304 replies to this topic

[jay35]

There needs to be a proper TDM game mode so everyone can choose what game mode they want to play and will be happy.

Edited by jay35, 13 February 2013 - 11:20 AM.

[Grand Ayatollah Kerensky]

I like capping because pubbies hate it. My absolute favorite is capping out the enemy team when they have nearly won the round. The rage it causes is something to behold.

[Jman5]

jay35, on 13 February 2013 - 11:19 AM, said:

There needs to be a proper TDM game mode so everyone can choose what game mode they want to play and will be happy.

Enjoy your 15 minute long games of find the shut down spider.

[IceSerpent]

Tichorius Davion, on 13 February 2013 - 11:11 AM, said:

I only hate capping when teams just switch sides and the game ends in 2 minutes. It isn't even about scouting. If we switch sides we practically know that we avoided each other and went to the bases.

Actually, it is all about scouting - if you had a scout checking the "other side", you would have known that the enemy team is headed that way and could have done something about it.

[DEN_Ninja]

IceSerpent, on 13 February 2013 - 11:27 AM, said:

Actually, it is all about scouting - if you had a scout checking the "other side", you would have known that the enemy team is headed that way and could have done something about it.

No it isn't. Most games when the team commits to going to the enemy base. Everyone commits and will not break off to engage. I've seen it time and time again when the group just barrels towards the enemy base despite being told they went the other direction.

[SI The Joker]

MustrumRidcully, on 13 February 2013 - 11:07 AM, said:

Strange thing is, most replies seem to imply that people want to fight. They don't care whether capping leads to winning or losing.

Capping is only "fun" IMO if it's used to create the tactical choice of whether to split or not, and how to commit your resources.

I wonder if another capture mode wouldn't be better. Imagine a 12 man group defending 2 capture points, and an 8 man group having to take both. Now it's a matter of scouting well enough to find the weakest spot, or find who is attacking where. Or even riskier, trying to take 8 mechs and locate the enemy team.

In most instances when a whole team rushes base cap, the one or two people who want to fight are a minority. I apologize for the lack of clarity in my thought.

Quote

Capping is only "fun" IMO if it's used to create the tactical choice of whether to split or not, and how to commit your resources.

It's a tactical choice no matter which way you fold it. Do I leave mechs behind to cover? Do I stay within a reasonable distance to the base and let the battle evolve? Do I take a chance and rush through the tunnel? Aren't these all tactical choices?

Quote

I wonder if another capture mode wouldn't be better. Imagine a 12 man group defending 2 capture points, and an 8 man group having to take both. Now it's a matter of scouting well enough to find the weakest spot, or find who is attacking where. Or even riskier, trying to take 8 mechs and locate the enemy team.

I like that idea quite a bit, actually. But to accomplish it, we need larger maps, more objectives and everything else... all of which (unless I'm mistaken... Dev team?) is coming.

I am not generally a base capper as much as I am a base kisser... provided you give me no reason to cap your base. If I witness your team move in the opposite direction than mine and continue to do so even after I set foot on your base, you deserve to lose.

The bottom line here is that arguments like this rage on because people don't understand a simple premise. I, nor anyone else will (nor should) conform to play this game the way anyone else wants us to. Period. Folks may expect this giant battle to rage each and every match and that's great... but guess what?

In the immortal words of one of the greatest rock bands in history - You can't always get what you want.

[ItsAPotato]

IceSerpent, on 13 February 2013 - 10:49 AM, said:

On the contrary, the argument keeps popping up because some folks are unable to make simple tactical decisions and seem to think along the lines of "I am going to move in this (completely random) direction and enemy has to find me and fight me" and when that fails, they complain about something being wrong with the game. Why they think this idea would work to begin with is beyond me.
The simple truth is that if you want a fight, you need to find the enemy. Given that the enemy can only do 3 things (defend their base, atack your base, or try to find you), and that both base locations are known, it's a fairly easy task to find a fight if you are indeed looking for one.

Cap rush is boring and not profitable for everyone, even the "winning" team. That is all...

[OneEyed Jack]

Bilbo, on 13 February 2013 - 11:14 AM, said:

Atlas Ninja Cap....FTW

Defend your base or lose. It really is that simple.

Dude, we get it. You're clueless. You really don't need to go to all the effort to keep pointing it out.

[Znail]

jay35, on 13 February 2013 - 11:19 AM, said:

There needs to be a proper TDM game mode so everyone can choose what game mode they want to play and will be happy.

Jman5, on 13 February 2013 - 11:23 AM, said:

Enjoy your 15 minute long games of find the shut down spider.

That is why we have Conquest mode. It's practically TDM, with the capture points there to keep people from just hiding in a corner. The main winning tactic of Conquest is to move as a group towards the capture points. It's only important to make sure that the enemy doesn't capture everything as that is bad. Else being behind with one base doesn't matter as the points will tick up slow enough that you can kill the enemy team before it matters.

