74 replies to this topic

[RichAC]

Nightcrept, on 08 February 2014 - 01:15 PM, said:

@rich
Your definition of the game modes is not the same as others and definitely not what pgi has stated that they intend.

Assault is meant to be a place holder for the base assault cw warfare mode that is supposed to have base defenses. That's the way it was intended and the way it will most likely be.

If you're going to discuss the topic on the forums how about you show a little respect and stop calling players names for disagreeing with you.


On a side note breaking away from the group with a lone atlas is a very very very bad ideal even in conquest.

Unless its the only way to win, its just a deterrent and a facade.

Its baffling why you would deter people from capping bases, in a game mode that is supposed to be about capping bases.

Edited by RichAC, 08 February 2014 - 05:14 PM.

[RichAC]

Maverick Holix, on 08 February 2014 - 04:41 PM, said:

Play conquest.... problem solved gg

Unfortunately I hear the same arguments even in conquest. And even conquest turns into skirmish mode half the time...its a real turnoff. When i'm trying to cap bases and my team refuses to because it doesn't give them enough cbills, or because they find it boring...It takes away my motivation as well.

One part of the poroblem is this community wants a sim/rpg and what they got is an arena shooter....Another part of the problem is kids nowadays have poor sportsmanship and don't want a game mode that takes too much strategy.

PGI trying to cater these people, like they already are doing and are planning to do, means they will go down the same path most developers do nowadays. Which means Undermining their own game and original intentions until it completely dies.

I guess their plan is relying on the couple of rich guys left in a tiny little community to support them for the long run, rather then having a popular game.

Maverick Holix, on 08 February 2014 - 04:41 PM, said:

Play conquest.... problem solved gg

Conquest is a totally different game mode, and we are not trying to turn it into a game mode we already have, like some people...

Edited by RichAC, 08 February 2014 - 05:20 PM.

[RichAC]

rolly, on 08 February 2014 - 04:50 PM, said:

as·sault [uh-sawlt] Show IPA
noun
1.
a sudden, violent attack; onslaught: an assault on tradition.
2.
Law. an unlawful physical attack upon another; an attempt or offer to do violence to another, with or without battery, as by holding a stone or club in a threatening manner.
3.
Military . the stage of close combat in an attack.

----------------------------------
I don't see anywhere where it mentions in the definition of assault, "to cap with light mechs". Naturally if you take the third definition, it means CQB. Intending for mechs that can take CQB, or a team coordinated and of mixed weight and roles to succeed. Otherwise we'd be playing a game mode called "Recon".

By the very nature of the word and type of miltiary operation, assaults are difficult and take coordinated teamwork, not solely relying on one type of mech or flavour-build-of-the-month.

Assault = Difficult = Yeah likely has some defences? = turret? Most likely yes.

I attack with assault mechs? Yes i cap assault bases in my atlas, I don't see your piont.

Just another reason to only play with assault mechs....why bother using a light or medium in this game. Once they add weight limits and force people to? WIll be even more of a turn off for many....

The way to get people to use more lights an mediums, is not to force them. its to give incentives and game objectives that make them worth it to use...

How bout we take away lights and mediums and every other game mode besides skirmish, i'm sure people will be happy then....

Edited by RichAC, 08 February 2014 - 05:33 PM.

[RichAC]

Ovion, on 08 February 2014 - 05:04 PM, said:

While I haven't played the maps with turrets in my light yet, I will say this:
My locust is good at the following:
Capping, Running, Dying.

I don't know if its loadout will be good enough to take on the turrets, but I'm sure I'll find out.

they don't do alot of damage, but you constantly get barraged and they took alot from my atlas just to take one down. spamming large lasers and ac/20 shots wasting ammo lol.

Just another reason not to run a medium or light in this game.

once this community finishes sabotaging assault, because its not like "real life", even though they are playing a fantasy video game developed as an arena shooter, they will move on to sabotaging conquest also. They constantly whine in conquest also, its just disgusting.

These lamers will not be happy unless you make the sim/rpg they want PGI, or they selfishly help you sabotage your own game to make sure no newcomers to the genre want to play it either...because they don't feel the game should be played this way.... I've seen it happen in many other games...

The truth is though, they are a bunch of lamer gamer sore losers who should go back to the table top and roll the dice lol.

Edited by RichAC, 08 February 2014 - 05:33 PM.

[rolly]

MungFuSensei, on 08 February 2014 - 04:56 PM, said:

I have already explained earlier in the thread about how increasing the incentive to cap will naturally increase the difficulty in capping. Base defenses do not add complexity, they merely make capping even more irrelevant, further diminishing the assault game type to the point that it might as well not even exist.

I see no evidence provided here that makes it truly irrelevant. Only your opinion.

The lack of capping / or complete capping does not make it irrelevant, but makes it one facet of the factors of winning. Even By the OP commentary you cannot state that base defences do not add complexity or make it irrelevant. By the very same token you might as well say further incentivizing capping is irrelevant because players will do what they wish.

