91 replies to this topic

[kapusta11]

What's wrong with people executing the best strategy they came up with to complete their objective? You want mech deathmatch, you play skirmish, don't try to ruin the game for those who actually enjoy it.

Edited by kapusta11, 15 December 2014 - 07:33 AM.

[ContingencyPlan]

kapusta11, on 15 December 2014 - 07:14 AM, said:

What's wrong with people executing the best strategy they came up with to complete their objective? You want mech deathmatch, you play skirmish, don't try to ruin the game for those who actually enjoy it.

The game at its core is about combat. It's supposed to be about combat. CW was designed to force engagements. The light zerg rush WILL be fixed because a way of skipping combat--the actual focus of the game--to turn it into an autowin is NOT supposed to happen.

[Mystere]

KamikazeRat, on 14 December 2014 - 05:27 PM, said:

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.

FYI, players have reported that artillery and air strikes do not work on the cannon generator. I haven't had the chance to try it myself. But, I have no reason to doubt those claiming to have tested strikes.

As for controlling the zerg rush, here is my suggestion for "another" map from another thread:

Mystere, on 15 December 2014 - 07:48 AM, said:

PGI could start by using Alpine Peaks and forgetting about the gates. Just put the cannon and defender drop points within the area covered by H11-I13. There will be only 2 approaches and both will be uphill climbs for the attackers. Think of it as the MWO version of Masada.

Adjust defender and attacker drop tonnages as may be required.

Edited by Mystere, 15 December 2014 - 08:04 AM.

[Josef Nader]

kapusta11, on 15 December 2014 - 07:14 AM, said:

What's wrong with people executing the best strategy they came up with to complete their objective? You want mech deathmatch, you play skirmish, don't try to ruin the game for those who actually enjoy it.

I'm all for having tactics be viable and effective, but the core of this game is about smashing robots. I'm against punishing attackers for fighting the defender. It's more fun for everyone when we get to shoot each other.

As the game stands right now, the dumbest thing an attacking player can do is kill an enemy mech. It simply means that there will be a fresh mech standing between him and his objective. I don't think that's a smart gameplay design choice, and I think that needs to be changed because I like to fight the robots. I think everyone here likes to fight the robots. We should get cash and fabulous prizes for fighting our robots. We should not be forced to avoid all combat and shoot a building as the only viable strategy for success.

[Veritae]

Flash Frame, on 14 December 2014 - 04:48 PM, said:

Guys... the point of PUG/Orignized teams is not the cusp of the issue I am discussing here.

Please, get back on the topic of how do we fix it so attackers have more than one viable option than just zerg rushing?!

The zerg rush will cause defenders to default to camping the gauss with short range ppfld and high dps weapons. This will crush zerg waves. Which will cause attackers to exploit by easily dropping gates and attacking with ranged mechs and creating a strong forward firing line inside the gates. Which will cause defenders to adapt again. Please, stop crying nerf every time you lose guys. Adapt and overcome.

[ContingencyPlan]

Veritae, on 15 December 2014 - 08:42 AM, said:

The zerg rush will cause defenders to default to camping the gauss with short range ppfld and high dps weapons. This will crush zerg waves. Which will cause attackers to exploit by easily dropping gates and attacking with ranged mechs and creating a strong forward firing line inside the gates. Which will cause defenders to adapt again. Please, stop crying nerf every time you lose guys. Adapt and overcome.

except that a properly fitted and organized light rush can drop the objective in about 5 seconds which is not enough time to he able to take them out by camping it. Admittedly borked hitreg is also a contributing factor here. Smacking a light in the back with an ac20 and getting no hit? Come on!

[Veritae]

ContingencyPlan, on 15 December 2014 - 08:49 AM, said:

except that a properly fitted and organized light rush can drop the objective in about 5 seconds which is not enough time to he able to take them out by camping it. Admittedly borked hitreg is also a contributing factor here. Smacking a light in the back with an ac20 and getting no hit? Come on!

If you wait for 12 enemy lights to get in position and start shooting at the generator before you decide to fire at them, in the back, then hitreg is not your problem....

[WarHippy]

Flash Frame, on 14 December 2014 - 04:48 PM, said:

Guys... the point of PUG/Orignized teams is not the cusp of the issue I am discussing here.

Please, get back on the topic of how do we fix it so attackers have more than one viable option than just zerg rushing?!

