349 replies to this topic

[ICEFANG13]

Actually, we aren't delusional, we are logical, providing evidence and support and counter points for the few good points the anti-base people have. The anti-baser fail to deliver content again and again, as you just did, and the OP has done for the last few pages. You don't even have a majority to fall back on. You have to convince us that your version is better, otherwise, until more modes are added, it stays this way.

[QuantumButler]

ICEFANG13, on 29 November 2012 - 09:26 AM, said:

Actually, we aren't delusional, we are logical, providing evidence and support and counter points for the few good points the anti-base people have. The anti-baser fail to deliver content again and again, as you just did, and the OP has done for the last few pages. You don't even have a majority to fall back on. You have to convince us that your version is better, otherwise, until more modes are added, it stays this way.

Keep telling yourself that, maybe you'll even convince yourself that it's true.

[SteelRat]

Actually, I would like to see a slight modification to this mode of game play. My idea would be that you can't cap the base until you eliminate 1/2 the other team. This could lead to some interesting strategies and it at least forces some fighting to occur. Since we are dropping with 2 Lances, no reason not to have 2 objectives.

[SmoothCriminal]

There have to be multiple objectives, else you'd just get a stalemate. Attrition is the most boring of any game type, as it requires the least amount of thinking; merely press the advantage of numbers.

Even the epitome of FPS TDM games, COD: MWBO Infinity, has added differing game types to break the stalemate. There will be, in the future, more game modes but for the moment just suck it up, or QQ until they come along.

How has this thread lasted 10 pages?

[Max Power]

Tickdoff Tank, on 28 November 2012 - 04:22 PM, said:

What a pathetic poll, and what a rediculous post. Defend your base or suffer the consequences.

Way to completely miss the point, If he wanted to defend a base, he probably wouldn't mind base capping.

Believe it or not, there are players that actually want to shoot other players, not race to the base and sit there.

Why is that concept so hard for so many of you to understand?

[Agent of Change]

Teralitha, on 28 November 2012 - 04:22 PM, said:

No, u defend yours, troll.

We tend to which, when we do we don't get capped... it's amazing i must have had to use my brain for about a second to have figured out that coorelation, it was rough.

BTW Cheddaer, Brie, or gouda....

y'know to go with your whine?

[QuantumButler]

Max Power, on 29 November 2012 - 09:47 AM, said:

Way to completely miss the point, If he wanted to defend a base, he probably wouldn't mind base capping.

Believe it or not, there are players that actually want to shoot other players, not race to the base and sit there.

Why is that concept so hard for so many of you to understand?

I love it when they call those of us who want to actually play mechWARRIOR idiots for not trying to avoid enemy contact at all costs and standing around in a red square.

[ICEFANG13]

Maybe I want to play mechtactics and not mechslapping

[Penance]

Teralitha, on 28 November 2012 - 04:22 PM, said:

No, u defend yours, troll.

this may have been just as bad as my community warfare reset idea. at least mine had good intentions at it's core, if a bit misguided in some ways (people hated it becuase it meant more work for them...boohoo). nonetheless...You want to convert the one mode currently into a bland TDM game?

Trolls typically defend bridges and caves, not mechwarrior bases.

Edited by Penance, 29 November 2012 - 09:51 AM.

[Bfvmg]

Lefty Lucy, on 28 November 2012 - 04:40 PM, said:

Eh, if both teams are playing correctly, it is effectively TDM with a mechanic to break stale-mates.

This assumes that both teams are playing "correctly"
But, now we have to define "Correctly" which may be a herculean task in this forum.
Hell, we even may have to define "team", which now is a max of 1 lance teamed together. In a drop of 2 "separate lances" teamwork is hard to come by these days.

Suffice to say, I agree with some of the OP (but by no means all) and I would like to see some other modes of play.
I will not go into all the other opinions I have as they are all over these forums in some shape or form.

--bf

[River McCain]

I find a pretty good mix between Cap rushing and Deathmatch, this mode does not need to change, we just need Conquest to get finished soon.

Bottom line is "Defend your base"

[Zeh]

SteelRat, on 29 November 2012 - 09:37 AM, said:

Actually, I would like to see a slight modification to this mode of game play. My idea would be that you can't cap the base until you eliminate 1/2 the other team. This could lead to some interesting strategies and it at least forces some fighting to occur. Since we are dropping with 2 Lances, no reason not to have 2 objectives.

That's silly though. It would make the VALID STRATEGY of distracting while you cap no longer a valid strategy.. without adding any valid strategies. Removing base capping, or even forcing people to be winning to base-cap (which seems insane to me), doesn't make any sense. It essentially says "defeat the other mechs in straight-up combat". And ends the options at that.

[Wales Grey]

Teralitha, on 28 November 2012 - 04:20 PM, said:

A bunch of things about ~elite PVPers~ and how horrible it is that people can win without killing other mechs

If your complaint about captures was:

Quote

MODE DOES NOT ALLOW ENOUGH KILLING. WE MUST KILL MORE AND MORE. AND THIS MODE DOES NOT LET US KILL ENOUGH.

Then I could understand. Complaining about how you can't deal with a non-murder-based-objective? Eh, don't really care. The only times when I've really seen "Capturing" be a winning thing is when either:

• Teams don't meet (frequently happens on Caustic)
  
• Noone pays attention to the "YOUR BASE IS BEING CAPTURED" alert flashing in 60pt. font in their cockpit
  
• Your team has killed at least half the enemy team and then they suddenly give up and run away to hide. I don't particularly want to waste ten minutes tracking down one Commando pilot who decided to hide off in some corner of the map.

