18 replies to this topic

[razenWing]

The way I see it, there's two ways to fix Assault Mode, and none of it requires a big change to programming. In fact, it's more like 1/2 a hot fix.

See, one of my unit mate raised a good point the other day after a 0-0 win. If we did what we did in real life, we would get commendation for being so efficient with the objective. Yet, in this game, we are punished.

So there's 2 logical ways to fix this:

1: Make it so that only 2 people can cap regardless. This essentially turns Assault mode into another skirmish, but it does get people engaged more.

2: This is my prefer method, you go the other way, and make it so that the countdown is MORE important. So even having just 1 or 2 capping will feel super pressurized to defend. Assuming if caps go down that much faster, you HAVE to split up and force the split gameplay like how the Assault mode is designed to do. Cause you can't realistically expect to ball-up and encounter the enemy 100%. Cause, they might just be faster than you and out base-race you. So then you have 2 logical solutions, to have everyone at base, or split left and right to hopefully... encounter them all. Either way, it will break up the fights and make the fights more exciting from all fronts.

Either way, let's actually reward the people for doing a super good job at completing objectives. Like, if you capture base within 2 minutes, you get an extra 150,00 cbills. If you cap between 2 and 4, you get an extra 100,000 cbill. If you cap between 4 and 6, you get an extra 50,000, then beyond that... no bonus.

You have to give people incentive to go for the objectives, and reward them for completing objectives good. Cause, referring back to the 0-0 game, why are we punished with 30k cbill reward for doing the objective super good? Food for thought.

[El Bandito]

I'd rather delete Assault mode, TBF. Conquest is just a better option IMO.

[Tarogato]

Here's my fix for Assault mode, while we're at it:

• Cap win awards a bonus of 30,000 C-Bills to every member of the team per living enemy mech.

Most players will want to win by base cap because it rewards you a very very large amount.

- Cap win without killing any enemies at all: 360,000 C-Bills for every player on your team
- Cap win leaving six enemies alive: 180,000 C-Bills
- Cap win leaving three enemies alive: 90,000 C-Bills
- Cap win leaving one enemy alive: 30,000 C-Bills (worth one consumable)

• Capping shouldn't take very long.

Presently, the rate of capping is 0.4348 percent per second. So one mech can cap in 230 seconds (~4 minutes).

I would change this to 0.67 percent per second per mech with a maximum of three mechs, thus...

- one mech capping: 150 seconds
- two mechs capping: 75 seconds
- three mechs capping: 50 seconds
- four mechs or more do not increase the cap rate any further.

• Losing the match via cap reduces your earnings by a percent equal to the number of alive enemy mechs multiplied by four.

- If you lose the match by cap without killing any enemy mechs, your earnings are cut by 48%.
- If you lose the match by cap with six remaining enemies alive, your earnings are cut by 24%.
- If you lose the match by cap with three remaining enemies alive, your earnings are cut by 12%.

---

With these changes, winning via cap could be immensely rewarding, and caps can happen quickly. Because this would result in both teams just nascaring past each other, racing to see who caps the enemy base first, they are punished heavily for not eliminating enemy mechs. I believe this would completely change player behaviour - forcing teams to actively defend their base territory every match and also highly encouraging small strike forces to attempt at capturing the objective.

It is my belief that if a system such as mine is not adopted, it would probably be better to remove Assault mode from the game altogether, because it presently does not contribute any unique tactical experiences to the game - players currently play it as Skirmish mode, and if anybody caps the base for a win, they are punished with poor rewards (as well as all of their teammates whining at them for capping instead of killing)

For me, I don't give a shjt about actually winning matches in solo queue. I play solo queue to push myself independently, to build up high average damages on my mech stats and high KDRs. With the changes I propose, I believe that Assault mode would result in fewer 0-kill cap wins, while also playing out completely differently from a tactical standpoint and encourage players to use different parts of the map from what we are used to seeing with Skirmish and Conquest. These changes appeal both the to types of players who want to win, and the types of players like me who just want to shoot mechs.

