72 replies to this topic

[MischiefSC]

Commander A9, on 27 December 2014 - 11:21 PM, said:

During a PUG match in CW, as an attacker, I outlined a plan, and said "attack."

The PUGs didn't move.

In fact, they refused to move due to enemy suppression fire.

They refused to cross the gates out of fear.

Is being paralyzed by the fear of blowing up a violation of the terms of service? I was stuck in THAT match as much as the opponent I had dropped against.

Furthermore, if I know my team is going to get butchered by fruitlessly throwing ourselves through the gates with no hope of victory, is it a violation of the terms of service to hold back and refuse to die needlessly?

This is my same view. It only takes 2 players on your team deciding to 'do their own thing' to pretty much ensure failure in most matches. Are they breaking ToS? I have 10x more issue with people on attack hanging back to snipe/LRM and hope to put 80 pts together instead of pushing objective (which, if you're actually shooting the enemy along the way, nets you over 100 easy, boreal or sulfur) than I do with people on defense just deciding to camp their gates. That's no worse than your average old-school Skirmish match when everyone brought PPCs and LRMs.

Sandbagging your whole team by hanging back while they're all sticking to a plan though, that just sucks. That's wasting 11 peoples time and buggering whatever faction you're fighting for that round. Not a whole lot different than legging allied mechs; you're actively ensuring they fail at winning the match.

[StillRadioactive]

Welp, I figure I might as well weigh in here...

I feel sympathy for both sides of this. I've been on teams that just absolutely got roflstomped by 12-mans and got farmed for c-bills.

I've been on teams that steamrolled the enemy, and it wouldn't have surprised me if the enemy had tried to tie us up for the best interest of their faction.

Personally, I've never made the call to not engage specifically to make the match take longer. I've told people not to poke to avoid giving away plans. I've told people not to poke so we could bait a trap. I've ordered my team to try to play an attrition match when it was clear we were going to lose, because that attrition match was the sweet spot that was both actual combat and maximizing the enemy's time.

Hell, I've even repeatedly tried to sync-drop my guys against a 12-man that whooped our asses several times in a row.

Why?

Because I knew that my guys would put up a better fight than most.

It sucked. The metaphor used at the time was "it's like repeatedly dickslapping a porcupine." But we did it because it was good for the faction.

What we did NOT do is just refuse to attack. From where I'm standing, that looks like a violation of the CoC. That CoC was written in the before time, in the long long ago. It needs clarification.

Until it gets that clarification, you won't see me give the order to just not attack. Even if the devs give it the OK, you probably STILL won't see me give the order to just not attack. It doesn't sit right with me.

[Dracol]

It might suck if you're on the receiving end of this strategically influenced tactic. But violation against the CoC? Highly doubt it.

If a 12 man find themselves facing an attacking enemy that is employing this tactic, they should go out and engage them. Both CW maps have ways for even land bound mechs to make it over the gates. The 12 man might make themselves vulnerably. Them 12 randoms thrown together may actually have a chance to win.

Now, if you drop in 12 mans so that you have the best chance to win, you might think "why should I give em enemies even the slightest chance to win?" Cause, if em pugs never, ever have a chance...well, we won't see em in CW for much longer. Every so often, IMHO, its good to give em a good fight, offer em a sliver of hope, and make the game at least somewhat more enjoyable for an opponent who most likely never had a chance in the first place.

[Shimmering Sword]

Another reminder that if the defending team sits in their base and also refuses to engage, they also break the same ToS language that ye "only play things my way" haters are citing.
Again, if an attacking team is stalling, they are doing so in the face of a clearly better defender that can easily move out and engage.

The objective of CW is to take planets. An entire attacking team holding does not sabotage the team, nor does it sabotage the faction.

War isn't all gentlemanly duels and handshaking. If you want to play straight edge, prepare to lose for your faction.

[Kjudoon]

Quote

What we did NOT do is just refuse to attack. From where I'm standing, that looks like a violation of the CoC. That CoC was written in the before time, in the long long ago. It needs clarification.

Fire one shot, do one point of damage, move around with what looks like the intent to play, tag one target...

You are no longer able to be charged with "non-participation".

So sayeth the devs in multiple threads.

You may suck and have a horrible experience, but you are not violating CoC or ToS.

Let's just quit pretending that they are.

And now, since there is a valid reason, delaying tactics to help do some good on the campaign level if you as the attacker do not believe you can win anymore, sitting back shut down forcing the defenders to come and find you is now a valid strategic move. Boring as buffalo snot on a dry august day, but valid, and no longer non-participation if they've done any of the above previous actions.

