52 replies to this topic

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Kodyn, on 02 August 2015 - 10:55 AM, said:

It's the exact same situation as in game...try anything intelligent, people's brains explode.
To the few of you who were intelligent enough to get the point, thank you for your contributions.

Because we all know the intelligent thing to do when trying to have an honest conversation is insult everyone who doesn't agree with you several times in your posts.....

[Salticidae]

I have been dropped in teams that before I even see a enemy we are 2-3 players down, I still won these games by capping.

I like assault without the turrets, if you loose from being capped it's because your lights didn't scout properly or your team failed the react to the big red warning in there face and Betty screaming you are being capped.

[Nyden]

It's funny how slow the player base is adapting to no turrets in assault. We got by without them for sooo long but it seems most current players have no idea how deal with it.

Quick, no combat base caps happen when both teams deathball and happen to choose completely different attack lanes, at some point you realize the enemy is going to hit your base uncontested and your only chance of a win is to get to theirs first, but this should only be happening on the big maps.

It seems most modern light and (fast) medium pilots have forgotten how to scout the flanks and nobody is willing to hang back to defend even a little. The truth is turrets (and perhaps the current meta) made deathballing so appealing that most players in pug land have no idea how to do anything else.

Experience seems to indicate that more complex tactics will evolve as players become more comfortable with the state of affairs. Players need to learn how to be effective alone or in small groups. VOIP makes everything easier than it used to be.

I'm not saying everyone needs to go full Rambo, I just think they need to do it a little more and, based on my experiences before turrets were introduced, eventually players will...or they'll stay in the low ELO brackets.

I think turrets ruined assault mode, making it too much into Team Deathball Online, and would be against their reimplementation without significant changes to the way they worked.

[Narcissistic Martyr]

Most caps happen because the two blobs passed each other at which point the team that starts capping wins either because the other blob breaks up to get back and stop the cap or because they lose the cap race.

Wanna stop caps? Play a light and scout around a bit, figure out where they're going and then intercept any damaged mechs that peel off to cap.

As for the crap rewards... yeah PGI for some reason really only rewards doing damage.

[Fleeb the Mad]

Personally I'm all for turretless assault.

Previously, the turrets infalliable spotting ability and LRMs created large dead zones on the maps which made it problematic to advance into if the enemy was actually present. Flanking was harder, and there were occasions where the enemy team would leave their rear completely exposed but force anyone trying to take advantage to fight within range of their base turrets, taking LRMs with their positions given away. Having no turrets actually makes it much easier to maneuver and actually puts more emphasis on knowing where the enemy is.

They were implemented because many assault games came down to a light running into the base and managing to capture it before anyone else could get there. The longer capture timer solved that particular problem.

Also I've had a lot of great panic battles in which our team flubs and lets a bunch of enemy mechs pile on the base, leading to a frantic attempt to get back there to stop them. Also I like game modes where there's a mechanism to steal a win if your team is down several mechs and winning it on kills is looking bad.

If you ask me, the reward for winning should be much higher in general, regardless of how it's accomplished, and the raw damage/kill numbers dialed back. That would give NARCing scouts and people who play the objectives instead of focusing solely on kills some more credit it if leads to a victory.

[Pjwned]

Try defending your base every once in a while.

[Bongo TauKat]

I have seen a glimmer of hope in a few PUG matches. When someone actually uses VOIP I have had a PUG tell say Charlie lance to hold at a grid or two away from our base and use LRMs if possible. In those matches with the VOIP being used by myself, I have watched a full lance of lights get pummeled as they desperately tried to crowd onto the base. Turkey shoot was inadequate to the amount of dying in under 40 seconds.

[Herr Vorragend]

I like the current assaultmode more than the old one

[Greyboots]

Kodyn, on 02 August 2015 - 06:43 AM, said:

Ok, so I'm sure this has been brought up by someone, but it's not front page, and it's starting to get to me, so..

What is up with Assault currently? No turrets now means the default tactic is just to base rush, which while fair game, has always made for boring gameplay, except in cases where the other team can actually respond and it leads to a nice fight. This new version however pretty much guarantees boring gameplay, and low CBill rewards...For completing the actual objective...

Now I can't tell people how to play...I certainly wish everyone had CBills on the mind and realized that an Assault win by cap now actually nets you LESS CBills than a loss where you output some damage, maybe killed a mech or two.