Edited by Tarogato, 29 October 2016 - 10:08 PM.

[Ghogiel]

Tarogato, on 29 October 2016 - 10:03 PM, said:

Here's my fix for Assault mode, while we're at it:

• Capping win awards a bonus of 30,000 C-Bills to every member of the team per living enemy mech.

Most players will want to win by base cap because it rewards you a very very large amount.


- Cap win without killing any enemies at all: 360,000 C-Bills for every player on your team
- Cap win leaving six enemies alive: 180,000 C-Bills
- Cap win leaving three enemies alive: 90,000 C-Bills
- Cap win leaving one enemy alive: 30,000 C-Bills (worth one consumable)

• Capping shouldn't take very long.

Presently, the rate of capping is 0.4348 percent per second. So one mech can cap in 230 seconds (~4 minutes).


I would change this to 0.67 percent per second per mech with a maximum of three mechs, thus...

- one mech capping: 150 seconds
- two mechs capping: 75 seconds
- three mechs capping: 50 seconds
- four mechs or more do not increase the cap rate any further.

• Losing the match via cap reduces your earnings by a percent equal to the number of alive enemy mechs multiplied by four.

- If you lose the match by cap without killing any enemy mechs, your earnings are cut by 48%.

- If you lose the match by cap with six remaining enemies alive, your earnings are cut by 24%.
- If you lose the match by cap with three remaining enemies alive, your earnings are cut by 12%.

---

With these changes, winning via cap could be immensely rewarding, and caps can happen quickly. Because this would result in both teams just nascaring past each other, racing to see who caps the enemy base first, they are punished heavily for not eliminating enemy mechs. I believe this would completely change player behaviour - forcing teams to actively defend their base territory every match and also highly encouraging small strike forces to attempt at capturing the objective.

It is my belief that if a system such as mine is not adopted, it would probably be better to remove Assault mode from the game altogether, because it presently does not contribute any unique tactical experiences to the game - players currently play it as Skirmish mode, and if anybody caps the base for a win, they are punished with poor rewards (as well as all of their teammates whining at them for capping instead of killing)

For me, I don't give a shjt about actually winning matches in solo queue. I play solo queue to push myself independently, to build up high average damages on my mech stats and high KDRs. With the changes I propose, I believe that Assault mode would result in fewer 0-kill cap wins, while always playing out completely differently from a tactical standpoint and encourage players to use different parts of the map from what we are used to seeing with Skirmish and Conquest.

I adamantly oppose such changes. Rewarding cap like that and making it faster to do? Insane. Base camping when there was turrets made the assault even worse, this direction should be avoided at all cost.

[Tarogato]

Ghogiel, on 29 October 2016 - 10:13 PM, said:

I adamantly oppose such changes. Rewarding cap like that and making it faster to do? Insane. Base camping when there was turrets made the assault even worse, this direction should be avoided at all cost.

Base camping is fundamentally different from every other game mode - it is unique. There is no base camping in Conquest, Domination, or Skirmish. So if Assault mode isn't a base camping mode, it should be removed from the game due to the fact that is is not unique. Personally, I would welcome the variety brought about by having a base camping mode in the game.

[Ghogiel]

Tarogato, on 29 October 2016 - 10:19 PM, said:

Base camping is fundamentally different from every other game mode - it is unique. There is no base camping in Conquest, Domination, or Skirmish. So if Assault mode isn't a base camping mode, it should be removed from the game due to the fact that is is not unique. Personally, I would welcome the variety brought about by having a base camping mode in the game.

imo base camping is not fundementally different than regular camping. It's just you have to do it around a specific predetermined area of a map, that area can be camped in skirmish in the same way.

That specific predertermined area is what will make the camping boring af. We have been there and seen how **** it is.

Edited by Ghogiel, 29 October 2016 - 10:24 PM.

