76 replies to this topic

[STEF_]

Bush Hopper, on 27 June 2015 - 10:15 AM, said:

Unfortunately. The nodes should tick faster. Especially on the very small maps like Bog where capping is pretty much a waste of time

Also, I would like to earn more for capping!
When I drop in a locust, commando etc in a conquest match and I go for capping only...I really earn a bunch of c-bills, even if the match is a win by cap.
It doesn't worth, right now...

[Mystere]

But, but, but ... what about all the masses of people who simply refuse to defend their base? What are they to do? Will they whine to the high heavens again?





<let them. >

[Mystere]

Stefka Kerensky, on 27 June 2015 - 01:17 AM, said:

Me too.
Actually capping is stupid, you earn nothing.
So, conquest drops are skirmish ones, again.

That's simple, make capping be rewarded 10-20-50x. And if you do not want to be capped, then

DEFEND YOUR BASE!

You end up getting all the fighting you want anyway by doing so.

Edited by Mystere, 27 June 2015 - 10:39 AM.

[Alistair Winter]

Pjwned, on 27 June 2015 - 01:31 AM, said:

I don't see much wrong with Conquest myself after base capping speed was increased significantly, any further issues are likely just with the maps.

DAYLEET, on 27 June 2015 - 10:31 AM, said:

Nothing wrong with Conquest, it's just a hell lot harder to play than switch your brain off skirmish. Last event got a lot of groups to play Conquest and it was a disaster. Youd think they would have tried to just mothball it(not great but will win 33% of the time if your lights know what they are doing), but mostly they went for peripheral cap zone with assault and other weird stuff like that. The worst part was that groups brought no lights, i had many conquest match that event where a side had zero light, guess which side always lost.

Well, the trouble with Conquest is that a lot of people (myself included) find it pretty boring to cap. It also gives less rewards. So you have a lot of players who don't play Conquest at all (myself included) and you have people who play Conquest only for the fighting, because they like to have a game mode with more lance vs lance combat and less deathballing. But they're still not capping. From time to time, you'll end up with teams who don't care what the score is, they just want to fight.

If capping bases actually did something, like activating turrets that fired on whatever mech you were targeting, or let you drop airstrikes using the battlegrid, or something else, anything else, then maybe it would be more entertaining. But running circles around the action on Tourmaline to stand on squares isn't exactly everyone's cup of tea.

I may be wrong, but my impression is that Conquest is the least popular game mode by far.

[Mystere]

ScarecrowES, on 27 June 2015 - 10:17 AM, said:

The turrets are the only thing keeping assault playable.

If by "playable" you mean "everyone rushes to the center like mindless zombies attracted to a large pile of edible brains", then yes.

[Mystere]

Alistair Winter, on 27 June 2015 - 10:42 AM, said:

Well, the trouble with Conquest is that a lot of people (myself included) find it pretty boring to cap. It also gives less rewards. ...

I'm sure a 100x increase to rewards will fix that easily.

[Spheroid]

This is a welcome change. When people had to think about losing the cap the deathball was lessoned and you had small unit engagements in odd places. That type of the thing is where MWO is most fun to play.

Reduced rewards, increased cap times and 3/3/3/3 all prevent the classic turbo cap so I agree turrets are not currently needed.

Edited by Spheroid, 27 June 2015 - 10:55 AM.

[Pjwned]

Alistair Winter, on 27 June 2015 - 10:42 AM, said:

Well, the trouble with Conquest is that a lot of people (myself included) find it pretty boring to cap. It also gives less rewards. So you have a lot of players who don't play Conquest at all (myself included) and you have people who play Conquest only for the fighting, because they like to have a game mode with more lance vs lance combat and less deathballing. But they're still not capping. From time to time, you'll end up with teams who don't care what the score is, they just want to fight.

If capping bases actually did something, like activating turrets that fired on whatever mech you were targeting, or let you drop airstrikes using the battlegrid, or something else, anything else, then maybe it would be more entertaining. But running circles around the action on Tourmaline to stand on squares isn't exactly everyone's cup of tea.

