73 replies to this topic

[Esplodin]

MischiefSC, on 11 February 2013 - 01:53 PM, said:

The point though is that if your platoon occupies a goat farm while in the middle of a massive military engagement does the enemy instantly surrender, even if they were winning?

That goat farm could be the evac point for civies hold up at the embasy which the main force is assaulting. Or it could be your part of long range recon watching the invasion route for enemy entrenchment. Maybe your CO pissed of the brass. You are still in a goat pen in the middle of goat fsk nowhere looking at smelly poo, but are in effect a very crucial piece to the whole operation. You take it seriously because you may NEVER know if your actions will save lives or further the mission. You do it because your a $Deity D4med professional 4ss-kicker and won't let other soldiers and civies down because the mission is beneath you. Suck it up and drive on.

Use your imagination rather then your QQ gl4nd because the maps aren't changing anytime soon. I'd rather PGI spends resources on making reusable textures to crank out more maps then one a month rather then fiddle with something that works passably well. I want to so see what they have planned for community warfare then spend the time endlessly fiddling with stuff that may not matter in the long run.

* gl4nd is censored? - lol

Edited by Esplodin, 11 February 2013 - 02:26 PM.

[operator0]

Peter von Danzig, on 11 February 2013 - 10:48 AM, said:

You know that you are quoting two different people, do you?

No. Apparently Omni got me so pissed off I missed it. I apologize.

[Peter von Danzig]

operator0, on 11 February 2013 - 02:29 PM, said:

No. Apparently Omni got me so pissed off I missed it. I apologize.

everything's cool

Edited by Peter von Danzig, 11 February 2013 - 02:33 PM.

[M4NTiC0R3X]

a warning sign hates to say it told 'ya so?

Edited by M4NTiC0R3X, 11 February 2013 - 02:37 PM.

[Joseph Mallan]

MischiefSC, on 11 February 2013 - 01:59 PM, said:

I feel like I'm not getting my point across. The problem is that the 'strategy and tactics' this engender are complete crap. The whole design eliminates the value of using true complicated tactics because one light can insta-win no matter what else you do. If he does manage to flank you for an advantageous position Betty warns you.

Insta win implies that as soon as the light get there they win. How does going back to Your base stop you from using Tactics or strategy? It may stop your PLAN, but to stop the cap you need to do something, How will you stop the Cap? Send a Light or fast medium? Can you hold the line with the loss of one Mech or should you fall back to a better position? Should you pull back you flanking party to make up for the loss of the Base party.

Sounds like a bunch of strategic & tactical choices to be made... quickly, or you will be capped! No you are not making you point. Someone tries to take your stuff, you have to stop them or you have nothing to complain about. Every Base cap I stopped ended in a fight. SO if you want to fight the enemy and they are on your base... Why are you protesting when you should be going to the fight?

[MischiefSC]

Esplodin, on 11 February 2013 - 02:25 PM, said:

That goat farm could be the evac point for civies hold up at the embasy which the main force is assaulting. Or it could be your part of long range recon watching the invasion route for enemy entrenchment. Maybe your CO pissed of the brass. You are still in a goat pen in the middle of goat fsk nowhere looking at smelly poo, but are in effect a very crucial piece to the whole operation. You take it seriously because you may NEVER know if your actions will save lives or further the mission. You do it because your a $Deity D4med professional 4ss-kicker and won't let other soldiers and civies down because the mission is beneath you. Suck it up and drive on.

Use your imagination rather then your QQ gl4nd because the maps aren't changing anytime soon. I'd rather PGI spends resources on making reusable textures to crank out more maps then one a month rather then fiddle with something that works passably well. I want to so see what they have planned for community warfare then spend the time endlessly fiddling with stuff that may not matter in the long run.

* gl4nd is censored? - lol

So, holding the goat farm though, does it instantly win the whole war? Does the enemy pack up and go home?

If it did then doesn't you standing on the goat farm become more tactically relevant than anything else?

That's the whole entire point. This isn't about QQing. New maps are being made as we speak. 12v12 is counting on them. Bigger ones in fact. Giving feedback on mechanics is, in fact, exactly what you should be doing. Is your feedback 'base capture mechanics for Assault are exactly perfect. Do every map just like that' or do you have an opinion related to its change?

Base capture *for victory* mechanics are bad. The reduce tactical flexibility and depth not increase it. They create an 'I WIN!' button that trumps all other tactics. That's why they're popular in games like CoD, there isn't any other tactical depth to the game. It's also why most shooters have moved away from it as a concept because it gimps richer tactical play.

New maps are being created. New game modes and the like. If you think the current system is perfect and promotes tactical interaction then, well, great. I don't. I'm making and defending my point. To be fair I'm not sure what you've brought up, aside from some passing ad hominem, to dispute it.

