123 replies to this topic

[Critical Fumble]

I personally don't have a beef with the capture mechanics. I've been base capped and said, "Oh, well"; and I've base capped and found it amusing. I did make a suggestion thread about it after seeing the rage increase after capping rewards were mostly removed, but it sunk pretty quickly. Apparently, though, most people are only interested in discussing it in terms of "Its fine, you're the one who can't play", "Take caps out", or "Leave capping in but make it impossible to do".

My basic points were:

• Its harder to recon and share info than it is to sneak. This makes it easy to group up and advance, but hard to alert your team to respond to it.
  
• The base is a match ending aspect on the map. However, its as difficult to defend as it is to take.

[Red3]

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.

You do realize the only reason its first on the list is because its in alphabeticle order right? Capture, Destroy, get it?

But if you find it more fun to stand in a box instead of blasting giant robots into slag metal, well it doesn't bother me much.

[JPsi]

(not a cap rusher here)
Team Deathmatch gets stupidly boring. Something better than it is needed. Hey blowing big robots to bits is nice, but sometimes players want a purpose to it. (Immersion)
Both conquest and assault modes suffer from this.
Give us a better mechanic than capping. Make the base something that players would tangibly want to defend and not just some patch of ground thats there for no reason. Multiple different mechanics and methods of doing this that are available. Things like have bases providing some kind of support for example or things that physically need to be blown up.

If you want to avoid cap rushes, design the mechanic so players want to defend.

Edited by JPsi, 03 February 2013 - 11:13 PM.

[Tarman]

Until such time as a TDM mode is officially rolled out, it does not exist. Playing TDM on a map with a capture mechanic will continue to be a tactic with an exploitable flaw. You don't have to love or hate TDM to know that playing it on a map that doesn't support it will cost you some matches, simple as that. When there's a TDM mode then people can be upset about folks not engaging in combat since there won't be another option to the gameplay. This is not yet that time.

[Mystere]

Tarman, on 03 February 2013 - 11:15 PM, said:

Until such time as a TDM mode is officially rolled out ...

TDM is fine and dandy but ...

I want a 16+ no-holds-barred last-man-standing winner-take-all game mode.

[The Cheese]

Ok, I probably should have started this with "Assault mode tries to be equally objective based and combat based, but in doing so waters down both, let's split it into two seperate game types", but I'm not holding my breath for a new match type at this stage.

If I had my way, I'd create a pure TDM mode and call it "Seek and Destroy" or something (because god forbid we have an arcade-ish name), modify Assault to have only one base, then call it a day.

JPsi, on 03 February 2013 - 11:11 PM, said:

(not a cap rusher here)
Team Deathmatch gets stupidly boring. Something better than it is needed. Hey blowing big robots to bits is nice, but sometimes players want a purpose to it. (Immersion)
Both conquest and assault modes suffer from this.

Agreed, but there are a lot of players out there who just want to blow up other big robots. I'm saying that those people should be able to play that game.

Edited by The Cheese, 03 February 2013 - 11:33 PM.

[shintakie]

Mystere, on 03 February 2013 - 11:20 PM, said:

TDM is fine and dandy but ...

I want a 16+ no-holds-barred last-man-standing winner-take-all game mode.

That'd be kinda fun actually. On the spot alliances. Lasers/missiles/ballistics flyin everywhere. The inevitable betrayal.

[Dragonkindred]

Just reduce the speed of capping in Assault and (as has been said) limit the number of mechs that can assist in a cap.

[Tarman]

shintakie, on 03 February 2013 - 11:29 PM, said:

That'd be kinda fun actually. On the spot alliances. Lasers/missiles/ballistics flyin everywhere. The inevitable betrayal.

Solaris. Solaris is good stuff. It will be a good mode if PGI can get to a point where game modes are a priority again.

[JPsi]

The Cheese, on 03 February 2013 - 11:28 PM, said:

Agreed, but there are a lot of players out there who just want to blow up other big robots. I'm saying that those people should be able to play that game.