[MrMadguy]

Assault can't be fixed. Whatever you would do - it still will leave opportunity to turn it into PVE-like CapWarrior Online, where players get rewards despite of completely avoiding enemy players. And the whole idea behind Assault - is to encourage players to fight for their bases.

Make bases harder to cap? Add turrets? Add walls? But... Players still must be able to cap it. Right? That means, such measure would only prevent capping by lone Light 'Mechs, yeah, but whole team still would be able to play CapWarrior Online.

I guess, current "non-participation" rules - are part of the problem. Defensive tactic is simply prohibited by PGI themselves, lol. You have to push towards enemy base. You just can't wait for enemies near your own base.

Nothing would fix it. Make defending more profitable? This would discourage players from attacking - both teams would wait at their bases. Turn this mode into "capture flag", i.e. players would be required to bring something back to their own base? Lol, it would be the same NASCAR-CapWarrior crap, but twice longer.

[Tarogato]

Ghogiel, on 29 October 2016 - 10:23 PM, said:

that area can be camped in skirmish in the same way.

But it isn't. That never happens. Nobody camps in Skirmish, except for on very extraordinarily rare occasions in group queue when a super tryhard group of 8+ decides they want to do it. Which again... is extraordinarily rare. Skirmish is always some sort of nascar fest in solo queue, and still usually some sort of nascar fest in group queue. Assault presently is exactly the same - a nascar fest. This is because the emphasis is on the kills instead of the objectives.

Ghogiel, on 29 October 2016 - 10:23 PM, said:

That specific predertermined area is what will make the camping boring af.

Because racing to the center of the map and nascaring around the nearest major terrain feature isn't already boring af?

The bases don't even have to be in the same locations every match: http://mwomercs.com/...spawn-variants/

PGI just needs to get off their arses and make multiple spawn sets per map a possibility.

[Ghogiel]

Tarogato, on 29 October 2016 - 10:41 PM, said:

But it isn't. That never happens. Nobody camps in Skirmish, except for on very extraordinarily rare occasions in group queue when a super tryhard group of 8+ decides they want to do it. Which again... is extraordinarily rare. Skirmish is always some sort of nascar fest in solo queue, and still usually some sort of nascar fest in group queue. Assault presently is exactly the same - a nascar fest. This is because the emphasis is on the kills instead of the objectives.

Rare is not unique. Nor does unique = better or even good. You also can't be claiming that while pugs are playing spaz warrior in all other modes, but then will all of a sudden be playing tactical with your proposed mode changes. You are shooting down reasoning yourself by claiming all skirmish ends up as boring nascar while ignoring the highly possible scenarios of nascar to base cap or "hey guys we are at our base and it's been 5mins, are you coming or not?" "no you!". And anything not those two is the better option anyway.. skirmish nascar somewhere else on the maps.

Nascar excuse is disingenuous anyway. It's just movement in a continuously correcting flanking direction. If you want a game mode that promotes a different type of manouvering there aren't many options, straight on and controlled fading back to extend the team making the straight push is about the only viable thing I can think of.

Quote

Because racing to the center of the map and nascaring around the nearest major terrain feature isn't already boring af?

The bases don't even have to be in the same locations every match: http://mwomercs.com/...spawn-variants/

PGI just needs to get off their arses and make multiple spawn sets per map a possibility.

Because nascar to having a match end on cap at 0/0 isn't worse?

What you are proposing is incentivising all the things that are bad about assault. And I think that is the wrong direction for any game mode design.
Basically you want a mode that is nascar to base cap or base camping. Both could involve very little meching in many of the drops on mode or a boring drawn out match.

The only way I think bases like you propose would work is if you had to get kills first to unlock the base to being capped. so once 6 kills are gained, maybe we could talk more. imo any mode that can end in minutes with 0/0 is bad design for a shooter.

Edited by Ghogiel, 30 October 2016 - 01:17 AM.

