179 replies to this topic

[Ainthe]

Here's a recap from another thread:

#Jman5 Any plans to fix generator rushing in Community Warfare?

[color=#959595]* Doesn't like it.. difficult to balance[/color]
[color=#959595]* perhaps double the HP of turrets and O-gens[/color]
[color=#959595]* key is to think how it affects a normal as opposed to griefing tactics[/color]
[color=#959595]* Perhaps go with 1/1/1/1[/color]
[color=#959595]* Not actively working on it.[/color]
[color=#959595]* Expects to see it during Tukkayid, but not alot[/color]
[color=#959595]* Jack up O-gen health prior to Tukkayid possibly to slow it down[/color]
[color=#959595]* Perhaps adding capture points prior to O-gen attacks.[/color]



Russ suggestions on Gen Rush deterrent is centered around improving its durability.

I think if the focus is to extend the fight around O-Gen; either:

A] Allow them to respawn over time; so attacking an O-Gen doesn't destroy but disrupts its power. Can also add a Sudden Death factor; where the O-Gen do not respawn after a set time.

or

B] Change O-Gen into Conquest points; but with small/short capture bars. Which allows defenders an opportunity to take back the O-Gen points between attack waves.

[sycocys]

Or separating lances into objectives before you can even get to the point of taking their base. The hp/capture point thing is only another band-aid because they refuse to develop the game into something deeper than assault mode.

[SuperNobody]

What about two layers of defensive positions? One layer could be easily bypassed by light mechs and harder for heavier mechs (such as the gates we have now), and the second could be more easily bypassed by heavier mechs but very dangerous to masses of lights. So, you'd need better coordination between the lights and heavies to crack the defenses.

If done right, it would make light rushes much more difficult until the heavies have already come through and destroyed the second line of defense.

[Mystere]

None of the above.

The bases should be redesigned to be real defensible bases that are difficult to attack. Then balance the attack game mode via drop asymmetry. Counterattack can have symmetrical drops as it it now.

[Deathlike]

Changing the gen health would affect the Light rush, but they would be used completely differently than they do now.

Understand that it still won't stop players from doing spawn camping... if anything, this will be a goto move as a result.

[Koniving]

In general, the game needs real objectives beyond simply rush the generators. Things to actually do. Optional objectives to make getting in easier, objectives that use up the space between the dropships and the base.

I went into detail on this once...just not in the mood to do it again... least not at the moment.

[CyclonerM]

Mystere, on 17 April 2015 - 11:27 AM, said:

None of the above.

The bases should be redesigned to be real defensible bases that are difficult to attack. Then balance the attack game mode via drop asymmetry. Counterattack can have symmetrical drops as it it now.

Exactly.. But i think they are all wasted dreams now, Russ said they are not thinking about even adding another game mode to CW.. Then he talks about a Defend the Dropship mode.. For public queques! I am wordless .

Koniving, on 17 April 2015 - 11:28 AM, said:

I went into detail on this once...just not in the mood to do it again... least not at the moment.

I kind of did too..

Edited by CyclonerM, 17 April 2015 - 11:31 AM.

[sycocys]

It doesn't even need to be different game modes honestly. Just use more of the maps and give players things to do in the current ones. Add depth to whats there and more players will be engaged by it win or lose.

Little things can add miles of strategy and replay value, especially if they offer rewards or other bonuses that have impacts on the match at hand. That kind of stuff draws players in and keeps them coming back.

-also they have all the tech already in the game to implement objectives - up to and including protecting caravans (dropships are just objects on programmed sky rails).

The only thing they'd have to add is either rewards or some tech for adding/subtracting bonuses on the fly, which honestly shouldn't be all that difficult to do given the way everything in the game is server side and our renders are layers of masks. (for fog of war, radar ranges and such)

Edited by sycocys, 17 April 2015 - 11:46 AM.

[Mystere]

sycocys, on 17 April 2015 - 11:41 AM, said:

It doesn't even need to be different game modes honestly. Just use more of the maps and give players things to do in the current ones. Add depth to whats there and more players will be engaged by it win or lose.

