123 replies to this topic

[Liquidx]

Wookiemart, on 24 October 2013 - 06:28 AM, said:

And to think that the people who hate caping have the solution right in front of them...

Hold the line at your base... silly goofs

Most starting locations have great defensive options and choke points.

So basically.. you're saying that people who like to kill things should just **** and camp their base?

How is that any better?

Both game modes are terribly simple and ultimately unfulfilling. It takes zero effort or skill to stand in a painted box on the ground, so I don't understand why people feel this is an acceptable way to win - it's super b!tchmode, and base rushes to get quick wins quite simply make me want to stop playing the game all together.

An attack/defend scenario with respawns would be much better - while it breaks the continuity of "the universe", it's not like PGI has really tried to create a viable "universe" in the first place.

Audlyn, on 01 November 2013 - 12:24 PM, said:

You try playing a light mech, it is quite hard.

You just lost all credibility.

[Alaskan Nobody]

Liquidx, on 02 November 2013 - 08:36 PM, said:

You just lost all credibility.

To you maybe.

[Duncan Aravain]

Much of the problem stems from many people interpreting "RTB" as "Refuse To Bend"; a reflection that their way is the only way.

[Farix]

Liquidx, on 02 November 2013 - 08:36 PM, said:

So basically.. you're saying that people who like to kill things should just **** and camp their base?

It's a valid tactic and one that is better than mindlessly rushing to the middle and letting luck decide the outcome. There is no skill in relying on luck all the time.

Liquidx, on 02 November 2013 - 08:36 PM, said:

How is that any better?

Because you have the advantage of consolidating your forces while their is spread out as they move to your base.

Liquidx, on 02 November 2013 - 08:36 PM, said:

Both game modes are terribly simple and ultimately unfulfilling. It takes zero effort or skill to stand in a painted box on the ground, so I don't understand why people feel this is an acceptable way to win - it's super b!tchmode, and base rushes to get quick wins quite simply make me want to stop playing the game all together.

Nether game mode is "simple" if both teams play the mode properly. Conquest is very much a game of out maneuvering the other team, which takes considerable skill and coordination. In Assault, the team that attempts to assault the other team's base is going to have a difficult time if the other team is prepared for it.

Liquidx, on 02 November 2013 - 08:36 PM, said:

You just lost all credibility.

I can confirm from experience that piloting a light mech is no easy task. So what credibility do you have to claim otherwise?

[990Dreams]

Farix, on 03 November 2013 - 04:00 AM, said:

It's a valid tactic and one that is better than mindlessly rushing to the middle and letting luck decide the outcome. There is no skill in relying on luck all the time.

There is no such thing as luck. And defending is a horrible idea, you should try it. It has destroyed my entire team the 5 times I have tried it (by a huge number, about 4-12).

Farix, on 03 November 2013 - 04:00 AM, said:

Because you have the advantage of consolidating your forces while their is spread out as they move to your base.

Experience tells me that the will not spread out, and if they do then you are still screwed. Perhaps you don't understand this: No one ever one a war by playing defense. The attackers pick where to attack. You don't get to choose (and they WILL pick the place that gives them an advantage.

Farix, on 03 November 2013 - 04:00 AM, said:

I can confirm from experience that piloting a light mech is no easy task. So what credibility do you have to claim otherwise?

And I can confirm from experience that my Spider-5K is better than my dual AC/20 Jager (both of which I am good at). Light piloting takes about a day to master (for me at least).

Farix, on 03 November 2013 - 04:00 AM, said:

Nether game mode is "simple" if both teams play the mode properly. Conquest is very much a game of out maneuvering the other team, which takes considerable skill and coordination. In Assault, the team that attempts to assault the other team's base is going to have a difficult time if the other team is prepared for it.

(*neither ). I have to agree, neither game mode is simple (although assault is simpler).

Here is an idea: Why don't you get some skills and learn to fight? Why don't you help your team in a battle? Why not stop taking the easy way out of things and man up? This is not MechScouter or MechCapper. This is MechWarrior. Play conquest if you want to cap to win and use your precious 'advanced planning' to cap.

Edited by DavidHurricane, 03 November 2013 - 08:09 AM.

