20 replies to this topic

[Altissimus]

Hey,

I like some of the changes of the new patch & economy: the meritocratic reward structure, the new game modes. I hate the new night map, but hey, that's just me.

What I really want to talk about is how the new reward/incentive system penalises tactical play.

In assault games now, you earn next to nothing for a well-executed tactical win capping the enemy base without firing a shot. Why would you penalise this? This game is not just an arena brawl, it is a tactical game too. Penalising tactical play just makes it into a mob fight.

Similarly, in conquest games now, by far the quickest and easiest way to win is to simply kill the opposition. If they go for caps they split their forces, and dropping on them when they are so split with numerical advantage = easy win. Conversely, there is nothing to be gained for capping (beyond a measley Cbill-per-resource measure) - there is no xp or individual performance for this tactical play, and as it can often cost you the game the reward dividends are significantly lower.

Next, there is no difference in payout between a win and a loss. Even a small difference would make it worthwhile; say, 25k for a loss vs 50k for a win. But right now the only benefit of winning is to get the salvage, and you don't even get that if you win through a tactical base cap in assault.

Lastly, while light mechs are more likely to benefit from a spotting bonus, this doesn't come close to making up for the damage payout that other mechs get. While well-played light mechs can top the table, this is a rarity not a given. Light mechs usually come second to assaults, despite the fact that playing a light mech is a FAR more skillful endeavour than a point-and-click Stalker.


Tl;DR

Rewards should incentivise a range of plays. Right now, the ONLY way to earn decent cbills is to blast the crap out of the other team. Far from adding new game modes, this new patch has effectively served to limit the tactical options of the game to...one.


Fixes:

• More Cbills for winning vs losing
  
• Significant cbill addition for capping wins in Assault matches
  
• Significant individual capping win assist in Assault matches
  
• Reward a "capping assist" bonus in personal cbills/xp as a proportion of individual resource earned in Conquest matches (this incentivises individual capping)
  
• Significantly increase Conquest resource bonus (this incentivises team capping, and increases the strategic value of capping in conquest)
  
• Slightly increase spotting bonus xp and cbills, to balance light mech rewards

The above would rebalance the tactical elements of this game, because incentives direclty influence behaviour.




A.

Edited by Altissimus, 22 December 2012 - 04:12 AM.

[Critical Fumble]

I agree with you for the most part, you should be rewarded for actually winning rather than just from killing mechs. Personally I feel that playing either way should get you a similar reward, and make the overall rewards based more on how hard-fought the battle was so that there's a relationship between the amount of time invested and how much you make from the match.

I'm less than satisfied with conquest, really. The low speed at which points are gained from capping and the short distance between them keeps going to any rig a non-significant investment.

Every other week someone would start a thread wanting them to force fights rather than let people just play for either objective. Meanwhile, objectives need to be significant if they want lights to be relevant in a game with functioning netcode and knockdowns.

On a lighter note, I did a short spoof on a "realism" explanation for this.

Critical Fumble, on 20 December 2012 - 10:13 AM, said:

• Players no longer paid for cap point victory in conquest mode.

Nobleman: "That? The fights were going to quick, we wanted to draw it out and get some more exciting engagements, much more entertaining now, good job. What? Oh, you thought you were accomplishing something other than providing a spectator blood sport!? HA-HA-HA-HA, commoners say the darnedest things."

[QuantumButler]

Ahahahahaha

Ninja capping is "a well executed tactical win"?

Sorry buddy

Capping when your team is getting there **** pushed in = OK
Entire team stealth cap rushing NOT OK.

The simple fact is the so called "well executed tactical win" is actually not the right way to play the game.

[SamizdatCowboy]

Assault is basically deathmatch with a 'safety valve.' The reason they left capping in at all was to ensure matches didn't drag on the full time if the last mech runs around and hides, as well as giving teams a 'last resort' way to win if they can't kill the enemy (i.e. your whole team is dead and you're in a commando).