Edited by Kjudoon, 28 December 2014 - 07:08 AM.

[StillRadioactive]

Shimmering Sword, on 28 December 2014 - 07:02 AM, said:

Another reminder that if the defending team sits in their base and also refuses to engage, they also break the same ToS language that ye "only play things my way" haters are citing.
Again, if an attacking team is stalling, they are doing so in the face of a clearly better defender that can easily move out and engage.

This is not true. The defending team has two win conditions: run the timer down, or destroy all enemy 'mechs.

Not engaging rapidly is literally the primary objective for the defender.

Most teams elect to win via the secondary objective of destroying all enemy 'mechs, though.

[Kjudoon]

Well, they have to keep the attackers from destroying the cannon, so there is the source of the conflict becuse that's one of the two victory conditions for the attackers.

Defenders have a choice. Play passive and let the attackers fling themselves at them till they stop or die, or they can be active, and go get the dirty little invaders before they can even put a scuff on your pretty gates. Just don't let them break your cannon.

It's pretty and goes boom.

[$imon Osis]

I had a night like that, when I was still in MercStar. it was like a week ago and we kept getting matched up with a LORDS 12 man, we were only 9. for the life of us we were just not coordinated enough to even come close to winning or making them work for it. Yet we ended up in match with them 5 dam time lol. So we decided that since cease Fire was like 3 hours away we would try to just tie them up in match so other ppl were not getting them, giving them a chance to make head way on the planet we were fighting over. So we tied them up on our 3rd 4th & 5th match with them for as much of th 30 min a we could......and guess what since others did not have to fight them that planet went into our factions control.

So im sorry if your do not like it, But there are units that will do it.......for the right reasons instead of doing just cause

[Kjudoon]

That's Captain Bars thinking, not Sergeant Stripes thinking. Good job. Try to win, but if not possible, delay delay delay.

Never sell yourself cheaply either.

[knight-of-ni]

I call it a valid tactic.

Feel free to disagree. There really is no need to argue about it since none of us have the ability to enforce the perceived ruleset. I encourage anyone who disagrees to report it. Report it frequently and often. You'll get your answer from PGI soon enough.

[Donas]

Its a strategic decision in a tactical environment. One team is playing to win the match (where tactics come into play), while the other team is playing to win the planet (where strategy comes into play).

In the case of elite defenders with low populations, this isnt MCW or MRBC. The objective for those units in CW is to win as quickly as possible. And that's a game changer for them. It forces them to engage, and take risks, lest they be simply outmaneuvered by overwhelming numbers fighting against the B teams on their faction. (and no, not talking turrets here, I havent seen a turret run in over a week, but thats just my experience) It forces them to bring the fight out of thier Plan A, giving some level of controlling the fight back to their opponent. Will the Elite team usually win the match anyway? Yes. They are highly skilled/coordinated/min-maxed/efficiently built. They have put in long hours to be successful at a mission tactic level. The fact that the community at large can outfox them in community warfare adds some legitimacy to calling it that, CW.

This is one of the things that makes CW cool, that it gives everyone a way in which they can participate meaningfully, not just as the footnote to the super-elite.

[Timto]

as long as many people prefer to - easily dominate - their enemy, any kind of "strategies" will be used.
My opinion is that this "problem" (balancing) should be solved by the community, not only PGI. And I don't mean discussions about valid strategies... (its not, but ok)
in extrem: 24 players and the 12 better ones want to play (always) together - and eveybody thinks and wants to be the "better player". This game needs at least a minimum amount of role play (or go for a another game). I don't blame anyone, but I have the feeling this good game could be fantastic if the "community" (I mean all players) would work together - "think big"! Many already do...

[Jacob Side]

Fat Jack Murphy, on 27 December 2014 - 10:57 PM, said:

thats why liao is currently failing out. they are all in for battles against the fedcom.
if they made all the matches slow ones, the fedcom would loose interest. people would choose to battle on the clan front instead or mess with the bigger draconis combine.

No we wouldn't. Laio needs to be removed from the map

[Roadbeer]

Just to clarify my point on this a bit.

I completely do not condone a "no action" drop. While I don't see that as a violation of the CoC, because strategically, it's valid in regards to the meta-game. I do see it as a waste on the part of the attackers to even generate the slightest benefit/reward for the pilots attacking in the drop.

Having said that, once a match is created, the defenders are ENTIRELY on the attackers time table. As stated above, there is no "shot clock", so the attacker is not beholden to move an inch before they feel it's time.

