Jump to content

Spawn Killing


62 replies to this topic

#41 FoxTrot05

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • 49 posts

Posted 19 December 2014 - 10:32 AM

It's not spawn camping. It's competent defenders kicking attackers off the planet, you know, the point of the match. If my team has 44 kills vs 20, then we are comming for your DZ and you should have had more mechs left to stop it, or you should have killed all the generators and won. Late game DZ kills are defenders not trying to wait the full 30 min to get another game.

If attackers can wait 28 min and then attack or zerg rush and try to end it in 2-3 min, then the least the defenders should be able to do is to kill defenders one by one and win the game.

Edited by FoxTrot05, 19 December 2014 - 10:33 AM.


#42 Sandtiger

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Wrath
  • Wrath
  • 262 posts
  • LocationVernal Utah

Posted 19 December 2014 - 10:36 AM

View PostBarkem Squirrel, on 17 December 2014 - 09:43 AM, said:

I have been on both sides of this, so I do not see this as an exploit, but as an effective tactic.

In a defence, a hasty attack should be planned for. The military even trains people to take advantage of the situation and attack from a defence.

One thing it is risky in MWO, but if you can focus on one or two at a time and make them respawn it disrupts the next wave and later attacks. It is even better if they try to maintain contact or you force contact, there by attacking from a defence.

There is Art of War by Sun Tzu, but Clausewitz I think states it in a way most people can understand. I still think the original in german is better, and some of his later works should only be read in german, due to the quality of translation.

PRINCIPLES OF WAR

by

Carl von Clausewitz


Tactics Or The Theory Of Combat

1. General Principles For Defense


6. A fundamental principle is never to remain completely passive, but to attack the enemy frontally and from the flanks, even while he is attacking us. We should, therefore, defend ourselves on a given front merely to induce the enemy to deploy his forces in an attack on this front. Then we in turn attack with those of our troops which we have kept back. The art of entrenchment, as Your Royal Highness expressed so excellently at one time, shall serve the defender not to defend himself more securely behind a rampart, but to attack the enemy more successfully. This idea should be applied to any passive defense. Such defense is nothing more than a means by which to attack the enemy most advantageously, in a terrain chosen in advance, where we have drawn up our troops and have arranged things to our advantage.

http://www.clausewit...ngs/Principles/


I prefer Sun Tzu's The Art of War, but that is just because I like his perceptions a little better.

[color=#000000]The opportunity to secure ourselves against defeat lies in our own hands, but the opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself.[/color][color=#000000]
Sun Tzu
[/color]


[color="#000000"]Let the enemy make the mistake, and capitalize on that mistake. =] I love it![/color]

#43 Tim East

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Shredder
  • Shredder
  • 1,422 posts

Posted 19 December 2014 - 12:58 PM

Why not just set it up so the there is a longer time difference between drops so attackers and defenders come more in waves of like four than in a steady stream of one to two mechs? I don't even know how many times I've seen a dropship come down to drop one mech while another two dropships are doing the same thing on the same side within seconds.

#44 Tesunie

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Seeker
  • The Seeker
  • 8,478 posts
  • LocationSeraphim HQ: Asuncion

Posted 19 December 2014 - 01:02 PM

View PostTim East, on 19 December 2014 - 12:58 PM, said:

Why not just set it up so the there is a longer time difference between drops so attackers and defenders come more in waves of like four than in a steady stream of one to two mechs? I don't even know how many times I've seen a dropship come down to drop one mech while another two dropships are doing the same thing on the same side within seconds.


There is a drop ship for each lance. It doesn't pile in as many people into a dip ship, but will fill it with only members from that lance. If you kill one person from each lance, then 3 ships will be coming in with one mech each.

#45 oldradagast

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • 4,833 posts

Posted 19 December 2014 - 01:05 PM

View PostFoxTrot05, on 19 December 2014 - 10:32 AM, said:

It's not spawn camping. It's competent defenders kicking attackers off the planet, you know, the point of the match. If my team has 44 kills vs 20, then we are comming for your DZ and you should have had more mechs left to stop it, or you should have killed all the generators and won. Late game DZ kills are defenders not trying to wait the full 30 min to get another game.