You need a "deathmatch like" mode for people like me who want to, you know, kill things. Conquest is really meant to be the objective oriented mode and, while it is a step in the right direction, I agree with you that it needs to be tweaked.

For example, has anyone noticed you get an XP reward for cap assisting in Assault but not in Conquest? erm...

Other than the spotting fix (which I def support), if you take all your other fixes and apply them to Conquest only I'd support that. Another thing that will help Conquest is when they finally release larger maps.

Edited by SamizdatCowboy, 22 December 2012 - 05:14 AM.

[superteds]

'tactical base capping' as you (OP) describe was actually just being blueballed for a 5min round, so that the other team can get XP/cbill faster. Capping is still an option - if my team is being hammered i'll still break off and try and force a cap, but it's no longer the default way to play an assault game.

For cq though, it probably does need some dropship mode or something (3-4 mechs pre-selected), but even then a smart team can lose the brawl but still win by the remaining lights/meds outcapping.

[Altissimus]

QuantumButler, on 22 December 2012 - 05:06 AM, said:

Capping when your team is getting there **** pushed in = OK
Entire team stealth cap rushing NOT OK.

So, if I read this right, you are saying that if you are losing the brawl and some of your team breaks off and manages to cap and you turn it into a win, then that's ok.

In other words, you walk in there balls-out all non-subtle, get your *** kicked and run away to cap and that's regarded as fine?

But if you outposition your enemy and cap because they leave a tunnel open or don't utilise their scouts then that's not ok?

Your concept of tactics is not my concept of tactics.

[OldGrayDonkey]

I don't see anything wrong with a lower reward for a quick victory. No offense intended, but you wimped out. In reality, you wouldn't just walk into a base and just say, I win. You would have to defend it. Remember, those other mechs are dropped on the planet with you to protect it. They wouldn't just say, oh well, guess they took our base before we got theirs, lets go home and forget the whole fight. Heck no, they'd be charging back to brawl it out with you. It's only the game mechanic that gives you an easy win, so along with that is a game mechanic that gives you fewer points.

Sheeze, they removed the repair costs. Man up, and get more rewards.

[QuantumButler]

Altissimus, on 22 December 2012 - 06:00 AM, said:

So, if I read this right, you are saying that if you are losing the brawl and some of your team breaks off and manages to cap and you turn it into a win, then that's ok.

In other words, you walk in there balls-out all non-subtle, get your *** kicked and run away to cap and that's regarded as fine?

But if you outposition your enemy and cap because they leave a tunnel open or don't utilise their scouts then that's not ok?

Your concept of tactics is not my concept of tactics.

And it's not the dev's concept of tactics either, sorry.

[Altissimus]

QuantumButler, on 22 December 2012 - 06:09 AM, said:

And it's not the dev's concept of tactics either, sorry.

Anything goes. It's war after all. Anything that can be used to defeat your opponent is viable.

If you limit those options, you dumb it down to the level of the common denominator. Great for you, I'm sure. Not so good for those of us who enjoy originality, daring, cunning, and using our initiative.

Be happy with the stone-throwing you have reduced this game too. By simplifying the game to keep people like you happy, it makes it boring for others. It will kill the player base faster than anything, because you reach the point of having "done it all" that much faster. Every game will be the same.

I'm sure this point is lost on you.

[superteds]

Altissimus, on 22 December 2012 - 06:14 AM, said:

Anything goes. It's war after all. Anything that can be used to defeat your opponent is viable.

If you limit those options, you dumb it down to the level of the common denominator. Great for you, I'm sure. Not so good for those of us who enjoy originality, daring, cunning, and using our initiative.

Be happy with the stone-throwing you have reduced this game too. By simplifying the game to keep people like you happy, it makes it boring for others. It will kill the player base faster than anything, because you reach the point of having "done it all" that much faster. Every game will be the same.

I'm sure this point is lost on you.

lol, throw around some more hyperbole please.

[QuantumButler]

Altissimus, on 22 December 2012 - 06:14 AM, said:

Anything goes. It's war after all. Anything that can be used to defeat your opponent is viable.