As an example, take Alpine Peaks. Build a base on top of the easternmost hill (H11-I13). Strategically place a dozen or so LRM and ERLL turrets in places that overlook the uphill approaches. It will literally be an uphill battle for the attackers, whether from the north (F13-G13) or the south (I12-J12). You do not even need walls. But, the attackers would probably need a bigger drop deck than the defenders to succeed.

Alternatively, and for an even tougher time for the attackers, wall off the uphill approach from the south, forcing the attackers to expose themselves while climbing uphill from the north.

A faction that loses such an imposing fortress deserves a tough time taking it back via a counterattack, and an even tougher time taking back the planet.

[Screech]

Would much rather have them make a map where the first line of defense is the outside perimeter of the base and not the inside.

[CptGier]

Solution? Change CW all together. Make not just skirmish and gen rush, but instead ,each time the missions are different.

One time the attacking force has to destroy the ogen and guns, next time he has to secure a base turret gen...idk, we would need vastly improved and Alpine sized maps for it, but give us more objectives then just...RUSH THE GEN!!!

THen it wouldnt even be possible to rush as players wouldnt know what type of mission they are in till they are in it...

[Triordinant]

Deathlike, on 17 April 2015 - 11:27 AM, said:

Understand that it still won't stop players from doing spawn camping... if anything, this will be a goto move as a result.

The solution Russ mentioned for spawn camping was dropships always hovering over the drop zones and focus-firing on one enemy 'mech at a time. I wonder if it'll work...

[CyclonerM]

CptGier, on 17 April 2015 - 01:01 PM, said:

THen it wouldnt even be possible to rush as players wouldnt know what type of mission they are in till they are in it...

Oh well. I would not blidnly drop my warriors and tell them " Ok, now figure out what you must do in order to weaken the enemy presence in this area and force him to withdraw. Good luck "

Triordinant, on 17 April 2015 - 01:06 PM, said:

The solution Russ mentioned for spawn camping was dropships always hovering over the drop zones and focus-firing on one enemy 'mech at a time. I wonder if it'll work...

I wonder how long a fresh BattleMech can survive after being focused by at least 7 large lasers. Not much, i guess..

And if i were piloting that BattleMech, i would still be thankful that i had not been focused by a Leopard with its actual weaponry..

Spoiler

2 x PPCs
3 x LRM-20s
7 x Medium Lasers
5 x Large Lasers

Edited by CyclonerM, 17 April 2015 - 01:14 PM.

[Dawnstealer]

Mystere, on 17 April 2015 - 11:27 AM, said:

None of the above.

The bases should be redesigned to be real defensible bases that are difficult to attack. Then balance the attack game mode via drop asymmetry. Counterattack can have symmetrical drops as it it now.

This - the "BIG GUN" idea was a good one for a test run to see if the dropships worked, to see if the idea of CW was sound in practice, but as a game idea, it's a bad one.

Make a base with several "things" on it: airbase (with hangers that need to be destroyed, flight tower that needs to be destroyed, why not the landing platform/strip?), power generators, bunkers, barracks, mech repair bay: saturate the base like a real base would be.

Make the goal "destroy all the stuff or all the mechs."

The "hovering dropship" idea is awful. Clans are hard enough to beat when they turtle up - could you imagine having to fight through that AND three dropships? No thanks.

[Mystere]

Triordinant, on 17 April 2015 - 01:06 PM, said:

The solution Russ mentioned for spawn camping was dropships always hovering over the drop zones and focus-firing on one enemy 'mech at a time. I wonder if it'll work...

I am really not a fan because the solution is obviously nothing but a product of the vast amount of QQ that resulted from players being spawn camped.

What's to stop the counterattacking force from just camping their own LZ after destroying the objective and gaining a kill advantage?

FYI, I only play solo, and always have.

[Harathan]

Mystere, on 17 April 2015 - 01:17 PM, said:

I am really not a fan because the solution is obviously nothing but a product of the vast amount of QQ that resulted from players being spawn camped.

