84 replies to this topic

[Wolfways]

Pjwned, on 26 July 2014 - 03:24 AM, said:

That sounds more appropriate for some sort of attack & defend mode.

What?
It sounds like...bases. Like the bases in MWLL in what is basically conquest mode.

[IraqiWalker]

Wolfways, on 26 July 2014 - 03:38 AM, said:

What?
It sounds like...bases. Like the bases in MWLL in what is basically conquest mode.

Don't worry about it. I already mentioned this idea to Pjwned. However, it's clear that bases aren't what's important, but rather getting a cap of some sorts. If it's made tricky or challenging, then it's bad. It needs to be easy.

[Pjwned]

IraqiWalker, on 26 July 2014 - 03:31 AM, said:

My opinions are right and yours are wrong and I'm just going to act like a child and plug my fingers in my ears now

See, I can be an idiot too, seems you have it perfected to an art now.

[Pjwned]

Wolfways, on 26 July 2014 - 03:38 AM, said:

What?
It sounds like...bases. Like the bases in MWLL in what is basically conquest mode.

Why bother with the objective if you have to go to so much trouble unless that was explicitly your goal and not for the other team, i.e attack/defend mode.

IraqiWalker, on 26 July 2014 - 03:40 AM, said:

Don't worry about it. I already mentioned this idea to Pjwned. However, it's clear that bases aren't what's important, but rather getting a cap of some sorts. If it's made tricky or challenging, then it's bad. It needs to be easy.

1. Unlike you I apparently consider the impact it would have on Assault if you had to go through various defenses on top of the enemy mechs just to get to the base because people would either just camp all day or never bother dealing with the objective which results in essentially another Skirmish mode, wow oddly enough that's pretty much what it is right now.

2. Tell me how it wouldn't fit in attack/defend instead of throwing out strawman arguments and being ass ruptured from previous posts.

Edited by Pjwned, 26 July 2014 - 03:53 AM.

[Wolfways]

Pjwned, on 26 July 2014 - 03:53 AM, said:

Why bother with the objective if you have to go to so much trouble unless that was explicitly your goal and not for the other team, i.e attack/defend mode.

Is it any more trouble to take out a few turrets than it is to fight the enemy mechs?
And the other team will be doing the same.

[Pjwned]

Wolfways, on 26 July 2014 - 03:56 AM, said:

Is it any more trouble to take out a few turrets than it is to fight the enemy mechs?
And the other team will be doing the same.

That's not an either/or situation unless the enemy ignores their base.

[IraqiWalker]

Pjwned, on 26 July 2014 - 03:53 AM, said:

Why bother with the objective if you have to go to so much trouble unless that was explicitly your goal and not for the other team, i.e attack/defend mode.



1. Unlike you I apparently consider the impact it would have on Assault if you had to go through various defenses on top of the enemy mechs just to get to the base because people would either just camp all day or never bother dealing with the objective which results in essentially another Skirmish mode, wow oddly enough that's pretty much what it is right now.

2. Tell me how it wouldn't fit in attack/defend instead of throwing out strawman arguments and being ass ruptured from previous posts.

1- Seriously grow up.

2- You're clearly not considering the impact on assault. You actually don't want an assault mode. You want a mode where capping a base is the easiest thing in the world. Since turrets have proven to be such a massive challenge for you that you stopped playing it.

3- You stopped playing assault, meaning your data on the subject matter is not only flawed, but most likely wrong by now.

4- Assault mode is about engaging the enemy team in a battle, while also having the bases as secondary capture objectives. The keyword here is "bases". Which you don't want implemented in the bloody base-oriented mode.

You talk about capturing the bases being the objective, then shouldn't there be some effort needed to secure the objective other than just walking up to a blank spot on the ground that has no meaning to context, and then sitting there like dribbling idiot for a minute or so?

Honestly, look up what a strawman argument is. You're either not using the term right, or you're just not getting what I'm saying. There's a difference between me making an imaginary point and saying that's what your argument is, and actually summarizing what your argument is.

You don't want turrets there. You don't even want walls there, or other structures and obstructions. You clearly don't want bases there. You want a patch of ground with some easy access for you to stand on and try to secure victory without so much as firing a shot.

