304 replies to this topic

[Ngamok]

Znail, on 13 February 2013 - 11:32 AM, said:

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.

You can do the same in Assault as there is only 1 capture point.

[Jman5]

And as always: whenever I point out exactly how to spot base rushers early enough on each map, I get completely ignored.

http://mwomercs.com/...68#entry1888368

But go ahead, keep telling us how your hands are tied and you can't do anything to stop it while ignoring the inconvenient posts.

Edited by Jman5, 13 February 2013 - 12:02 PM.

[Rofl]

Man, I love how SO many people of differing viewpoints know exactly how I want to be forced to play...

I'm honestly thinking religious and political debates have nothing on the silliness of the MWO general forums.

Let's see... if I want X style of play, but you want Y, then Y is right, and if the devs keep X, then the devs are wrong.
If they don't change it... will you leave? Or will you just sit here and complain? I'm not sure what these posts are supposed to prove.

If I want X style, and you want Y, and the devs change it to Y, will you feel validated? Will I leave? Are we posting threads simply to divide the community? Is there even a sense of community?

I don't even know what I'm posting anymore. These threads melt my brain. I'm going to sleep.

[Ngamok]

TB Freelancer, on 13 February 2013 - 11:49 AM, said:

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.

TBH if we are dropping in as a 4 man and we are engaged in a fight and someone is capping our base, we won't break to go get it. We usually just fight the other robots near us win or lose, we fought other giant stompy robots !!

Rofl, on 13 February 2013 - 12:04 PM, said:

Man, I love how SO many people of differing viewpoints know exactly how I want to be forced to play...

I'm honestly thinking religious and political debates have nothing on the silliness of the MWO general forums.

Let's see... if I want X style of play, but you want Y, then Y is right, and if the devs keep X, then the devs are wrong.
If they don't change it... will you leave? Or will you just sit here and complain? I'm not sure what these posts are supposed to prove.

If I want X style, and you want Y, and the devs change it to Y, will you feel validated? Will I leave? Are we posting threads simply to divide the community? Is there even a sense of community?

I don't even know what I'm posting anymore. These threads melt my brain. I'm going to sleep.

It's ok, I smashed your CS comparison, you should have said Team Fortress instead.

[DEN_Ninja]

Rofl, on 13 February 2013 - 12:04 PM, said:

Man, I love how SO many people of differing viewpoints know exactly how I want to be forced to play...

I'm honestly thinking religious and political debates have nothing on the silliness of the MWO general forums.

Let's see... if I want X style of play, but you want Y, then Y is right, and if the devs keep X, then the devs are wrong.
If they don't change it... will you leave? Or will you just sit here and complain? I'm not sure what these posts are supposed to prove.

If I want X style, and you want Y, and the devs change it to Y, will you feel validated? Will I leave? Are we posting threads simply to divide the community? Is there even a sense of community?

I don't even know what I'm posting anymore. These threads melt my brain. I'm going to sleep.

I hafta admit being a tad bit guilty of being zealous on here. xD

I just hate that a game can be forced into one single set of strategies just because one team will commit to the full base rush cap. I have had it in far too many games. I don't like how if the enemy team devotes to a straight base cap and my team does that same. If we win the enemy teams fault for not going back? If we lose, it is obviously our fault now right?

In the end it is a mindless who can get there first when it happens.

I mean come the [Redacted] on. One team base rushing and you either sit back and defend or go and cap. If they see you going for base rush you either go back or charge forward. An cycle of stupid.

Edited by Tichorius Davion, 13 February 2013 - 12:10 PM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Beliall, on 13 February 2013 - 08:49 AM, said:

... why try to pick apart the comment and use one word for a needless comment when you get what I am saying? .............. Obviously PGI agreed to some extent when they removed the cap win bonus. The game type is flawed and you know it so people talk about it. It wont stop being talked about until there is no issue.

I still get 50 XP for capping assist. All but one of my mechs are mastered and thats cause i only want the one Mech. I make 25,000 Cbills on a quick cap. That balances the 175,000 C-bills I get for beating the crap out of a enemy team. The game type is fine. The mentality of the player is wrong. My job in assault is to take your base from you. If you don't come back when Betty is telling you, 'Someone's taking your stuff.' It's not the Cappers fault you get beat!

Move to engage the enemy. Do NOT over extend your lines. Get your scouts to check out the disturbance at your base. Move in force to defend if you must. THIS is how you stop a cap! Combat 101 stuff.

