187 replies to this topic

[Latorque]

Azargo, on 12 December 2014 - 05:26 AM, said:

So let's just all go play the parts of this game that are playable for us, and if/when there are no longer such parts, let's tell PGI about it and see what happens. Let's keep calm and be constructive.

Aye, and verily.

Edited by Latorque, 12 December 2014 - 05:29 AM.

[Krivvan]

Bigbacon, on 12 December 2014 - 05:21 AM, said:

I don't fully understand why a team wouldn't want to attack, that is just weird. At least try. Are you guys saying they never even opened a gate they jst stood there at the spawn and did nothing?

Some games weren't as bad and it was more of a factor of them being unable to destroy the generator because we were covering the ridges too well and us eventually having to tell them to come in and shoot the generator. There were a few times where they actually did say that they weren't going to come in and they were all huddled outside the gate waiting.

[Iqfish]

Adiuvo, on 11 December 2014 - 05:35 PM, said:

Us being able to do that only results from stomping the enemy team so hard that they can't even put us on respawn time.

There have been a few teams who could at least put the end score at something like 48-15. Those teams don't get spawn camped.

[Shalune]

Krivvan, on 12 December 2014 - 05:14 AM, said:

If you people want to see what the spawncamping in question is like here it is from the perspective of the losing side:

31:23:
http://www.twitch.tv...601477?t=31m23s.

I still don't see the problem. They're only getting shot the instant they drop for the last couple minutes, and in positioning right on top of them the Lords take some losses too to attrition, lack of cover, and dropship guns.

The rest of the game was a stomp, yes. But until the very end they still had a chance to fight back.

I understand the frustration from the defender side wanting to end it faster, but adding a counter objective will completely change the game. Attackers will have to keep an eye on their base so that it doesn't get ninjaed behind them, weakening their own attack.

I don't really see a problem with the way things are right now. A better organized team is always going to roll over people. And if it's as bad as nuking on the drop zone the game ends quickly anyway. As for evenly skilled teams, hopefully CW and its rewards drive more people to get better and take this game seriously.

[Krivvan]

Shalune, on 12 December 2014 - 05:42 AM, said:

I understand the frustration from the defender side wanting to end it faster, but adding a counter objective will completely change the game. Attackers will have to keep an eye on their base so that it doesn't get ninjaed behind them, weakening their own attack.

Which is why Khobai's idea might actually work quite well. End the game early if they don't manage to open a gate within a certain time limit (I say 7 minutes instead of 10 minutes, but whatever). That lets an overwhelming defense win earlier without dragging it on for 30 minutes and doesn't introduce an objective that entirely changes the way the game works.

[Krivvan]

Shalune, on 12 December 2014 - 05:42 AM, said:

I still don't see the problem. They're only getting shot the instant they drop for the last couple minutes, and in positioning right on top of them the Lords take some losses too to attrition, lack of cover, and dropship guns.

The map does actually have an issue where a defending Clan team can completely deny a worse team from ever being able to shoot the generators. When they opened the generators in that game we told everyone on our team to hold fire and let them open the gate.

[Siegegun]

How can you make Lords the bad guys for playing the game the way the game works? At the end of it they just played a lot better than your team and pushed out of their base all the way to your drop zone. Should they have waited at the gates for you? Where they would have done the same thing considering you could not stop them from reaching and then camping your drop zone?

Welcome to CW. Abandon all ELO hope, ye who enter here. As they said few other units offer them much competition. I think you are blowing this up as a problem when this is probably a fringe case because you are going against the best team in the game. Out of the dozen games I have played this has not happened once.

[VtTimber]

I understand both sides of this argument but the thing I keep hearing from HoL is that it isn't a challenge. Actually I hear them saying that 99% of the players in this game aren't a challenge for them.

If that were the case with me I would change what I did in order to make it a challenge again. For instance, switch all your clan mechs back to purely stock and see how you do.

Don't look at this as a dumbing down of yourself for other players sakes, look at it as increasing the challenge you claim you don't get otherwise.

[KodiakGW]

Just to be clear. Are Bigbacon, Krivvan, w00tzor, and Adiuvo all members of HoL?

[Krivvan]

KodiakGW, on 12 December 2014 - 06:24 AM, said:

Just to be clear. Are Bigbacon, Krivvan, w00tzor, and Adiuvo all members of HoL?

Bigbacon isn't, the rest are.

[Jetfire]

Krivvan, on 12 December 2014 - 05:02 AM, said:

The alternative was to sit inside the base waiting for 30 minutes alt-tabbed and having the game end.


Have you not played CW? We exclusively attacked Apollo, yet the vast majority of our games were Defend games because it was defending counterattacks. If given the chance we would never choose to defend as a group when we could attack instead. CW does not allow you to choose whether to Attack or Defend.

This isn't limited to just us either. A lot of units have been getting frustrated at playing Defend when they wanted to play Attack and spent Defend games spawn camping in order to make it end faster.

I played a bunch last night, I am pretty sure when we selected Attack we were the attackers and when we selected Defend we were the defenders. Maybe I am missing something but from my experience it certainly seems like you choose what you are doing. How would you even attack a planet if you already held its bases. Maybe there is a bug because that doesn't seem sensible.

Edit: No I got it, after you have your wins in you have to hold them. Yeah, those are going to be long matches. But that is conquest for you, that is the difference between holding ground and just randomly pillaging.

Edited by Jetfire, 12 December 2014 - 06:34 AM.

[Krivvan]

Jetfire, on 12 December 2014 - 06:31 AM, said:

I played a bunch last night, I am pretty sure when we selected Attack we were the attackers and when we selected Defend we were the defenders. Maybe I am missing something but from my experience it certainly seems like you choose what you are doing. How would you even attack a planet if you already held its bases. Maybe there is a bug because that doesn't seem sensible.

