252 replies to this topic

[RichAC]

Spawnsalot, on 22 February 2014 - 03:19 AM, said:

A soccer match isn't played with two balls and (for the millionth time) Counter-Strike's bomb defuse mode is attack and defend.
I'm starting to wonder if you're a high-level troll or just completely Hodor.

MWO is played with two balls?

And in counterstrikes bomb defuse mode, you can also win by eliminating the enemy team.... no difference bud.


http://counterstrike...ki/Bomb_defusal


Didin't I post this link for you before already? Try to read it this time, notice the part where they say "The Secondary Objective.......which also secures a win for both teams......."

Notice how they also mention, that it is the most popular game mode, and the preferred game mode for tournmanets and competitions.

So the myth in this community, about how the game mode is unpopular because of a "secondary objective" is completely phony and disingenuous and made up by a bunch of selfish sore loser carebears.

It totally kills me, that even after PGI gives you people skirmish mode, you still want to complain and ragequit players for wanting to cap win in the other game modes. Yes even in conquest. I just played a conquest match on alpine peaks..... where guys were telling everyone to camp I9 like it was freaking skirmish! Of course we lost, and I felt a fool for trying to cap, when none of the other squads were, even though thats the primary objective. Why play conquest if you don't want to cap anything? To ruin it for other people? To drive truly competitive players from the game?

Edited by RichAC, 22 February 2014 - 03:47 AM.

[Spawnsalot]

You've missed the point entirely.
People don't have a problem with the "secondary" objective of killing everyone, the issue lies with the "primary" objective where both teams must cap and defend at the same time.

From your link: "the main objective for the Counter-Terrorists is to prevent the Terrorists from planting the C4 explosive."

This is an asymmetrical objective. Attack and defend. This is why the game modes in Counter-Strike work.

Spot the difference -

MWO Assault - Team 1: Capture enemy base, defend home base or kill enemy team.
Team 2: Capture enemy base, defend home base or kill enemy team.

Counter-Strike - Team 1: Plant bomb or kill enemy team.
Team 2: Defend bomb site or kill enemy team.

I'll give you a hint - both teams do not have the same objectives in Counter-Strike.

The Defuse game mode gave good matches because the dynamic could shift at any time - CTs start on the defensive with two positions to defend, the Ts can attack either position to win and the CTs don't know which. If the bomb carrier is killed the CTs can switch to defence of just one position and force the Ts to try and recover the bomb. If the bomb is planted the Ts must now defend the position against CTs who must now attack the position within a certain time-frame or lose. And hanging over all of this is the option of killing all the enemy team (unless the bomb has been planted).

This is the reason a lot of people don't like Assault. The objectives are a mess. There's no dynamic shifts to keep people on their toes, it's stale.
Once a base has been capped that's it. The game is over with no chance of counter-attack

If Assault was like Bomb Defusal,Team 1 would have two bases in the area that needed to be defended, Team 2 would need to reach one of these bases and a capture it, a timer activates and Team 1 has a limited window of time to recapture the base before the match ends.
Maybe the fluff for the mission would be that Team 2 needs to upload a virus at one of the bases to hack a network or something and the virus came in a pack that a mech could pick up by walking over it and is dropped when the mech is destroyed.

At the moment Assault is just zerg rush the base, camp your own base, blockade choke points with pop-tarts and plink each other or duke it out in the middle of the map and hope a mech doesn't sneak past and sit on your base.

I do agree though, and have always maintained, that players have no reason to moan about cap wins now that we have Skirmish.

[RichAC]

Spawnsalot, on 22 February 2014 - 04:27 AM, said:

You've missed the point entirely.
People don't have a problem with the "secondary" objective of killing everyone, the issue lies with the "primary" objective where both teams must cap and defend at the same time.

Isn't that what soccer is? Didn't you just say counterstrike was attack and defend? Exaclty how is that any different then counterstrike?

Quote

From your link: "the main objective for the Counter-Terrorists is to prevent the Terrorists from planting the C4 explosive."



This is an asymmetrical objective. Attack and defend. This is why the game modes in Counter-Strike work.

Spot the difference -

MWO Assault - Team 1: Capture enemy base, defend home base or kill enemy team.
Team 2: Capture enemy base, defend home base or kill enemy team.

Counter-Strike - Team 1: Plant bomb or kill enemy team.
Team 2: Defend bomb site or kill enemy team.

