Jump to content

If You Want To Be Unit -Light Rush-...


54 replies to this topic

#41 Klappspaten

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 1,211 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 03 April 2015 - 05:18 PM

View PostMandrakerootes, on 03 April 2015 - 05:11 PM, said:

Conclusion, in order for PGI to nerf light rushes, all they have to do is remove Cbill rewards from CW :D


I would be fine if everybody in they would just make cBill rewards in CW for the whole team. So basically that everybody would get the same, the better the team does the more rewards everybody gets. That might bring people to think about how they can be an asset for the team and not just think about their own rewards.

#42 Tarogato

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Civil Servant
  • Civil Servant
  • 6,557 posts
  • LocationUSA

Posted 03 April 2015 - 06:46 PM

View PostKlappspaten, on 03 April 2015 - 05:18 PM, said:


I would be fine if everybody in they would just make cBill rewards in CW for the whole team. So basically that everybody would get the same, the better the team does the more rewards everybody gets. That might bring people to think about how they can be an asset for the team and not just think about their own rewards.

That just means there will be some people (more than you can imagine) that will just count on their team doing most of the work and not put in very much effort themselves.

#43 Klappspaten

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 1,211 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 03 April 2015 - 06:48 PM

View PostTarogato, on 03 April 2015 - 06:46 PM, said:

That just means there will be some people (more than you can imagine) that will just count on their team doing most of the work and not put in very much effort themselves.


Yeah, but with the current system those guys hang back and try to steal kills.
Jerks will be jerks I guess.

#44 sycocys

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Moderate Giver
  • Moderate Giver
  • 7,599 posts

Posted 03 April 2015 - 10:44 PM

View PostMandrakerootes, on 03 April 2015 - 05:11 PM, said:


Conclusion, in order for PGI to nerf light rushes, all they have to do is remove Cbill rewards from CW :D


The 30k-ish you might get from light rushing?

I do agree though removing C-bills from CW would end it, but it would also end the entire mode.

#45 ClaymoreReIIik

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Sureshot
  • The Sureshot
  • 499 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 03 April 2015 - 11:10 PM

People playing crappy is not a problem that PGI needs to solve.

It would go a long way if CW could be played with less then 12 and if group and solo queues would be separated, so its possible to avoid playing against (solo PuGs), but that has its own set of challenges and its not like that would make it go away, just moves the problem somewhere else.

If you try to be less idealistic and look at what CW is right now, you will find that the game mode offers a lot more options and different game outcomes then the other modes. Hell I have seen PuG teams beat up big premades (being on the PuG side)...

Just free yourself from the thought that this game needs to be played "your" way. There is too much playable variance in mech loadouts, peoples skills (what works for one, doesn't for the other) and even time zone specific "tactical meta" to be demanding that every pony does only one trick.

Try to think more of "solutions with the gameplay at hand" then "changes PGI could make to shepherd the black sheep". Its more fun.

Edited by ClaymoreReIIik, 03 April 2015 - 11:11 PM.


#46 Sandersson Jankins

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary
  • Mercenary
  • 352 posts

Posted 03 April 2015 - 11:32 PM

View PostClaymoreReIIik, on 03 April 2015 - 11:10 PM, said:

People playing crappy is not a problem that PGI needs to solve.

It would go a long way if CW could be played with less then 12 and if group and solo queues would be separated, so its possible to avoid playing against (solo PuGs), but that has its own set of challenges and its not like that would make it go away, just moves the problem somewhere else.

If you try to be less idealistic and look at what CW is right now, you will find that the game mode offers a lot more options and different game outcomes then the other modes. Hell I have seen PuG teams beat up big premades (being on the PuG side)...

Just free yourself from the thought that this game needs to be played "your" way. There is too much playable variance in mech loadouts, peoples skills (what works for one, doesn't for the other) and even time zone specific "tactical meta" to be demanding that every pony does only one trick.

Try to think more of "solutions with the gameplay at hand" then "changes PGI could make to shepherd the black sheep". Its more fun.


Exactly! PGI has "ideas" thrown at them in barrages. I'm sure they'll consider good ideas and bad, but their decision is changed little by my opinion.

However, any of us can do more work creating the game environment we wish to see. This is community warfare, after all! We've got to "breed" the community (promise i'm not vatborn i swear) in the way we'd like to see. This comes second to your own enjoyment usually, which everyone should seek first as long as it ain't abusive.

