252 replies to this topic

[Asmudius Heng]

Rallog, on 25 February 2014 - 08:47 AM, said:

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).

I made a suggestion here that would help i feel - but i dont think PGI would ever consider anything so fun

[Kekrebos]

Asmudius Heng, on 25 February 2014 - 09:55 PM, said:

I made a suggestion here that would help i feel - but i dont think PGI would ever consider anything so fun

That sort of idea would definitely help the mode, as it would give artificial 'choke points' to the maps, give focused places to defend and attack at.

Taking it a step sideways, you could always make the forward bases 'missle batteries' That you just have to hold for so long before they fire a salvo (say 3 minutes) and you have to have 3-4ish salvos fired at a base before it suppresses the defenses enough to capture.

[RichAC]

Rallog, on 26 February 2014 - 04:29 AM, said:

That sort of idea would definitely help the mode, as it would give artificial 'choke points' to the maps, give focused places to defend and attack at.

Taking it a step sideways, you could always make the forward bases 'missle batteries' That you just have to hold for so long before they fire a salvo (say 3 minutes) and you have to have 3-4ish salvos fired at a base before it suppresses the defenses enough to capture.

"critical choke points" is what ruined the battlefield series to me. The fact they had to give all the console kiddies rush mode, with their bogus chokepoint maps..... where hackers can just fester in no map movement and no strategy, was the most played game mode! I'm having nightmares about that spammy subway map, that was in no way designed for 64 players haha. And they had the nerve to say they made bf3 for the pc players not console kiddies. There is just not many of us left.

I'm sure BF4 is suffering for it though...

I like what you said about the bases thing though.

Edited by RichAC, 27 February 2014 - 04:04 AM.

[Kekrebos]

RichAC, on 27 February 2014 - 04:00 AM, said:

"critical choke points" is what ruined the battlefield series to me. The fact they had to give all the console kiddies rush mode, with their bogus chokepoint maps..... where hackers can just fester in no map movement and no strategy, was the most played game mode! I'm having nightmares about that spammy subway map, that was in no way designed for 64 players haha. And they had the nerve to say they made bf3 for the pc players not console kiddies. There is just not many of us left.

I'm sure BF4 is suffering for it though...

I like what you said about the bases thing though.

Out of curiosity, do you enjoy assault mode? One big thing is you don't have to worry nearly as much about hacking on a server side game.

What we're asking for isn't like that subway map (I know exactly which one you mean. That would be horrible in this type of game). There are choke points, and there are restrictive funnels that just lead the sheep to slaughter. The problem I'm trying to explain is it too far the opposite currently, there are too many covered approaches for an assault mode to really shine. It needs to be narrowed down, which is why I like the forward base idea (even though I'm highly doubtful they will ever implement something that is that big of a change).

[Dramborleg]

Unfortunately the game is not really designed for objective gametypes. Every objective gametype actually has two ways to win that are mostly unrelated to each other and the second of these, capping points, is only fun for mechs that can go >100kph. For everyone else it's often an early end to a game where their only contribution was distracting the enemy briefly. Unlike in other games with actual non-killing-based objectives, they can rarely help defend caps because a) there is rarely such a thing as a strategic self-sacrifice where a player will fight to hold off enemies for the sake of completing the objective and \ the players who cap usually can do so because they're fast enough to evade the enemy, not because they or their teammates are able to fight them off, so the teammates who do have the firepower to fight effectively have to trudge to capture points that have long since been taken by their speedier compatriots. In fact, the game seems to implicitly discourage capping wins, since the XP and c-bills awarded for completing objectively are measly or nonexistent.

What PGI needs to do to implement real objective gametypes rather than just deathmatch with a gaping design flaw is add (gasp) respawning to Assault and Conquest, obviously with long respawn times to match the speed of a mech, maybe ~30 seconds This would transform a *********** on Crimson Strait into an epic tug of war of maneuvers and counter-maneuvers, as well as eliminate the monotonous deathball-and-stomp pattern that currently defines the experience of the entire game.

Edited by Dramborleg, 27 February 2014 - 10:10 AM.

