66 replies to this topic

[Savage Wolf]

So we have already have one patch trying to make attackers fight more with defenders, but it didn't change that much.

The problem is this: What do attackers get from the effort of killing a defender? The answer is varies from very little to actually helping the defender. Why? Because killing a defender will make the defender jump into a fresh into a new mech, get support from a dropship and get closer to the objective.

So often if the attackers kill some defenders on the way to the objective, they end up meeting the defender again before they have even reached the goal. The attackers is rewarded a lot more simply ignoring the defenders and instead destroying turrets and reactors.

The only point where killing a defenders actually matters is if they had no mechs left. But since the defenders have all the advantages when fighting in the base, chances are that attackers run out of mechs before the defenders do. Except if the defenders leave the base of course, but why would they leave their defenses?

TL:DR; How to fix this?

Killing a defender needs to weaken the defense for long enough that attackers feel it's worth distracting themselves with this instead of just going for the objective directly, make them improve their chances at getting there. To do this I think needs any combination of these two factors...

1) The time for a defender to respawn needs to be higher.

2) Defenders need to respawn further away from the objective. Maybe even in a base so they do not get the support of a dropship above the objective.

Another important chance is that the time to respawn should be based on when the kill happens, not based on drop times so that you can get lucky and kill him when it takes the longest time for him to respawn or unlucky and he respawns the next second.

Also the attackers need to know that if they kill a defender that they can count on the defender to be out for a good amount of time. If the defender could get respawned the next second because of luck, the attackers still can't be sure to actually get something worth killing the defender.

Tweaking rewards for attackers so they fit what they need to do to win (and not as it is currently, how not to win) would help PUGs alot and make sure more people want to attack and not choose the more profitable defend.

Of course, this all might buff the attackers to a point where they are too strong compared to the defenders, it's likely. In that case, they should be buffed too to compensate, but in a way that still gives attackers a reason to kill defenders. Maybe more turrets, maybe make sure the reactors give a buff, while they are there.

But other than this I'm really happy finally having a mode in MWO that's objective based!! Finally.

Edited by Savage Wolf, 20 December 2014 - 12:25 PM.

[Felicitatem Parco]

Attackers would probably be fighting defenders if the Attackers had more Mechs at their disposal, like in reality.

Attacking a fortified position with no artillery/air supremecy requires superior numbers.

We'd have to increase the drop-deck size for attackers, or reduce it for defenders. That's the only way it will ever be advantageous for the attackers to fight the enemy. I don't mean just tonnage adjustments, I mean more (or fewer) mechs and the tonnage to match.

Edited by Prosperity Park, 20 December 2014 - 10:38 AM.

[Savage Wolf]

While you are correct that usually to assault a fortified position usually takes vastly superior numbers, I see this mode more as an attempt to take out that canon that stops the invaders from getting those superior numbers on the battlefield. Otherwise the mode was about taking over the base, not destroying an important structure.
But taking over a base could be another CW mode.

So I don't think I want to actually make it advantageous for the attackers to actually wipe out the defenders. That would risk taking attention away from the objective which should always be the goal for attackers. At least in this game mode.

[Tristan Winter]

Good post, OP.

When defenders respawn almost instantly, it makes no sense to move your troops away from the base. If it takes 60 seconds to respawn, then you basically HAVE to move your troops away from base, because otherwise you won't have time to respawn. And when the defenders move their troops away from base, the attacker has a reason to attack them.

But... Russ has already said he doesn't want fighting to take place outside the base. He wants Invasion mode to be all about brawling inside the base. So while I agree with your proposal, I'm not sure Russ would.

EDIT: And I would be really happy if people stopped using the argument about superior numbers in real life. There are different kinds of military operations and they don't all depend on having superior numbers. Sometimes it's necessary to send in a small taskforce to do a job and then pull out before they're overwhelmed. Ain't none o y'all seen Black Hawks Down with Ewan McGregors and Tom Hardies?

Edited by Nicolai Kabrinsky, 20 December 2014 - 10:53 AM.