On topic, I fully support a light rush in which you leave omega at 25 percent or so. Just let there be a nice battle, even though you've got the potential to give them the "killswitch" at any time.

Edited by Sandersson Jankins, 03 April 2015 - 11:58 PM.


#47 Zoose

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Mercenary Rank 3
  • Mercenary Rank 3
  • 72 posts

Posted 03 April 2015 - 11:51 PM

I take note of the tone of the posts in this thread....I am one of the Field Commanders for our unit and I play to win because I wanted to help FRR take as many worlds as possible while we were here. I use light rushes when needed and I am not here to debate my tactics because it would take to long over this form of communication. I will ad that we have not light rushed and finished a map within one round by choice allowing ppl to earn points and have won the far majority of matches with help of fellow players. I will also add that this tactic is not the only tactic used and we are happy to use this tactic and defend against it when other teams use it against us.

Our unit has been here for just under 2 weeks and will be finishing its contract with FRR within 3 days and moving on.

Historically I have defended FRR from Kurita when we were not fighting back our borders. While I have had some very fun matches at FRR I can't help feel that our help in the last two weeks was neither appreciated or wanted by the people who made very negative comments in these forums. This is displeasing because a lot of Kurita have thought fondly of FRR since CW started.

We wish FRR all the best in the future and thank the many FRR players who have helped us defend and take worlds for FRR over the past two weeks.

#48 Klappspaten

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 1,211 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 04 April 2015 - 01:11 AM

View PostZoose, on 03 April 2015 - 11:51 PM, said:

I take note of the tone of the posts in this thread....I am one of the Field Commanders for our unit and I
Historically I have defended FRR from Kurita when we were not fighting back our borders. While I have had some very fun matches at FRR I can't help feel that our help in the last two weeks was neither appreciated or wanted by the people who made very negative comments in these forums. This is displeasing because a lot of Kurita have thought fondly of FRR since CW started.


Its sad to hear that you didn't feel welcome here. But it makes me think that you might not have been on the FRR hub much. In the forums we might sometimes seem a big pinheaded, but on the hub we are generally nice folk to be around. If you haven't been there I would strongly recommend to visit it before you leave, maybe you would leave with a better impression.

P.s.: Fox News is a great comedy station.

#49 CyclonerM

    Tina's Warrior

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 2
  • FP Veteran - Beta 2
  • 5,684 posts
  • LocationA 2nd Wolf Guards Grenadiers JumpShip

Posted 04 April 2015 - 01:36 AM

Well, as often happens, blame PGI and their simple design for the attack mode.

The current system favors victories in the last 2 hours or so, but the number of zones is quite too high.
Why? I do not agree that the only battles that matters are in the last hour, however this is how it goes. If an average victory by attrition in attack takes, say, 25 minutes, you would need either 5 hours or, more realistically, a large number of attackers to take a planet. But how often you see units doing light rushes when there is little time left, to take those last precious zones? With the fix on the April 21st, attackers will fight a lot more counterattacks, too, taking even less zones. Unless the number of zones is reduced back to 11 at least, you will need to do rushes even more to take any planet.

This is what i do not understand.. If a planet, say, has only 7 zones to be fought upon (and the algorithm worked in a way that gives the attacker faction another available planet as soon as the first target reaches 100% or something like that, so there is more to fight on), there would be much less pressure to take planets and there would be all the time to win by attrition all the times. Victories would matter more. It could work with the upcoming change since counterattacks will also happen more often.

#50 Klappspaten

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 1,211 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 04 April 2015 - 02:43 AM

View PostCyclonerM, on 04 April 2015 - 01:36 AM, said:

Well, as often happens, blame PGI and their simple design for the attack mode.

The current system favors victories in the last 2 hours or so, but the number of zones is quite too high.
Why? I do not agree that the only battles that matters are in the last hour, however this is how it goes. If an average victory by attrition in attack takes, say, 25 minutes, you would need either 5 hours or, more realistically, a large number of attackers to take a planet. But how often you see units doing light rushes when there is little time left, to take those last precious zones? With the fix on the April 21st, attackers will fight a lot more counterattacks, too, taking even less zones. Unless the number of zones is reduced back to 11 at least, you will need to do rushes even more to take any planet.