Is your point that the current base mechanic is more tactically diverse than something, just about anything else would be? Or is it simply that you don't care and want something else to be higher up the list? I get that you're attempting to defend the current system in place. I'm asking why after I've put forward my reason for something else.

[MischiefSC]

Joseph Mallan, on 11 February 2013 - 02:39 PM, said:

Insta win implies that as soon as the light get there they win. How does going back to Your base stop you from using Tactics or strategy? It may stop your PLAN, but to stop the cap you need to do something, How will you stop the Cap? Send a Light or fast medium? Can you hold the line with the loss of one Mech or should you fall back to a better position? Should you pull back you flanking party to make up for the loss of the Base party.

Sounds like a bunch of strategic & tactical choices to be made... quickly, or you will be capped! No you are not making you point. Someone tries to take your stuff, you have to stop them or you have nothing to complain about. Every Base cap I stopped ended in a fight. SO if you want to fight the enemy and they are on your base... Why are you protesting when you should be going to the fight?

My point is that this strategy trumps all other strategy and tactics in the game. It's a 'succeed at this simple task and you win' mechanic. What it really means is that smart play would involve just fortifying your own base position and sending 1 light out to hide and wait for the enemy to leave their base, then try to cap it. In terms of strategy this really does trump everything else save possibly the big favorite...

everyone get in a big blob and run at the enemy base because the first one to get the most people to the other teams base wins.

The reason nobody does this is that it isn't fun. You've created a situation where the most effective tactic to win is also the least enjoyable. This tactical interplay is in turn defied by the players desire to actually have fun.

Do you see where I'm going? You've created a metagame conflict for in game tactics. Playing at either defending your base from cap or charging the enemy base to cap is about the least enjoyable way to play so nobody wants to, but conversely if you don't you're going to lose and nobody likes to lose.

A better design is a situation where the tactics for winning are enjoyable.

Edited by MischiefSC, 11 February 2013 - 02:51 PM.

[JohnnyC]

I try and discourage my teammates from capping unless the one enemy remaining mech just goes into hiding. They don't always listen.

I especially hate the rounds when the enemy or some of my teammates base rush and I don't have time enough to actually get into a fire fight... which is the main reason I play. I prefer mech battles, not base rushing (which doesn't make much sense to me anyway).

I usually leave my launch button on "Any" gametype until I run into a base rush... then I'll switch it to conquest only to avoid running into another one.

[Esplodin]

Look - its what we got, like it or not. B1tching here (and it is BTW) will get you nothing. You want to make suggestions for game improvements to get a better product? There is a suggestions forum. This ain't it. You might even find a thread from me on this very topic.

Condition for win:
Capture base
Kill all enemy

In that order I might add. Strategy takes into account what you got, not what you'd like to have. Tactics involve more than robot smash. Use your imagination and find a reason for it to be plausible, JUST LIKE YOU DID FOR 100 TON ROBOTS.

Edited by Esplodin, 11 February 2013 - 03:07 PM.

[Errant Variable]

Every game I've dropped in today has been cut short by a small premade (usually Marik scum) ignoring everything and running around the back way to quick cap. This was upsetting, until it struck me that the other team was letting atlases and Stalkers lolcap, at which point what are you going to do?

[MischiefSC]

Suggestions have already been made. I absolutely get that the game is in Beta and as such is currently balancing core metrics before it builds out on things like tactics, strategy and map design. I'm posting here because the whole topic here is in fact debating the subject and I'm pretty firm in my belief that the base capping aspect of the Assault maps does NOT qualify as 'tactical genius'. In fact it is the mechanic inhibiting more tactical gameplay.

Tactics are all about 'robot smash'. With what, at what range and how to smash them more than they smash you. Trying to reduce that down to 'rock 'em sock 'em robots' isn't a very legitimate argument given that it's the focus of the game. Or are you saying that the focus is to avoid shooting each other and trying to pull off a base cap? Is that the goal of Assault? Are you saying thats the idea the Devs had in mind when making the map and game type?

Again, I totally get that it's what we have and for now in the game development process and that there's a lot more higher on the list. Just please don't try to say that base capping in Assault is some cunning tactical exercise that ups the caliber of Assault matches. It's a kludgey mechanic more designed to keep people from hiding and powering down to be a jerk than add tactical depth and its end result is inhibiting complicated tactics, not promoting them.

I also accept and apologize that my original responses were more critical than they needed to be of the game and as someone who likes MWO (which I reasonably assume both you and I are) it's going to make you feel defensive of MWO, even if you don't particularly agree with the capping mechanic itself. I'd just finished 32 back to back matches full of the sort of people and events that.... well, don't show the game in its best light. That's totally my fault and as I said I apologize for it.

I still stick to my point though. Capping in Assault reduces the quality and caliber of tactics and strategy in matches, not deepens them.

