254 replies to this topic

[MortVent]

kamiko kross, on 03 November 2013 - 11:32 AM, said:

Illustrates exactly where the cap whiners are coming from-and the attitude behind what they say.

Exactly my point, it's selfish to expect anyone to do what you want them to do in a game!

You drop with a pug, accept the fact the other team mates may want to play rolfstompeh mechs and others just want to cap rush and get things overwith fast so they can get into a new match/map because they don't like the one you are in (or they picked the wrong mode,mech etc and want it over with so they can get the right ones)

[MortVent]

[redacted]

And you have yet to show why people should, it's a valid win per the match rules.

So why should a stranger obey your self imposed no cap rules, when the match is designed to be won with a cap regardless of a shot being fired?

Edited by Egomane, 06 November 2013 - 08:30 AM.
removed quote

[990Dreams]

MortVent, on 03 November 2013 - 12:23 PM, said:

And you have yet to show why people should, it's a valid win per the match rules.

So why should a stranger obey your self imposed no cap rules, when the match is designed to be won with a cap regardless of a shot being fired?

You should because it is like assault except with more capping. Which is what you love to do clearly.

[MortVent]

DavidHurricane, on 03 November 2013 - 01:08 PM, said:

You should because it is like assault except with more capping. Which is what you love to do clearly.

I cap if I have to, because I want the map done and overwith, or because my team is full of suicidal lemmings with no clue.

[990Dreams]

MortVent, on 03 November 2013 - 01:12 PM, said:

I cap if I have to, because I want the map done and overwith, or because my team is full of suicidal lemmings with no clue.

If you want it done and over with (regardless of the reason) then at least have a little fun with it. March into battle solo or try to help your team. I have had to coach noobs and suicidal(s) before. It was worth every second to see that they could at least toggle out of third person and have a better chance at fighting.

[Aluminumfoiled]

Capping is valid at all times. One of the two win conditions in assault.

Capping two minutes in-you are trolling.

Capping early to "draw off some of the enemy". Still valid, still trolling. Nobody likes to be trolled. Because as soon as you see them you are going to run away. the def of trolling .

As far as nobody responding to early base cap sometimes, like when shots have not even been fired on a big map, "Really!" I'd rather just start over than play the troll chase. But I respond anyway. If they stay on it most eventually do respond.

The funniest is the Brownian circle jerk, we are all 100m from enemy spawn. op4 starts cap and we all turn around, take two steps to cap them out.
This is pretty well self regulating. Pilots from both teams are usually saying "get off cap please". I am only talking about the early cap here. Do it if you want but expect little love. Down 6-2 cap it out pilot.

[Alaskan Nobody]

Master Maniac, on 04 November 2013 - 02:18 PM, said:

Double-standards, much?

An argument that appears to go both ways
Braced to be attacked for daring to disagree with him.....

[MortVent]

Tactics of base capping: if the other team is unable to get over their testosterone fuelled rage at being capped and defend against the tactic. Sucks to be them.

If you team rages over a base cap win because the other side can't counter the tactic, then it's a failure of them to look past the "shoot da reds" mentality

It's a tactic, you don't like it. So you complain about it instead of manning up and learning to counter it with defense, scouting, and/or dropping in premades so you don't have to rely on random strangers to play "shoot da reds! durr" version of the game.

[Wil McCullough]

MortVent, on 04 November 2013 - 02:50 PM, said:

Tactics of base capping: if the other team is unable to get over their testosterone fuelled rage at being capped and defend against the tactic. Sucks to be them.

If you team rages over a base cap win because the other side can't counter the tactic, then it's a failure of them to look past the "shoot da reds" mentality

It's a tactic, you don't like it. So you complain about it instead of manning up and learning to counter it with defense, scouting, and/or dropping in premades so you don't have to rely on random strangers to play "shoot da reds! durr" version of the game.

it's a 'tactic' based on poor game design.

that's the elephant in the room you keep refusing to talk about.

it gives an inordinately high success rate compared to the amount of skill and effort invested.

that's the other elephant in the room you keep refusing to talk about.

your argument boils down to "it's allowed the game so it's fair".

and we all know how terrible that argument is.

