41 replies to this topic

[Revis Volek]

Mystere, on 16 December 2014 - 01:26 PM, said:

Well, yes. And I even did it last night while helping your Clan take over an enemy base.




Please tell that to 8 of your CBI buddies who were more interested in earning c-bills than winning in that very same fight. Us 4 puggers in the team were the ones actually issuing instructions on how to win.

Thank Hades we won.

Hades Trooper is very good, i would also thank him. But if he wasnt in that drop i dont get how or why you would thank him......

MY CBI guys? What clan do you think I am in? I am a CSJ because I cant be CSA yet. I dunno what CBI is and my Unit tag is [-SA-] so please dont lump me in with some unknowns.

If you would like to have a conversation with me Mystere please do but these comments were not directed towards you so responded to them as they were just makes you look silly.


Good luck leveling mechs in CW, whichever one you do best with just splits its XP earning amounts the other anyway. Very silly way to grind a mech IMO. Also, let not get on those trying to farm cbills when you yourself are trying to level mechs. The latter makes less sense then the previous FYI.

Edited by DarthRevis, 16 December 2014 - 01:38 PM.

[Mystere]

DarthRevis, on 16 December 2014 - 01:36 PM, said:

Hades Trooper is very good, i would also thank him. But if he wasnt in that drop i dont get how or why you would thank him......

Actually, I was actually referring to this.

DarthRevis, on 16 December 2014 - 01:36 PM, said:

MY CBI guys? What clan do you think I am in? I am a CSJ because I cant be CSA yet. I dunno what CBI is and my Unit tag is [-SA-] so please dont lump me in with some unknowns.

If you would like to have a conversation with me Mystere please do but these comments were not directed towards you so responded to them as they were just makes you look silly.

Oops! My Bad. I was looking at the wrong Clan icon because I was referring to "Ghost Bear International" (GBI).

Please don't invade our holdings because of this.

DarthRevis, on 16 December 2014 - 01:36 PM, said:

Good luck leveling mechs in CW, whichever one you do best with just splits its XP earning amounts the other anyway. Very silly way to grind a mech IMO. Also, let not get on those trying to farm cbills when you yourself are trying to level mechs. The latter makes less sense then the previous FYI.

I am not grinding, just helping other Clans take over planets. The c-bills and XP are just bonuses as far as I am concerned.

[Sandpit]

Joseph Mallan, on 16 December 2014 - 10:50 AM, said:

Yes cause killing the enemy is always the best option.

Also since when has fulfilling the objective become the wrong way to play a game? How narrow minded have we become that killing is the favorite objective?

Since those that want deathmatch decided so i guess.

Heaven forbid players able to win by doing something other than kill em all right?

[Jody Von Jedi]

There is something larger at play here than just meeting the objective of destroying the base or killing all the enemy force.

This is Planetary Conquest and Territory Expansion. Win the match anyway you can to take over or defend invaders. This is the end game content we've been waiting for.

[SpeedingBus]

This is how I feel when zerg light rushes in 3rd wave and kill the generator.

[Sandpit]

SpeedingBus, on 16 December 2014 - 02:12 PM, said:

This is how I feel when zerg light rushes in 3rd wave and kill the generator.

Zerg rush 15 minutes in is not a zerg rush. It's pushing to objective.
Defend it

[ZenFool]

You all must admit the op has a point. Right now the incentive for quite a few of the random people is to lose the planet to win loyalty points. A change in reward system might be in order to keep us all from losing our hard earned planets to some backwater militia or ancient suicidal clanner itching to win brownie points with a general while purposefully not fulfilling objective.
Winning seems to matter quite a bit to some groups(as seen here) which creates the "leg 'em leave 'em" policy. I personally think its a moot point as zerg rush has become progressively harder to do as defenders learn how to beat it. Lets not all jump to random conclusions based on how a few days have played out. Meta is evolving rapidly, its a thing of beauty.

[Sandpit]

ZenFool, on 16 December 2014 - 02:17 PM, said:

You all must admit the op has a point. Right now the incentive for quite a few of the random people is to lose the planet to win loyalty points. A change in reward system might be in order to keep us all from losing our hard earned planets to some backwater militia or ancient suicidal clanner itching to win brownie points with a general while purposefully not fulfilling objective.
Winning seems to matter quite a bit to some groups(as seen here) which creates the "leg 'em leave 'em" policy. I personally think its a moot point as zerg rush has become progressively harder to do as defenders learn how to beat it. Lets not all jump to random conclusions based on how a few days have played out. Meta is evolving rapidly, its a thing of beauty.

Exactly
Then everyone whines that pgi makes "knee jerk reactions"

[MischiefSC]

If you change the objective, remove the turrets and drop ship fire. Then we can play skirmish with respawn.....

Wait, no. Invasion mode is a huge breath of fresh air. Change rewards, pay attackers for damage to turrets and gens (not kill shot) and providing ecm cover and disruption. Ward component destruction.

Far better than skirmish with respawn. I wouldn't really play that; it would eliminate all the high level tactics and put us back into murderballs.

Cw is supposed to be everything that pug/group queue isn't. It rewards tactics over murderball . don't destroy that.

