252 replies to this topic

[MischiefSC]

RichAC, on 27 December 2013 - 07:14 AM, said:

So you dont' mind if someone hides in skirmish? well you are the minority.

The fact you feel capping is easier is interesting cause most people i know prefer not to play conquest, because they lose more and feel its not a good game mode for pugs since there is less communication. Maybe now that they have skirmish, they should make capping a base in assault the ONLY way to win haha. Just like LoL. Then their turrets they want to put on bases would actually make sense. and assault wouldn't just be the original skirmish mode.

1.12 vs 1.29 is hardly a huge difference. My stats are pretty much the same. Its due to good matchmaking. For most people its the opposite though. I just noticed I don't have skirmish stats.

You say its rare someone hides on skirmish, and I say its rare a 4 man spider team caps the first couple minutes in assault... I wouldn't exaggerate and say 1-100, but I bet w/e the ratio is its the same for both

. I say its easier to drop solo in skirmish, only because there is no strategy except follow the murder ball. And you will always have your teamates backing you up, unless your really clueless and get caught by yourself somehow. But that does not mean you can make more of a difference by yourself, i think its quite the contrary and your team matters more, as opposed to conquest or assault, where capping could change the tide of the match, even by one person, like a lone medium or light. Or assault capping or defending an assault base by himself...etc... Maybe I can change the tide of a match in skirmish just as much if I took out like 6 guys by myself with my DDC, but what would i be doing by myself? Maybe that shadowhawk can try and flank and take out 6 alone... haha.

The tactics are the same in conquest, except it might be 4v4 instead of 12v12. . The difference is there is strategy involved. You want to draw out a battle, I want to win the war. Skirmish is the aimbot practice mode, and I'm not saying anyone is cheating or that I don't have a positive k/d or need a "crutch". Aim is the only thing you consider valuable or skillful I guess. But ironically in conquest You are actually more likely to be outnumbered where your tactics and aim skills will play even a bigger role.

I just think the game should be more then just who has the best aim or most powerful loadout and armor. It should also be about intelligence and strategy as well. Thats one of the things that attracts me to this game over your typical twitch shooter. Thats what makes this game different. Maybe you should be playing hawken instead. But to each his own.


I play for stats whether good or bad, and I play to win, sue me. Its also what makes sports interesting. It provides a goal, numbers to crunch and accumulate, and doesn't mean I don't like a challenge, although I'm very competitive.

I'm just tired of hearing complaints about capping, or demanding people step off bases or go suicide if they are the last man standing. As if good stats or winning is a bad thing. Start another match or go Quit and pick a different mech lol

I have no issue with people trying to hide in Skirmish. I think it's silly but it doesn't bother me. There's a world of difference between having lost and still managing to hide at the end of the match and coming into Assault with a cap accelerator and a plan to effectively troll both teams (which it is - we all know it is, that's a part of why people do it) and score an early cap victory.

I find the capping mechanic feeble at best. I'd be all over an attack/defend mode - one team on defense of a base with turrets, the other team on offense. How about flexible tactical objectives? You take the 'cap' associated with the radar tower and your team gets periodic pings of enemy locations. You hold the ammo dump (map specific even) and your teammates can stand in the square to slowly reload. You could even make the objectives destroyable.

Currently though caps in Assault are there essentially as a crutch. They lessen, not expand, tactics. They are a tool for trolling and a cheap trick to try if you can't win any other way.

If all you do is murder ball I see why Skirmish is trouble for you. Try communicating and coordinating with your pugs, drop with a few friends and get good at flanking. The problem isn't Skirmish - the problem is habits people have developed from Assault. I've played several pug games where my team agreed to stick with lances and ran as 3 sets of 4 mechs. We stuck close enough to support each other but not in a murder ball. We called 'Advancing to C4, drawing fire' and 'flanking to D2'. We *destroyed* the other team. No VOIP, just chat. Just pugs. You can do that in Skirmish because you're all on the same goal and there's no magic square to end the match early. All you've got is actual battlefield tactics, thus their impact is far more critical.