[MortVent]

Wil McCullough, on 04 November 2013 - 03:33 PM, said:

it's a 'tactic' based on poor game design.

that's the elephant in the room you keep refusing to talk about.

it gives an inordinately high success rate compared to the amount of skill and effort invested.

that's the other elephant in the room you keep refusing to talk about.

your argument boils down to "it's allowed the game so it's fair".

and we all know how terrible that argument is.

It takes little skill to counter it, and it is easily countered by a team using tactics to defend against it instead of running around like fools looking for reds to shoot in the middle of a map.

Now doing it against a team that uses tactics like scouts, defensive players, etc.. that takes skill

So if you lack the skills or willingness to counter it, it's not the game's fault or the fault of those that understand Assault is a game of capture the base and not slugfest in the middle.

If you don't want to learn how to counter a tactically sound strategy, then that's your problem. But having a couple guys scout, some stay ready to defend, etc... vs all pile up in the middle and shootie shootie reds would be a better idea compared to complaining you want to shoot things and not defend your base.

[Wil McCullough]

MortVent, on 04 November 2013 - 03:46 PM, said:

It takes little skill to counter it, and it is easily countered by a team using tactics to defend against it instead of running around like fools looking for reds to shoot in the middle of a map.

Now doing it against a team that uses tactics like scouts, defensive players, etc.. that takes skill

So if you lack the skills or willingness to counter it, it's not the game's fault or the fault of those that understand Assault is a game of capture the base and not slugfest in the middle.

If you don't want to learn how to counter a tactically sound strategy, then that's your problem. But having a couple guys scout, some stay ready to defend, etc... vs all pile up in the middle and shootie shootie reds would be a better idea compared to complaining you want to shoot things and not defend your base.

so you're saying that you actually believe that it's good game mechanics that a team needs to use tactics, deploy properly, scout, position and think ahead to counter a bunch of players who can be incapable of doing anything other than holding down "w" and stopping in a square?

no one is saying it's impossible to defend against, let alone me. just that it's a cheesy tactic that requires no skill whatever that gets an inordinate rate of success because way more effort is necessary to defend against it than to put it into effect.

can a well organised team beat cap warriors? definitely. can a mediocre-ly organised team beat cap warriors. yup. here's the million dollar question: so what's your point?

can you honestly say that the developers intended assault games to be like this?

seriously. tell me with a straight face that playing cap warrior is exactly what the developers intended for a game mode called assault.

tell me with a straight face that they designed a game mode called conquest, which is designed around capping to win, then came up with another game mode called assault where capping is way more effective and cap rushing is an intended winning criteria.

say it.

the elephants in the room are still there.

[Vanguard319]

I would point out that the cap haters are probably about as tactically skilled as the clans in general: Anything short of slugging it out against the enemy in a head-on battle is automatically "dishonorable" or "cowardly".

Don't make me laugh. There has never been honor in war, it's all based around deception. The most successful at it are the ones who fight according to their own rules, and not by the rules their opponents dictate.

Real World example: Do you really think the Taliban would still be around if they fought the west according it's military doctrine? If they had fought according to the Geneva conventions, the war on Terror would have been over a decade ago. Why do you think Modern Warfare in general is primarily Guerilla/Unconventional in nature? Likewise, do you really think a mech company of mostly light scouts is going to stand and slug it out with a mech company of mostly Assault mechs? While there are some really good light brawlers out there, the odds are always against them, simply because their Combat Loss Grouping can never match a Steiner scout lance.

Wil McCullough, on 05 November 2013 - 03:55 AM, said:

so you're saying that you actually believe that it's good game mechanics that a team needs to use tactics, deploy properly, scout, position and think ahead to counter a bunch of players who can be incapable of doing anything other than holding down "w" and stopping in a square?

no one is saying it's impossible to defend against, let alone me. just that it's a cheesy tactic that requires no skill whatever that gets an inordinate rate of success because way more effort is necessary to defend against it than to put it into effect.

can a well organised team beat cap warriors? definitely. can a mediocre-ly organised team beat cap warriors. yup. here's the million dollar question: so what's your point?

can you honestly say that the developers intended assault games to be like this?

seriously. tell me with a straight face that playing cap warrior is exactly what the developers intended for a game mode called assault.

tell me with a straight face that they designed a game mode called conquest, which is designed around capping to win, then came up with another game mode called assault where capping is way more effective and cap rushing is an intended winning criteria.

say it.

the elephants in the room are still there.