I realize that not everyone's smart enough to notice this, and I also realize that a lot of people are, and simply don't need/want the CBills, so they they just do it for the win. But c'mon now, really?

I see where you're coming from but it's nto a case of "smart", it's a case of personal experience and perspective.

• Well, with turrets it's the same as skirmish 99% of the time anyway.
  
• Have you turned off assault in your match type selections? You don't have to play Assault if you don't want to.
  
• One open light running back to base rather than fight the 5 open mechs left had to be stopped for the sake of a really pretty walking simulator for the remaining 7 minutes.
  
• Some people don't get that ELO is about wins, not how many kills or how much damage you get. If you ever want to get out of ELO hell then winning is what the game is actually about after you have a lot of mechs and the importance of working towards new ones wears off.

Quote

(For PGI's perspective, this is the only game mode where I hope fervently for a loss every time, because I'm almost guaranteed to make twice the CBills on the loss than a win by cap...it's that backwards.)

This I agree with wholeheartedly from a common-sense standpoint for sure. It's something that should probably be done but not at the expense of making cap rushes mandatory. It's not easy to balance this out. As I mentioned though, I have 40 odd mechs and I need more like a hole in the head. What I want is a better ELO. My desire is not your desire so we kind of want different things, that's understandable.

That being said, if my guys are going to cap rush for the win I'm not going to complain. I'll offload as much ammo as possible to maximise my earnings for sure but... If you don't get the cBills for killing us all I'm not going to sweat over it when you can turn the match mode off. I want to be playing against guys that can own me if I make a mistake because that's how you get better at a game and that's my target.

When it's not I'll turn it off too.

That being said, many a cap rush has been slaughtered on it's way to the enemy base, trapped in a bad position or just walking unexpectedly into a firing line. Admittedly far more often in the group queue and in the higher ELO brackets but it's my experience of late. Cap rushes rarely work as cap rushes and when they do the losing team was outclessed and usually gets thrashed within an inch of it's life anyway.

Quote

[color=#959595]I dunno, am I completely off here, or what? Am I the only one that finds watching an entire team of armored, heavily-armed mechs race to a red dot and do nothing for no money kinda crazy? And the best part is, while I want to blame the players for making the choice, they are in fact just completing the objective, so...[/color]

No, you are not completely off but that's not how it plays out the majority of the time in my personal experience in the group queue. If you don't like it, and I'm told many people experience cap rushes a lot more often than I personally do, I don't blame you in the slightest in wanting to avoid it.

I hope you have a better time in the game with Assault switched off.

Best of luck in your future MWO adventures!

Edited by Greyboots, 02 August 2015 - 02:32 PM.

[Rebas Kradd]

Kodyn, on 02 August 2015 - 10:55 AM, said:

I'm going to consider this a dead topic because this community makes me angrier and sadder than I want to let a game make me, and I need to walk away and just go shoot robots...

Just because people disagree with you doesn't mean they're stupid. Get over yourself.

[Kodyn]

Pjwned, on 02 August 2015 - 02:01 PM, said:

Try defending your base every once in a while.

WM Quicksilver, on 02 August 2015 - 11:50 AM, said:

Because we all know the intelligent thing to do when trying to have an honest conversation is insult everyone who doesn't agree with you several times in your posts.....

I don't care if people agree or disagree, it's not that at all. Everyone's going to have their opinions of what they like or dislike, it's the "Doesn't bother me so it shouldn't bother anyone" attitude that gets to me. It's just incredibly obtuse. When I make posts like this one, about fixing the game, it's because I legitimately love this game, and want only the best for it. Someone coming in on every single thread like this that's ever existed and basically acting like we're all full of BS bothers me for some reason.

I'd never suggest changes to the game that would hurt the player experience or the game's chances at growth, so there's zero need for negative attitudes, which they bring, and which I for some reason still let get to me and respond to in kind.

And everyone can agree this game has a large amount of flat-out idiots. Usually they're seen on your team in pug matches. When I see them here as well, well I'm a very blunt person in RL, so I kinda just let loose. It's lead to me dealing with some confrontations that got ugly, but that's life. I need to learn to ignore the trolls, I know it.

I just wish this community wasn't so toxic and intent on destroying itself is all. Making a game mode better for the all-around experience hurts literally no one, so it baffles me when people argue against logic, which they seem to do here at every turn, just for the sake of arguing. I get it, trolls. It's the internet. I gotta wake up.