Skirmish is *not* like Assault or Conquest but without caps. That's like saying riding a bicycle is the same as riding a Big Wheel. Caps in Assault are the training wheel. All you have to think about is steering, balance isn't an issue. You take the training wheels off and it's a whole other skill set. You try to ride you bike like it's still got the training wheels on and you're going to have a tough ride.

Diego Angelus, on 27 December 2013 - 12:46 AM, said:

@MischiefSC

Hi we cross words again on this topic

As I said before Assault/Conquest is always going to be more tactical only problem with it is that rewards for capping are pathetic so people don't bother to play mode as it should they act like its skirmish while some still try to attack/defend. I mean its sad when we get victory by cap because no one gets Cbills. I'm 100% sure that if rewards were better for cap people would try to cap base more and that means teams would have to defend them harder so we would see team split into attack/defend forces and created more movement on maps. Hardcore mode ? its same as any other mode same goes down in assault and conquest you will win or lose based on how you play. lets lets be real people play assault like its skirmish so we have lots of those situations you were talking about only difference is that people bring more heavier mechs on skirmish.

I hope to get good rewards on wining by cap so I can say gj to light for giving us free victory and c-bills in short time because enemy team was dumb and didn't want to react on caps and play mode correctly.

I'm all for changes to capping rewards in Assault. Help make the perception match the reality - Assault is and has always been about capping, not fighting. 60 seconds standing in a box trumps any and every other action, decision or tactical play you can make in Assault. It's the supreme maneuver. There is no more effective module than the cap accelerator for Assault and thinking otherwise is fooling yourself. The ability to cap out the enemy base before they can come back if they ever get more than 600m away from it gives you absolute control of the battlefield. Like I said prior - it's training wheels. You want to control enemy positioning in Skirmish? use heavy fire to drive them into cover or use a 'broken wing' (being an easy target) to draw them where you want them. Make a stupid tactical mistake and half your team gets killed? There is no cap to run to. You set your jaw, find a good position and ask your team to call weak points on mechs so you can try to focus-fire them down before your ID catches up. You kick your game up a notch or you lose.

I've got no issue with Conquest. If I could cut Assault out and drop Skirmish and Conquest.... well, I'd still stick with Skirmish. As I've said before I'm getting 60 or 70% of my matches being excellent. Not just good, but excellent. Hard-fought wins and losses. I haven't minded the few times I've been rolled because it was still a good match. I've seen some brilliant play and picked up some great tactical and build ideas.

If you're not getting more tactics out of the opportunities that Skirmish provides that's a personal problem, not one with the mode.

Skirmish took the training wheels off. Get on your bike and ride.

[Navy Sixes]

It's not trolling. It's a victory condition. One of the best things about Skirmish is that Assault has become a better game. Players there aren't trying to regulate their own teammates and keep them from winning. Players keep an eye on their base and try to find new ways to get at their opponents', Assault is better than it's ever been.

[MischiefSC]

Tycho von Gagern, on 27 December 2013 - 12:46 PM, said:

It's not trolling. It's a victory condition. One of the best things about Skirmish is that Assault has become a better game. Players there aren't trying to regulate their own teammates and keep them from winning. Players keep an eye on their base and try to find new ways to get at their opponents', Assault is better than it's ever been.

Due props on that. If anyone complains about capping in Assault, tell them to go play Skirmish. Nobody in Skirmish complains or we'd send them to Assault.

I find it unlikely there will ever be as many people complaining about Ninja Stealth Troll Spiders in Skirmish as there are people complaining about capping (and troll spiders for that matter) in Assault.

Now all we need is a way to select multiple game modes instead of singles.

