39 replies to this topic

[Wintersdark]

TheMightyWashburn, on 14 February 2013 - 08:34 PM, said:

And I am FAR from the only one. There is nothing quite as annoying as wrecking their **** to have your base capped by a fast mover when all of yours are dead.

It wouldnt be hard, and whoever tries to claim it is unrealistic by lore, I call ******** because sometimes in war you just have to kill the enemy, all of them. I mean, whole planets used to be wiped clean from what I understand. So why cant we just not have to worry about that annoying crap?

Dont get me wrong, when I play conquest I cap and defend and ask my team to do the same. But I also want more choice in game modes.

What are your thoughts?

Well, this is a new thread!

Anyways, we have TDM: It's called Assault.

But the bases! Caps! Yes, it sucks to have an early cap - worse yet when the teams have just got Stuck In to a good fight and someone goes and caps. But you need to understand, those bases are there for a reason. Those bases are a safety valve, and they exist for a very good reason: It's less crappy to win/lose a game 2 minutes in due to an early cap than it is to have the majority of battles stretch out to 15 minutes because people like to troll you and run and hide. The bases give players a safety valve to either force engagement (get back to your base and defend it!) or wrap the match up.

They are the lesser of two evils.


Now, because while this is a new thread and we've never seen it before, I'm going to psychicly deduce your next angle:

But they can add a game mode, you don't have to play it!

Yes, you do, if you want to pick Random (because you like the normal battles). The more people who don't play Random, the more the playerbase gets fragmented and the more the matchmaker can struggle despite having adequate players.

Aside from that, it'd be a purely bad experience for the reason outlined above. PGI doesn't want to introduce game modes that don't offer anything new to the game (Assault IS deathmatch, after all) while introducing more problems.

[FupDup]

Volume, on 14 February 2013 - 08:39 PM, said:

It's coming.

It's already here: Conquest and Assault.

[Alois Hammer]

TheMightyWashburn, on 14 February 2013 - 08:34 PM, said:

What are your thoughts?

Demand in your left hand, take a dump in your right, and tell us which one fills up first?

[Bagheera]

Volume, on 16 February 2013 - 07:33 PM, said:

Actually...It would be used for many other things.

Most notably knowing what your team brings to the fight. Is that 3F next to me boating SRMs or PPCs? Is that K2 double AC/20, or 4xLL?

Imo, you should be able to get information on your teammates (loadout, damage details), but obviously disable friendly lock-on to prevent TK abuse.

It would be better to divorce this function from targeting/lock on at all. We should be able to get load-out info using the (I want to say Q button, mine have been moved) method where we see HUD info near the mech itself. This way targeting/locks are never part of the "friendly loadout info" equation. Just a simple list next to the mech (like the name and variant info that goes above) when pressing the <whatever> button, rather than full on targeting and seeing that info where enemy info usually goes.

[RG Notch]

TheMightyWashburn, on 14 February 2013 - 08:34 PM, said:

So why cant we just not have to worry about that annoying crap?


What are your thoughts?

Exactly who wants to think? IF this mode drew off all the people who play like that I'd vote for it just so I don't need to play with these people who simply can't process more than chase the red dots!

[RazorWarrior]

Team deathmatch would be an amazing mode.

[lsp]

First off DEMAND, LOL. second just play assault, same ****.

[Mercules]

RazorWarrior, on 17 February 2013 - 10:08 AM, said:

Team deathmatch would be an amazing mode.

Yeah, people would get in mechs and shoot each other. Wait... we already do that, right?

[Steven Dixon]

I actually think I prefer Assault to Deathmatch, though a pure deathmatch mode would be fine. In the current implementation of Assault (or Conquest for that matter) it virtually is Deathmatch, but with a slightly added tactical dimension of protecting your base. In addition their have been some fights were the enemy was destroyed and their was one ECM spider or something just playing hide and go seek trying to wait out the clock. I don't want to spend 10 minutes hunting him down. Sure its annoying when a team just ninja caps, but they don't get many c-bills and only ok xp so I don't see it often (unlike closed beta and early open beta).

[Bishop Steiner]

*YAWN*

Demand all you want. Learn to protect your damn base.

[Little Nemo]

We don't negotiate with people that have entitled syndrome.

[Lugh]

TheMightyWashburn, on 14 February 2013 - 08:34 PM, said:

And I am FAR from the only one. There is nothing quite as annoying as wrecking their **** to have your base capped by a fast mover when all of yours are dead.

It wouldnt be hard, and whoever tries to claim it is unrealistic by lore, I call ******** because sometimes in war you just have to kill the enemy, all of them. I mean, whole planets used to be wiped clean from what I understand. So why cant we just not have to worry about that annoying crap?

Dont get me wrong, when I play conquest I cap and defend and ask my team to do the same. But I also want more choice in game modes.

What are your thoughts?

I'll happily note that you already have it provide you have
1) good scouting.
2) and a team that can flow to where the enemy is...

3) it helps if most of the team has adopted a semi-defensive posture. Then you can shoot the lemmings as they pant and perspire in their effort to GET TO THE CHOPPA first...

[Commander Kobold]

Duncan Fisher, on 14 February 2013 - 08:42 PM, said:

Yes well I imagine you would be crying even more if you were wrecking their **** but you had lost all your fast movers, and ended up chasing a lone enemy 3L around the map for 12 minutes.

if there is a team deathmatch the benefits of playing a light mech aren't going to be very usefull other than for scouting, since there's no base for the to rush off to.

[OnLashoc]

Magicbullet141, on 14 February 2013 - 11:38 PM, said:

The problem with Team Deathmatch is that one or both teams are going to dig into a defensive position and stay put.



The ability to target friendly 'mechs would just be used for mass team killing.

And because of Team Deathmatch sooo many games since the beginning of time have died because some people camped...

[Mercules]

Omni 13, on 17 February 2013 - 10:59 AM, said:

if there is a team deathmatch the benefits of playing a light mech aren't going to be very usefull other than for scouting, since there's no base for the to rush off to.

If it's TDM who needs to scout? You see something not blue you shoot it. This is how 90% of TDM will be played. How can I say this? Because in a game where you have to keep people from reaching your base or lose 60% of the players just bumble forward till they see red and then open fire... then come to the forums and demand TDM because someone walked past them and capped their base. As I assume the majority of those will go play TDM I have increased my assumption to 90%.

[Mike Townsend]

FupDup, on 16 February 2013 - 07:49 PM, said:

It's already here: Conquest and Assault.

What he said. 20 matches yesterday on any game type and I think there was one base cap and one points win. The only mode the game has right now is team deathmatch. Also, if they add team deathmatch they need to change the selection list to be opt in. I'm fine with ransomly choosing between team deathmatch one and team deathmatch two, but team deathmatch with no nav points is probabky going to get old fast and I probably won't want to play it much.

[bloodnor]

yes because demanding stuff has gotten everyone what they wanted from the devs

[anonymous175]

[KuruptU4Fun]

[Death Weasel]

I want a hamburger! No, a cheeseburger! I want a Hot Dog with relish!