209 replies to this topic

[Mystere]

Dimento Graven, on 18 December 2014 - 08:22 AM, said:

Yeah and the fact that so quickly after CW has been released PGI is making changes in order to try and address the tactic ought to tell you how PGI views it...

That they are -- again --- bending to the demands of the whiny masses?

Or is that the vocal minority?

Edited by Mystere, 18 December 2014 - 09:50 AM.

[William Knight]

pwnface, on 17 December 2014 - 04:41 PM, said:

FRR and Kurita currently have a ceasefire anyway and we aren't in active conflict. (Someone in FRR didn't get the memo but we're correcting the issue)

.

What! I guess the Eridani Light Pony Mercenary Company needs to make a formal apology for a couple of attacks on FFR territory when under contract with Kurita.

Oh, and to all the clanners out there. IS streak boats are not as effective as Clan streak boats.

Edited by William Knight, 18 December 2014 - 09:53 AM.

[Dimento Graven]

Sandpit, on 18 December 2014 - 09:48 AM, said:

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.

"You keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means..."

Sorry you hate my guts (actually, no I'm not sorry), but the fact is it's an exploit. It's being addressed.

If it weren't a problem, it wouldn't need to be 'fixed' now would it?

[Sandpit]

Dimento Graven, on 18 December 2014 - 09:48 AM, said:

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?

I'm only pointing out that you've done nothing but really jump up and down accusing people of being cheaters and exploiters when that's clearly not the case.

zerg rushes were a "thing" for about 2 days. They weren't hard to counter once most units and players got used to expecting them and adjusted to be able to counter them when they do run into it. They aren't difficult to counter. They aren't the only tactic used. They aren't an exploit.

You've seriously sat there and accused people of cheating for using a valid, LEGAL, legitimate tactic because you don't "like" it.

I've tried to point out that you're not being taken seriously because you're not presenting anythign in a serious manner. Regardless of my opinion on the strategy, it's factually not an exploit. period

Dimento Graven, on 18 December 2014 - 09:50 AM, said:

exploit.

You're the one who doesn't know that that means.

Sandpit, on 18 December 2014 - 09:47 AM, said:

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.


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

It's not an exploit. That's straight from PGI itself, not from a player's opinion on it. Period

[Dimento Graven]

Sandpit, on 18 December 2014 - 09:47 AM, said:

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.


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

If it's NOT a problem, then you tell me why it's being fixed?

Let me put it this way, because I realize I haven't been clear on the issue:
>>>IF<<< we didn't have to endure the various craptastic hit detection issues, >>>IF<<< we didn't have 'mechs with such craptastic hit box issues, then there PROBABLY wouldn't be an issue with this tactic, but it's the fact that they take advantage of several weaknesses simultaneously, AND REPEATEDLY match after match after match.

If the intent is to "test" this BETA, why are you only "testing" this ONE thing repeatedly?

Again, if it weren't a problem, it wouldn't be getting fixed.

[Mystere]

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

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.

Do you believe the changes made will actually do anything to stop the Zerg? Many, including myself, are already saying otherwise. It would have been better if (from another thread):

Mystere, on 17 December 2014 - 09:06 PM, said:

Make this another version of Invasion and then switch randomly between this and the old one for variety. It might even tempt attackers to scout first before committing to an assault plan.

Mystere, on 17 December 2014 - 09:20 PM, said:

We could now have 2 maps with 2 variations each, instead of still ending up with just 2 maps. And the attackers have no way of finding out which variation they are fighting in until they scout out the place.

But no, almost always we just have something nerfed or buffed as a solution.

[Sandpit]

Dimento Graven, on 18 December 2014 - 10:00 AM, said:

If it's NOT a problem, then you tell me why it's being fixed?

Again, if it weren't a problem, it wouldn't be getting fixed.

Do you see the difference in saying "I think this is a problem with CW"
and
"you're a cheater exploiting the game!"?

Then you basically attacked someone for saying there's plenty of tips and strategies posted on how to counter it.
Then when you saw that nobody was buying into the "pics or it didn't happen" statements you were making, you switched to "I don't want to play like that and I represent "we the people""
Then when that didn't work because "we the people" still disagreed with many of your assertions you started in with the "it's an exploit and you're a cheater"
Then when it was shown that PGI did NOT feel it was an exploit, you switched to "Well if it weren't a problem it wouldn't be fixed now would it?"

You haven't offered anything even remotely constructive. You never intended to have a "discussion" on how to improve MWO. Your entire intention was to complain about rush tactics and anyone who disagreed with you be dammed.

That's what I'm pointing out. There are SEVERAL people that agree that rush tactics were a bit too common and gave some ideas on how to help mitigate them a bit, myself included. That's the difference in what you're doing and actually having a discussion.

[Mystere]

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.

And there are some of us who do not want any tactics replaced, but actually have more, and determined by our own discretion. We want game modes that put the onus on the defender to come up with tactics to win, and other game modes that put the onus on the attacker to do the same.

