Jump to content

Punished For Capping The Base


58 replies to this topic

#41 martian

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 7,576 posts

Posted 20 September 2020 - 04:23 AM

View PostDer Geisterbaer, on 20 September 2020 - 04:16 AM, said:

With regards to your non-sequitur fallacy: Yes, they'd pretty much have to explicitly state something like that. Otherwise the conclusion you are drawing remains not logically linked to your premise

Laugh as much as you want.

And by saying that you'd still commit the aforementioned non-sequitur fallacy.

The reality is more than words. PGI could have changed those rewards for capping empty square in the empty corner of the battlefield at any moment, if they found them to be unsatisfying - and they have not changed them.

But do not worry: The game mode is going nowhere. You can still stand in your empty square as often as you wish.

#42 Der Geisterbaer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 795 posts

Posted 20 September 2020 - 04:33 AM

martian said:

The reality is more than words.


So? That still doesn't remove the fallacious nature of your argument.

martian said:

PGI could have changed those rewards for capping empty square in the empty corner of the battlefield at any moment, if they found them to be unsatisfying - and they have not changed them.


There have been changes to those rewards over time Posted Image
Regardless: correlation does not equal causation and inaction does not directly prove intent.

martian said:

But do not worry: The game mode is going nowhere. You can still stand in your empty square as often as you wish.


And even more fallacious reasoning that falls somewhere between false dilemma, strawman and a direct insult. That's the spirit ... ~laugh~

Edited by Der Geisterbaer, 20 September 2020 - 04:34 AM.


#43 LordNothing

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 16,734 posts

Posted 20 September 2020 - 05:02 AM

i think the only time going for the objective is a worthwhile strategy is if you are losing the killing game.

but from a points/fun perspective, nobody wants to win by the objective. but if all you care about is winning, then by any means. but that is never fun and never gives spectacular rewards to anyone.

Edited by LordNothing, 20 September 2020 - 05:03 AM.


#44 Swamp Ass MkII

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 333 posts

Posted 20 September 2020 - 05:19 AM

And if the lights aren't capping, the assaults are crying! Piss on it, let the assaults' cry!

#45 Mal Bolge

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 104 posts

Posted 20 September 2020 - 06:03 AM

View PostDer Geisterbaer, on 20 September 2020 - 04:11 AM, said:

What you're describing there is just the result of the status quo where two or more distinct win conditions exist but only one - the one that is "team death match" - actually has the real incentives in terms of gains for both currency and PSR.

No, usually you end up doing both. Because a smart team that realizes that their base is being capped will rush to chase the cappers out, leading to a fight. The only situation you are describing is the one where the enemy does not react, and there is no fight at all. Ergo you defeated a weak enemy and thus get a lower reward.

If you keep on contesting that, then all you're really saying is that you want the reward for defeating a weak enemy to equal the reward for defeating a strong enemy. Aka you want minimal effort and minimum risk and still be rewarded for it.

#46 martian

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 7,576 posts

Posted 20 September 2020 - 06:18 AM

View PostDer Geisterbaer, on 20 September 2020 - 04:33 AM, said:

So? That still doesn't remove the fallacious nature of your argument.
There have been changes to those rewards over time Posted Image
Regardless: correlation does not equal causation and inaction does not directly prove intent.

The real world shows that PGI has not changed this game mode substantially for years. For me, that's the best proof that they are okay with it.

View PostDer Geisterbaer, on 20 September 2020 - 04:33 AM, said:

And even more fallacious reasoning that falls somewhere between false dilemma, strawman and a direct insult. That's the spirit ... ~laugh~

You find capping insulting? I have merely stated that all options are open, so you can play any way you see fit.



I have made one mistake: I accepted your talk about "an invalid a.k.a. "bad" choice".

No talk about "invalid" choices anymore since PGI makes no difference between "Win on Kills" (either by destroying the entire enemy team or killing more enemy 'Mechs than losing your own by the game's end)" or "Win on Cap". Both choices are valid and the players are free to choose between them..

--------------------------------------------------------------------

I have not protested about your "They (rightfully) think that both should be an equal opportunity choice with equal benefits." There is no "rightfully" in the game mode victory conditions or elsewhere. On top of that, only PGI has the ownership of MWO and its content. Rightfull is what PGI states it is righfull and for PGI both victory conditions are equally rightful. Rewards are awarded rightfully as PGI sees fit.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

This is what PGI states before every Assault mission:

Posted Image

Those conditions are clear and it is players' choice how exactly they achieve their game victory. There is nothing suggesting that one condition is more "rightful" than the other.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

I have not protested against this: "What you're describing there is just the result of the status quo where two or more distinct win conditions exist but only one - the one that is "team death match" - actually has the real incentives in terms of gains for both currency and PSR."

What you said is not true: Both "Win on Kills" and "Win on Cap" net the player exactly the same type of C-Bills, XPs, etc. and PSR. The players are awarded those rewards based on their activity during the game. All those C-Bills, XPs and PSR are equally "real incentives" within MWO and there is no difference between them.

