349 replies to this topic

[Teralitha]

Webber, on 28 November 2012 - 05:09 PM, said:

I don't see this happening a lot. Games are rarely alike when running pugs, and the 4man teams right now are at the mercy of the randomness the matchmaker has. Once we get back the full 8man teams back, then we should observe the quality of this mode as the game stands.

It was baserush online even when we did have 8 man premades. This will not change.

[Asmudius Heng]

Webber, on 28 November 2012 - 05:09 PM, said:

I don't see this happening a lot. Games are rarely alike when running pugs, and the 4man teams right now are at the mercy of the randomness the matchmaker has. Once we get back the full 8man teams back, then we should observe the quality of this mode as the game stands.

As soon as i saw this game mode at the very beginning coming into closed beta i knew its faults. Those faults were proven when 8 man premades were in and will be proven again when they return.

This is OK for PUGers and people who do not tactically - but that does not make it good.

If you are going to have end game base caps have it attacker/defender and have more angles of attack to that base. If you are going to have multiple objectives do not make them end the game.

Imagine if the bases as they are now determined how much extra money your team got or something. You could cap both bases, or not cap any, the win would be decided by engaging the enemy, but the objectives you help with the monetary outcomes.

Or the bases could give some sort of advantage. Sensors would be one thing ... what if bases simple gave 600M or something radar detecting anything behind cover. Worth having, not essential, worth defending - sure, but not at the expense of breaking your entire formations and teamwork to engage an enemy.

Make bases less HARD on the win/lose so people can determine how essential it is to defend or attack based on the current situation in the game which should be about the mech warfare.

ranty ranty rant rant ... been saying this since i first saw this game mode.

[Teralitha]

Ricama, on 28 November 2012 - 05:17 PM, said:

Where's the "I'm sick to death of people trying to turn this into campwarrior" option? If you get rid of capping, teams will not rush out into the middle in a glorious bout of fiery destruction, they will find a good defensive position and camp, focus fire on the first few mechs that shows up, and then hunt down the rest of the enemy team once the numbers have thinned out. Speedcapping has nothing on team campathon for boring.

So what your saying is... that a tactic that beats your tactic, is boring. Yes there will be camping tactics. Teams sometimes play the camping game now by not leaving their base. Both teams can do this now and not fight at all til the time runs out, So base capping is a completely unecessary metric.

and trust me... camping with or without abase capping is not advantagious. the static team(camper) is stationary, while the other team can hit and run and hit again from another direction, rinse and repeat until the campers all die.

Edited by Teralitha, 28 November 2012 - 05:28 PM.

[syngyne]

Teralitha, on 28 November 2012 - 05:06 PM, said:

Doesnt anyone just want to kill enemy mechs without having to worry about some orange square on either side of the map? I know I do.

Having bases prevents situations like, say, one remaining heavy 'Mech having to face off against a light 'Mech or two and having to chase them all over the map. Without a cap zone to worry about, why would the lights even bother engaging and risk a highe repair bill or a loss? It'd be smarter for them to just run off and wait the timer out, which isn't a lot of fun for the Heavy.

The cap zones help force an engagement. The lights have to take out the heavy or it will make its way over to their base and cap. Alternatively, they can make their way to the heavy's base, in which case the heavy has to engage them or lose. The heavy can also just wait at its base since the lights will have to either cap or kill him. At worst, they both slip by each other and try to cap each other's base, which will still end the match faster than waiting out a match while a heavy chases down two lights with Yakety Sax plays in the background.

[Teralitha]

syngyne, on 28 November 2012 - 05:26 PM, said:

Having bases prevents situations like, say, one remaining heavy 'Mech having to face off against a light 'Mech or two and having to chase them all over the map. Without a cap zone to worry about, why would the lights even bother engaging and risk a highe repair bill or a loss? It'd be smarter for them to just run off and wait the timer out, which isn't a lot of fun for the Heavy.

While that is certainly possible, there is a timer... and PGI created light mechs to be just as useful and powerful as any other size mech. If I was alone in a jenner I would still take on as many as 3 enemy mechs at once, and could still win.(and I have, many times). So this scenario wont really happen as you say. And remaining players can disengage and hide til the time runs out even now... so you really have no case.


There is absolutley ZERO scenarios that you can come up with that might happen in a TDM that does not already happen or could happen in assault mode. That argument carries no weight.

Edited by Teralitha, 28 November 2012 - 05:47 PM.

[Freeride Forever]

What kind of a fucktard finds it fun to stand in a red square & watch a red bar shrink? That's not why I'm here. Why have such highly dissectible mechs if standing in a red square is such a great way to play?

Teralitha, do you know something I don't? Are they actually planning to make real bases with defenses that are dissectible/destructable & worth having in the game? Or is that just a case of giving too much credit to the devs? They did after all, include a module which costs 15,000 GXP & 6,000,000 C-Bs that magically shrinks the red bar 15% faster while standing inside the red square. I don't have a problem with the mode, I have a problem with the execution of it. Why do we have the MW equivalent of baseball bases instead of military bases? Limited developer resources? Is that it? Or did they think this is a good idea? In what war has anyone ever known a strategic installation to be secured by standing inside its painted on the ground border for a minute?