On my part, and the time I've utilized it, and plans for using it in the future. I've calculated the maximum amount of time necessary to complete the goals (when I'm drop leader) should things go well, and if not, how to best tie up a superior opponent and keep them off the field in the interest of capturing a planet.

Those who are in the drop are told the exact moment we were going to make a move, and what the objective is, until that time, they are told to hold and watch for scouts or counter-attacks.

It was just an added benefit that more QQing was thrown over the wall than mechs. They got antsy, frustrated, and while they won the match, they lost the planet.

It was an all around success

[ApolloKaras]

I don't mind if a holding tactic is employed against a 12 man honestly. If they are holding you... then go out and get them? You clearly would be the superior force if you've already gotten into their head that they have to hide.

[Vercinix]

So I’ll toss my weight in here as one of the leaders for the 228th IBR.

Personally I find this tactic distasteful and I would sooner kick a member from my unit if they employed this. This is however a reasonable tactic and I can’t blame a unit for not being willing to fight even thought they should learn from that loss instead.

The solution in my mind is not if this valid or not. It is in a problem with the mechanics of the game. If the superior team (or any team for that matter) is on the defense and they for all purposes own that base, why can't they open the damn gates? I’m ok if a team wants to hide but I want to come out and find them.

A quick way to implement this is to allow the Defense to destroy their own Gate Generators (I don't think you can atm, I could be wrong). It implies that they have to do something dangerous like remove a layer of their defense for the rest of that match to leave the base.

This will cause other issues of course (makes it suddenly easy to bait the defense out and make rushing for attack even easier as one example) but for purpose of this thread this simple change would give everyone what they want (for the most part).

Thank you,
Vercinix

Edited by Vercinix, 28 December 2014 - 01:17 PM.

[Roadbeer]

So, you want to give the power to open the gates to anyone on the the defensive side who has any weapon mounted on their mech?

Because you can't stop them from doing it.

This will cause more griefing than anything I've seen proposed since the launch of CW.

Also, this strategy you find distasteful, but spawn-camping is AOK in your book?

Edited by Roadbeer, 28 December 2014 - 01:21 PM.

[Scion Koga]

Roadbeer, on 28 December 2014 - 01:20 PM, said:

Also, this strategy you find distasteful, but spawn-camping is AOK in your book?

Don't lose your spawn. You've lost the game already if you have played so inefffectively that you can't even hold where you drop.

Instead of figuring out ways to not fight, why don't you figure out ways to actually beat the enemy team on the field. All this energy could have been invested into practice, training, and using effective builds.

Difference is that one side is shooting big stompy robots, and the other is intentionally not shooting big stompy robots.

The entire practice sends a terrible message to the community.

"Don't worry about getting better, because when you do, the other team will just refuse to fight you."

Edited by Scion Koga, 28 December 2014 - 02:08 PM.

[Vercinix]

I'm not following, why would anyone in my 12-man open the gates unless we wanted you to come in and die, or to get out and kill you? If your worry is about the Defense closing it behind you, just shoot the generator and prevent them from closing it?

As for the off topic part concerning spawn camping. If a team is able to spawn camp you, did you really think you were going to win? Also PGI has already noted this issue and is working on a solution so there is no reason to obsess over that problem.

Edited by Vercinix, 28 December 2014 - 02:16 PM.

[Roadbeer]

Scion Koga, on 28 December 2014 - 01:58 PM, said:

Don't lose your spawn. You've lost the game already if you have played so inefffectively that you can't even hold where you drop.

The entire practice sends a terrible message to the community.

"Don't worry about getting better, because when you do, the other team will just refuse to fight you."

Just so we're clear,

You find a time honored military strategy, with a couple thousand years of implementation, an exploit that is reportable.

But exploiting a design flaw in a multiplayer game, that has been considered the height of douchebaggery since the advent of the respawn, is perfectly acceptable.

Or did I miss something?

Vercinix, on 28 December 2014 - 02:14 PM, said:

I'm not following, why would anyone in my 12-man open the gates unless we wanted you to come in and die, or to get out and kill you? If your worry is about the Defense closing it behind you, just shoot the generator and prevent them from closing it?

That's all great if you're in a 12 man, but say you're with some pugs. You want them to decide when the gate opens?

Vercinix, on 28 December 2014 - 02:14 PM, said:

Also PGI has already noted this issue and is working on a solution so there is no reason to obsess over that problem.

So, exploit it until it's fixed? Seems to me if PGI knows it's a REAL problem, you probably shouldn't be doing it.

Loosing your "high road" quite rapidly.

Edited by Roadbeer, 28 December 2014 - 02:39 PM.