I'll give you a hint - both teams do not have the same objectives in Counter-Strike.

The Defuse game mode gave good matches because the dynamic could shift at any time - CTs start on the defensive with two positions to defend, the Ts can attack either position to win and the CTs don't know which. If the bomb carrier is killed the CTs can switch to defence of just one position and force the Ts to try and recover the bomb. If the bomb is planted the Ts must now defend the position against CTs who must now attack the position within a certain time-frame or lose. And hanging over all of this is the option of killing all the enemy team (unless the bomb has been planted).

This is the reason a lot of people don't like Assault. The objectives are a mess. There's no dynamic shifts to keep people on their toes, it's stale.
Once a base has been capped that's it. The game is over with no chance of counter-attack

If Assault was like Bomb Defusal,Team 1 would have two bases in the area that needed to be defended, Team 2 would need to reach one of these bases and a capture it, a timer activates and Team 1 has a limited window of time to recapture the base before the match ends.
Maybe the fluff for the mission would be that Team 2 needs to upload a virus at one of the bases to hack a network or something and the virus came in a pack that a mech could pick up by walking over it and is dropped when the mech is destroyed.

At the moment Assault is just zerg rush the base, camp your own base, blockade choke points with pop-tarts and plink each other or duke it out in the middle of the map and hope a mech doesn't sneak past and sit on your base.

I do agree though, and have always maintained, that players have no reason to moan about cap wins now that we have Skirmish.

I see what you mean by attack and defend now, meaning one team caps either base, and the other team just defends both bases.

But I totally disagree about, the dynamics, or teams not being kept on their toes. I mean that would be like saying football and soccer matches are not dynamic.

The reasons I always hear for people not liking assault, is that they find it boring to defend, and get sore about losing to fast cap wins.

I feel if they were on their toes, they would be more likely to successfully counter cap or defend.... And if one team had to defend both bases, with slow moving mechs on big maps, with no respawns, .. it would be even more unpopular, imo.


But supposedly assault is just in the beginnnig stages of turning into a game mode, where the team and the base must all be destroyed, since the base will also serve as a respawning point. Which would be similar to LoL, and i think would be really awesome and popular, and makes more sense to me. I just hope i understand that correctly and that its actually true.

Edited by RichAC, 22 February 2014 - 06:12 AM.

[Tiamat of the Sea]

Joseph Mallan, on 11 December 2013 - 06:00 AM, said:

Games end in Cap <15% of the time. A minority in most statistical bases.

Which is actually a big problem.

Said it before, say it again:

Rewards should not be attached to individual actions within the frame of winning or losing, because that incentivizes those actions even when they aren't beneficial otherwise. This whole problem would be much, -much- smaller if the rewards for winning thoroughly trumped any action-specific rewards- and it would be a very different game, because people would be learning to do the things that win the match most, instead of the things that get them the most little plinky rewards (for instance, tearing a 'mech apart piece by piece to get maximum component destruction would just plain old stop being a thing).

[AssaultPig]

I think things would actually be worse if the reward system incentivized capping.

Right now assault is a silly game mode because the incentives are screwed up vis a vis winning and losing, but at least the incentives tend to produce something that's entertaining (i.e. mechs fighting.)

Say 15% of assault games end in a cap right now. Would changing up the incentives such that players try to win by cap 50-75% of the time cause games to be more fun? I doubt it. I think you'd just get more games where the two teams' respective furballs race toward the enemy base.

[RichAC]

AssaultPig, on 22 February 2014 - 10:38 AM, said:

I think things would actually be worse if the reward system incentivized capping.

Right now assault is a silly game mode because the incentives are screwed up vis a vis winning and losing, but at least the incentives tend to produce something that's entertaining (i.e. mechs fighting.)

Say 15% of assault games end in a cap right now. Would changing up the incentives such that players try to win by cap 50-75% of the time cause games to be more fun? I doubt it. I think you'd just get more games where the two teams' respective furballs race toward the enemy base.

i think more players on a team would defend the base, so I disagree.

Edited by RichAC, 22 February 2014 - 11:40 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Elli Gujar, on 22 February 2014 - 06:06 AM, said:

Which is actually a big problem.

Said it before, say it again:

Rewards should not be attached to individual actions within the frame of winning or losing, because that incentivizes those actions even when they aren't beneficial otherwise. This whole problem would be much, -much- smaller if the rewards for winning thoroughly trumped any action-specific rewards- and it would be a very different game, because people would be learning to do the things that win the match most, instead of the things that get them the most little plinky rewards (for instance, tearing a 'mech apart piece by piece to get maximum component destruction would just plain old stop being a thing).

