72 replies to this topic

[Scion Koga]

Howdy,

I've seen this occurring in the last week or so of CW, and i'm sorry to admit that I have been on team of mixed units where the attackers refused to fight in order to keep a full 12 man team locked into a match for 30 minutes.

I've seen this done to many good teams who only wish to have a decent fight, and are forced to wait around. I can't remember the team that I faced, but you have my apology for wasting your time.

Therefore, no member of the Kell Hounds will ever consider this a strategy when dealing with 12 man teams. I also encourage other teams that think the same to pledge that their teams will follow a similar model.

We will do our best also to find and catalog any circumstance of this happening and give it to the proper moderators and admins.

We are here to play, and if you are intentionally preventing others from doing so, you are in the wrong.

Scion Koga

Loremaster
Kell Hounds

[Davers]

It's a valid tactic, just like 12 man groups driving pugs back to their dropship and farming them there. 'Playing the clock' is a good tactic if you don't think you can beat 'em. On the plus side, it might make the 12 mans break up into smaller groups giving everyone more of a chance.

[Roadbeer]

Nope,
Completely valid tactic. It's called a "holding attack".
http://www.militaryf...sp?term_id=2461

See also:
"Delaying Action"
http://www.thefreedi...delaying+action
and
"Delaying Operation"
http://www.militaryf...sp?term_id=1581

And it actually has it's roots as a TRUE military tactic.

Scion Koga, on 26 December 2014 - 08:26 PM, said:

We will do our best also to find and catalog any circumstance of this happening and give it to the proper moderators and admins.

We are here to play, and if you are intentionally preventing others from doing so, you are in the wrong.
Kell Hounds

Well I hope you're also reporting those who are ignoring the objectives on attack and kill farming by spawn camping the dropships.

Given the two, the former is more in the spirit of a military campaign, where the later is just douchebaggery.

Edited by Roadbeer, 26 December 2014 - 10:24 PM.

[Tarogato]

^ Considering the above post, I don't see much of a problem with it. I've used it before by calling Zellbrigen on clanners and then doing 1v1 honour duels for 20+ minutes against a team that we knew would wreck us in 5 minutes if we played the match out normally.

[Illuzian Pryde]

Whatever means you use to justify it, it is against the Code of Conduct:
http://mwomercs.com/...ploitsgriefing/
"Non-Participation Abuse
If a player has joined a match, they must have launched the game with intent to play. Players who are not moving, or are otherwise not participating in the spirit of the game, fall under this category. While we all understand the call of nature: Repeated abuse of this behaviour, similarly to 'Mech Suicide and Team Killing, results in an unfair advantage for the enemy teams, and is thus not considered acceptable use. Please keep in mind that idling on your cap point without armour or moving does not constitute a form of tactical "Base Defense"."

Edited by Illuzian Pryde, 26 December 2014 - 10:33 PM.

[Roadbeer]

Illuzian Pryde, on 26 December 2014 - 10:32 PM, said:

Whatever means you use to justify it, it is against the Code of Conduct:
http://mwomercs.com/...ploitsgriefing/
"Non-Participation Abuse
If a player has joined a match, they must have launched the game with intent to play. Players who are not moving, or are otherwise not participating in the spirit of the game, fall under this category. While we all understand the call of nature: Repeated abuse of this behaviour, similarly to 'Mech Suicide and Team Killing, results in an unfair advantage for the enemy teams, and is thus not considered acceptable use. Please keep in mind that idling on your cap point without armour or moving does not constitute a form of tactical "Base Defense"."

NOPE,
One could argue the same that the defender doesn't leave their base to engage the attacker, since it's the defenders objective to destroy all enemy mechs.

So who should report whom?

Or you can just admit that strategically, you've been outplayed.

EDIT:
Also, you're quoting from a time when the only game mode was Deathmatch with 0-5 bases. Map tactics and overall strategic decisions in regards to Community Warfare play have not been revised in the CoC.

