17 replies to this topic

[Viges]

Yes this thread is new and exciting - I know. Still we need to repeat that again and again. Cap mechanics is bad - its lame and boring. Standing in one place to do objectives is lame and boring.

And turrets wont change that - at all. You will still need to stand in one place. We need objectives - but more dynamic. There were a lot of suggestions and this is another one (maybe I repeat smb else here).

Instead of need to stand for capping - may it so bases will cap automatically from the start. And make them destructible and defended by turrets.

Now you will need all types of mechs to do the job - fast mechs to harass enemies and bases, heavies to defend base or assault enemies and mediums to support both.

And I think it can be implemented pretty easily on existing maps. Please link and discuss.

[Corvus Antaka]

I agree. way to much time is spent flipping bases unless you stack a lance or stack a lance with cap accelerators. We want to fight, not cap. this mostly goes for conquest, not assault.

[Bilbo]

I'm missing something here. How do you determine who gets credit for the automatic capping? Once that's determined, how does the other team reverse said capping?

[Viges]

Who first destroys enemy's base/most kills.

Maybe damaged bases could cap slower to give more time.

[xhrit]

They should pop a randomly generated 9 digit numeric command code up in a dialog. First person to type in the code flips the CP.
A new code is generated every time the CP flips, or if a wrong command code is entered.
Capture accelerator reduces the length of the code.

[Joseph Mallan]

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 05 December 2013 - 02:07 PM, said:

I agree. way to much time is spent flipping bases unless you stack a lance or stack a lance with cap accelerators. We want to fight, not cap. this mostly goes for conquest, not assault.

This is no entirely true Col. Mostly we wanna win. I don't see the winning side complaining to much when they win by cap. Being beaten by Cap is humiliating and it should be. The losing team was to inept to get some forces back to base to shoo off the capper.

[Corvus Antaka]

Joseph Mallan, on 06 December 2013 - 06:17 AM, said:

This is no entirely true Col. Mostly we wanna win. I don't see the winning side complaining to much when they win by cap. Being beaten by Cap is humiliating and it should be. The losing team was to inept to get some forces back to base to shoo off the capper.

in 12 mans maybe. in pugs half the people just cry cause they wont make enough money.

Thats my big issue at this time really - capping rewards where taken down to stop capwarrior, that was fine, but now I think PGI needs to normalize capping with killing to force a bit more options either way.

Mostly though I mean conquest here Joseph - conquest flipping just takes too damn long.

Edited by Colonel Pada Vinson, 06 December 2013 - 06:25 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 06 December 2013 - 06:25 AM, said:

in 12 mans maybe. in pugs half the people just cry cause they wont make enough money.

Thats my big issue at this time really - capping rewards where taken down to stop capwarrior, that was fine, but now I think PGI needs to normalize capping with killing to force a bit more options either way.

Mostly though I mean conquest here Joseph - conquest flipping just takes too damn long.

How o we get them to equalize it though Col? On Conquest Capping Should win the match 90% of the time to balance the 90% tussle on Assault, or find a way to make it 50/50 on both maps. After 4,297 matches tussle or Cap has become pretty boring. An the new Scenarios are more of the same.

[Fut]

Viges, on 05 December 2013 - 02:04 PM, said:

Yes this thread is new and exciting - I know. Still we need to repeat that again and again. Cap mechanics is bad - its lame and boring. Standing in one place to do objectives is lame and boring.

And turrets wont change that - at all. You will still need to stand in one place. We need objectives - but more dynamic. There were a lot of suggestions and this is another one (maybe I repeat smb else here).

Instead of need to stand for capping - may it so bases will cap automatically from the start. And make them destructible and defended by turrets.

Now you will need all types of mechs to do the job - fast mechs to harass enemies and bases, heavies to defend base or assault enemies and mediums to support both.

And I think it can be implemented pretty easily on existing maps. Please link and discuss.

Wait. So instead of having to destroy the turrets, then stand in the enemy base to cap - you'd rather have to destroy the turrets, then wait around the base for it to self-cap? There really isn't much of a difference, is there?

Sure, you could move out from the enemy's base while it's capping, but that leaves it open to be defended by an enemy - so you'd have to stick around just in case.

Or am I not following the suggestion properly?

Besides, is it really that big of a deal to have to stand in the base for a moment while it caps?

[Joseph Mallan]

Fut, on 06 December 2013 - 07:42 AM, said:

Besides, is it really that big of a deal to have to stand in the base for a moment while it caps?

A moment no... long enough to right War and Peace... well

[Saobh]

Guys I seriously doubt turrents and such active entities will ever happen in this game as this just adds latencies to the multiplayer code which will impact the "online experience" (aka lag) too much to ever become relevant.

Each turrent which has to scan and fire an enemy players is like adding a new player to a 24 player game. Its technically doable but the net code will be a nightmare (and if ever implemtnated wouldn't having more real players actually be better ?)

