349 replies to this topic

[Asmudius Heng]

JebusGeist, on 29 November 2012 - 04:31 PM, said:

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.

So exactly the same problem with the current implementation except without the bases you can choose where to set up a defensive position, but it also allows the other team more flexibility to change their angle of attack and not expose their base. This leads to gameplay where a camping enemy can be attacked from multiple angles and can be flushed out of cover by good tactics unlike the current system where a single base is a gravity well for where you defend from.

TDM gives more flexibility because the same outcomes CAN happen in either mode but at least without a game ending base cap you can pick and choose when and where you engage across an entire map. Therefore TDM variability and tactics while assault mode or whatever they call it is more limited.

Multiple cap points that did not force a game end unless ALL bases were capped perhaps would stop people camping as much and would allow a team to choose which bases they wanted to hold, or when they should abandon one to take another if it gave them a better advantage in positioning. Add to that incentives to take each base that are not game ending but aid in your tactical warfare and you have tactical choices to make and are incentivised for it, but falling back off a base becomes an option that does not end the game but forces a repositioning - or something you want to defend and will do it to your dying breath - you have CHOICE.

TDM has more variety than assault mode - but a well executed conquest mode that gives people choice in what to attack or defend, when to attack or defend will give even more variety ... i am hoping they really think about this hard with the next game type and do not force countdowns too quickly.

[Aidan Malchor]

[sarcasm]Yes this is an awesome idea[/sarcasm]

You must love playing hide and seek for 10 minutes trying to find that last shutdown mech for even suggesting this lunacy.

Preventing the enemy from capping isn't hard but generally requires teamwork.

[Secundus]

Pugastrius, on 29 November 2012 - 04:46 PM, said:

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...

I'm already seeing it happen, and I've seen many games already where at least 6 of each team rush each other's bases and one team captures the others base slightly before the other, while the AFKer or people that tried to defend are crushed on both sides. I hate those games and they are becoming more frequent. I'm also finally seeing a lot more close battles, and nearly every one of those is "ruined" by a cap while the battle is still raging. Apparently people are loving this, I can't imagine why, other than the round ends quickly and you're more than likely not dead so your repairs are shorter. It's nothing new to see this, my example of WoW's Alterac Valley starting off being a brawl and in less than a year everyone playing figured out rushing was a quicker way to your earnings, win or lose. People would get angry if people actually started to fight because it was delaying the end of the round.

Even a capture the flag type scenario would be better (capture the intel?) because it at least forces the two teams to cross paths twice, add in that your intel must be returned to capture and you force an end game in a stalemate. Either way they need more game modes than this one, I personally think it stinks the way it's implemented. I also think there's absolutely no excuse (stop saying PLACEHOLDER please) for there not be more game modes before closed beta ended. Saying it's a placeholder is just making excuses. They clearly had a programmer who could make one game mode, that they shifted gears before creating the rest was a huge mistake on their part because the balancing of the modes when they finally are released are going to annoy the hell out of a lot of people.

[Secundus]

Aidan Malchor, on 29 November 2012 - 05:15 PM, said:

[sarcasm]Yes this is an awesome idea[/sarcasm]

You must love playing hide and seek for 10 minutes trying to find that last shutdown mech for even suggesting this lunacy.

Preventing the enemy from capping isn't hard but generally requires teamwork.

There's work-arounds for that problem too. Once the timer reaches a certain point, or there's no combat for a certain period of time, everyone shows up on everyone's radar, whether they're shut down or not. Other solutions I've seen is that the outer borders of the map creep toward the centre as time goes on, forcing the surviving combatants toward the centre of the map.

[ICEFANG13]

I think we should use the capture work-around, because it also makes the gameplay more enjoyable.

[Csypher]

there is something called game mode this is one, more are coming chill out k.

NO

Edited by Csypher, 29 November 2012 - 05:48 PM.

[Secundus]

Csypher, on 29 November 2012 - 05:46 PM, said:

there is something called game mode this is one, more are coming chill out k.

NO

There's one coming out that I'm aware of, the pacing of development that I've seen it's going to be at least 6 months before we see another. Not sure when we're going to see a new map. I'm glad they had the brains to make variants of the existing ones, but it's still for the most part the same "tactics" and spots on those variants.

