35 replies to this topic

[Krzysztof z Bagien]

If only they listen to what we say...
Funny thing though - last night I was rewarded 50XP for taking part in capping enemy base in one match, but in other matches we won by cap there was no XP reward (I wasn't capping though).

Edited by Krzysztof z Bagien, 22 December 2012 - 03:11 AM.

[Acid Phreak]

assault-conquest?

[Snib]

Asmosis, on 22 December 2012 - 01:42 AM, said:

They should probably add a cbill counter for time spent capping similar to the resource counter.

Please no. There's enough cap races in assault as it stands. If you enjoy capping just play Conquest.

[DeaconW]

Snib, on 22 December 2012 - 04:59 AM, said:

Please no. There's enough cap races in assault as it stands. If you enjoy capping just play Conquest.

Then PGI needs to rename "Assault" to "Deathmatch" and remove the base altogether. Otherwise, capping the base should be a rewarded task as it is the OBJECTIVE of assault. Their current arrangement makes no logical sense.

[Snib]

DeaconW, on 22 December 2012 - 05:38 AM, said:

Then PGI needs to rename "Assault" to "Deathmatch" and remove the base altogether. Otherwise, capping the base should be a rewarded task as it is the OBJECTIVE of assault. Their current arrangement makes no logical sense.

Logically I agree with you as I posted on the previous page. Game play wise sitting a 100 ton war machine inside of a red box is not my idea of fun. As posted above, it makes sense to have the base, but we do not need to make capping more rewarding than actually fighting. Cap races used to be the most efficient way to grind cbills short of suiciding. I'm glad that changed.

[Farix]

Snib, on 22 December 2012 - 05:49 AM, said:

Logically I agree with you as I posted on the previous page. Game play wise sitting a 100 ton war machine inside of a red box is not my idea of fun. As posted above, it makes sense to have the base, but we do not need to make capping more rewarding than actually fighting. Cap races used to be the most efficient way to grind cbills short of suiciding. I'm glad that changed.

Actually, capping should be just as rewarding as fighting. Otherwise, why have it as an objective of the mission? Cap "rushing" wasn't a problem (other than one of poor tactics of the defenders) nor should PGI need to fix it.

[Snib]

Farix, on 22 December 2012 - 06:12 AM, said:

Actually, capping should be just as rewarding as fighting. Otherwise, why have it as an objective of the mission? Cap "rushing" wasn't a problem (other than one of poor tactics of the defenders) nor should PGI need to fix it.

It was explained before, you need the base because you cannot force players to engage each other. Capping is a way to force the other team's hand.

[SirSlaughter]

What are you all crying about guys!? All the Conquest matches I took part were the best Assault matches I ever had

[Farix]

Snib, on 22 December 2012 - 06:23 AM, said:

It was explained before, you need the base because you cannot force players to engage each other. Capping is a way to force the other team's hand.

So why shouldn't capping be rewarded? Because then players will "base rush"? Players still do that now, and that is not a good reason to remove the rewards in first place. Base rushing, or cap racing, was never a problem for PGI to deal with, but a problem for players to counter by switching tactics (like defending your base).

But the reason we saw more base rushes after ECM came out was not so much because of ECM's alleged OPness, but because it encouraged the "blobbing effect" where neither team would spread out very much, thus reducing the chance of the two teams encountering one another.

Edited by Farix, 22 December 2012 - 07:32 AM.

[Snib]

Farix, on 22 December 2012 - 06:48 AM, said:

So why shouldn't capping be rewarded? Because then players will "base rush"? Players still do that now, and that is not a good reason to remove the rewards in first place. Base rushing, or cap racing, was never a problem for PGI to deal with, but a problem for players to counter by switching tactics (like defending your base).

I don't see why you'd want an extra reward for the major feat of rushing to an undefended base but we'll have to agree to disagree I suppose.

