34 replies to this topic

[Captain Stiffy]

To really want to make the game interesting and more like Battletech they should have bases capture instantly.

This means that if a single enemy player sets foot on your base (assault mode included) for even a fraction of a second while you have no defenders on your base, you lose instantly.

Think about it first, then reply. Thanks

[Deathlike]

I can only imagine the rage this would induce.

If anything, it would endorse camping and the occasional managed blob attack.

I'll just leave you to rereading my first statement.

[NextGame]

Captain Stiffy, on 31 October 2013 - 10:53 PM, said:

To really want to make the game interesting and more like Battletech they should have bases capture instantly. This means that if a single enemy player sets foot on your base (assault mode included) for even a fraction of a second while you have no defenders on your base, you lose instantly. Think about it first, then reply. Thanks

Let's not.

[Captain Stiffy]

NextGame, on 31 October 2013 - 11:13 PM, said:

Let's not.

Nobody has a good argument as to why this is any less broken than what we have now.

At least we'd have an actual objective in the game.

[dario03]

Only if the base was much much larger or there was a much larger defend box surrounding the standard cap box. And if this was a different mode where one team attacks and the other defends, like the new upcoming mode which I think is called attack/defend. But even then, instant seems a bit much.

Edited by dario03, 01 November 2013 - 12:14 AM.

[Parmeggido]

A good argument? Well, just what kind of game do you want to be playing? I can logically see this change making the game go 2 ways. either 1) everyone drives locusts and tries to get to the enemy base as fast as possible, or 2) no one ever leaves their base, ever, because all the opponent has to do is step on it, and instant loss. Unless you mean conquest, in which case, again, everyone drives light mechs to cap as quickly as possible, because you can just run from anything bigger. If the enemy tries to leave people behind to protect a cap point, you swarm them and move on.

[Captain Stiffy]

Ok Parmy, but how is that any different from what we have now?

You have only one objective of any importance whatsoever besides the enemy base and you start at it.

Current absolute inarguable best 12v12 strategy: 4 lights, 8 assaults, base camp. When they come to your base you send your lights to cap theirs. Guaranteed 90% victory for almost any 12 man team.

So why is what we have now better than having actual importance to the objective outside of tiebreakers?

[Parmeggido]

As it is now, you have some freedom to move away from the base, engage, and if necessary, move back to defend. The only times it becomes a problem is a concerted effort between multiple mechs to cap the base when your team is ~50% or more of the way across the map, and if you still have a couple lights or fast mediums that can run back and stall you have a good chance of winning the match. Under instant capture, that evaporates. You can't leave the base at all, engagement never happens because of cap fear, and the game dies.

Edit:
I readily admit that I don't play 12 mans, or group up at all, so I can't really speak for those that do. I am sure, however, that this would obliterate pug games. I am sure the vast majority of players do not want to play when loss is so easy as "Oops, I was trying to dodge that 2x20 jaeger and stepped outside the square for a second. Sorry guys." Anyway, I need to sleep, and would be willing to continue this tomorrow. Er, later today.

Edited by Parmeggido, 01 November 2013 - 01:02 AM.

[Krivvan]

Captain Stiffy, on 01 November 2013 - 12:32 AM, said:

Current absolute inarguable best 12v12 strategy: 4 lights, 8 assaults, base camp. When they come to your base you send your lights to cap theirs. Guaranteed 90% victory for almost any 12 man team.

Countered by the 8 opposing assaults that will annihilate your badly positioned defending Assaults. Or send 6 of the heavies up to keep the 8 assaults occupied, and send 2 backup with your lights to destroy their light lance. Fall back with the 6 if they push.

You wonder why you don't actually see teams do that in the 12-man queue? Because it's an awful strategy. You do send the light lance when there's an opportunity. But you don't just sit at your base defending because you're screwed when they push.

[Captain Stiffy]

I can't believe that there is any team except one to match that 8 90 and 100 ton assault mechs can't defeat given that they have competent pilots. Most teams are running a variety and you can out ton them with those 8 mechs alone.

I wish we could just do this for two weeks.

[NextGame]

Captain Stiffy, on 31 October 2013 - 11:58 PM, said:

Nobody has a good argument as to why this is any less broken than what we have now.

At least we'd have an actual objective in the game.

Because it would shorten the game length, change the "metagame" from "move around a bit and shoot stuff" to "stand on a square and defend or else base rush", plus defending is boring and many cap points aren't very defensible from the actual cap square in the first place.

[Captain Stiffy]

I guess that the real question being posed here is "what if bases actually required defending"?

[NextGame]

Captain Stiffy, on 01 November 2013 - 01:11 AM, said:

I guess that the real question being posed here is "what if bases actually required defending"?

No one would defend them anyway, because pubs, and you would get 3 billion threads on the forum complaining about how no one defends.

[Captain Stiffy]

So why have bases then

Even now one in 5 games ends in a lamecap

[Krivvan]

Captain Stiffy, on 01 November 2013 - 01:13 AM, said:

Even now one in 5 games ends in a lamecap

Not in my experience. Bases get defended by lights against lights.

[NextGame]

Captain Stiffy, on 01 November 2013 - 01:13 AM, said:

So why have bases then

Even now one in 5 games ends in a lamecap

I agree that the current game modes aren't particularly exciting, just not convinced on insta-base capping, which I think would result in a much higher ratio of games settled by base cap than we see right now.

What would you consider to be an acceptable % of games resolved by capping, and what do you see as being the role for lighter mechs within the game?

[Captain Stiffy]

What do you see the role of base capping being in general?

[NextGame]

Captain Stiffy, on 01 November 2013 - 01:45 AM, said:

What do you see the role of base capping being in general?

At the moment? It seems to be to give light mechs a reason to exist, but if there was a different use for them in a game type that didn't have any cap points then I would be all for it, otherwise you might as well go ahead and just delete anything smaller than a heavy, there are already problems with mediums having no real role in the way the game is currently set up.

Edited by NextGame, 01 November 2013 - 01:51 AM.

[Lykaon]

Captain Stiffy, on 01 November 2013 - 01:13 AM, said:

So why have bases then

Even now one in 5 games ends in a lamecap

There is an intricacy to threatening a capture that is frequently over looked.

Without the threat of a base cap the game devolves even further into the realm of bring an Assault mech or nothing.There would be absolutley NO reason to choose speed or agility ie light or medium mechs in Pub queues.

As it stands now the vast majority of Pub matches on a particular map are played exactally like any other match on that map.
Go to X grid with cover while enemy goes to Y opposing cover possition.Then hidey peeky/poptart until someone proves to have the derpyer team and loses 3 mechs then swarm.

The objective of capture is the only thing preventing MWo from becoming poptart assaultmech online.

By threatening a capture the enemy MUST divert resources from the cover humping FusterCluck going on at the usual spot.Drawing away forces to prevent the cap changes the dynamic by forcing movement away from the same old cover point and alters the forces by possibly creating more favorable odds as the enemy sends mechs to stop the capture.

Without the bases the game will be near identical every time 12 assaults deploy to one side of a hill 12 enemy assault mechs on the opposite side. Commence poptarting/hidey peeky until one side has a 3 mech advantage then charge.

[scJazz]

Captain Stiffy, on 31 October 2013 - 10:53 PM, said:

To really want to make the game interesting and more like Battletech they should have bases capture instantly.

This means that if a single enemy player sets foot on your base (assault mode included) for even a fraction of a second while you have no defenders on your base, you lose instantly.

Think about it first, then reply. Thanks

Thought about it for several fractions of a second. Apparently, longer than you did while I contemplated how this might just be the worst idea ever suggested in Gameplay Balance.