Jump to content

Is There Anyone Else Out There That Hates This Challenge More Than Me?


44 replies to this topic

#41 Deathlike

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Littlest Helper
  • Littlest Helper
  • 29,240 posts
  • Location#NOToTaterBalance #BadBalanceOverlordIsBad

Posted 16 December 2014 - 02:20 PM

I'm kinda amazed how the match score isn't boosted greatly for getting a win.

Even back when "CapWarrior" was "in vogue", capping would instantly get you 20 pts to the match score.

It's sad though.

The challenge ultimately is to get more telemetry, but it indirectly affects how a match is played due to how match score primarily functions. That would probably be the only issue with the challenge itself.

#42 Gaius Cavadus

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Spear
  • The Spear
  • 404 posts
  • LocationNova Roma, Alphard

Posted 16 December 2014 - 03:02 PM

The problem is that the objective is far too easy take once you're on scene. The other problem is that there's no objective for the defenders to complete for victory conditions.

What if the defenders could rush the attackers' dropship, take it down, and now the attackers lose all reinforcements/respawns?

The attack objective really needs to be more than two simple destroy objectives as well. There should definitely be an electronic warfare element which actually takes being in or near widget X for Y amount of time.

The bottom line that they've setup a simple video game scenario instead of an actual battle. There needs to be way more moving parts for both sides, multiple and tiered objectives, et cetera.

#43 LordBraxton

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 3,585 posts

Posted 16 December 2014 - 04:18 PM

We need larger more diverse bases with more points of entry, more turrets (potentially wth capturable turret control buildings)

and get rid of the stupid gate idea.

If our dropships can bring mechs in why are we even attacking orbital cannons? We already dropped an overstrength battalion on their heads with zero dropship losses... we should be securing starports to move in the full regiments...

#44 Sandpit

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Veteran Founder
  • Veteran Founder
  • 17,419 posts
  • Facebook: Link
  • Twitter: Link
  • LocationArkansas

Posted 16 December 2014 - 04:33 PM

View PostLordBraxton, on 16 December 2014 - 04:18 PM, said:

We need larger more diverse bases with more points of entry

yes

View PostLordBraxton, on 16 December 2014 - 04:18 PM, said:

more turrets

no, base defenses are already tough, no need to make them tougher so that the only strategy IS rushing

View PostLordBraxton, on 16 December 2014 - 04:18 PM, said:


and get rid of the stupid gate idea.


no, gates are tactical. add more of them though

View PostLordBraxton, on 16 December 2014 - 04:18 PM, said:


If our dropships can bring mechs in why are we even attacking orbital cannons? We already dropped an overstrength battalion on their heads with zero dropship losses... we should be securing starports to move in the full regiments...

Can't stress enough that this is beta. PGI has already said drop decks will vary and they're planning on adding in different types of missions.

#45 Curccu

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Liquid Metal
  • Liquid Metal
  • 4,623 posts

Posted 16 December 2014 - 10:22 PM

View PostSandpit, on 16 December 2014 - 04:33 PM, said:

no, base defenses are already tough, no need to make them tougher so that the only strategy IS rushing

Defenses are ok, but PGI could give some reward damaging/destroying those turrets also :(.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users