84 replies to this topic

[Farix]

nexus1g, on 13 October 2013 - 04:29 AM, said:

No, as it is, it's pretty much just a really bad version of conquest.

Conquest is based on Domination, and you can always reclaim a control point in Domination.

nexus1g, on 13 October 2013 - 04:29 AM, said:

Thankfully enough of the community realizes how bad it is and treat it like a DM anyway.

Until someone comes along and plays it like CTF and wins by capture. Then all the QQing (like this thread) starts. There are many things that need to be improved with Assault, starting with fixing the rewards. But turning it into something other than CTF isn't one of them. Just because some players play Assault as Team Deathmatch instead of the CTF game it is set up as doesn't mean that CTF tactics are invalid.

[nexus1g]

Farix, on 13 October 2013 - 04:45 AM, said:

Conquest is based on Domination, and you can always reclaim a control point in Domination.


Until someone comes along and plays it like CTF and wins by capture. Then all the QQing (like this thread) starts. There are many things that need to be improved with Assault, starting with fixing the rewards. But turning it into something other than CTF isn't one of them. Just because some players play Assault as Team Deathmatch instead of the CTF game it is set up as doesn't mean that CTF tactics are invalid.

The only thing you have in your favor for calling it CTF is the fact that the control point is in the other player's spawn spot. That's really not a strong argument.

Semantics aside, I don't appreciate how you call it "QQing". You agree it's broken, so clearly you shouldn't think it's QQing to expect players to avoid the broken aspect of the game.

Since the game isn't CTF, it's Assault, it can be changed to a different style of Assault that would better fit within the Battletech universe. Also, yes, if you don't have a flag carrier, there is no "VIP" to protect -- one of the key elements of CTF.

Edited by nexus1g, 13 October 2013 - 06:20 AM.

[Farix]

nexus1g, on 13 October 2013 - 04:56 AM, said:

The only thing you have in your favor for calling it CTF is the fact that the control point is in the other player's spawn spot. That's really not a strong argument.

There is also the fact that the two teams are attempting to capture something from the other team, which is the heart of CTF. The specifics of what is being captured is actually irrelevant.

nexus1g, on 13 October 2013 - 04:56 AM, said:

Semantics aside, I don't appreciate how you call it "QQing". You agree it's broken, so clearly you shouldn't think it's QQing to expect players to avoid the broken aspect of the game.

The QQing is the result of someone trying to play one type a game and finds out they are in an entirely different game. Also, the only part of Assault I consider to be broken are the rewards. But that doesn't mean the mode itself is broken.

nexus1g, on 13 October 2013 - 04:56 AM, said:

Since the game isn't CTF, it's Assault.

Assault is the name PGI gave to the CTF mode. It was given that name because both teams are assaulting each others' bases. Just because PGI did not call it CTF doesn't mean that it is not CTF.

nexus1g, on 13 October 2013 - 04:56 AM, said:

it can be changed to a different style of Assault that would better fit within the Battletech universe. Also, yes, if you don't have a flag carrier, there is no "VIP" to protect -- one of the key elements of CTF.

The "VIP" in Assault is your base. Once it's lost the game is over, just like once the flag is captured, the game is over.

[Mawai]

The OP is missing the point.

Base cap is required to prevent griefing. Perhaps the OP would enjoy spending 15 minutes searching for that last powered down enemy mech. I wouldn't.

Base cap also provides an alternate match exit condition in the case of bugs which prevent a match ending with the other team being completely killed (though this hasn't happened in a long time).

They could certainly tweak the mechanics (the change in cap timers was a good move) but removal is not likely nor a good idea in my opinion.

[1Sascha]

Quote

Mechs cannot carry objects,

Yeah.. and PPCs and fusion-reactors also don't exist. So why even play this game then? Besides: Mechs can carry objects. That's the whole point of some of them having hands.

Quote

so the base capture mechanic was put in it's place to simulate the time it takes to run back to "home base". The interesting fact is that it actually takes longer to capture a base on most maps than it would for a mech to run form one end of the map to the other.

1. CTF Matches are usually played to a score. 3 Caps = win.

2. If you had to run back to your own base, it'd be a completely different game. As it is now, you have to stay on cap, telling the other team exactly where you are. In a "true" CTF-match, all they'd get is "our flag was taken from our base"-message and then they'd have to go look for the player carrying the flag. Plus if the flag-carrier gets killed, the flag stays where he died for a while and can be picked up by another player.

So comparing MWONL's assault with CTF-matches is the old apples and oranges thing.


S.

[Roadbeer]

You guys are WAY over-thinking the whole CTF thing, but not really surprised, y'all LOVE playing with semantics.

[Kjudoon]

translation of OP: I'm an FPS Twitch Munchkin who views others as AIs and no intent to work as a team while wants all modes to be deathmatch.