As for the amount of those rewards, surely there can be difference between the amount gained for kills and those gained for capping, but I find it not different from the situation when in Skirmish one players kills half of the enemy team, while some other player moves through the game with occassional spotting. One gets more C-Bills than the other based on their actions and rewards connected to them.

He, who ho wants more C-Bills, XP and PSR, should do actions that are more rewarded.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

You said "As things are PGI actually hasn't delivered a set of different game modes but instead just one with varying degrees of annoying side conditions."

Actual is what is real and in this reality PGI has delivered following different game modes (in QP):
  • Assault
  • Skirmish
  • Conquest
  • Incursion
  • Escort
  • Domination


#47 JediPanther

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 4,066 posts
  • LocationLost in my C1

Posted 20 September 2020 - 07:31 AM

View PostSwamp *** MkII, on 20 September 2020 - 05:19 AM, said:

And if the lights aren't capping, the assaults are crying! Piss on it, let the assaults' cry!


I always find them funny when they do. My reply is always the same in my light: If you want me to go cap why arn't you fighting so I can go cap?

In dom mode I won't go near it in my light until the assaults get to their guass/lrm range. I'm not the free easy kill just because an assault wants to randomly go w his way off spawn while I end up being a universal target to the enemy. I spend a day in the spider 5v with max capture nodes recording games to prove how bad and what a waste of time playing to conquest and dom is while refusing to fight as much as possible to do just the win objective.

#48 ShiverMeRivets

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Shredder
  • 520 posts

Posted 20 September 2020 - 08:49 AM

View PostJediPanther, on 20 September 2020 - 07:31 AM, said:


I always find them funny when they do. My reply is always the same in my light: If you want me to go cap why arn't you fighting so I can go cap?

In dom mode I won't go near it in my light until the assaults get to their guass/lrm range. I'm not the free easy kill just because an assault wants to randomly go w his way off spawn while I end up being a universal target to the enemy. I spend a day in the spider 5v with max capture nodes recording games to prove how bad and what a waste of time playing to conquest and dom is while refusing to fight as much as possible to do just the win objective.

Lights should fight first and capture second. The only exception is at the start of conquest where your team needs at least 2 SAFE nodes captured at the start in order to have enough time to kill the other team and not lose on points. This is done before the main fight, so you don’t miss any potential damage you can inflict. Capturing a 3rd node (usually theta) before the shooting starts is a bonus to your team, IF you are fast enough to do it without getting hit - if you capture but die for it, it is a net loss to your team. After that phase, lights are free to focus on the fighting and ignore captures till the very end.

On domination you don’t have to rush into the circle - it doesn’t matter if the enemy team got the clock down a bit before the mediums/heavies arrive.

Edited by ShiverMeRivets, 20 September 2020 - 08:53 AM.


#49 VonBruinwald

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Undisputed
  • The Undisputed
  • 3,460 posts
  • LocationRandis IV

Posted 20 September 2020 - 12:42 PM

View Postmartian, on 20 September 2020 - 04:23 AM, said:

The reality is more than words. PGI could have changed those rewards for capping empty square in the empty corner of the battlefield at any moment, if they found them to be unsatisfying - and they have not changed them.


They also haven't changed Clan mobility, cXL/LFE Heatspikes, the skill maze, nor fixed hit registration issues.

Guess they're all fine as they are.

#50 martian

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 7,576 posts

Posted 20 September 2020 - 08:33 PM

View PostVonBruinwald, on 20 September 2020 - 12:42 PM, said:

They also haven't changed Clan mobility, cXL/LFE Heatspikes, the skill maze, nor fixed hit registration issues.

Guess they're all fine as they are.

I guess that PGI thinks so.

#51 RickySpanish

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Veteran Founder
  • Veteran Founder
  • 3,510 posts
  • LocationWubbing your comrades

Posted 20 September 2020 - 09:03 PM

One issue with raising Assault cap rewards too significantly is players would gravitate toward that goal almost single mindedly. Every game would be a cap race because better match rewards for PTFO coupled with faster match times would result in more c-bills and xp per unit time. A better design strategy would have been to make PTFO more integral to the game, for example by eliminating the permanent penalty of death via respawn mechanics, and requiring base destruction or occupation to end the game. That way, killing 'Mechs is the means to the end, but not the end itself. Unfortunately not even Faction Warfare gets this right, and introduces needless drop deck / tonnage issues on top of a limited respawn system.

#52 Mochyn Pupur

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Patron Saint
  • The Patron Saint
  • 521 posts
  • LocationDerby, England

Posted 21 September 2020 - 08:10 AM

Had a great assault match yesterday, around 800 damage in an Assassin - glowing red torsos, no arms, bright yellow legs and no ammo left; ended up with a grasshopper in a much better condition hunting me. I capped their base for 1:21m they capped ours for 1:09m and ended up a draw.

