34 replies to this topic

[Bilbo]

So.... Can't win with a cap on Assault.... Can't win with a cap on Conquest. Is there ever a time when a win by cap is ok?

[Thorqemada]

Yes - when you win!

PS: Its sad that Conquest is only Assault 0.7 with 3 more Bases since the changes...

Edited by Thorqemada, 12 November 2013 - 01:41 AM.

[Kaeseblock]

Never heard anyone complain about cap-wins in conquest yet.
Actually it's quite the contrary. Close cap-/ "kill-their-last-mech-or they-win-by-cap"-races are usually followed by a lot of ggs.

[Thorqemada]

Before the changes to Conquest (basecapping time) it was a highly dynamic gamemode that forced you to split your Team into several Groups, to make quick decisions, have quick Mechs, or lose.

Now like Assault you form a Blob, fight the other Blob and secure the Bases in the last third of the Ressouce Count if you have not won/lost by that time...thus i call it Assault 0.7 with 3 more Bases.

I had a better W/L in the original Conquest as i drive Mechs better suited for that and since the changes my W/L in Conquest is now similar to Assault (~1.18).

Edited by Thorqemada, 12 November 2013 - 02:23 AM.

[Ghogiel]

I win just fine capping on both modes.

[9erRed]

Greetings all,

In this reduced C bill era, winning from capping does nothing to earn you more Money. There is the small enticement for the cap, (very small Xp and C bill only) but not the large bonus from damage, assists and spotting. With this game being driven by the almighty C Bills.... cap wins are a loss of income for 23 other Mech's.

With the future game modes of Assault and Defend, possibly Intelligence missions, the players who are now enjoying the run to the Enemy's cap (in the first 3 mins) will have to learn to actually use that mech for it's intended role.

Role warfare is coming soon, and not fulfilling your mech's selected role will loss you Xp and C-bills. Collision and knock down is also on the way back in, so please take this time to actually learn what a scout's role is and how to manage your throttle and driving. Hopefully the voice comms issues, or the announced "Command wheel Quick Comms" will be resolved soon so you can actually relay info back to the team.

[note: Scouts operate in the dangerous role of reconnaissance for the main force, utilizing their speed advantage to complete the intelligence mission and avoid hostile weapons fire. The scouts job is to identify the enemy 'Mechs so your team can prioritize the major targets. They also can flank the enemy, get behind them to harass them or be used to draw the enemy out.]

With everything in or for your Mech's costing C Bills why would you not want to earn that lost income? (UAV, Arty, Air strike all costing around 40,000) Spotting targets for your team (yes that's using the "R" key) would earn you more than a cap, Tagging .. again more C Bills. And there are soon to be additional bonus's for using that rarely seen and difficult to use Narc.

I have nothing against light's, and have watched some amazing pilots handle their chosen ride with exceptional skill. Spotting enemies, tagging, sending intelligence, harassing the missile mech's, and wrangling out stragglers for the larger mech's to bring down.

So, please reduce the capping unless it is absolutely necessary.

Thanks,
9erRed

Edited by 9erRed, 12 November 2013 - 04:35 AM.

[Geek Verve]

Bilbo, on 12 November 2013 - 01:36 AM, said:

So.... Can't win with a cap on Assault.... Can't win with a cap on Conquest. Is there ever a time when a win by cap is ok?

Sure. You have but to cast just a cursory glance over the forums to see when that is the case.

As long as you recognize how very little significance/reward is placed on a cap win, the answer is obvious without doing any research at all.

[Sandpit]

Capping is perfectly viable and legal. If you want to cap, go for it. That's all that SHOULD need to be said about it.

[Roadbeer]

No way to win at anything. The masses have spoken as pointed out HERE

[Sandpit]

Roadbeer, on 12 November 2013 - 11:03 AM, said:

No way to win at anything. The masses have spoken as pointed out HERE

Now can you imagine being the dev team trying to "balance" the game to make everyone happy? There's always going to be some who complain regardless

[ChapeL]

I'd like to stry a conquest game where the victor is determined by which team holds the most cap locations atthe end of a set time and do away with points all together ( or only as a mean to break ties.. and even then I'd rather see something similar to suddent death at this point: the next team to capture a location wins)

[Gallowglas]

Bilbo, on 12 November 2013 - 01:36 AM, said:

So.... Can't win with a cap on Assault.... Can't win with a cap on Conquest. Is there ever a time when a win by cap is ok?