We do not want PGI to "fix" what we do not think is broken. We want players to be forced to think of ways to counter successful tactics instead.

But, the only thing we are getting -- so far anyway -- is just another round of nerf and buff cycles, to quell ...

Edited by Mystere, 18 December 2014 - 10:17 AM.

[William Knight]

From what I have experienced in CW the problem is not Zerg rushing per say but a team dropping 12 light mechs (IS light's as Clan lights are too slow) and making a Zerg rush.

Clans can deal with an IS light Zerg rush as they have the large SSRM and spray weapon systems to deal with it. The thing is IS units really struggle with an IS light Zerg rush as we don't have enough effective weapon systems to knock down lag shielded light's (the IS' s impressive pin point damage is actually a disadvantage in this situation).

[Sandpit]

William Knight, on 18 December 2014 - 10:13 AM, said:

From what I have experienced in CW the problem is not Zerg rushing per say but a team dropping 12 light mechs (IS light's as Clan lights are too slow) and making a Zerg rush.

Clans can deal with an IS light Zerg rush as they have the large SSRM and spray weapon systems to deal with it. The thing is IS units really struggle with an IS light Zerg rush as we don't have enough effective weapon systems to knock down lag shielded light's (the IS' s impressive pin point damage is actually a disadvantage in this situation).

LRMs, PPD/FLD ballistics, SRM boats, and LBX mechs will ruin any light mech's day

[pwnface]

William Knight, on 18 December 2014 - 10:13 AM, said:

From what I have experienced in CW the problem is not Zerg rushing per say but a team dropping 12 light mechs (IS light's as Clan lights are too slow) and making a Zerg rush.

Clans can deal with an IS light Zerg rush as they have the large SSRM and spray weapon systems to deal with it. The thing is IS units really struggle with an IS light Zerg rush as we don't have enough effective weapon systems to knock down lag shielded light's (the IS' s impressive pin point damage is actually a disadvantage in this situation).

I disagree. Being able to rip off a light mech's leg with a dual gauss shot is the fastest way to stop a light mech trying to rush. PPCs, ACs, and Gauss are the most effective weapons IS weapons against light mechs if you can aim. 2X Gauss Jagermechs / CTF-3D are probably my favorite for stopping a light mech rush because you can reach out to the gate and hit a few of them coming in and still have enough speed to cover the orbital cannon as well. Having a few light mechs on your own team is incredibly potent as well.

[Revengex]

Soo.. as if its not hard enough for IS to attack the clans when they are defending, (someone check the stats) now we have to kill three generators to kill the gun.

Well hell, why not just give each clan mech a "DO OVER" button that lets them destroy all IS weaponry. If this does not work, let them call down a drop ship that bombs only the IS mechs with 1000 ton Loony Toons weights.

Bitching clanners about "zerg rushes" need to grow up and stop getting you devs to rig the game for their majesties.

The clans are OP already, range, etc. Why let us IS pilots believe we have any chance at all attacking. Just tell us we don't matter.

This is the biggest mistake you devs have made and that is saying lots.

RX

[Sandpit]

Revengex, on 18 December 2014 - 10:26 AM, said:

Soo.. as if its not hard enough for IS to attack the clans when they are defending, (someone check the stats) now we have to kill three generators to kill the gun.

Well hell, why not just give each clan mech a "DO OVER" button that lets them destroy all IS weaponry. If this does not work, let them call down a drop ship that bombs only the IS mechs with 1000 ton Loony Toons weights.

Bitching clanners about "zerg rushes" need to grow up and stop getting you devs to rig the game for their majesties.

The clans are OP already, range, etc. Why let us IS pilots believe we have any chance at all attacking. Just tell us we don't matter.

This is the biggest mistake you devs have made and that is saying lots.

RX

just stop

Clans aren't "op", just quit dude. If that's your complaint, you really need to reevaluate why the game is "imbalanced". It's not the game...

[ContingencyPlan]

Mystere, on 18 December 2014 - 09:50 AM, said:

That they are -- again --- bending to the demands of the whiny masses?

Or is that the vocal minority?

They're not catering to anybody, really. They flat out said they had a vision as to how they wanted the games to play out, and the zerg rush is not that way. They do not under any circumstances want to see people attempting to completely bypass combat. By that same token that does not mean they are reducing the gamemode to skirmish. They just want to see people have to fight their way to the objective.

[Revengex]

Sandpit, on 18 December 2014 - 10:28 AM, said:

just stop

Clans aren't "op", just quit dude. If that's your complaint, you really need to reevaluate why the game is "imbalanced". It's not the game...

Did you say I am "imbalanced" or am I just paranoid. Are you with the NSA?

[Sandpit]

ContingencyPlan, on 18 December 2014 - 10:31 AM, said:

a vision as to how they wanted the games to play out, and the zerg rush is not that way.