[RichAC]

[<p>

MischiefSC, on 27 December 2013 - 09:58 AM, said:

</p>

I have no issue with people trying to hide in Skirmish. I think it's silly but it doesn't bother me. There's a world of difference between having lost and still managing to hide at the end of the match and coming into Assault with a cap accelerator and a plan to effectively troll both teams (which it is - we all know it is, that's a part of why people do it) and score an early cap victory.

The difference to me is capping helps your team win, hiding in skirmish mode does absolutely nothing to help. At least in conquest you can possibly win by cap points, and in assault you can possibly win by kiting and touching base. Both don't happen often though. And even now that we have skirmish and i have made this thread. I see more people trying to cap win with 4 lights, but almost always failing lol. Its really not that easy dude. Especially not in my matches probably because I will remind people to quickly rtb, sometimes returning there by myself, even in in my 48 kph atlas and killing 4 guys right on the base by myself. Those are my favorite and memorable matches. I don't know what world you live in where you think its that easy. Maybe you should actually try for yourself.

Quote

I find the capping mechanic feeble at best. I'd be all over an attack/defend mode - one team on defense of a base with turrets, the other team on offense. How about flexible tactical objectives? You take the 'cap' associated with the radar tower and your team gets periodic pings of enemy locations. You hold the ammo dump (map specific even) and your teammates can stand in the square to slowly reload. You could even make the objectives destroyable.

sounds like how they dumbed down battlefield series with rush mode for the console players. I'd rather have it like LoL instead, where there is actually strategy involved. Not a mode where wallhacking and aimbots can dominate. Just my preference. </p>

Quote

Currently though caps in Assault are there essentially as a crutch. They lessen, not expand, tactics. They are a tool for trolling and a cheap trick to try if you can't win any other way.

Only if you think the only thing that should matter to help your team , or only skill worth having is aim. . I'm not saying that doesn't require skill. But it shouldn't be th only thing that matters. And bases are only a tool for trolling in your fantasy world where it happens all the time, and where people are sore losers. Maybe you are part of the problem in those matches. Ever think of that?</p>

Quote

If all you do is murder ball I see why Skirmish is trouble for you. Try communicating and coordinating with your pugs, drop with a few friends and get good at flanking. The problem isn't Skirmish - the problem is habits people have developed from Assault. I've played several pug games where my team agreed to stick with lances and ran as 3 sets of 4 mechs. We stuck close enough to support each other but not in a murder ball. We called 'Advancing to C4, drawing fire' and 'flanking to D2'. We *destroyed* the other team. No VOIP, just chat. Just pugs. You can do that in Skirmish because you're all on the same goal and there's no magic square to end the match early. All you've got is actual battlefield tactics, thus their impact is far more critical.[

Actually skirmish isn't any trouble at all, surprised you have never seen me in a match. Do you even play often? All those things you mentioned can be applied to any game mode, this is what makes your argument silly. The difference, is that its the only thing you need to win. You don't have to worry about bases, which makes things more challenging and complicated and require strategy not just tactics alone</p>

Quote

Skirmish is *not* like Assault or Conquest but without caps. That's like saying riding a bicycle is the same as riding a Big Wheel. Caps in Assault are the training wheel. All you have to think about is steering, balance isn't an issue. You take the training wheels off and it's a whole other skill set. You try to ride you bike like it's still got the training wheels on and you're going to have a tough ride.

thats excactly what it is. Caps in assault, are another complexity. Its actually the opposite of training wheels, you have to do more thinking. Its like going to bootcamp to learn basic fighting techniques, so they can be applied to help win a war. Thats the problem...lol Your starting to sound more and more like someone who cries when he loses in assault to a cap win. because you can't be bothered to use any strategy exept run and gun, or too selfish to sacrifice some dmg , or have no self control to restrain yourself from chasing some enemy and instead turning around to defend your base.