[Teralitha]

SmoothCriminal, on 29 November 2012 - 09:39 AM, said:

Attrition is the most boring of any game type, as it requires the least amount of thinking; merely press the advantage of numbers.

Not in mechwarrior it isnt. Ill use your own words here... you said... merely press the advantage of numbers... teams are 8 vs 8. what is the number advantage? How do you get a numbers advantage when both teams have 8 players.... think about that for awhile. or dont, if it makes your head hurt.

Agent of Change, on 29 November 2012 - 09:47 AM, said:

it's amazing i must have had to use my brain for about a second to have figured out that coorelation, it was rough.

This is exactly the problem with the base capping mode. Requires no thinking. Thank you for illustrating that point for me.

[JebusGeist]

Teralitha, on 28 November 2012 - 08:18 PM, said:

the problem with the storyline you posted, is that the defending team doesnt win by scanning the enemy beacon, while you lose if they scan yours. in essense, 1 team has a base to defend, the other, does not. This scenario doesnt apply to MWO, but if it was a game mode, with 1 base, 1 attacker, 1 defender, it would be an improvment to MWO.

Per my earlier comparison, it would go from being checkers vs chess, to othello vs chess. An improvement, but still not better than.

The enemy team has the exact same objectives as your team. In fact I secretly am the general for both organizations under 2 assumed names and im sending everyone the same orders as part of some sadistic game I like to play, Which team is the defending team? Both teams have to defend, both teams have the option of going on the offensive, both teams have the option of capturing the second objective. The scenario applies perfectly to the current game mode in MWO. "In essence" you skimmed through the scenario and came up with objections to it that are not actually applicable to the scenario as written.

[Teralitha]

Wales Grey, on 29 November 2012 - 10:20 AM, said:

Your team has killed at least half the enemy team and then they suddenly give up and run away to hide. I don't particularly want to waste ten minutes tracking down one Commando pilot who decided to hide off in some corner of the map.

This one I find interesting, because there is nothing to stop this from happening now. You can choose to ignore the base and hunt down that commando, and as small as the maps are, this is not a problem. Even easier if you have most of your team left alive. I dont know why you think its hard.... capping the base at that point is just being lazy. And with the rewards as they are, the most rewarding thing to do. If you were rewarded more for killing mechs, you would never base cap.

[Teralitha]

JebusGeist, on 29 November 2012 - 11:36 AM, said:

The enemy team has the exact same objectives as your team. In fact I secretly am the general for both organizations under 2 assumed names and im sending everyone the same orders as part of some sadistic game I like to play, Which team is the defending team? Both teams have to defend, both teams have the option of going on the offensive, both teams have the option of capturing the second objective. The scenario applies perfectly to the current game mode in MWO. "In essence" you skimmed through the scenario and came up with objections to it that are not actually applicable to the scenario as written.

yes they have the same objectives, but not the same rewards for completing them. one gets to win WITHOUT destroying all enemies, the other doesnt and STILL has to hunt down and destroy all enemy mechs. You dont get that? really?

[Teralitha]

Zeh, on 29 November 2012 - 10:19 AM, said:

That's silly though. It would make the VALID STRATEGY of distracting while you cap no longer a valid strategy.. without adding any valid strategies. Removing base capping, or even forcing people to be winning to base-cap (which seems insane to me), doesn't make any sense. It essentially says "defeat the other mechs in straight-up combat". And ends the options at that.

one again someone trys to debase the level of thought that goes into a TDM. In a base cap, you know how to win easily. distract by having a scout sit at base, and cause enemy team to split up. A simple "divide and conquer" where your opponant is FORCED to split up. in TDM... whoa... now I have to actually think about a real plan.... You cant use a cheesey method to cause their formation to break. You then have to actually THINK about how to win. that is just too hard for most people.... apparently. heaven forbid we actually raise the bar a little.

Edited by Teralitha, 29 November 2012 - 11:54 AM.

[JebusGeist]

Teralitha, on 29 November 2012 - 11:45 AM, said:

yes they have the same objectives, but not the same rewards for completing them. one gets to win WITHOUT destroying all enemies, the other doesnt and STILL has to hunt down and destroy all enemy mechs. You dont get that? really?

Which of the 2 teams is the one that cannot win without destroying all enemy mechs? Both teams can win by capture (not destroying all enemy mechs), neither team is FORCED to have to destroy all enemy mechs. Both teams can destroy the other team completely, or, both teams can attempt to capture the enemy base, or both teams can fail to do either objective in 15 minutes and result in a tie. You don't get that? Really? You somehow fail to understand the concept of mission where both teams have the exact same objectives as one another? Is that why you keep suggesting silly things like the idea that defence is something only one of the teams has to worry about?
This isn't a thread were talking in is it, its a dangling straw that you are grasping at desperately.

Edited by JebusGeist, 29 November 2012 - 11:56 AM.

[JebusGeist]

Teralitha, on 29 November 2012 - 11:52 AM, said:

one again someone trys to debase the level of thought that goes into a TDM. In a base cap, you know how to win easily. distract by having a scout sit at base, and cause enemy team to split up. A simple "divide and conquer" where your opponant is FORCED to split up. in TDM... whoa... now I have to actually think about a real plan.... You cant use a cheesey method to cause their formation to break. You then have to actually THINK about how to win. that is just too hard for most people.... apparently. heaven forbid we actually raise the bar a little.

Yes, TDM clearly requires more thought. This is why in most non-respawning team based FPS games I've played the TDM strategy is generally to light a fire, break out the marshmallows and tell scary stories while you wait to see who the first person is to get bored and break cover, hopefully they are on the enemy team.