[Cabusha]

Regarding #2, that's pretty much how it was in closed beta. Assault caps were fast so it wasn't uncommon for a couple of mechs hang back and guard or watch. The QQ crowd who wanted nothing but team death match (TDM) cried and wailed until it was turned into the crappy mode we have now. Because objective based gameplay didn't fit their rush rush kill mindset.

And then they got skirmish for all their TDM needs, but assault stayed broken. GG

[razenWing]

So like everyone just go off on their suggestions without apparently reading mine... then came out with 10 different excuses on why assault mode can't be fixed.

1: Make objective play worth while.
2: Don't make 5 variations of Skirmish

That's all there's to it. People aren't mad at Assault because you shot nobody. People are fine with 6-2 finish with 750 Conquest points. People are mad at Assault because 0-0 win = literally 30k cbill with premium (and even less)

So just up the reward to benefit those players that play the objectives like how they are supposed to. Also, make the capping speed a lot FASTER, so that you are forced to center strategy around objectives, rather than another type of Skirmish.

[Danjo San]

Solution is simple.
remove one base.

[MrMadguy]

Danjo San, on 30 October 2016 - 03:12 AM, said:

Solution is simple.
remove one base.

Yeah, and turn Assault into Invasion FP mode, that, by the way, is dead?

May be it's time to give up, bury this "E-Sports" crap and finally implement Deathmatch mode?

[TercieI]

Nuke it from orbit.

[Bombast]

I brought this up in another thread.

- Remove one cap point and turn it into WoT Assault mode. Has a variety of issues, though - Probably should be limited to the larger maps.

- Increase the capture rate of the first mech, but put heavy diminishing returns on every following mech (Or more severe diminishing returns that are already in place). So...

• 1 Mech - 100 capture rate per mech (100)
  
• 2 Mech - 75 capture per mech (150)
  
• 3 mech - 55 capture per mech (165)

Or something like that. The big taker is they need to increase the rewards for one mech harassing the capture point, while increasing the time it takes an entire team to cap out.

Edited by Bombast, 30 October 2016 - 05:25 AM.

[Cold Darkness]

MrMadguy, on 30 October 2016 - 03:49 AM, said:

Yeah, and turn Assault into Invasion FP mode, that, by the way, is dead?

May be it's time to give up, bury this "E-Sports" crap and finally implement Deathmatch mode?

you contradict yourself. DM would be the start of turning this game into yet another "e-sport" game (at least more then it currently is). i dont think the majority of players do want that. but thats just a guess anyways and the community might be ****** up enough allready to welcome DM in this kind of game.

Edited by Cold Darkness, 30 October 2016 - 05:41 AM.

[Dirus Nigh]

Players need to be willing to change how they play the game for assault mode. They just run off and and nascar like it was skirmish.

[Scyther]

I believe that 'Capture the Base for max points and pay' is a poor idea, since most players fit out their mechs to do battle, play the game to do battle, and get XP/C-Bill rewards primarily from their battle performance. In Quickplay/Pugs you aren't going to have the organization or teamwork to leave 1 lance on defense while 2 move out either.

Similarly, Assault as "slightly different Skirmish" mode doesn't add anything to the game either.

I'd agree that removing one base and offering higher rewards for 'owning/capping' the base might offer some variety. The timer needs to be slow enough to give mechs time to position at/around the base otherwise it will just turn into a fast mech shootout for base and every slow mech barely involved.

[PhoenixFire55]

Assault sounds amazingly exciting on paper, but in reality it is a broken gamemode. When it is symmetrical it is either broken due to lack of base defences and cap race or due to having base defences and giving a "defending" side a huge advantage. As for making it assymetrical ... well, we've all been to CW/FP and seen PGI's idea of exciting base assault game mode with chokepoints and all, i.e. FUBAR.

Still, people who come to play pew-pew stompy robots and not a walking simulator always find ways to do the actual pew-pew regardless of gamemode.