209 replies to this topic

[Killstorm999999]

Beo Vulf, on 18 December 2014 - 08:15 AM, said:

First - There are two effective strategies for stopping the Zerg rush, and several pugs have used them effectively. That they were discovered and used by Units first has no bearing on the argument.
Second - This is a BETA test of the community warfare. The objective is to break the game so that PGI can fix the holes.
Third - Any tactic which works can be used as long as it does not violate the terms of use. Even if it takes away from the game, or exposes weaknesses in the game. Why? We are trying to find the weaknesses and exploits so that PGI can fix them.

First- It doesn't matter that there are effective tactics for stopping the zerg. I don't want to play a game mode where the tactics are variations on how to zerg and how to stop zerging. The main point of my post is to say that people want to eliminate zerging because it is uninteresting, not because it is too difficult to counter.
Second- That's why I am here talking about zerging, specifically the reasons why people don't want zerging (again, not because its too hard, but because its not fun. I don't mind getting stomped by units, but I want them to actually have to fight me)
Third- I agree with this. Was this meant to counter my argument?

[Sandpit]

Deltron Zero, on 18 December 2014 - 09:27 AM, said:

First- It doesn't matter that there are effective tactics for stopping the zerg.

rofl

[Dimento Graven]

Sandpit, on 18 December 2014 - 09:25 AM, said:

He's not the "norm" I promise. I've dropped with several 1st in CW and THEY don't act like this.

You're not doing anything except proving you're not trying to do anything except QQ and troll dude oh and hurting the 1st's image.

Except that when I am debating something and make a statement, I typically provide proofs backing those statements up.

This guy is trying to justify endlessly exploiting broken/incomplete mechanics under the guise of, "Well no one has told me to stop yet."

His position is BS and laughable at best.

You're just letting your personal dislike of me to keep you from admitting that.

That's just sad.

[Killstorm999999]

kapusta11, on 17 December 2014 - 11:47 PM, said:

Make sure you understand the arguments about WHY people use zerg rush tactics

• Defenders reinforce quickly, you don't
  
• Defenders have turrets, you don't
  
• Defenders have dropships shoting you in the face, you don't
  
• As attacker you're always up against 12 enemy mechs

As long as teams are even in their strength, fighting Defenders get's you nowhere but guess what, it's not your primary objective anyways.


Adding generators has little tactical value, you might as well just increase gun's hp 4 times. I expect 12 mans to use zerg rush 4 times in a row, just to troll you PUGs and point you out where your mindless whining brought you, other competitive teams know how to deal with it already anyways.

I know why people use zerg rush tactics.

I am arguing that people want to get rid of zerg tactics because they are uninteresting and do not encourage mech-on-mech combat. It has nothing to do with the difficulty of countering zerg tactics.

As for how to eliminate zerg rush tactics, I dont know exactly, but it would certainly involve eliminating alot of the reasons that make zerg rushs one of the most effective tactics (quick defender reinforcement, defender drop ship guns, et cetera)

[Sandpit]

Dimento Graven, on 18 December 2014 - 09:29 AM, said:

Except that when I am debating something and make a statement, I typically provide proofs backing those statements up.

This guy is trying to justify endlessly exploiting broken/incomplete mechanics under the guise of, "Well no one has told me to stop yet."

His position is BS and laughable at best.

You're just letting your personal dislike of me to keep you from admitting that.

That's just sad.

You're not "debating" anything. You've been given several examples.

My "personal" dislike of you has nothing to do with your inability to hold a discussion. You're a troll. You're trolling. That's as simple as it gets.

[Killstorm999999]

Sandpit, on 18 December 2014 - 09:29 AM, said:

rofl

People don't want to play a game of rush/counter-rush, so it does not matter that there are tactics for dealing with it. It is not about an inability/unwillingness to learn, it's about making the game mode more about mechs fighting each other.

[Sandpit]

Dimento Graven, on 18 December 2014 - 09:29 AM, said:

This guy is trying to justify endlessly exploiting broken/incomplete mechanics under the guise of, "Well no one has told me to stop yet.".