[Savage Wolf]

Nicolai Kabrinsky, on 20 December 2014 - 10:49 AM, said:

Good post, OP.

When defenders respawn almost instantly, it makes no sense to move your troops away from the base. If it takes 60 seconds to respawn, then you basically HAVE to move your troops away from base, because otherwise you won't have time to respawn. And when the defenders move their troops away from base, the attacker has a reason to attack them.

But... Russ has already said he doesn't want fighting to take place outside the base. He wants Invasion mode to be all about brawling inside the base. So while I agree with your proposal, I'm not sure Russ would.

My suggestion was not a means to lure the defenders out of the base, I don't see why they would want to do that still. They would leave their defenses and be vulnerable. No, they would stay inside. My suggestion was actually to make sure that exactly that what Russ wants, happens. Personally I'm in tune with Russ here.

[Tristan Winter]

Savage Wolf, on 20 December 2014 - 10:55 AM, said:

My suggestion was not a means to lure the defenders out of the base, I don't see why they would want to do that still.

Staying in base is a lot riskier if your suggestions are implemented. No support from dropships and longer delays for reinforcements. Both those things make a close defense less attractive. On Boreal vault, for example, it might be a reason for the defenders to keep the engagement near the gates, in the hope that your first casualties will be able to respawn by the time the attackers reach the heart of your defenses.

This would especially be the case after the first and second waves, when the attackers have most likely taken out most of the turrets. Without dropships, there aren't a lot of advantages with staying close to the cannon at that point.

[Savage Wolf]

Nicolai Kabrinsky, on 20 December 2014 - 11:46 AM, said:

Staying in base is a lot riskier if your suggestions are implemented. No support from dropships and longer delays for reinforcements. Both those things make a close defense less attractive. On Boreal vault, for example, it might be a reason for the defenders to keep the engagement near the gates, in the hope that your first casualties will be able to respawn by the time the attackers reach the heart of your defenses.

This would especially be the case after the first and second waves, when the attackers have most likely taken out most of the turrets. Without dropships, there aren't a lot of advantages with staying close to the cannon at that point.

True, forgot to address this in my original post, I'll have to edit it.

But yeah, these changes will no doubt benefit attackers and only attackers. But it's important to change the dynamics of the game play. If then, as might well be the case, defenders are no longer strong enough, they should be given a new buff to compensate, but one that of course still makes sure that there is a reason to kill defenders.

[KraftySOT]

Jesus christ you people are noobs.

It hasnt taken vastly superior numbers to attack a position, in 80 years. That old 3 times addage, comes from The Art of War which is over 1200 years old. It was repeated more or less in On War, by Clauswitz, almost 200 years ago.

It changed the moment Guderian wrote his book, and Fall Blau was launched.

The only thing that matters, is a rapid build up of fire immediately after contact.

You can do that with however many people it requires. Usually less than the defender has.

In MWO terms, it means, push together as a mechball, dont ruin each others LoS, stay tight, fire first, fire often, use your arty.

If youve properly rapidly built up a volume of fire, the enemy will leave their position, and you can continue on to make casualties out of them when they rout.

Edited by KraftySOT, 20 December 2014 - 11:58 AM.

[Savage Wolf]

KraftySOT, on 20 December 2014 - 12:02 PM, said:

Jesus christ you people are noobs.

It hasnt taken vastly superior numbers to attack a position, in 80 years. That old 3 times addage, comes from The Art of War which is over 1200 years old. It was repeated more or less in On War, by Clauswitz, almost 200 years ago.

It changed the moment Guderian wrote his book, and Fall Blau was launched.

The only thing that matters, is a rapid build up of fire immediately after contact.

You can do that with however many people it requires. Usually less than the defender has.

In MWO terms, it means, push together as a mechball, dont ruin each others LoS, stay tight, fire first, fire often, use your arty.

If youve properly rapidly built up a volume of fire, the enemy will leave their position, and you can continue on to make casualties out of them when they rout.

The first thing people get wrong about this is that the invasion mode is not about taking over a fortified based and claiming it for you own. It's about disabling a key structure and not holding it. In that case, the part about superior force doesn't apply.

