team is destroyed, the victory bar for your team would start to fill up very slowly.
4. The more enemy 'Mechs are killed, the faster the bar would grow to be at its maximum growth speed when only one enemy is left.
5. When the bar of a team is full, that team wins the match.

This means that the only way to win a match would be:

- To kill enough enemy 'Mechs for the victory bar to grow faster than the enemy's, and then wait for it to fill up
- To kill every last enemy 'Mech
- To wait for the game timer to expire (which will rarely happen unless both team agrees to stop fighting)

If only one enemy is left on the enemy team, then the victory bar would quickly take care of it and end the match. No more powering-down and hiding until the match timer expires.

Edited by Tweaks, 11 September 2013 - 04:33 PM.

[Dirus Nigh]

Tweaks, on 11 September 2013 - 04:29 PM, said:

Several players have been asking for capture to be completely removed from the Assault game mode. The main counter argument to that is always: This will only encourage the last players to power-down and hide until the game timer expires, and it's very boring!

Sorry, but that is wrong. The counter argument is stop being single minded tactically, and learn to defend your base.

Quote

I have a solution to this, or at least, think this could work...

1. Remove capture points completely
2. Replace the capture bars by a victory bar for each team.
3. When half or more of the enemy team is destroyed, the victory bar for your team would start to fill up very slowly.
4. The more enemy 'Mechs are killed, the faster the bar would grow to be at its maximum growth speed when only one enemy is left.
5. When the bar of a team is full, that team wins the match.

This means that the only way to win a match would be:

- To kill enough enemy 'Mechs for the victory bar to grow faster than the enemy's, and then wait for it to fill up
- To kill every last enemy 'Mech
- To wait for the game timer to expire (which will rarely happen unless both team agrees to stop fighting)

If only one enemy is left on the enemy team, then the victory bar would quickly take care of it and end the match. No more powering-down and hiding until the match timer expires.

While I under stand the reasoning of this idea, I do not agree with it.

This is my thinking:
When an attacking force is damaged to the extent that they could no longer achieve the objective of the mission, that force would withdraw. Under the assault match's set up capturing a strategic point is the goal. Whether it's a space port, refinery, or military base. If the defenders roll over the attackers even 3 attacking units that get around the enemy and take over the objective cannot hold it. They are out numbered, cut off from their lines of supply and reinforcement, their position is untenable.

If however the objective was to destroy, or otherwise deny the opposing force the use of the objective, then having a fraction brake through and capture/destroy will do. Especially if this particular objective is needed for an over all operation or campaign to succeed.

This is how your idea would reasonably make sense. However this is a war game that is based on immediate tactical needs and objectives, so the idea does not work.

With your idea implemented that all a team has to do to win is kill 25%-50% of a team then brake off and avoid contact. The objectives of the assault mode change from capture the enemy base/drop point, or kill the opposing team, to dont bother just kill about half and call it a day.

The main objective of the match is to capture the enemy base/drop point. If you cannot find the last two mechs on the opposing side you have two choices. Pull back and guard your base, because in order to win they must take it. The second is to attack their base. This way all you have to do is cap their base to win. In no way do you have to wander around the map looking for the last shut down mech on the enemy team.

[Livewyr]

Would benefit assault mechs more than anything.

If the match is down to two mechs, a light and an assault- with plenty of time, a light mech could wear down the assault to death, but if he's limited on time specifically because it's just him left, he's pressured to do things rapidly and is more likely to make a mistake and/or try to brawl with the assault mech.

[Taelon Zero]

Nice idea, Always hated counter-strike for that reason. Since they plan to add a deathmatch mode I'm sure assault will see so much less use. Great way to deal with a 1 life deathmatch. I think an unlimited respawn, most kills at the end of 15 mins would be better if I was going to play an objective free brawl.

Edited by Taelon Zero, 11 September 2013 - 05:47 PM.

