Jump to content

Assualt Mode - Economy Changes?


9 replies to this topic

#1 Merc85

    Member

  • PipPip
  • 35 posts

Posted 19 December 2012 - 08:09 AM

What the heck is going on with what was done to Assault battles? The Devs have taken a very good mode and made it totally ridiculous IMO by the changes in economy that have been done. Now having bases is useless since you don't get any Cbills for base capture and why even waste your time trying to "win" that way because you get the same Cbills for losing? All the strategy/tactics are gone by the wayside since you don't have to worry about protecting your base or attacking theirs. Scouting to see what the enemy is up to isn't as important with bases being taken out of the picture. And so now you try to do a lot of damage but god forbid you "accidentally" kill an enemy mech since you make more Cbills if one of your teammates kill him after you've injured him (assists get more money than kills). And since there are no RnR costs, you see mainly mechs with lots of armament and armor since the more damage you do and the longer you stay alive the more money you make regardless of how much it costs to send out all those Artemis missiles or how much to repair that big mech? So rather than a battle with strategy/tactics/teamwork, it's now just a shoot 'em up brawl like so many other dumbed down games. How can you enjoy a game/battle where winning is irrelevant?? Sad.
P.S. Devs, can I please have my 15,000 GXP and 6,000,000 Cbills back for that Capture Accelerator Module I bought since it's totally useless now in Assault mode which I used to really enjoy playing.

#2 WhiteRabbit

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • 377 posts
  • Locationover there

Posted 19 December 2012 - 08:12 AM

well at least the matches ending with one side rushing to the base (probably under ecm cover) aren't that viable anymore...those were beyond boring.

though i do agree that the kill-assist rewards need a bit of tweaking

Edited by WhiteRabbit, 19 December 2012 - 08:13 AM.


#3 Vassago Rain

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • Bridesmaid
  • 14,396 posts
  • LocationExodus fleet, HMS Kong Circumflex accent

Posted 19 December 2012 - 08:14 AM

More like we have assault mechs assaulting, instead of quaking in their boots that they'll be paying 140k to fix themselves if they so much as think of losing limbs in any tanking action.

#4 Merc85

    Member

  • PipPip
  • 35 posts

Posted 19 December 2012 - 08:14 AM

View PostWhiteRabbit, on 19 December 2012 - 08:12 AM, said:

well at least the matches ending with one side rushing to the base (probably under ecm cover) aren't that viable anymore...those were beyond boring.

I agree...but there are so many ways to tactically stop that strategy that people just didn't use.....that's not a game design issue, that's a tactics issue.

#5 Vassago Rain

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • Bridesmaid
  • 14,396 posts
  • LocationExodus fleet, HMS Kong Circumflex accent

Posted 19 December 2012 - 08:15 AM

View PostMerc85, on 19 December 2012 - 08:14 AM, said:

I agree...but there are so many ways to tactically stop that strategy that people just didn't use.....that's not a game design issue, that's a tactics issue.


It's a game design issue. This is about the only game where it's even possible to do lame **** like that to begin with.

#6 Merc85

    Member

  • PipPip
  • 35 posts

Posted 19 December 2012 - 08:17 AM

View PostVassago Rain, on 19 December 2012 - 08:15 AM, said:


It's a game design issue. This is about the only game where it's even possible to do lame **** like that to begin with.

How can it be a game design issue when good tactics not only prevent it, they can demolish mechs that try it?

#7 Vassago Rain

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • Bridesmaid
  • 14,396 posts
  • LocationExodus fleet, HMS Kong Circumflex accent

Posted 19 December 2012 - 08:21 AM

View PostMerc85, on 19 December 2012 - 08:17 AM, said:

How can it be a game design issue when good tactics not only prevent it, they can demolish mechs that try it?


Because most games have things you must do before you can bypass the fighting to force a lame win. Like in counter-strike. The terrorists can't run past the counter-terrorists and magically win by being in the square. They have to bring the bomb with them, then they have to plant it, then they need to defend it, and then they need to wait for the bomb to blow.

In MWO, you wait for the enemy team to move out about one meter too far, before you rush your ravens onto the cap. Not a single shot exchanged, no triggers, and no recovery possible. I've literally lost games by a meter.

Ergo, it's a game design issue. You're free to cite tacticool gameplay 1337 420 headshots as the source of your cap victories, but we all know that's not true. Now you have to fight to make money, but you can farm 'wins' all you want with the same old, lame plans.

#8 Elizander

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 7,540 posts
  • LocationPhilippines

Posted 19 December 2012 - 08:21 AM

I've gotten pretty good at running away in my XL Ilya. Getting 75k repairs for surviving and winning a fight was awesome. :)

#9 Joseph Mallan

    ForumWarrior

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 35,216 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationMallanhold, Furillo

Posted 19 December 2012 - 08:21 AM

Cause some folk actually think two opposing forces MUST try to kill each other in order to succeed at an objective.

#10 Dakkath

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,980 posts
  • LocationG-14 Classified

Posted 19 December 2012 - 08:22 AM

Closing this thread, please use this for economy feedback, including the rewards on the different game modes.
http://mwomercs.com/...ystem-feedback/





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users