This is what i do not understand.. If a planet, say, has only 7 zones to be fought upon (and the algorithm worked in a way that gives the attacker faction another available planet as soon as the first target reaches 100% or something like that, so there is more to fight on), there would be much less pressure to take planets and there would be all the time to win by attrition all the times. Victories would matter more. It could work with the upcoming change since counterattacks will also happen more often.


I get what you are aiming for, but I don't think that would work. If the planets had half the sectors, the light rushes would only happen on more planets.

What I would like to see is if taking over a planet would take far longer, at least a week.
Right now we are taking whole planets in 8 hours, three times a day and thats the reason the CW map changes so rapidly. I really would like to see that we have to do full campaigns for each planet. Different kind of objectives, scouting missions, taking cities or spaceports or the side that loses on the planet could fight for a safe retreat, evacuate civilians or save equipment.
There is a lot of unused potential in the CW concept.

#51 Mandrakerootes

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • The Scythe
  • The Scythe
  • 70 posts

Posted 04 April 2015 - 03:04 AM

View Postsycocys, on 03 April 2015 - 10:44 PM, said:

The 30k-ish you might get from light rushing?

I do agree though removing C-bills from CW would end it, but it would also end the entire mode.


Have you read my post? I am talking about the DEFENDING team. Its obvious the lightrushers know they wont get alot of money so they focus on the objective. To reiterate my point, defenders need sharp focus and good teamwork to overcome a light rush but are blinded by the Cbills most of the time and lose sight of the bigger picture unless properly guided or trained together.

And my smile at the end should make it clear that im very much aware that just removing the reward would NOT be a solution.
Guess there really is no hope for irony on the internet :(

Edited by Mandrakerootes, 04 April 2015 - 03:05 AM.


#52 Mandrakerootes

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • The Scythe
  • The Scythe
  • 70 posts

Posted 04 April 2015 - 03:10 AM

View PostKlappspaten, on 04 April 2015 - 02:43 AM, said:


I get what you are aiming for, but I don't think that would work. If the planets had half the sectors, the light rushes would only happen on more planets.

What I would like to see is if taking over a planet would take far longer, at least a week.
Right now we are taking whole planets in 8 hours, three times a day and thats the reason the CW map changes so rapidly. I really would like to see that we have to do full campaigns for each planet. Different kind of objectives, scouting missions, taking cities or spaceports or the side that loses on the planet could fight for a safe retreat, evacuate civilians or save equipment.
There is a lot of unused potential in the CW concept.


PGI has build up alot of Faith Points™ over the last months and I will gladly give them time to work out things. I like the pace they are working at, but sadly a majority of people come with a "about damn time" mentality, not appreciating what PGI is currently focusing on vs. what they could still be focussed upon.

I agree that there is potential but what you are describing sounds like a full game on its own, which we would be experiencing live development on. Hopefully people understand how long it takes to do such things, in the times where there is a new AssCreed every 2 weeks.

#53 Klappspaten

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 1,211 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 04 April 2015 - 03:40 AM

View PostMandrakerootes, on 04 April 2015 - 03:10 AM, said:

I agree that there is potential but what you are describing sounds like a full game on its own, which we would be experiencing live development on. Hopefully people understand how long it takes to do such things, in the times where there is a new AssCreed every 2 weeks.


Im not saying that I demand that right now or that I expect to see that, but I would like to see that, or something like that in the future. PGI already anounced scouting missions, so I guess its going in the right direction.

#54 Tarogato

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Civil Servant
  • Civil Servant
  • 6,557 posts
  • LocationUSA

Posted 04 April 2015 - 03:51 AM

View PostKlappspaten, on 04 April 2015 - 02:43 AM, said:


I get what you are aiming for, but I don't think that would work. If the planets had half the sectors, the light rushes would only happen on more planets.

What I would like to see is if taking over a planet would take far longer, at least a week.
Right now we are taking whole planets in 8 hours, three times a day and thats the reason the CW map changes so rapidly. I really would like to see that we have to do full campaigns for each planet. Different kind of objectives, scouting missions, taking cities or spaceports or the side that loses on the planet could fight for a safe retreat, evacuate civilians or save equipment.
There is a lot of unused potential in the CW concept.


http://mwomercs.com/...munity-warfare/

#55 Klappspaten

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 1,211 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 04 April 2015 - 08:58 AM

View PostTarogato, on 04 April 2015 - 03:51 AM, said:



Yes, exactly like that, thx for the link.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users