Maybe you just don't see it due to being so near sighted in your thinking. However, that's what's going to happen when you remove turrets, and make base capping extremely easy. Even easier than it is now.

The other gaping hole in your argument, is that base caps still happen. Just because you can't pull them off, doesn't mean they can't be done.

Pjwned, on 26 July 2014 - 04:05 AM, said:

That's not an either/or situation unless the enemy ignores their base.

Oh yeah totally, because base cap races don't happen at all.

[Wolfways]

Pjwned, on 26 July 2014 - 04:05 AM, said:

That's not an either/or situation unless the enemy ignores their base.

They did ignore their base. That's why we have turrets now...
I'm not actually sure what you want.

Edited by Wolfways, 26 July 2014 - 04:12 AM.

[Pjwned]

IraqiWalker, on 26 July 2014 - 04:09 AM, said:

1- Seriously grow up.

2- You're clearly not considering the impact on assault. You actually don't want an assault mode. You want a mode where capping a base is the easiest thing in the world. Since turrets have proven to be such a massive challenge for you that you stopped playing it.

3- You stopped playing assault, meaning your data on the subject matter is not only flawed, but most likely wrong by now.

4- Assault mode is about engaging the enemy team in a battle, while also having the bases as secondary capture objectives. The keyword here is "bases". Which you don't want implemented in the bloody base-oriented mode.

1. Hilarious.

2. Funny how you don't give any arguments for what positive impact it would have and instead assume what my intentions are.

3. I didn't say I stopped playing it completely, I still do rarely but of course it's still crap because of turrets.

4. If it's a "base-oriented mode" then why is it a secondary objective?

Quote

You talk about capturing the bases being the objective, then shouldn't there be some effort needed to secure the objective other than just walking up to a blank spot on the ground that has no meaning to context, and then sitting there like dribbling idiot for a minute or so?

Defend the base.

Quote

Honestly, look up what a strawman argument is. You're either not using the term right, or you're just not getting what I'm saying. There's a difference between me making an imaginary point and saying that's what your argument is, and actually summarizing what your argument is.

You're "summarizing" the argument falsely by "making an imaginary point and saying that's what [my] argument is," i.e strawman.

Quote

You don't want turrets there. You don't even want walls there, or other structures and obstructions. You clearly don't want bases there. You want a patch of ground with some easy access for you to stand on and try to secure victory without so much as firing a shot.

I want base defense to matter for the team that starts right next to their base, if you want a more fortified base then have a proper game mode for it; you also continue to avoid telling me why attack/defend would not* make sense for that.

Quote

Maybe you just don't see it due to being so near sighted in your thinking. However, that's what's going to happen when you remove turrets, and make base capping extremely easy. Even easier than it is now.

I have no reason to believe it would be any different from what it was before, a proper base capture mode that was only lost without any fighting when nobody gave a crap about their base.

Quote

The other gaping hole in your argument, is that base caps still happen. Just because you can't pull them off, doesn't mean they can't be done.

They happen after the other side is completely stomped and some light mech decides to hide, so in other words it might as well not be happening at all.

Quote

Oh yeah totally, because base cap races don't happen at all.

So in other words ignoring the base.

Wolfways, on 26 July 2014 - 04:12 AM, said:

They did ignore their base. That's why we have turrets now...
I'm not actually sure what you want.

I fail to see how that makes sense, the turrets are there so that people can continue ignoring their base instead of properly defending it themselves and on the exceptionally rare occasion that somebody actually manages to get a decent base cap started (after the enemy ignores the base until absolutely necessary to go back) they get swept up easily with minor effort thanks to turrets making it too easy.

Edited by Pjwned, 26 July 2014 - 05:07 AM.

[Wolfways]

Pjwned, on 26 July 2014 - 04:33 AM, said:

I fail to see how that makes sense, the turrets are there so that people can continue ignoring their base instead of properly defending it themselves and on the exceptionally rare occasion that somebody actually manages to get a decent base cap started (after the enemy ignores the base until absolutely necessary to go back) they get swept up easily with minor effort thanks to turrets making it too easy.