[Critical Fumble]

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 ....

Watched it, and I agree that a multiple objective map would be more interesting, but to do it well you'd likely need more players than PGI is willing to give us at this juncture. I also chuckled when you depicted the attacking team fighting from inside the crater in Caustic. The place where you dissipate almost no heat.

I do want them to change the cap mechanic to something approaching reasonable; a max capturing speed and a way to defend the cap from outside the cap zone would go a long way to making the mode less inclined towards the orkish hoard rush approach. It's much less common than some people would lead you to believe, though.

You put a lot of work into that video, but then you fell into one of the "my point is right" traps. You spending five or six minutes going through a pretty damn good a strategic analysis of our current game mode, and then you brought up TDM and said "it has more tactical implications" and moved on in less than thirty seconds. You've already convinced people who want TDM; but I look at that and say, "It has infinite ways to play, but you couldn't be bothered to go through one?"

TDM will have many of the same problems you pointed out for assault. Unless you make a totally flat and open arena, some terrain will be favorable for fighting from, and some areas will be a deathtrap. The people inclined towards turtling will still do so, just on good firing positions. Until you know where the enemy is breaking up your slower forces would be suicide because one team could wander into all of the enemy's firepower with only half of yours. You've run into the same issue we already have, except without forced conflict points that can be used to keep people from camping the unbalanced firing points.

An attack/defend mode could be interesting, but PGI needs to not make the same mistake the World of Tanks devs made implementing it. Meaning they need to either make a new map for it or rebalance an existing one, rather than copy and paste an existing map. They also need to consider using different mechanics on that mode rather than deciding that what works for one game mode works for 'em all.

You seem to be able to think things through, so why are you posting in this openly biased trollbait thread rather than starting one where people can have an honest discussion rather than flinging insults and writing off arguments with a single line of text?

[Teralitha]

JebusGeist, on 29 November 2012 - 04:03 PM, said:

If someone shows up and attempts a well reasoned explanation of how a persistent contrail forms

Let me know when they arrive.

[Teralitha]

JebusGeist, on 29 November 2012 - 04:31 PM, said:

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.

The problem with your point of view, is you are making assumptions about how a TDM mode of play will result without actually testing it.

While myself, and a few others here, have all the evidence we need right in front of us, to prove our points that base capping is flawed. A few of us, have even played TDM in MW4 in a highly competitive league style play so we have alot of experience solving those issues you assume will happen. This is why we know that TDM is better. Camping a defensible position on a map.... not a problem. To a good coordinated team, camping is a weakness. Someone runs and hides and shuts down? Still, not a problem, there are solutions, find them with BAP, if u have at least 2 u can fan out and corner them, they cant run forever in a map with borders. Might be boring for the spectators, but not the live combatants.

Really the one and only thing TDM doesnt have going for it, is its POSSIBLE that the game will take longer. Possible. And when cbills are all that matter to you, you dont want a game to last very long. That is quite possibly, the one and only reason anyone could have to argue against TDM being a better game mode.

In here, base capping issues have no solutions, other than rushing to the enemy base before they do. That is no fun at all. Some possibly find it fun, but to those people I say... HEY! why dont you give this other way to play a go, step up your game, raise the bar, its alot MORE FUN, than what your doing now, give it a chance and you will see. This is mechwarrior, the thinking persons game, not some FPS where a whole bunch of stupid BS happens.

Edited by Teralitha, 29 November 2012 - 07:40 PM.

[Rejarial Galatan]

Teralitha, on 29 November 2012 - 12:05 AM, said:

Once again you portray a totally *** backwards perspective... know how many games of chess I have won in 2 moves only taking the king? (and yes you can win in 2 moves) And it is lame and gives me no satisfaction whatsoever to win this way(kinda like base capping)

What you have backwards... is the base capping is the mindless pvp... TDM is the more tactically flavorful. numbers alone proves it. your opinion is trumped by the facts, sorry... Now stop trying to keep this game dumbed down ... its time we step it up a little...

grow a tactically sound mind, then we can talk. You Teralitha favor a Pyrrhic Victory, one that is more costly than it is worth. I favor a victory that is cost effective, that takes more thought than: Oh look a mech, I will fire at it. THAT is YOUR style right there: OO big shiney RED MONSTER, KILL KILL KILL! Mine, favors Sun Tzu:

