76 replies to this topic

[Love in an Annihilator]

I hear a lot of support for the idea of simply getting rid of turrets - wouldn't that just lead to more camping?

Anyway, I support a turret range nerf but don't get rid of them.

[Mystere]

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.

Eider, on 27 June 2015 - 01:14 PM, said:

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.

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.

What prevented you from defending your base? Did you even have a plan to defend your base just in case some lights did rush it?

Or did you just rush to the center, like every other mindless zombie?

Edited by Mystere, 27 June 2015 - 02:33 PM.

[XxXAbsolutZeroXxX]

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

Me too.
Actually capping is stupid, you earn nothing.

That's a gd point.

I think the last time I capped, a few weeks ago, I earned 50k cbills.

That's by far the biggest deterrent to capping in assault mode.

[Hit the Deck]

BTW, I wasn't there when the base didn't have turrets but I know instantly that when both sides need to camp/defend, it's going to suck because you aren't guaranteed to have action. Assuming this condition is true then ideally the assaults should keep an eye on the base while the lights scout ahead. But this scenario needs team coordination which you aren't guaranteed to get in public queue and not every player likes to sit still. On the other hand, Skirmish and Conquest are good because they encourage the player to move.

When there's only one side who needs to defend like in CW, then this is a far better scenario because everyone knows instantly what to do: moving to attack or sit at the base to defend it.

[Mystere]

I Zeratul I, on 27 June 2015 - 02:38 PM, said:

That's a gd point.

I think the last time I capped, a few weeks ago, I earned 50k cbills.

That's by far the biggest deterrent to capping in assault mode.

The rewards were indeed pitiful. And so I capped for the tears, the vast flowing rivers of male nerd rage tears. <maniacal >

[Mystere]

Hit the Deck, on 27 June 2015 - 02:46 PM, said:

BTW, I wasn't there when the base didn't have turrets but I know instantly that when both sides need to camp/defend, it's going to suck because you aren't guaranteed to have action. Assuming this condition is true then ideally the assaults should keep an eye on the base while the lights scout ahead. But this scenario needs team coordination which you aren't guaranteed to get in public queue and not every player likes to sit still. On the other hand, Skirmish and Conquest are good because they encourage the player to move.

When there's only one side who needs to defend like in CW, then this is a far better scenario because everyone knows instantly what to do: moving to attack or sit at the base to defend it.

My solution to that is to go out and kill one of the enemy ... or die trying. Either way, the numerical imbalance usually became the trigger for a fight to start.

Otherwise I play the patience game. I do so because the player base is an impatient one and therefore someone is guaranteed to get bored and decide to Rambo. Works every time.

[Quxudica]

Mystere, on 27 June 2015 - 02:31 PM, said:

What prevented you from defending your base? Did you even have a plan to defend your base just in case some lights did rush it?

Or did you just rush to the center, like every other mindless zombie?

Assuming equal skill, numbers trump everything thanks to MWO's combat design. You split your forces for defense and attack, the only way you accomplish anything is if the otherside decided to split up too. So the only thing that might change at all is moving the deathball from center back to base.

Current turret functionality may not be idea, but this thread is suffering a severe case of rose tinted glasses. At least the presense of turrets currently force you to play the actual game.


There are severe problems with Assault mode, but they are all associated with the fact the entire mode is incredibly lazy and overly simplistic. As I said earlier, the default game modes in MWO are basically Place Holder's they never bothered to flesh out. The last thing we need to do is remove things from them when there's almost nothing there to begin with.

[Mystere]

Quxudica, on 27 June 2015 - 03:53 PM, said:

Assuming equal skill, numbers trump everything thanks to MWO's combat design.

I never make such an impossible assumption.

Quxudica, on 27 June 2015 - 03:53 PM, said:

You split your forces for defense and attack, the only way you accomplish anything is if the otherside decided to split up too. So the only thing that might change at all is moving the deathball from center back to base.

When done correctly, a 3-sided crossfire obliterates the deathball.

Quxudica, on 27 June 2015 - 03:53 PM, said:

Current turret functionality may not be idea, but this thread is suffering a severe case of rose tinted glasses. At least the presense of turrets currently force you to play the actual game.

I disagree, ever since turrets were placed, "Assault" just devolved into "Skirmish".

Quxudica, on 27 June 2015 - 03:53 PM, said:

There are severe problems with Assault mode, but they are all associated with the fact the entire mode is incredibly lazy and overly simplistic. As I said earlier, the default game modes in MWO are basically Place Holder's they never bothered to flesh out. The last thing we need to do is remove things from them when there's almost nothing there to begin with.

The public queues were all supposed to be just placeholders.

Edited by Mystere, 27 June 2015 - 04:51 PM.

[Soulscour]

I think for the smaller maps they should be removed. I can't agree for some maps however. For example, terra therma is to big of a map. Maybe if they moved the bases closer to the center

[Quxudica]

Quote

I disagree, ever since turrets were placed, "Assault" just devolved into "Skirmish".