[RandomLurker]

Dirus Nigh, on 11 September 2013 - 05:38 PM, said:

Sorry, but that is wrong. The counter argument is stop being single minded tactically, and learn to defend your base.

We're talking about PUGs here. I've never had a problem with somone running back to ninja the base, or sit on the cap long enough to make the other team split up and make themselves into targets, etc. The problem I have is when both teams take different paths, and end up at each other's bases without ever seeing each other.

I can see a few different solutions, none of them as heavy handed or complicated as the OP.

• Make bases immune to capture for the first 5 minutes.
  
• Increase the payout for Spotting Bonuses and create a bonus for using TAG and NARC.
  
• Fix ECM and BAP so scouting and information warfare becomes a strong enough role that people actually do it.

I think that if the second two are done, the timer would be unnessecary. But on most maps 5 minutes is just enough for an assault mech to walk to the enemy base, and then back to the middle, so that should be plenty of time for a battle to start.

[Tweaks]

Dirus Nigh, on 11 September 2013 - 05:38 PM, said:

While I under stand the reasoning of this idea, I do not agree with it.

Read your response and I would agree if people were actually trying to defend their base like a true "assault/denfend" mode would suggest. However, this is not what 99% of the players are doing now. I've never seen anyone just stay in their base to defend, EVER. At the start of a match, everyone just rushes to the front looking for the enemy, and then engage. If any scouts manage to sneak around to capture, then some go back to defend.

That is not the assault mode I would expect. Most players just prefer to kill the enemy to get more XP and because it's more fun, not capture bases silently. There's no skill involved in just scooting around everyone at 150kph to capture a base. If they had some sort of fortresses or gates you'd have to destroy before you could get in the base to capture, and stationary turrets to defend it, that'd be different. That'd be a challenge.

A lot of players just want a deathmatch mode (and I don't mean with respawn here), or at least a mode where there's only killing involved, and no capture. Something where the only objective is to annihilate the enemy force. Right now assault is not making people do what it was meant to do.

If anything, if not what I suggested, I think assault should look like the Rush mode in Battlefield 3, minus the respawn part of course. The attacker would have to capture a set of bases or objectives sequentially, each "unlocking" the next one. The defender would have to prevent the attacker from succeeding. - OR - the attacker has to kill all defenders and vice versa.

All I'd wish for is that the assault mode no longer allows the enemy team to skip to victory without any combat by just sneaking past the enemy to capture their base (which happens way too often and though they've increased capture time). This is lame, and on top of it, barely grants any XP, so I don't even know why people do it. Oh wait, yes I do... because they CAN. That's why.

[Bhael Fire]

NO to the OP.

Base caps add tactical diversity to the game.

If you are bothered by getting your base capped, learn how to defend it.

[Tweaks]

Bhael Fire, on 11 September 2013 - 08:38 PM, said:

NO to the OP.

Base caps add tactical diversity to the game.

If you are bothered by getting your base capped, learn how to defend it.

I don't mind getting capped when it's justified (i.e. half the enemy team is dead and the remaining ones rush for the cap to save their win), but not in the first 5-10 minutes of a match. Nobody likes that. And since this is a team game and that nobody controls the whole team, "learning how to defend it" won't help unless the whole team follows.

I'll be the first to retreat and defend when I have to, but sitting near your base waiting for cappers when the whole fight is a click away is not fun and nobody does it. We can all agree that even when you're dropping with a full group, that your team rarely works as one in that regard as well. I've never played with a group that stated "Ok, our mission guys is to defend the cap at all costs, even if that means not fighting for the whole game"... have you?

You can be sure PGI will add a game mode where there's only killing involved at some point. If it's not the assault mode they modify, they'll create a new one. There's just too much demand for it. Maybe it will be the dropship mode, who knows...

[Bhael Fire]

Tweaks, on 11 September 2013 - 08:49 PM, said:

I don't mind getting capped when it's justified

It's ALWAYS justified.