[Asmudius Heng]

RichAC, on 27 February 2014 - 04:00 AM, said:

"critical choke points" is what ruined the battlefield series to me. The fact they had to give all the console kiddies rush mode, with their bogus chokepoint maps..... where hackers can just fester in no map movement and no strategy, was the most played game mode! I'm having nightmares about that spammy subway map, that was in no way designed for 64 players haha. And they had the nerve to say they made bf3 for the pc players not console kiddies. There is just not many of us left.

I'm sure BF4 is suffering for it though...

I like what you said about the bases thing though.

My idea is not to add choke points really.

It does add multiple ways to open up the base for capping and does filter the fight zones to multiple locations.

Now i dont actually think there are too many agles of approach actually, i just feel that its not optimal to force players to defend the base because of the attack never comes those that defend are bored as hell ... Assault only works due to pugging chaos.

obejctives to open up the main base for an actual cap would simply give more structure for all elements of a team to engage in.

EDIT: I thought the rush mode was a bit sub par also in BF prefered conquest even with its capping merry go round

Edited by Asmudius Heng, 27 February 2014 - 03:43 PM.

[Mazzyplz]

Levi Porphyrogenitus, on 10 December 2013 - 09:31 PM, said:

I hope that when CW comes out objective victories will not be so unpopular. Those who want a deathmatch can just do random "instant action" games while those of us who want to play to win and have our victories mean something will be happily completing objectives and grabbing territory.

i honestly don't wanna play with you. ever.

so you cap the other teams base and win in 5 min no shots fired, how EXCITING!!
you're totally right shooting is boring!!!!!! battlemechs are not made to shoot but to be taken from checkpoint to checkpoint!
hence the name BATTLE-mechs. isn't it obvious? what battletech fans want to do as soon as they see the madcat concept art i bet is to take it for a spin and cap some points!

or how about you happily go capping in conquest mode with your lance of lights and leave the rest of the team with no support, 8v12. that's always good for the other guys right? the 8 that aren't as fast as you probly, so the assault mech pilots should just suck it up and be destroyed because you fancied just running around, brilliant.

the worst part is when a lance of lights goes captard in the conquest maps and the rest of their team gets rolled (frekkin OBVIOUSLY!!!!)

then you probably still lose. their whole team just has to swat a few spiders and call it a day

you do realize that the cap modes also are won by killing right? and more often than not, even in conquest, killing the whole team is how most matches end (yes even in conquest, unless you're on alpine)

so how about this; we make a mode where all you do is run around capping, and no shooting is possible, so you can satisfy your urge to disregard the rest of the team that may not be in super fast mechs

otherwise just split the playerbase into those who think capping is secondary to killing (which is what makes sense, because that's how matches go)

and another group for just the light pilots who love to cap and not actually play as a team. because you DONT play as a team.
at most what cappers do in conquest is just bail out and grab points, sometimes alone, sometimes with a lance, and the hell with the rest of the team that might or might not be swarmed by a very similar lance of light mechs, which can actualy prioritize right.

[Sephlock]

Whatzituyah, on 12 December 2013 - 07:52 PM, said:

I present to you a gold medal and you get one to sandpit if I could I would put a troll face on it.

[RichAC]

Mazzyplz, on 27 February 2014 - 03:48 PM, said:

i honestly don't wanna play with you. ever.

so you cap the other teams base and win in 5 min no shots fired, how EXCITING!!
you're totally right shooting is boring!!!!!! battlemechs are not made to shoot but to be taken from checkpoint to checkpoint!
hence the name BATTLE-mechs. isn't it obvious? what battletech fans want to do as soon as they see the madcat concept art i bet is to take it for a spin and cap some points!

or how about you happily go capping in conquest mode with your lance of lights and leave the rest of the team with no support, 8v12. that's always good for the other guys right? the 8 that aren't as fast as you probly, so the assault mech pilots should just suck it up and be destroyed because you fancied just running around, brilliant.

the worst part is when a lance of lights goes captard in the conquest maps and the rest of their team gets rolled (frekkin OBVIOUSLY!!!!)