If attackers can wait 28 min and then attack or zerg rush and try to end it in 2-3 min, then the least the defenders should be able to do is to kill defenders one by one and win the game.


Agreed, although this touches upon another aspect of CW that I'm not really sure how to resolve: games that are effectively decided halfway in, but people are stuck around playing out the other half for no good reason. End result is that they waste time, get frustrated, and either quit CW for the day or vent (which is okay) on the forums.

I've always hated board games like that.. the ones that take hours and hours to play and involve sweeping maps, countless options, and so on... yet the game is effectively decided only a few turns in and the rest of it is just a slow, numbing march to the inevitable.

I'm not saying CW matches all go like that or that it's a problem unique to CW, but it is something to be avoided if all possible in game design, IMHO.

Edited by oldradagast, 19 December 2014 - 01:05 PM.


#46 pwnface

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 3,009 posts

Posted 19 December 2014 - 01:10 PM

Sometimes your team just isn't up to the challenge, shake it off and try again.

As long as you have mechs, you have a chance.... kind of.

#47 Tim East

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Shredder
  • Shredder
  • 1,422 posts

Posted 19 December 2014 - 01:18 PM

View PostTesunie, on 19 December 2014 - 01:02 PM, said:

There is a drop ship for each lance. It doesn't pile in as many people into a dip ship, but will fill it with only members from that lance. If you kill one person from each lance, then 3 ships will be coming in with one mech each.

That's interesting to learn. I suppose that makes a certain amount of sense, though for company level movement I don't really see a problem with shared equipment and it doesn't change my point that longer waits between dropship trips would both give attack-campers more simultaneous targets and the spawning defenders more simultaneous firepower. Especially if the greater part of the team respawned at once. Though it might be nice if the dropship would drop us facing TOWARD the objective. Or if you could use JJ's before you hit the ground to change your trajectory. Or any number of other possibly cool things.

#48 FoxTrot05

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • 49 posts

Posted 19 December 2014 - 01:26 PM

View Postoldradagast, on 19 December 2014 - 01:05 PM, said:


Agreed, although this touches upon another aspect of CW that I'm not really sure how to resolve: games that are effectively decided halfway in, but people are stuck around playing out the other half for no good reason. End result is that they waste time, get frustrated, and either quit CW for the day or vent (which is okay) on the forums.

I've always hated board games like that.. the ones that take hours and hours to play and involve sweeping maps, countless options, and so on... yet the game is effectively decided only a few turns in and the rest of it is just a slow, numbing march to the inevitable.

I'm not saying CW matches all go like that or that it's a problem unique to CW, but it is something to be avoided if all possible in game design, IMHO.


I've played a lot of the wizkids mechwarrior clix game, and it is very easy to make a careless first move and bad second move and lose the entire 50min tournament format game in the first shots. I know what you mean. There is a lot to factor in for CW. A game shouldn't be unwinnable with 15 min on the clock unless the attackers used all their heavy and assaults and have not touched the turrets. Otherwise, stronger teamwork and a change of tactics should make it possible to pull off a victory in situations where the attackers have sufficient mechs. PUGs vs 12-man premade's invalidate what I just said in practice, but not in theory.

#49 Tesunie

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Seeker
  • The Seeker
  • 8,478 posts
  • LocationSeraphim HQ: Asuncion

Posted 19 December 2014 - 01:31 PM

Just saying why you are seeing so many drop ships so quickly. They still come in each 30 seconds. I don't mind the current wait times between waves.

