349 replies to this topic

[Teralitha]

I was reading through the suggestions here and pieced some of them together along with taking complaints into account and came up with a solution.

Base capping stays in, but does not grant a win.
Capping enemy base gives you a cbill bonus.
capping enemy base gives you control of their radar, and lets you see exactly where all enemy mechs are on the map regardless of distance and cover or being shut down or equiped electronics.

That last one would make those happy that dont want to spend alot of time searching for the hidden last mech, and not ending the game by a cap would make myself and others happy.

But they still need to add some kind of defenses to the base, even if its just a machine gun turret or 2, to give that sneaky light mech some challenge...

[Teralitha]

JebusGeist, on 29 November 2012 - 11:53 AM, said:

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.

The defender must destroy all attackers to win. Attackers only have to take the coms beacon. Thats what you wrote. maybe you should read what you wrote more carefully(or was it a copy and paste and you didnt actually read it?)

I suspect you copied and pasted that info from some game, and didnt actually read it, thinking that it was somehow making your point, when it wasnt. I suggest taking another look at what you posted, and reading it... slowly.

Edited by Teralitha, 29 November 2012 - 12:49 PM.

[JebusGeist]

Teralitha, on 29 November 2012 - 12:47 PM, said:

The defender must destroy all attackers to win. Attackers only have to take the coms beacon. Thats what you wrote. maybe you should read what you wrote more carefully(or was it a copy and paste and you didnt actually read it?)

No, thats what you inferred. You have a secondary objective, completing that wins the game too, they have a seconday objective, completing that wins the game too. Both objectives are the same. You aren't making points, you are nitpicking at points other people are making and spouting semantic arguments that in no way address them.

[JebusGeist]

Teralitha, on 29 November 2012 - 12:44 PM, said:

I was reading through the suggestions here and pieced some of them together along with taking complaints into account and came up with a solution.

Base capping stays in, but does not grant a win.
Capping enemy base gives you a cbill bonus.
capping enemy base gives you control of their radar, and lets you see exactly where all enemy mechs are on the map regardless of distance and cover or being shut down or equiped electronics.

That last one would make those happy that dont want to spend alot of time searching for the hidden last mech, and not ending the game by a cap would make myself and others happy.

But they still need to add some kind of defenses to the base, even if its just a machine gun turret or 2, to give that sneaky light mech some challenge...

The enemy capped your base, you have failed your primary objective,

I have no interest in being on the should be winning team thats lost all of its light mechs in the process of wiping out 7 of the other enemies on the opposing team, capped the base, and then has to spend 5-10 minutes playing "Can they catch a light mech?" Maybe if Duncan Fisher was commentating on the action while Yakkity Sax plays on an endless loop.

The biggest challenge to that sneaky light mech is the savvy medium mech thats kept close enough to the base to run back and defend it.

[Teralitha]

JebusGeist, on 29 November 2012 - 12:52 PM, said:

No, thats what you inferred. You have a secondary objective, completing that wins the game too, they have a seconday objective, completing that wins the game too. Both objectives are the same. You aren't making points, you are nitpicking at points other people are making and spouting semantic arguments that in no way address them.


At [REDACTED] hours on [REDACTED], you and your lance will be dropped at an unspecified location that has been selected to play a strategically significant role in ensuring our victory in this conflict. A second lance, Lance Bravo, lead by [REDACTED] will accompany you on the battlefield, your lance has been designated Alpha. At your arrival a communications beacon will be deployed at your drop sight. Your primary objective is to defend this beacon from enemy attack and at all costs prevent the enemy from gaining access to our communications grid.
Recent intel indicates that enemy forces have done several recon flights over the area. We suspect the enemy has become aware of its strategic significance and intends to occupy the area. If you encounter enemy forces we would like you to attempt to complete a secondary objective. Any enemy activity in the area indicates they will have deployed a communications beacon nearby. We want you to locate that beacon and if possible obtain access to it long enough for your C3 computer to secure the encryption codes the enemy is using for their communications. Completing this objective is entirely at your discretion but be advised you and your lance will receive a pay bonus if it is completed.
Because we are unable to provide you intel or a layout of the location you will be dropped. strategic planning will be difficult at best and you will have to rely heavily on tactical decision making. We have faith in your ability to command.

here I copied it for you since you dont want to read your own mistake. Which line in this story says that completing the secondary objective wins the game? (hint - its not there) All it says is you get a pay bonus.