Quote

I'm all for changes to capping rewards in Assault. Help make the perception match the reality - Assault is and has always been about capping, not fighting. 60 seconds standing in a box trumps any and every other action, decision or tactical play you can make in Assault. It's the supreme maneuver. There is no more effective module than the cap accelerator for Assault and thinking otherwise is fooling yourself. The ability to cap out the enemy base before they can come back if they ever get more than 600m away from it gives you absolute control of the battlefield. Like I said prior - it's training wheels. You want to control enemy positioning in Skirmish? use heavy fire to drive them into cover or use a 'broken wing' (being an easy target) to draw them where you want them. Make a stupid tactical mistake and half your team gets killed? There is no cap to run to. You set your jaw, find a good position and ask your team to call weak points on mechs so you can try to focus-fire them down before your ID catches up. You kick your game up a notch or you lose.

cap wins in assault are so rare, that again I have to ask what fantasy world you live in? Do you even play cause i have not seen you in a match yet? This playerbase is pretty small. Even with skirmish mode now, They are still really rare. </p>

Quote

I've got no issue with Conquest. If I could cut Assault out and drop Skirmish and Conquest.... well, I'd still stick with Skirmish. As I've said before I'm getting 60 or 70% of my matches being <strong>excellent</strong>. Not just good, but excellent. Hard-fought wins and losses. I haven't minded the few times I've been rolled because it was still a good match. I've seen some brilliant play and picked up some great tactical and build ideas.

I'd rather cut out skirmish and only drop conquest and assault. to each his own. After posting your stats though, I'm guessing why you feel this way. Too bad they aren't tracking the skirmish stats yet to confirm this, I'm guessing your worst record is in assault...

Quote

If you're not getting more tactics out of the opportunities that Skirmish provides that's a personal problem, not one with the mode

As another poster said, to say there are any less tactics in any other game mode is pretty silly. Look up the definition of skirmish again, then look up the difference between tactics and strategy. Now If what your saying is tactics is all thats required to win in skrimish then yes your correct. But the other game modes require MORE then just those SAME tactics...</p>

Quote

Skirmish took the training wheels off. Get on your bike and ride

Skirmish IS the training mode. Instead of trying to win the battle, try to win the war.</p>

Edited by RichAC, 27 December 2013 - 03:45 PM.

[cSand]

loupgaroupoilu, on 11 December 2013 - 02:21 AM, said:

I don't like most of sports because you can't "attack" the players. That's why IMHO soccer is a *** sport. Even in Rugby (call a rugby player a *** at your own risk =), you can't smash people who don't carry the ball... Maybe American Football is ok, but i don't know the rules.

Lol let me guess,

MMA is "where it's at brah." Did you get the small, or XS Tapout tshirt?

[MischiefSC]

Actually my stats are probably worse in Skirmish, just the fights are closer, more tactical and more challenging. Assault matches are settled by capping directly probably 1 time in 5. They're settled indirectly probably 2 times in 3. Forcing the other team to split up to counter-cap, preventing them from exploiting an advantage because of risk of cap, etc. Capping controls Assault. Assault game mode is 80% capping, 20% combat. All the combat takes place in context of the cap points. Protecting yours or taking theirs. It cripples mobility and makes any tactics but the blob and poptarting in pre-set locations pretty pointless.

As to 'win the battle not the war'.... each match is 1 match. The difference between Assault and Skirmish is that in Assault you can always run to cap, or force the other team to run back to their cap or lose. You've got a magical box on each side that allows any one player to force the other team to respond. It's a crutch, a cheap trick for either winning directly or forcing the other team to comply.

Skirmish doesn't have that. Pure battlefield tactics. No cheap trick to fall back on, just how well you coordinate with your team, how well you fight and how well you position in a dynamic battle. Neither side gets a magic 'i win button if you don't run to this point in 60 seconds'.