This game mode, the way it is with such small, non-interactive maps, is meeting a very low standard at best. What a fu<king "simulator" it is huh? You can capture a base by standing inside a red square for a minute. You can destroy giant tanks with a respectable level of intricacy using weapons that should be able to damn near level a city, but somehow can't even put a dent in a car parked on the street. You can also travel out past a magical boundary where if beyond it for more than 10 seconds, you explode & if that's not absolutely braindead fucktarded enough for you, it happens even if there's an unscalable wall a few meters beyond the boundary or a body of water than could simply be made deeper. What a load of kife!

I think PGI should get whoever the talent is who works on the mechs, to get to work on the bases & the buildings. The tiny maps I can live with, but the amateurishly low standard for everything else but the mechs, is unacceptable to me as a gamer & barely tolerable as a MechWarrior. Maybe they want to wait until they have all the planned mechs in or something, but I think that's backwards. A different mech once in a while is part of the new content delivery that is supposed to keep the game going. Equipment should be coming after the features are finished, not the other way around.

I'd like to see different kinds of bases that have different ways they can be penetrated & captured, but they should need to be worked on to get into, not just run & stand there. Something with walls, turrets, generators, fuel tanks, control systems etc. Maybe a mode where one side defends a base that attacks a dropship dropping mechs & depending on the strength of the systems remaining in the base the dropship would be destroyed sooner or later & when either the ship or the base defenses are destroyed along with the remaining mechs on either side, the victor is determined. The base defenders could attack the dropship when it comes in as well. That is the kind of thing I'd call AAA. What we have now is a different letter. At least it is for me. Longer matches with more to do makes this game much better. 2 minutes doing fu<k all but running to a square is lame & you all know it. The rate they're producing maps & what those maps are leave me with little confidence, but we'll see.

Edited by Freeride Forever, 28 November 2012 - 06:51 PM.

[Ricama]

Teralitha, on 28 November 2012 - 05:25 PM, said:

So what your saying is... that a tactic that beats your tactic, is boring. Yes there will be camping tactics. Teams sometimes play the camping game now by not leaving their base. Both teams can do this now and not fight at all til the time runs out, So base capping is a completely unecessary metric.

and trust me... camping with or without abase capping is not advantagious. the static team(camper) is stationary, while the other team can hit and run and hit again from another direction, rinse and repeat until the campers all die.

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.

[Carcass23]

I have to agree that it would be nice to add destroying the base defenses to Assault mode instead of standing in the square. I also think it would be preferable to have strategic points on the map that need to be held at once, to start the actual cap process instead of a brisk walk to the other side of the map.

[Teralitha]

Freeride Forever, on 28 November 2012 - 06:28 PM, said:

What kind of a fucktard finds it fun to stand in a red square & watch a red bar shrink? That's not why I'm here. Why have such highly dissectible mechs if standing in a red square is such a great way to play?

Teralitha, do you know something I don't? Are they actually planning to make real bases with defenses that are dissectible/destructable & worth having in the game? Or is that just a case of giving too much credit to the devs? They did after all, include a module which costs 15,000 GXP & 6,000,000 C-Bs that magically shrinks the red bar 15% faster while standing inside the red square. I don't have a problem with the mode, I have a problem with the execution of it. Why do we have the MW equivalent of baseball bases instead of military bases? Limited developer resources? Is that it? Or did they think this is a good idea? In what war has anyone ever known a strategic installation to be secured by standing inside its painted on the ground border for a minute?

This game mode, the way it is with such small, non-interactive maps, is meeting a very low standard at best. What a fu<king "simulator" it is huh? You can capture a base by standing inside a red square for a minute, you can destroy giant tanks with a respectable level of intricacy using weapons that should be able to damn near level a city, but somehow can't even put a dent in a car parked on the street & you can also travel out past a magical boundary where if beyond it for more than 10 seconds, you explode & if that's not absolutely braindead fucktarded enough for you, that happens even if there's an unscalable wall a few meters beyond it or a body of water than could simply be made deeper. What a load of kife!

I think PGI should get whoever the talent is who works on the mechs, to get to work on the bases & the buildings. The tiny maps I can live with, but the amateurishly low standard for everything else but the mechs, is getting weaker & weaker. Maybe they want to wait until they have all the planned mechs in or something, but I think that's backwards. A different mech once in a while is part of the new content delivery that is supposed to keep the game going. Equipment should be coming after the features are finished, not the other way around.

I'd like to see different kinds of bases that have different ways they can be penetrated & captured, but they should need to be worked on to get into, not just run & stand there. Something with walls, turrets, generators, fuel tanks, control systems etc. Maybe a mode where one side defends a base that attacks a dropship dropping in mechs & depending on the strength of the systems in the base the dropship would be destroyed sooner or later & when either the ship or the base defenses are destroyed along with the remaining mechs on either side, the victor is determined. That is the kind of thing I'd call AAA. What we have now is a different letter. At least it is for me. The rate they're producing maps & what those maps are leave me with little confidence, but we'll see.