PSR "=" with 4 kills, 2 kmdd, 3 solo kills - penalised, well . . . rewarded, most certainly, one of best matches in a while and lots of team involvement. Just a shame it was a tie even though I beat him on capture duration :P

#53 martian

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 7,576 posts

Posted 21 September 2020 - 08:23 AM

View PostRickySpanish, on 20 September 2020 - 09:03 PM, said:

One issue with raising Assault cap rewards too significantly is players would gravitate toward that goal almost single mindedly. Every game would be a cap race because better match rewards for PTFO coupled with faster match times would result in more c-bills and xp per unit time.
...

I remember such cap races from the early days of MWO (especially typical for Canyon Network map), when both teams raced around their respective edges of the map to cap the enemy base. Usually the game was over in about two minutes - 1:50 for getting to the enemy base and about 10 seconds for the capping itself (no wonder with 10-12 'Mechs capping the base). Posted Image

View PostPeppaPig, on 21 September 2020 - 08:10 AM, said:

Had a great assault match yesterday, around 800 damage in an Assassin - glowing red torsos, no arms, bright yellow legs and no ammo left; ended up with a grasshopper in a much better condition hunting me. I capped their base for 1:21m they capped ours for 1:09m and ended up a draw.

PSR "=" with 4 kills, 2 kmdd, 3 solo kills - penalised, well . . . rewarded, most certainly, one of best matches in a while and lots of team involvement. Just a shame it was a tie even though I beat him on capture duration Posted Image

Good job!Posted Image

#54 crazytimes

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 1,316 posts

Posted 26 September 2020 - 02:26 AM

View PostPeppaPig, on 21 September 2020 - 08:10 AM, said:

PSR "=" with 4 kills, 2 kmdd, 3 solo kills - penalised, well . . . rewarded, most certainly, one of best matches in a while and lots of team involvement. Just a shame it was a tie even though I beat him on capture duration Posted Image

+500 matchscore. No way that's an = PSR... unless you did +30 points of team damage and dragged your MS way down.

#55 martian

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 7,576 posts

Posted 26 September 2020 - 08:41 AM

View Postcrazytimes, on 26 September 2020 - 02:26 AM, said:

+500 matchscore. No way that's an = PSR... unless you did +30 points of team damage and dragged your MS way down.

"Well-placed" artillery strike can do a lot of friendly damage.*


*Talking from my own experience.

#56 Mochyn Pupur

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Patron Saint
  • The Patron Saint
  • 521 posts
  • LocationDerby, England

Posted 26 September 2020 - 09:27 AM

View Postcrazytimes, on 26 September 2020 - 02:26 AM, said:

+500 matchscore. No way that's an = PSR... unless you did +30 points of team damage and dragged your MS way down.


Sadly, any draw seems to work as a medium scoring loss and gives an "equal" PSR result; same goes if one side wins in domination mode - the win threshold throws penalties (or rewards if you haven't done anything constructive) across both sides. In the match I described, PSR wise it would have been best for me to lose rather than drawn and get the high scoring bonus.

However, at the end of the day, it was a great match with two well balanced sides - something quite rare atm.

#57 martian

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 7,576 posts

Posted 26 September 2020 - 09:52 PM

View PostPeppaPig, on 26 September 2020 - 09:27 AM, said:

...
However, at the end of the day, it was a great match with two well balanced sides - something quite rare atm.

I think that it is better to have a thrilling game even if you suffer some minor PSR loss (and you will make up for it in the next drop) than spend boring 15 minutes of lobbing LRMs on targets that you can not even see, even if it gets you PSR gain.

#58 Requiemking

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Solitary
  • The Solitary
  • 2,479 posts
  • LocationStationed at the Iron Dingo's Base on Dumassas

Posted 29 September 2020 - 09:23 AM

Another thing people seem to be forgetting is that the expectations of players regarding certain ques. For instance, people go into QP expect Skirmish-esque, PUG-heavy gameplay. Generally speaking, this means a near total lack of teamplay, which means modes that require heavy teamwork, such as Escort and Incursion, do not work in that que. In a similar fashion, Faction play emphasizes teamwork and objectives, so modes that lack substantial Objectives, such as Assault and Dominion, are never going work out as they inevitably devolve into farming the losing team's spawnzone. To that end, the best option is to remove the offending modes from the ques. Assault and Dominion would be removed from Faction play, Escort and Incursion would be removed from Quick play, and Skirmish would be removed outright since it is a pretty badly designed mode in general(Also, Escort needs a rework. If nothing else, the radar towers need to have their ability to see through ECM and Stealth Armor removed, if only so Lights actually have a reason to exist in that mode).

#59 Nightbird

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The God of Death
  • The God of Death
  • 7,518 posts

Posted 29 September 2020 - 09:27 AM

When you cap the base, you get the 3 rewards, 1 the reward for winning, 2 the reward for standing in the square, and 3 the reward for dropping in PSR which will give you easier opponents over time. Yes, why do you see dropping in PSR as a con? When you are lower in PSR, you get easier opponents and can earn kills and cbills more easily.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users