No, he's calling you out on your asinine assertions of a tactic being an 'exploit", it being the "only viable attack/used all the time, etc.", it being "boring", etc.

Again, you're not debating anything. You're jumping up and down QQing about how you got beat by a valid and legitimate tactic and trying to paint anyone who uses it as some sort of cheater/exploiter.

Deltron Zero, on 18 December 2014 - 09:27 AM, said:

I don't want to play a game mode where the tactics are variations on how to zerg and how to stop zerging.

Deltron Zero, on 18 December 2014 - 09:34 AM, said:

People don't want to play

No, PEOPLE, don't want CW constantly nerfed and dumbed down because a select few refuse to use tactics to counter tactics.

[Dimento Graven]

Sandpit, on 18 December 2014 - 09:32 AM, said:

You're not "debating" anything. You've been given several examples.

My "personal" dislike of you has nothing to do with your inability to hold a discussion. You're a troll. You're trolling. That's as simple as it gets.

I've been debating, he made a statement, I asked for his proof of it, he refused to provide it.

Why the **** is MY responsibility to prove HIS statements?

And I HAVE been holding a discussion apparently YOUR definition of a "troll" is anyone who won't agree with you.

As far as this conversation goes, I've PROVEN my point here:

http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__4021418

[ContingencyPlan]

The main issue here is that, while the game mode is very much about using tactics and outside-the-box thinking to accomplish the objective, there is no real agreement by the players as to how far is too far. There is a significant and outspoken number of players who feel that any tactic that does not revolve around exploiting bugs/glitches with the game should be not only allowed but encouraged, as it more accurately simulates real battle/war conditions. There is a significantly larger number of players, however, who want there to be a very clear line drawn that says just how far is too far. These groups will never agree, so it is up to the devs to decide.

The devs have made their decision. They do want a degree of sportsmanlike conduct to take place, and they don't want people to attempt t reduce CW to PvE raid encounters from WoW, which is exactly what the zerg rush is doing. They put a lot of hard work into adding a lot of features and have ATTEMPTED (not successfully yet) to add variety as well into the game, and attempts by attacking teams to immediately rush the base and bypass combat essentially forego all the work they've done, as well as deny the defending team the opportunity to experience it as well. Any game mechanic that allows attackers to play using this specific manner WILL be stopped.

[Sandpit]

Dimento Graven, on 18 December 2014 - 09:36 AM, said:

I've been debating, he made a statement, I asked for his proof of it, he refused to provide it.

The "proof" is listening to the people giving you tips, which you've refused to do in the name of "I don't wanna play like that"

You're not garnering any support for your ideas. Hell you're not even presenting ideas, you're just jumping up and down and accusing people of being exploiters. Move along son, take some lessons from your unit mates. They know how to use their grown up words

[Killstorm999999]

Sandpit, on 18 December 2014 - 09:36 AM, said:

No, PEOPLE, don't want CW constantly nerfed and dumbed down because a select few refuse to use tactics to counter tactics.

We are all that PEOPLE. I, and I know others, dont want to replace the rush tactics with NOTHING. We want to replace rush tactics with something ELSE. Something more meaningful that encourages mech-on-mech fighting.

[Bwelt29]

Dimento Graven, on 18 December 2014 - 08:29 AM, said:

YOU BROKE IT ONCE, NOW GO FIND SOMETHING ELSE BROKEN, STOP SITTING THERE DOING THE SAME BROKEN THING OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN, THAT'S NOT TESTING, THAT'S EXPLOITING!"

I agree with you on this point and after the patch it could be called an exploit but before it was a legitimate strategy that they were using. It takes very little skill and ruins the fun for a large portion of players. BUT this zerg tactic is nothing new Goon Swarm became famous for it and it is a legitimate strategy for players that want to us it for griefing and quick easy wins. What IS TRUE is that PGI did not like where this was going and saw that it could RUIN the integrity of the game and therby lose players which in-turn loses revenue and then we have no game to play. So I applaud PGI for realizing this a huge potential problem at the risk of continued game financial support.