[Taemien]

My team will go for the cap. Why? Because its a way to win. We care more about the win than the cbills or exp.

Some say we are avoiding a fight. That isn't all true. We're avoiding a yawn fight similar to how the Civil War was fought with two sides trading shots at each other. Its supposed to be 31st Century combat. You don't sit at opposite sides shooting at one another and that is what most PUGs and a good number of Premades will do.

So we go for a cap in our fast movers to pull the defenders out of their positions. If they ignore us, we win.

Either way we're either winning or getting some sort of a asymmetrical fight and that is all we care about. We don't give a care if the team wants to do it or not, they should have joined a premade of their own. Now they have to play by our rules and our strategies.

Yes some (very very rarely) have tried to TK us for it, but they can never catch us. If they give chase they end up fighting the enemy team in their base, basically doing what we wanted anyway.

[Bilbo]

OneEyed Jack, on 13 February 2013 - 11:31 AM, said:

Dude, we get it. You're clueless. You really don't need to go to all the effort to keep pointing it out.

As long as I'm winning games, my lack of clues is irrelevant.

[MischiefSC]

Znail, on 13 February 2013 - 11:15 AM, said:

How is Conquest, ie Team Death Match more tactical then Assault? I understand that some may find it booring with a game ending in a cap or dislike the lack of rewards for winning such a game. But how is it less tactical to have to keep an eye out for enemys trying to sneak in to your base, sneak in to the enemy base, stall the enemy while capping etc rather then just killing the most enemies?

Conquest is more tactical because capping doesn't auto-win and you're effectively required to split your forces to cap. There are 5 objectives, not just 1 and capturing that 1 objective doesn't win in less than 60 seconds.

The problem with Assault for me is that that one cap trumps any and all other tactical exercises in the match. Conquest, conversely, puts weight on location control. Holding Theta in River City for example and map location G5 gives you the ability to exert control over 3, possibly 4 positions of the 5 on the map which leads you to a win over time (Theta, Gamma, Sigma). You can't just blob up and rush or conversely just camp on your base for a win, you've got to take and hold multiple objectives.

TDM conversely is all about taking the most advantageous position on the map, securing your flanks and identifying the enemy. If the only way to win is to kill the other guy then finding out exactly who the other guys is suddenly becomes very important and tactically useful. Do you push for a brawl rush before they have time to fortify a position? Do you set up for a standoff and count on LRMs, Snipers and disruptive Lights to shift the balance before moving in to finish them off? Do you try and lure enemy out of their position with a faux-easy kill before turning on the enemy who wandered away from their post?

Assault theoretically can and sometimes does include this stuff but in reality the only real factor is the cap rush. Any tactical choice you make is trumped by standing in a box for 60 seconds. Thus nobody wants to invest the time, effort and energy into real scouting, setting up a good defensive position or the like because a quick cap from a friendly light will just end the game.

Does that make sense? Capping in Assault trumps all other tactics and thus eliminates motivation to pursue them. TDM games would be slower, more cautious, more tactical than Assault, not less. Asymmetrical Assault would be a huge improvement - make it 1 location that has to be held for a value of 750 total time, much like Conquest. Put it in the middle of the map. have different counters for each team. There are a huge number of options out there and I'm eager to see them.

Let me make this clear though. I'm not saying PGI is bad for releasing Assault as a game mode. I'm not saying Assault as a game mode is a bad thing either. My point is that it is NOT a fighting design or a tactical design. It is LESS tactical than Conquest and no substitute for a TDM or any asymmetrical capture design. Also capture designs that don't end the map with a win but instead accrue points towards a win are inherently a better game tactics choice than 'stand here for 60 seconds FTW!'

[DEN_Ninja]

Taemien, on 13 February 2013 - 11:34 AM, said:

My team will go for the cap. Why? Because its a way to win. We care more about the win than the cbills or exp.

Some say we are avoiding a fight. That isn't all true. We're avoiding a yawn fight similar to how the Civil War was fought with two sides trading shots at each other. Its supposed to be 31st Century combat. You don't sit at opposite sides shooting at one another and that is what most PUGs and a good number of Premades will do.

So we go for a cap in our fast movers to pull the defenders out of their positions. If they ignore us, we win.

Either way we're either winning or getting some sort of a asymmetrical fight and that is all we care about. We don't give a care if the team wants to do it or not, they should have joined a premade of their own. Now they have to play by our rules and our strategies.

Yes some (very very rarely) have tried to TK us for it, but they can never catch us. If they give chase they end up fighting the enemy team in their base, basically doing what we wanted anyway.

Ah yeah, one the 'Premade Crusaders' comes to troll and ruin the thread. If you plan on inciting conflict with that attitude of 'go join a premade' go else where, you aren't welcome here. If you actually have good healthy discussion to add then by all [Redacted] means do so.

Edited by Tichorius Davion, 13 February 2013 - 11:40 AM.