And it's superior force, not numbers alone. superior technology, and equipment also counts.

But it was still true during World War 2, so it has been proven within the last 80 years.

But this is all off-topic really.

[KraftySOT]

*Superior fire

Equipment, espirit de corps, training, numbers, terrain, positioning, all these things play a factor, and any one can be the main factor of the effort.

But yeah people dont seem to understand its not about holding what youve captured, or even taking the territory, its about destroying an objective.

Imagine an action like, an infantry company with some support, moving to contact, then tasked with bringing down a barn or house that spotters are using to direct artillery fire. (same basic premise as destroying the orbital gun)

They can do that with a small portion of that infantry company, even if more than company holds the surrounding area. Its about the schwerpunkt. Its about the focal point. You make contact with the smallest force possible, leaving your units able to manuever to good positions, then rapidly build up fire, force the enemy off their defensive position, destroy the target, fall back.

While two companies or even the better part of a division may hold the area, the rapid build up of fire, gaining fire superiority at a focal point, can be done with a variety of means, even at a force deficit. Force multipliers can make a very small force, a very powerful force. Those multipliers can be anything these days, since NCOs are pretty much running actions since Tank Attack! made the case for it.

And its moderately off topic.

People seem to have this idea that its SUPPOSED to be a big giant brawl and the gun is destroyed all the time with only moments to spare.

When in reality, no matter what you do, the people who know what theyre doing, are always going to do the same. Make contact with a small force, use TS as a force multiplier, manuever to build up fire superiority, move the defenders from their positions, then complete the objective.

[Levi Porphyrogenitus]

I'd say just double the drop timer for the defenders. That'd give the attackers a window of opportunity if they manage to drop a bunch of hostiles in short order.

[Savage Wolf]

Levi Porphyrogenitus, on 20 December 2014 - 12:52 PM, said:

I'd say just double the drop timer for the defenders. That'd give the attackers a window of opportunity if they manage to drop a bunch of hostiles in short order.

Well, that is also an important part of my suggestion, but they also need to change the drop mechanic so that the timer is based on when you died and not drop intervals or else you might just get lucky and drop 2 seconds later even if the drop intervals were 5 minutes.

[Summon3r]

the way they are making these maps and objectives makes it impossible to fight the defenders, they have the upper hand in every respect, who in there right mind would attack through those suicide funnels expecially technically being down numbers considering u have 12 mechs and the defender has 12 mechs turrets and dropships. ive no answer to this at all but surely completely new maps would be a start..... and even at that i have no suggestion on how to force mech to mech fighting apart from one of the objectives being a certain number of defending mechs destroyed

[Savage Wolf]

Summon3r, on 20 December 2014 - 01:08 PM, said:

the way they are making these maps and objectives makes it impossible to fight the defenders, they have the upper hand in every respect, who in there right mind would attack through those suicide funnels expecially technically being down numbers considering u have 12 mechs and the defender has 12 mechs turrets and dropships. ive no answer to this at all but surely completely new maps would be a start..... and even at that i have no suggestion on how to force mech to mech fighting apart from one of the objectives being a certain number of defending mechs destroyed

Fighting the defenders does not equal eliminating them. That is and should not be the goal in the current game mode. So, yes, the maps have been made so that will not be a viable strategy, because in the end all you need to do is take out the canon. All I'm talking about is attackers getting a reason to actually kill a defender on his way to the objective. If the attackers think they can take out all 12 defenders they should most surely fail. As intended.

I get that there are a lot of players who would really like to simply duke it out, one force against the other on some more equal terms, but that should be reserved for a new game mode to be added to CW. Right now we have the first objective based game mode and we should not ruin that for those who have been wishing for that for so long.

[Mordric]

should it work more like you need to kill a 100% of the defending force before the base can even take damage?

[Summon3r]

Savage Wolf, on 20 December 2014 - 01:24 PM, said:

Fighting the defenders does not equal eliminating them. That is and should not be the goal in the current game mode. So, yes, the maps have been made so that will not be a viable strategy, because in the end all you need to do is take out the canon. All I'm talking about is attackers getting a reason to actually kill a defender on his way to the objective. If the attackers think they can take out all 12 defenders they should most surely fail. As intended.