That's why things change in this game. People who can't be arsed to learn how to play are the majority, and they whine until they get things changed.
People wanted mech v mech combat to be all that mattered and were sick of lights capping the bases, so they whined until PGI added turrets. I don't think there's anything wrong with having bases/turrets but the reason for changing it is pathetic.

Unless you are part of the majority don't expect your opinion to matter to PGI. The minority don't = money.

[Pjwned]

Wolfways, on 26 July 2014 - 04:42 AM, said:

That's why things change in this game. People who can't be arsed to learn how to play are the majority, and they whine until they get things changed.
People wanted mech v mech combat to be all that mattered and were sick of lights capping the bases, so they whined until PGI added turrets. I don't think there's anything wrong with having bases/turrets but the reason for changing it is pathetic.

Unless you are part of the majority don't expect your opinion to matter to PGI. The minority don't = money.

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with having ("real") bases & turrets in some form, it just doesn't belong in Assault and especially not because (just like you said) people don't want to learn to play and only want mech vs mech combat to matter even though Skirmish fulfills that completely.

[Wolfways]

Aren't Skirmish and Assault the same, other than the bases?

[Pjwned]

Wolfways, on 26 July 2014 - 05:23 AM, said:

Aren't Skirmish and Assault the same, other than the bases?

Well, yeah, they are pretty much the same now because of turrets, and that's kind of the problem.

[Hagoromo Gitsune]

Xipe Totec, on 23 July 2014 - 09:36 PM, said:

Just a vague idea to create an incentive to play lights? They'd become the only units which could threaten with base-cap, which would make a light-advantage meaningful and dangerous.

Not only would this mean they could cap, but they could also gut the turrets with immunity.

Let's do it right way, give a base-turrets a...
4xLPL
2xSRM6
2xLRM20

Problem solved.

Edited by Hagoromo Gitsune, 26 July 2014 - 06:08 AM.

[Hagoromo Gitsune]

Edited by Hagoromo Gitsune, 26 July 2014 - 06:03 AM.

[Wolfways]

Pjwned, on 26 July 2014 - 05:36 AM, said:

Well, yeah, they are pretty much the same now because of turrets, and that's kind of the problem.

I mean one doesn't have turrets.

[Pjwned]

Wolfways, on 26 July 2014 - 06:06 AM, said:

I mean one doesn't have turrets.

Skirmish and skirmish lite: turrets edition isn't very fun or different, I'd like it if it was actually Skirmish and Assault again.

[IraqiWalker]

The old way the mode was set up was too easy, and full of stupid holes in it.

Pjwned, on 26 July 2014 - 04:33 AM, said:

2. Funny how you don't give any arguments for what positive impact it would have and instead assume what my intentions are.

I made my arguments. The positive impact is in immersion, adding depth and some sense of context to the experience, and in making capping the objective an actual challenge.

Pjwned, on 26 July 2014 - 04:33 AM, said:

You're "summarizing" the argument falsely by "making an imaginary point and saying that's what [my] argument is," i.e strawman.

The fact that you don't actually see what your demand will cause, is on you, not me. I'm telling you what will happen if we go with what you want. You might not see your argument that way, but that's what's going to happen. Lack of foresight on your end, is your problem, not mine.

Pjwned, on 26 July 2014 - 04:33 AM, said:

I want base defense to matter for the team that starts right next to their base, if you want a more fortified base then have a proper game mode for it; you also continue to avoid telling me why attack/defend would not* make sense for that.

We have, it's called assault, and it's still incomplete, we're still waiting on the bases being fully done. The fact that you clearly want assault easy mode, and assault mode, to be 2 different modes shows exactly what your argument is,

it boils down to "Turrets are making capping hard for me, I don't want that, make it stop". You're pretty much in a similar (yet not as bad) camp to those that want Gauss charge removed.

Pjwned, on 26 July 2014 - 04:33 AM, said:

I have no reason to believe it would be any different from what it was before, a proper base capture mode that was only lost without any fighting when nobody gave a crap about their base.

