18 replies to this topic

[Sandpit]

While sitting around talking to some teammates I had an idea.

A very simple way to prevent any single strategy from working in every match. Randomize the objective locations within the defenders' base. This would mean the attackers couldn't plot out exact routes from the start and make things like scouting integral.

This means instead of being able to know exactly where they're going to push every single time with their 1st wave, attackers would have to use that 1st wave to actually locate the objectives. The orbital gun would stay static, but the generators would randomly spawn in different locations.

This would prevent the "ok, 1st wave down gate, push left, take out this location because we know exactly where it is"

[IraqiWalker]

Sandpit, on 21 December 2014 - 10:05 PM, said:

While sitting around talking to some teammates I had an idea.

A very simple way to prevent any single strategy from working in every match. Randomize the objective locations within the defenders' base. This would mean the attackers couldn't plot out exact routes from the start and make things like scouting integral.

This means instead of being able to know exactly where they're going to push every single time with their 1st wave, attackers would have to use that 1st wave to actually locate the objectives. The orbital gun would stay static, but the generators would randomly spawn in different locations.

This would prevent the "ok, 1st wave down gate, push left, take out this location because we know exactly where it is"

Wouldn't those same plans still work because we can see the battlegrid as soon as we drop?

If there was fog of war, then yes, this would be great. However, as is, we get the map with generator locations anyways. What's going to change is which gate we rush first, but it won't change that we rush, or how we rush.

[Rebas Kradd]

The entire map is designed around the current locations...

[ManOpeace]

Rebas Kradd, on 21 December 2014 - 10:10 PM, said:

The entire map is designed around the current locations...

The map should be open so players can choose the direction in which they attack the objectives. That alone would make every match different and make scouting way more important.

[IraqiWalker]

ManOpeace, on 21 December 2014 - 10:23 PM, said:

The map should be open so players can choose the direction in which they attack the objectives. That alone would make every match different and make scouting way more important.

That's not doable, not unless you make it an open plane. You need to have terrain, you need to have approaches that can lead to the objectives.

[Sandpit]

IraqiWalker, on 21 December 2014 - 10:08 PM, said:

Wouldn't those same plans still work because we can see the battlegrid as soon as we drop?

If there was fog of war, then yes, this would be great. However, as is, we get the map with generator locations anyways. What's going to change is which gate we rush first, but it won't change that we rush, or how we rush.

Then add the fog of war with it

Rebas Kradd, on 21 December 2014 - 10:10 PM, said:

The entire map is designed around the current locations...

The entire maps is designed around specific avenues of attack. The cover areas were designed to provide more cover for different approaches to make other tactics besides rushes more viable

[Dirty Starfish]

A hill fortress would be pretty awesome. Just sayin'. As long as you could blow up the gates themselves and not have to deal with silly gate generators it might work.

Edited by Serial Peacemaker, 21 December 2014 - 10:50 PM.

[IraqiWalker]

Sandpit, on 21 December 2014 - 10:41 PM, said:

Then add the fog of war with it

That could be quite exciting. If we could get UAVs that we can control, that would be fantastic.
We also need much bigger maps.

Sandpit, on 21 December 2014 - 10:41 PM, said:

The entire maps is designed around specific avenues of attack. The cover areas were designed to provide more cover for different approaches to make other tactics besides rushes more viable

I would agree, the problem is that the defenders have too much advantage. What from 2xERLL turrets everywhere (which should be there. I honestly wanted Calliopes. Which would make our current turrets look like pea shooters), Drop ships every few seconds providing additional firepower, and choke points everywhere (which makes sense, who on earth would build a base that's easy to take, in a position that can't be defended? That would be idiotic). If we can find a way where the Offense team isn't so far behind right off the bat, then maybe other tactics can be developed.

Easiest way to show it is with the simple fact that when launching into a defense mode. I drop with my Long range KGC first, and it usually takes me running out of all 7 tons of Gauss ammo (35x30 shots), and several minutes before I need to drop out of it.

While on the assault, I start with a firestarter, and probably won't last more than a minute or 2 with it.

Serial Peacemaker, on 21 December 2014 - 10:49 PM, said:

A hill fortress would be pretty awesome. Just sayin'.

I would love to see that.

[Sandpit]

IraqiWalker, on 21 December 2014 - 10:49 PM, said:

That could be quite exciting. If we could get UAVs that we can control, that would be fantastic.
We also need much bigger maps.




I would agree, the problem is that the defenders have too much advantage. What from 2xERLL turrets everywhere (which should be there. I honestly wanted Calliopes. Which would make our current turrets look like pea shooters), Drop ships every few seconds providing additional firepower, and choke points everywhere (which makes sense, who on earth would build a base that's easy to take, in a position that can't be defended? That would be idiotic). If we can find a way where the Offense team isn't so far behind right off the bat, then maybe other tactics can be developed.

Easiest way to show it is with the simple fact that when launching into a defense mode. I drop with my Long range KGC first, and it usually takes me running out of all 7 tons of Gauss ammo (35x30 shots), and several minutes before I need to drop out of it.

While on the assault, I start with a firestarter, and probably won't last more than a minute or 2 with it.



I would love to see that.

The base defenses COULD be scaled back at that point though. That's just it. The balancing is being geared towards one specific attack tactic. Which, in turn, leads to other tactics getting hurt in the process.

I just think random spawn points for the objectives and adding that fog of war would help. It means attackers ahve to use that 1st wave to actually scout out the enemy base before just barging in. So 1st wave can't rush. They'd rarely, if ever, be successful. You'd see that first wave used more for scouting and see those fast scouts moving in to collect intel for their team.

