Problem With The Current School Of Thought For Attacking Teams.
#1
Posted 14 December 2014 - 04:16 PM
follow these five steps.
1) Mass Light Mechs
2)Push past the enemy team, essentially ignoring them entirely.
3)jump up behind the generator, put as much damage into it as you can.
4) repeat once you die.
5) most likely win.
This means, that the notion to fight, because it slows down the push, has become, in just a few days, pointless. As there is no incentive to whittle down the enemy. The only win condition is to whittle down the base as quickly as possible.
Thinking about this, this is a tricky situation to fix. By making it so that fighting isn't the primary way to win, you have given us a goal, which is GOOD... however, you have also made it so that eleminating the enemy team is pointless... thus removed the incentive to fight, and created an environment where using the cheese tactic of light mech rushing [which given the horrible lag in CW matches, makes the little guys nearly impossible to hit.]
Since this is CW: Beta. I figured now was the time to speak up about this.
The good things:
It is GREAT that we have a focused objective as attackers, or defenders.
The overall feel of the maps, makes this FEEL like Battletech.
The spawning system is wonderful, and really gives an air of authenticity to the setting.
The bad things:
The objective enforces cheese tactics on the attacking side as the match is stacked in favor of defenders otherwise.
LAG LAG LAG
Something needs to be done, to optimize CW's preformance primarily. But a major concern to me, and a major frustration. Is that this is what is enforced for attackers to win.
That's not a good thing... Fighting needs to matter, for both attackers and defenders.
Sadly I am unsure of what could be done in order to make fighting matter, other than if you destroy the defending team you win.
But that could invalidate the game-mode's overall objective, and that's the last thing I'd want PGI to do at this point... any ideas guys? CW is technically in beta, now is the time to get this stuff hammered out!
#2
Posted 14 December 2014 - 04:18 PM
Good job dude.
#3
Posted 14 December 2014 - 04:44 PM
KraftySOT, on 14 December 2014 - 04:18 PM, said:
Good job dude.
Ok, that's not helpful Krafty.
I understand that there is a fundimental problem all around here. the question is What can be done to fix said problem?
Also keep in mind, Pug teams, are NOT the focus of Community Warfare. Pug's have their gamemode, PGI has said, again and again, that CW is for the organized groups. That is the intention. So we are attempting to fix an imbalance in a gamemode geared towards orginized teams.
#4
Posted 14 December 2014 - 04:46 PM
Flash Frame, on 14 December 2014 - 04:44 PM, said:
Ok, that's not helpful Krafty.
I understand that there is a fundimental problem all around here. the question is What can be done to fix said problem?
Also keep in mind, Pug teams, are NOT the focus of Community Warfare. Pug's have their gamemode, PGI has said, again and again, that CW is for the organized groups. That is the intention. So we are attempting to fix an imbalance in a gamemode geared towards orginized teams.
Yet PUGs or two-man groups probably make up the majority of players. You can't have CW be exclusive to 12-man groups, it will fade quickly as the same dozen teams get tired of seeing each-other. I PUG as I am simply too busy to dedicate to a 12-man group. Ten years ago, sure, I was all over that. Now all my old gaming friends have families and are just as busy as I am.
#5
Posted 14 December 2014 - 04:47 PM
Just maybe. Not playing on MOBA maps without all the things that make MOBAS entertaining would also help.
#6
Posted 14 December 2014 - 04:48 PM
Please, get back on the topic of how do we fix it so attackers have more than one viable option than just zerg rushing?!
#7
Posted 14 December 2014 - 05:02 PM
Flash Frame, on 14 December 2014 - 04:48 PM, said:
Please, get back on the topic of how do we fix it so attackers have more than one viable option than just zerg rushing?!
Unless they redo the maps, we don't.
#9
Posted 14 December 2014 - 05:22 PM
#10
Posted 14 December 2014 - 05:25 PM
For instance, you need to hold the defender's mechlab, and put at least one robot on top of a command-control node to 'hack' the cannon so it's vulnerable. Only then can the cannon actually be destroyed.
#11
Posted 14 December 2014 - 05:27 PM
Vassago Rain, on 14 December 2014 - 05:02 PM, said:
Unless they redo the maps, we don't.
Sadly this is close to the truth. i think adding obstacles, would help, additional gates maybe, possibly a gate for the generator itself, to prevent side-shots and arty. i'd like the attackers to face a slog-fest to get to the generator. but without Zerg-rush tactics, Defenders have a clear advantage. so if you make Zerg-rush too hard, and you don't do it carefully, you'll make attacking too hard. its a problem to be sure.
#12
Posted 14 December 2014 - 05:34 PM
Flash Frame, on 14 December 2014 - 04:16 PM, said:
follow these five steps.
1) Mass Light Mechs
2)Push past the enemy team, essentially ignoring them entirely.
3)jump up behind the generator, put as much damage into it as you can.
4) repeat once you die.
5) most likely win.
This means, that the notion to fight, because it slows down the push, has become, in just a few days, pointless. As there is no incentive to whittle down the enemy. The only win condition is to whittle down the base as quickly as possible.