[Ironclaw1]

I run a Jenner, and if I end up near the enemy base, I will start a cap to split lights off from the main group and lure them back to base. If they choose not to come and find me, then I will cap them out of the game.

To me it a valid tactic and I hate being called a troll for doing so. Its a win for the team.

However, that being said, I will not sit on a cap when we are more than 2:1 winning, because I play for a team. I understand that capping limits the heavier mech's expierence gained due to damage and destruction (and their corresponding increase in K/D ratio), As with everything its a balance, and a tactic. It is not always right to do it, and its not always wrong either.

FYI: pre-spamming "noobs don't cap" will not stop me from doing so if conditions warrant. If conditions don't warrant a cap, I will often choose another heavy to protect instead of you.

[IceSerpent]

Tichorius Davion, on 13 February 2013 - 11:29 AM, said:

No it isn't. Most games when the team commits to going to the enemy base. Everyone commits and will not break off to engage. I've seen it time and time again when the group just barrels towards the enemy base despite being told they went the other direction.

Oh yes, it is - not breaking off to engage and not scouting is purely your decision to make, it has nothing to do with the game itself.

Edit:

ItsAPotato, on 13 February 2013 - 11:30 AM, said:

Cap rush is boring and not profitable for everyone, even the "winning" team. That is all...

Obviously, people who cap rush don't think that it's boring, otherwise they wouldn't be doing it, and the other team has ample opportunities to counter that move if they really want to do so. I don't see the problem.

Edited by IceSerpent, 13 February 2013 - 11:51 AM.

[TB Freelancer]

Actual base races are extremely rare. The vast majority of the time, the team that loses seems to largely ignore the fact that their base is getting capped, very often milling around only a few hundred meters away keeps fighting other random enemies until its way too late to do anything about it....

...I see much the same happen in conquest even more often. One side maintaining at least a 1 or even 2 control point lead, the loosing side just about always waits way too late to do anything about it and get beat by points...

...in both cases one side is playing the game while the other is trying to play TDM. Neither game mode is TDM and trying to play it like it is will result in disappointment all to often for those who try to play it like it is.

While I prefer fighting, if the other side is going to make capping effortlessly easy, then I'll cap. I'd say the only thing that really annoys me is when playing conquest and both sides went TDM style having even resource points and one side gets stomped to a single light left vs 6+ enemies and then that lone light suddenly tries out capping 6 to 8 other mechs. The only accomplishment it achieves is to prolong the match while having no effect on the outcome.

[DEN_Ninja]

IceSerpent, on 13 February 2013 - 11:45 AM, said:

Oh yes, it is - not breaking off to engage and not scouting is purely your decision to make, it has nothing to do with the game itself.

Then it is a tactical error. Scouting takes no part especially when the team commits because with no opposition and us heading toward their base we pretty much can assume they went the other way. Say it is scouted early like say on River City, Regardless if a team goes upper and the other goes lower they will never meet. You can scout it early but if the team wants to go upper they will go upper and if you are alone or with a premade you will be stuck with 4v8 or 1v8

[IceSerpent]

Tichorius Davion, on 13 February 2013 - 11:52 AM, said:

Then it is a tactical error. Scouting takes no part especially when the team commits because with no opposition and us heading toward their base we pretty much can assume they went the other way. Say it is scouted early like say on River City, Regardless if a team goes upper and the other goes lower they will never meet. You can scout it early but if the team wants to go upper they will go upper and if you are alone or with a premade you will be stuck with 4v8 or 1v8

That's pretty much my point - if your team makes a tactical mistake, it's your team's problem, not an issue with game mechanics.

[DEN_Ninja]

IceSerpent, on 13 February 2013 - 11:54 AM, said:

That's pretty much my point - if your team makes a tactical mistake, it's your team's problem, not an issue with game mechanics.

And I am saying it is a major fault if one gamemode can devolve into a base rush. In starcraft it is equivalent to a worker rush. No one wants to be in a game where a cheese move or tactic will win the day. It isn't fun to watch, and it isn't fun to play.

Edited by Tichorius Davion, 13 February 2013 - 11:57 AM.

[Lukoi Banacek]

MischiefSC, on 13 February 2013 - 11:36 AM, said:

Conquest is more tactical because capping doesn't auto-win and you're effectively required to split your forces to cap. There are 5 objectives, not just 1 and capturing that 1 objective doesn't win in less than 60 seconds.

I'm not advocating more or less capping here, but I've got to say there's zero requirement to split your forces to cap in conq. My friends and I make a point of staying together, using scouts to find little groups of enemy, identify where their slow movers are while their lights are off capping instead of scouting and we move to kill the heavies while we have the numerical advantage. Every once in a rare while, we get outconq'd by points but that's because we took too long to kill the heavies (a calculated risk).

But conq is still a fun mode...multiple ways to win it, and fighting is definitely an option. In fact in the current era of the game, I think the fighting actually happens more regularly than in assault where I see about 10% of the games I'm in (and yes I keep track of those kinds of metrics) end in a cap.