Edited by Roadbeer, 26 December 2014 - 10:41 PM.

[Scion Koga]

There is no point in getting into a childish argument.

The attacker's objective is to destroy the generator. By not doing so you are there by not following the spirit of the objective. Therefore, you are not participating in the mode as designed.

You can call it whatever you like, it doesn't change the fact that you waste the time of people that want to play the game as designed. Especially when those people are coordinated enough to develop a full team. It isn't fair to them or the people on the attacking side who just want to play.

[Illuzian Pryde]

Roadbeer, on 26 December 2014 - 10:35 PM, said:

NOPE,
One could argue the same that the defender doesn't leave their base to engage the attacker.
So who should report whom?

Or you can just admit that stragetically, you've been outplayed.

I appreciate your flawed logic but:
defend
dɪˈfɛnd/
verb
gerund or present participle: defending

• 1.
  resist an attack made on (someone or something); protect from harm or danger.

attack
əˈtak/
verb
gerund or present participle: attacking

• 1.
  take aggressive military action against (a place or enemy forces) with weapons or armed force.

[Roadbeer]

I noticed how neither of you address my point about ignoring the objective of attacking the generators to spawn camping.

But that's ok, I'll wait, I'm sure you were getting to that in your edits.

[Liam Avery]

This is a valid tactic. Especially considering how most drop commanders tend to be incompetent and begin getting impatient when the enemy employs this tactic. Effectively tying up an opposing 12-man allows other coordinated units a chance to get an uncoordinated enemy, or a B-team the next drop.

[Shimmering Sword]

If you're on the receiving end of this "exploit", it means you're clearly in the lead and should have no trouble pushing out to clean up the remaining stallers.

If I take ACES into an attack that turns unwinnable, against an opponent I know will stomp other teams even harder. Yep, I'm gonna call for slowed combat. If I can prevent a skilled team from stomping out pugs for 20-30 minutes and the advantaged defenders want to protect their precious KDR, we can all wait.

Now, tell us about how you report entire teams in skirmish mode when both sides set up in a standoff position, waiting for the other team to make a move. Oh...

[Roadbeer]

Shimmering Sword, on 26 December 2014 - 11:55 PM, said:

If you're on the receiving end of this "exploit", it means you're clearly in the lead and should have no trouble pushing out to clean up the remaining stallers.

If I take ACES into an attack that turns unwinnable, against an opponent I know will stomp other teams even harder. Yep, I'm gonna call for slowed combat. If I can prevent a skilled team from stomping out pugs for 20-30 minutes and the advantaged defenders want to protect their precious KDR, we can all wait.

Now, tell us about how you report entire teams in skirmish mode when both sides set up in a standoff position, waiting for the other team to make a move. Oh...

I think he's referring more to something we did to the 228th tonight where we waited 15 minutes before engaging in the first wave, knowing that they only had 1 or 2 companies playing. By tying them up for the duration of a full match other units were able to achieve victories and we took the planet.

The QQing from the 5 minute mark on, and threats of reports, "We're recording this, enjoy your ban", etc were quite hilarious.

[AeusDeif]

Is it allowed under ToS? Maybe

Does it simulate a valid military tactic? Probably

Would I personally support it? not likely


With that said, no one is ever forcing the defenders to stay in their base, because Jumpjets.

Also after getting 1-shotted by Steiner DZ campers and observing the general exploitability of the CW beta, I don't feel much sympathy for certain factions. And even outside CW, certain units are feared because of their habit of finding exploits quickly and using them without mercy all the way to patch. It'll be interesting to see if any player groups are able to push the community in another direction.

[Baelfire]

Illuzian Pryde, on 26 December 2014 - 10:32 PM, said:

Whatever means you use to justify it, it is against the Code of Conduct:
http://mwomercs.com/...ploitsgriefing/
"Non-Participation Abuse
If a player has joined a match, they must have launched the game with intent to play. Players who are not moving, or are otherwise not participating in the spirit of the game, fall under this category. While we all understand the call of nature: Repeated abuse of this behaviour, similarly to 'Mech Suicide and Team Killing, results in an unfair advantage for the enemy teams, and is thus not considered acceptable use. Please keep in mind that idling on your cap point without armour or moving does not constitute a form of tactical "Base Defense"."