[Doctor Proctor]

The current problem with capping really stems from the changes that were made to lengthen cap time. For Assault, that was fine, but not for Conquest. They should just increase the total cap points to 1,000 and reset the values back to the old numbers so that it only took 30 seconds or so to flip a base.

I think the reasoning behind making the change in Conquest was because you could now bring a whole lance to cap while still having 8 mechs to fight...which is fine. Except that almost never happens. Even if a full lance steps on the base initially, they'll only remain there for 20 or 30 seconds before wandering off to fight even though the cap isn't finished yet. Reducing the cap time, while upping the total cap required, should still make the games last longer and give a chance for a "destroy all enemy mechs" victory while also allowing a lone light to cap the point in a reasonable amount of time if o one is helping.

[Bilbo]

Saobh, on 06 December 2013 - 09:22 AM, said:

Guys I seriously doubt turrents and such active entities will ever happen in this game as this just adds latencies to the multiplayer code which will impact the "online experience" (aka lag) too much to ever become relevant.

Each turrent which has to scan and fire an enemy players is like adding a new player to a 24 player game. Its technically doable but the net code will be a nightmare (and if ever implemtnated wouldn't having more real players actually be better ?)

Actually...Turrets are coming.
http://mwomercs.com/...k-peek-turrets/

I don't particularly like the idea because it makes a neutered mech even more worthless. You can cap if you find yourself out of weapons right now. When the turrets arrive, you won't be able to do anything useful.

[Viges]

Fut, on 06 December 2013 - 07:42 AM, said:

Wait. So instead of having to destroy the turrets, then stand in the enemy base to cap - you'd rather have to destroy the turrets, then wait around the base for it to self-cap? There really isn't much of a difference, is there?

Sure, you could move out from the enemy's base while it's capping, but that leaves it open to be defended by an enemy - so you'd have to stick around just in case.

Or am I not following the suggestion properly?

Besides, is it really that big of a deal to have to stand in the base for a moment while it caps?

I'm afraid you dont exactly follow it.

After you destroy turrets you can destroy enemy base and win.

Your base is capping for you, enemy base is capping for them. You need to destroy enemy base or enemy mechs to win.

For me it is a big deal to stand still and do nothing to complete the objectives. Its boring. Its bad mechanics.
For example you can cap 99% for x minutes and it will do pretty much nothing. On the other hand if it would slow cap speed by 99% it could change the whole match. It will do matches much more dynamic and fix poptarting meta without touching weapons balance at all.

Edited by Viges, 06 December 2013 - 11:07 AM.

[Viges]

Bilbo, on 06 December 2013 - 09:42 AM, said:

I don't particularly like the idea because it makes a neutered mech even more worthless.

And it should be that way. I especially like mechs that run out of ammo and have no backup weapons. If you have no weapons - you ARE useless. So think twice about weapons loadout and placement, ammo, defending you weapons in combat and destroying enemies weapons. Yes, thats less casual and more tactical as I want it to be.

Edited by Viges, 06 December 2013 - 11:11 AM.

[Bilbo]

Viges, on 06 December 2013 - 11:11 AM, said:

And it should be that way. I especially like mechs that run out of ammo and have no backup weapons. If you have no weapons - you ARE useless. So think twice about weapons loadout and placement, ammo, defending you weapons in combat and destroying enemies weapons. Yes, thats less casual and more tactical as I want it to be.

I'm not talking about running out of ammo. I'm talking about running out of arms and torso's. Right now, I can amble over to the base and, at the very least, provide a distraction. When turrets come in to play that is no longer an option. All I'd be able to do is wait to be finished off or the match to end. Neither option is appealing.

[Viges]

Bilbo, on 06 December 2013 - 11:16 AM, said:

I'm not talking about running out of ammo. I'm talking about running out of arms and torso's. Right now, I can amble over to the base and, at the very least, provide a distraction. When turrets come in to play that is no longer an option. All I'd be able to do is wait to be finished off or the match to end. Neither option is appealing.

Yes you need to care more about your arms

I understand your point but I still think that if mech has no weapons its useless in any war situation (well you can try to scout with it or hug enemy to death ).

Edited by Viges, 06 December 2013 - 11:31 AM.

[Doctor Proctor]

Viges, on 06 December 2013 - 11:30 AM, said:

Yes you need to care more about your arms

Yep, certain mechs have the disadvantage of not being able to zombie at all, which is one of the things that balances the game. I can completely strip and neuter a Jager of all it's weapons, but can't do the same a Hunchback. If you're in a mech that depends solely on ammo, or that has weapons in the CT/Head, then it's your responsibility as the pilot to try and protect yourself so that you don't get picked apart and left with no weapons/ammo. If you do, then you're as good as dead in the grand scheme of things and I don't really see a problem with you being unable to significantly influence the match anymore.