I'm well aware of the difference between tactics and strategy and that's exactly why Skirmish is superior to Assault. Since capping lets you win in 60 seconds regardless of any and all other factors it is the ultimate strategy and any other strategy must bend to it. This means all your tactics are constrained by sticking to that strategy. I get the appeal of this - you only have one strategy to account for. It's like having a game with a plot on rails, levels built like a chute. You just go forward in this one direction and do things this one way and you complete the level. You can play different classes, carry different gear, take a different tactic towards that one strategic outcome but it's all pretty set.

In Skirmish you don't have that. Is your strategy a firing line? Control of the left or right side of the map? High mobility hit and run? False front and flanking? Pincer movement? No strategy at all? By removing automatic victory conditions you place the onus on both strategy and tactics on each team and each player on that team.

Assault has one strategy and a tiny handful of viable tactics. It holds your hand. Training wheels. Yes, taking training wheels off increases the challenge and depth. It's not removing a feature, it's removing a limitation.

[Gallowglas]

Objective victories are great...when they make a modest amount of sense and/or are balanced in such a way that one mech can't win the match just by virtue of being faster than the opponent. Not all objectives are created equal. If the game had a button you could press to instantly win a match, would your response be, "Learn to push buttons faster noobs! A win is a win!" or would you think the objective was lame and poorly balanced?

As it stands if we get base defenses which must be contended with before the base can be capped, allowing a coordinated team to still capture, but preventing a lone Spider from griefing the base the entire match, then I'll be fine with it. What we have now for Assault is not fine. You can pretend it's amazingly tactical, but it's not.

BTW, I agree that skirmish can be abused too. I think it might not be terrible to have a mechanic wherein a lone surviving mech either gets spotlighted so that it can easily be found or else the timer accelerates if that mech doesn't enter combat for, say, 60 seconds.

Edited by Gallowglas, 27 December 2013 - 04:26 PM.

[Dirus Nigh]

OneEyed Jack, on 11 December 2013 - 02:41 AM, said:

Can you imagine if some random player walking up the goal right at the kick-off meant the game was over?

Wouldn't sell much ad space, would they?

Can you imagine if the players were payed based on specific individual actions they took during the game (passes, TDs, tackles, blocks, etc...)?

Might have some torqued-off players, no?

Most people don't give a {Scrap} if the game ends in a cap. They just want the chance to play a bit, first. Although, when your team is clearly winning and some ***** goes and caps instead of finishing them off, well.... there's just some times when TK'ing should be allowed.

Can you imagine of all those players who are bitching, whining, crying, and raging about capping and not getting the fight they want. Actually defended the base they are complaining about being capped? They might get the fight they wanted and have the satisfaction of pulling off a good base defense.

Edited by Dirus Nigh, 27 December 2013 - 06:03 PM.

[MischiefSC]

Dirus Nigh, on 27 December 2013 - 06:03 PM, said:

Can you imagine of all those players who are bitching, whining, crying, and raging about capping and not getting the fight they want. Actually defended the base they are complaining about being capped? They might get the fight they wanted and have the satisfaction of pulling off a good base defense.

Or they should just play Skirmish. Your logic indicates that both sides should simply camp their own base every match in Assault - which would be rather boring. This is necessitated by the nature of capping - it trumps all other strategy and works regardless of mech, build, or skill of team and pilot. Everyone on both sides either focuses on preventing or completing a base cap or they play with an inherently inferior strategy. Thus not 'the fight they wanted' but the fight the person capping wants - where, when and how they want it. Is sort of the problem, isn't it? The guy in the spider with the cap accelerator dictates completely the flow of the match. If you're not that guy you're just reacting to that guy.

I agree though. They shouldn't complain about capping in Assault anymore. They should go play Skirmish and Assault will be populated with people who enjoy cap-rush games, Conquest will be about people who like the scatter-and-cap or blob-fight-cap options, while Skirmish is filled by people who enjoy a bit slower paced thinking mans shooter sort of match.