That's also not what Russ said...

not being the "best" or "only" is not "I don't want people doing it"

Revengex, on 18 December 2014 - 10:35 AM, said:

The clans are OP already, range, etc. Why let us IS pilots believe we have any chance at all attacking. Just tell us we don't matter.

yea
ok

Revengex, on 18 December 2014 - 10:35 AM, said:

Did you say I am "imbalanced" or am I just paranoid. Are you with the NSA?

[Revengex]

ContingencyPlan, on 18 December 2014 - 10:31 AM, said:

They're not catering to anybody, really. They flat out said they had a vision as to how they wanted the games to play out, and the zerg rush is not that way. They do not under any circumstances want to see people attempting to completely bypass combat. By that same token that does not mean they are reducing the gamemode to skirmish. They just want to see people have to fight their way to the objective.

Show me the stats. Then again, 25% of players polled said 32% of the time that 60% of the game is rigged, half of the time.

[Dimento Graven]

Sandpit, on 18 December 2014 - 09:55 AM, said:

I'm only pointing out that you've done nothing but really jump up and down accusing people of being cheaters and exploiters when that's clearly not the case.

zerg rushes were a "thing" for about 2 days. They weren't hard to counter once most units and players got used to expecting them and adjusted to be able to counter them when they do run into it. They aren't difficult to counter. They aren't the only tactic used. They aren't an exploit.

If it were ONLY a "two day" thing and people had moved on, fine, but that's not what happened, at least for some units. They found it, and then that is the ONLY thing they'd do. I've run into these units.

They apparently had ZERO interest 'testing' the game, as the ONLY thing they would do, any time I dropped in a match with them is the zerg rush.

So, these found a combination of weaknesses in the game and only used tactics that took advantage of those weaknesses.

That's pretty much the definition of exploiting.

It's the same as finding a combination of buttons within the game that causes the enemy target to freeze so that you can take easy potshots. Yeah, it's not expressly verboten, spelled out word for word in the ToU or CoC, but you can pretty much count on if the only thing you do is log into a game and push that combination and freeze people's 'mechs and kill them endlessly, there's going to be issues.

I've read the ToU and CoC and the way they're written, taken at a "letter of the law" perspective, it's impossible to cheat in MWO unless you're using 3rd party utilities or have modified their files in some manner that's not expressly allowed.

Obviously as a community, it's not just the "letter of the law" that we're interested in, it's the "spirit of it" as well.

I find something that's a bug/weakness, I do it maybe ONE MORE time to confirm it, then I report it, and move on, I DO NOT endlessly exploit the bug/weakness to pad my stats.

Like I said earlier, KNOWING about the hit detection issue with certain 'mechs that feather their jump jets, I've gone so far as to REMOVE jump jets from those chassis. I go beyond the letter to stay in line with spirit of it as well.

Quote

You've seriously sat there and accused people of cheating for using a valid, LEGAL, legitimate tactic because you don't "like" it.

Yeah, yeah, the "No one told me not to, so it's legal until they do" argument used by degenerates and 3 year olds since the dawn of time.

There's LOTS of things done that were WRONG to do before a law was expressly written against it...

Keep trying.

Quote

I've tried to point out that you're not being taken seriously because you're not presenting anythign in a serious manner. Regardless of my opinion on the strategy, it's factually not an exploit. period

Yet, PGI is expressly changing to content to address it.

Quote

You're the one who doesn't know that that means.


It's not an exploit. That's straight from PGI itself, not from a player's opinion on it. Period

It's NOT an exploit UNTIL it becomes the ONLY strategy used.

Were it occasional, again, probably wouldn't be a problem, but for some units it is the ONLY thing they do, period. AT THAT POINT, it becomes exploitive.

You'll note, I did previously state that doing it once or twice to prove that there's an issue is one thing, but degenerating into ONLY using that ONE tactic match after match after match is where the line is crossed.

Mystere, on 18 December 2014 - 10:04 AM, said:

Do you believe the changes made will actually do anything to stop the Zerg? Many, including myself, are already saying otherwise. It would have been better if (from another thread):

Honestly I agree with you. This won't stop the zerg, but it will change it.

The fact that PGI is addressing it all, especially this early after the release of CW should tell us, that what has been happening with the tactic has become a problem.

[Revengex]

Look, cannon is out the window already and that's fine. Its a game.

SO>> limit the range of the clan tinspawn weapons to reflect IS weapons and things will balance out better. Otherwise, delete all IS mechs [redacted], and let the claners play with themselves (no double entendre intended.)

Edited by Marvyn Dodgers, 18 December 2014 - 05:11 PM.
Unconstructive/politics

[Revengex]

Revengex, on 18 December 2014 - 10:45 AM, said:

Look, cannon is out the window already and that's fine. Its a game.

SO>> limit the range of the clan tinspawn weapons to reflect IS weapons and things will balance out better. Otherwise, delete all IS mechs [redacted], and let the claners play with themselves (no double entendre intended.)

OR you can let the IS mechs use clan weapons (salvage is in canon) and move on, nothing to see here..

Edited by Marvyn Dodgers, 18 December 2014 - 05:14 PM.
Unconstructive/politics