I actually suggest a fundamental change to CW, the gate system and respawn. My suggestion is to make the attack system into a series of gates or locks. You have to fight from one lock to the next to get to the omega. Respawns would move depending upon which gates/locks are open. Defenders would be dropped in lock 1 on wave 1. As that lock gets breached by attackers, the respawn point could move, or wave two respawn at gate 2. Do recall defenders have turrets which could help balance their next wave respawning a gate back, and jumped could still possibly go over the gate. (Turrets would probably stop most light jump rushes past gates, and those jump points might be easily defended/controlled as well.)

#50 Tim East

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Shredder
  • Shredder
  • 1,422 posts

Posted 19 December 2014 - 01:35 PM

That sounds vaguely like something I've seen before, but I can't quite place where. Maybe one of the Battlefield games? Still, I like the idea of a capture and hold mode for CW.

#51 oldradagast

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • 4,833 posts

Posted 19 December 2014 - 02:56 PM

View PostFoxTrot05, on 19 December 2014 - 01:26 PM, said:


I've played a lot of the wizkids mechwarrior clix game, and it is very easy to make a careless first move and bad second move and lose the entire 50min tournament format game in the first shots. I know what you mean. There is a lot to factor in for CW. A game shouldn't be unwinnable with 15 min on the clock unless the attackers used all their heavy and assaults and have not touched the turrets. Otherwise, stronger teamwork and a change of tactics should make it possible to pull off a victory in situations where the attackers have sufficient mechs. PUGs vs 12-man premade's invalidate what I just said in practice, but not in theory.


Oh, heavens... that click-based battletech game... I played that... for a while. The rules were a mess with everything from broken artillery to teleporting tanks popping in and out of transports to charging with mechs being the only viable option since a lone infantry basing one of your mechs magically turned of all its guns?!

What finally did it in for me was the special units given out to tournament winners... which could not be obtained normally and which were totally overpowered. I still recall the match where I quit the game: my opponent literally had an entire team composed of nothing but promos and tournament victory units - every one of them superior to anything I could have pulled from a booster pack or bought for a reasonable sum of money. So, we began the match. I took my first shot and missed - naturally - against his unplaytested, broken cheese units... and he hit my main mech and did a ton of damage... basically ending the entire hour-long match less than 1 minute in... because a game's a lot easier when you can afford to play overpowered units most other players don't have and cannot obtain.

I quit the game after that tournament, sold my mechs, and never looked back. There's a lesson to be learned in all that... and no amount of "learn to play" is going to balance out that type of nonsense... hopefully, CW doesn't go the same way, but at least we'll always have the public queue for actual fun!

Edited by oldradagast, 19 December 2014 - 02:58 PM.


#52 JDH4mm3r

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Hammer
  • The Hammer
  • 308 posts

Posted 19 December 2014 - 03:32 PM

If you guys think this is the very first time and a first for any game to have spawn killing, you're very wrong.

It's happened as far back as MW2. Its happened in MW3. It's very certainly happened in MW4 and I've been on both sides of spawn killing in MW4.

Its just speeding things along.

#53 Budor

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,565 posts

Posted 20 December 2014 - 03:48 PM

View PostSirPseudonymous, on 17 December 2014 - 04:59 PM, said:

...who choose the gimped but more agile clan mechs over the ludicrously overbuffed IS mechs...


Posted Image

#54 Kylian Winters

    Member

  • Pip
  • 10 posts
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationTexas

Posted 20 December 2014 - 04:08 PM

I am with those who are on the 'not a problem' camp.

If you reached this point, you've already lost.

The fact that the drop ships unleash a health dosage of hurt on the way in, imho, makes it balanced from the standpoint of 'don't fail so miserably to where your opponent can just soak this damage, laugh, then burn you down'

#55 SixstringSamurai

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • 930 posts
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationYou Guys Are So Bad I'm Moving To The Moon

Posted 20 December 2014 - 04:52 PM

View PostFoxTrot05, on 19 December 2014 - 10:32 AM, said:

It's not spawn camping. It's competent defenders kicking attackers off the planet, you know, the point of the match. If my team has 44 kills vs 20, then we are comming for your DZ and you should have had more mechs left to stop it, or you should have killed all the generators and won. Late game DZ kills are defenders not trying to wait the full 30 min to get another game.

