39 replies to this topic

[Bobzilla]

How is walking into an undefended area an assssult?

If a team is sitting in/near their base defending, the other team is assaulting. So to call it base defending, someone would have to play the other role of base assaulting.

I don't see how the name has anything to due with the game mode, in the sense that renaming it would change nothing. Should capping have more of an incentive as it's somewhat harder to do, maybe but lets see how the other modes added work before we change the exsisting ones, like adding skirmish may have made adding turrets pointless in the first place.

[Varent]

Bhael Fire, on 12 March 2014 - 05:42 PM, said:

I agree; I like the idea of turrets and the protection they provide, but I feel like they belong in Attack/Defend instead.

I would actually love... a seperate game type that had one major premise.

You start off at your base, it has turrets, you need to go to X coordinates on the map where there is a seperate undefended base with turrets. If you lose that base, you lose the game, if you lose your base, you lose the game. Win condition is to kill all enemies or capture one of the enemies bases.

This forces opponents to balance attack and defense at the same time, split there forces and figure out what they want to do. It also forces movement and prevents turtling since they have to defend two bases wich should be far enough away from one another that its not an easy response time.

now in doing this you also take assault mode and remove the turrets and put that back to what it was, a major assault with the off chance of getting based capped if you dont play smart, or the chance of a team winning with a cap if they get crushed.

Thoughts?

[Joseph Mallan]

Bobzilla, on 13 March 2014 - 04:02 AM, said:

How is walking into an undefended area an assssult?

If a team is sitting in/near their base defending, the other team is assaulting. So to call it base defending, someone would have to play the other role of base assaulting.

I don't see how the name has anything to due with the game mode, in the sense that renaming it would change nothing. Should capping have more of an incentive as it's somewhat harder to do, maybe but lets see how the other modes added work before we change the exsisting ones, like adding skirmish may have made adding turrets pointless in the first place.

Because the defenders are elsewhere does not mean it is undefended.

[wanderer]

Honestly, I'd appreciate larger rewards for destroying base defenses/capturing. It's now considerably tougher to cap something. Reasonably speaking, people are only doing so if the reward is greater.

That being said, a lance of mediums and lights can systematically plow through a turret grid at range, especially with AMS. It's just that right now, most times they'd rather be shooting 'Mechs instead

[Joseph Mallan]

That idea makes good sense Wanderer. Killing a turret should count as a Kill... at least where it counts, our paychecks.

[Damocles69]

Just call the game mode. "Hide in the turrets" and be done with it

[100mile]

I agree that the reward for capping should be increased...by a bunch... 50XP as a reward when it took absolutely no skill to cap was fine....but now you have to be able to dodge mechs, dodge turrets and take one or two out to ensure survivability and defend yourself if somebody comes back to defend.....
I am perfectly happy with everything else about Assault mode and in fact have played some intensely close games since the turrets were deployed.

[Magna Canus]

Asmudius Heng, on 13 March 2014 - 02:21 AM, said:

Should have taken my idea to make the game about controlling the mid field before pushing to a cap rather than adding base defence making it hard to actually cap. That being said I have not seen that much turtling in the base except on river city which almost forces you to. What i do see is gung ho charges into the centre and once people get smashed they retreat to safety. This is not a terrible thing in some ways, its quite tactical in fact as people cycle thier armour and form up crippled defence forces for a final push .... but the problem is that it is symetrical of course. There needs to be some sort of penalty to camping ... say like mid field objectives that could help power down turrents, or give you artillery strikes ... you know things people have been talking about since forever to give the midfiield battle more importance in terms of objectives! If you have a symetrical defense then you need a way to encourage people to fight in the mid field. if one team hunkers down then the other should be rewarded slightly for coming out and taking territory if this is going to be an objective driven mode.

Mid-field goals are good for the proverbial "short term" before CW comes out, Soon™. Right around that point people are going to have a goal besides carnage, either to conquer a planet or defend it. At the latest Mid-field goals will become less necessary/desired by then because having more than one "necessary goal" is going to confuse things. And yes, if a mid-field goal actually gives an advantage it will be treated as a necessary goal.

There actually is a penalty for camping, though not directly labled as such; you get less rewards for camping without actually doing damage/etc., most campers are going to loose their pants once the enemy team decides to get into their best position and assault from multiple sides. Campers are also very vulnerable to group damaging artillery strikes and blind fired LRMs for example. It is pretty rare that a camping group ends up pulling a win, at least that is my experience.

[Joseph Mallan]

Damocles69, on 13 March 2014 - 05:37 AM, said:

Just call the game mode. "Hide in the turrets" and be done with it

If you want me... Assault me!

