21 replies to this topic

[Josef Nader]

So, after playing a weekend of Community Warfare, it is apparent that there are a few problems with how things play out.

Namely, it is counter-productive for the attackers to try and kill the defenders. If an attacking team successfully kills a defending mech, the only thing they've accomplished is to put a fresh mech and a dropship between them and their goal. Attackers have such a long walk back to the front lines that there's little to no chance they'll be able to sustain an assault when the defenders have the same respawn rate and spawn on top of the objective.

The impossibility of actually scoring a win through superior combat tactics has led to the use of the zerg rush tactics, which are the attacker's only really viable option against a defending team that can breathe and walk at the same time. Fighting the enemy mechs is completely counterproductive. They cannot win through fighting. They have a singular objective and their only chance is to rush that objective and hope they can damage it enough before the defenders explode them out of existence.

The solution is simple.

Raise the respawn time for defenders. I know it's not much fun for the defenders to have to wait 60-90 seconds to get back in to the action, but that's a core part of asymmetrical attack/defend game modes like this. The attackers have to be able to make some traction towards success, or they just get obliterated unless they use extreme fringe tactics. If destroying a defender meant that the attackers actually got 90 seconds of respite from having to fight 12 mechs, they'd be more inclined to fight it out.

If we're still having trouble after raising the defender's respawn timer, we can drop the attacker's respawn timer. After all, they have quite a long walk to get to the base anyway. Giving them a 20, or even a 10 second respawn timer is something that PGI can do very easily with no changes to the current maps, and it would make fighting it out (which is more fun for everyone, I think) a much more viable tactic.

After the timers have been adjusted, if we're still having problems with light rushes, we can bulk up the base turrets to do more to stop lights. I'm against this idea from the get-go, as I actually like light mechs having something of a purpose; rushing past their main offensive to force the enemy team to make a decision as to whether or not to run the lights down or let the heavies and assaults get closer to the base.

Still, start with the respawn timers. I promise you'll see a significant decrease in the zerg rushing as more tactics become viable (and a lot more fun for both parties).

[Vassago Rain]

There needs to be a reason for the attackers to try and hold ground, too, or it'll go back to rushing as they realize they can't fight any kind of battles that far from their spawn.

Some kind of MFB-styled vehicles that move up with the attackers, and grant limited ammo and armor restoration, is pretty critical here.

[Obelus]

You could leave the respawn times short if you increased the distance the defenders needed to travel to get back to defend.

Also you could simply remove the match timer. If you remove the timer then the attackers can choose to either rush or move up slowly and destroy all defenders.

Honestly I don't know why they just don't run CW using all existing maps using the assault rule set we've been playing with for years. Why 4 mechs per player per drop? It's a nice change of pace but that shouldn't be all we've got.

[Vassago Rain]

Obelus, on 15 December 2014 - 07:05 AM, said:

You could leave the respawn times short if you increased the distance the defenders needed to travel to get back to defend.

Also you could simply remove the match timer. If you remove the timer then the attackers can choose to either rush or move up slowly and destroy all defenders.

Honestly I don't know why they just don't run CW using all existing maps using the assault rule set we've been playing with for years. Why 4 mechs per player per drop? It's a nice change of pace but that shouldn't be all we've got.

Because the old maps aren't compatible with CW.

Yes, I know.

[Cion]

Interesting thought. Such a change would change the game greatly. It would incline reinforcements to come in greater number, even entire fresh lances, rather than one at a time.

I'm not sure if it's the best idea, but it's an interesting one.

[Dagadegatto]

I would love to see an end to individual re-spawns. And instead do it a whole lance at a time. So if 1 mech gets destroyed it will not spawn by itself. Only when 4 mechs are destroyed will all 4 drop from 1 dropship. This will help keep the attackers in some sort of group while making the death of 1 defending mech more significant.

[Obelus]

Vassago Rain, on 15 December 2014 - 07:07 AM, said:

Because the old maps aren't compatible with CW.

Yes, I know.

Sigh...well they should make them compatible.

[Kiblams]

Are you basically saying that the current state of the game has lead to rushes, so we should make it easier for attackers so they dont need to rush?

Do you think they will stop using rushes (which are proven to be the way to win an atack) if you make it easier for them?

I make a prediction that they will still rush, and be more successful at it because you've made it easier for them...

[Obelus]

Yeah it seems strange to have 4 mechs per player and then only have one point to clump around.

Wouldn't it be better if there were 4 points and you only get a new mech if you either take a point as an attacker or lose one as a defender.

[Lily from animove]

Obelus, on 15 December 2014 - 07:05 AM, said:

You could leave the respawn times short if you increased the distance the defenders needed to travel to get back to defend.

Also you could simply remove the match timer. If you remove the timer then the attackers can choose to either rush or move up slowly and destroy all defenders.

Honestly I don't know why they just don't run CW using all existing maps using the assault rule set we've been playing with for years. Why 4 mechs per player per drop? It's a nice change of pace but that shouldn't be all we've got.

timer should be longer, but removing would create the lats surviving troll light to run forever. 45mins default and 60 minutes on sulfur. Thats allows the attackers also to eliminate all defenders in case they are better than them.

[Dagadegatto]

Kiblams, on 15 December 2014 - 07:26 AM, said:

Are you basically saying that the current state of the game has lead to rushes, so we should make it easier for attackers so they dont need to rush?