We all know 1-2 scouts just derping in wouldn't cut it so the whole team would have to actually support those scouts in taht first wave.
2nd and 3rd waves taking out generators
4th wave omega.

Scale back the base defenses a bit and I think it would open up a LOT of viability for different tactics, deck loadouts, etc. without having to change anything else in the game.

Fog of war?
Add a consumable for a sat spot. Your orbital dropship can do a satellite scan to dispel fog of war. (Note, that doesn't reveal the objectives, but would enemy locations) and that lasts xx seconds.

But wait, there's more!
That's too "op" you say? That's an unfair advantage you say? Well have I got a deal for you! Add a blackout consumable that blocks sat scan for xx seconds. Bam.

Now you just added to consumables that become just as, if not more valuable, than the typical arty and uav combo that has become the standard. Now you have to make sure you vary your drop decks even more (albeit just in the consumable area)

Those simply adjustments wouldn't require massive changes in weapon balances, mech balancing, etc. and would really go a long way to adding a lot more strategy and tactics to CW in general IMO

[Joseph Mallan]

Iraqi & Sand... Good discussion. When I wake up some more I might have some ideas to add.

[IraqiWalker]

Sandpit, on 22 December 2014 - 12:54 AM, said:

So much awesome

I love those suggestions, and I promise I will have a response later tomorrow.

Joseph Mallan, on 22 December 2014 - 03:15 AM, said:

Iraqi & Sand... Good discussion. When I wake up some more I might have some ideas to add.

I'd be looking forward to them. I'm heading to sleep now myself.

See ya tomorrow.

[Angel of Annihilation]

ManOpeace, on 21 December 2014 - 10:23 PM, said:

The map should be open so players can choose the direction in which they attack the objectives. That alone would make every match different and make scouting way more important.

Exactly. I mean for example, lets take a look at Alpine. Aside from that stupid mountain the map is completely open. If you added 3-4 attack/defend points on the map where a unit actually had to take and hold those objectives then you would have battles taking place all over that map as units and people try various flanking attacks, misdirections, and generally scattter try to take and defend multiple victory points.

Honestly this concept isn't that hard and it is quite frustrating PGI can't seem to figure this out. I mean all they have to do is look at some of the scenarios from the Battletech board game to get an idea what people want to see out of CW.

[Felix7007]

Think how OP defense would be if the attackers didn't know what objective to rush. You would waste 1 or 2 rushes just figuring out where to rush.

Again, if we didn't have to rush because of the map chokepoints then it would be ok.

Edited by Felix7007, 22 December 2014 - 08:08 AM.

[Almond Brown]

No need for FOW. Just don't show the "randomly located generators" on the BattleGrid until they are scouted and Locked on to with "R".

Friendlies cannot lock on to them to prevent acts of Treason.

The Sulphor Maps Base area would require and expansion though. It is currently to small even for "randomly located generators" to be effective.

[Sandpit]

Felix7007, on 22 December 2014 - 08:07 AM, said:

Think how OP defense would be if the attackers didn't know what objective to rush. You would waste 1 or 2 rushes just figuring out where to rush.

Again, if we didn't have to rush because of the map chokepoints then it would be ok.

Honestly?
Choke points are only followed because of the static positions. Everybody knows exactly where they're headed on each map.
Defense would have to be more dynamic as well because once those gates are down you don't know where attackers are headed.

Now one other thing I would adjust. Blocking off the los positions available for defenders. No ability to see down every avenue would help as well

[Rhaegor]

Sandpit, on 21 December 2014 - 10:05 PM, said:

While sitting around talking to some teammates I had an idea.

A very simple way to prevent any single strategy from working in every match. Randomize the objective locations within the defenders' base. This would mean the attackers couldn't plot out exact routes from the start and make things like scouting integral.

This means instead of being able to know exactly where they're going to push every single time with their 1st wave, attackers would have to use that 1st wave to actually locate the objectives. The orbital gun would stay static, but the generators would randomly spawn in different locations.

This would prevent the "ok, 1st wave down gate, push left, take out this location because we know exactly where it is"

I would do anything for randomization. I hate playing the same maps over and over and over and doing basically the same thing every time.

[Sandpit]

Rhaegor, on 22 December 2014 - 04:31 PM, said:

I would do anything for randomization. I hate playing the same maps over and over and over and doing basically the same thing every time.

Well I'm sure we'll get more maps as time goes on. But those maps will fall into same situation eventually. I really think this would help prevent them from getting stale

[N0MAD]

For the current CW maps randomizing the positions is just not going to make any difference, area is far to small to change tactics in a significant way, to confined an area where everything is literally 10 secs from anything, not including the run for attackers to gate.
Now if the new maps were much larger and generators were a significant distance from each other, then randomizing could serve a purpose.
just opinion.

[Sandpit]

N0MAD, on 22 December 2014 - 07:31 PM, said:

For the current CW maps randomizing the positions is just not going to make any difference, area is far to small to change tactics in a significant way, to confined an area where everything is literally 10 secs from anything, not including the run for attackers to gate.
Now if the new maps were much larger and generators were a significant distance from each other, then randomizing could serve a purpose.
just opinion.

It's not the location that will change things up. It's the inability for the attacker to know where they are from the get go. That forces changes in strategy. It's not a matter of a confined area, it's more not knowing where you're heading in that confined area, although I agree that larger maps would help as well.

The flipside to larger maps is you're also leading into a long range snipefest if not careful. I don't feel map sizes are the issue really. Having a static and well-known location dictates the strategy more than anything else.