21 replies to this topic

[eminus]

Skirmish mode should give more importance to damage and kills
Assault/Conquest should give more importance to those who are capturing the base

I went into a game in Assault mode and we immediately run to capture the base and without even firing we manage to capture the base but it does not give you even an upward on your PSR as shown below.

[Duke Nedo]

This more than anything just shows how broken Assault is as a game mode. Base swaps just shouldn't happen...

[RestosIII]

"I base-rushed and ended a match in 2 minutes." I admit that conquest and assault should reward capping more, but base rushing in assault is a terrible thing to do. No-one has fun when both teams just sit in each other's bases. At East TRY fighting some.

[eminus]

RestosIII, on 07 March 2016 - 12:11 AM, said:

"I base-rushed and ended a match in 2 minutes." I admit that conquest and assault should reward capping more, but base rushing in assault is a terrible thing to do. No-one has fun when both teams just sit in each other's bases. At East TRY fighting some.

I disagree because the map level design is to capture the base, tell me how many assault mode games ended up capturing the base? for me I think base on my experience only 30%-40% ended up in base capture. I like skirmish, I choose skirmish if there is an option to choose one but when we are force to play in assault/conquest mode at least PGI should design the map that we are engage to do what the map should need to be .

[RestosIII]

eminus, on 07 March 2016 - 12:22 AM, said:

I disagree because the map level design is to capture the base, tell me how many assault mode games ended up capturing the base? for me I think base on my experience only 30%-40% ended up in base capture. I like skirmish, I choose skirmish if there is an option to choose one but when we are force to play in assault/conquest mode at least PGI should design the map that we are engage to do what the map should need to be .

Wrong. The maps are designed for fighting. I WISH they were designed for capping, since that would make assault something besides skirmish with a chance of no reward. But sadly, that's all it is. Unless the enemy team is obviously going to defend or you need to Cap to secure a close game, just fight. Your teammates will at least have a chance to get C-bills.

[eminus]

RestosIII, on 07 March 2016 - 12:32 AM, said:

Wrong. The maps are designed for fighting. I WISH they were designed for capping, since that would make assault something besides skirmish with a chance of no reward. But sadly, that's all it is. Unless the enemy team is obviously going to defend or you need to Cap to secure a close game, just fight. Your teammates will at least have a chance to get C-bills.

sorry let me reprhase, what I meant is that map level design should be designed in a way that it will be more engaging to capture it and as I mentioned earlier capturing in this mode should have a better pay.

[Homeskilit]

If Assault was one team attacking and one team defending there would be no problems.

[Ace Selin]

Why do people in a game about destroying big stompy robots want to do anything other than destroying big stompy robots?

You may as well play Pacman at that stage.

[RestosIII]

Homeskilit, on 07 March 2016 - 01:03 AM, said:

If Assault was one team attacking and one team defending there would be no problems.

I wouldn't say there'd be "no" problems, since Murphy's Law exists, but it would be less terrible.

[627]

Ace Selin, on 07 March 2016 - 01:09 AM, said:

Why do people in a game about destroying big stompy robots want to do anything other than destroying big stompy robots?

You may as well play Pacman at that stage.

Battletech was never about destroying robots because destruction is fun. It was always about a mission objective, something to achieve with the sparse ressources you have - at least in lore. And many people want something like that, missions, a greater goal and immersion. being a mechwarrior and not an arena fighter.

And some people don't want to play the same boring game mode over and over again. Variety you know

And on the topic, ending the match in 2 minutes without a fight is boring but you should not be punished because you played the objectives. I mean who's fault is it that the enemy base is captured without a fight? my or the enemy's?

I really hope they can spice Assault up a bit. turrets were a good idea but didn't help in the end at all.

Edited by 627, 07 March 2016 - 01:18 AM.

[eminus]

627, on 07 March 2016 - 01:17 AM, said:

Battletech was never about destroying robots because destruction is fun. It was always about a mission objective, something to achieve with the sparse ressources you have - at least in lore. And many people want something like that, missions, a greater goal and immersion. being a mechwarrior and not an arena fighter.

And some people don't want to play the same boring game mode over and over again. Variety you know

And on the topic, ending the match in 2 minutes without a fight is boring but you should not be punished because you played the objectives. I mean who's fault is it that the enemy base is captured without a fight? my or the enemy's?

I really hope they can spice Assault up a bit. turrets were a good idea but didn't help in the end at all.

yes right now you can rush to a base because it is undefended, if a base is defended like in a CW that would prove a challenge and could give some time for the defender to go back and try to rescue the base. there is a lot of things they can add or implement just to make the map fit more as it is intended to be.

[Prof RJ Gumby]

Must say I agree with the OP. Assault and Conquest should reward (a bit) less for kills/dmg, but more for capping and just for the victory. Also, there should be a fixed amount of cash/xp per every enemy still alive at the end of the game. Stuff like that. If players would have an actual incentive to go and try to finish the an assault game by capping and get similar cash killing 12 enemies bring, we could have more interesting matches. If killing is not outright best option by far, we're gonna have to evolve a more war-like approach, treating enemy mechs not like default targets, but as obstacles to overcome. If 1-2 lights can make you loose in 2 minutes WITH SAME EARNINGS KILLING WOULD DO, you have to make sure they won't get the chance to do it, and look for a way to use your lights the same way etc. etc.

Killing is just the overall best and most profitable thing to do 95% of the time in both assault and conquest (99% in skirmish, but that's fine). Killing mechs is fun, but devising some strategy to reach an objective once in a while seems more fun to me after a year of just killing mechs all the time.

