Why does it seem that everyone else insists on fully capping out points, even when it makes no sense to do so? Stop their cap and flip it, then go. Especially if you are winning on kills. That's my theory at least.
So apparently I am the only one that thinks it is silly when playing conquest to think that capping out points fully is sometimes a bad idea?
No, especially on large maps and when you're ahead on kills you don't need to fully cap points. However, playing conquest in and of itself is just not a popular choice. You give up half the C-Bills you gain for a longer game which most of the time still ends in deathballing anyway, why not simply play skirmish, or at least assault if you want the base capping to remain an element?
I actually quite enjoy conquest now that assault is so irritating. :blush: Far less 12 vs 4 instances. I only max cap on certain maps and situations. If only there was a "anything but assault" option the game would improve a lot for me personally.
Makes sense to full cap the first point you come to at the start of the match - the battle hasn't begun yet (unless it's a small map with the central cap point; those I just change the color and run since you know dmg will be incoming and it can be easily contested by the enemy). Full caps get a bonus to the time it takes to switch them so if you're not hurting the team by being out of the fight, it makes sense. With big maps with only a few players left, that can mean the difference on winning. Also, if there are 3+ of you on the cap, it goes pretty quick anyway so you could be helping out the pugs more by staying and keeping the group cohesion. With that being said, there are a lot of reasons to not fully cap as well (you're a light and down on caps so it's more important to switch other points than waste time fulling capping out the current point, you're a heavy/assualt that needs to get back in the fight, you're already up in points but equal in kills, etc.). Depends on the situation, but I think there is more reason to fully cap than not.
I'm glad that this has turned around instead of just "LOLZ stop your whining!" I mean, there is no way his original post warranted that. I agree that it is a bit frustrating to see some of of the fringe points (gamma on Alpine) get fully capped when a sliver will do. Usually there is a big fight going on somewhere on conquest maps and every mech's DPS is needed there instead of solidifying points that won't be contested. Also, I've grown rather fond of conquest mode now that the other two choices involve broken turrets that lob LRMs across the map or spiders that hide until time runs out. I rather like the smaller skirmishes that often break out on conquest - they are just much more interesting to me!
I don't see anyone having said "Stop your whining"... I think you are interpreting things that aren't there. Vergere said "Play Titanfall then" as in "It's a change of pace, try this" and my meme was simple: "conquest is so F'd right now, all I can do is hug you" due to the LRMs and how its usually played with PUGs.
While I agree in most cases that running up the caps when you only need to hunt down a couple enemies is silly, we have all seen the opposite happen. IE: 2 lights left alive vs 4 slower mechs, light cappers can win via caps or picking off the singled out targets. OR, 6-8 vs 3 and the three pull back and win via kills. (Check out SubjectSeven's video "UMAD Saves the Day")
I don't play assault and I don't play conquest because those are conducive to and see a disproportionate number of heavy and assault mechs that are LRM boats. They don't do anything but stand in the back and pretend that they are actually good at the game. Period.
I don't know what I was expecting from such a vaguely titled thread, but it was something a lot more insightful than this.
Zappo read it the same way I read it. "Play Titanfall then" came across with the same feel as "If you don't like it, go back to CoD" The "Hug" picture came across as condescending. Maybe it's because I'm so used to seeing the worst in forum posts that I read it with the worst of intentions. As for LRMs and conquest... I still think LRMs need some tweaking (which we are getting), but the abundance has died down in the games I've played. My complaint about Conquest is if you are capping as a light and you lose the game, you are worse off financially than if you lost in Assault or Skirmish. They *need* to give role based rewards. They really do. [quote author=tfun90 link=topic=6136.msg39946#msg39946 date=1396167003] I don't know what I was expecting from such a vaguely titled thread, but it was something a lot more insightful than this. [/quote] Glad I could provide such a service then. I suppose I shouldn't PUG bitch then, because that's rather what's going on here. Perhaps I should have titled it, "Bitching about PUGs on Conquest" I think LT and Zappo have both pretty much echoed my feelings. There are times to fully cap. If you have a cap lance - or demi-lance if with cap module. The first cap point. The rest of the time it's situationally dependent, and I think PUGs have an issue of knowing when the situation warrants flipping or stopping and moving on.
