45 replies to this topic

[Agent of Change]

I have been a vocal opponent of a TDM mode in MW:O because, as we has enumerated in the past it will, it will simply encourage twink builds a lack or variety, and a lack of tactics short of face punch then win. So that's my opinion.

With the announced removal of RnR and the removal of a reward for capping in assault, to me this amounts to the tacit creation of TDM in MWO. There is no draw back to bringing the most expensive mech you can build to the party and there is no reason not to wipe out your opponents to the last man.

I expect that we will no longer see the consideration of surrender in a match, also we will certainly not see purposeful capping early in a match due to outmaneuver.

Hell personally I can't think of a reason not to drag the match out hunting down every last mech, or come up with a decent reason not to blow to hell AFK mechs I would previously have let live. PGI has incentivised total wipe outs every time, and I for one find this to be a bit of a mistake.

What say you forumites? Do these changes make Assault mode a TDM? Is it a good thing?

Edited by Agent of Change, 17 December 2012 - 11:13 AM.

[Taryys]

I generally agree with your statement here. Removal of R&R and Cap Bonus is bad, but I do firmly believe that this is an experiment and a stepping stone so they can gather data and move on from there.

This should be a temporary thing. Enjoy while we have it! =)

Edited by Taryys, 17 December 2012 - 10:56 AM.

[Pygar]

Capture can still win, and capture is still needed to keep matches moving. Sorry, but "Deathmatch" mode is a remnant of a bygone era in shooter video games for good reasons.

Speaking of bygone eras, we really need to get tonnage caps put on matches, so people don't think this is Atlaswarrior online.

[BlackSquirrel]

Truth be told the new 'conquest mode" is more like what I picture assault to be. Meaning more than just a bum rush and win.

It needs more of a complexity to it...Such as destroy XYZ objective to gain access to assault... Or actually have a base to break into.

But maps are too small for that IMO. Also team size. BF3/BC2 rush mode is more akin to assault.

Edited by BlackSquirrel, 17 December 2012 - 11:00 AM.

[MadcatX]

I find base capping as a strategy boring. I'm playing a game where the whole point is having big robots with weapons blowing up other big robots. Base rushes make for a boring game of "walk around the map for 5-7 minutes" game, especially when both teams do it and go opposite sides of the map.

The one advantage that base capping did have is not having to chase down every last person on the map, especially when there's only 1 person left.

[Sifright]

Agent of Change, on 17 December 2012 - 10:53 AM, said:

I have been a vocal opponent of a TDM mode in MW:O because, as we has enumerated in the past it will, it will simply encourage twink builds a lack or variety, and a lack of tactics short of face punch then win. So that's my opinion.

With the announced removal of RnR and the removal of a reward for capping in assault, to mew this amounts to the tacit creation of TDM in MWO. There is no draw back to bringing the most expensive mech you can build to the party and there is no reason not to wipe out your opponents to the last man.

I expect that we will no longer see the consideration of surrender in a match, also we will certainly not see purposeful capping early in a match due to outmaneuver.

Hell personally I can't think of a reason not to drag the match out hunting down every last mech, or come up with a decent reason not to blow to hell AFK mechs I would previously have let live. PGI has incentivised total wipe outs every time, and I for one find this to be a bit of a mistake.

What say you forumites? Do these changes make Assault mode a TDM? Is it a good thing?

hahahaha,

Yes, because when I play a giant stompy robot game the most important thing is that I avoid all enemies and cap the red square.


This is a FING great change.

It encourages combat.

Capping is still usable for a victory but now it doesn't have ANY financial incentive.

and it IS more realistic than the mode was before... Or rather it will break my suspension of disbelief less which is far more important.

nothing is stupider than when a scout is capping your red square and your entire team is just about to blow the scout to slag and you lose.

This ofcourse will still happen but hey at least the other team wont get oodles of money for it.

[BatWing]

+1 to the OP for this Thread. Good call here.

So, it seems the modification is basically changing the behavior we will have on the 2 known Game Modes:

1 - Assault will be better known as TDM
2 - Conquest will be better known as Assault/ Conquest

ASSAULT:
With the ECM we saw in 8 vs 8 Premade a shift toward Atlas and Lights to accomplish the most of the Damage and/or Capping, using the most effective Mechs for that scope.

4-man drops were still open to a variety of Mechs, because there was still a choice. Kill or Cap. Pugs were still trying to understand what they like the most, therefore using a variety of Mechs able to achieve different results.

NOW THERE WILL BE NO DIFFERENCE WHEN PLAYING "ASSAULT"

8-man drops or 4-man drops will be Assault galore. Not being necessary any flexibility anymore, because Capping is no more a rewarding choice, why use any Mech LESS THAN Assault?
I want to kill you, I want to deliver the MAX possible damage (*25 multiplier toward CBs), why should I drop in Medium? Lights are still good for damage because of their survivability.

Medium mechs are wiped out from the Assault Mode. Heavies.. well.. that s depend... we'll see.

CONQUEST:
Here you will have a bit more of Tactical engagement. It will be similar to the actual Assault but there will be a specific incentive in Capturing the "Germanium" (*25 multiplier for resource gained)
There will be as well incentive to Kill (*25 multiplier per Kill)

possibly Mechs of choice will be:
1 - Lights for their fast response, mobility,Lag Shield and ECM capabilities
2 - Heavies and Assaults. Most probably majority of Atlas due to ECM capabilities, then some LRM support maybe and some CTFs

Once again i do not find a correct collocation for Mediums. There is nothing a Medium does that cannot be done better with an Heavy, when price and maintanance costs are no more part of the equation.

All of this has to be tested of course... but i have a very bad feeling in the direction all of this is going toward.

It is BETA testing, true. And i hope they will realize they need to "adjust' this very quickly.

