58 replies to this topic

[QueenBlade]

wfischer, on 18 June 2015 - 09:39 AM, said:

Having been spawncamped a number of times now (Mostly by KCom, thanks Pat!), I have to say that the dropships seem significantly worse now. I've seen some come in and not fire a single shot at enemies standing right below them.

I'm going to go on a coding hunch and say that their algorithm/function call for prioritizing enemy mechs is the cause. I remember there was a time that friendly mechs would get hit cause the dropship was firing on enemy mechs.
So my hunch is they changed it so enemy mechs at certain angles/ranges would not get fired upon to prevent friendly fire, thus there are holes/blind spots in the drop ships. Easily exploited if you close within 200m of the drop ship.

[Kin3ticX]

Pat Kell, on 18 June 2015 - 12:20 AM, said:

after playing some more tonight with a full 12 man, I would say that no, it's not working as intended. We are still capable of sitting in their spawns....may have to buff the dropships more. Give these guys a chance...


I am being serious. We were able to sit in the spawn for 1 full rotation of dropships and kill enemies as the dropped. Granted, the next wave wiped us all out but if you want to end the match a little quicker, ball up and make sure everyone is in range of the drop ships, then just torso twist a bit and you can wipe a whole wave....better buff them more because the whining won't stop until everyone is given a fair and equal chance to shoot their little guns...whether they earned it or not.

Would rather see a 5-10 sec invulnerability timer. I can see that being a huge direct spawn camp deterrent. Nervous about buffing the dropships more because I still get stray shots while not spawn camping when on attack.

[Pat Kell]

Think 5-10 secs may be a bit much, can do a lot of damage in that time for free...maybe 2-3 so you can get 1 alpha off and start moving. I like that idea though.

[Antares102]

Pat Kell, on 18 June 2015 - 09:29 PM, said:

Think 5-10 secs may be a bit much, can do a lot of damage in that time for free...maybe 2-3 so you can get 1 alpha off and start moving. I like that idea though.

5-10 sec only seems much wehn the enemy is camping in your drop zone.
And then this invulnerbility is meant to give you free damage.
Its not like you can reach the enemy drop zone in this time frame.

[nehebkau]

since RUSS and the rest of PGI's decision makers don't read the forums are we going to tweet this to them?

[Pat Kell]

I think 2-3 seconds would be plenty of time to get your bearings and start to return fire. Just my opinion though.

[Texas Merc]

SeventhSL, on 17 June 2015 - 03:44 PM, said:

I do a lot of Pug CW so getting pushed back to spawn happens a fair bit.

What is not happening now is instant death on drop. I'm not seeing pre-made teams push a spawn point, camp it, instant kill an entire lance on drop and then move to the next spawn point to repeat the process. Yes you get bottled in and focused down if you step out but for Pugs that are learning team work they at least get the chance to regroup and try.

The changes are a huge step in making CW more enjoyable for Pugs and lessening the pain of their learning curb.

Then why arent more people playing CW?

[BSK]

Crockdaddy, on 17 June 2015 - 06:49 AM, said:

Well boredom set in and we all wanted our 80 points.

I am laughing so hard at you right now ..

[YCSLiesmith]

Kin3ticX, on 18 June 2015 - 07:00 PM, said:

Would rather see a 5-10 sec invulnerability timer. I can see that being a huge direct spawn camp deterrent. Nervous about buffing the dropships more because I still get stray shots while not spawn camping when on attack.

maybe a 5 second invincibility would work if it turns off if you fire your weapons? because if you're getting spawn camped and are invincible for five seconds that's a free kill from repeatedly alpha striking the guy camping you.

[CyclonerM]

Temporary invulnerability? Please.. You can think something better than this..

[Deathlike]

QueenBlade, on 18 June 2015 - 08:24 AM, said:

Last night on the new CW map, 228 played on Lohan near the NA cease fire. The last player was a disconnect, and we wanted to test out the new drop ships. I was in a Jenner, ran in next to the disconnected mech. Killed it. Sat and waited.

Drop ship came, fired at me once, 1 laser, turned my head armor to orange. I have 13 head armor.
Another ship came, and again only fired at me once, 1 laser, turned head armor to red.
Last ship came, did not fire on me.

Looks like drop ships aren't working as intended as I expected to be removed from my mech from the first drop ship, and three ships didn't kill me.

I'm gonna guess that whatever code for targeting CT is actually the head on the Jenner.

Mind you, the Jenner's head is the CT just as well, but it's probably like the "Streaks hit CT" bug for certain mechs (when the change to the "bones"/structure was made... it's probably something as silly as it's "not working as intended" on the Jenner.

Edited by Deathlike, 23 June 2015 - 07:17 PM.

[Khereg]

Deathlike, on 23 June 2015 - 07:17 PM, said:

I'm gonna guess that whatever code for targeting CT is actually the head on the Jenner.