As for the "defend your base" thing...I have been trying. I've had more than a few games where I caught on to an early base rush, mention to my team, "Hey, looks like they're base rushing us, can I get some support at base please?"...which is met with silence...so I try again, "Yeah, they're definitely here in force, could use backup, fast as possible please"...more silence, then I watch my team slowly start to respond, in 1-2 ,mech increments, and in really suicidal fashion, and the whole team goes down.

So it gets a little frustrating realizing I'm dealing with people who simply don't care enough to try, which is why I'd like to see the mode fixed, to give them less freedom to fail. Right now it's just whichever team rushes first and has the most people who bother trying to play wins. When I seem to be getting the other guys 100% of the time, yeah, it gets to me after a while.

The whole point is that we, as players, shouldn't have to depend on our team not being complete idiots, or completely lazy, and be responsible for herding them, every time, because the mode itself is flawed. At least the other modes are a bit more forgiving of that right now. As I said earlier as well, even a cap win is basically a loss, since you only make marginal profit, unless you get lucky and manage to get a good fight on the way. That's the mode.

All of this is moot however if what Alistair said is true and the mode's already getting changed.

EDIT: Really, if it is a placeholder atm, and the mode is for sure getting changed, it confirms that PGI knows it's flawed, so that's not even the argument to be had. Once I saw that post, I should have let this whole thing go, because just like every single other thing I've ever made threads about changing in this game, PGI caught on and is changing...they're doing it for the collision changes, they've made changes to IS durability via quirks, and now this. So I really have nothing to argue here, it's already happening.

That's why it's so frustrating..these are obvious fixes to be made, so obvious that PGI themselves are already working on them, yet people act like it's a matter of opinion..it's not. Something's broken, so it gets fixed. My fault for ever bringing any of it up, because apparently the discussion, in this case, never had to happen.

Edited by Kodyn, 02 August 2015 - 02:43 PM.

[Tincan Nightmare]

Kodyn, on 02 August 2015 - 10:55 AM, said:

The fact that a game mode exists that is flawed was my point...but as usual, having a productive conversation on these forums is akin to ramming your head into a brick wall. It's the exact same situation as in game...try anything intelligent, people's brains explode. Have a decent conversation about a game flaw? Everyone states the obvious and ignores the point.

Yes, I can not play assault.

Yes, I can magically make my team grow a brain stem and listen to sane tactical advice.

Yes, I can just not play the damn game at all.

All not the point at all.

To the few of you who were intelligent enough to get the point, thank you for your contributions. The placeholder mode thing makes sense, and I sincerely have hopes for what the future holds for a better version of assault.

I'm going to consider this a dead topic because this community makes me angrier and sadder than I want to let a game make me, and I need to walk away and just go shoot robots...

Well I get the point you're making, it is foolish to set up game modes with set objectives, but then give lesser rewards for actually completing those objectives. I have no problem with someone getting a cap win in assault, but you are correct that the c-bill reward for doing so should not be lower then if you just went ahead and played it as skirmish. Hopefully they will increase the payout for capping an enemies base, since that is the general point of the mode.

[Johny Rocket]

Because forum whinners be whinning.

[Kodyn]

^See? Troll. In real life, I'd just default to a headbutt and buy him a beer later, but it's the interwebz, so I'm gonna play nice. I'm learning.


(Nice sig btw Tractor, I actually tell people that all the time...I love seeing Atlai go down like a sack after one alpha..)

[Mystere]

Kodyn, on 02 August 2015 - 10:55 AM, said:

The fact that a game mode exists that is flawed was my point...but as usual, having a productive conversation on these forums is akin to ramming your head into a brick wall. It's the exact same situation as in game...try anything intelligent, people's brains explode. Have a decent conversation about a game flaw? Everyone states the obvious and ignores the point.

Yes, I can not play assault.

Yes, I can magically make my team grow a brain stem and listen to sane tactical advice.

Yes, I can just not play the damn game at all.

All not the point at all.

To the few of you who were intelligent enough to get the point, thank you for your contributions. The placeholder mode thing makes sense, and I sincerely have hopes for what the future holds for a better version of assault.

I'm going to consider this a dead topic because this community makes me angrier and sadder than I want to let a game make me, and I need to walk away and just go shoot robots...

The problem is you are stating opinion as actual fact.

Also, you're expecting people to play a game mode the way you want it played and get upset when people do not do so.