It's the counterattack system.

When someone on your faction loses a game of attacking a planet then the opposing faction gets to play a game of Attack on the planet that they are defending. The faction that is normally attacking then has to play a game of Defend in order to prevent their Win Counter from going down.

That's how wins are still 2-11 after dozens of games.

There is also apparently a bug that makes games that fail to be created count as losses which means that a disproportionate amount of losses gets generated meaning there is a gigantic pile of Defend missions that the attacker has to play on planets that are popular. This means that despite never choosing to defend a planet even once, almost all of our games ended up being Defend games. It also didn't help that Attack games were over with within 6-8 minutes whereas Defend games always ended up taking 30 minutes with waiting and 20 minutes by pushing into the attackers.

ADDENDUM: It's all explained here except instead of 10 "tokens" it's now 6 wins.

Edited by Krivvan, 12 December 2014 - 06:38 AM.

[Siegegun]

Jetfire- No you can not choose. Had many games that were "reversed" in both ways (i.e.- I was attacker, ended up defending, I was defender ended up attacking). The theory I think, is they are counter attacks of the battle for the planet.

[LordKnightFandragon]

Karamarka, on 11 December 2014 - 07:19 PM, said:

Sarcasm?

The dropships are like 10 meters away from the objective...

The map design is just too small at the moment for Omega objectives.

Maybe the Dropships should drop us from further up and do more a hot drop rather then a nice, leisurely stroll up and we jump off like were kids getting off the bus from school....maybe drop us in from 250m or something. Then the guns wont be so accurate or as close. And alternately, they could expand the map a little bit, reinforce the doors some more and have hte dropzone be a tiny bit further behind the ODG.

[warner2]

Adiuvo, on 11 December 2014 - 11:56 PM, said:

We were defenders. No base to cap... though there should be.

LOL

If the defending team goes on the attack and pushes the attacking team all they way back to their spawn point then there could be something for them to destroy to route the attackers (like a drop-ship). There is no incentive for the defenders to camp it since their objective in order to take the planet is to attack, but given them a rally point with fire support from a drop-ship and something to allow the defenders-now-attackers to end the match early if they are that dominant.

What do I know though, I've not played it yet.

[IG 88]

no general in the world would send a second a third and a forth wave of drop ship where they got stomped the first time any where the enemy is waiting form them.

this is only poor design, and it is exploited,
either you end the game when the defender capture the attacker drop zone or you prevent the defender to exit the defending area.

spawn camping
in gaming, when one camps (or remains in one position with the intent to obtain multiple kills) the spawn point (or location where players re-enter the game)

often considered poor sportsmanship because players are often unable to respond in time to fight back, or are caught off guard
Jimmy was able to get the most kills on the server by spawn camping the entire round.

"OMG, spawn camping pwnz!!"

Spawn Camper
a cheap ass player...aka n00b
"Spawn camping shows that u dunno how to play at all"

and http://geekdictionar...e/spawn-camping

Edited by IG 88, 12 December 2014 - 07:34 AM.

[warner2]

Jetfire, on 12 December 2014 - 04:23 AM, said:

I think the main issue is the dropships do not spend enough time present over the drop zone. They should zoom in, switch to a hover position for 30 seconds then drop the mechs. This would give the dropships time to actually clear an LZ rather than always dropping in a hotzone.

Very nice idea.

[Lily from animove]

Siegegun, on 12 December 2014 - 06:06 AM, said:

How can you make Lords the bad guys for playing the game the way the game works? At the end of it they just played a lot better than your team and pushed out of their base all the way to your drop zone. Should they have waited at the gates for you? Where they would have done the same thing considering you could not stop them from reaching and then camping your drop zone?

Welcome to CW. Abandon all ELO hope, ye who enter here. As they said few other units offer them much competition. I think you are blowing this up as a problem when this is probably a fringe case because you are going against the best team in the game. Out of the dozen games I have played this has not happened once.

you know dirty spots is dirty sports, even if the tricks are within the rules.

warner2, on 12 December 2014 - 07:08 AM, said:

LOL

If the defending team goes on the attack and pushes the attacking team all they way back to their spawn point then there could be something for them to destroy to route the attackers (like a drop-ship). There is no incentive for the defenders to camp it since their objective in order to take the planet is to attack, but given them a rally point with fire support from a drop-ship and something to allow the defenders-now-attackers to end the match early if they are that dominant.

What do I know though, I've not played it yet.

but this base would have to be like 5x as hard to kill as the attack objective, otherwsie:

defenders gather, attackers tgk one gate, defenders go around and grab the attackers objectie while the attackers shooting to open a gate and the turrets.

Jetfire, on 12 December 2014 - 04:23 AM, said:

I think the main issue is the dropships do not spend enough time present over the drop zone. They should zoom in, switch to a hover position for 30 seconds then drop the mechs. This would give the dropships time to actually clear an LZ rather than always dropping in a hotzone.

this should only count for the attackers dropship, otherwise

http://mwomercs.com/...video-uplaoded/

the dropship at 6:45 would just horribly destroy attackers making attacking even less possible.

Edited by Lily from animove, 12 December 2014 - 07:48 AM.

[Zeece]

LordKnightFandragon, on 11 December 2014 - 07:17 PM, said:

What faction does Lords play for?

Jade Falcon

[Sevronis]

The thing is, I get how good the Lords are, but if I recall, PGI has stated they were planning on implementing a deterrent of spawn camping for drop ships. So, in essence, the drop ships aren't doing what they are supposed to do.

Granted I haven't gotten a chance to even play yet to see for myself, just basing off what I've read for now.

Edited by Sevronis, 12 December 2014 - 08:27 AM.