What's to stop the counterattacking force from just camping their own LZ after destroying the objective and gaining a kill advantage?

FYI, I only play solo, and always have.

How about just slowing down their approach and exit? Or better yet, having the dropship linger for a few more seconds before dropping 'mechs, and for a few more seconds afterward? That way dropships don't become static defences, but do punish camping more.

Edited by Harathan, 17 April 2015 - 02:13 PM.

[MischiefSC]

Spawn camping is a product of imbalanced teams. There isn't much for it. A better team can avoid being spawn-camped. It's nothing more than faster result to the same end. If you can't push the other team off your spawn you're going to be too timid to kill them in the field. Spawn-camping is only sane and viable if you're better than the other team - otherwise you're putting yourself in a very vulnerable position. You're all the way in the enemy base, their fresh mechs show up immediately while you really don't have a way to effectively reinforce.

Probably the best solution is to have drop points have better cover. You drop into a largely closed off area or there are obstructions preventing the other team from shooting at/seeing your drop zone from within the defensive perimeter.

That's a far, far superior option to buggering up all other aspects of balance.

[Telmasa]

Dawnstealer, on 17 April 2015 - 01:14 PM, said:

This - the "BIG GUN" idea was a good one for a test run to see if the dropships worked, to see if the idea of CW was sound in practice, but as a game idea, it's a bad one.

Make a base with several "things" on it: airbase (with hangers that need to be destroyed, flight tower that needs to be destroyed, why not the landing platform/strip?), power generators, bunkers, barracks, mech repair bay: saturate the base like a real base would be.

Make the goal "destroy all the stuff or all the mechs."

The "hovering dropship" idea is awful. Clans are hard enough to beat when they turtle up - could you imagine having to fight through that AND three dropships? No thanks.

Mystere, on 17 April 2015 - 01:17 PM, said:

I am really not a fan because the solution is obviously nothing but a product of the vast amount of QQ that resulted from players being spawn camped.

What's to stop the counterattacking force from just camping their own LZ after destroying the objective and gaining a kill advantage?

FYI, I only play solo, and always have.

I would fix it by making the maps bigger and *MUCH* wider than they are now - and offset the defender's spawnpoints, far away enough so that the dropships could be 'OP', but only for the sake of covering the spawn area and *not* the objective area (whether it's a MFB or a planetary orbital defense cannon).

MischiefSC, on 17 April 2015 - 02:17 PM, said:

Spawn camping is a product of imbalanced teams. There isn't much for it. A better team can avoid being spawn-camped. It's nothing more than faster result to the same end. If you can't push the other team off your spawn you're going to be too timid to kill them in the field. Spawn-camping is only sane and viable if you're better than the other team - otherwise you're putting yourself in a very vulnerable position. You're all the way in the enemy base, their fresh mechs show up immediately while you really don't have a way to effectively reinforce.

Probably the best solution is to have drop points have better cover. You drop into a largely closed off area or there are obstructions preventing the other team from shooting at/seeing your drop zone from within the defensive perimeter.

That's a far, far superior option to buggering up all other aspects of balance.

No, that just makes it even easier to spawn camp. More fake cover (i.e. the most recent woodlands map) just makes it worse, not better.

Edited by Telmasa, 17 April 2015 - 02:23 PM.

[Davegt27]

Can anyone that has played TT or some other video game maybe give us an example of a better system?

I don't find that gen rush is that big of a problem (why) because it’s a tactic


But sure would like to hear about different ways of doing things

[Deathlike]

Triordinant, on 17 April 2015 - 01:06 PM, said:

The solution Russ mentioned for spawn camping was dropships always hovering over the drop zones and focus-firing on one enemy 'mech at a time. I wonder if it'll work...

Well, they haven't even created a 4th dropship point, so the dropship can't stay there indefinitely (we're talking about respawns @ 30 second waits at most).

Even at that rate, smarter teams will try to "get out of dropship range", but still fire at mid-range (ISLL or CERMED) to the targets dropping out of the dropship. The base dropships are only IS Meds, which at optimal range of the common mid-range weapons would not be very effective.