If attackers can wait 28 min and then attack or zerg rush and try to end it in 2-3 min, then the least the defenders should be able to do is to kill defenders one by one and win the game.


To be fair we've had some drops where we simply crushed the first wave then went out and crushed them like 48 to 10-12 at their spawn. Really I want to say they should of played better but the fact that it's possible to do means it's kind of designed poorly. Honestly it makes the game boring, but I'm not going to stop doing it until every faction in the IS stops defending my enemies or PGI fixes it.

#56 Escef

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 7,999 posts
  • Twitter: Link
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationNew England

Posted 21 December 2014 - 12:33 AM

View PostSmokeyjedi, on 17 December 2014 - 07:50 AM, said:

Than you madam, are part of the problem, and offer no solution. Typical clan filth.

If you want to offer faction based insults, we can just point out you are a typical Liao: get your hindquarters handed to you and complain about how the other guy is wrong for fighting effectively.

#57 LennStar

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 476 posts

Posted 21 December 2014 - 02:45 AM

I onyl had drop killing from the other side as a problem.
On the hot map on the left side (from defenders view) there is a lot of cover. So in an attack defenders were killed lot, attakcers camped there and killed the dropping lance one mech after the other.
Granted, taht is ALSO bc the other defenders were too scared to attack, but its still BS - in a real fight the dropship would not drop you there.
You should be able to choose which drop point, simple as that.

#58 FoxTrot05

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • 49 posts

Posted 22 December 2014 - 11:30 AM

View PostSicarius Miyamoto Winters, on 20 December 2014 - 04:52 PM, said:


To be fair we've had some drops where we simply crushed the first wave then went out and crushed them like 48 to 10-12 at their spawn. Really I want to say they should of played better but the fact that it's possible to do means it's kind of designed poorly. Honestly it makes the game boring, but I'm not going to stop doing it until every faction in the IS stops defending my enemies or PGI fixes it.


I had a drop last night where the other team either refused to pop a generator or was unable to pop a generator. We all went over the gate at 12 - 14 min in and ended the game. We didn't even do like you said, kill their first wave and push, we just didn't want to sit behind a unopened gate for another 20 min.

#59 SixstringSamurai

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • 930 posts
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationYou Guys Are So Bad I'm Moving To The Moon

Posted 22 December 2014 - 11:59 AM

View PostFoxTrot05, on 22 December 2014 - 11:30 AM, said:


I had a drop last night where the other team either refused to pop a generator or was unable to pop a generator. We all went over the gate at 12 - 14 min in and ended the game. We didn't even do like you said, kill their first wave and push, we just didn't want to sit behind a unopened gate for another 20 min.


Yeah I hear that. Been happening to us more often. Usually it's a mixed faction pug group.

#60 Cyborx

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 86 posts

Posted 26 December 2014 - 07:29 AM

spawn camping isn´t the Problem - many ppl simply deserve it.
I want to mention sth more important:
THE WHOLE CONCEPT OF STATIC WAITING DEFENCE IS MISTAKEN/USELESS.
Defending a position/building means to start defence in front of that target. Only castles and towns in medieval age were defended like this. Then the blackpowder made walls useless.
Sitting inside the base is the eqivalent of surrender today. Isn´tthis the far future of warfare?
There is nothing to do than waiting or spawncamping.
This game needs more objectives with sense.Just some important stuff listet for modern (not even future) warfare.
1) disable communication: Why are there no sensor Arrays that u can fight for?
2) why is there not sth like a solar power plant on a hill that provides 50% of power for base turrets.
3)why is there no artillery on a hill - destroy it and "unlock" a 2nd route to attack?
there can be so much to do on a battlefield. all this stuff is missing.
Now it´s just boring and we´ve got another Cage fight like we are used to them.
Also a Defender must have have the possibilty to move and prepare / fight the enemy in front of the "living room".





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users