[Dirus Nigh]

MischiefSC, on 27 December 2013 - 06:23 PM, said:

Or they should just play Skirmish. Your logic indicates that both sides should simply camp their own base every match in Assault - which would be rather boring. This is necessitated by the nature of capping - it trumps all other strategy and works regardless of mech, build, or skill of team and pilot. Everyone on both sides either focuses on preventing or completing a base cap or they play with an inherently inferior strategy. Thus not 'the fight they wanted' but the fight the person capping wants - where, when and how they want it. Is sort of the problem, isn't it? The guy in the spider with the cap accelerator dictates completely the flow of the match. If you're not that guy you're just reacting to that guy.

I agree though. They shouldn't complain about capping in Assault anymore. They should go play Skirmish and Assault will be populated with people who enjoy cap-rush games, Conquest will be about people who like the scatter-and-cap or blob-fight-cap options, while Skirmish is filled by people who enjoy a bit slower paced thinking mans shooter sort of match.

No my logic is that a team should respond properly when the base is under threat. Not ignore the situation and ***** about the fact they were capped when they could have done some thing about it.

Edited by Dirus Nigh, 27 December 2013 - 06:28 PM.

[MischiefSC]

Dirus Nigh, on 27 December 2013 - 06:28 PM, said:

No my logic is that a team should respond properly when the base is under threat. Not ignore the situation and ***** about the fact they were capped when they could have done some thing about it.

Yet capping trumps every other tactic. The truth is that the smart play is base-camping, people compromise by seeing how far they can get from their base and get into fighting. When you say 'respond properly' what do you recommend? Never go further from your base than you can sprint back in 60 seconds? You can always do something about being capped - camp your base. Every single match in Assault. Everything else you do other than camping your base is leaving your whole team open to defeat regardless of how well they play otherwise.

So, no. You're logic absolutely is to camp your base every match. That's how you defend against cap because you have no way of knowing, until you're already there, if it's 1 Locust or 3 Atlases at your base. If you don't camp your base every match in Assault you accept that you may just arbitrarily lose the match not to someones solid piloting skills, teamwork or coordination but to anyone who stood still in a box for 60 seconds in a match where you decided to do something other than camp your base.

Which is alright. Just be honest about it. My issue with these threads is the attempt to portray Assault as something other than it is or base capping as something other than what it is.

Base capping is a mechanic that allows a player to stand in a square for ~60 seconds and win the game regardless of anything and everything else. If either team moves more than 60 seconds from their base they risk loss regardless of how well they fight. It is a mechanic that allows people to play poorly, organize poorly, deploy poorly and get destroyed by a tactically superior team and still win because they had a cap accelerator and were faster than the other team or the other teams lights died already.

When you remove capping you require every single player on each team to play better because there is no fallback plan - no trick to pulling out a win. You play poorly you lose. There is more than one strategy to winning though and you can take bigger risks, move further afield and deploy more varied tactics and multiple strategies because you're not tied to a square if you don't want to risk a pretty much arbitrary loss.

[Whatzituyah]

This thread is still going on? There is a new game mode called skirmish I think you should play it if you want to win by killing.

[OneEyed Jack]

MischiefSC, on 27 December 2013 - 07:06 PM, said:

Base capping is a mechanic that allows a player to stand in a square for ~60 seconds and win the game regardless of anything and everything else.

Considerably less if it's a 4-man with 4 Cap Accelerators.

Dirus Nigh, on 27 December 2013 - 06:03 PM, said:

Can you imagine of all those players who are bitching, whining, crying, and raging about capping and not getting the fight they want. Actually defended the base they are complaining about being capped?

Can you imagine if the Hodors spewing that idiotic, broken-record "defend your base" BS actually knew enough about tactics to understand why it's so stupid?

[Dirus Nigh]

OneEyed Jack, on 28 December 2013 - 04:56 AM, said:

Can you imagine if the Hodors spewing that idiotic, broken-record "defend your base" BS actually knew enough about tactics to understand why it's so stupid?