[990Dreams]

I love how both of my posts have been neglected yet other people's posts (who are unfortunately easier to argue against) are attacked.

[Wil McCullough]

i'm a light mech pilot and i think playing cap warrior is a crock of doo doo.

if you're a light mech pilot and the only thing you think you're good for is evading combat and standing in a square, i suggest you get more than just a clue.

the problem with cap warrior is that its 'novelty' has died down. everyone knows about it now. and the most effective way to win against cap warriors is to simply muddle around near your base in overlook positions and take out the poor sods late on the bandwagon trying to do it. then proceed to beat up the rest of their team.

unfortunately, because of how prevalent that stupid cap warrior nonsense thing has become, every other game results in either the cap warriors getting steamrolled, because none of them can shoot for **** since all they know how to do is run to a square.

and the other games result in 24 mechs camping at their respective bases and just waiting and waiting and waiting because the one who moves out and starts splitting up first will lose. so everyone just stares at each other until a couple of poor sods just decide that enough is enough and try to make something happen. and promptly lose it for their team.

great meta this capping thing has developed into.

makes for absolutely exciting gameplay.


not.

[Audlyn]

DavidHurricane, on 03 November 2013 - 08:06 AM, said:

And I can confirm from experience that my Spider-5K is better than my dual AC/20 Jager (both of which I am good at). Light piloting takes about a day to master

You just lost all credibility

[990Dreams]

Audlyn, on 03 November 2013 - 05:56 PM, said:

You just lost all credibility

How? Are you so stupid as to not be able to explain an argument? Seriously people, elaborate your arguments. And it is true. I can get you a screenshot if you want.

[KADOW]

I was running my Jenny tonight just for fun and ran with two other lights so we run up to cap there base and if you dont like it to bad its there deal with it i do when im in my thunderbolt anyway capping is in the game all the sudden people are whining its an exploit how is capping an exploit and on top of that my own team one lousy stalker pilot who couldnt shoot his way out of a paper mech bay tried to kill me really so 2 teams trying to kill me and in the process my own team got owned really has the hate for capping become so hostile. Really its a tactic it may suck you can do it or not but dont be pissed off at someone for playing the way they want its a game.

[Zerberus]

DavidHurricane, on 03 November 2013 - 08:06 AM, said:

Perhaps you don't understand this: No one ever one a war by playing defense. The attackers pick where to attack. You don't get to choose (and they WILL pick the place that gives them an advantage.
...

American Revolution
Vietnam
Afghanistan vs Russia
Knights Templar on Malta vs Suleiman`s Ottoman armada
...

The fact of the matter and anyone that understands military tactics will tell you this is that a properly dug in opponent in a defensive position is equal to between 3 and 25 attackers, depending on attack vector(s). 25 in a brazen full frontal assault a lá D-Day, 3 in a sneaky rear flanking maneuver.

Defense is ALWAYS tactically advantageous if you know what you are doing, and to state otherwise is to deny thousands of years of history.

But since everybody has been brainwashed by action movies, the masses think that the best defense is a good offense... Unfortunately for them, war is not a football game, and Rambo in real life is what we refer to as "cannon fodder".

The actual problem with regards to MWO is "know what you are doing".. most people don`T , nor do they make any effort to communicate it.

For people incapable of working as a team, defense is in fact a bad idea. Rambo don`t do defense, and 12 Rambos just don`t do defense 12 times.

Conversely, people that understand the game and communicate with their team (command interface, ig chat) regularly defend. successfully. Especially against thoise same 12 Rambos.

So maybe the cause of the Rambo's failure is more global in nature, and not limited to any one game mode?

Edited by Zerberus, 04 November 2013 - 07:24 AM.

[990Dreams]

Zerberus, on 04 November 2013 - 07:17 AM, said:

American Revolution
Vietnam
Afghanistan vs Russia
Knights Templar on Malta vs Suleiman`s Ottoman armada
...

The fact of the matter and anyone that understands military tactics will tell you this is that a properly dug in opponent in a defensive position is equal to between 3 and 25 attackers, depending on attack vector(s). 25 in a brazen full frontal assault a lá D-Day, 3 in a sneaky rear flanking maneuver.