Thinking about this, this is a tricky situation to fix. By making it so that fighting isn't the primary way to win, you have given us a goal, which is GOOD... however, you have also made it so that eleminating the enemy team is pointless... thus removed the incentive to fight, and created an environment where using the cheese tactic of light mech rushing [which given the horrible lag in CW matches, makes the little guys nearly impossible to hit.]
Since this is CW: Beta. I figured now was the time to speak up about this.
The good things:
It is GREAT that we have a focused objective as attackers, or defenders.
The overall feel of the maps, makes this FEEL like Battletech.
The spawning system is wonderful, and really gives an air of authenticity to the setting.
The bad things:
The objective enforces cheese tactics on the attacking side as the match is stacked in favor of defenders otherwise.
LAG LAG LAG
Something needs to be done, to optimize CW's preformance primarily. But a major concern to me, and a major frustration. Is that this is what is enforced for attackers to win.
That's not a good thing... Fighting needs to matter, for both attackers and defenders.
Sadly I am unsure of what could be done in order to make fighting matter, other than if you destroy the defending team you win.
But that could invalidate the game-mode's overall objective, and that's the last thing I'd want PGI to do at this point... any ideas guys? CW is technically in beta, now is the time to get this stuff hammered out!
#13
Posted 14 December 2014 - 05:35 PM
1) Make it harder to zerg rush. Add turrets with small pulse and SSRMs with BAP to the area behind the gun. If the zergers have to take out the turrets before they can get the Omega, then that gives the defenders more time to fight the rushers. This decreases the sucessfulness of the rush.
2) Add some objectives to the game. Before you can kill the Omega at the gun, make it so you have to take out a communications array, or a command post, or a HPG uplink. Anything that slows down the rush. Or even a certain percentage of the defense turrets.
The rush not only makes it easier to win, but it gets you more wins on planet faster. So if you are rushing, you are getting attacks on faster on a planet than someone who is trying to push in with heavies and assaults....
Edited by Roknari, 14 December 2014 - 05:38 PM.
#14
Posted 14 December 2014 - 05:36 PM
Vassago Rain, on 14 December 2014 - 05:25 PM, said:
For instance, you need to hold the defender's mechlab, and put at least one robot on top of a command-control node to 'hack' the cannon so it's vulnerable. Only then can the cannon actually be destroyed.
#15
Posted 14 December 2014 - 05:40 PM
Unless you remove almost every advantage the Defenders have, attacking will always take a back seat to rushing the generator.
#16
Posted 14 December 2014 - 05:40 PM
Quote
Many have voiced that they want more 'battletech' style battles (where the attackers attempt to overrun the defenders by actually engaging the defenders instead of simply running past them). The issues are thus:
- While the number of mechs on the field has quadrupled, the amount of time available to engage them in has not.
- Defenders spawn directly atop of the objective they are to defend
- Attackers spawn far from the objective
- Chokepoints increase the effectiveness of air and artillery strikes
Using slow-moving Assault and Heavy mechs to assault the base is also difficult as an intelligent defending force will maul these large mechs with Air and Artillery strikes as they pass through the doors to the base.
If the attackers do manage to gain ground, they typically cannot hold it. Assuming that both forces suffer roughly equal casualty rates in a given engagement, the defenders can reinforce their position much more quickly (allowing them to easily overrun the remaining attackers before the Attacker's reinforcements can arrive). Even if the Attackers manage to completely wipe out a defending team, they'll be facing fresh defenders within 30 seconds.
Since the Attackers and Defenders have the same number of mechs available to them, a war of attrition favors the defenders (especially since they receive support fire from turrets and incoming dropships).
Ways to fix these issues including:
- Moving the Defender respawn points away from the base
- Moving the Attacker respawn points closer to the base as the battle progresses (for instance, having a secondary drop port on the map that the attackers can capture, and if they do, can choose to spawn there)
- Reducing the number of mechs available to the Defenders (for instance, bring 4 mechs, only drop with 3 - I realize this can easily be abused)
- Increasing the width of the gates
That said, I think Invasion is a nice change of pace from the regular battles we've seen. I'm really enjoying CW so far, I think there simply needs to be a few changes made in order to help get us to that 'battletech/thinking man's shooter' level that PGI is aiming for.
Essentially the problem is that the only reason to engage a defensive position is to take ground (IE: capture that position). However, since it's impossible to actually capture that position the only other course of action is to conduct a smash and grab, which is exactly what we're seeing.
To fix this: make controlling the map both possible and desirable.
#17
Posted 14 December 2014 - 05:43 PM
Yoseful Mallad, on 14 December 2014 - 05:36 PM, said:
There's a million and one solutions, but no one during the CW private beta or through development thought about it.
#18
Posted 14 December 2014 - 05:46 PM
#19
Posted 14 December 2014 - 05:47 PM
#20
Posted 14 December 2014 - 05:58 PM
OR
Allow the generator to be "repaired" when not under direct attack. So if Wave 1 fails but does 80%, by the time wave 2 arrives, the "Techs" have repaired the damage done.
Edited by Almond Brown, 14 December 2014 - 06:00 PM.
6 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 6 guests, 0 anonymous users