So long as the defenders have dropship and turret support along with equal weight drop decks the attackers have no option other than to zerg the objective. The attackers are simply at too much of a disadvantage in a stand up fight. Give the attackers 320 tons to work with and the defenders 240 and you might have room to make fighting a more viable option, but as it stands the zerging will continue.

[KraftySOT]

smh this game is like the Grateful Dead.

People into it enjoy it...but the fans...my god the fans just ruin everything about it.

God forbid something work 60% of the time...NERF IT TO EQUALITY.

[Kraven Kor]

Vassago Rain, on 14 December 2014 - 05:02 PM, said:

Unless they redo the maps, we don't.

I'm actually with you re: multiple win conditions.

And I think that might be a minor map reworking.

Just add something like a shielded door to the main generator, that lowers for X seconds if you destroy a little control panel deal, or you have to have more active mechs in the area than the defenders. Or something along those lines.

Make it so the attackers *have to* kill a good number of the current active defenders to get their opening.

[SgtExo]

I would just add more time to the timer. Right now people are rushing because it would take too much time to properly grind down the defending team and get to the generator. We have 4x more mechs, but only 2x more time allocated to the match. I have been able to kill more of the defending mechs than we were losing as the attacker, but then the timer dictated that we rush the objective and ignore all the enemy mechs.

[Sigmar Sich]

If integrate some suggestions from this topic, we can have improvement to invasion gameplay, without major changes.

1) Connected primary objectives. Lets say cannon generator stays as main target. But, it is placed in armoured bunker, somewhere near cannon (IMHO, it's more logical then placed in open. Too unrealistically vulnerable for artillery, to be crucial part of defence). This bunker have big doors (for maintenance). Base have one or two command structures, which can be captured and recaptured. When attackers in control of centers, doors are opening, when defenders - closing. Goal for attackers are:
a breach gates (which can be improved too, but it is separate discussion);
b capture command structure, and hold it (this should encourage defenders to counter attack, rather than passive defense);
c move in to destroy main objective, through opened bunker doors.
I believe there can be many enjoyable tactical situations around "b" and between "b" and "c".

2) Decrease turret support for defenders. Let game be about tactics and maneuvers, rather attackers trying crush wall with their head, which forces them to zerg rush. Turrets still should be near objectives, but not in such numbers, and more ML turrets. Maybe add secondary objective with turrets generator, if it is destroyed - turrets stop working.

I believe this should fix main problems of invasion mode objectives.

Edited by Sigmar Sich, 15 December 2014 - 10:21 AM.

[Felix7007]

LOL this game IS like a MOBA, that's a great way to look at it. Now we just need to fix it because it's not supposed to be.

Edited by Felix7007, 15 December 2014 - 10:19 AM.

[LordKnightFandragon]

Thye really should add a blast door to the generator, so A: Lights cant jump up onto the back in that little cubby hole and B: So that a blind rush to the gun isnt such an instant win. Though by the 4th wave, im sure they can get the gun simply by rushing.

So the ideal dropdeck for CW is going to be 4 JJ equipped lights, ideal tactic? BANZAI!!!!......im sure thats not the premise that PGI wanted for CW....

[BourbonFaucet]

What we need are two things, because the balance issue of CW is really twofold:

1. The defender has an overwhelming advantage with OP death turrets, and the ability to basically fight Thermopylae at any gate they want to, since splitting your forces as the attacker would at the surface appear to be foolish, and in practice is only marginally effective, if not effective at all.

2. The only way to overcome all these disadvantages is to use a zerg rush of lights, or weaken the defender heavily with a massive assault 'mech wave BEFORE sending in said zerg rush.

What we need to do is take out both the zerg rush and the defender's heavy advantages at the same time. The answer cannot be removing just one, as that'd more or less guarantee a loss for one side or the other save a potato team that practically throws the match.

My proposal to fix this is as follows:

1. Weaken the turrets that are not near the cannon or the gates. Not all of the turrets should be twin (quad?) large laser death machines. The turrets that aren't directly participating in defending a key target need to be the weaker medium laser/ LRM turrets found in PUG matches.

2. Strengthen the turrets near the cannon. The two turrets directly looking at the cannon ought to be quite powerful, especially at short range. Something along the lines of twin AC/20, or perhaps 2 LL + 2 LBX-10. Maybe even an extra turret with streaks. Now, if you want to use a light rush, you'll need to use heavier 'mechs to kill these turrets first.