[Josef Nader]

Rofl, on 13 February 2013 - 12:04 PM, said:

I'm honestly thinking religious and political debates have nothing on the silliness of the MWO general forums.

No force on earth is more zealous or determined than a nerd defending something he genuinely cares about.

[Trev Firestorm]

Tichorius Davion, on 13 February 2013 - 11:57 AM, said:

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.

So its cheese to have stupid opponents now? Not my fault if the other team is too dumb to spot the group of slow non-ecm medium/heavy/assaults marching through the tunnel as an example, none of the ppl I play with run ecm 90% of the time) There is nothing wrong with the mechanic, people just need to learn to play smart.
IMO conquest is best played in an 8man, else it devolves into a crappy tdm match most of the time (read pubbies runoff to the winds and get picked apart unable to coordinate with the rest of the team IE we need better ingame comms...)
EEdit: oh and double base rush games, /both/ teams are being stupid so they get what they deserve anyway.

Edited by Trev Firestorm, 13 February 2013 - 12:21 PM.

[MischiefSC]

Lukoi, on 13 February 2013 - 11:59 AM, said:

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.

All excellent points. By splitting I mean sending scouts out. I just played a Conquest game where every mech was Medium or higher, suddenly you've got Hunchies doing recon,chat asking did they go Gamma or Theta? Oh crap, they all went Theta. Half our team decided to hang around back at Epsilon while the rest of us went Sigma, those guys need to go tunnel to catch us or they're going to get butchered all alone.

The tactics shift away from 'base rush/avoid base rush' to positioning, keeping an eye on the enemies movement, prediction of where the enemy will go next, drawing off their snipers (that effing Gausscat who stayed back at Kappa to shoot at people along the cost doesn't feel so smug when an Atlas and 3 hunchies come knocking on his back door and he's all alone) and otherwise engaging in a far more tactical game than a rush competition.

In Assault all other tactics, movement and positioning is trumped by the cap rush. If you do anything other than either base sit or cap rush you're risking that the other team did one of those and you are, automatically, going to lose.

My arguments here are not at PGI for map design so much as at players who say that Assault is some exercise in tactical genius and why doesn't everyone just see that and accept it.

Tactically symmetrical assault maps are the cheap children's cereal of tactical objective games. That's fine, sometimes you just want a quick bowl of generic store brand 'Lucky Charms'. Just don't pretend that you whipped up eggs benedict and cinnamon rolls. Some of us know what a delicious breakfast is and while we appreciate that some folks like their Lucky Charms, don't pretend it's just as good.

[Gammanoob]

People complaining about base capping and rushing has actually increased my motivation to do so.

There is nothing as satisfying as seeing someone call you a noob/coward/etc. as you secure victory through landownership.

Edited by Gammanoob, 13 February 2013 - 12:18 PM.

[DEN_Ninja]

Trev Firestorm, on 13 February 2013 - 12:15 PM, said:

So its cheese to have stupid opponents now? Not my fault if the other team is too dumb to spot the group of slow non-ecm medium/heavy/assaults marching through the tunnel Kas an example, none of the ppl I play with run ecm 90% of the time) There is nothing wrong with the mechanic, people just need to learn to play smart.
IMO conquest is best played in an 8man, else it devolves into a crappy tdm match most of the time (read pubbies runoff to the winds and get picked apart unable to coordinate with the rest of the team IE we need better ingame comms...)

Well that is the point I am trying to make. It becomes your fault just because people can make the decision to go for base cap? Imagine if you are on the team that got base rushed. Your teamed decided not to do anything about it. Yeah, it is not solely your decision because no sane mechwarrior would take on the enemy team alone to stop cap.

[Josef Nader]

None of the counterarguments are invalidating my earlier point that base capping is a tactic for people who care more about winning than actually playing the game, and that's why it gets so much hate. It's basically saying to the other team "screw you and your desire to shoot robots. I'd much rather just increase my numbers without actually trying for it and rob you of gameplay."

It's like taking the warp tunnels in Super Mario Brothers. Unless you're just interested in winning the game as quickly as possible, all you're doing is robbing yourself of gameplay.

Edited by Josef Nader, 13 February 2013 - 12:21 PM.