then you probably still lose. their whole team just has to swat a few spiders and call it a day

you do realize that the cap modes also are won by killing right? and more often than not, even in conquest, killing the whole team is how most matches end (yes even in conquest, unless you're on alpine)

so how about this; we make a mode where all you do is run around capping, and no shooting is possible, so you can satisfy your urge to disregard the rest of the team that may not be in super fast mechs

otherwise just split the playerbase into those who think capping is secondary to killing (which is what makes sense, because that's how matches go)

and another group for just the light pilots who love to cap and not actually play as a team. because you DONT play as a team.
at most what cappers do in conquest is just bail out and grab points, sometimes alone, sometimes with a lance, and the hell with the rest of the team that might or might not be swarmed by a very similar lance of light mechs, which can actualy prioritize right.

Its funny how you think capping means avoiding he fight, when usually its where the guy with balls dies first, why the rest of his no brain wussy team is just hugging teamates who are chasing flames like moths....

You sound like those people who claim K/D is also meaningless, because "anyone can just steal kills"....Delusions by a bunch of sore losing carebears.

Edited by RichAC, 01 March 2014 - 07:51 AM.

[Spawnsalot]

Do you even know what the term "carebear" means? I would Montoya you but I really can't be arsed.

[990Dreams]

MWO is the only game you've played where winning is a bad thing?

You must not have played it. Or played a different game. Or not played it for very long at least.

[Whatzituyah]

DavidHurricane, on 01 March 2014 - 09:31 AM, said:

MWO is the only game you've played where winning is a bad thing?

You must not have played it. Or played a different game. Or not played it for very long at least.

This was back when they didn't have Skirmish in game yet. I believe this issue arrived when people capped to win thus hints the title "Winning is a bad thing"

[RichAC]

Dramborleg, on 27 February 2014 - 09:59 AM, said:

Unfortunately the game is not really designed for objective gametypes. Every objective gametype actually has two ways to win that are mostly unrelated to each other and the second of these, capping points, is only fun for mechs that can go >100kph. For everyone else it's often an early end to a game where their only contribution was distracting the enemy briefly. Unlike in other games with actual non-killing-based objectives, they can rarely help defend caps because a) there is rarely such a thing as a strategic self-sacrifice where a player will fight to hold off enemies for the sake of completing the objective and \ the players who cap usually can do so because they're fast enough to evade the enemy, not because they or their teammates are able to fight them off, so the teammates who do have the firepower to fight effectively have to trudge to capture points that have long since been taken by their speedier compatriots. In fact, the game seems to implicitly discourage capping wins, since the XP and c-bills awarded for completing objectively are measly or nonexistent.

What PGI needs to do to implement real objective gametypes rather than just deathmatch with a gaping design flaw is add (gasp) respawning to Assault and Conquest, obviously with long respawn times to match the speed of a mech, maybe ~30 seconds This would transform a *********** on Crimson Strait into an epic tug of war of maneuvers and counter-maneuvers, as well as eliminate the monotonous deathball-and-stomp pattern that currently defines the experience of the entire game.

I'd be all for respawns on those game modes. So destroying the base, and capping in conquest is the only way to win.

Whatzituyah, on 02 March 2014 - 12:29 AM, said:

This was back when they didn't have Skirmish in game yet. I believe this issue arrived when people capped to win thus hints the title "Winning is a bad thing"

Problem is the complaints about capping are worse since skirmish was added. I have my suspicions as to why....

Rallog, on 27 February 2014 - 09:18 AM, said:

Out of curiosity, do you enjoy assault mode? One big thing is you don't have to worry nearly as much about hacking on a server side game.

What we're asking for isn't like that subway map (I know exactly which one you mean. That would be horrible in this type of game). There are choke points, and there are restrictive funnels that just lead the sheep to slaughter. The problem I'm trying to explain is it too far the opposite currently, there are too many covered approaches for an assault mode to really shine. It needs to be narrowed down, which is why I like the forward base idea (even though I'm highly doubtful they will ever implement something that is that big of a change).

No i only played large conquest with vehicles.

Edited by RichAC, 02 March 2014 - 07:26 AM.