

Worst Thing To Do On Alpine Peeks
#1
Posted 28 February 2014 - 06:56 AM
An ambush would require that the enemy not know where you are thus making the surprise of attack the advantage over the enemy. A choke point is a narrow pass or natural feature that greatly reduces the enemies ability to fight. Usually by limiting the number of enemy mechs to reach your position or blocking their range of fire.
The hill at H9 and I9 does neither of these things. If anything It limits your ability to retreat without putting yourself into a area that becomes a choke point (i.e the canyon behind you, if you firing down hill). This area also provides anyone with patients and long range weapons an ideal location to pick you off as you are looking for targets down range. Lights or anyone with good elevation can also drop air strikes and arty strikes on your team as they huddle behind the one hill that provides cover from advancing enemies.
Why in gods name is this the place PUGs chose to fight on Alpine peaks?
What tactics would you suggest?
#2
Posted 28 February 2014 - 07:38 AM
The best games I can recall having on this map didn't involve the stupid mountain.
#3
Posted 28 February 2014 - 07:47 AM
I love the layout of Conquest because it offers little benefit to the I9 plateau, but for direct confrontation if you don't control the top you have little to do except push up hill to bring the fight to them.
#4
Posted 28 February 2014 - 07:48 AM
#5
Posted 28 February 2014 - 07:54 AM
If you don't make it to the top first going somewhere out of range of sniper fire from the hill is probably the better but boring decision.
#6
Posted 28 February 2014 - 07:54 AM
This only changes on Conquest, where you basically ignore gamma, and run around the 4 closer points.
Edited by Modo44, 28 February 2014 - 07:55 AM.
#7
Posted 28 February 2014 - 08:01 AM
#8
Posted 28 February 2014 - 08:03 AM
#10
Posted 28 February 2014 - 10:02 AM
Assault still has the issue because you can't really use the terrain south of the map without risking your base.
Skirmish still has the issue because PUG groups are chaotic and it's rare you'll get a team spawned north that, for example, refuses to assault the mountain after the team that spawned south took it. So it's like moths to a flame even on Skirmish where you can use any part of the map you want (like the middle of Terra Therma).
Bottom line, PGI need to design better maps. They need to fix Alpine by removing that massive, central feature, and Terra Therma, by removing that massive, central feature.
Tourmaline is better, and doesn't have a massive, central feature. Sure combat happens in the middle a lot on Assault, and to some degree on Skirmish, but it doesn't suffer the same issues due to the basic layout being better.
#11
Posted 28 February 2014 - 10:19 AM
Redshift2k5, on 28 February 2014 - 07:47 AM, said:
I love the layout of Conquest because it offers little benefit to the I9 plateau, but for direct confrontation if you don't control the top you have little to do except push up hill to bring the fight to them.
The I9 plateau as you put it happens to be a prime defensive point for the primary base behind it. It's very easy for all lances on that side to reach in a very short amount of time.
The other side of the map has no such advantage, creating some serious problems.
I propose a lowering of that plateau. Or perhaps better yet a relocation of that base capture point. The one base is simply too protected with many advantageous high rise points and only one far out of the way counter rise (with the large tower near the defunct Atlas).
At the very least, spread the lances so that they aren't near that plateau. Put them ahead of it perhaps so that they would have to do the tough climb to turn around to get on it?
#12
Posted 28 February 2014 - 11:26 AM
What really bothers me, is that in Assault the base was moved closer to that mountain which allows the team to cover their own base without leaving the defensive formation. It was an unpleasant surprise to try and cap them out or draw back defenders during a failed assault on the ridge only to have autocannon shells and LRM's start smashing into me at while cowering behind what little structure they've left there.
So yeah, it's a winning position. There really aren't any huge downsides for holding it.
#13
Posted 28 February 2014 - 11:41 AM
http://mwo.smurfy-ne...peaks&m=assault
with the lateua at I9 H9 H10, maybe bases at L7 and D7, equidistant from the plateau with it forming a strong center
Would probably still need some geometry changes due to a gentler slope on the north face
#14
Posted 28 February 2014 - 12:04 PM
Kalidane, on 28 February 2014 - 07:38 AM, said:
The best games I can recall having on this map didn't involve the stupid mountain.
You forgot the plan where you snipe from H11, a place where you have cover and the enemy really doesn't. Of course, convincing everyone on your team to stay far enough away from H9 to avoid just taking damage while manuvering to that hill... it might be impossible.
#15
Posted 28 February 2014 - 12:25 PM
#16
Posted 28 February 2014 - 09:53 PM
#17
Posted 28 February 2014 - 09:59 PM
#18
Posted 28 February 2014 - 10:16 PM
Right now the reason IMO you are seeing mass people lining the Ridge is because that is the closest common landmark for all three lances to meet up on that side of the map. It also doesn't hurt that from that Ridge you can see every approach to your base and actually have a great firing position on enemies going for the Cap or the flank.
#19
Posted 02 March 2014 - 12:04 PM
It's a location that offers so much advantage that it must be controlled. Trying any other tactical options in PUG play is unlikely to work. It makes every game on the map a re-run.
Maybe I'll stick to conquest for a while and see how life is
#20
Posted 02 March 2014 - 01:57 PM
DjPush, on 28 February 2014 - 06:56 AM, said:
An ambush would require that the enemy not know where you are thus making the surprise of attack the advantage over the enemy. A choke point is a narrow pass or natural feature that greatly reduces the enemies ability to fight. Usually by limiting the number of enemy mechs to reach your position or blocking their range of fire.
The hill at H9 and I9 does neither of these things. If anything It limits your ability to retreat without putting yourself into a area that becomes a choke point (i.e the canyon behind you, if you firing down hill). This area also provides anyone with patients and long range weapons an ideal location to pick you off as you are looking for targets down range. Lights or anyone with good elevation can also drop air strikes and arty strikes on your team as they huddle behind the one hill that provides cover from advancing enemies.
Why in gods name is this the place PUGs chose to fight on Alpine peaks?
What tactics would you suggest?
Smarter tactics is what's needed, not a change to Alpine Peaks drop points.
Snipper Peak (deliberately misspelled) in H9 is a fortified position with high ground. This makes it 3 times as difficult to assault for any force trying to claim it once occupied. You have sight lines and easy cover. Most times you will win if you are first to hold that position and fight smart.
The low end has few choices in dealing with the high end force that easily captures Snipper Peak. You can either wander into their fortified guns, go through pinch points that you can get gunned down in or find a different way to win. There is a LOT of map that is ignored due to impatience and lemming behavior. It is only when the low end takes a different path from assaulting Snipper Peak that they win consistantly. They don't pile up in the valley of death beneat the high ground. They don't just rush the guns and go through the sliuce gates south and west of the high side base. Basic map awareness, and realizing that almost 40% of the map is left unused is the solution.
The only thing PGI could do to make this more fair between the bases would be to move the Low Side base back to L3/K4 corner or F3 and the High Side base to the H13 or J12 area. Beyond that, they shouldn't consider changing anything more at this time.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users