The problem is probably the one looking at you in the mirror.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Kodyn, on 02 August 2015 - 02:35 PM, said:

it's the "Doesn't bother me so it shouldn't bother anyone" attitude that gets to me.

You do realize that in dealing with any significantly sized group of people, this is going to happen right? Never mind that this is the internet. You are only doing your argument a disservice when you include personal attacks directed at these people (not that you really specified, which is another problem). Not to mention as Mystere points out above, you are assuming certain things to necessarily be true when they are not.

On topic, you do realize there were several of us that wanted the old assault back (myself included) simply because it allowed more options tactically. The simple fact is, not every game ends in a base cap, and I'm sure PGI has the actual telemetry to tell you how many end in a base cap and even better how much the average damage done is with base caps versus a win with all enemies destroyed. I bet you they aren't nearly as bad as you seem to make it out, and for me it has led to some interesting scenarios play out that wouldn't have happened otherwise.

So all in all, I still think this version of assault is a good thing and probably the best game mode currently available (except on Alpine).

[Mystere]

Narcissistic Martyr, on 02 August 2015 - 01:17 PM, said:

As for the crap rewards... yeah PGI for some reason really only rewards doing damage.

The cap rewards are currently lower than they used to be because people complained loudly like petulant children that other players were actually playing for objectives. Some of those people are the very same ones complaining today.

[Kodyn]

Mystere, on 02 August 2015 - 03:11 PM, said:

The problem is you are stating opinion as actual fact.

Also, you're expecting people to play a game mode the way you want it played and get upset when people do not do so.

The problem is probably the one looking at you in the mirror.

You're confusing what I was trying to say I think.

I don't expect people to play it one way or another, I've admitted that I don't expect the team to be smart, tactical, or want CBills. What I do expect is for the mode's primary objective to actually pay out a worthwhile amount, since it's one of only 2 objectives. Would I prefer people, for the time being until the mode is changed, played it differently? Of course, I want the CBills, and I enjoy a good fight. Do I expect them to, and is that what this thread is about? Not at all. I probably caused that miscommunication myself with my Italian walls of text, so that's on me.

The "opinion" you think I'm stating as fact is that the mode is broken/incomplete, which if PGI is in fact using it only as a temporary mode while they work on the final version of Assault, is based in reality. If something is not as the Devs intended it, and they are working to improve it, then it's not final, it's not a complete, finished mode, therefore, it's broken. It doesn't even matter if the Devs are right or wrong in changing it, or whether we all like it, what matters is that they are fixing it, therefore for all intents and purposes, it is in fact broken at the moment.

Listen, guys, I know I write massively long-winded posts, so I get it that some of my points are getting lost. That's completely my own fault. I do apologize for any confusion and extra drama that's caused, along with my own natural surliness and hot temper. I think my reasoning is still sound, despite my flaws, so if possible, please try to see that I do mean well, and my whole thought process behind this is just to improve new player retention, old player enjoyment, and the overall experience.

[Mystere]

Kodyn, on 02 August 2015 - 03:22 PM, said:

The "opinion" you think I'm stating as fact is that the mode is broken/incomplete, which if PGI is in fact using it only as a temporary mode while they work on the final version of Assault, is based in reality. If something is not as the Devs intended it, and they are working to improve it, then it's not final, it's not a complete, finished mode, therefore, it's broken. It doesn't even matter if the Devs are right or wrong in changing it, or whether we all like it, what matters is that they are fixing it, therefore for all intents and purposes, it is in fact broken at the moment.

You are severely underestimating the effects massive whining has had and continues to have on PGI's development plans and schedules. Or do you actually believe Ghost Heat was planned from the very beginning?

Edited by Mystere, 02 August 2015 - 03:28 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Kodyn, on 02 August 2015 - 03:22 PM, said:

The "opinion" you think I'm stating as fact is that the mode is broken/incomplete, which if PGI is in fact using it only as a temporary mode while they work on the final version of Assault, is based in reality.

This is based on a statement he made on twitter a while back shortly before certain people made a push to get turrets removed from Assault. That new asymmetric version of Assault that you reference, will more than likely be an additional game mode rather than a replacement because there are still many that love the old/new/turret-less Assault and it fullfills a much different role than a public queue version of Invasion mode. I believe he later alluded to make that new mode a separate game mode rather than a replacement because he was trying to come up with a new name for the game mode (which is weird since it sounds a lot like Siege from MW4).

Edited by WM Quicksilver, 02 August 2015 - 03:28 PM.