** Your primary objective is to defend this beacon from enemy attack and at all costs prevent the enemy from gaining access to our communications grid.**



**Completing this (second)objective is entirely at your discretion but be advised you and your lance will receive a pay bonus if it is completed.**



If you read this carefully, you will notice that if you dont complete the primary objective, you lose. the secondary objective is optional, and only gives you a pay bonus IF, you complete the primary objective IF, IF, IF

Simply doing the second objective does not win the game. 1 Attacker, 1 defender, 1 base. (which happens to be a game mode I suggested that would be better than current)

Do you see it now? Sorry but in this case you are proven wrong, just accept it and move on.

Edited by Teralitha, 29 November 2012 - 01:10 PM.

[JebusGeist]

Teralitha, on 29 November 2012 - 01:04 PM, said:

If you read this carefully, you will notice that if you dont complete the primary objective, you lose. the secondary objective is optional, and only gives you a pay bonus IF, you complete the primary objective IF, IF, IF

I didn't expressly say that. If anything the only thing I left out is that completing the secondary objective is considered a compete mission as well. Oh noes, now I has to face semantic arguments because the person I'm talking to patently wants to avoid the point. Now address the point. BOTH TEAMS have to either complete the SAME primary objective, or the SAME secondary objective. Both the primary and secondary objectives require the use of strategy and tactical maneuvering to complete. Your entire complaint about the mode is that it somehow limits strategy and tactical maneuvers more than a TDM. TDM without objectives beyond "kill the enemy" and no respawning encourages teams to camp out positions and wait for the other team to make a mistake, there is no incentive to press forwards because if the enemy team has well panned out defensive positioning it will be a turkey shoot and you are the turkey. When they do end up getting into a large battle the fight quickly turns into a game of "find and kill the last guy, if you can catch him." Objectives have more to do with encouraging both offensive and defensive strategies than a standard TDM does.

Edited by JebusGeist, 29 November 2012 - 01:22 PM.

[Teralitha]

JebusGeist, on 29 November 2012 - 01:14 PM, said:

I didn't expressly say that. If anything the only thing I left out is that completing the secondary objective is considered a compete mission as well. Oh noes, now I has to face semantic arguments because the person I'm talking to patently wants to avoid the point. Now address the point. BOTH TEAMS have to either complete the SAME primary objective, of the SAME secondary objective. Both the primary and secondary objectives require the use of strategy and tactical maneuvering to complete. Your entire complaint about the map is that it somehow limits strategy and tactical maneuvers more than a TDM. TDM without objectives beyond "kill the enemy" and no respawning encourages teams to camp out positions and wait for the other team to make a mistake, there is no incentive to press forwards because if the enemy team has well panned out defensive positioning it will be a turkey shoot and you are the turkey. When they do end up getting into a large battle the fight quickly turns into a game of "find and kill the last guy, if you can catch him." Objectives have more to do with encouraging both offensive and defensive strategies than a standard TDM does.

Well you cant use that example to express your point then, because that story doesnt agree, or rewrite it to agree with you.

I do know what point you were trying make though, even if it is wrong. Your trying to point out that some other game uses dual base caps, but that game actually didnt do that, like you thought it did. And now you look the fool, and its frustrating...

Edited by Teralitha, 29 November 2012 - 01:26 PM.

[JebusGeist]

Teralitha, on 29 November 2012 - 01:21 PM, said:

I do know what point you were trying make though, even if it is wrong.

So far the only line youve actually used to address my point, I think, as it actually doesn't in any way prove you've grasped what I was saying. According to you its wrong, but you had such difficulty putting into words why its wrong, so instead you decided to come up with a reason to dismiss it based solely on semantics. When called out for using this unconvincing tactic, you simply say "it is wrong."