The important part is "results in an unfair advantage for the enemy". In CW, locking down an enemy is not an adavantage for the enemy, thus it is not against the CoC. On top of that, playing for your faction and helping you faction as much as you can is a top priority objective, that should influence every decision you make. And sometimes not fighting helps your cause more than fighting. Thats pretty obvious, imo.

I do not like it, you do not like it, but it's a legit strategy.

Edited by Baelfire, 27 December 2014 - 08:29 AM.

[Sky Hunter]

Illuzian Pryde, on 26 December 2014 - 10:32 PM, said:

Whatever means you use to justify it, it is against the Code of Conduct:
http://mwomercs.com/...ploitsgriefing/
"Non-Participation Abuse
If a player has joined a match, they must have launched the game with intent to play. Players who are not moving, or are otherwise not participating in the spirit of the game, fall under this category. While we all understand the call of nature: Repeated abuse of this behaviour, similarly to 'Mech Suicide and Team Killing, results in an unfair advantage for the enemy teams, and is thus not considered acceptable use. Please keep in mind that idling on your cap point without armour or moving does not constitute a form of tactical "Base Defense"."

But this is not a matter of idling, it is a matter of waiting for the enemy to become antsy and for the individuals to make the mistake of moving in. Even I fall prey to it and I know better than to press without the need to press... but I want a good score, this helps in credits and FP, so I the one who is almost always guarding the objectives end up moving forward and pressing the enemy with LRMs and Small lasers at brawling range, or with 3 ER large lasers hitting at 1700 distance and lacking targets move into brawling range, accepting that my mech is about to be toast but trying to take a few enemies down with me (which often succeeds in at least 1 if not several).

If they are not afk, not DCed, but are doing a delaying action then this is a valid tactic, one I considered last week as a functional solution for taking two or three 12 man single unit defenders out of the equation long enough to get a enough wins to reverse the direction of the defenders into counter attackers, but as many notice, it is allot harder to win against a single unit 12 man attack (or counter attack).

In game I use delaying tactic to split the enemy forces, hitting them in their rear where the slowest mechs have yet to catch up, attempting to draw them farther away from the main body or even better, to force the main body to reverse direction to deal with me, allowing my side to get the tactical advantage, and that is what that tactic does by delaying the success of the enemy in defending, stretching out the battle a little while longer while other forces move in and while they may still face defenders, they might not be facing another single unit 12 man.

[mp00]

Hello folks, remember this is Community Warfare "BETA" there will be and are plenty of issues now and in the future as we all look to ways to win. No doubt PGI will look a this and come to a conclusion, hopefully it will involve a few Aerotech fighters strafing mechs.

In the case of a team avoiding combat for the full 30 minutes then, in my mind that is obviously against the CoC. But what if the team sends in 1 mech at a time? They can delay and not be violating the CoC? They could run the battle to the full 30 minutes still. Is it violating the CoC or just the dumbest strategy ever?

As they did play where to draw the line? Is PGI supposed to enforce NBA style (shot clocks) "battle clocks"? I have been on a team with multiple DCs after drop and we waited several minutes for them to all get back in. Is that against the CoC? What if a team is waiting to see if he enemy rushes out with a light swarm? Or a team is trying to goad the enemy into sending out scouts to ambush? What if the team has some uber slow mechs, I have seen a missile stalker doing under 30kph and taking 5 minutes to get to the gate we were going to attack... How about in public cue on conquest.. how many times have we seen 2-3 mechs remaining on a team scatter to the wind and totally try to avoid combat with the cap lead? Is the mech that shuts down and hides in a battle going against the CoC? Or is he waiting in ambush? I know I have complained against people doing this.. but I have also seen a player ambush and kill 2 enemy mechs and win game using this method.