Again, that statement shows how little your experience is with the strategy. 2 lights with cap accel can finish the cap in less than a minute (around 30 ish seconds in fact, maybe 40) that doesn't leave much time for a team to respond. The fact that you lost your "easy button" because the community partly got what we wanted (base parts, with turrets. Still waiting on the full base) is not a bad thing in this case. The tactic was broken, and the maps were incomplete. We've been expecting those turrets (we were actually expecting Calliope turrets) for over a year by the time I started playing. This wasn't something added into the game mode out of a whim because people were too lazy. No, they were supposed to be added a LONG time ago.

Pjwned, on 26 July 2014 - 04:33 AM, said:

They happen after the other side is completely stomped and some light mech decides to hide, so in other words it might as well not be happening at all.

Again, that's a completely false statement. Or at least you're completely twisting my own words to fit your flawed understanding of the game.

I'm only talking about proper base cap scenarios. Right now, with the long range game being so prevalent teams don't venture away from their base very often. On the small maps setting a cap feint is almost impossible because everyone hides behind a rock 2 feet away from spawn (then again, the small maps were never meant for 12 v 12), and so it seems like base capping there is difficult. However, on Alpine, HPG, Canyon, Tourmaline, Terra Therma, and sometimes Caustic. cap feints are a very viable tactic.

Just because you don't know how to pull it off now, doesn't mean it's borked, get some practice in. For the record. My team just lost to a cap rush on Terra Therma today. Enemy light/fast medium lance base rushed us. Killed the turrets by the time we got the "Base is under attack" message, and were capping immediately. Took the whole thing no more than 20 or so seconds for them to win once they stepped on the cap zone.

Pjwned, on 26 July 2014 - 04:53 AM, said:

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with having ("real") bases & turrets in some form, it just doesn't belong in Assault and especially not because (just like you said) people don't want to learn to play and only want mech vs mech combat to matter even though Skirmish fulfills that completely.

If there was ever a mode where bases and turrets belonged, it would be Assault. If you just want capping for the sake of capping, play Conquest. Assault is a BASE ASSAULT (notice the assault word there?) a tactical skirmish where the enemy base and supply lines are vulnerable for capture. However, "ulnerable" doesn't mean just walk in and take it. There should, and must be defenses. The fact that you can't understand the simple concept of static base defenses, and how and why they apply to assault is mind-boggling.

Pjwned, on 26 July 2014 - 07:31 AM, said:

Skirmish and skirmish lite: turrets edition isn't very fun or different, I'd like it if it was actually Skirmish and Assault again.

Then use the in-game chat feature, take command, and try something different. Maybe try performing a cap. See how it goes.

Edited by IraqiWalker, 26 July 2014 - 08:33 AM.

[PANZERKAT]

ECM should have slots similar to module slots for mechs. Exactly the same as the Career kits in Star Trek Online. That way ECM can change as the game changes, bend with it instead of sweeping changes that are made, effecting the game, but people can choose how their piece of tech effects the battlefield. I would even say that this change may work for JJ"s as well. You can have very strong JJ's that can take your large Heavy or Assault up and over large terrain pieces slowly or you can have Fast and low heat JJ's which have a really fast burn on the fuel. They are more combat JJ's and reserved for lights and mediums.

I'd also like to see module slots on the damage system behind able to be crit out. It only makes sense.

Edited by KOMMISSAR KITTY, 26 July 2014 - 08:44 AM.

[Pjwned]

IraqiWalker, on 26 July 2014 - 08:33 AM, said:

The old way the mode was set up was too easy, and full of stupid holes in it.

I made my arguments. The positive impact is in immersion, adding depth and some sense of context to the experience, and in making capping the objective an actual challenge.

Okay, well I want the challenge to also fall on the team to consider their own base and not just storm off and completely ignore it, and turrets make that not happen.

Quote

The fact that you don't actually see what your demand will cause, is on you, not me. I'm telling you what will happen if we go with what you want. You might not see your argument that way, but that's what's going to happen. Lack of foresight on your end, is your problem, not mine.

Fine, maybe next time try saying that instead of making up a bunch of false points and saying that's what I want despite me telling you otherwise multiple times, and I don't agree that I'm lacking foresight when my idea is solidly based on how it was before it changed.