If you limit those options, you dumb it down to the level of the common denominator. Great for you, I'm sure. Not so good for those of us who enjoy originality, daring, cunning, and using our initiative.

Be happy with the stone-throwing you have reduced this game too. By simplifying the game to keep people like you happy, it makes it boring for others. It will kill the player base faster than anything, because you reach the point of having "done it all" that much faster. Every game will be the same.

I'm sure this point is lost on you.

Oh yes, ECM lag races to the red square are the height of originality, daring, and cunning,. aren't they?

No, ninja capping in fast ecm mechs has no risk, so you get no reward, sorry that you feel your effortless races to the square should be subsidized with fabulous cash prizes, but the devs don't think they should, so continue to cry more.

tl;dr: OP is Mad 'cause bad.

Edited by QuantumButler, 22 December 2012 - 06:18 AM.

[Faceless Priest]

QuantumButler, on 22 December 2012 - 06:17 AM, said:

Oh yes, ECM lag races to the red square are the height of originality, daring, and cunning,. aren't they?

No, ninja capping in fast ecm mechs has no risk, so you get no reward, sorry that you feel your effortless races to the square should be subsidized with fabulous cash prizes, but the devs don't think they should, so continue to cry more.

tl;dr: OP is Mad 'cause bad.

Pretty much spot on how I feel about it. Nothing tactical about 2 sides avoiding each other "without a shot fired" and capping. Now if you are having a big brawl and you risk being a man or 2 down to go cap, while also holding off their lance and 1 or 2 of theirs trying to cap, THAT is tactics. But the whole idea that capping is somehow a superior tactic that should be rewarded more...I just don't see it.

[GioAvanti]

Altissimus, on 22 December 2012 - 04:11 AM, said:

Hey,

I like some of the changes of the new patch & economy: the meritocratic reward structure, the new game modes. I hate the new night map, but hey, that's just me.

What I really want to talk about is how the new reward/incentive system penalises tactical play.

In assault games now, you earn next to nothing for a well-executed tactical win capping the enemy base without firing a shot. Why would you penalise this? This game is not just an arena brawl, it is a tactical game too. Penalising tactical play just makes it into a mob fight.

Similarly, in conquest games now, by far the quickest and easiest way to win is to simply kill the opposition. If they go for caps they split their forces, and dropping on them when they are so split with numerical advantage = easy win. Conversely, there is nothing to be gained for capping (beyond a measley Cbill-per-resource measure) - there is no xp or individual performance for this tactical play, and as it can often cost you the game the reward dividends are significantly lower.

Next, there is no difference in payout between a win and a loss. Even a small difference would make it worthwhile; say, 25k for a loss vs 50k for a win. But right now the only benefit of winning is to get the salvage, and you don't even get that if you win through a tactical base cap in assault.

Lastly, while light mechs are more likely to benefit from a spotting bonus, this doesn't come close to making up for the damage payout that other mechs get. While well-played light mechs can top the table, this is a rarity not a given. Light mechs usually come second to assaults, despite the fact that playing a light mech is a FAR more skillful endeavour than a point-and-click Stalker.


Tl;DR

Rewards should incentivise a range of plays. Right now, the ONLY way to earn decent cbills is to blast the crap out of the other team. Far from adding new game modes, this new patch has effectively served to limit the tactical options of the game to...one.


Fixes:

• More Cbills for winning vs losing
  
• Significant cbill addition for capping wins in Assault matches
  
• Significant individual capping win assist in Assault matches
  
• Reward a "capping assist" bonus in personal cbills/xp as a proportion of individual resource earned in Conquest matches (this incentivises individual capping)
  
• Significantly increase Conquest resource bonus (this incentivises team capping, and increases the strategic value of capping in conquest)
  
• Slightly increase spotting bonus xp and cbills, to balance light mech rewards

The above would rebalance the tactical elements of this game, because incentives direclty influence behaviour.






A.

Because we don't play a mech game to stand in a red circle.... it also doesn't take a rocket surgeon to sneak into an enemy base (its not good tactical play).