Esplodin, on 11 February 2013 - 02:58 PM, said:

Look - its what we got, like it or not. B1tching here (and it is BTW) will get you nothing. You want to make suggestions for game improvements to get a better product? There is a suggestions forum. This ain't it. You might even find a thread from me on this very topic.

Condition for win:
Capture base
Kill all enemy

In that order I might add. Strategy takes into account what you got, not what you'd like to have. Tactics involve more than robot smash. Use your imagination and find a reason for it to be plausible, JUST LIKE YOU DID FOR 100 TON ROBOTS.

[Esplodin]

MischiefSC, on 11 February 2013 - 02:45 PM, said:

So, holding the goat farm though, does it instantly win the whole war? Does the enemy pack up and go home?

Who says that winning the map also wins whatever conflict we dropped for? Maybe the drop ships will have enough additional firepower to make whatever remaining enemy lances turn tail. Use your imagination. I've given you plenty of ideas that help with suspension of disbelief, and I'm sure there are hundreds more.

MischiefSC, on 11 February 2013 - 02:45 PM, said:

Base capture *for victory* mechanics are bad. The reduce tactical flexibility and depth not increase it. They create an 'I WIN!' button that trumps all other tactics.

Please explain to me why your strategy does not include contingencies for one of the win conditions. That seems like a glaring strategic error. Much nicer to have a plan to ROTFSTOMP cappers, no? Besider having two ways to win (defend AND smash) increases strategic and tactical options. I for one get sick of cauldera peek a boo and frozen city dropship camping (why oh pugs WHY?!?) teams that ignore EVERYTHING else on the map just to get to robot smash. You advocate for more of that.

MischiefSC, on 11 February 2013 - 02:45 PM, said:

I get that you're attempting to defend the current system in place. I'm asking why after I've put forward my reason for something else.

Because your reasoning is not sound, convincing, and wrong. Defending your base is part of the objectives. Community warfare when it is released may make the game dynamics, both current and as you proposed, moot. I'd rather have PGI spend time polishing CW then fiddle with a minor problem at best. Seriously, it is not that much of a problem.

[Gaan Cathal]

You do realise you could just stay at your base? Let them blunder into your guns, 10-1 they'll have assumed you've looped them
before they get to you, and probably lost a few of the rather-loose-fighting-than-win-by-cap guys to trying to find you.

[MischiefSC]

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

Who says that winning the map also wins whatever conflict we dropped for? Maybe the drop ships will have enough additional firepower to make whatever remaining enemy lances turn tail. Use your imagination. I've given you plenty of ideas that help with suspension of disbelief, and I'm sure there are hundreds more.



Please explain to me why your strategy does not include contingencies for one of the win conditions. That seems like a glaring strategic error. Much nicer to have a plan to ROTFSTOMP cappers, no? Besider having two ways to win (defend AND smash) increases strategic and tactical options. I for one get sick of cauldera peek a boo and frozen city dropship camping (why oh pugs WHY?!?) teams that ignore EVERYTHING else on the map just to get to robot smash. You advocate for more of that.



Because your reasoning is not sound, convincing, and wrong. Defending your base is part of the objectives. Community warfare when it is released may make the game dynamics, both current and as you proposed, moot. I'd rather have PGI spend time polishing CW then fiddle with a minor problem at best. Seriously, it is not that much of a problem.

Firstly, I pug. This means that the whole team I drop with is going to play at best to general plans. Given that most the players in the game are pugs this means that most the players in the game have this same limitation. Any strategy that involves 'do something less enjoyable' has a lot of limitations. My other option is to drop in a light or fast medium in order to chase off cappers. This is an even bigger problem with pug drops since that probably means the whole team in the field will have no ECM.

The reason pugs end up out in ROBOT SMASH! is that every pug I've played with hates capping. It's not why they're playing. However, capping is the ubersupervictory trump card so the most effective pugging technique is 'blob, go to enemy base, fight if you see them or cap if you don't'. Remove capping from the process and you give room for richer tactical deployment and role selection. When capping trumps all other tactics it effectively makes all other tactics pointless.

So you put pugs in a position of having to either play the least enjoyable role (capping/base sitting) or stick with the blob and hope for some combat. Any wonder that's all that happens?

Remove the base capping mechanic and let people focus on the tactics of the conflict itself. Most strategic position, flank defense, etc. Let pugs play the game for what they're playing it for and make winning tactics the fun tactics. Want to add secondary objectives that influence score? Awesome.

Base capping though trumps all other tactics and thus becomes the only tactic to play to. Most often when I'm in a pure pug team and the 'your base is under attack' message shows up most of my team just charges, hoping to get some damage or a kill in before the game ins. Win/loss is irrelevant. It's a brief message that pops showing stats in between battles. The capping mechanic creates that by making the win/loss mechanic less enjoyable than the combat mechanic.