I may be wrong, but my impression is that Conquest is the least popular game mode by far.

Personally, I almost never pilot anything slower than 80 KPH (dual gauss Jager with standard engine is the exception) and I even pilot mechs like Locusts that go twice as fast, so capping is pretty good for me because I can rush a base or 2 right away and then come join the main fight and also cap more as needed. It can work quite well to put some pressure on the enemy's objectives while the heavier mechs (on both sides) feel each other out, and it doesn't tend to take long to get back in the action from capping a base.

If you're not in a particularly fast mech very much though, I can see why Conquest might be kind of boring.

[DAYLEET]

Alistair Winter, on 27 June 2015 - 10:42 AM, said:

It also gives less rewards. So you have a lot of players who don't play Conquest at all (myself included)

I do 8k less in Conquest per match than Skirmish And i do 5k more in Assault than Skirmish. This does not account for time, i would assume that in skirmish the game ends faster but in reality i end up spectating well into the 5 minutes left all the time in Skirmish, i don;t have notes on that right now but im betting the time difference is as negligible as the reward difference.

Increase the rewards, the game mode won't be easier to play. You are right that some people don't want to cap and that's their preference, some people want a 5minute fight and be done with it and that's fine. But overall conquest will always be harder to play and people won't be attracted to that.

Edited by DAYLEET, 27 June 2015 - 11:21 AM.

[Darlith]

I'd love to see turrets go. As much as it did add the lovely tactic of the last remaining light hiding in his base and using the turrets to pick off wounded mechs, it also was just plain frustrating to be shot by random missiles and targeted from 1k out when most of the maps aren't big enough for those. A great example is the crater in caustic, if you are on the side of the crater nearest the enemy base you are close enough for the base to target you and fire missiles, which ruins flanking chances.

I wouldn't strictly mind if the base kept some short range defenses to slow down people just running in and capping it, but I also won't cry to see them go away.

[Eider]

Ah yes back to the days when lights would all just rush a base and matches could end in a few seconds thanks to capture modules. The turrets frankly were a needed thing. We will just go back to the before time with them capping bases because otherwise the only way to counter a death ball would be to park at base with your deathball. Why not just make every map as hot as terra therma and requiring heat vision to see like blizzard maps all at once? Or hey a map that is nothing but a giant black screen, that sounds fun.

[Kira Onime]

I want whatever tech is in the turrets to be put into my mech.
That **** is clearly better than anything else we have.

[Eider]

I agree they just need to be toned down. The old days of light rush cap sucked, in some instances you barely made it to a fight as an assault and game would just be over.

[Inveramsay]

But don't forget the cap time during the days of light rushes was much shorter than it is now. My favourite tactic in those days was to sneak round the back in my Jenner, start calling and start there until part of the enemy team peeled off to hunt me down. Since the Jenner was king of speed I could generally leg it back to my team who now were facing 5v7 instead of 8v8.

That said, I think they could stay but only if they lost the 1k range, aimbot accuracy and the number of the things. If you are left alone on a team now you have better odds fighting three enemies than if you try to cap. One or two turrets with two Mlas around the cap would be enough to deter but still manageable for a lone light

[Pjwned]

Eider, on 27 June 2015 - 01:06 PM, said:

Ah yes back to the days when lights would all just rush a base and matches could end in a few seconds thanks to capture modules. The turrets frankly were a needed thing. We will just go back to the before time with them capping bases because otherwise the only way to counter a death ball would be to park at base with your deathball. Why not just make every map as hot as terra therma and requiring heat vision to see like blizzard maps all at once? Or hey a map that is nothing but a giant black screen, that sounds fun.

You could also go play Skirmish and piss off away from everybody else who enjoyed the mode before turrets existed.

You have no excuse.

[Moldur]

As much as I dislike turrets sometimes, I must say, something about assault keeps it from being the festering idiot fest known as skirmish queue.

