84 replies to this topic

[QuantumButler]

"Again" he says...

It was horrible with turrets too, just in a different way.

[Joseph Mallan]

Strig, on 09 August 2015 - 10:35 AM, said:

Assault Mode is horrible again.

PGI was on to something with defenses and I get it that no one won by capping, but now all that happens is a rush to base capture in every game I have played.

Splitting the team to assault and defend means the defending lance(s) lose to a 12 man push and the assault-lance(s) still cap slower so even with a head start they lose. This mode is the least exciting, has the least combat (unless both sides charge down the middle ... haven't really seen this but guess it could happen), and has the least potential valid and/or interesting tactics (willing to be proved wrong).

Suggestions:
1. Put stationary defenses back in and let us use the drop-deck tech (or some variation) to have a chance of grinding the defenses down.

• This will increase combat
  
• This will likely still lead to wins by base capture, but not before multiple pushes/skirmishes
  
• This will let non-CW players experience drop-deck
  
• This will allow less skilled players to not be immediately out of the fight

2. Leave defenses out, but make the cap slow and don't increase it no matter how many mechs are in the ares ... now it is a battle of attrition with defending versus enemy mechs destroying you AND defending the cap as lights occasionally push in to try to get a cap win.

• This will increase combat
  
• This will likely still lead to wins by base capture, but not before multiple pushes/skirmishes
  
• This will allow skilled light/medium pilots to make a big difference in a non-straightforward combat role (like they can in Conquest, although with a bit more risk)

3. Anything else ... (please add your suggestions below)

Thinking Mans game means if you make a bad choice you pay the price. So if you split your force you are choosing to fight under strength. If you advance to F6 (for instance) and wait, then you can react to your enemy as a whole group.

Assault needs to have ONE base, an Attacker and a Defender.

[Dino Might]

Dashen, on 09 August 2015 - 11:10 PM, said:

Truth is : with turrets people couldn't nascar anymore, we all now this game is about nascar every single map. Now they can, so they won't whine.

Wait, do they NASCAR every time in assault? Or do they rush base cap every time in assault? The narrative is getting confused as we continue to make up reasons why our way should be the only way.

[TWIAFU]

Kodyn, on 09 August 2015 - 11:23 AM, said:

Even though I was on this boat the other day, I've really concluded it's just the players, more than anything.

Get a match with smarter players, get to avoid the cap.

What we really need is a queue for super casual weekend warriors and new players, stuff them all in there, then everyone else can have slightly more serious matches with actual mech builds that don't contain LRM 5s etc, and follow actual tactics.

Stay out of solo queue and join your friends/Unit in group drops.

All these problems can be easily avoided by not playing with the pugtards that cause them.



Then again, they will complain about a team using teamwork to achieve victory.

[Savage Wolf]

Mystere, on 09 August 2015 - 08:31 PM, said:

Hold a second there! If people are unable to learn tactics, then I say let Darwinism take it's course.

What makes you sure changing the game mode again will make people learn tactics? You just can't fix stupid. So don't even try.

Just the of chance that a tactics appears that just trumphs everything and makes Assault bad. But I find that unlikely.

[Raggedyman]

Strig, on 09 August 2015 - 10:35 AM, said:

Assault Mode is horrible again.

PGI was on to something with defenses and I get it that no one won by capping, but now all that happens is a rush to base capture in every game I have played.

Curiously in all the games I played over the weekend people were using solid, exciting tactics and the only base rushes happened when either the other team was down on folks and playing "hide & seek" or the base was let undefended and a 'skirmish' style win wasn't possible.

It's almost like people are learning how the mode works, developing better tactics based on previous experience, and adapting their game play accordingly.

[JernauM]

Joseph Mallan, on 10 August 2015 - 02:26 AM, said:

Assault needs to have ONE base, an Attacker and a Defender.

Do we need another version of CW?

[Joseph Mallan]

JernauM, on 10 August 2015 - 03:40 AM, said:

Do we need another version of CW?

Well if the mission is to assault a base... Yes. Yes we do.

[Pjwned]

Joseph Mallan, on 10 August 2015 - 03:48 AM, said:

Well if the mission is to assault a base... Yes. Yes we do.

I would probably be fine with a less drawn out attack & defense mode featuring maps that are less bad than the maps in CW, but there's no need for that to replace the current Assault mode.

If we were to have such a mode (which I believe PGI actually said they wanted to implement a new mode like that) then it would be understandable to have an actual base to defend featuring some turrets, but because both teams are on the offensive in Assault then adding in turrets essentially just removes the base objective and the mode turns into Skirmish, as seen by 99% of Assault matches after turrets were implemented and before they were removed.

[jper4]

the LRM turrets firing halfway across the smaller maps were the biggest annoyance for me. by the time the last person hid at base and the remaining beat up mechs had to wait for time because they were too damaged to make it across the other half of the map against the LRMs (of course being PUGs there was a better than 50/50 chance they would charge and die anyway).

IMO the turrets should be a tripwire and not much else. put up a few SL turrets (2-4 is more than enough) to give a small bit of warning a cap is incoming and force the attackers to possibly take a little bit of damage in moving in for the cap but nothing that would keep them in hiding out of fear of getting their legs taken off on the way by the extremely accurate ML turrets. stay out of range and burn them down and it's still 15-30 seconds of extra time for the defenders to react.

this way even late in the match damaged mechs could still make a push to the base and the last mech and get rid of the 5 minute wait for the time to run down. people tend not to fear SLs very much unless boated (maybe).