Your completely unexplained opinion that lacks convincing argument. I think I will move on actually, at least until I see an argument that addresses a point, which I suspect means I won't be posting in this dangling straw again.

[Teralitha]

Ricama, on 28 November 2012 - 06:46 PM, said:

Um no, I'm saying the tactic that wins when there's no objective and no respawn is boring. And no, I won't trust you that capping is not advantageous, as a great deal of experience has shown me otherwise. You'll have to be a bit more convincing than that.

Translation of your statement - Destroying enemy mechs is not fun, when the objective is to destroy enemy mechs. baserush online for you then.

[Teralitha]

JebusGeist, on 29 November 2012 - 01:28 PM, said:

I think I will move on actually, at least until I see an argument that addresses a point, which I suspect means I won't be posting in this dangling straw again.

There are 11 pages of arguments addresses my points. Havent you been reading? Look at page 1 again, as ive updated the OP and added more things to illustrate why I am right, and included tidbits from others who also agree but have their own way of explaining it. Perhaps one of those will make sense to you instead.

the trouble with you is... I can understand the point your making, you cant understand mine.

Edited by Teralitha, 29 November 2012 - 01:37 PM.

[JebusGeist]

Teralitha, on 29 November 2012 - 01:21 PM, said:

Well you cant use that example to express your point then, because that story doesnt agree, or rewrite it to agree with you.

I do know what point you were trying make though, even if it is wrong. Your trying to point out that some other game uses dual base caps, but that game actually didnt do that, like you thought it did. And now you look the fool, and its frustrating...

No, I typed out a description, in character, of exactly how the current game mode works. It wasn't from some other game, if anything it was simply reminiscent of a poorly written mission briefing. Either way, I've spent a considerable amount of time writing out valid points. You have spent a considerable amount of time completely ignoring them and coming up with obscure reasons why they are invalid that in no way actually address the point being made.

You did it again right here, you didn't address the point at all, you referred to the same silly semantic argument youve been repeating over and over again, and then to top it off you created this straw man argument in which my description was of another game and then suggested that invalidates it.

You can say I'm making a fool of myself all you want, but quite frankly, you are the one that relies heavily on fallacious argument.

Other game modes will be introduced to this game over time. In the meantime, you either play the Assault (that's what its called) game mode or don't play.

Teralitha, on 29 November 2012 - 01:35 PM, said:

the trouble with you is... I can understand the point your making, you cant understand mine.

You have not once said a single thing that indicated that you understood any point ive made. You've spent time making semantic arguments that don't address them, you've damn near crossed the line into the realm of choosing to be purposefully ignorant of them, you've flat out just said "it is wrong." Not once have you addressed a point I was making in a direct manner that involved any sort of counter argument.

Edited by JebusGeist, 29 November 2012 - 01:40 PM.

[Asmudius Heng]

So ... No one even looked at my explaination and video i guess .. Not a single rebuttle or agreement to it sigh ....

[JadeViper]

Every game mode better darn well have an objective other than kill stuff. Bases are fair and tactical. If you get base rushed, that means you have fail scouts and a fail team. Everything you do should push your team towards the objective [base]. It's a gambit, and a legitimate one at that. MWO is a chessboard. Your fault for setting up a fool's checkmate or leaving the king exposed.

[focuspark]

Can't we just have more than one game mode?

Capture the Base, Death Match, Point Control, ect.

[Teralitha]

Asmudius Heng, on 29 November 2012 - 01:43 PM, said:

So ... No one even looked at my explaination and video i guess .. Not a single rebuttle or agreement to it sigh ....

Im sorry Asmu. I totally agree with your video, I posted it in the topic line already. I honestly cant fathom why your video would not clearly explain why base capping is a flawed mechanic to anyone who watched it and can only conclude they are idiots if they cant understand it. What you said in your video is gold.

[Solis Obscuri]

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.

Bingo.