Who sincerely complains about caps in conquest? Honestly, the only broken mechanic there is weight balancing on large maps. No, it's cheap, early, accelerated caps in assault in which very little to no fire is exchanged and in which there's no real time to respond that I have an issue with. Heck, I wouldn't even have an issue with it in assault if there were another game mode in which caps weren't such an easy win condition.

The "right" answer is more game mode variety or else changing assault so it's less easy to win by cap and more focused on combat. That way everyone gets what they want.

Edited by Gallowglas, 12 November 2013 - 11:16 AM.

[OldWateley]

I think when community warfare gets released and winning the match is was matters for your faction/merc unit, a lot of this whining about someone capping will stop.

[Geek Verve]

Sandpit, on 12 November 2013 - 10:58 AM, said:

Capping is perfectly viable and legal. If you want to cap, go for it. That's all that SHOULD need to be said about it.

Ghost heat. It's there by design. It's working as intended, so that's all that should be said about it.

See how that's a pretty weak stance? Now consider the fact that it's the *only* sane point the that can be made in the "pro capper" argument. Never mind the overwhelming outcry, if it's not a bug, then it's ok.

[Sandpit]

Geek Verve, on 12 November 2013 - 01:57 PM, said:

Ghost heat. It's there by design. It's working as intended, so that's all that should be said about it.

See how that's a pretty weak stance? Now consider the fact that it's the *only* sane point the that can be made in the "pro capper" argument. Never mind the overwhelming outcry, if it's not a bug, then it's ok.

So you're comparing ghost heat and capping to win to a bug or an exploit? lol ok
Notice how the only argument against capping is "I don't like it"?

OldWateley, on 12 November 2013 - 11:16 AM, said:

I think when community warfare gets released and winning the match is was matters for your faction/merc unit, a lot of this whining about someone capping will stop.

I think it'll get worse because those players QQing that they got capped will be losing planetary territory which will make me chuckle

[Roadbeer]

Sandpit, on 12 November 2013 - 03:31 PM, said:

I think it'll get worse because those players QQing that they got capped will be losing planetary territory which will make me chuckle

Depending on the level of derprage, I may even guffaw.

[Geek Verve]

Sandpit, on 12 November 2013 - 03:31 PM, said:

So you're comparing ghost heat and capping to win to a bug or an exploit? lol ok
Notice how the only argument against capping is "I don't like it"?

Huh?? Who said anything about exploits? And if you haven't heard any of the *many* reasons against early capping, then you're just refusing to pay attention. It's been covered ad nauseum.

Let me simplify it for you. Base capping and ghost heat are both intentional game design elements. Therefore, statements such as, "Capping is perfectly viable and legal. If you want to cap, go for it. That's all that SHOULD need to be said about it." indicate that they must be either both or neither acceptable game elements.

Sandpit, on 12 November 2013 - 03:31 PM, said:

I think it'll get worse because those players QQing that they got capped will be losing planetary territory which will make me chuckle

Well, I guess we disagree there as well, because at least then there will be some reason for doing it. That alone would be a game changer.

By your logic, every complaint about this game - even those expressed by yourself - amounts to QQing.

[Roadbeer]

Geek Verve, on 12 November 2013 - 03:49 PM, said:

By your logic, every complaint about this game - even those expressed by yourself - amounts to QQing.

It all comes down to how it's presented. You can have the best topic ever written on a specific element of the game, but if your topic is bad, you're thread is bad, nobody will read what you've said, they'll just mock you about your presentation.

Unfortunately, many of the Forumites jump straight to emotion, without even bothering to take a second to apply logic, and see how that works out for them.

At that point, anything you have to say becomes QQ.

[Sandpit]

Geek Verve, on 12 November 2013 - 03:49 PM, said:

because at least then there will be some reason for doing it.

As opposed to, ya know, winning the match?

[Sandpit]

Just because you don't get "enough" c-bills for it doesn't make it unacceptable or give you, or any other player, the right to berate, ridicule, or harass someone who does it. Period. There's no other discussion on the topic when it comes down to that.

Now, if you want to post your opinion on it and give ideas to the devs on how to change the cap mechanism, increase rewards for capping, etc. THAT'S acceptable and far from a QQ

Do you see the difference?

Not once have I said anything about my opinion on the cap mechanism. I have stated that it's viable and legal and you (nor anyone else) have any right to grief, tk, leg, or otherwise attack a player. See the difference?