3. Lengthen the respawn time of the defenders, making death more penalizing for them. I cannot stress this third point enough. In most attack defend modes in games, the defender has a longer respawn time so that the attackers can coordinate a push after taking out some of the defenders. Team Fortress 2 for example, makes the defender's respawn time three times as long.

Hopefully, with a little better design, we will see a little more variety in winning strategies for CW.

[Violent Nick]

Flash Frame, on 14 December 2014 - 04:48 PM, said:

Guys... the point of PUG/Orignized teams is not the cusp of the issue I am discussing here.

Please, get back on the topic of how do we fix it so attackers have more than one viable option than just zerg rushing?!

OKAY I'll bite!! "Sigh..."

Zerg rush getting to you? Can't figure it out? Well, let me tell you how...

All you need is one spotter to get in a good position on Boreal in order to zoom in and report on what the enemy has. The lines of sight are long towards Alpha so he can primarily focus there while the team sits deep to counter the rush on beta. If they do not do the rush you will know quickly as the spotter will report heavier mechs. If they do rush... lights have legs and all your team has to do is take 1 leg off say 8 mechs to stop them in their tracks. This means being a good shot with your srms, gauss, ppcs etc.. If you all happen to be boating missiles then you lose, serves you right. Otherwise you just Achilles them, swat the dangerous ones together then fall back to waste the crippled peashooters who will have effective range of say under 500m in most cases.

So simple... x

Use your brains, talk at the start and you'll be fine. If your team fails then some of you will learn for next time.

[RolfS]

My thought on the subject is that PGI nerfed all weapons into the ground and then nerfed powerful combinations of weapons to the ground. The result is of course that a stormcrow can run past an Atlas-D-DC. The current game balance that works decently for Assault, Skirmish and Conquest isnt working for CW war. Either make CW invasion into CW assault game or halve armour remove ghost heat increase heat sink efficency to allow an Atlas-D-DC to core a rushing Stormcrow.
The levels I think should also be changed to like alpine peaks and the gates should be discarded. CW is supposed to resemble watr not multiplayer tower defense.

[C E Dwyer]

Flash Frame, on 14 December 2014 - 04:16 PM, said:

So... it has come to my attention that the prevailing school of thought to win as the attacker is to
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!

Yup CW is already pointless, its just a zerg rush for the generator, that takes less skill than arena fighting, its the poorly designed maps at fault, the dropships are pointless for attackers and only the last quarter if the map, gates and onward has any point. other than to show how dumb some attacking teams are, by not reforming and supporting their slower units ( this btw is the only way an attacker can lose)

This is the complete opposite from how it was talked up a year ago, long big maps and a grind to the end zone, requiring skill and tactical thinking, where scouting and role warfare had a point,when the reality its just a bum rush like the first day of the january sales..or black friday if you happen to be American.

sure this is beta, but no amount of tweaking is going to cure the fact that the maps are bad, their is no real skill involved,pumping up the generator isn't going to cut it, as it will remain a bum rush until the gens hitpoints are so big its then no longer possible to take.

Its not just the lights that this happens with I was part of a bum rush in an Atlas d-dc.

The maps need binning, and it needs starting over..they're just to bloody useless, to making tweaking and balancing worth while

[C E Dwyer]

Vassago Rain, on 14 December 2014 - 05:25 PM, said:

This could have been avoided if they'd made it so victory requries multiple conditions, rather than just one, that's obviously located right on top of the big map feature.

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.

Yoseful Mallad, on 14 December 2014 - 05:36 PM, said:

or put in 3 smaller generators in different locations in the base that need to be taken out before the cannon itself can be attacked.

Both sound ideas, but still on maps this small and poorly designed it won't work.

I never thought I'd be saying this but currently CW makes Warhammer PvP brilliant by comparison

[Sjorpha]

The win condition could be either killing all enemies or completely destroying the base, meaning all turrets + generators for both the gates and the gun.

or...

You could have it so that enough defending mechs immediately near the gun made it invulnerable, so that you'd have to actually deal with nearby enemies before shooting the gun.

or...

The gates could be harder to open and harder to jump over, so that only the most extreme jumpers could actually do the jump. Which would make more than one zerg wave unfeasible and it would be lighter on firepower.

or..

The generator could be inside a building with a small entrance, making it easy to defend and impossible to fire at with more than 1 or 2 mechs at a time.

etc etc... there must be something that works without ditching the maps alltogether.