That's exactly the whole point of assault, it is a game mode that does not favor who brings the heaviest mechs and the most guns, but who can make the best use of their teams assets for a given scenario. If their assets aren't enough to defeat an opponent in a conventional manner (i.e. slugging match) then they can still outwit and defeat their opponent through unconventional means. (capturing their base, or forcing the other side to react to their actions by feigning a cap) Also, the amount of time needed to successfully cap a base makes it something a capping force must be committed to if they plan to use the strategy.

The elephants are still there because you refuse to accept that assault is not and never was meant to be purely a deathmatch mode.

Edited by Vanguard319, 05 November 2013 - 04:18 AM.

[Zerberus]

Wil McCullough, on 05 November 2013 - 03:59 AM, said:

because being in a real life fight is exactly the same as demanding better game design in a computer game.

A fight is a fight is a fight. You either win because you were better, be it stronger, faster, smarter, quicker to adapt, etc.. . Or you lose because the other guy /team was better.

To think otherwise is to deny reality and accept losses as inevitablle instead of actively trying to avert them.

Quote

after all, while you're walking on the street in real life, you run at 150kph and mount 2 medium lasers in each arm, right?

and that in real life, capturing an area is as simple as standing in it for 5 minutes.

i'm sure you'll be shouting "pew pew pew pew" as they wheel you off to the loony bin after you get caught hiding behind a cistern in a white house toilet for 2 hours wondering why you're not the president of the united states yet.

Your asinine attempt to derail a philosophical statement who`s sentiment has held water since the dawn of combat with hyperbolic descriptions of "RL" situations that are themselves of a farcical nature does nothing but showcase your own ignorance and inablity to look farther than your own plate. You have done nothing but add significant weight to the post that you quoted an excerpt from and make what is possibly the most laughably pitiful attack on someone`s character ever ettempted (or it was a joke flatter than my ex-wife).

Thank you for the entertainment.

Edited by Zerberus, 05 November 2013 - 05:07 AM.

[Sandpit]

just ignore the "vets" who "know best" and play your game the way YOU want to. Now keep in mind it's a team game and as such the more teamwork and coordination you get the better you will do.

[Geek Verve]

Tyranum, on 14 September 2013 - 06:03 AM, said:

It isn't deathmatch...I agree with this statement, but it IS ASSAULT so, to me, capping is a last resort. As The Boz said...out of ammo, critical or whatever, hell, even losing the game and the odds are being stacked against you...definitely cap. Win!
But I am that ******* when you dart from the starting location to cap. I worked hard to buy/build this mech and I want to fight with it. I waited in the que for the game to load then start up, and now I've walked halfway across the map looking for someone to shoot...and "you", in your raven (hypothetical example), just ran to the opposite base to cap before the game even started. I'll tell you "DON"T CAP!!"...but I NEVER use the word "noob" that is for idiots and 12 year olds trying to be 'tough'.

A win is NOT a win, but I agree there is a time for capping....absolutely.

Pretty much this. IMO the biggest problem is that the current map designs reduce tactical decisions to coin flips. There is just not enough information to provide a reason for choosing one action over another for a given scenario. When sensors report that your base is being captured, do you send one mech back or a full lance? You have no way of knowing without sending a light back to check, and by then it's too late for heavier support to get there if needed. If you elect to send a full lance back and find it was just a lone Jenner capping, well then say goodbye to the rest of the team, as they're about to get steam-rolled.

Heck, when the match begins most maps provide two, maybe three primary routes through the terrain. If both sides select different routes, they end up at the other team's base. If even one player steps on the corner of a base while passing by it, game over. Everyone just piles on it. They have to, because when the other team sees what they think is a cap in progress, their only option is to do the same. Again, it all results from that coin flip that determined which route to take. It really should be two separate game modes, team death match and attack and defend (one base).

Sure, much of this is managed well in organized 12-man matches, but what percentage of all matches does that represent? Perhaps integrated voice comms would solve these problems, but I'm not sure I wouldn't end up just turning it off, rather than endure the constant stream of inane, sophomoric {Scrap} that would spew forth.