Seriously. If you choose to stomp off toward the center of the map without leaving enough units behind to patrol the area around your base, then expect it to get capped.

When you choose that tactic, you're basically taking a gamble hoping that the enemy is going to use the same tactic; meet in the center and duke it out.

That's not always the case.

[Tweaks]

Bhael Fire, on 11 September 2013 - 09:13 PM, said:

It's ALWAYS justified.

Seriously. If you choose to stomp off toward the center of the map without leaving enough units behind to patrol the area around your base, then expect it to get capped.

When you choose that tactic, you're basically taking a gamble hoping that the enemy is going to use the same tactic; meet in the center and duke it out.

That's not always the case.

Justified to you, but not to a lot of people. Most people hate cap rushers.

You're also assuming that it's my decision and my fault when that happens, as if I controlled the whole team's actions. Thing is, it never is. You're only 4 in a lance, and you're 12 in a team. If you like staying idle waiting for an enemy to show up near your base while the other 2 lances are in the middle fighting off the whole enemy team, that's your problem. Normal people don't like to drop and do nothing while their team gets killed. You seem to forget that more than half of the team is usually solo players that are not coordinating anything over voice comms. If you're lucky, you'll have lances that want to coordinate with the others and setup a plan when the match starts, but honestly, I've rarely seen this happen.

Whether it's one of the win condition in the game mode or not, capping involves no skill whatsoever other than knowing how to stand in a square. It's just too easy to sneak around while the enemy team is engaged with your team in order to cap, or to have your full lance rush the cap without fighting at all. Sure it works, and sure it's one way to win, but it's dishonourable and unsportsmanlike, and that's what the people I'm referring to will say as well. In other words, it's a cheap and lame way to win a match if you could have fought instead.

The only case I feel that capping is fair game, is when it's the only thing that can save you the match. When you know that if you don't cap, the enemy will or you'll die before you can win.

Edited by Tweaks, 11 September 2013 - 09:31 PM.

[Typhoon Storm 2142]

I rather have the threat of being capped in a fight aswell, or threatening to cap the enemies base, instead of simply camping behind a rock, making a step forward to ditch out an alpha and hide again for the whole match. That's what everyones tactic would become if bases are removed. It's a valid and good tactic to jump on top of the enemy base as soon as possible to split their team up. Helped me in alot of wins.

Face it, CoD noobs: MWO maps are not made for DM, so shut up already!

[Farix]

Leave Assault as a capture-the-flag like mode. All it really needs is a "retake" mechanic to decap a base. It is unfortunate that too many players treat it as a death match instead for what it is.

[Livewyr]

Tweaks, cap is justified as it is an objective, a win condition. (It also provides direction for the match.)

While the cap also serves the purpose of ensuring lights don't prolong the match unnecessarily, it is primarily a means of adding some risk/reward to the match. If you blob around in heavy mechs (which is the king rinse and repeat strategy of any pug deathmatch) you run the risk of getting captured because you left vital assets undefended and unaccounted for.

(I'll pass on the every game blob...which is exactly what the meta would be if the win condition wax solely "kill all the enemies")

[Bhael Fire]

Tweaks, on 11 September 2013 - 09:29 PM, said:

Justified to you, but not to a lot of people. Most people hate cap rushers.

Most people hate cap rushers? That's as obvious as saying most people hate getting killed...but it still happens. The objective of Assault is to capture the enemy's base OR kill them all. It's up to you as a team to figure how to accomplish this while at the same time preventing your enemy from accomplishing these tasks.

The lack of coordination of your team is not withstanding to the validity of these objectives.

[Jestun]

Making it 100% combat based just makes assaults even more the *best* choice.

Suddenly the game is 100% about putting out / shrugging off damage.

I voted no.

[Tweaks]

Livewyr, on 12 September 2013 - 03:45 AM, said:

Tweaks, cap is justified as it is an objective, a win condition. (It also provides direction for the match.)