I agree with that, hence the repeated suggestion I've made of a Solaris type arena. Could accomodate TDM, FFA and variations. I believe somewhere a dev stated they like the idea of Solaris but its not on the priority list.

Unfortunately what we have now, feels to me like trying too hard to please too many with the current gamemodes. I honestly haven't been able to think of a way that will accomodate both sides of this discussion.

[GalaxyBluestar]

JPsi, on 03 February 2013 - 11:11 PM, said:

(not a cap rusher here)
Team Deathmatch gets stupidly boring. Something better than it is needed. Hey blowing big robots to bits is nice, but sometimes players want a purpose to it. (Immersion)
Both conquest and assault modes suffer from this.
Give us a better mechanic than capping. Make the base something that players would tangibly want to defend and not just some patch of ground thats there for no reason. Multiple different mechanics and methods of doing this that are available. Things like have bases providing some kind of support for example or things that physically need to be blown up.

If you want to avoid cap rushes, design the mechanic so players want to defend.

good idea if the base building acted like a resource clock and the more damage it took the slower the clock ticks up then perhaps people would want to win by base destruction and/or base productivity beats the other team to a certain amount of resources, would that inspire more seige and defence play or wuld we still get blob on blob brawls? proberbly brawls.

solaris? yeah it's good but i'd hold it otherwise we'd have people on forums going "no ones playing conquest now, pgi split the player base the fools!" etc etc.

Edited by GalaxyBluestar, 03 February 2013 - 11:44 PM.

[Mystere]

shintakie, on 03 February 2013 - 11:29 PM, said:

That'd be kinda fun actually. On the spot alliances. Lasers/missiles/ballistics flyin everywhere. The inevitable betrayal.

You are absolutely spot on. Treachery and betrayal are precisely what I am ultimately looking for.

Alternatively, I might just sit it out from a comfortable distance while the carnage takes place, then swoop in when the survivors are all battered and close to death.

Machiavelli would be very proud either way.

Edited by Mystere, 03 February 2013 - 11:47 PM.

[Khanahar]

My vote goes for base cap being disabled until X number of 'mechs have been destroyed. So it becomes a way to end matches if one side hides, but is generally not an effective way to end a game.

[Baltasar]

Khanahar, on 04 February 2013 - 12:02 AM, said:

My vote goes for base cap being disabled until X number of 'mechs have been destroyed. So it becomes a way to end matches if one side hides, but is generally not an effective way to end a game.

Assault mode is not meant to be just a convenient way to "end a match". Its part of your mission so to speak...seek out and destroy the other team, or capture their base, while making sure you base doesn't get captured in the process (I mean after all if you haven't lost 4 mechs then you should have 1 or 2 to spare to prevent your base from being captured). Again, refer to the DEFENDING YOUR BASE, clause of the mode. There are viable tactics that are given that people just won't listen to but wish to change a game mode because they don't want to learn to play with that type of mission set. As I said earlier, there is a simple way to make sure your base doesn't get captured and is not that hard to implement.

1. Instead of charging ahead as soon as the start up clock hits zero, send a fairly fast mech to quickly discern where the enemy is moving.

2. Once you know where the enemy is going either:
a. Move to meet the enemy head on, or
b. Set up a defensive position to receive enemy contact.

These are very basic tactics that can be used to easily prevent your base from being captured. The capping speed is fine on the base. If you can't get back to your base in time then its the price you pay for 1. Not responding to your base being attacked at the get go, or 2. over extending and letting your base fall to the enemy.

Now there are more advanced tactics that you can use on the maps but that generally requires a lot more communication and coordination. But, if you stick to the basics, you can still have a big stompy death match without losing your base in the process. If you don't defend your base then you deserve the loss.

[Robin Wolf]

What Baltasar said.

It would be nice to have a mode with one base, 1 side assaulting and the other defending. Since we don't have it, current mode is fine.