[Esplodin]

How about we bring in and expert opinion?

http://suntzusaid.com/book/6

"If we wish to fight, the enemy can be forced to an engagement even though he be sheltered behind a high rampart and a deep ditch. All we need do is attack some other place that he will be obliged to relieve."

and http://suntzusaid.com/book/8

"The art of war teaches us to rely not on the likelihood of the enemy's not coming, but on our own readiness to receive him; not on the chance of his not attacking, but rather on the fact that we have made our position unassailable."

I would highly suggest to anyone on this forum to pick up a copy, read and meditate (think) on the concepts therein. My FAVORITE translation with beginner essays, annotated and unannotated manuscript:

http://www.amazon.co...ntt_at_ep_dpt_4

[Ashnod]

Esplodin, on 13 February 2013 - 05:42 AM, said:

I've been seeing a lot of pre-match "don't cap noobs" in all chat lately, as well as here on the forums. Like it or not (and I don't particularly like it btw) it is a win condition of the mission, such as we have available at this point. Most of us that have been playing a while have plenty of GXP and C-bills, so the limited rewards argument is kinda pointless unless you are new.

The answer why hit me last night as my pug got steamrolled while we were arguing about it in all chat. (BTW, thank you for actually holding targets long enough for my LRMs to kill two and make the rest look like they were in a fight - you guys were awesome!) Put enough of a negative stigma on the "race to cap" and you don't need to upgrade your engines for the 4 man Atlas Steiner patrol, or take lights that are less effective now in melee since you can hit them.

I think it is time to finally finish leveling my spiders and do NOTHING but base caps until the opposition learns that this is a game of balance between tonnage, speed, and heat. If you don't want to play all dimensions of this game, fine. I'd rather take 300ish xp and 25K c-bills over the bigger rewards for rockem sockem robots because it also comes with gallons of man/woman/transgender tears.

Maybe the "only carry AC20 and Gauss" teams will reconsider their builds. Probably not, since whining about a built in mechanic is easier then having a strategy for it.

You only get 50 xp for capping..

[DEN_Ninja]

Josef Nader, on 13 February 2013 - 12:21 PM, said:

None of the counterarguments are invalidating my earlier point that base capping is a tactic for people who care more about winning than actually playing the game, and that's why it gets so much hate. It's basically saying to the other team "screw you and your desire to shoot robots. I'd much rather just increase my numbers without actually trying for it and rob you of gameplay."

It's like taking the warp tunnels in Super Mario Brothers. Unless you're just interested in winning the game as quickly as possible, all you're doing is robbing yourself of gameplay.

Oh god, add in the motivation of community warfare. Assault will devolve into 8 lights vs 8 lights to see who can cap first. Then you forget about fighting.

Yeah guys winning is all that matters let's go cap with 8 3l's with capture accelerator.

[Kylere]

Potential Capping (have a light step into the enemy base) is a viable tactic that causes a mad break by 3/8th of the opposing team. It is like adding an extra Atlas when they turn around and expose their back to rush home. Then your light evades and heads back to the team.

Capping when you are the last one/two alive is a smart move.

Capping any other time is rather pointless.

[BunnyWabbit]

Op reaffirms why I should continue to play my srm cat. You cap I run back at 86.2 kph and alpha you once then call you lame for trying to cap then go back to business as usual.

[Gammanoob]

Josef Nader, on 13 February 2013 - 12:21 PM, said:

None of the counterarguments are invalidating my earlier point that base capping is a tactic for people who care more about winning than actually playing the game, and that's why it gets so much hate. It's basically saying to the other team "screw you and your desire to shoot robots. I'd much rather just increase my numbers without actually trying for it and rob you of gameplay."

Personally, it's more of a "Don't tell me how to play my robot stomping game."

Most of the time I play drunk or in the process of getting drunk and I don't take the game seriously.

Therefore, I do whatever I damn well please.

Edited by Gammanoob, 13 February 2013 - 12:28 PM.

[Rofl]

Ngamok, on 13 February 2013 - 12:07 PM, said:

It's ok, I smashed your CS comparison, you should have said Team Fortress instead.

No, no, no! I think what you said is amazing! Maybe assault should only have 1 cap zone, and the other side takes it or loses by default. THAT might actually work....

EDIT: CS is slightly more well known that TF but that would have been a better argument. My attempt to appeal to the masses failed.

Edited by Rofl, 13 February 2013 - 12:29 PM.

[DEN_Ninja]

Guys, if it is all about winning. I am going to grab a SSRM2 3L with ECM a 240 Engine and Capture Accelerate with 3 other guys and we can just cap every [Redacted] [Redacted] [Redacted] [Redacted] [Redacted] game.