[Geek Verve]

Vanguard319, on 05 November 2013 - 04:09 AM, said:

I would point out that the cap haters are probably about as tactically skilled as the clans in general: Anything short of slugging it out against the enemy in a head-on battle is automatically "dishonorable" or "cowardly".

You'd be all kinds of wrong.

Vanguard319, on 05 November 2013 - 04:09 AM, said:

That's exactly the whole point of assault, it is a game mode that does not favor who brings the heaviest mechs and the most guns, but who can make the best use of their teams assets for a given scenario. If their assets aren't enough to defeat an opponent in a conventional manner (i.e. slugging match) then they can still outwit and defeat their opponent through unconventional means. (capturing their base, or forcing the other side to react to their actions by feigning a cap) Also, the amount of time needed to successfully cap a base makes it something a capping force must be committed to if they plan to use the strategy.

The elephants are still there because you refuse to accept that assault is not and never was meant to be purely a deathmatch mode.

The extremes shouldn't be used to debate a topic. I don't think anyone here would say it should be purely deathmatch mode. The debate rages over the reason in capping outside of generally accepted situations that would call for it. In other words, if the current assault mode can't be "fixed", then pure deathmatch would be a preferable game mode for a *lot* of people.

Edited by Geek Verve, 05 November 2013 - 07:16 AM.

[Wil McCullough]

Vanguard319, on 05 November 2013 - 04:09 AM, said:

That's exactly the whole point of assault, it is a game mode that does not favor who brings the heaviest mechs and the most guns, but who can make the best use of their teams assets for a given scenario.

strange. that seems to be a scenario that fits conquest mode just as well. so why aren't the cap warriors capping over there? since they're all about capping in the first place?

if they changed assault from capping to destroying a target building, guess what? your "definition" fits that as well. but let's just assume cap warriors will be just as good shooting at something than standing in a square.

wait, no not really.

neither you nor anyone else has answered the question i keep posing.

can you honestly say with a straight face that holding down "w" and stopping in a square for 5 minutes to get cap wins is how the developers and game designers intended assault mode to be like? after having an entire other game mode designed PURELY for that kind of play?

your inability, or insistence on not answering that question already speaks volumes.

[MortVent]

Wil McCullough, on 05 November 2013 - 03:55 AM, said:

can a well organised team beat cap warriors? definitely. can a mediocre-ly organised team beat cap warriors. yup. here's the million dollar question: so what's your point?

Why can't you beat them instead of whining about it?

[Wil McCullough]

MortVent, on 05 November 2013 - 02:54 PM, said:

Why can't you beat them instead of whining about it?

because i'm not?

are people whining when they say ghost heat is broken? were people whining when they complained that the original 3pp gave too significant an advantage over 1pp? were people whining when they brought up lag shields and buggy netcode?

i'm saying that the cap warrior 'tactic' is a cheap and easy way to win that gives an inordinately high percentage of success for the amount of skill it takes to pull off because of bad game design.

how many times do i need to repeat myself?

in your world, is everything 'working as intended' by virtue of it existing in the game?

you seem unable to do anything else other than skirt the issue.

[MortVent]

Wil McCullough, on 05 November 2013 - 03:43 PM, said:

because i'm not?

are people whining when they say ghost heat is broken? were people whining when they complained that the original 3pp gave too significant an advantage over 1pp? were people whining when they brought up lag shields and buggy netcode?

i'm saying that the cap warrior 'tactic' is a cheap and easy way to win that gives an inordinately high percentage of success for the amount of skill it takes to pull off because of bad game design.

how many times do i need to repeat myself?

in your world, is everything 'working as intended' by virtue of it existing in the game?

you seem unable to do anything else other than skirt the issue.

You keep stating an opinion on it being cheap and easy, yet it's easy to counter with a barely competent pug team...

See the problem?

You agree it's easy to beat/counter then claim it's too easy to accomplish. Logical failure, if it's too easy to do then there is no easy counter to stop it.

So in effect you are imposing your opinion as a fact, vs a gut check feeling that it's a bad/cheap tactic. Much like a boxer complaining about a mixed arts fighter kicking him in the face.

Adapt or die, the objective is to capture the base. Either through outsmarting/maneuvering the enemy or through total destruction of the opposition's team.

To claim one method is too cheap is to ignore what the game mode is about, and to say that most are too lazy/foolish to counter it through defensive tactics preferring to go full offense brawling instead.