[Quxudica]

Pjwned, on 27 June 2015 - 12:51 AM, said:

According to the Town Hall notes posted on Reddit, Russ is thinking about removing turrets from the Assault game mode.



All I have to say is HELL YEAH because I still fondly remember Assault matches where teams had to actually give a crap about their base ever, and it was fun playing them in my Jenner when I was still pretty new to the game. When turrets came in because people could not stop crying about light mech wolf packs, I was very disappointed by the extremely heavy handed change because that was also when Skirmish mode was implemented, and if people didn't want an objective to defend then they could just queue up for Skirmish only and leave the other modes alone.

I do realize that turrets have been nerfed at least once or twice, but not only are they still too much of a threat to light mechs because facing the turrets + any defending enemies is simply too much, the turrets also spot any enemies for their whole team to see so that surprise maneuvers are often completely ruined, and as a result I can only recall about 3 games in the last several months where either team tried to cap the enemy base as a game winning tactic.

I'm sure people will ***** and moan about needing to actually defend their base because it's different from what they are now used to, but the only proper answer is to say "deal with it or don't play Assault." This will definitely change how the mode is played because needing to care about your base objective necessitates playing differently and it will make scouting much more important because if you don't see where the enemy is then they might be heading for your base, which I had fun doing before turrets ruined it.

I wish this happened sooner because the effect it has had on Assault has been severe and pronounced right from the start, and it's a major sore point for me personally because it completely ruined the game mode and just turned it into Skirmish lite.

I do realize removing turrets hasn't actually been confirmed yet, but that is partly why I made this thread because I wholeheartedly support removing turrets from Assault, and to the players who don't want this then my mantra will be "go play Skirmish."

Yep I fondly remember those games that ended inside two minutes because lights rushed the base with impunity for nearly instant caps. Nothing more fun than a game mode that rewards barely playing the game.


Turrets aren't the problem with Assault mode. Assault is the problem with Assault mode. The objective is incredibly simplistic, the locations on the maps are virtually arbitrary, and many of the maps themselves are not very well designed (with the older tiny maps being to small for how big turret ranges are).

Assault should have been similar to CW. One team on attack, the other on defense, maps specifically designed with the mode in mind, multiple objectives and a best of three round set up that had each team switch sides so both attacked and both defended.

Assault and Conquest, as they currently exist in MWO, still feel like the Closed Beta place holders I thought they were years ago and that's just sad.

[Eider]

Pjwned, on 27 June 2015 - 01:51 PM, said:

You could also go play Skirmish and piss off away from everybody else who enjoyed the mode before turrets existed.

You have no excuse.

Sorry but i actually like to play a game i am supposedly playing. Those who 'enjoyed' this mode before typically just rushed point and did nothing else. Can get the same effect turning off your pc.

Inveramsay, on 27 June 2015 - 01:44 PM, said:

But don't forget the cap time during the days of light rushes was much shorter than it is now. My favourite tactic in those days was to sneak round the back in my Jenner, start calling and start there until part of the enemy team peeled off to hunt me down. Since the Jenner was king of speed I could generally leg it back to my team who now were facing 5v7 instead of 8v8.

That said, I think they could stay but only if they lost the 1k range, aimbot accuracy and the number of the things. If you are left alone on a team now you have better odds fighting three enemies than if you try to cap. One or two turrets with two Mlas around the cap would be enough to deter but still manageable for a lone light

Modules

[James Warren]

Don't shoot me for this, but I actually like the turrets.
Except for their ability to spot from so far away and penetrate ECM which goes against all of the established rules of the game (especially on Mining Collective where you can be smack bang in the middle of the map and nowhere near a turret, only to have them shooting LRMS at you constantly).

There are tactics involved. For example, shooting turrets to feign a capture attempt, so that enemy players break off from the group to investigate or defend. Or falling back to the turrets for support.

I still remember assault without turrets, where a good percentage of matches ended in captures after teams took opposite routes across the map and hardly even saw each other. That wasn't fun for either team.

