1 reply to this topic

[m2wester]

A problem in the current solo queue game modes is that it's not really a worthwhile strategy to win by cap in Assault and (to a lesser extent) Conquest. I've had a game or 2 of Assault which we won through early cap, these were quite disappointing because our spectacular perfomance didn't give us any rewards... Right now, the way to balance this is giving rewards based on capping, but that just means that the ideal way to win is to kill 11 and then cap (and it's rare that every player on a team stops killing at 10 or 11). Adding these rewards simply cannot make it worthwhile to avoid a fight.

To add incentive for a quick win I'd add a mechanic that awards a decent amount of C-Bills and XP for surviving enemies to the winning team. It could be called "Ransom" (the winners get it to let the losers leave with their mech) or it could replace or be added to the Salvage values that already exist.

This should be balanced in a way that the winning team earns about as much for capping without kills as they would if they won on kills - I'd guess that every player on the winning team would have to get somwhere around 15-20k credits and 100-150 XP per surviving enemy to make the whole thing worthwhile, though I'd hope that PGI has a better idea on how to balance this than me

[Lukoi Banacek]

Encourages nothing but basecapping, which forces teams to decide to defend (leading a potentially boring standoff), or the team with the most lights to win. Fastcapping would become super common as those trying to earn cbills would see this as the most efficient way to farm cash.

As most of us enjoy *some* fighting, and the cap mechanic is more often ignored, used to shape enemy reaction or as a desperate last gasp for a team losing the fight, I believe your suggestion would be less than fun.

Personally, I believe Assault should be multiple objective and more importantly, asymetric so one side is attacking, the other defending. Multi objective to encourage the maximal use of map space and to force decisions on where to commit defenses, where to attack first, where and how to scout etc and asymetric because I believe its really the best way to have an immersive scenario akin to combat that really happens.

At the smal unit, tactical level, in 23 years of service (and still going), and multiple deployments, I can think of no real world experience or historical event where two sides met in what boils down to a meeting engagement where both sides were tasked to seize two objectives "just across from each other."

Skirmish well replicates the meeting engagements of combat. Assault should be more like an attack/defend objective scenario. Conquest is a video game tropism designed to create variables that shake up game play that we all just kinda live with (and by no means do I dislike Conq mode btw).