7 replies to this topic

[Scilatis]

Hi

I began playing MWO last week. The game is pretty fun and somewhat challenging.
But after playing some Assault & Conquest games I noticed a patern: people just ignore the objectives and play it like a Skirmish.
I can understand this but in about 90% of the time, the team loose the game.
I had some games where the odds of victory was so close that make me ROFL - loosing a game with 10/15% to full capture and a 689/750 on conquest.
So why bother in get into the enemy base. I can bet the enemy team already know the guy will just hit it to lure some guys from the combat line and don't seem bother much.
After all, is loosing the game but getting some kills more profit?


P.S.: English isn't my native language so sorry for the errors.

[Ximenet]

I think that a kill means more XP points for upgrade ur actual mech. That is the cause the people prefer a kill than a capture. This is how i see it.

Edited by LuxNyx, 05 January 2016 - 08:21 PM.

[Hexenhammer]

Yulp.

At its core, Battletech is a military game and the military has two functions; kill people and break things.

[Not A Real RAbbi]

Hexenhammer, on 05 January 2016 - 08:38 PM, said:

Yulp.

At its core, Battletech is a military game and the military has two functions; kill people and break things.

Sometimes, sure.

But that's not even true of BattleTech LORE 90% of the time, and even less for REAL-WORLD warfare.

Old skool BT had that SALVAGE was ridiculously valuable, because manufacture of NEW equipment was prohibitively expensive when it could even be accomplished at all. And for that reason of the EXPENSE of replacing even a COMPANY of battlemechs, many an engagement was won/lost without a single shot fired, but simply through maneuver into an obviously superior position.

Real war ain't always that different.

Dead men are far less valuable for HUMINT.

Destroyed equipment can't be used by the puppet regime you'll surely install once you've overthrown the hostile one you're currently fighting.

Intelligence and logistics. Either comprises easily TWICE the effort in war, as does actual maneuver...

[p4r4g0n]

If Assault and Conquest awarded mech parts for successfully achieving the primary objective and those mech parts could be collected to make a brand new mech, I suspect people would be a lot more interested in doing them rather than skirmishing.

In other words, the rewards for doing the primary objective are usually woefully inadequate

[T0rmented]

if your team is losing 90% of assault and conquest played as skirmish the other team is winning 90% of these matches.... ergo the best way to win these games is to ignore objectives and kill the enemy team

[Rogue Jedi]

I frequently cap the enemy base in Assault ^{(assuming I am in a fast Mech)},I let the team know what I am doing, the enemy usualy send 2-4 Mechs back to chase me off their base, so as soon as I see those Mechs I tell the team to push and what I am facing, I usualy engage those Mechs and kill at least one of them ^{(but if there is a streak boat I just run)}, my team usualy wipe out the enemy team, that is successful about 90% of the time in my experience, it is extremely rare that I fully cap the enemy base in that scenario.

[Scilatis]

p4r4g0n, on 05 January 2016 - 10:01 PM, said:

If Assault and Conquest awarded mech parts for successfully achieving the primary objective and those mech parts could be collected to make a brand new mech, I suspect people would be a lot more interested in doing them rather than skirmishing.

In other words, the rewards for doing the primary objective are usually woefully inadequate

True.
If Assault reward decent XP about how fast your team cap the objective and the captors and Conquest 100x resouces in C-bills for the winner, maybe this would change their perspective.
Just another sugestion.

Thanks ppl.
See you on the battlefield.

Edited by Scilatis, 06 January 2016 - 01:34 AM.