So yes PGI should look at delaying tactics, just like they should look at spawn campers who sit waiting for mechs to drop and core there backs out before they have the time to even turn. PGI needs to look a dozens of other things that need adjusting or clarifying. As I am sure I would hate to be on the side being delayed, as much as I hate losing my last 2 mechs from dropship before I can even turn to engage.

So what to do? Allow team inside to open gate to sortie out after certain amount of time? (at what time should a sortie be available?) Have Aerospace fighters strafe mechs who have stayed outside at spawn for 10 minutes? (I know I would actually sit outside for 10 minutes at least once to see it) Have dropships stay and hover if enemy mechs within 500 metres of attackers spawn point? (at this point lets make the dropship destroyable?) Do we add in another option for mechs to "hotdrop" nearby risking damage if spawn point is to hot?

This is Community Warfare "BETA" push the boundaries, find the exploits and abuses. If it is something that works too well it probably should be changed or hit with the nerf bat. The game will change and PGI has proven they will address our concerns.. in time.. but changes will occur faster if we can give them ideas that would be fair to all sides.

Ok think I have rambled on enough..

Edited by mp00, 27 December 2014 - 08:52 AM.

[Neput Z34]

Concept of honor left the Inner Sphere with Kerensky, during the SLDF "Exodus", and it ain't exactly coming back with Clans, at least not all of them.

Some groups of people will try to win by any means necessary and as the saying goes "All is fair in love and War". The delaying tactic may be interpreted as non participation abuse, but as long as attackers don't power down in the corner of the map some where or move from their drop zone they are not in clear violation of the rules. As long as they are "active" they maybe violating the "intent" of the rules but not the actual rules.

How many times have you won or lost a Conquest match because the last surviving mech ran or hid as the cap points reached 750? Was he also violating the rules by not fighting? I know it's apples to oranges, but in some peoples eyes they are "skirting" the rules.

No I do not support delaying tactic in CW, because it's 30 min of everyone's time that is being wasted. If you wish to waste time of your opposition, go play some other game that encourage that tactic. Even though fighting by not fighting is a way to fight.

Edited by Neput Z34, 27 December 2014 - 08:56 AM.

[BenMartin]

Scion Koga, on 26 December 2014 - 10:39 PM, said:

There is no point in getting into a childish argument.

The attacker's objective is to destroy the generator. By not doing so you are there by not following the spirit of the objective. Therefore, you are not participating in the mode as designed.

With due respect, no. The attacker's objective is to take the planet. Holding a unit so it's not as much danger to your faction's other attacking units is not meta-gaming. It's within the game, and it's a valid strategy.

Scion Koga, on 26 December 2014 - 10:39 PM, said:

You can call it whatever you like, it doesn't change the fact that you waste the time of people that want to play the game as designed. Especially when those people are coordinated enough to develop a full team. It isn't fair to them or the people on the attacking side who just want to play.

"It isn't fair" is not a valid strategic argument.

This is no more or less a waste of time than farming the dropships, or zerging lights. Both those tactics (when done well) suck to be on the receiving end, just as much. Hell, being in the light zerg isn't really all that fun either... Exciting once, but all the time? Meh. And all these things are valid - and effective - in the game as it presently exists.

Edited by BenMartin, 27 December 2014 - 12:15 PM.

[Devil Fox]

This strategy is a total failure... on both maps the Defending team CAN get over the gates to engage you at your drop zone, even without jumpjets. If a team employs this then we will farm them out regardless... we will press the attackers early just to get a quick match turn around (and honestly pugs are also looking for good fights, fight them on more even footing and they enjoy the match even if it's a beat down).

[Roadbeer]

Apostal Sinclair, on 27 December 2014 - 02:50 PM, said:

This strategy is a total failure.... If a team employs this then we will farm them out regardless...