49 replies to this topic

[Karl Marlow]

A better option would be to put ne bse in the middle of the map and have both teams try and capture it.

[Asmudius Heng]

ThomasMarik, on 12 January 2014 - 02:07 PM, said:

A better option would be to put ne bse in the middle of the map and have both teams try and capture it.

Then it would not be skirmish but king of the hill mode that would suck every mech into the center and ignore all attempts at tactics because it would be a mad rush to the center to win.

Skirmish is fine - we need other BETTER objective based modes but skirmish does exactly what it states and works very well from my experience.

Skirmish is the only mode to lack game given locational objectives and that is fine ... PGI just need to concentrate on objective gameplay that does not suck for other gametypes

[StaIker]

GRiPSViGiL, on 11 January 2014 - 02:05 PM, said:

You are obviously ignorant about the Corp I hail from. I am very aware about what you list among many other tactics and well versed since my corp single-handedly often times is the reason there are even 12 mans to drop son.

We are talking PUGs and that includes 4 mans for the most part.

You can keep thinking checkers is chess though.

Unfortunately I am ignorant of the Corp you "hail" from so I'll need an explanation of what you believe is possible, or not possible. Dazzle me with some buzzwords, or perhaps some concepts that you are very aware of.

[Harmatia]

Add a vote option. If you're going to be a {Richard Cameron}, all players still in-game can vote you down. Too many down votes and you get suspended. Too many suspensions and your account gets banned.

[Kotzi]

Me, i disconnect or tell the enemy my position if i am the last and dont have any chance to do damage. I feel uncomfortable to extend a game just to survive, especially with armament left. Why not disconnect rather than forcing 23 other guys to wait? People want to play with their mechs not wait for them. But i do admit that those cases, beeing the only one left, or hunting the only one left are rare.

Ye, people did ask for this and maybe were too naive in thinking that this would stop people to troll and ruining their gaming experience. There will always be a minority who will revel in that little bit of attention they can get. A surrender button would be nice for those who care a lot for their KD ratio. But i dont care for mine so i am good with it either way.

To all you know it alls, why are you so mad? Rejoice, 90% of those who just fight left Assaultmode. Now you can enjoy that mode the way you see fit. Its a win win situation. No need to be hurt.

[Karl Marlow]

Asmudius Heng, on 12 January 2014 - 05:59 PM, said:

Then it would not be skirmish but king of the hill mode that would suck every mech into the center and ignore all attempts at tactics because it would be a mad rush to the center to win.

Skirmish is fine - we need other BETTER objective based modes but skirmish does exactly what it states and works very well from my experience.

Skirmish is the only mode to lack game given locational objectives and that is fine ... PGI just need to concentrate on objective gameplay that does not suck for other gametypes

We already have two good options now in Conquest and Assault. Just because you cannot adapt your tactics to the situation and lose to a base cap does not mean they suck. King of the hill mode would likewise a new tactical experience. It wouldn't be just mindless zerg rushes anymore than Skirmish already is. You would just have a point you have to either capture or prevent the other side from capturing. It would focus the fighting in one area and prevent some stealth cap in the back lines since everyone would be near the point trying to be captured.

If you want death matches that is fine but don't insult me by calling it some superior tactical experience. At best it is just a practice mode for how to defend or assault a position. Fighting just to fight is neither tactically nor strategically wise.

[Corvus Antaka]

and it continues!

lol!

[Roadbeer]

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 13 January 2014 - 01:54 PM, said:

and it continues!

lol!

JUST LIKE THE GYPSY WOMAN SAID!

[Appogee]

I don't think it's a common or big problem, however, causing shut down Mechs to take damage would be a nice way to prevent the few selfish people who waste other players' time from doing so.

[Asmudius Heng]

ThomasMarik, on 13 January 2014 - 01:51 PM, said:

We already have two good options now in Conquest and Assault. Just because you cannot adapt your tactics to the situation and lose to a base cap does not mean they suck.

Here we go again.

Who said i cannot adapt to assault and conquest? You disagree with me so you automatically go to a personal attack assuming I am mad due to base capping or I am terrible at this game. This make you look extremely petty - you know what they say about assumptions ...

Conquest is fine, it is a dynamic, time pressure game mode which I quite like.

Assault however is an extremely limited game mode. It is not hard to see the bast tactical options in assault. We have been playing it for how many months/years now? I never said they suck, just that assault is extremely limiting, if you like it - good for you but your assumptions make you look pretty ridiculous.

Quote

King of the hill mode would likewise a new tactical experience. It wouldn't be just mindless zerg rushes anymore than Skirmish already is.

Really. Skirmish has no time pressure to force your hand as a group. You have time to scout, position, retreat, re-position etc as long as you can keep your team alive.

In a king of the hill mode (assuming the implementation is similar to the cap mechanics on assault that is) You are under extreme pressure to take the center point just because if you do not the other team will.

So lets see, which one forces players to rush to avoid losing hmmmmmmmmm ... i will give you three guesses and there are only two options.

Quote

You would just have a point you have to either capture or prevent the other side from capturing. It would focus the fighting in one area and prevent some stealth cap in the back lines since everyone would be near the point trying to be captured.

yes focus the fighting in one area ... after everyone says that skirmish does not help people use more of the map this will most certainly fix things!

Quote

If you want death matches that is fine but don't insult me by calling it some superior tactical experience. At best it is just a practice mode for how to defend or assault a position. Fighting just to fight is neither tactically nor strategically wise.

I am not insulting you, but you seem to be insulting me.

I am saying that on the higher end of the spectrum skirmish offers tactical experiences that cannot be found in conquest and assault due to the way the bases shape those game modes.

Just practice? Insulting all who like skirmish by saying their preferred game type is not a real game type? I need to learn to be condescending and insulting like you, you are a master!

Fighting just to fight is tactically just fine. Most battles are fought to destroy or force an enemy into retreat by force of arms.

Strategically it is not, but we do not have ANY larger strategic goals that mean anything. Capping a red square is not exactly the height of strategic thinking either and if you think it is then you might be pushing your agenda beyond what it really is just to try to make a very tenuous point.