“The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.”
Sun Tzu[, The Art of War
“Supreme excellence consists of breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War
“If your enemy is secure at all points, be prepared for him. If he is in superior strength, evade him. If your opponent is temperamental, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant. If he is taking his ease, give him no rest. If his forces are united, separate them. If sovereign and subject are in accord, put division between them. Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected.”
― Sun Tzu
“Thus we may know that there are five essentials for victory: (1)
He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight. (2) He
will win who knows how to handle both superior and inferior forces.
(3) He will win whose army is animated by the same spirit throughout
all its ranks. (4) He will win who, prepared himself, waits to take
the enemy unprepared. (5) He will win who has military capacity and
is not interfered with by the sovereign.”
―Sun Tzu

Teralitha, I do hope these wise words of a warrior far superior to any today or any to come will shake this odd conception you have of what it is to be tactically viable, and achieve your victories. Also, since I am feeling educational, let me spell out YOUR preferred style of victory known as a Pyrrhic Victory.

Pyrrhic Victory: A Pyrrhic victory is a victory with such a devastating cost that it carries the implication that another such victory will ultimately lead to defeat. Someone who wins a Pyrrhic victory has been victorious in some way; however, the heavy toll negates any sense of achievement or profit.
In other words, sacrificing your forces in such a way that you lose a significant portion of them, IE TDM, is a victory at such a heavy price that you may as well have lost the battle, as your next victory like this, will be no victory at all, as it will have won the war for your enemy as you no longer have a fighting force to, well FIGHT with.

edit: removed a ton of those little color codes.

Edited by Rejarial Galatan, 29 November 2012 - 08:29 PM.

[Teralitha]

Rejarial Galatan, on 29 November 2012 - 08:27 PM, said:

grow a tactically sound mind, then we can talk. You Teralitha favor a Pyrrhic Victory, one that is more costly than it is worth. I favor a victory that is cost effective, that takes more thought than: Oh look a mech, I will fire at it. THAT is YOUR style right there: OO big shiney RED MONSTER, KILL KILL KILL! Mine, favors Sun Tzu:

“The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.” Good for real life, but no fun in a computer game.
Sun Tzu[, The Art of War
“Supreme excellence consists of breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.” Again, good for real life, but bad for mechwarrior, because we are here to fight in a computer game.
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War
“If your enemy is secure at all points, be prepared for him. If he is in superior strength, evade him. If your opponent is temperamental, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant. If he is taking his ease, give him no rest. If his forces are united, separate them. If sovereign and subject are in accord, put division between them. Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected.” Now most of what he said there actually does apply to mechwarrior combat, but it doesnt help your argument at all Im afraid.
― Sun Tzu
“Thus we may know that there are five essentials for victory: (1)
He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight. (2) He
will win who knows how to handle both superior and inferior forces.
(3) He will win whose army is animated by the same spirit throughout
all its ranks. (4) He will win who, prepared himself, waits to take
the enemy unprepared. (5) He will win who has military capacity and
is not interfered with by the sovereign.” All good stuff for on the field battle, but again, nothing that helps your argument.
―Sun Tzu

Teralitha, I do hope these wise words of a warrior far superior to any today or any to come will shake this odd conception you have of what it is to be tactically viable, and achieve your victories. Also, since I am feeling educational, let me spell out YOUR preferred style of victory known as a Pyrrhic Victory.

Pyrrhic Victory: A Pyrrhic victory is a victory with such a devastating cost that it carries the implication that another such victory will ultimately lead to defeat. Someone who wins a Pyrrhic victory has been victorious in some way; however, the heavy toll negates any sense of achievement or profit.
In other words, sacrificing your forces in such a way that you lose a significant portion of them, IE TDM, is a victory at such a heavy price that you may as well have lost the battle, as your next victory like this, will be no victory at all, as it will have won the war for your enemy as you no longer have a fighting force to, well FIGHT with.

edit: removed a ton of those little color codes.

Trying to quote sun tzu and comparing his philosophy of REAL LIFE WAR to mechwarrior online is silly. Sure, some of "on the battlefield" tactical formations apply, but in real life people dont go to war for fun. And they dont get to fight again if they die.