You'll be happy when you get deathmatch and stay there.

Edited by Kjudoon, 13 October 2013 - 12:22 PM.

[Ledabot]

Would you be happier if to win, you had to destroy the cap? I think I would. That give a spin on the 'you are hired to protect you base.' You fail to protect it, you go home out of pocket. Failures dont get payed permium.

[AssaultPig]

I wonder if anybody will want to play assault anymore, once deathmatch is a thing.

There's nothing wrong with conquest and it is a fair superior game mode from the standpoint of teamwork/coordination/etc. The only virtue of assault is that it encourages the whole team to actually fight.

[Kjudoon]

AssaultPig, on 13 October 2013 - 02:29 PM, said:

I wonder if anybody will want to play assault anymore, once deathmatch is a thing.

There's nothing wrong with conquest and it is a fair superior game mode from the standpoint of teamwork/coordination/etc. The only virtue of assault is that it encourages the whole team to actually fight.

Probably a few, but not as many as now.

[nexus1g]

AssaultPig, on 13 October 2013 - 02:29 PM, said:

I wonder if anybody will want to play assault anymore, once deathmatch is a thing.

There's nothing wrong with conquest and it is a fair superior game mode from the standpoint of teamwork/coordination/etc. The only virtue of assault is that it encourages the whole team to actually fight.

Unless they fix assault or screw up DM worse than assault is, no.

[SeraphimFV DAMAGE INC AOL MPBT]

Suggestion to developer:

Easy solution is to temporary disable the capture ability at the start of the battle and release that ability ONLY when a team has ONE mech remain on the field. that way the last hiding spider will be useless while the enemy capture his base and defend theirs.

[Woozle]

This is not the answer OP needs, it is the one he deserves: No.

[Hellcat420]

leave assault as it is.

[Vanguard319]

tib3r, on 12 October 2013 - 12:34 AM, said:

You know what? Go read the timidity is not a tactic thread.

The OP is correct here.

I have, and I've posted in it several times. I can tell you right now it has no relevance to this argument. Hiding and running away are not tactics, capturing your opponent's base is a viable tactic. learn to play already.

[Fabe]

There is nothing wrong with having base capturing ,it just could use some adjustments. First off we should be able to block capping by getting a friendly unit on our base,each teammate will prevent one enemy from contributing to the cap. alternatively getting on the enemy base will stop/slow down the enemy capping your base,that should stop cap races.

One more possible change would be to add one or more sub cap point that must be controlled before you can more on the enemy base. I think these idea might make Assault mode a bit more interesting a remove some of the problem people have with it. But in the words of Denise Miller that's just my opinion,I could be wrong


And finally no matter what if you leave the enemy base before the cap is finish the cap bar will start to refill.

Edited by Fabe, 05 November 2013 - 06:52 PM.

[DelRico]

Cant defend your base, you die.

[Zerberus]

The Mode isn`t broken, the AssaultWarrior Online community is.

Ever since closed beta, they whined about cap times being too short, never being able to get back in time.

Now that the cap times are absurdly long, they continue to complain, completely disregarding that they were give the exact tool they asked for and simply refuse to lose it.

I can not wait for DM modes to come. Then the hulk smash robots players can stay in their deathmatch sandbox and the rest of us can finally get on with community warfare instead of reading whine after whine after whine about people doing absolutely nothing wrong except winning.

[Sandpit]

Let's all jump on another bandwagon about removing something else.

How about you wait for one of the other game modes the devs are working on instead of trying to make everyone else in the entire community conform to your opinions on fun

[Red squirrel]

NoXHeart, on 12 October 2013 - 12:31 AM, said:

Oh hey, this topic again.

Look, if your team doesn't have enough tactical knowledge to keep your base of operations protected, then you deserve to lose.

Don't be decieved by the name, assault isn't just brain dead pew pew die.

Exactly what I thought. I am fine with the addition of a deathmatch game mode but people should really stop complaining about assault. The base is an imporant factor for tactics. Attack or Defend? Scounting and the risk of overextending....etc etc
Also a nice mechanic to counter the 12 Atlas vs 12 Stalker madness.

I think if they repleaced the silly oil pump with a real base it could help immersion wise.
Also I'd rather have some buildings to destroy like in previous MW titles than just the standing around cap thing.
That is good for Conquest.

Sandpit, on 07 November 2013 - 04:35 PM, said:

Let's all jump on another bandwagon about removing something else.

How about you wait for one of the other game modes the devs are working on instead of trying to make everyone else in the entire community conform to your opinions on fun

I'm really looking forward to all the "Remove Deathmatch mode because it ..... bla bla" threads that will come.
Judging these forums for experience: Once people get what they whined for they start whining about how much better it used to be before the change.