[Davers]

Damocles69, on 13 March 2014 - 05:37 AM, said:

Just call the game mode. "Hide in the turrets" and be done with it

That is what attack/defend mode will be.

[Corvus Antaka]

at this point id be happy with 1 single gamemode that involved more than "blow 12 enemy mechs up over and over to win"

and no, conquest in it's current state doesnt count.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Just make conquest only playable by lights and mediums, let the fatties death blob on the other two "skirmish" mode and up the rewards for capping. Also drop the cap time.

[Tombstoner]

ArmandTulsen, on 12 March 2014 - 05:35 PM, said:

Either give base capping in assault mode a solid incentive like 50k in C-Bills, or change the name to Base Defense, because - fact is - that is how the majority of the assault mode games are played. Everybody picks a spot (high ground, choke point etc.) and just camps it, hoping to have more kills than the other team and have the advantage to wait out the timer.

And i love it. it's rewarding working the angles, looking for and finding the weakness, probing the teams defenses. people are no longer running out spamming alphas. They left for team death match, leaving assault for the players who want a slower more intelligent form of game play.

[ArmandTulsen]

Tombstoner, on 13 March 2014 - 11:27 AM, said:

And i love it. it's rewarding working the angles, looking for and finding the weakness, probing the teams defenses. people are no longer running out spamming alphas. They left for team death match, leaving assault for the players who want a slower more intelligent form of game play.

Except it's not intelligent. That's the problem. The smart play, where you outmanouevre a lance and punch through a defence, then successfully cap, while the rest of the team is tangling with the main strike force and too slow to fall back isn't rewarding at all. It's in fact punishing, since the risk:reward ratio for this move is such a negative expectation outcome that not playing is the only smart move.

The only thing that's rewarded is your own ego.

Edited by ArmandTulsen, 13 March 2014 - 04:22 PM.

[Asmudius Heng]

Magnakanus, on 13 March 2014 - 06:29 AM, said:

Mid-field goals are good for the proverbial "short term" before CW comes out, Soon™. Right around that point people are going to have a goal besides carnage, either to conquer a planet or defend it. At the latest Mid-field goals will become less necessary/desired by then because having more than one "necessary goal" is going to confuse things. And yes, if a mid-field goal actually gives an advantage it will be treated as a necessary goal.

There actually is a penalty for camping, though not directly labled as such; you get less rewards for camping without actually doing damage/etc., most campers are going to loose their pants once the enemy team decides to get into their best position and assault from multiple sides. Campers are also very vulnerable to group damaging artillery strikes and blind fired LRMs for example. It is pretty rare that a camping group ends up pulling a win, at least that is my experience.

I think this might depend on the Elo level as well.

Higher Elo will not camp exclusivly but will know when to pull back and when to press an attack.

Lower Elo will see camping being more successful as the enemy splits and attacks badly.

though i think blind fired LRMs without a lock are borderline useless at most levels as harldy anyone sits still for that long in the open to be hit by slow moving LRMs.

Mid field goals just make it more intersting overall as long as those objectives grant a small in game bonus so they are worth getting to dictate the outcome of the actual match not just extra cbills, and not an end game timer like conquest or the main base in assault.

When you have more meaningful choices on the battlefield the game becomes more interesting.

[Bobzilla]

Joseph Mallan, on 13 March 2014 - 04:56 AM, said:

Because the defenders are elsewhere does not mean it is undefended.

But a lot of times it did, hence why we have turrets.

[Joseph Mallan]

Bobzilla, on 14 March 2014 - 05:20 AM, said:

But a lot of times it did, hence why we have turrets.

We have turrets cause some folks don't understand "Base is under attack." or what ever Betty says when the bad guys are trying to take their stuff! Plain and simple if someone is ignoring the warning, I deserve their stuff given to me.

[King Arthur IV]

Joseph Mallan, on 14 March 2014 - 09:53 AM, said:

We have turrets cause some folks don't understand "Base is under attack." or what ever Betty says when the bad guys are trying to take their stuff! Plain and simple if someone is ignoring the warning, I deserve their stuff given to me.

just to add to that, people even have a choice to play a mode where they don't have to worry about bases.

[Joseph Mallan]

Thank you Your Majesty.

[Bobzilla]

King Arthur IV, on 14 March 2014 - 10:01 AM, said:

just to add to that, people even have a choice to play a mode where they don't have to worry about bases.

yes they should have never implimented skirmish and turrets in assault along with the option to pick.

I didn't have a problem with no turrets but a lot of people did, and I understood why. Maybe it's because I only pug so i would see the un-fun which was 2 teams running to opposite ends of the map for a game to end with 0 dmg delt on either side, along with not being able to use a slower mech due to not being able to reach my base in time, or saying close and not being in the fight.