[JernauM]

Joseph Mallan, on 10 August 2015 - 03:48 AM, said:

Well if the mission is to assault a base... Yes. Yes we do.

If Assault becomes CW Lite, we would be better off removing it entirely. It does not make sense to have two highly similar game modes when the trade-off is fragmentation of the player base.

[Joseph Mallan]

Pjwned, on 10 August 2015 - 03:57 AM, said:

I would probably be fine with a less drawn out attack & defense mode featuring maps that are less bad than the maps in CW, but there's no need for that to replace the current Assault mode.

If we were to have such a mode (which I believe PGI actually said they wanted to implement a new mode like that) then it would be understandable to have an actual base to defend featuring some turrets, but because both teams are on the offensive in Assault then adding in turrets essentially just removes the base objective and the mode turns into Skirmish, as seen by 99% of Assault matches after turrets were implemented and before they were removed.

Oh I wasn't even thinking about the "Must attack by A, B or C route." of the CW maps. But the fact that you actually assault in CW. The CW maps are... contrived.

[Raggedyman]

JernauM, on 10 August 2015 - 03:40 AM, said:

Do we need another version of CW?

No, however some kind of "king of the hill" game mode could be fun. You would still have the base rush but it would be a single location with both sides doing a charge and hold.

[Joseph Mallan]

Raggedyman, on 10 August 2015 - 04:04 AM, said:

No, however some kind of "king of the hill" game mode could be fun. You would still have the base rush but it would be a single location with both sides doing a charge and hold.

See the Lawyers, Guns and Money Event scenarios for a pretty good KotH Scenario.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 10 August 2015 - 04:05 AM.

[Kjudoon]

JernauM, on 10 August 2015 - 03:40 AM, said:

Do we need another version of CW?

Dear lord! NO! The one we have sucks hard enough!

[Mawai]

Spheroid, on 09 August 2015 - 11:29 AM, said:

Let me fully flush out a rebuttal. You claim assault mode is ruined and always results in "turbo cap". Incorrect. The 4/4/4/4 weight balance means under most situations a single light lance is capping if that. Where is your light lance? Why are they not responding. The glacially slow cap rate means you should have enough time to respond. If the entire team somehow made it to your cap you have terrible team that was blind and didn't know what the hell it was doing. Also capping is already heavily disincentivized through lack of earnings. 99% of the player base is motivated by the need for more money. Even a guy like me who has 120+ mechs. Matchscore is also a motivator for e-peen comparison. Capping again does not enable this. Given that capping provides no gameplay stimulation and no money why do you think these behaviors will not extinguish over time? I guess you are somehow the statistical anomaly that constantly drops with 4 year olds, autistics, or sociopaths. That behavior is not well received on the opposing team you know. Are people who cap immune from the profanity and team killing that will follow? How is that fun for the offending capper? Eventually they will leave the game or play in a normal fashion. If you are dropping with noobs who do this it actually good for the game as it means the player base is not dying and MWO can continue development. Finally removal of the turrets has been great. Less deathballing and more small unit combat are very welcome. The valley on caustic sees combat, as does the train trestle on canyon. Seriously what maps are you getting capped out on? Its very hard to turbo cap on Crimson, HPG, Frozen city or River City. Maybe Forrest Colony which will be replaced soon or Terra Therma.

Although capping makes no sense from an economic or performance point of view, a significant portion of the player base actually plays to WIN. Capping is a victory and WIN condition. So, despite the lack of rewards a significant number of people will take a quick cap WIN when available and move on to the next match.

These folks are NOT "4 year olds, autistics, or sociopaths".

On the other hand, there are also the group of people who love to cap just for the tears from those who think it is a waste of time and effort. These are also NOT "4 year olds, autistics, or sociopaths" but they are irritating none the less and generally impossible to distinguish from those who just want to WIN

So the point I am making? Assault game mode has cap points and it is a completely valid and justifiable tactic to use them, has always been (since assault originally had no turrets and played exactly the same way) and will continue indefinitely to be played that way by folks who just want to WIN the match and move on or those who might like to irritate folks who consider capping a waste and usually fail epically to use appropriate tactics and team work to prevent caps.

[Mycrus]

#playskirmish

[Koda Shy]

I actually preferred the turrets.... but...they were too strong. and way too dang accurate...and their range was too high...

it added lots to the match..but assault without turrets is stupid...IMO...

it could be more like CW in a simpler way where only one side maybe has the base...but that would be a LRM hell hole as well...

or....just maybe...STWOR had a pvp match that was best time assault with time limit....kinda like attack/defend and each side had a chance....one with best time won the match, I think WoW has one too....time based with stages of goals.

That could be really cool...but no respawns soooo Idk lol, just an idea...

or perhaps....stay with me....

3 lances per team right......each matching lance fights each other with in their spawn zone, then...after the last one of a lance is dead unlocks a zone ...the remaining ones move to an inner circle and duke it out. this would require high wall maze like maps but could be fun lol..........................

ill shut up lol

[smokefield]

imo not the turrets per se were the real problem but the maps that were way tooo small for the range turrets had...especcialy the lrm ones. if you want turrets back then :

1. we need bigger maps and maybe bases located in slightly isolated areas
2. use only mlas, ac5 turrents. no lock for the team, maybe just a blip when a target is in range. can be used on present maps.

[Lugh]

Weird but every time I've played assault the team that gets desperate first gets on the base cap attempting to win. 80% or so of the time, myself and one or two other people go to the cappers(all of whom have been crippled in earlier exchanges) and kill them all, then return to the line and mop up.