Defense is ALWAYS tactically advantageous if you know what you are doing, and to state otherwise is to deny thousands of years of history.

But since everybody has been brainwashed by action movies, the masses think that the best defense is a good offense... Unfortunately for them, war is not a football game, and Rambo in real life is what we refer to as "cannon fodder".

The actual problem with regards to MWO is "know what you are doing".. most people don`T , nor do they make any effort to communicate it.

For people incapable of working as a team, defense is in fact a bad idea. Rambo don`t do defense, and 12 Rambos just don`t do defense 12 times.

Conversely, people that understand the game and communicate with their team (command interface, ig chat) regularly defend. successfully. Especially against thoise same 12 Rambos.

So maybe the cause of the Rambo's failure is more global in nature, and not limited to any one game mode?

You make a valid point, but one that strays from the argument. You see, these are big wars won by little battles. Assault games can be viewed as one of these battles. You can choose to hide a foxhole/bunker and defend yourself, or you can attack. the Vietnamese attacked us and (eventually) drove us out. The Americans did the same with the British (to be fair, the British/Americans during Vietnam did attack, but that is irrelevant.) You see? The defensive wars were won by attacking. does that make sense (sorry for neglecting your other two battles, I am not too familiar with them and at the time of typing I have no time to research them)?

[CDLord HHGD]

DavidHurricane, on 04 November 2013 - 09:45 AM, said:

You make a valid point, but one that strays from the argument. You see, these are big wars won by little battles. Assault games can be viewed as one of these battles. You can choose to hide a foxhole/bunker and defend yourself, or you can attack. the Vietnamese attacked us and (eventually) drove us out. The Americans did the same with the British (to be fair, the British/Americans during Vietnam did attack, but that is irrelevant.) You see? The defensive wars were won by attacking. does that make sense (sorry for neglecting your other two battles, I am not too familiar with them and at the time of typing I have no time to research them)?

As another example of a successful defense, I'd like to point out the Battle of Rorke's Drift. One of my favorite real world scenarios of bravery and valor (and I'm American). Think the (inaccurate but still good) movie representation of that battle (Zulu, available on Netflix) shaped my opinion of a good defense makes a better launching point for a good offense. Even during D-Day, the defense part was the British Isles, which if they weren't stable, we'd have never been able to pull off the invasion of Normandy (at least not as (relatively) easy). Sometimes you get a Utah, sometimes you get an Omaha.......

[Rushin Roulette]

The best thing about most of the quotes below.... they are so damn ironic.
Players just want to shoot... Guess what? Some of the enemy team have just given you a really big hint (including a big flashing sign and an audio message) as to where they are standing. If you want to "you know... just shoot", then they are inviting you to do just that for a limited time only. You just have to go to the exact spot you were a minute or so ago and you know... just shoot.

Silentium, on 24 October 2013 - 05:33 AM, said:

Allow me to play the devil's advocate here.

Many players just want to shoot it out, when the match is a cap race, it feels like a waste of time; less c-bills and XP are gained from a cap win. The matchmaker frequently sets up highly weight imbalanced teams, and while it makes sense for the underweight team to eke out a cap win, it is ultimately unsatisfying.
...

NRP, on 24 October 2013 - 06:19 AM, said:

Sometimes it's nice to . . . you know, shoot things?

Viges, on 25 October 2013 - 04:49 AM, said:

Yea, but you dont mind that conquest "leans favoritism towards the lights". You can fight as you want and cap as you want. You lights want to have complete advantage over more heavy mechs in everything and thats it. You dont want balance in combat effectiveness/objective effectiveness - you want both and have both. And you want to play with more heavy mechs with that advantage - you dont want them to have their mode - no, you dont want to play you conquest with other lights on equal terms - all you want is to troll heavies. Thats why hate - not because youre so GOOD PILOTS as you think, lights.

****** Cain, on 25 October 2013 - 04:57 AM, said:

I dislike capping because it strikes me as a silly and old hat style of gameplay, I can see why destroying an enemy force would result in victory, how on earth does standing in one place at a time make for a victory?