Do you think they will stop using rushes (which are proven to be the way to win an atack) if you make it easier for them?

I make a prediction that they will still rush, and be more successful at it because you've made it easier for them...

That is a very good point. I think the maps need to be build to prevent the zerg as a valid 2min win strategy. Something like a second set of gates, more turrets near the cannon, maybe a protective shield on the cannon generator that needs to be taken down first. THis needs to be along side things like the defenders dropping a bit further from the cannon etc.

[Mystere]

Obelus, on 15 December 2014 - 07:20 AM, said:

Sigh...well they should make them compatible.

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.

[Widowmaker1981]

It needs to be made easier for attackers, while also preventing the rush strategy - because shooting mechs is fun, shooting a building for a few seconds isnt, really.

The objective should be to defeat the defending forces, allowing you to kill the Generator.

[Josef Nader]

Kiblams, on 15 December 2014 - 07:26 AM, said:

Are you basically saying that the current state of the game has lead to rushes, so we should make it easier for attackers so they dont need to rush?

Do you think they will stop using rushes (which are proven to be the way to win an atack) if you make it easier for them?

I make a prediction that they will still rush, and be more successful at it because you've made it easier for them...

No, I'm saying that by making it possible for the attacker to win with strategies that -aren't- rushes, you encourage people to actually fight each other. We're all here to shoot robots. It's just that the current state of the game does not allow the attacking team to win if they try to fight. At all. I have never seen a successful attack where the attackers stopped to shoot at the defenders. It just can't happen, because it means that you'll have another fresh mech to kill before you reach the base.

Like I said, if raising the respawn timer for the defender makes rushes too powerful, we can up the power of the base turrets to at least encourage mutliple attacker waves. As of right now, the only reason rushing is so popular is because it's literally impossible to win any other way. I've been a part of some very effective and coordinated assaults that always crumple when we reach the generator because we have 8 fresh mechs dropping on our heads before we can even put damage on it.

[Vasili]

let us eject out of our last mech or run out of bounds as a mercy so when it's a defensive drop against clans that turns into a counter attack and inevitably goes 47 to 11 we don't have to deal with the sheer impossibility of it all/they don't have to hunt an ecm troll who's just wasting the opponent's time because he knows he can't win. and omg the gauss/ppc.

PS dropships that are able to shoot past the gate into attacking territory while delivering defenders to the back wall of the base? wtf.

so many silly balance issues. I know it's only like day 4 of beta but I too can attest that assaulting against a clan held position in IS mechs is super no fun, not even accounting for the super lame 3 weapon system meta.

[Kirkland Langue]

I don't like the idea of changing defender's respawn rates or locations.

One idea that occurs to me is that maybe turrets which have been destroyed, respawn as turrets which are loyal to the attackers. These turrets are invulnerable. Turrets behind the gun generator will not respawn as attacker turrets.

[IIIuminaughty]

good Ideas coming up, and some bad one. Keep it up

[3rdworld]

Defending dropships should spawn only on the furthest spawn from the enemy. So on Boreal Vault, if the attackers have pushed into G6, the dropships won't land at the G6 spawn, defenders would spawn in F7.


This would be better for both, as a defender you don't want to touch down in the middle of the attacker, and it prevents attackers from taking constant drop ship damage.

[IIIuminaughty]

Another suggestion for cw. (doesn't deal with in game just within the faction tab)

I'm not completely sure but it seems like, after a planet gets 11 wins for the attackers, you are allowed to still fight and defend on that planet.
I say after 11 wins on a planet that planet its self is now in stasis and no more fighting is allowed until after the cease fire...will help find more fighting and matches because the planets are now dying down to a single planet (if it happens to be that way)....Less planets more matches can be guaranteed an actual fight and not a ghost drop. (yes it will be harder to find a match as more people are trying to get in. but at least you know you are going to fight some one.)

[SgtExo]

Josef Nader, on 15 December 2014 - 07:57 AM, said:

No, I'm saying that by making it possible for the attacker to win with strategies that -aren't- rushes, you encourage people to actually fight each other. We're all here to shoot robots. It's just that the current state of the game does not allow the attacking team to win if they try to fight. At all. I have never seen a successful attack where the attackers stopped to shoot at the defenders. It just can't happen, because it means that you'll have another fresh mech to kill before you reach the base.

This game mode basically represents a raid on infrastructure, so if you think about it, you do not want to stop, you always want to be moving. But you are not right that you cannot win by fighting, it is just that the fighting is focused on making a way towards the objective and trying to disable the enemy mechs, but not kill them if that is possible.

My unit uses a strategy of going assault/heavy then going light and fast, rinse and repeat a second time if needed. While we focus on the infrastructure (turrets and Omega) we still kill anything standing in our way (but try to leg it if possible, especially on Boreal).

I would like to see the defending dropships come in at longer intervals, I think that you could make the same for the attackers. This is because it is a wast of a mech if you try to come and reinforce a failling attack with a fresh mech, as it is always better to regroup and send in waves that maximizes the chances of mechs getting thru.

While poeple are saying that defence is OP and at the same time saying that Zerg rush is OP, the only real thing I found was that good communication is the key to victory.

This is just the first weekend of CW, let it sit a bit and people will find ways to deal with it. The only reason that my group has lost in defence was when we were out of position and people were slow to react. Mostly we win 90% of our games because we have some preset strategies and we have good communications for when things need to deviate from the plan.