I get that there are a lot of players who would really like to simply duke it out, one force against the other on some more equal terms, but that should be reserved for a new game mode to be added to CW. Right now we have the first objective based game mode and we should not ruin that for those who have been wishing for that for so long.

isnt that what i said? you are saying you want attackers to kill mechs on there way to the base? if say for the sake of a # attackers ahve to take out 30-50% of the defenders then take the base does that not accomplish what you are saying? maybe im completely missing what your point is though.

[Savage Wolf]

Mordric, on 20 December 2014 - 01:38 PM, said:

should it work more like you need to kill a 100% of the defending force before the base can even take damage?

No, not at all. It should work so that if you kill 2 defenders in your current push, you now have 2 less defenders bothering you on the way to Omega. Those defenders should not bother you again before the next wave or unless the defenders succesfully stall you long enough for reinforcements to arrive.

[Savage Wolf]

Summon3r, on 20 December 2014 - 01:47 PM, said:

isnt that what i said? you are saying you want attackers to kill mechs on there way to the base? if say for the sake of a # attackers ahve to take out 30-50% of the defenders then take the base does that not accomplish what you are saying? maybe im completely missing what your point is though.

I don't want attackers to focus on killing defenders, just that they actually have the option and have some use for those pesky weapons that take up tonnage on their mechs. That is all. It should still be all about the objective, all or nothing. And it would give a different strategy of more slowly push towards the objective, than outright rushing.

Right now, requiring attackers to kill a certain percentage of defenders to win isn't even possible. There are practically speaking always 12 defenders. Always.

[Angel of Annihilation]

Summon3r, on 20 December 2014 - 01:08 PM, said:

the way they are making these maps and objectives makes it impossible to fight the defenders, they have the upper hand in every respect, who in there right mind would attack through those suicide funnels expecially technically being down numbers considering u have 12 mechs and the defender has 12 mechs turrets and dropships. ive no answer to this at all but surely completely new maps would be a start..... and even at that i have no suggestion on how to force mech to mech fighting apart from one of the objectives being a certain number of defending mechs destroyed

I agree Summon3r the maps favor the defenders strongly so to win efficiently you have to resort to gimmicky tactics.

However, I am about at my breaking point because I am having zero fun attacking in CW. Honestly I at the point where I don't care about winning as long as the battle results in good fight but unfortunately I am only getting into that good fight with PUGs not with my unit.

I think the worst thing is that generally I consider myself to be a pretty good pilot but I feel my skill is degrading because CW is either rush the generators while making sure you don't actually kill any of the enemy or if on defend, burn down enemies who aren't even firing back at you and hope you manage it before they can pop the generators.

I am seriously at the point where I wish PGI would just remove the generators completely and make winning totally dependent on killing off all the enemy. That would be a hell of alot more fun a game.

[Summon3r]

Savage Wolf, on 20 December 2014 - 01:58 PM, said:

I don't want attackers to focus on killing defenders, just that they actually have the option and have some use for those pesky weapons that take up tonnage on their mechs. That is all. It should still be all about the objective, all or nothing. And it would give a different strategy of more slowly push towards the objective, than outright rushing.

Right now, requiring attackers to kill a certain percentage of defenders to win isn't even possible. There are practically speaking always 12 defenders. Always.

i dont mean a % of the currently on the battlefield mechs, i mean of the entire 48 mech drop dec, regardless i think we are both kind of getting at the same thing and as Viktor has said above us CW is really no fun at all unless u get to defend against a mix group pug drop where get to kill all 48 of them and have them shoot back at you.....

unfortunately CW has badly missed its mark in this early beta so lets be happy its early beta and hope things will progress somehow into a better game.....

Viktor i agree whole heartedly with you, except i do very much enjoy when we drop in 6-8 man groups vs another mix group and a zerg rush isnt what they do and each side slugs it out up to the 48 kills.