Oh please great General Lee, teach me about tactics. Please explain why it is stupid to defend the base? Please explain why it is tactically unsound. Please drop this knowledge upon us lowly MWO players.

[MischiefSC]

Dirus Nigh, on 28 December 2013 - 12:52 PM, said:

Oh please great General Lee, teach me about tactics. Please explain why it is stupid to defend the base? Please explain why it is tactically unsound. Please drop this knowledge upon us lowly MWO players.

While the wording was a bit harsh, the fundamental issue is that the nature of base capping (instant win if you stand in it long enough) defies any real tactics. You don't 'hold' a base. You can't drive someone out after they hit the 60 second limit. Even in the context of Battletech it's pretty arbitrary and unrealistic.

More critically their existence, design, location and game-mode itself makes a mockery of tactics.

A defensive tactic is one that is based around holding a location. Offensive tactics are based around mobility. The premise of a defensive position however is that the position itself is defensible. If it's not, you fortify it. In Assault however bases are generally poorly placed and largely indefensible. In addition the tactical meta around pinpoint accuracy and poptarting makes location critical, further reducing the viability of actually defending bases.

So in Assault the smart tactic, to actually play to tactics, would involve effectively camping your base until the timer ran out. Since nobody enjoys that however the underlying principle of Assault is that you've got to ignore tactics to play and have fun. Tactics runs contrary to enjoyment in Assault. Unless you're playing in a light and don't fight that well, in which case it provides a vengeful thrill in winning even when you can't fight, especially against another team that can fight. That's all the caps do - they do not provide tactical depth, they put tactics at odds with enjoying the game and provide a means to troll people for not playing lights.

That's the issue. Defending the base is tactical - it's just boring. Capturing a base is fun, so is fighting. So you've got an inherently imbalanced system that punishes tactical play.

Skirmish, conversely, rewards tactics and those tactics are also fun. Coordinated advancement, ambushes, flanking, these are what win the match in Skirmish. They are not what wins the match in Assault. Camping or capping are what wins in Assault.

Make sense? Saying 'defend your base' is ridiculous. Tactics dictate that both teams in Assault should be about 1/2 lights, 1/2 assaults with BAP, streaks and the like. The assaults should camp their base while the lights, largely armed with long-range sniping weapons, should try to peel the enemy defenders out of the base and win by capping. The problem is that it's even less enjoyable than the blobbing that happens in Assault currently. It's not that people don't understand the tactics of Assault, it's that they're not fun. Saying 'defend your base' is like saying 'you should power off and hide if you don't want shot in your light'. Is it true? Yes, in an obnoxious way.

It also highlights the fundamental truth about Assault. Assault isn't about fighting, how well or poorly you fight is irrelevant. It's about capping. If someone wants to fight they should play Skirmish where their skill at fighting and battlefield tactics count. If they like camping and capping they should play Assault.

[RichAC]

I defend bases everyday. You get more action with patience in this game then you do rushing to die early. You usually have to fight for a base, its really not as easy as people think.

Usually if its just two lights, we only send one medium or heavy back to defend, from the midpoint, which is good enough to chase them off or down them. Sometimes the team needs to go. Have to know what to do in certain situations. Knowing where the enemy at all times is the most important.

Today i was capping a base by myself in my assault mech. I roasted some marshmellows waited like 3 mins, as my whole team was flanking the enemy a head of me and while a lance of ours got murdered..Then i finally spotted an enemy lance coming from the other side to me, 3 jagers and a griffin. The rest of my lance in lights and mediums swarmed back to assist me, we downed them all at their base and i got 3 kills 130k cbills and about 1k xp and it was a very quick match. I love when that happens. It was also the only cap win in assault i saw today. No i wasn't gonna stepf off the base after that. NEXT.

a couple guys on the server made comments that it was a boring match. sure as hell wasn't boring for me.