The primary mission of an Assault scenario is capture of the base. That being said Kills should be worth less than the capture.

Though there is nothing to actually capture presently... still. Capturing the base instead of killing the players could allow for stealing ammo/weapons, capturing a VIP, up loading a virus... Many different possibilities. Every mission does not need to end with genocide. There should always be more than one way to win a match.

[Joseph Mallan]

Ace Selin, on 07 February 2014 - 02:55 AM, said:

I play the game to destroy "robots" (hence i mostly paly skirmish and assault) others may play to simply win (apparently a few people like yourself do that, cap bases in assault and in assault mechs boot - LOL). That's got to be the most boring game ever. Id rather watch paint dry than walk around the action in my assault and sit motionless capping while others fight it out.

LOL You ever TRY to Cap in an assault Mech? I'll be honest I Get giggly when I win by Cap. Cause an Atlas is not a fast capping Mech, so those rare occasions. where I do Cap. It is a rush!

Not to mention some folks like to play like Ninja, and steal your stuff from under your nose.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 22 February 2014 - 11:56 AM.

[FenixK17]

Joseph Mallan, on 22 February 2014 - 11:54 AM, said:

LOL You ever TRY to Cap in an assault Mech? I'll be honest I Get giggly when I win by Cap. Cause an Atlas is not a fast capping Mech, so those rare occasions. where I do Cap. It is a rush!

Not to mention some folks like to play like Ninja, and steal your stuff from under your nose.

I had a game end with 4 stalkers and a battlemaster and 3 others end the game through cap. We lost a lance to delaying action though.

[Cavendish]

Well honestly, people whining about capping should not be playing assult in the first place. They have their COD inspired deathmatch mode now so why the heck are they not using that?

[RichAC]

Cavendish, on 23 February 2014 - 04:31 AM, said:

Well honestly, people whining about capping should not be playing assult in the first place. They have their COD inspired deathmatch mode now so why the heck are they not using that?

I have my suspicions. I think they're a bunch of jealous sore losing carebears, who have a sense of false entitlement, and selfishly want to ruin the game for others, because they don't feel anyone should be playing a mech warrior game that way. Its sabotage imo.

Edited by RichAC, 23 February 2014 - 11:45 AM.

[AssaultPig]

RichAC, on 22 February 2014 - 11:40 AM, said:

i think more players on a team would defend the base, so I disagree.

Why? If the incentive structure made people want to cap, people wouldn't want to sit at the base defending (and thus lose out on the cap rewards.) It'd be the same situation we're in now with people not wanting to win a certain way, but in reverse.

It also seems unlikely to me that splitting the team would make any more sense; if you leave six mechs behind to defend they get rolled over by the enemy 12, and nobody wants to be the guy who sticks around to sacrifice himself.

[RichAC]

AssaultPig, on 23 February 2014 - 12:28 PM, said:

Why? If the incentive structure made people want to cap, people wouldn't want to sit at the base defending (and thus lose out on the cap rewards.) It'd be the same situation we're in now with people not wanting to win a certain way, but in reverse.

It also seems unlikely to me that splitting the team would make any more sense; if you leave six mechs behind to defend they get rolled over by the enemy 12, and nobody wants to be the guy who sticks around to sacrifice himself.

What do you mean the incentive structure? You either mean, the WIN. which is an incentive to defend also.

Or the CAP point. BUT, they also give a DEFEND point. so doesn't make a difference.


Imagine if in football, they decided to not guard the in zone.....lmao. The difference in football though, is you can't elminate the enemy teamas another way to win. Strategies will change, its more dynamic then people think.

But I look forward to the base being a respawn point, if that actually happens.

Edited by RichAC, 23 February 2014 - 12:59 PM.

[Prezimonto]

Doing two things would greatly improve the assault incentives:

1st: ramp up the rewards for capping and/or defending. Tie your base's health to a mission reward, so the more you lose health at your base, the less you earn. Flip that and earn a double that value for the health gained off the enemies base. This provides a reason for fast harassers to peck and for your team to defend, and not just let the base turrets do the defense. I would also increase the cap area to a full map square around the mobile HQ, and allow ECM to shrink the range (call it sensor range issues). This provides a tactical decision about what to do with ECM carriers.