While the cap also serves the purpose of ensuring lights don't prolong the match unnecessarily, it is primarily a means of adding some risk/reward to the match. If you blob around in heavy mechs (which is the king rinse and repeat strategy of any pug deathmatch) you run the risk of getting captured because you left vital assets undefended and unaccounted for.

(I'll pass on the every game blob...which is exactly what the meta would be if the win condition wax solely "kill all the enemies")

By the way, I play offensive Jenner only at the moment. That's what I love. I may scout ahead but when the enemy is found, I alternate between scouting and offence. This means that for me to get any kills or assists and actually make a difference, I need to hit what's already been damaged by my team and/or focus fire like a surgeon. I can't do that very much when the enemy rushes to cap our base and ends the match too quickly. On those matches, I get barely 150 XP out of it because I shine most in the last 2/3 of the match. I don't mean to toot my horn, but I can get 3-4 kills in a row while I'm one of the last survivors, sometimes when all hopes seemed lost to win the match, and get the victory. That is fun, that is a challenge and that get my adrenaline pumping. Not the cap rushing and constant back and forth between the front and the cap.

From the vote response so far, it seems that most voters don't agree to get rid of capture completely. That's fine, but then I think (and others support me because I didn't come up with this alone) that there needs to be a mechanism to prevent early capture from ruining the match. Others have suggested something such as:

- Disallow capture for the first 5-10 minutes of the match

AND/OR

- Only allow capture once at least a certain amount of enemies have been killed (something like 4 or more enemies killed)

That would maintain capture as an objective but force players to fight at least to a certain degree before they can capture the enemy base, thus satisfying both parties: the ones who like to cap, and the ones who like to fight.

Sometimes in life you need to make compromises to please everyone equally.

Edited by Tweaks, 12 September 2013 - 06:19 AM.

[Jestun]

Tweaks, on 12 September 2013 - 06:06 AM, said:

From the vote response so far, it seems that most voters don't agree to get rid of capture completely. That's fine, but then there needs to be a mechanism to prevent early capture from ruining the match.

"needs to be" or "I would like there to be"?

If it's a need I don't see the reasoning behind it. It sounds like a personal preference to me.

Edited by Jestun, 12 September 2013 - 06:10 AM.

[Tweaks]

Jestun, on 12 September 2013 - 06:10 AM, said:

"needs to be" or "I would like there to be"?

If it's a need I don't see the reasoning behind it. It sounds like a personal preference to me.

Your point of view, but obviously not every one's, just like mine. I just edited my post.

Edited by Tweaks, 12 September 2013 - 06:20 AM.

[Farix]

There are a lot of complains about base captures, and there are also a lot of complaints about the "lack" of role warfare. But think about that for a moment. Capturing or destroying soft targets is one of the roles of a light mech. Yet while players complain about the lack of role warfare, they also complain about their dislike of this particular role.

Part of the problem, however, is really the rewards system. It is too focused on combat and damage and barely rewards other roles meches may play. Light and medium mechs that fulfill their role as recon units, spotters, and taking out soft targets get shafted over those mechs built purely to deal out as much damage as possible. How many times have we looked at a match's results and complained about a particular player who did little to no damage because they didn't play a combat role?

[BlacKcuD]

If you get out-capped quickly, then your team strategy is not good enough. This applies especially for 12vs12. Period.

In PUG games, a much simpler approach could help with that: make the cap take even more time! Simple as that. More reaction times for your team and cap rushes/blindsight will only work if you have really a lot of good Mech pilots making it to your base. In such a case, your team should lose, why the heck not? You got outmanoeuvred, and that is a part of Mechwarrior.

When playing random PUG games, it can be really infuriating at times, because the maps are so wide open and there is no choke point to defend your base. You all want role warfare and stuff, well here is a part of that.

Edited by BlacKcuD, 12 September 2013 - 07:16 AM.