[pwnface]

I really like invasion mode but instead of rewarding damage to turrets and the orbital cannon I'd like to see increased earning for attacks that win the match. It is a bit more difficult to successfully attack a planet and typically the defending team has a big advantage in kills which gives them more monetary rewards. If attacker wins rewarded like 200,000 cbills by itself, it would (hopefully) discourage attackers from being too passive and trying to damage/kill farm without supporting their team on the objective.

[Sandpit]

pwnface, on 16 December 2014 - 03:22 PM, said:

I really like invasion mode but instead of rewarding damage to turrets and the orbital cannon I'd like to see increased earning for attacks that win the match. It is a bit more difficult to successfully attack a planet and typically the defending team has a big advantage in kills which gives them more monetary rewards. If attacker wins rewarded like 200,000 cbills by itself, it would (hopefully) discourage attackers from being too passive and trying to damage/kill farm without supporting their team on the objective.

Not sure i get what you're suggesting here

[pwnface]

oops sorry! To clarify, I meant when attackers win a match they get more C-Bills or XP compared to when defenders win a match. I'm talking about the base win/loss amount.

For example: Attackers win = 200,000 cbill bonus. Defenders win = 50,000 cbill bonus.

Generally defending teams are getting a lot more c-bills because defending is more conducive to high damage high kills type of matches.

Edited by pwnface, 16 December 2014 - 03:29 PM.

[ZenFool]

I think he's hinting at the incentives to not win a match. More earnings both in cbill and lp if you brawl and lose as attackers. Defenders get a decent payout unless just completely overwhelmed.

Edited by ZenFool, 16 December 2014 - 03:45 PM.

[Roadbeer]

ZenFool, on 16 December 2014 - 03:44 PM, said:

I think he's hinting at the incentives to not win a match. More earnings both in cbill and lp if you brawl and lose as attackers. Defenders get a decent payout unless just completely overwhelmed.

Dear. God. No.

That just encourages the "Everyone gets a trophy" mentality.

[Tynan]

Damage / destruction of objectives should be a huge payout. Pay people for damage to turrets, as mentioned, but also pay for gate generator damage and Omega damage. That's the objective, and the more you contribute to its destruction the more LP / money you should be making.

Similarly, it'd be nice if the defenders got paid more for whatever's left standing, or if there were a tick-down timer that paid them based on *how long* they could keep individual objectives defended. Think along the lines of the longer a turret / generator is active, the more you get kind of thing.

[Sandpit]

Just lock the order. Can't get gun without doing others first. Realistically you have to swarm it now because of its one and only placement. It's right in their spawn. I mean what are attackers supposed to do?

Adding generators spaced out would also help. 5 generators and have to get 4 out of 5 to win. Just dont place them right in rhe middle of the defender spawn lol

[pwnface]

ZenFool, on 16 December 2014 - 03:44 PM, said:

I think he's hinting at the incentives to not win a match. More earnings both in cbill and lp if you brawl and lose as attackers. Defenders get a decent payout unless just completely overwhelmed.

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.

Sandpit, on 16 December 2014 - 03:56 PM, said:

Just lock the order. Can't get gun without doing others first. Realistically you have to swarm it now because of its one and only placement. It's right in their spawn. I mean what are attackers supposed to do?

Adding generators spaced out would also help. 5 generators and have to get 4 out of 5 to win. Just dont place them right in rhe middle of the defender spawn lol

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.

[Mao of DC]

RF Greywolf, on 16 December 2014 - 04:50 AM, said:

Always remember: In Invasion mode, the attackers can only win by destroying the objective. Even if they kill every defender they still won't win until the objective is destroyed before the timer runs out. So you could wipe out the defenders, yet still lose the game. I actually saw that happen once. The last defender played it smart and legged the last remaining attackers so they didn't have enough speed to reach the gun and destroy it.

^ this what I was going to say or something very similar.

[Sandpit]

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

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.

That's what's leading to the zerg rush tactic though. A lot of times that's the only way you can make it through. The base defenses are really strong and then dropships spawning right over it, and then 12 enemy mechs. Everyone talks about buffing base defense but all that's going to do is reinforce the idea that you have to rush through and do nothing but hit it.

Spreading out more objectives would alleviate that and force attackers to do more than bum rush one specific location given the timeframes and such.

[pwnface]

Sandpit, on 16 December 2014 - 04:26 PM, said:

That's what's leading to the zerg rush tactic though. A lot of times that's the only way you can make it through. The base defenses are really strong and then dropships spawning right over it, and then 12 enemy mechs. Everyone talks about buffing base defense but all that's going to do is reinforce the idea that you have to rush through and do nothing but hit it.

Spreading out more objectives would alleviate that and force attackers to do more than bum rush one specific location given the timeframes and such.

I feel like if you want to try to run through the enemies and just complete the objective it should be a viable tactic. Whether the defending team is going to let you do that is completely different story. Often times our team will fight our way in and clear a bunch of the base turrets and get wiped out. We'll come back with a fresh wave and have an easier time to get to and focus down the orbital cannon. If your strategy is to kill all the defending mechs first, pushing toward the base at all is detrimental to achieving your goal.

I don't think the base defenses need to be any stronger than they currently are. If PGI decided to move the dropship farther away from the objective I could see slightly buffing the base turrets be reasonable.



I don't think an attacking team should be forced to run around the entire map and open or destroy multiple objectives to win.