41 replies to this topic

[Sandpit]

pwnface, on 16 December 2014 - 04:37 PM, said:

I feel like if you want to try to run through the enemies and just complete the objective it should be a viable tactic.

So do I, but I also want more strategy also without feeling the need to just keep buffing weapons and such. More gate entry points gives more options and means the defenders must pay attention.

More attack points means the attackers can't just jump in and make a straight line for one objective.

This leads to longer engagements, more diverse drop decks, etc. That's what I want to see overall. I think all strategies should be viable and have nothing against zerg pushes. I've defended them and performed them. I've seen them work and I've seen them fail. They aren't "better" than anything else, they're just the most common at the moment and one of the easiest to perform. They're also one of the easiest to defend against if you pay attention.

I'd just like to see more diversity overall and I think thsoe suggestions would help that along

[ZenFool]

pwnface, on 16 December 2014 - 03:59 PM, said:

I'm saying the exact opposite. Give the attackers more incentive to actually complete the objective. If attackers win they should get fatter "win" payout compared to a defenders "win" payout because defenders make much more cbill from getting higher damage and kills.

I don't think we should give too many rewards for damaging specific turrets or the objective because different mechs play different roles in attacking. The team should be rewarded together for winning rather than having a few mechs really good at killing turrets farm the majority of the cbills for profit.



I duno, I kind of find it exciting to fight my way into the enemy base and try to DPS race down the orbital cannon before enemy mechs and turrets can kill us all off. It feels like fighting a raid boss in a lot of MMORPGS.

Sry, I didn't type that out right. I was just stating how things are right now and that you didn't like it. My bad.