[Darth JarJar]

I would offer that taking the burden of R&R off the individual pilots is a good thing, and is keeping with Real World economics. Allow me to explain:

Soldiers do not buy their bullets, nor do they pay to repair the machines that they are assigned to drive. The Defense Budget takes care of that. While it is true that pilots own their mechs, using the mechs for reasons other than their own personal whims incurs expenses that are created by the Merc Corps, or House command staff. Therefore, it should be on the deciding entities to offset costs created by their decisions.

A few examples:
Construction contractors bid on jobs. Then they dole out contracts to the sub-contractors. It is a given that subs must have enough money to cover their consumeables and incidentals during the job, but that is factored into the bidding process and, usually, subs receive 'draws' against the final payment amount to float the costs of materials. Ultimately, the cost is borne by the customer, through the contractor-subcontractor chain.

Pizza delivery guys have to buy their gas, and pay to maintain their vehicles. This is offset by a 'per delivery bonus' by the employer, that ultimately get passed along to the customer. (I'm not talking about tips, I'm talking about the 'ticket bonus' the driver receive when they cash out at end of shift)


Police are given a certain amount of ammunition for practice purposes. These costs are supported by the local budget as set forth by the controlling entities. Granted, many buy ammo to practice beyond the minimum requirement set by said entities, and it is fair for them to bear that cost, because they are participating in 'elective' or 'extra-curricular' activity. But, the ammo cost needed for the required practice is passed along to the taxpayers, not the individual officer.

So, I think it is entirely fair for the ammo and repairs to be free at this time, with the caveat that once the metagame is active, and community warfare is joined, perhaps that should be part of the overall economy by making the Houses and Corps maintain their hardware. Since we cannot, and will not, be able to hand money around, this is a good compromise, methinks.

Moderator note: It occurred to me after writing this wall of text that http://mwomercs.com/...t-removing-rnr/ may have been a better place for this arguement. Please feel free (as if you needed my permission ) to move it as you see fit. Cheers.

Edited by von Bremerhaven, 17 December 2012 - 11:31 AM.

[Sifright]

god you founders are hilarious.

Assault literally hasn't changed at all you bunch of twits.

There just isn't a financial incentive to ignore the enemy now.

To reiterate you can still win by capping the ******** red square.

To put this another way lights can still win.

[Vassago Rain]

The death of tacticool movement.

Wait, we had something other than team deathmatch centered around a red square to begin with?

[Radbane]

TDM, yes please, just don't call it that. Callt it Stand-off, Brawl or whatever. And NO respawns...

[Super Mono]

Capturing the red square should never have been the main focus of the game, its main purpose should be to allow a winning team to cap and end the game instead of hunting down the last shut down mech tucked away in a corner.

[Joseph Mallan]

Taryys, on 17 December 2012 - 10:55 AM, said:

I generally agree with your statement here. Removal of R&R and Cap Bonus is bad, but I do firmly believe that this is an experiment and a stepping stone so they can gather data and move on from there.

This should be a temporary thing. Enjoy while we have it! =)

I hope you are right Taryys. Taking Cap bonus away takes away any reason to more than go fight after fight after fight after fight after fight...

[Congzilla]

The new game mode makes this a mute point.

[Darth JarJar]

Joseph Mallan, on 17 December 2012 - 11:31 AM, said:

I hope you are right Taryys. Taking Cap bonus away takes away any reason to more than go fight after fight after fight after fight after fight...

I, for one, play this game for the combat, not as a glorified mech-racing simulator. The racing genre already has PLENTY of titles.

[Sifright]

Joseph Mallan, on 17 December 2012 - 11:31 AM, said:

I hope you are right Taryys. Taking Cap bonus away takes away any reason to more than go fight after fight after fight after fight after fight...

God you guys have a really really weird idea of what gameplay should be about.

Look if you guys are that desperate to capture red squares you really don't need to play MWo to do it.

Get some friends together in RL grab some red chalk make some red square outlines any where you like.

Now ignore every one you see and run into the other red square.

Sure does sound like fun!

[Agent of Change]

von Bremerhaven, on 17 December 2012 - 11:38 AM, said:

I, for one, play this game for the combat, not as a glorified mech-racing simulator. The racing genre already has PLENTY of titles.

There are also no end to brainless deathmatch games too with no goal other than to shoot until you die....

[Sifright]

Agent of Change, on 17 December 2012 - 11:53 AM, said:

There are also no end to brainless deathmatch games too with no goal other than to shoot until you die....

Capture the red square isn't tactical.

isn't a good objective.

and it was leading to dumb outcomes.

Those outcomes are still possible by the way.

They just aren't being incentivised.

[Agent of Change]

Sifright, on 17 December 2012 - 12:00 PM, said:

Capture the red square isn't tactical.

isn't a good objective.

and it was leading to dumb outcomes.

Those outcomes are still possible by the way.

They just aren't being incentivised.

Which means they won't happen (often or at all)

which means a shift in actual incentivised behaviour

Which means there is no reason to cap, therefore no reason to defend

Which means nothing but the nastiest firepower going straight at the enemy in most cases

Which mean mindless TDM where once there was a modicum (admittedly small) amount of tactical awareness by neccessity.

[Taryys]

Sifright, on 17 December 2012 - 11:44 AM, said:

God you guys have a really really weird idea of what gameplay should be about.

You are given 2 ways to complete the mission - destroy all mechs or control the strategic point.
Now one is rewarded and the other is not. =(
If 1/2 of the completion methods are not going to be rewarded then it should be removed.
Now people are going to be punished for helping the team by capturing the strategic objective and not blowing things up.

Pretty much guarantees a TDM. =(

Edited by Taryys, 17 December 2012 - 12:12 PM.