I could understand it more if flags had to be capped in sequence on conquest as a representation of pushing forward the battle line of your forces, however with a game where respawns aren't logical this is arbitrary.

I just wanna see more in depth gamemodes, not these 8min fragfests and cap races, I want a battle not a shootout.

[Antasius]

Do you see these threads PGI?

Give your players a good reason to fight. They're are probably more forum warriors fighting here then in game.

Surprise us with something soo- Nope, I won't even finish typing out that sentence.

"Soon" is just becoming to infuriating of a word to even see posted here.

[Mercules]

Again we see the same "Derp" in yet another thread about base capping.
Time to pull out the same logic I have to every time.


You want to fight. Now if you ignore your base and simply move off to where you think the fight will be there is a chance the enemy will not oblige you and might move around you and cap your base at which point you lose and do not get your fight. If you defend your base instead of ignoring it then the enemy has no second option to win the game without a fight and so must engage you in a fight. So claiming you want a fight and then ignoring your base is ridiculous. It is actually worthy of ridicule.

So then we get to the point where someone says something stupid about how 1 guy guarding the base isn't fun or effective. You are correct. Now if that was actually defending your base you might have an argument.

Defending your base means simply finding the enemy and engaging them in a manner that they can not attack your base. This should be a priority but the number of idiots who rush to be the first to a supposedly agreed upon spot to engage and completely miss people moving around the flank is amazing.

It doesn't take much to clear the flanks. Do you know how many times pugging in a fast Shadowhawk or other mech I get, "Mercules, stick with the group." and all I am doing is slipping over a ridge to get clear LoS on a flank and I can return to the main group in 10 seconds tops? No, if you are not blobbed up then people insist you will be killed instantly.

You need to break apart a tiny bit, not so far you can not support each other, but just enough to check those flanks and cut off any people flanking you. You find them and then you make sure they are forced to engage you. If you have slow mechs that can't move into a good position you hit them with long ranged things and consolidate back towards YOUR base. Bring the fight where you choose.

Identify where the enemy is, engage and intercept, and you will ALWAYS have a fight and not a Base Cap on your hands.

[Sandpit]

Antasius, on 05 November 2013 - 06:26 AM, said:

Do you see these threads PGI?

Give your players a good reason to fight. They're are probably more forum warriors fighting here then in game.

Surprise us with something soo- Nope, I won't even finish typing out that sentence.

"Soon" is just becoming to infuriating of a word to even see posted here.

I see a bunch of people QQing the equivalent of "Moooooooooooooooooooooom! Johnny won't play the way I want him too!"

[Audlyn]

DavidHurricane, on 03 November 2013 - 06:31 PM, said:

How? Are you so STUPID as to not be able to explain an argument? Seriously people, elaborate your arguments. And it is true. I can get you a screenshot if you want.

No, not stupid, but using personal affronts only hinders your argument.
Piloting a spider 5K and claiming light piloting is easy is...a logical fallacy.
It is basically exploiting a bugged mech and then generalizing that all light mechs are easy.
Try a Locust, try a commando, I guarantee you it isn't easy.

[990Dreams]

Audlyn, on 05 November 2013 - 07:44 PM, said:

exploiting a bugged mech

How is it bugged? I have not seen any changes in the past 4 patches. Why not contact support?

Audlyn, on 05 November 2013 - 07:44 PM, said:

generalizing that all light mechs are easy.

I also pilot a Jenner and if I had more slots/MC I would buy more Mechs. n fact, by the end of the year I hope to have two more light mechs.

EDIT: The Commando has too little armor and only runs 100 kph with my preferred armament (I will NOT use an XL, paper armor+an XL=bad things). The Raven is too slow for my taste (the Dragon 5N moves as fast as most of them). The Locust isn't bad.

Edited by DavidHurricane, 06 November 2013 - 12:54 PM.

[Voivode]

My main beef with capping is the time it takes. More to the point, every map features the same cap rate. Some maps could actually do with a cap rate buff (for both game modes) and some could use for an increase in the time it takes (I'm looking at you Alpine).

Without taking the size of the map into account capping is a poor game mechanic. Capping is fine, it adds to the game but it needs to scale properly with the map. Until it does, there'll be a lot of QQ about it, some of it justified.