Edited by GioAvanti, 22 December 2012 - 06:24 AM.

[Critical Fumble]

Altissimus, on 22 December 2012 - 06:00 AM, said:

So, if I read this right, you are saying that if you are losing the brawl and some of your team breaks off and manages to cap and you turn it into a win, then that's ok.

In other words, you walk in there balls-out all non-subtle, get your *** kicked and run away to cap and that's regarded as fine?

But if you outposition your enemy and cap because they leave a tunnel open or don't utilize their scouts then that's not ok?

Your concept of tactics is not my concept of tactics.

He's saying he wants more pew-pew in his matches, and all eight players going on full stealth mode to the cap does not allow for that. I agree with him on the point of a sudden no-shot cap being less fun; But I'd rather the game information interface was more robust, the cap mechanics were less silly, and players learned how to counter those maneuvers rather than the devs deciding that only fighting should be rewarded. A further time invested=more rewards as well as a small multiplier for winning is in order.

On the fence opinion here: wouldn't a 6:2 team split, with all eight initially feeling out for the enemy, then the six engaging while the two snuck around and started capping be the right tactical decision, rather than risking all eight of the enemy rolling down on you while you're clustered together?

[GioAvanti]

Altissimus, on 22 December 2012 - 06:00 AM, said:

So, if I read this right, you are saying that if you are losing the brawl and some of your team breaks off and manages to cap and you turn it into a win, then that's ok.

In other words, you walk in there balls-out all non-subtle, get your *** kicked and run away to cap and that's regarded as fine?

But if you outposition your enemy and cap because they leave a tunnel open or don't utilise their scouts then that's not ok?

Your concept of tactics is not my concept of tactics.

You don't have a concept of tactics. /thread

[Altissimus]

You lot are complaining because you have frequently lost to other people running rings around you, because your charge down the middle was ignored like the dumb move it is.

Well congratulations, you've got the game you want. And it's ****.

[Sarevos]

Altissimus, on 22 December 2012 - 06:49 AM, said:

You lot are complaining because you have frequently lost to other people running rings around you, because your charge down the middle was ignored like the dumb move it is.

Well congratulations, you've got the game you want. And it's ****.

a comment sir, from the peanut gallery:

MechWARRIOR online...

That is all...

[Ice Storm]

I understand your view and agree on some points. Following however is my view on the subject. My understanding is that the assault game mode is for exactly that... assault As such they have chosen to reward that style, as people playing assault does not neccisarily want to worry too much about finer tactics. Conquest on the other hand is for exactly the kind of tactical play you are talking about (sort of). the idea with conquest as I understand it is for players who play more strategically. It is however built in a way to combat quick wins and requires actual thinking kind of play. That is the idea behind it in any case (as I understand it).

So with the two game modes, they try to accomodate for the two diffferent kinds of players. Is it prfect? No and by no means are you EVER gonna get everyone happy, but they do try. they leave the choice up to you what kind of gae you want to play. I suspect that the game mechaninc will most probably change again (and possibly more than once), this being a beta.

I do agree that a strategic play style should be rewarded, but more possibly by tweaking conquest. Assault is made for the brawlers and the devs made it clear with the changes.

That is about what I want to say on the topic

[Kaboodle]

As someone else did bring up, a tactical win is fine, but the logic behind standing in a square for 1minute suddenly disarms 8 walking tanks of an enemy force, does not compute. You can get the free win from a ninja cap, it's still MUCH faster than fighting, so your cbills/hr is about the same or higher if you pull it off repeatedly. Is it the free cbill farm that it was? No, and that's a good thing. You can still use it to pad your win/loss stats if you wish, or use "Base is being captured" as a way to draw off parts of the enemy force from the front line. But no, just because a badly designed mode has a badly designed objective, doesn't mean you should get full rewards for exploiting it for a quick win.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

QuantumButler, on 22 December 2012 - 05:06 AM, said:

The simple fact is the so called "well executed tactical win" is actually not the right way to play the game.

"well executed tactical win" is actually not the right way to play the tactical team oriented game