On another note, I just noticed that in a match I just lost, i got the most cbills and xp for the LOSS. why do I even get any xp for a loss at all? I think thats crazy. I never noticed this lol . The fact you get the most cbills and xp, by far, out of a match you lost just for losing, its no wonder noone cares about winning.

PS: some guys still don't know the difference between tactics and strategy. Tactics are always needed for fighting skill sets period, in any situation at all times. Strategy is how you plan to win. Objectives require more strategy its just a fact.

http://en.wikipedia....ic_%28method%29
"tactics are the actual means used to gain an objective, while strategy is the overall campaign plan, which may involve complex operational patterns, activity, and decision-making that lead to tactical execution"

Edited by RichAC, 28 December 2013 - 03:22 PM.

[OneEyed Jack]

MischiefSC, on 28 December 2013 - 01:59 PM, said:

(good stuff) *snip*

That's a good start.

The problem is, it does no good. You see, it's not that they don't get it. They don't, but that's beside the point. It's that they don't want to get it. It's the internet, and it's much simpler to join in with the spouting the smarmy {Scrap} mantra than to actually learn the fundamentals of tactics from the ground up, so that they'll understand.

Personally, I don't have the patience anymore, and don't care to give the time, to teach it. Especially to those who will just go all internet-tuff-guy and refuse to learn, anyway.

Dirus Nigh, on 28 December 2013 - 12:52 PM, said:

Oh please great General Lee, teach me about tactics. Please explain why it is stupid to defend the base? Please explain why it is tactically unsound.

My wording was poor. The "it" I referred to in my post is the over-simplified, brain-dead, broken-record mantra.

[RichAC]

OneEyed Jack, on 28 December 2013 - 03:14 PM, said:

That's a good start.

The problem is, it does no good. You see, it's not that they don't get it. They don't, but that's beside the point. It's that they don't want to get it. It's the internet, and it's much simpler to join in with the spouting the smarmy {Scrap} mantra than to actually learn the fundamentals of tactics from the ground up, so that they'll understand.

Personally, I don't have the patience anymore, and don't care to give the time, to teach it. Especially to those who will just go all internet-tuff-guy and refuse to learn, anyway.


My wording was poor. The "it" I referred to in my post is the over-simplified, brain-dead, broken-record mantra.

Tactics = fighting period. It doesn't change with the game mode.

I think people need to stop trying to make it more then it is in skirmish/practice mode, because they don't have the patience for any real strategy with additional win objectives. I don't think the game should be about tactice alone. It should also be about strategy. Everybody should have a role to play.

EDIT: http://en.wikipedia....ic_%28method%29
"In military usage, a military tactic is used by a military unit of no larger than a division to implement a specific mission and achieve a specific objective, or to advance toward a specific target.|


Notice they specify a specific mission, a specific objective, and a specific target. SUCH AS BASES!!

Edited by RichAC, 28 December 2013 - 03:34 PM.

[OneEyed Jack]

RichAC, on 28 December 2013 - 03:26 PM, said:

Tactics = fighting period. It doesn't change with the game mode. I think people need to stop trying to make it more then it is in skirmish/practice mode, because they don't have the patience for any real strategy with additional win objectives.

I didn't say anything about Skirmish. Sorry if I didn't go point-by-point through the post I quoted to make it easier for *cough* reading comprehension. But that's a simply brilliant definition of tactics.

[Ghogiel]

Skirmish = depending on map/spawn location, dumb charlie lance, with their mix of mediums and heavies, will go right into the hot zone and try to engage 2 heavier enemy lances while alpha lance is making ground/maneuvering to strong position.

Capture = Small maps, one team will have ~4 mechs who try to cap, even though small maps nearly always end on kills and not resources, leaving one team severally out gunned in the inevitable fire fight that nearly always decides the round.

Assault = same problem as skirmish with a more obvious rally point, that is seemingly avoided by more than half the players like the plague as soon as red triangle appears on the screen (as long as the red triangle is no where near the base it's like a moth to flame).