Jump to content

Spawn Killing


62 replies to this topic

#61 Tim East

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Shredder
  • Shredder
  • 1,422 posts

Posted 27 December 2014 - 09:17 AM

You know, it'd be interesting if they took some of the progressive mission objectives from games like Mechcommander, and made bases far more dangerous to assault directly than to whittle at stuff outside of first. You know, break the power generators shuts down the base turrets, defenders can blow bridges to prevent attacker advance... Stuff do do besides just fight on each side.

#62 Allen Ward

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • 376 posts

Posted 02 January 2015 - 04:23 AM

Having a drop zone like the ones in CW is just stupid. No one would fly in mechs one by one into a hot landing zone. The fact that the game is actually already lost for the attackers if the defenders can move full forve to the spwan zone is not the point here. Respawns happen automatically, the attackers can NOT hold back and organize their respawns (just imagine 4 dropships and 12 mechs respawning at the very same moment). Now it's just stupid slaughter.

PGI messed this one up, again. We will see if we will get a smarter attacker mode in the future. It would make sense to be able to synchronize respawns and choose between several possible drop zones for the attackers. Or to have dropships that really wipe out an attacking force that gets too close, but this would become very unfair in comparison to the defender's dropships (supported by a multitude of turrets the generators would be safe forever). On the other hand I just wonder why defenders have to be flown in, there could be 3-4 mech hangars within the base (probably the rear part) where defenders respawn. No dropships at all. But then, why not use all mechs at hand from the beginning? The respawn is a game mechanic and I don't find it works well in a mech game. Attacker would fly in all forces at once, not in 4 waves, defenders would use all mechs available from the start...this is just a trick to keep the CW match from ending too fast.

The whole concpet of the two maps curretnly available is flawed, it is primitive shooter game design, nothing that even comes close to enforcing or enabling smart tactics. It all comes down to raw firepower (long range mainly).

Edited by Allen Ward, 02 January 2015 - 04:27 AM.


#63 Tim East

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Shredder
  • Shredder
  • 1,422 posts

Posted 02 January 2015 - 09:39 AM

View PostAllen Ward, on 02 January 2015 - 04:23 AM, said:

Having a drop zone like the ones in CW is just stupid. No one would fly in mechs one by one into a hot landing zone. The fact that the game is actually already lost for the attackers if the defenders can move full forve to the spwan zone is not the point here. Respawns happen automatically, the attackers can NOT hold back and organize their respawns (just imagine 4 dropships and 12 mechs respawning at the very same moment). Now it's just stupid slaughter.

PGI messed this one up, again. We will see if we will get a smarter attacker mode in the future. It would make sense to be able to synchronize respawns and choose between several possible drop zones for the attackers. Or to have dropships that really wipe out an attacking force that gets too close, but this would become very unfair in comparison to the defender's dropships (supported by a multitude of turrets the generators would be safe forever). On the other hand I just wonder why defenders have to be flown in, there could be 3-4 mech hangars within the base (probably the rear part) where defenders respawn. No dropships at all. But then, why not use all mechs at hand from the beginning? The respawn is a game mechanic and I don't find it works well in a mech game. Attacker would fly in all forces at once, not in 4 waves, defenders would use all mechs available from the start...this is just a trick to keep the CW match from ending too fast.

The whole concpet of the two maps curretnly available is flawed, it is primitive shooter game design, nothing that even comes close to enforcing or enabling smart tactics. It all comes down to raw firepower (long range mainly).

This, but with a little less hate. The reason they should use four waves would possibly be dropship limitations, like if they only had three dropships to deploy four companies of mechs, though that actually doesn't make sense for attackers since mechs are actually stored in the dropships for system to system transport if I remember correctly.

For defenders it actually makes some sense that mechs would be deployed as they became available on other fronts, since they'd have the dropships for close air support during the deployment and be able to minimize the amount of time there would be no mechs guarding the objective. Addressing Allen's query about mech bays, while I feel that this might be neat for some maps, especially if the attackers could attack the bays and maybe prevent defender reinforcements, there are many instances such as comm relays where an installation needing defence might not support a full-time mech bay on-site.

Back on the attacker side of things, perhaps some kind of wave deployment button made available to the person who takes the company commander role, so they can decide whether or not to summon partial waves?

I'd really like to see more types of modes, including a capture and hold style mode kind of like a CW conquest, and a Trial of Possession mode similar to skirmish for clan vs clan conflict since canonically the clans were not particularly prone to just up and destroying installations if they could help it.

I'd also like to see the defend and destroy mode made into something a little less rudimentary, with a wider variety of objectives including comm tower (destroying prevents air/arty strike perhaps?) generator (destroying disables/weakens turrets) and fewer ginormous walls, since they make very little sense in a setting where dropships canonically have the power to clear most (read: any not supported by either mechs or very heavy vehicles/turrets) LZs by themselves. I'd also like to see the attackers have to have some accountability for their LZ, like if a bunch of techs were dropped off to set up the equivalent of an OE254, and if that was destroyed THEY would be denied air/arty support as well. In fact, I'd like to see arty (not air) support flat-out denied to attackers until they had secured at least one victory on a planet. Wow, that expanded into kind of a rant, didn't it? Let's go ahead and separate it from the paragraph before it.

Anyway, I love CW, despite its many flaws, and have sincere hope for the future of it. I also hope that some of the ideas/complaints from the community are heard and acted upon, since it really should be the community that makes community warfare, quiaff?





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users