I remember slow assault mechs missing all the action because they slogged half way across the map only to have to turn around, and couldn't reach home before it was too late. I know part of this problem is due to map design (I'm looking at you, Alpine) but at least until all the maps have been remade I think the turrets should stay.

[Pjwned]

Quxudica, on 27 June 2015 - 01:57 PM, said:

Yep I fondly remember those games that ended inside two minutes because lights rushed the base with impunity for nearly instant caps. Nothing more fun than a game mode that rewards barely playing the game.


Turrets aren't the problem with Assault mode. Assault is the problem with Assault mode. The objective is incredibly simplistic, the locations on the maps are virtually arbitrary, and many of the maps themselves are not very well designed (with the older tiny maps being to small for how big turret ranges are).

Assault should have been similar to CW. One team on attack, the other on defense, maps specifically designed with the mode in mind, multiple objectives and a best of three round set up that had each team switch sides so both attacked and both defended.

Assault and Conquest, as they currently exist in MWO, still feel like the Closed Beta place holders I thought they were years ago and that's just sad.

Aside from some map design issues, namely cramming too many players into a map that's too small, the biggest issue with base rushing is players allowing it to happen.

I would also like to say that modifying Assault to be an actual attack/defense mode is dumb, it has its place as its own game mode and if players want another more traditional attack/defense mode (which I believe is actually coming up "soon") then they can go play that instead.

Eider, on 27 June 2015 - 01:58 PM, said:

Sorry but i actually like to play a game i am supposedly playing. Those who 'enjoyed' this mode before typically just rushed point and did nothing else. Can get the same effect turning off your pc.

You also apparently queue into a game mode with a base objective and then proceed to not even consider it whatsoever and whine when you lose.

If you're here to just whine and ***** because you didn't like the mode previously when you can simply avoid the mode (after turrets are removed) and play Skirmish, then go away.

What is your excuse for coming in and whining about something you didn't enjoy that others did when you can go play another mode that's essentially the same thing as it is now?

Quote

Modules

1. Capture accelerator module does take the place of other modules like seismic sensor, radar deprivation, shock absorbers, target info gathering, etc. so I don't see it as a big problem.

2. The effect is not exactly amazing.

James Warren, on 27 June 2015 - 02:08 PM, said:

Don't shoot me for this, but I actually like the turrets.
Except for their ability to spot from so far away and penetrate ECM which goes against all of the established rules of the game (especially on Mining Collective where you can be smack bang in the middle of the map and nowhere near a turret, only to have them shooting LRMS at you constantly).

There are tactics involved. For example, shooting turrets to feign a capture attempt, so that enemy players break off from the group to investigate or defend. Or falling back to the turrets for support.

99% of the time when "base under attack" pops up it means some mech poking at a turret and people have learned to just ignore it, so I can't recall the last time I've ever seen anybody respond to a "feint capture" other than by taking a glance with their otherwise idle light mech and then running off again.

As for running off into turrets for support, I understand that's a decent way of potentially making a good comeback, but it also promotes lame camping at times. If we're okay with (not particularly amazing example incoming) something like a large LRM boat camping turrets, then perhaps they can exist away from the base.

Quote

I still remember assault without turrets, where a good percentage of matches ended in captures after teams took opposite routes across the map and hardly even saw each other. That wasn't fun for either team.

I realize map design issues are a part of this, but that still comes down to player tactics mostly and if that keeps happening then clearly people need to adjust.

Additionally, if players find it not fun then they can simply not play in Assault and instead opt for Conquest & Skirmish or even Skirmish only.

Quote

I remember slow assault mechs missing all the action because they slogged half way across the map only to have to turn around, and couldn't reach home before it was too late. I know part of this problem is due to map design (I'm looking at you, Alpine) but at least until all the maps have been remade I think the turrets should stay.

That just sounds like a situation where both the assaults and the scouts failed, and additionally you don't need the whole damn team to return to base every time.

Edited by Pjwned, 27 June 2015 - 09:46 PM.