EBJ, too. I'm suspecting the dropships of aimbotting. Will PGI have the moral fortitude to investigate?

[Deathlike]

Khereg, on 23 June 2015 - 08:02 PM, said:

EBJ, too. I'm suspecting the dropships of aimbotting. Will PGI have the moral fortitude to investigate?

Only if you report/whine/complain long and hard enough to PGI through e-mails or through the support forums and/or twitter, is when they'll pay attention.

[Crockdaddy]

BSK, on 21 June 2015 - 03:57 AM, said:

I am laughing so hard at you right now ..

Hello Mr. Bitter. How are you?

[Necromantion]

I predicted months ago that adjusted dropzones with narrow exits would just be farming chokepoints... GG PGI.

[Alec Braca]

Crockdaddy, on 17 June 2015 - 06:49 AM, said:

So here is a delicious irony. Last night we (NS) faced a team which on Boreal decided to NOT come out of the spawn area. So for the first 10 minutes we moved up ... moved up more until we were at the left and right entrances to their spawn (base). They wanted us to come to them (we were on counter attack). At first we were like ... lets just get one kill and pull back as we wanted to win but did not want to contend with the UBER ERLL Quirked out dropships.

Well boredom set in and we all wanted our 80 points. So we simply proceeded to poke in ... get a fairly quick kill and pull back waiting for the dropship. Rinse and repeat ... we did this several times. Eventually the enemy team realized they needed to poke back so they in fact did from the top of the hill (and they did a decent job at it).

On our next wave .. we repeated our first steps only instead of poking we did a full push. Killed most of the team and attempted to pull back before the dropships ate us. Well we did in fact kill the team and farm on the way out but typically we were finished off by the dropship.

Finally at the end the enemy team pushed out and we finished them. It wasn't a group of pugs ... I believe it was a 7/8 man group with a few pugs.


So as I expected would happen the reverse spawn camp will now take place. Fun times. At least we started to develop tactics to manage this when a team decides to do this.

This is how warfare goes. It was only a matter of time until people found new tactics to counter the patches.

[50 50]

I thought the changes were really to discourage it and make it so that if players wanted to spawn camp they would have to go out of their way to do it.
Didn't really think it was the right move but it sounds like it has changed the dynamics a little

Personally, I believe that when situations like spawn camping are found to be effective (And why wouldn't it be?) that more needs to be done to facilitate it as a practical and legitimate tactic.
After all, if you could prevent the enemy from landing and organising their forces, it is less of a risk to your own side and you have a higher probability of success.

In my opinion what is really needed is the following:

• Make the drop zones capture points. Once captured, that drop zone is no longer an option. Capturing all the drop zones then becomes a win condition.... for either side.
  
• Allow the team or lance commanders to set a drop zone location or make it random to some extent. This will require a team to scout out the location first which has the effect of creating a new optional objective that can reward players, but also making it a planned purpose should a team elect to do so. (ie. you don't just wander to point D3 on the map because you know that's where it will be)
  
• A team who has a drop zone being captured needs options to either:
  
  -Drop anyway - perhaps as a hot drop - and deal with the consequences
  -Delay until there is a full lance ready to drop so they go in numbers.
  -Change to a different drop zone easily using the map
  
• Drop ships need to be more interactive and have a greater variety of weaponry. I put a post in the Feature Suggestions wondering why it is only large lasers. Why don't they have their cannon loadouts? That would be much more interesting and potentially more effective?
  
  http://mwomercs.com/...1916-dropships/
  
• Enable conditions on when reinforcements can be brought in to change the dynamic. Essentially this is through achieving certain objectives and could be used to increase the number of players in the match.
  
  Eg: The first lance dropped in needs to secure a landing zone. Once this is done, the next 2 lances can drop in.
  On the defender side you have a lance on patrol that needs to scout and find the hostile mechs before more defenders can be brought in.
  Another example: The attacking team needs to destroy one of the generators before the next lance can join.
  Defenders need to hold position J6 for a certain amount of time before reinforcements can arrive.
  Or perhaps it's simply that a dropship will not come in unless it has 4 mechs ready and there are at least 4 KIA spots.
  Those are just off the top of my head, but it would change how matches are played out.

Edited by 50 50, 29 June 2015 - 07:58 PM.

[Bigbacon]

has the event started? if so what did you expect? People want to get their free stuff and CW is lame.

Crockdaddy, on 17 June 2015 - 01:08 PM, said:

What would you put into place of CW? It is in fact a beta product and the product the vast majority of us whales paid for.

people really need to stop hanging on to the whole 'Beta' thing already.

[Crockdaddy]

Bigbacon, on 30 June 2015 - 10:36 AM, said:

has the event started? if so what did you expect? People want to get their free stuff and CW is lame.



people really need to stop hanging on to the whole 'Beta' thing already.

Most games today are either early access (fund me because no publisher will or I think I can make more money by direct funding and build the game I really want) or F2P are in perpetual development or so called "beta".