Farix, on 22 December 2012 - 06:48 AM, said:

But the reason we saw more base rushes after ECM came out was not so much because of ECM's alleged OPness, but because it encouraged the "blobbing effect" where neither team would spread out very much, thus reducing the chance of the two teams encountering one another.

4 lag shielded ECM ravens with cap module will cap any base before you can say beep about it. It's an easy mode win button for pugs if such things float your boat.

Edited by Snib, 22 December 2012 - 07:52 AM.

[Farix]

Snib, on 22 December 2012 - 07:49 AM, said:

I don't see why you'd want an extra reward for the major feat of rushing to an undefended base but we'll have to agree to disagree I suppose.

Because capping a base isn't all that easy against a competent enemy. So of course there should be a reward for doing it successfully.

Snib, on 22 December 2012 - 07:49 AM, said:

4 lag shielded ECM ravens with cap module will cap any base before you can say beep about it. It's an easy mode win button for pugs if such things float your boat.

1) Those aren't PUGs.
2) A competent team could easily thwart such a cap.
3) It's no worse than the normal PUGStomping that goes on.

Edited by Farix, 22 December 2012 - 08:08 AM.

[Snib]

Farix, on 22 December 2012 - 08:07 AM, said:

Because capping a base isn't all that easy against a competent enemy. So of course there should be a reward for doing it successfully.

A competent team won't let you cap so your point is moot.

Farix, on 22 December 2012 - 08:07 AM, said:

1) Those aren't PUGs.
2) A competent team could easily thwart such a cap.
3) It's no worse than the normal PUGStomping that goes on.

I still fail to see the feat you want a reward for.

[Rustycan]

When in assault mode capping is used to distract/divide the enemy. If there is a bif slug fest going on somewhere on the map, and a couple of my team mates touch the enemy cap, the enemy needs to decide if they can take out our assults and get back to base to get us, or send a few back to the cap, splitting their team and allowing our assaults to clean up the mechs they left, and then come finish off the remaining mechs. It is hard for some pilots to focus on shooting when they are going to lose because they did not react in time to a cap going on in the back ground.

Myself I prefer to kill the mechs over capping any day. Love to see enemy mechs go BOOM!

[Farix]

Snib, on 22 December 2012 - 08:14 AM, said:

A competent team won't let you cap so your point is moot.

I still fail to see the feat you want a reward for.

At least not without dealing significant damage to that team first. But the fact that it isn't generally easy is more than enough reason to have a reward for the team that does successfully completes that objective. Otherwise, it is just Deathmatch, which these maps are ill suited for. So I fail to see why you don't want a reward for achieving a difficult objective.

[Snib]

Farix, on 22 December 2012 - 08:25 AM, said:

At least not without dealing significant damage to that team first. But the fact that it isn't generally easy is more than enough reason to have a reward for the team that does successfully completes that objective. Otherwise, it is just Deathmatch, which these maps are ill suited for. So I fail to see why you don't want a reward for achieving a difficult objective.

Well, my reasoning is rather simple. If capping was difficult, then you did have a fight and do already get rewarded for that hard fought victory (salvage + the individual rewards). If capping was easy... well, there's no reason to pay extra for an easy victory.

PS: We can however argue whether awarding 25k for not winning makes sense. You failed, why get anything?

Edited by Snib, 22 December 2012 - 08:52 AM.

[Abivard]

teams would fight even if there were no caps, its called Team death match,
PGI wanted a focus for TDM, hence assault mode, capture enemy base, defend your base, kill enemy

But the whole capture/defend thing is now moot, its TDM in actual play, ergo, assault is not working as they intended.

They introduced Conquest, fight over resource nodes, priority to controlling nodes is what they wanted,

Instead they got TDM in actual play.

If they only want TDM then why waste every ones time? I think PGI does want these modes to work to the spirit they were meant to be, people being like they are you have to have an incentive of some sort to have game play go that way, that is why we give feed back, that is why this is beta.