[Sandpit]

ContingencyPlan, on 18 December 2014 - 09:36 AM, said:

Any game mechanic that allows attackers to play using this specific manner WILL be stopped.

it HAS been stopped
By MANY players
Using counter-strategies
They didn't need PGI to "fix" anything

Also, your assertion that PGI doesn't "like" zerg rushing is simply false and completely inaccurate. They simply don't want it to be the only strategy used. Period. Word for word from Russ.

Give it up dude.

Deltron Zero, on 18 December 2014 - 09:38 AM, said:

We are all that PEOPLE. I, and I know others, dont want to replace the rush tactics with NOTHING. We want to replace rush tactics with something ELSE. Something more meaningful that encourages mech-on-mech fighting.

Yea?
Who's "we"? Last I checked myself, and the ones you're sitting there arguing with are part of "we" also. Stop trying to act like you represent anything other than yourself.

Maverick Brewer, on 18 December 2014 - 09:39 AM, said:

I agree with you on this point and after the patch it could be called an exploit

you guys REALLY need to read the townhall transcripts.
[color=#959595]Base rush tactics, while they can be countered, are definitely not intended to be the only or best way to take a base[/color]
[color=#959595]L[/color]

[Killstorm999999]

Sandpit, on 18 December 2014 - 09:41 AM, said:

Yea?
Who's "we"? Last I checked myself, and the ones you're sitting there arguing with are part of "we" also. Stop trying to act like you represent anything other than yourself.

You are part of that WE. You certainly want tactics in CW right? There are a couple of people advocating for just a skirmish mode with drop ships for CW, but you are not that, and most of the people arguing against rush tactics are giving suggestions for an alternative system that promotes tactics. Those are the people in the 'WE'. The reason I made this thread in the first place is to make it clear that WE are not arguing for 'easy mode' without tactics, but for a mode with tactics that promotes mech-on-mech combat.

[Dimento Graven]

Sandpit, on 18 December 2014 - 09:36 AM, said:

No, he's calling you out on your asinine assertions of a tactic being an 'exploit', it being the "only viable attack/used all the time, etc.", it being "boring", etc.

Incorrect on many counts.

1. I'm not calling it the "only viable attack", there are many other "viable" attacks these teams could be using, but of course, any time I've come against them, they don't. They just use that ONE tactic, match after match after match after match.

Directly observed fact.

2. I never said it was "boring".

I absolutely admit I am calling it an exploit.

It is.

Otherwise, PGI wouldn't be attempting to fix it would they?

Quote

Again, you're not debating anything. You're jumping up and down QQing about how you got beat by a valid and legitimate tactic and trying to paint anyone who uses it as some sort of cheater/exploiter.

Use the tactic once or twice to prove it the game has weaknesses, you're beta testing.

To ONLY use that tactic, taking advantage of those proven weaknesses, and it's exploiting.

Hence, PGI attempting to fix it.

End of discussion.

Quote

No, PEOPLE, don't want CW constantly nerfed and dumbed down because a select few refuse to use tactics to counter tactics.

Wait... waaaaaaaaaaaaait.... So you're saying that PGI should allow this tactic, so that more probably what will happen is that EVERY team uses this SAME tactic EVERY match...

The fact is, there really isn't a reliable counter to the tactic. The counter is probably effective only against teams that don't stay together, don't feather their jump jets, and don't focus on the generator.

However any team, that does the feathering, stays together, ignores everything else but the generator, will win a high percentage of the time, we're talking well over 75% of the time.

PGI saw it as a problem and is fixing it.

[Apnu]

Dimento Graven, on 18 December 2014 - 09:23 AM, said:

Problems With This Tactic:

1. 2 mediums vs. 12 lights.
2. The 12 lights will move past the mediums fairly quickly.
3. Waiting until they are within sight of the objective, it's already too late because the objective has such pitiful few HP.
4. EXPLOIT OF HIT DETECTION: The zerging enemy feather jump jets the entire run to the objective, exploiting the KNOWN hit detection issue where the server has the 'mechs "higher" than they are shown on the screen. Hard to shoot at legs that the server says ARE NOT where you're aiming.
5. EXPLOIT OF HIT BOXES: The majority of zerging 'mechs are typically Firestarters (or Spiders) 'mechs with KNOWN hit box issues. Hard to disable/kill a 'mech when its hit boxes allow for a 40 point alpha to the rear center torso to pass through with no damage.

