123 replies to this topic

[Baltasar]

shintakie, on 03 February 2013 - 08:36 PM, said:

If anythin they need add the incentive to cap back in to Assault. As it is the only actual reason the cap seems to exist is to end a match when someone runs off and hides. Sometimes you get the nice come from behind win where you're down 5 people and you win because your opponents didn't defend their base, but other than that? Meh.

Even if you do win via cap you get practically nothin for it aside from denyin your opponents salvage.

^^^^This.

I was sad when they took the cap rewards away.

[Ihasa]

I hate River City Night so much I would just prefer it be over right away; therefore base rush whenever I have a say. Other maps, not so much.

[Baltasar]

On a more serious note though, and I know this has been suggested before, I think it would be better if assault had just one base. One group defends the other attacks. This would be more inline, imo, of the battle tech novels where you actually had one group attacking a planet and trying to take over a base.

[The Cheese]

shintakie, on 03 February 2013 - 08:36 PM, said:

As it is the only actual reason the cap seems to exist is to end a match when someone runs off and hides.

Exactly as it should be.

Baltasar, on 03 February 2013 - 08:42 PM, said:

On a more serious note though, and I know this has been suggested before, I think it would be better if assault had just one base. One group defends the other attacks.

+1.

[Mystere]

Baltasar, on 03 February 2013 - 08:42 PM, said:

On a more serious note though, and I know this has been suggested before, I think it would be better if assault had just one base. One group defends the other attacks. This would be more inline, imo, of the battle tech novels where you actually had one group attacking a planet and trying to take over a base.

Or we could have this as a new game mode called "Siege" with 2:1 or 3:2 odds. The attackers have the advantage of numbers while the defenders have well built or natural fortifications.

Edited by Mystere, 03 February 2013 - 08:51 PM.

[Baltasar]

Mystere, on 03 February 2013 - 08:49 PM, said:

Or we could have this as a new game mode called "Siege" with 2:1 or 3:2 odds.

Sounds interesting enough

[shintakie]

The Cheese, on 03 February 2013 - 08:48 PM, said:

Exactly as it should be.

Until such a time comes that the first objective shown in an Assault match is not cap the enemy base I will continue to ignore people who think that cappin shouldn't be anythin other than a why the heck not option.

[Op4blushift]

Mystere, on 03 February 2013 - 08:49 PM, said:

Or we could have this as a new game mode called "Siege" with 2:1 or 3:2 odds. The attackers have the advantage of numbers while the defenders have well built or natural fortifications.

That would be cool, although I think they would probably need to add a little more than just fortifications, probably some AI controlled turrets or something?

[The Cheese]

shintakie, on 03 February 2013 - 08:50 PM, said:

Until such a time comes that the first objective shown in an Assault match is not cap the enemy base I will continue to ignore people who think that cappin shouldn't be anythin other than a why the heck not option.

The question isn't to ask whether the base cap is an objective. The question to ask is "is it fun to play with or against a base rush?"

[ZealotTheFallen]

Well i will be happy to say winning at this time means absolutely nothing as records again will be reset to obtain true numbers that are not inflated by the disconnectors to save thier k/d ratio, so why not try and get better at driving and fighting then running to cap in assualt mode, makes absolutely no sense now. we will see who actually can play soon enough but, As mentioned above and i also see new players everyday. Suggestion when you see few founders in a match talk to other team and actually take a minute and let the new players move around shoot ask a few questions you have 15 minutes first 5 could be warmup for the new folks make it fun but of coarse the number of immature asshats that dont give a crap about other players has become so high that im just wasting my time here.

[shintakie]

The Cheese, on 03 February 2013 - 08:55 PM, said:

The question isn't to ask whether the base cap is an objective. The question to ask is "is it fun to play with or against a base rush?"

And I say yes it is fun. Why? Because it adds somethin extra to what otherwise would be a borin TDM. Fast mechs can serve more of a purpose than simply bein scouts. It actually gives people an incentive to play tactically and defend their base instead of blindly runnin forward with the mob. Not only that but it actually allows a team to come back from a really terrible loss and win if their opponents weren't smart enough to send people to defend when the big base is being captured warnin shows up on their screen.