Its a **** poor comparison. If Sun Tzu himself saw you taking his words, and trying to use them in an argument to support your case in a computer war game where real life rules and tactics dont apply he would just whip out his sword and cut u in half, then say something witty and clever about how foolish you were.

Every single battle we play in MWO is a prryhic victory, for 1 side or the other, or both side (unless you buy premium time.) and really only applies if you have a resource your actually losing. Since everyone makes money win or lose, there is no prryhic victory. A very poor analogy on your part.

I think you posted all that stuff in the hopes that you would appear intelligent, but you failed.

[ICEFANG13]

Rejarian Galatan, that was written really well, your references to the Art of War are quite well done. The OP lacks any coherent argument against it, clearly you are aware how to defeat inferior opponents

[Rejarial Galatan]

Teralitha now I KNOW you are fundamentally incapable of realizing that tactics for a REAL war work here. go back to MW4, we do not need you here. good bye.

ICEFANG13, on 29 November 2012 - 09:18 PM, said:

Rejarian Galatan, that was written really well, your references to the Art of War are quite well done. The OP lacks any coherent argument against it, clearly you are aware how to defeat inferior opponents

she is stuck in thinking that any victory other than a Pyrrhic victory is wrong, which is flawed. She is going to keep making a fool of her self.

Edited by Rejarial Galatan, 29 November 2012 - 09:19 PM.

[gregsolidus]

Learn to defend noob.

[Teralitha]

Rejarial Galatan, on 29 November 2012 - 09:20 PM, said:

Teralitha now I KNOW you are fundamentally incapable of realizing that tactics for a REAL war work here. go back to MW4, we do not need you here. good bye.


she is stuck in thinking that any victory other than a Pyrrhic victory is wrong, which is flawed. She is going to keep making a fool of her self.

I dont think you understand anything you quoted from Sun Tzu. Simply quoting him doesnt make you look intelligent, and you thinking that it does, just makes you look dumb. Thank you for the laugh though.

Quote

Please keep in mind that idling on your cap point without armour or moving does not constitute a form of tactical "Base Defence".

See, even Niko Snow, a community rep, agrees with me that defending a base isnt tactical. So funny.

You all can have your it your way, will just be one less group of players I dont have to worry about in a real competitive setting, since you and your teams will be no challenge, somebody has to lose.

Edited by Teralitha, 29 November 2012 - 10:25 PM.

[Elder Thorn]

not reading whole thread, just stating what i think of OP:

I think base caping itself is fine, but i think we need different defense mechanisms.

• decaping should be possible, not just holding the captimer
  
• damage done to caping enemys should decap - not everything, but maybe reset this mechs part of caping

That way you would be able to actually defend the base without having to sit right next to your opponents, i have sacrificed an Atlas very often, just to stop the enemy from caping, but if i had been allowed to take cover near the base, i would have been able to actually do something else than just run into them like some stupid suicidefarmer and pay arround 120k at the end of the match

[Teralitha]

Elder Thorn, on 29 November 2012 - 10:33 PM, said:

i would have been able to actually do something else than just run into them like some stupid suicidefarmer and pay arround 120k at the end of the match

Welcome to baserush online.

You should read the whole tread, lots of funny people posting, you might get a good laugh.

Edited by Teralitha, 29 November 2012 - 10:36 PM.

[Elder Thorn]

Teralitha, on 29 November 2012 - 10:35 PM, said:

Welcome to baserush online.

You should read the whole tread, lots of funny people posting, you might get a good laugh.

haha thanks, will do, but right now i am heading off to college, might read us later

Edited by Elder Thorn, 29 November 2012 - 10:40 PM.

[Critical Fumble]

Way to take things out of context there.

You hurdle insults, bypass relevant points, won't admit any faults in your preference, simply cannot handle disagreements, and have done just about everything on this page: http://en.wikipedia....st_of_fallacies

In case you haven't noticed, the only reason that crap shows up, and appears to work, on TV shows is that artificial drama ups ratings. Most people adults manage to get what they want from other people by being polite and reasonable, doing the opposite tends to make matters worse for you. Don't believe me? Try antagonizing a cop or TSA agent next time you have to deal with one.

TL/DR version: Persuasive argument: yer doin' it wrong.