First off when I said 2... I meant in each pilot's drop deck, not across all 12 players.

Second, if the anti-light mediums hang back by the generators, the lights speed is mitigated. Because you're already there where they're going to be.

Third, using SSRMs, you mitigate hit box issues. Same for LBs which do much better than trying to lay an AC10 on a spider's leg.

I'm not saying teams aren't exploiting weaknesses in the game. THEY ARE! But the game, until patched or nerf'd away, allows it, so its not expressly illegal. Its lame, pathetic, and lazy, but its not illegal.

A large portion of gamers, in any game system, all through history, will be ultra-competitive and winning by any means, even dirty tricks, lame min/max tactics, and receptive use of trick plays, is acceptable to them. Their desire for competitive success over rides their moral and ethical structure and any sense or interest in having fun with like minded human beings.

If you're going to hang out playing any game with another person, even it if its Monopoly, you will run into that type. If you wan to play the game, you have to prepare for it. Mentally and emotionally. Such is life with people.

Just forget that game and move on to the next one, hopefully those lame wannabes won't be in the next one. But in MWO we live by the MM and die by the MM.

[Sandpit]

Let me restate this for the slow

base rush tactics, while they can be countered, are definitely not intended to be the ONLY or BEST way to take a base


Let that sink in to the people jumping up and down QQing about "EXPLOITS"


Did it sink in yet?
No?

Ok, I'll give it a few more seconds and repeat
Not intended to be the ONLY or BEST way to take a base.

understand yet?
Sit down, stop with your QQing about it being "unfair" or an "exploit"

Offer something constructive or go find another game forum to troll.

Dimento Graven, on 18 December 2014 - 09:45 AM, said:

I absolutely admit I am calling it an exploit.

It is.

Otherwise, PGI wouldn't be attempting to fix it would they?

educate yourself, you'll save you and your unit from looking like a bunch of QQing whinebags

[Mystere]

ContingencyPlan, on 18 December 2014 - 08:01 AM, said:

When teams of attackers traveling in fast moving mechs make a play to go straight for the objective and bypass opponents, they are, in essence, making an attempt to remove the one variable that makes these games any different from, say, a WoW raid boss encounter: The players on the defending team. The defending team, when they find themselves faced with this strategy, now has to fight their way back into the equation.

Is it fair to be able to cut the entire enemy team out of the equation and effectively reduce the gamemode to a PvE encounter? That's debatable. But before I can concern myself with winning or losing, I at least want to be a part of the equation. And when faced with an oncoming rush by light mechs who are basically trying to ignore my presence there, that becomes very frustrating, because the way I see it, by using that tactic, they are basically trying to exclude me from the game.

You can most certainly make yourself part of the equation by imposing your will on the enemy, and not the other way around.

[Sandpit]

Dimento Graven, on 18 December 2014 - 09:45 AM, said:

Wait... waaaaaaaaaaaaait.... So you're saying that PGI should allow this tactic, so that more probably what will happen is that EVERY team uses this SAME tactic EVERY match...

yea, that's what i've said.

Don't your fingers get tired of trolling dude? You really are just making yourself and your entire unit look bad at this point.

[Dimento Graven]

Sandpit, on 18 December 2014 - 09:37 AM, said:

The "proof" is listening to the people giving you tips, which you've refused to do in the name of "I don't wanna play like that"

You're not garnering any support for your ideas. Hell you're not even presenting ideas, you're just jumping up and down and accusing people of being exploiters. Move along son, take some lessons from your unit mates. They know how to use their grown up words

Again, so goddamn wrong Sandpit, what the hell, you're normally better than this.

I never said "I don't wanna play like that".

He said there were strategies to counter it, I stated prove it.

He refused.

If you and I were having a discussion, and I made some statement without proof, you'd be all over my ass like stink on **** if I didn't provide proof.

Why you letting this bozo get away with it?