[The Cheese]

Baltasar, on 04 February 2013 - 12:46 AM, said:

Assault mode is not meant to be just a convenient way to "end a match". Its part of your mission so to speak...seek out and destroy the other team, or capture their base, while making sure you base doesn't get captured in the process (I mean after all if you haven't lost 4 mechs then you should have 1 or 2 to spare to prevent your base from being captured). Again, refer to the DEFENDING YOUR BASE, clause of the mode. There are viable tactics that are given that people just won't listen to but wish to change a game mode because they don't want to learn to play with that type of mission set. As I said earlier, there is a simple way to make sure your base doesn't get captured and is not that hard to implement.

1. Instead of charging ahead as soon as the start up clock hits zero, send a fairly fast mech to quickly discern where the enemy is moving.

2. Once you know where the enemy is going either:
a. Move to meet the enemy head on, or
b. Set up a defensive position to receive enemy contact.

These are very basic tactics that can be used to easily prevent your base from being captured. The capping speed is fine on the base. If you can't get back to your base in time then its the price you pay for 1. Not responding to your base being attacked at the get go, or 2. over extending and letting your base fall to the enemy.

Now there are more advanced tactics that you can use on the maps but that generally requires a lot more communication and coordination. But, if you stick to the basics, you can still have a big stompy death match without losing your base in the process. If you don't defend your base then you deserve the loss.

Again, I don't think you see what I'm saying. If a team loses because they didn't respond to a cap attempt in time, that's just the way that match goes. What I'm trying to say is that the base rush, where both teams are encouraged (and yes, the current game does encourage it) to rush each others bases without even trying to defend, is a bad thing for everyone.

What you've said is all fine, but, as has been said, there are many people who don't want to play that game. That game is not going to happen unless your team has reasonable communication and coordination. For a pug match to have that is a rare thing, and I don't think they should be required to have it. I'm not calling for a dumbing down of the game mode. I'm calling for a game mode that's more suitable for randoms to jump into and have some fun by blowing things up. I feel that base rushing takes away from that.

We're going around in circles now, but the basic idea is that the game will do better if it has something to suit everyone's desired play style.

Edited by The Cheese, 04 February 2013 - 02:06 AM.

[Taizan]

Mystere, on 03 February 2013 - 07:58 PM, said:

I have said it before and will say it again: I cap to win and to p1ss people off. The countless QQ threads like this one show that it is working extremely well.

Also, do you want Assault to turn into TDM? Then why not establish positions near your base and defend it. It's really as simple as that.

Are you one of those guys that spam "All cap base!" in chat 10x? Yeah they do **** me off. Most boring way to win (or most of the time loose because everyone is walking single file into enemy line of fire).

[Kobold]

The Cheese, on 03 February 2013 - 07:14 PM, said:

That way, the game play is pushed towards a more 'true' TDM style

This is not a good thing. Save that for Solaris.

I have come around on some ideas, one of them is respawns. I'd rather see reinforcements, with winner (and commensurate rewards) decided ONLY by objectives, not by just encouraging people to fight to the death. It is absurd to me that players actively try to discourage other players from achieving the objectives.

[Wizard Steve]

If you don't like base rushes, just select Conquest-only mode. The fire-fights in conquest tend to be far more aggressive than in assault and even if the game does end in a capture, it typically only happens after seven of the enemy team are dead. In assault, the capture mechanic promotes non-engagement. In conquest, it's the other way around.

[Chrithu]

Oh today we have baserush day again?

All I have to add to that discussion:

Base rushes don't happen even half as often as some of the drama queens in these forums make it appear.

During the approximately 100 matches I've played in the last 7 days I remember exactly ONE occurence of a serious baserush. Any other attack on the base I have whitnessed were distraction attacks by a single light, or caps to end an already won game (last enemy light mech hiding).

For any of my other thoughts on the topic take what the guys from Murphys Law are posting or seek out the other 100 threads about the topic.

Edited by Jason Parker, 04 February 2013 - 04:26 AM.