Even standing alone that logic is just plain flawed by any right minded layman much less a military strategist. Such things as Area Denial and even draining force resources base turrets add a new level of dynamic to Assault, its not at all as black and white as you spin it.

[Ngamok]

MungFuSensei, on 07 February 2014 - 05:19 AM, said:

Then you would do away with capping altogether? If capping is not to be a strength of lights, and that lights should focus solely on the fight, then why have capping at all? The entire point of capping was to give an edge to faster mechs, less durable and less well armed mechs. I admit it is not the only thing lights are capable of, but it is where they have the greatest advantage.

Because you can still eliminate the turrets in lights. One person gets in close near them on the backside of a building and the rest just shoot them down. And it still gives you the "base is under attack" message on your screen.

[Nightcrept]

RichAC, on 08 February 2014 - 05:14 PM, said:

Unless its the only way to win, its just a deterrent and a facade.

Its baffling why you would deter people from capping bases, in a game mode that is supposed to be about capping bases.

We have a very simple difference of opinion.

I believe that capping the bases means that you must defeat all defenses and capture the base. You believe that capping the base means that you sit their until they magically yield.

This assault game mode is only a place holder. It's not going to be around forever.
That's what you seem to be missing.

The addition of turrets is simply the next step in the evolution of the game towards the CW launch. After launch the assault mode will be when a group assaults another groups base. To win they must not only defeat that groups mechs but the base defenses as well.

So in the end to win an assault the attacker must defeat the defending team and their base defenses. Not either or.

[RichAC]

rolly, on 08 February 2014 - 07:08 PM, said:

I see no evidence provided here that makes it truly irrelevant. Only your opinion.

The lack of capping / or complete capping does not make it irrelevant, but makes it one facet of the factors of winning. Even By the OP commentary you cannot state that base defences do not add complexity or make it irrelevant. By the very same token you might as well say further incentivizing capping is irrelevant because players will do what they wish.

Even standing alone that logic is just plain flawed by any right minded layman much less a military strategist. Such things as Area Denial and even draining force resources base turrets add a new level of dynamic to Assault, its not at all as black and white as you spin it.

There is no logic in deterring people from capping, in a game mode where people rarely cap to begin with.

And especially where you already have a game mode without caps....its bitter selfishness by a bunch of sore losers who find it boring or not cbill rewarding enough, or think the game should not be played that way and want to undermine it. Is all it is...

Keep your lame ass in skirmish.

Edited by RichAC, 08 February 2014 - 09:10 PM.

[RichAC]

Nightcrept, on 08 February 2014 - 08:24 PM, said:

We have a very simple difference of opinion.

I believe that capping the bases means that you must defeat all defenses and capture the base. You believe that capping the base means that you sit their until they magically yield.

This assault game mode is only a place holder. It's not going to be around forever.
That's what you seem to be missing.

The addition of turrets is simply the next step in the evolution of the game towards the CW launch. After launch the assault mode will be when a group assaults another groups base. To win they must not only defeat that groups mechs but the base defenses as well.

So in the end to win an assault the attacker must defeat the defending team and their base defenses. Not either or.

its a video game dude, sometimes in "REAL LIFE" you don't have to even fight to capture a base or strategic position. You simply occupy it....

I wonder if PGI has people lying to them about how often cap wins happen, when in fact they are extremely rare lol. Like I keep saying though, eventually its a self fulfilling prophecy, when these are the only people left in the game by themselves.

I get tired of hearing all the whines and crying when I cap bases. It really turns me off from the game, when I'm not supposed to play to win. Whole community of lamers that are all about fighting, yet too wussy to even play 12 man...

I would be all for turrets on bases, like in LoL, if capping the base was the only way to win. Otherwise, this is just so lamers don't have to worry about losing by base caps....they can just treat it like skirmish, a game mode PGI already gave them...

Edited by RichAC, 08 February 2014 - 09:11 PM.

[RichAC]

Ngamok, on 08 February 2014 - 07:17 PM, said:

Because you can still eliminate the turrets in lights. One person gets in close near them on the backside of a building and the rest just shoot them down. And it still gives you the "base is under attack" message on your screen.

I played river city earlier, and tried to cap in my atlas, the turrets lit me up, and it took alot of effort just to kill one lol More reason to only use assault mechs, and throw lights and mediums out the window.

Why do they need to be there if noone caps anyways? Who is lying to PGI and saying assault matches always end on caps, when they rarely ever do? They already took away the win incentive, and cap incentive, now This is to prevent the fast caps even more, that rarely ever happen in the first place?

And to pick river city, the map where cap wins happen the least? instead of a map like alpine peaks where itsn actually hard to defend a base, is very very telling..... It shows PGI doesn't play their own game much, and it also shows that their focus group resents this game mode and is simply undermining it.