Assault has always played out as skirmish the majority of games, pre-turrets it just wavered between "Everyone ignores the objective and plays death match" and "lights speed capped the base so the entire match consisted of nothing but walking".

I was a dedicated Jenner pilot for all of CB and Beta, while I dabbled in other chassis, that was my primary. Even just in that pre-launch period I had numerous "wins" from base rushing and numerous loses from having base rushed, both are extraordinarily boring. Nothing about "walk to arbitrary spot X and stand in the box for Y seconds to win" is enjoyable, win or lose.

So once again I put forth that turrets are not the core problem that needs to be solved and removing them is just going to trade one set of issues for another without actually fixing anything. It's a band-aid that doesn't actually address the cause but merely attempts to treat the symptom (which, sadly, is pretty much PGI's balance and design philosophy in a nutshell really..). The entire game mode needs to be overhauled if not just simply replaced if you actually want to "fix" it.

Honestly the turrets are the only thing about that has changed at all about Assault mode since closed beta. They've moved bases on a couple of maps, but really absolutely nothing has been done to improve the game mode (and virtually the same thing goes for Conquest).

[Pjwned]

Quxudica, on 27 June 2015 - 08:34 PM, said:

Assault has always played out as skirmish the majority of games, pre-turrets it just wavered between "Everyone ignores the objective and plays death match" and "lights speed capped the base so the entire match consisted of nothing but walking".

I was a dedicated Jenner pilot for all of CB and Beta, while I dabbled in other chassis, that was my primary. Even just in that pre-launch period I had numerous "wins" from base rushing and numerous loses from having base rushed, both are extraordinarily boring. Nothing about "walk to arbitrary spot X and stand in the box for Y seconds to win" is enjoyable, win or lose.

So once again I put forth that turrets are not the core problem that needs to be solved and removing them is just going to trade one set of issues for another without actually fixing anything. It's a band-aid that doesn't actually address the cause but merely attempts to treat the symptom (which, sadly, is pretty much PGI's balance and design philosophy in a nutshell really..). The entire game mode needs to be overhauled if not just simply replaced if you actually want to "fix" it.

Honestly the turrets are the only thing about that has changed at all about Assault mode since closed beta. They've moved bases on a couple of maps, but really absolutely nothing has been done to improve the game mode (and virtually the same thing goes for Conquest).

If players don't want to get their base rushed then they should place more importance on scouting, and if they don't find it fun then they don't need to play Assault.

[Hit the Deck]

Mystere, on 27 June 2015 - 04:26 PM, said:

I disagree, ever since turrets were placed, "Assault" just devolved into "Skirmish".

This is because in public queue we lack communication and coordination so the logical thing to do is to reduce the OPFOR's strength first then you are free to either finish them or cap their base if their remaining force is hiding and running away. Trying to cap the OPFOR's base directly without sufficient cover (like the enormous hill in the middle of the map in Crimson Strait) could potentially result that the OPFOR is shooting you while your team is fighting with the base's turrets. This is not a good scenario so the majority of PUGgers instinctively avoid this.

To encourage more diverse tactics in our current Assault mode, in really depends on the map layout (Crimson Strait is a good example because of the middle hill and saddle).

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Quxudica, on 27 June 2015 - 03:53 PM, said:

You split your forces for defense and attack, the only way you accomplish anything is if the otherside decided to split up too.

Like Mystere said, not if you catch a team in a crossfire which has psychological effects on top of actual gameplay related ones. Back before turrets were added, Assault was the only game mode that actually encouraged split tactics.

[Quxudica]

Quote

If players don't want to get their base rushed then they should place more importance on scouting, and if they don't find it fun then they don't need to play Assault.

Walking for two-three minutes and never firing a shot or even seeing the enemy team is dull. It doesn't matter if you are on the winning side or the losing side. It's not good gameplay, it's not compelling gameplay, it makes the match boring and is a waste of a game. What's more is it's entirely avoidable by improving the overall quality of the game mode, introducing more mechanics into it beyond "stand in this box" and designing maps specifically to encourage combat flow towards important locations. For instance just take a creative leap for a moment and imagine that the bases turrets stayed, but required power from a generator in another area of the map to function. Suddenly you've got a deterrent to early base rushes, a reason to split forces for both attackers and defenders and an added layer of depth to the mode in general.

There's a massive amount of potential in the concept behind base assault, it does not have to be this piss poor of a mode. If you want the introduction of tactical depth you should be arguing for a complete overhaul of what Assault is, not backpeddling to an even more bare bones version that could barely be called an Beta product.

WM Quicksilver, on 27 June 2015 - 10:28 PM, said:

Like Mystere said, not if you catch a team in a crossfire which has psychological effects on top of actual gameplay related ones. Back before turrets were added, Assault was the only game mode that actually encouraged split tactics.