2nd multiply all incentives earned in the turret defense range of the base: so if you're fighting within base range you're earning larger rewards. To balance this out, decrease combat rewards for the rest of the match by least 1/2.... it still pays to fight, but not as well as pure offense or defense in the game of capping.

[RichAC]

Prezimonto, on 23 February 2014 - 01:08 PM, said:

Doing two things would greatly improve the assault incentives:

1st: ramp up the rewards for capping and/or defending. Tie your base's health to a mission reward, so the more you lose health at your base, the less you earn. Flip that and earn a double that value for the health gained off the enemies base. This provides a reason for fast harassers to peck and for your team to defend, and not just let the base turrets do the defense. I would also increase the cap area to a full map square around the mobile HQ, and allow ECM to shrink the range (call it sensor range issues). This provides a tactical decision about what to do with ECM carriers.

2nd multiply all incentives earned in the turret defense range of the base: so if you're fighting within base range you're earning larger rewards. To balance this out, decrease combat rewards for the rest of the match by least 1/2.... it still pays to fight, but not as well as pure offense or defense in the game of capping.

What do you think of having to kill the base and the whole team, and the base being a respawn point?

I think it would be great, as long as spawn times, base health, and points are balanced well.

Edited by RichAC, 23 February 2014 - 05:28 PM.

[mogs01gt]

I agree with the OP! People in this game tend to play every match type like it is team death match. As an example, my team was on Alpine filled mostly Assaults and Heavies vs lots of lights, I was in my Cent. I told them all to stay near the big mountain. Did they listen? Of course not! They decide to go out to the middle of the map and try to snipe/alpha our opponents. Yeah they did what they wanted, we were up 8-2 but ohh wait, I died defending the base from 3 lights and a Med. Yeah I took one out while typing to my team to help as base.......we lost due to base cap.

I cant tell if this issue is the TDM mentality, lack of understanding objective based games or they do not understand how their Mech's behave on certain maps. It really gets old when other players simply want to go for kills..

This game is sometimes more work than fun..

[Prezimonto]

RichAC, on 23 February 2014 - 05:26 PM, said:

What do you think of having to kill the base and the whole team, and the base being a respawn point?

I think it would be great, as long as spawn times, base health, and points are balanced well.

I would love this if the base was a dropship-landing pad, and periodically, a dropship comes down with reinforcements (ie.. your different mechs that you choose, and the computer selects to match with other players respawns. Give everyone 4 mechs into the scenario.

That being said, I could easily see that being a whole new game mode, and we just fix assault. I think I'd prefer more game modes, personally.

[RichAC]

Prezimonto, on 24 February 2014 - 07:05 AM, said:

I would love this if the base was a dropship-landing pad, and periodically, a dropship comes down with reinforcements (ie.. your different mechs that you choose, and the computer selects to match with other players respawns. Give everyone 4 mechs into the scenario.

That being said, I could easily see that being a whole new game mode, and we just fix assault. I think I'd prefer more game modes, personally.

Ya, I'm thinking they would still have to at least give a win reward. Or players might just drag it out till all 4 mechs are dead, and avoid killing the base just like they do now..

Edited by RichAC, 25 February 2014 - 07:58 AM.

[Kekrebos]

You know, I used to be all about hating Team Deathmatch, thinking it would water down the other game modes and had no place. Now I'm the opposite. Team Deathmatch tends to have much better gameplay. People tend to stick together, give supporting fire, and try to outmaneuver the enemy team. Conquest tends to have similar play as well.

Assault is like you let loose a pack of wild animals in a grocery store. Some try to run out the back door while the rest run around wrecking the place. I agree with the counterstrike example above. Assault has too much going on. You can attack, defend, or kill. That works in games like World of tanks where you form a battle line in cover and the majority of your team is defensive and its about when and where to push when you see weaknesses develop. In this game combat is too quick and shifts too frequently for the game mode to really shine.

A lot of the problem is map design. They have practically an infinite number of approaches. There are too many places to cover, and too much cover for you to have a chance of shooting anything that is trying to slip by a side. It just isn't very conducive to good assault gameplay.

You have to either change how assault mode functions, change the maps, or really beef up the base defenses so that a small force could hold against a larger force (which potentially creates a whole new set of problems).

[RichAC]

How to delete?

Edited by RichAC, 25 February 2014 - 12:54 PM.