I recall reading somewhere that bases were going to have stuff added to them, but then they put that giant... thing in the middle of both bases, neither of which can be damaged or destroyed, just gets in the way of trying to kill basecappers,

So... my hopes of having a real base with all the amenities you listed is fading.

For those for you reading this far, let me explain why I am against the base capping mechanic, as it is, in as simple way possible as I can. First, yes it does all those things ppl say it does... a way to break stalemates etc etc. What it doesnt do, is add a greater number of possible outcomes.. Let me illustrate...

Basecapping = 100,000 possible tactical scenarios. Team death match = 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 possible tactical scenarios.

Another way to look at it.. Basecap = Checkers. Team Death Match = Chess.

[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.

I said "CAMPING" is not advantagous,

[JebusGeist]

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

Take them out and let us fight and use scouting and manuever warfare and tactics that otherwise are pointless because you have a base to worry about.

Teralitha,

The following briefing is for your eyes only.

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.

Signed;
[REDACTED]

TL:DR
Having to defend a beacon while at the same time having the choice of either destroying the opposition entirely or capturing their beacon, requires strategic planning and making tactical decisions in field. Scouts do scout for the enemy teams, tactical maneuvers are still required. If some particular tactic you really want to work isn't working in the currently available game mode then you should probably adapt or risk losing the war. You want to do some strategic planning, some tactical maneuvering? How about coming up with a defensive strategy that will work against the offensive strategy you said works every time.

[Asmudius Heng]

JebusGeist, on 28 November 2012 - 08:05 PM, said:

TL:DR
Having to defend a beacon while at the same time having the choice of either destroying the opposition entirely or capturing their beacon, requires strategic planning and making tactical decisions in field. Scouts do scout for the enemy teams, tactical maneuvers are still required. If some particular tactic you really want to work isn't working in the currently available game mode then you should probably adapt or risk losing the war. You want to do some strategic planning, some tactical maneuvering? How about coming up with a defensive strategy that will work against the offensive strategy you said works every time.

Easy answer ... defend your beacon, stay as a group make sure they do not cap yours but you have combined firepower to kill all who try to engage you. Worst case scenario, they come right in brawl the hell out of you which could happen anywhere on the map to the same consequence.

OR

Rush their base while not being a moron so you take cover on the way. best case scenario you move in while they are still being all tactical and scouting and stuff and are split long enough for you to cap. Worst case scenario they, are defending thier base so you move in and assault if you feel you have enough firepower, or you retreat back to your own base and play a game of waitings.

This is the be all end all tactics that work once people realise that all the manoeuvring in the world will not save you from a rush or hard defence.

What usually happens is both move out scout and manoeuvre - and then realise that no one is going to make the first move so it comes down to defending or rushing a scout into their base to hopefully disrupt their formation - which results in the other team just falling back to thier base and defending.

This game type only works when people are disorganised. Organised teams will find it limiting.

[Teralitha]

JebusGeist, on 28 November 2012 - 08:05 PM, said:

Teralitha,

The following briefing is for your eyes only.

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.

Signed;
[REDACTED]

TL:DR
Having to defend a beacon while at the same time having the choice of either destroying the opposition entirely or capturing their beacon, requires strategic planning and making tactical decisions in field. Scouts do scout for the enemy teams, tactical maneuvers are still required. If some particular tactic you really want to work isn't working in the currently available game mode then you should probably adapt or risk losing the war. You want to do some strategic planning, some tactical maneuvering? How about coming up with a defensive strategy that will work against the offensive strategy you said works every time.

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.

Edited by Teralitha, 28 November 2012 - 08:23 PM.

[COOL HANDS]

I personaly think the bases should be upgraded with some kind of defense where its not as easy to take like some gun turrets for example would make the game mode more interesting.

[Fugu]

Yes!
Capping was neccessary when you could drop with 8 lights agains 8 Atlas so you'd actually had a chance to win.* Now it's just bothering me. I want to play to have fun, not to have almost no combat or combat stopped because some people think that small amount of cash and xp is worth playing a game of "go there, stand there".



*Haha, remember when that was a matchup you'd actually lose? Good times!

[shabowie]

Let's remove teams, deaths and the entire match from team death match mode as well.

Edited by shabowie, 28 November 2012 - 08:40 PM.

[yashmack]

I like the base capture mechanic, i just wish more players would remember they have to protect the base rather than just run off and get slaughtered
Communication is very poor in the stock game

[PerfectTommy]

Make the cap timer stop both if an enemy mech is in their base, OR if they're in YOUR base.




-PT

[CycKath]

Much like match making, I have no doubt true "combat death only" match mode is on its way "soon"

[Metal Shakes]

The point of this game is to engage the enemy in close combat and destroy them utterly and decisively. This capture the flag bs needs to go. This isn't Stratego.