The fact you guys got your own game mode after crying rivers of tears, and then still want to complain about a game mode you don't even have to play anymore seems very bitter.

Edited by RichAC, 08 February 2014 - 09:12 PM.

[Nightcrept]

RichAC, on 08 February 2014 - 08:50 PM, said:

its a video game dude, sometimes in "REAL LIFE" you don't have to even fight to capture a base or strategic position. You simply occupy it....

I wonder if PGI has people lying to them about how often cap wins happen, when in fact they are extremely rare lol. Like I keep saying though, eventually its a self fulfilling prophecy, when these are the only people left in the game by themselves. I get tired of hearing all the whines and crying when I cap bases. It really turns me off from the game, when I'm not supposed to play to win. Whole community of lamers that are all about fighting, yet too wussy to even play 12 man...

I would be all for turrets on bases, like in LoL, if capping the base was the only way to win. Otherwise, this is just so lamers don't have to worry about losing by base caps....they can just treat it like skirmish, a game mode PGI already gave them...

You must like hearing yourself talk because you're fussing about a place holder game mode that is going to go away.

At launch cw will most likely have.

Conquest=Capping undefended bases. (Most likely to get defenses as well in the future.)
Skirmish=team deathmatch
Assault=destroy the enemy AND defeat their base.


This is not rocket science the game is not going to stay like it is with all these practice modes that you're arguing about.


And please refrain from talking about real life combat. I'm a Marine combat veteran and field intelligence asset. I can talk about real life combat tactics and strategies until we both die of old age. I play this game to get away from all that.

[RichAC]

Nightcrept, on 08 February 2014 - 09:15 PM, said:

You must like hearing yourself talk because you're fussing about a place holder game mode that is going to go away.

At launch cw will most likely have.

Conquest=Capping undefended bases. (Most likely to get defenses as well in the future.)
Skirmish=team deathmatch
Assault=destroy the enemy AND defeat their base.


This is not rocket science the game is not going to stay like it is with all these practice modes that you're arguing about.


And please refrain from talking about real life combat. I'm a Marine combat veteran and field intelligence asset. I can talk about real life combat tactics and strategies until we both die of old age. I play this game to get away from all that.

I'm not the one who bought up "real life" in a fantasy arena shooter video game. 90% of this player base are vets, so thats no surprise, maybe thats part of the problem! Maybe this community needs more competitive video gamers!

And, so what your saying, is the future mode will be destroying a base and killing the team? not either or? hmm

I think the game would be better if destroying the base was the ONLY way to win....otherwise it would just seem silly that the only difference to skirmish, would be shooting turrets to end the match, which would feel like a waste of time and be pretty boring...

Same goes for conquest, mechs should respawn, and cap wins should be the only way to win in assault and conquest. I believe this one of the things that turns alot of people off form this game. These are game modes that are in many different games, and to have a match end on kills, just undermines their original design.

Is a capture the flag mode not real life enough? lol Would that be too corny? Because thats another real awesome comeptitive video game mode that would be cool to see in MWO.

Edited by RichAC, 08 February 2014 - 09:45 PM.

[Nightcrept]

Assault will most likely consist of a base with defenses where the defenders can go to repair and or get other mechs should theirs be destroyed defending.

The attacking force will have a drop ship of mechs they have pre-selected and or a mobile command base to repair at.


To win, the attacking force must defeat the defense force and their bases defenses most likely within a set time period.

If the bases turrets can hold off an enemy lance that is to damaged to destroy them and capture the base then the defense wins even if they lost all their mechs.



So the turrets we see being added and other changes are basically live testing of CW modes but without the CW aspect.

[RichAC]

Nightcrept, on 08 February 2014 - 09:52 PM, said:

Assault will most likely consist of a base with defenses where the defenders can go to repair and or get other mechs should theirs be destroyed defending.

The attacking force will have a drop ship of mechs they have pre-selected and or a mobile command base to repair at.


To win, the attacking force must defeat the defense force and their bases defenses most likely within a set time period.

If the bases turrets can hold off an enemy lance that is to damaged to destroy them and capture the base then the defense wins even if they lost all their mechs.



So the turrets we see being added and other changes are basically live testing of CW modes but without the CW aspect.

Well that sounds like a lot of fun man, I hope it actually happens. I would be all for that.

IT definitely sounds to me like assaulting a base is the only way to win, and its a way to respawn. Makes perfect sense.

Edited by RichAC, 08 February 2014 - 10:04 PM.

[Leded]

personally i don't much care for the turrets on assault. many games i run into turns into "whichever team gets impatient first and attacks: loses"

but, that being said, they "did" say that they are testing these things out. i would like to assume that if they find that they turn most games into camp-fests, they will rethink/remove it.

if they are using this to test their use in CW game modes... that's good. i remember reading about them adding that to the game in PC Gamer well over a year ago.