6 replies to this topic

[Lorenator]

I've seen a lot of threads related to base capture, but essentially they boil down to: It's too easy to win assault matches by performing a base rush with multiple light fast mechs. The tactic seems to be used far too frequently, and is often successful regardless of the tactics used by the opposing team because there is not sufficient time to redploy. A simple solution for balancing this overused tactic would be to tie base capture speed to mech tonnage. The higher the tonnage of the mech, the faster the base capture timer would tick down, the lower the tonnage of the mech, the slower this would happen.

For example:

Assault Mechs = current capture speed
Heavy Mechs = 75% current capture speed
Medium Mechs = 50% current capture speed
Light mechs = 25% current capture speed

Alternatively, start with 100 tons = current capture speed, and subtract 5% per 5 tons less than 100 tons, so that an Awesome would capture at 80%, a Dragon at 60%, a Jenner at 35% (honestly, Jenners already have SO many advantages), and a Commando at 25%

This would still allow base capture to be a usable tactic, but one that is not PREFERENTIALLY sought out as an alternative to engaging the opposing team, which is after all the point of the game.

[sycocys]

A simple solution is to start defending your base until people start changing their tactics. Your team shooting down 2-4 of their advance lights before the rest clear mid-field = HUGE advantage to your team.

I seriously can't understand why folks can't grasp this concept.

[Khobai]

theres better ways to fix base capture, like adding base defenses.

[Karl Streiger]

The concept of base capture is a silly multiplayer concept... hope there will be better suitable ways in the future..

like capture and hold a ridge for at least 1 minute.
lke draw a line in the sand and don't let anything or anybody cross it...

something that seems more like battletech. Or is this base capture similar to Earhtsiege 2 ... uploading a computer virus into listening posts?

[Xenok]

Karl Streiger, on 20 November 2012 - 07:05 AM, said:

The concept of base capture is a silly multiplayer concept...

I would hate to be in a game that was 7 mechs alive to 1 and that one ran over into a corner some place powered down and turned it into a tie as a result. This would happen nearly every game without base capture. I hope we never have a game without this type of mechanic to force people to fight or loose.

[sycocys]

Xenok, on 20 November 2012 - 07:13 AM, said:

I would hate to be in a game that was 7 mechs alive to 1 and that one ran over into a corner some place powered down and turned it into a tie as a result. This would happen nearly every game without base capture. I hope we never have a game without this type of mechanic to force people to fight or loose.

Precisely.

Khobai, on 20 November 2012 - 07:00 AM, said:

theres better ways to fix base capture, like adding base defenses.

Who on the team pays for the defense systems? Also your already inside of a defense system - it's poor strategy that fails not a poor game mechanic.

"like draw a line in the sand and nobody crosses it" AKA defending your base. Just because you give something a different description doesn't make the concept any different.

Edited by sycocys, 20 November 2012 - 07:26 AM.

[Gaan Cathal]

Ok, I'm going to break with my Eve instincts and explain the tactic for you.

If I'm in a light on some maps, I'll use Caustic for this since it's the most pronounced example, with two lights I will typically coordinate so that I move down one flank, the other down the other. If I don't make hostile contact on the way, I will attempt to reach the enemy base unnoticed, once the 'base under attack' alarm sounds they have the following options:

1) Ignore it.
2) Send back one or more mechs to deal with me.
3) Send back everyone.

1 is foolish, and very, very rarely happens. 3 is also foolish, unless they are intending to defend close to the base and I've overextended too far ahead of my own force. 2 is what happens in 90+% of cases.

Now, the success of the tactic depends on what they send back, and how well it can deal with my mech (I'm a Raven pilot, for the record). Once the enemy response arrives, my actions depend on how many have been sent. One mech that I can deal with I will attempt to destroy, a mech I can't, or multiple mechs (barring certain cases, 2 commandos for example I will attempt to take out) my primary goal becomes surviving as long as possible while remaining close enough to their cap to threaten. This denies them the use of those mechs for the main engagement, for as long as possible. In one extreme case a few days ago, I was responded to by an Atlas, a Hunchback, a Centurion and a Commando. Whilst they did manage to kill me eventually (bear in mind my aim is survival, not putting damage on the enemy, you can last a while like that) the entire rest of my team was able to bring its guns to bear on the enemy in two entirely separate engagements. Unsurprisingly, they won their two 7vs4 engagements with a fair amount of ease. Obviously this tactic doesn't work on certain maps - attempting it when attacking the upper city on River City is an exercise in futility most of the time, if nothing else because long range support mechs get a good field of view from right next to their base, and are thus already in place with auxiliary weapons when I arrive.

My point is that when my Raven dashes through cover into your cap, I'm not trying to cap. I'm forcing you to make a prioritisation decision about how many mechs you can spare from the brawl. It's a manifestation of tactics in the game, and removing or lessening the influence of tactics on a game is inherently a loss of complexity. Without this sort of thing the game devolves into eight mechs standing there shooting at eachother. Would you remove cover from the maps because it allows fast brawlers to be drawn into traps? Would you then make the maps smaller because it allows long ranged builds to dominate? A 4x4 arena with eight mechs starting within 300m of eachother doesn't sound like entertaining gameplay to me.

Niche games like MWO survive long term if they can challenge their players and engage them, and bowing to the desires of those who are loosing because they cannot adapt or respond to enemy tactics is a fast route to failure in that regard. Eve, possibly the most successful 'niche multiplayer game' around, has on occasion failed in this regard, and every time has lead to a period of stagnation and player dissatisfaction. MWO does not have the huge playerbase or contentbase to soak up these issues that Eve does, and a mistake of that sort would be more damaging in the long run.

Edited by Gaan Cathal, 20 November 2012 - 08:52 AM.