Assault never encouraged team splitting because the game has never been built to encourage team splitting. Partial team defense does not work, you will never consistently (and likely never in general) see three to six fresh MWO pilots defeat 6-12 equally skilled fresh enemy pilots and it's self delusion to think you would. Because of the nature of the games damage and heat systems every additional mech is an exponential increase in offensive capacity.

There are legitimate arguments for removing turrets, but this claim that three minute base rushes are good things is not one of those arguments. The argument that actually has merit is how restricted movement is made for lighter mechs because of turret placement and ranges (especially on smaller maps) when combined with the overcrowded 12 man team size. Another argument with merit is how turrets are detrimental to comebacks and could be considered a contributing factor to snowballing.

If you truly want a game mode that encourages breaking up the death ball you should be advocating for a more complex fleshed out Assault mode that includes multi-stage or optional objectives in different locations on maps that are actually designed for it (instead of just being generic arenas with "bases" arbitrarily slapped down in them).

I think this community has become so accustomed to playing with these unfinished game modes we have lost the ability to see what more could actually be done with them.

[Joseph Mallan]

Primary objective of Assault is to take your opponents stuff.

But while you are fighting the opponent to the death his techs are moving his stuff to a different location. Congratulations, your blood lust cost your employer the tech/VIP/Data he was paying you to get!

Good job!

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Quxudica, on 28 June 2015 - 02:53 AM, said:

Assault never encouraged team splitting because the game has never been built to encourage team splitting. Partial team defense does not work

Split tactics weren't a defensive maneuver in the old Assault, it was an offensive one. You setup a crossfire with one team moving towards cap which forces the deathball to either move to stop you from capping, exposing their backs to your slower and more powerful group or engage and overwhelm you main group and lose to the cap. On some maps it was the goto strat in semi-competitive matches.

Edited by WM Quicksilver, 28 June 2015 - 08:19 AM.

[Gremlich Johns]

If they want to do this then just get rid of assault and keep skirmish.

Assault isn't assault without there being a site defensive suite.

stoopid idea to get rid of turrets.MWO does not allow people to actually conduct movement to an objective through: bounding overwatch, movement to contact, and the meeting engagement.

The gaming mentality is instant action, not tactics which might be facilitated if PGI had adhered to their original "Role Warfare" model. But, I guess that was too difficult for them to figure out.

Edited by Gremlich Johns, 28 June 2015 - 08:31 AM.

[Ngamok]

Pjwned, on 27 June 2015 - 02:27 AM, said:

They only get a free pass if you leave your base wide open and don't even try to cover more than 1 approach.

Removing turrets is not a free pass into the base just because your tactics are garbage.

The maps aren't big enough to not let lights get a free pass into the enemy base. They can be at the base in 30s on some maps. Some maps like Canyon will just end up being let's all camp base and watch all 3 passes for the lights.

Alistair Winter, on 27 June 2015 - 01:15 AM, said:

Yeah, I don't know that the new game mode will be better. An Overlord class dropship gradually powering up as the match goes on? I assume the idea is that the attackers will have to push the attack early, because stalling means the dropship is going to become more and more powerful. It seems like Russ wants every match to be an epic brawl lasting 3-5 minutes, ideally.

I like the idea of an actual base being assaulted rather than standing in the magic square we have now. I would like mechanics like Mech Commander had.

[Mystere]

Quxudica, on 28 June 2015 - 02:53 AM, said:

Assault never encouraged team splitting because the game has never been built to encourage team splitting. Partial team defense does not work, you will never consistently (and likely never in general) see three to six fresh MWO pilots defeat 6-12 equally skilled fresh enemy pilots and it's self delusion to think you would. Because of the nature of the games damage and heat systems every additional mech is an exponential increase in offensive capacity.

Just because you yourself are not capable of doing something does not mean everyone else can't either.

Besides, those players "defending" their base could actually be performing a delaying action ... to allow the rest of their team to easily take your base.

One-dimensional thinking, it's the bane of what was initially promoted as a "thinking person's" shooter.

[Alistair Winter]

Ngamok, on 28 June 2015 - 09:02 AM, said:

I like the idea of an actual base being assaulted rather than standing in the magic square we have now. I would like mechanics like Mech Commander had.

Oh, I'm fine with that part. I prefer destruction of actual objectives as opposed to the magic squares. But it would be better to have a more dynamic game mode that promoted more complex gameplay than the good old deathball zerg rush.

For example, imagine if a random player was selected as team commander and he dropped next to an AI-controlled convoy of hovercraft transports that followed him everywhere. His team's objective would be to transport the convoy safely from A to B, and the enemy team's objective would be to stop them and kill them, without harming the valuable convoy. Basically almost the same as hostage rescue in CS. This would be a dynamic objective, forcing both teams to scout and look for possible routes, possibly using parts of their team as decoys, and the convoy team would be forced to move, or lose the match if the convoy didn't make it to its destination in time.

These kinds of ideas have been circulating on the MWO forum since 2012, but PGI never showed any interest.