I love how on Polar Highlands you just can't ignore capping at all, because if there's 1 enemy in a light with a bit of brains, you'll just loose with 11 kills at best. You have to find a fine line between capping and not weakening yourself by dividing forces too much. Like sending most of your forces to cap and hold one point, while lights to cap another and quickly get back to the main force. It's nice, but that's still not enough for a thinking man's shooter.

[Ace Selin]

627, on 07 March 2016 - 01:17 AM, said:

Battletech was never about destroying robots because destruction is fun. It was always about a mission objective, something to achieve with the sparse ressources you have - at least in lore. And many people want something like that, missions, a greater goal and immersion. being a mechwarrior and not an arena fighter.

Totally agree about the mission objectives (attack, defend mode with turrets, gens that control them - can be captured and multiple access ways to a terminal point, would be great) but at the moment all we got is arena fighter or nothing, ill take the arena fighter every time over doing nothing but sitting in a little circle hoping it counts down faster than the other guys counter.

Edited by Ace Selin, 07 March 2016 - 01:26 AM.

[Prof RJ Gumby]

627, on 07 March 2016 - 01:17 AM, said:

Battletech was never about destroying robots because destruction is fun. It was always about a mission objective, something to achieve with the sparse ressources you have - at least in lore. And many people want something like that, missions, a greater goal and immersion. being a mechwarrior and not an arena fighter.

Exactly.

627, on 07 March 2016 - 01:17 AM, said:

And some people don't want to play the same boring game mode over and over again. Variety you know

Exactly.

627, on 07 March 2016 - 01:17 AM, said:

And on the topic, ending the match in 2 minutes without a fight is boring but you should not be punished because you played the objectives. I mean who's fault is it that the enemy base is captured without a fight? my or the enemy's?

Exactly.

Making playing for objectives as profitable as going kiil-em-all, but potentially easier and faster will be certainly painful at first to some people. Just like light rushes were in CW some time ago, only this would be fair, while light rushes were not (only one side had an easy way to end the match). Still, I think people will learn to try to balance between capping the enemy base and not get your base capped, while having a lot of 'thinking's man shooter' in between. Example: if you KNOW some lights will try to get to your base, it gets really obvious to hide some light hunter (like a streakboat) turned off next to the base and ambush them. On the other hand, an ambush will probably get pretty obvious after some time, so cappers will have to adjust and kill the ambusher first or maybe send some more mechs to cap etc. etc.

Ace Selin, on 07 March 2016 - 01:25 AM, said:

Totally agree about the mission objectives (attack, defend mode with turrets, gens that control them - can be captured and multiple access ways to a terminal point, would be great) but at the moment all we got is arena fighter or nothing, ill take the arena fighter every time over doing nothing but sitting in a little circle hoping it counts down faster than the other guys counter.

At first it would look like that. Right until some people would realise you can actually defend your cap AND send someone fast to try and cap the enemy base (pro tip: try means scout and decide if it is possible, not go head on and die). The whole problem would be to have people learn that forming a 12-man murderball is not always the best option after years of 12-man murderball being always the best option.

I have faith. Terra therma conquest allows me to have it. On that match, it is the best to divide your forces into capping lights (going for kappa* and forward at first, then joining the main force) and the rest that joins with assaults and get epsi. If the enemy just goes to the center, they will be forced to divide and cap, while we can murderball them for a while. If they let their assaults cap alone, they will loose 3-4 mechs for nothing, allowing us to cap around AND have a main force stronger than all what's left of their team, what's basically an instawin for us. If they do the same - we have 2 fights, one between lights and one between the rest of the team, further course of action depends on the outcomes of both clashes. If there is an other counterstrategy to that strategy, I haven't seen it yet. Hope there is
Isn't that more interesting than a simple murderball? I think it is and - suprisingly - people actually tend to follow my plan when I propose it.

Edited by Prof RJ Gumby, 07 March 2016 - 02:00 AM.

[El Bandito]

See here OP. We have been saying that since 2012, but PGI simply does not listen.

[Homeskilit]

El Bandito, on 07 March 2016 - 01:50 AM, said:

See here OP. We have been saying that since 2012, but PGI simply does not listen.

and yet people keep giving them money...

[El Bandito]

Homeskilit, on 07 March 2016 - 01:54 AM, said:

and yet people keep giving them money...

I guess it is hard for many people who had already spent hundreds of dollars, to stop supporting a game they felt invested in. Tis a shame that PGI did not create any cheap Steam bundles to hook in more players during Steam release. Lost opportunity.

[Homeskilit]

El Bandito, on 07 March 2016 - 02:04 AM, said:

I guess it is hard for many people who had already spent hundreds of dollars, to stop supporting a game they felt invested in. Tis a shame that PGI did not create any cheap Steam bundles to hook in more players during Steam release. Lost opportunity.

Yeah no kidding.

Would you rather take $10 from 10,000 people or $50 from 1,000 people?

I guess no one at PGI understands this concept.

Edited by Homeskilit, 07 March 2016 - 02:20 AM.

[Vashramire]

As much as I like winning, is it really a win if the base rushers complete the objective and get 35k c-bills and like 100xp or the other team that is stomping into the other team that is now outnumbered and gets 100k+ c-bills and 1000xp? For me I'd rather "lose" and get more resources than the winning team. 3 mechs rushing a base will net their team a 9 v 12 and a = for PSR while the opposing team while losing can manage a = as well as a ^ for rating and better rewards. So who really is the loser there?

[invernomuto]

I agree with OP. BTW, PGI is changing the assault and conquest gamemode, let's see what happens.