Quote

We have, it's called assault, and it's still incomplete, we're still waiting on the bases being fully done. The fact that you clearly want assault easy mode, and assault mode, to be 2 different modes shows exactly what your argument is,

it boils down to "Turrets are making capping hard for me, I don't want that, make it stop". You're pretty much in a similar (yet not as bad) camp to those that want Gauss charge removed.

No, it boils down to "turrets do not belong in a game mode where you still need to consider your own base objective," and if you want a fortified base then it should be your sole objective to defend it in another game mode. For the record I don't want gauss charge to be removed either, which I have said elsewhere multiple times, but that's not very relevant here.

I want Assault mode to return to what it was because it was FINE the way it was and if you want to change it to something else then it should come in another game mode, not changing an existing mode to be worse because you don't want to put any effort into trying to defend against a possible base cap or because the only strategy should be marching up to the same spot every time in a deathball even though that's what Skirmish is for.

Quote

Again, that statement shows how little your experience is with the strategy. 2 lights with cap accel can finish the cap in less than a minute (around 30 ish seconds in fact, maybe 40) that doesn't leave much time for a team to respond. The fact that you lost your "easy button" because the community partly got what we wanted (base parts, with turrets. Still waiting on the full base) is not a bad thing in this case. The tactic was broken, and the maps were incomplete. We've been expecting those turrets (we were actually expecting Calliope turrets) for over a year by the time I started playing. This wasn't something added into the game mode out of a whim because people were too lazy. No, they were supposed to be added a LONG time ago.

That may have been true at 1 point when it was still 8v8 but there's no way that 2 lights with cap accel would finish off the base in less than a minute now, and again (after saying it at least a dozen times) the "easy button" is only there when people ignore their base.

Quote

Again, that's a completely false statement. Or at least you're completely twisting my own words to fit your flawed understanding of the game.

I'm only talking about proper base cap scenarios. Right now, with the long range game being so prevalent teams don't venture away from their base very often. On the small maps setting a cap feint is almost impossible because everyone hides behind a rock 2 feet away from spawn (then again, the small maps were never meant for 12 v 12), and so it seems like base capping there is difficult. However, on Alpine, HPG, Canyon, Tourmaline, Terra Therma, and sometimes Caustic. cap feints are a very viable tactic.

They hide 2 feet away from spawn because of turrets also being there, and I'm talking about proper base cap scenarios not happening in both solo and group play, the last actual base cap I can recall in months (after turrets were put in) of playing was on Tourmaline when half the team split off and died so the other half just walked up to the enemy base unopposed and we won, that wasn't even a proper base cap scenario either and of course the enemy team whined & moaned about it ruthlessly.

Quote

Just because you don't know how to pull it off now, doesn't mean it's borked, get some practice in. For the record. My team just lost to a cap rush on Terra Therma today. Enemy light/fast medium lance base rushed us. Killed the turrets by the time we got the "Base is under attack" message, and were capping immediately. Took the whole thing no more than 20 or so seconds for them to win once they stepped on the cap zone.

Sounds like you should've spread out, and saying that an entire lance took out your base while you were unaware isn't saying much, that would've happened regardless of (EDIT) turrets more defenses (obviously it did happen even with turrets (END EDIT)) because your team apparently didn't consider the base objective.

Quote

If there was ever a mode where bases and turrets belonged, it would be Assault. If you just want capping for the sake of capping, play Conquest. Assault is a BASE ASSAULT (notice the assault word there?) a tactical skirmish where the enemy base and supply lines are vulnerable for capture. However, "ulnerable" doesn't mean just walk in and take it. There should, and must be defenses. The fact that you can't understand the simple concept of static base defenses, and how and why they apply to assault is mind-boggling.

The defenses are the entire team that spawns right next to the base, if you ignore it then you lose it.

Quote

Then use the in-game chat feature, take command, and try something different. Maybe try performing a cap. See how it goes.

I have done that, I got tired of it not working because of turrets.

Edited by Pjwned, 26 July 2014 - 06:20 PM.