[The Cheese]

shintakie, on 03 February 2013 - 09:12 PM, said:

And I say yes it is fun. Why? Because it adds somethin extra to what otherwise would be a borin TDM. Fast mechs can serve more of a purpose than simply bein scouts. It actually gives people an incentive to play tactically and defend their base instead of blindly runnin forward with the mob. Not only that but it actually allows a team to come back from a really terrible loss and win if their opponents weren't smart enough to send people to defend when the big base is being captured warnin shows up on their screen.

I'm not sure you're getting what I mean by "base rush". What you're talking about seems to be using the base tactically. That is not a bad thing. What I'm talking about is ignoring opponents entirely and going to cap the enemy base because it's a far more reliable tactic than trying to stop them from capping yours. I see that as a bad thing.

Personally, I'd have the bases removed entirely. I know that isn't going to happen though. The maps we have aren't big enough and the bases not far enough apart.

Edited by The Cheese, 03 February 2013 - 09:33 PM.

[Xigunder Blue]

One of the easiest ways to reduce base capping is to increase the time it takes to cap a base in all circumstances. Reduces the problem to some extent for now.

[Mystere]

Xigunder Blue, on 03 February 2013 - 09:30 PM, said:

One of the easiest ways to reduce base capping is to increase the time it takes to cap a base in all circumstances. Reduces the problem to some extent for now.

Sigh! For the Nth time, the game mode is called "Assault" and not "Team Death Match". As such, why not let the enemy ASSAULT your base while you defend it? Is it really that difficult to comprehend?

Or let me put it another way. By doing what I suggested above, you have, in one nice package( ):

• assault
  
• defense/siege
  
• TEAM DEATH MATCH (Hurray!!!)

Or did I just confuse people even more?

Edited by Mystere, 03 February 2013 - 10:06 PM.

[thegimp73]

I think some changes to the cap mechanics would help with this alot. I know people don't like comparisons to WOT but I think there cap mechanics work better. Max of 4 people can cap at a time any more than that doesn't apply to cap speed, and damaging mechs on the cap will reset that mechs cap amount.

[dario03]

I've been wondering if they are going to add mismatched teams too. Like maybe in CW the maps will have a advantage to the defending team and the assaulting team has more mechs or if games become Clan vs IS will IS teams get more mechs?

Mystere, on 03 February 2013 - 08:20 PM, said:

For Pete's sake, why not just keep things simple and defend your base?

For Petes sake, what is with this site and not wanting to discuss ideas about changes? Every time someone makes a thread about changing something a bunch of people have to come in and complain about simple suggestions. Seriously your post adds nothing because everybody already knows that defending the base is a option. The OP wanted suggestions not a bunch of people stating the obvious with a bunch of l2p type posts.

[Mystere]

dario03, on 03 February 2013 - 10:19 PM, said:

For Petes sake, what is with this site and not wanting to discuss ideas about changes? ...

Why? Because this thread, and the countless ones just like it, want "Assault" to become "Team Death Match". So instead of creating a whole bunch of threads on the very same topic, why not just ask PGI to ADD such a game mode?

Edited by Mystere, 03 February 2013 - 10:35 PM.

[ShadowDarter]

DEFEND YOUR BASE!!

[WhatTheWho]

So you must pug I see......

[shintakie]

The Cheese, on 03 February 2013 - 09:29 PM, said:

I'm not sure you're getting what I mean by "base rush". What you're talking about seems to be using the base tactically. That is not a bad thing. What I'm talking about is ignoring opponents entirely and going to cap the enemy base because it's a far more reliable tactic than trying to stop them from capping yours. I see that as a bad thing.

Personally, I'd have the bases removed entirely. I know that isn't going to happen though. The maps we have aren't big enough and the bases not far enough apart.

In that case, yes it is still fun. Why? Because it breaks up the monotony of TDM. At least when I base rush I feel like I can contribute somethin in a Jenner outside of bein fodder for ECM Ravens and ECM Commandos.