[JebusGeist]

This thread reminds me of threads on "chemtrails"

If someone shows up and attempts a well reasoned explanation of how a persistent contrail forms, you get shrill and vitriolic responses consisting of an endless supply of insults. "You are an *****, you are ignorant, you are a fool. Any ***** could understand this but you cant. You are just wrong and look like a moron." Any number of absolutely childish responses. At the risk of having my post deleted. Being whiny petulant children doesn't convince anyone. When 90% of the time your response to anyone that disagrees with you is to act like a whiny petulant little kid that will grasp at any straw they think will tenuously support their position, it only harms you ability to convince others.

I'm sorry that it frustrates you that this game is not exactly the game you want it to be. When you start trying to spread youe misery to me and others who are not miserable by suggesting they take out a feature they and I enjoy, well, I'm gonna tell you to go ******* play hawken cause I've already had to sacrifice enough of the entertainment value of this game just to please angry whiners shouting "FIX IT FIX IT FIX IT" while they firmly thrust their fingers in their ears, just like you.

Edited by JebusGeist, 29 November 2012 - 04:05 PM.

[Asmudius Heng]

Some people are actually trying to argue logically but the logial posts get drowned out by the others. People do not touch posts that are too hard to answer so they go for any small flaw they find in another arguments.

The people who put forth something logical to debate are ignored as people shout and whine on both sides of an argument because they responds to whatever gets them angry and whatever they can attack quickly and easily.

I think YOU are just as big of a problem here Jebus ....

Solis Obscuri, on 29 November 2012 - 03:31 PM, said:

Bingo.

While TDM with a break mechanic is how it is intended, the consequence is that it reduces the variability of tactics by a massive amount as everyone is chained to thier base or drawn to the other rather than using the entire map to manoeuvre, attack and counter attack.

The idea is sound, the execution fails.

[JebusGeist]

Asmudius Heng, on 29 November 2012 - 04:14 PM, said:

Some people are actually trying to argue logically but the logial posts get drowned out by the others. People do not touch posts that are too hard to answer so they go for any small flaw they find in another arguments.

The people who put forth something logical to debate are ignored as people shout and whine on both sides of an argument because they responds to whatever gets them angry and whatever they can attack quickly and easily.

I think YOU are just as big of a problem here Jebus ....



While TDM with a break mechanic is how it is intended, the consequence is that it reduces the variability of tactics by a massive amount as everyone is chained to thier base or drawn to the other rather than using the entire map to manoeuvre, attack and counter attack.

The idea is sound, the execution fails.

My problem with your video is that it talks about tactical variance being greater in a TDM by trying to identify restrictions seen in the current game mode that lead to very few strategies. I see the same problem in TDM. The most efficient strategy in a TDM in which respawning does not exist is to set up defensive firing positions that simultaneously allows you to peek out and take pot shots at the enemy while having line of sight on the rest of your teams firing positions in order to support them should an enemy successfully flank. The result is that often the game unfolds in one of two ways: Either one team manages to successfully snipe out one or more of the other teams players, creating a numbers advantage, which they then press, or, one team waits until the other team steps into one of the open areas they have covered, even the flanking positions, and the result is that the defending team generally loses less players to the attack than they kill and can then push the numbers advantage. Basically, what I see happen in TDM matches in other games that likewise lack respawning bears striking resemblance to the problems you are describing with the Assault mode.
Now, if I were just as much of a problem, what you just read would have involved me pouring through your video for any word or phrase that I could form into a semantic argument for the purposes of avoiding even acknowledging any of the points you are making.

[Pugastrius]

I think a lot of people are simply missing the fact that in terms of C-Bills per hour (which tends to be what most people care about) Everyone is better off if you do nothing but run straight to the opposing base and sit and cap. Whether you win or lose, you earn more C-Bills per hour. Said differently, stopping to fight considerably reduces the C-Bills per hour.

How long do you think it is going to take for coordinated teams of 8 to figure this out?

Thus, the 8v8 match-up should devolve into base camp rushing.

Any people arguing that nothing needs to be changed needs to demonstrate how the above is not accurate.

Again, this is why I proposed the 100% of opponents tons remaining = you can't cap.
80% remaining, you cap at 20% speed.
60%, you cap at 40% speed.
etc...

Edited by Pugastrius, 29 November 2012 - 04:51 PM.