209 replies to this topic

[Sandpit]

Dimento Graven, on 18 December 2014 - 10:42 AM, said:

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.

Those units aren't going to do well then. just as with any players who think "one" strategy, mech build, etc. is going to work.

Dimento Graven, on 18 December 2014 - 10:42 AM, said:

It's NOT an exploit

period
keep ignoring the quoted phrase from Russ.

Dimento Graven, on 18 December 2014 - 10:42 AM, said:

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.

It says that they want to make other strategies more viable as well.

You're trying to project your personal opinion on to what has actually been said about it

[Mystere]

Dimento Graven, on 18 December 2014 - 10:42 AM, said:

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

The change is but a small speed bump for the Zerg.

Making it a variation of the same map and randomizing between the two variations would have been better. Smart attackers will want to first find out what variation they are fighting in, and smart defenders will want to make sure the attackers do not figure that out at all (i.e. kill them all ).

Dimento Graven, on 18 December 2014 - 10:42 AM, said:

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.

And therein lies the rub. I never perceived it as PGI's problem. I see it as the players' problem.

Which is why I am disappointed (to put things ever so mildly).

[pwnface]

Dimento Graven, on 18 December 2014 - 10:42 AM, said:

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

It isn't clear that light mech zerg rushing is "wrong", just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's "wrong". As PGI hasn't stated that they consider it an exploit, I don't think it is fair to categorize it as such. Do you also think that jump sniping is an exploit because it is "wrong"?

If it were obvious that PGI didn't intend for mechs with jump jets to circumvent the wall, then I would agree that a light mech zerg rush is an exploit. I'm pretty sure that they knew mechs with jump jets would be able to jump over the wall though...

I disagree even more about your assertion that something is only an exploit if it is the only strategy a team uses. I think it is pretty obvious that PGI didn't intend for 90t Highlanders be able to jump on top a 35t Jenner's head and get taxi'd around the map at 152kph. That is something most people would consider an exploit, yet you don't see people doing it as a prevailing or popular strategy.

The fact that PGI is addressing the light mech zerg rush is not proof that it was actually a problem. It simply proves what we've always known, they listen to the loudest whiners on the forums which are typically the underhive.

Edited by pwnface, 18 December 2014 - 10:55 AM.

[Sandpit]

Mystere, on 18 December 2014 - 10:51 AM, said:

And therein lies the rub. I never perceived it as PGI's problem. I see it as the players' problem.

Which is why I am disappointed (to put things ever so mildly).

Which is why PGI never said it was wrong, exploit, cheating, bad, etc.

They simply added some stuff so that matches aren't over in "5 minutes" is essentially what they did. They didn't want to remove a tactic. They just wanted to slow down quick finishes to games.

There's a big difference. Some people just want to try and project that into "See PGI doesn't want players doing it, they agree with me"

[Blakkstar]

The CW meta is busted when the attacker can pull off a win the great majority of the time with a single tactic no matter what the defender does. It's not "cheating" or an exploit, and that whole line of argument is absurd. Players are simply gravitating to the preferred strategy which offers the greatest chance of victory.

Russ admitted that the current game design is not working as intended and will be changed so that rushing is not such a powerful tactic. Maybe it's time to tone down the hysteria and realize we're a week into a brand new game mode that is officially in Beta (the whole game really is, but that's another argument).

[pwnface]

Blakkstar, on 18 December 2014 - 10:55 AM, said:

The CW meta is busted when the attacker can pull off a win the great majority of the time with a single tactic no matter what the defender does. It's not "cheating" or an exploit, and that whole line of argument is absurd. Players are simply gravitating to the preferred strategy which offers the greatest chance of victory.

Russ admitted that the current game design is not working as intended and will be changed so that rushing is not such a powerful tactic. Maybe it's time to tone down the hysteria and realize we're a week into a brand new game mode that is officially in Beta (the whole game really is, but that's another argument).

There is a big hole in your argument here when you say, "no matter what the defender does". My team has never lost to a light mech zerg rush. Clearly, what the defender does matters quite a bit in stopping a relatively easy to counter tactic.

If private matches for invasion drops were available, I'd challenge anyone to put together a light mech zerg rush team to see how often they are successful against a team that actually thinks about countering it. I'm pretty sure their success rate will be much less than 50%.

Edited by pwnface, 18 December 2014 - 10:59 AM.

[Revengex]

DarthRevis, on 17 December 2014 - 12:02 PM, said:

You realize that the Attackers cannot win by defeating all the mechs right? That destroying the base is the only way?

If you make it so the Attackers have to kill a certain amount of mechs it wont change the ZERG, it will just delay it until kill count is met or they will ZERG first then just kill you after Omega is down. Changing the game will not make up for bad tactics and lack of skill if you cannot leg the lead man all the time and stop that rush then YOU are doing something wrong. Not the game mechanics messed up, not the CLAMS ARE OP, none of that.

You are lacking in something, tactics, player skill, twitch ability, maybe two or all three. But either way i have yet to be defeated by the ZERG RUSH in a single run. Multiple runs yes but not a single 12 light mech rush. Even managed to kill one that was ON TOP of the generator the other night. He was a tough one to get without JJ's. But still....

The real reason you may be having such a hard time is that there is NO ELO in CW apparently. So you ,ay have guys who just finished there cadet program going against 2 year vet's....your gonna have a bad time. This is why you group up!

If PGI wanted more engagement and less KILL THE GUN, then they would let you win by killing off all the defending mechs. After all, you have taken over the base.

[Blakkstar]

pwnface, on 18 December 2014 - 10:57 AM, said:

There is a big hole in your argument here when you say, "no matter what the defender does". My team has never lost to a light mech zerg rush. Clearly, what the defender does matters quite a bit in stopping a relatively easy to counter tactic.

Immediately preceded by "a great majority of the time". Good for your team. Still a broken tactic by the percentages. Still being changed, as it should be.

[Sandpit]

Blakkstar, on 18 December 2014 - 10:55 AM, said:

The CW meta is busted when the attacker can pull off a win the great majority of the time with a single tactic no matter what the defender does. It's not "cheating" or an exploit, and that whole line of argument is absurd. Players are simply gravitating to the preferred strategy which offers the greatest chance of victory.

Russ admitted that the current game design is not working as intended and will be changed so that rushing is not such a powerful tactic. Maybe it's time to tone down the hysteria and realize we're a week into a brand new game mode that is officially in Beta (the whole game really is, but that's another argument).

Which is why they adjusted a few things. It's not that rush tactics were "bad", it's really that PGI felt games were ending too quickly so they added some stuff to lengthen games a bit. That's really all that was done.

You'll see a new crop of complaints about it soon though. Promise

[Revengex]

Sandpit, on 18 December 2014 - 10:51 AM, said:

You're just making yourself look and sound even more ignorant dude

That's your argument? A says: "How about this." and B says: "You are ignorant."

Wow, "dude" thoughtful and profound.

[Dimento Graven]

Sandpit, on 18 December 2014 - 10:12 AM, said:

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

Do YOU see the difference between 'claiming' you're 'testing' the BETA of CW, and ONLY utilizing that ONE tactic, ENDLESSLY?

Quote

Then you basically attacked someone for saying there's plenty of tips and strategies posted on how to counter it.

"Attacked", goddamn if you're not the queen of over statement!

When dipstick stated:

Quote

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.

My response, was simply:

Quote

And those strategies are?

Not an attack at all, a simple question which could have been answered simply by cutting and pasting, or simply adding a link.

His response? He absolutely refused to provide proof of his statement.

Something YOU wouldn't allow ME to get away with...

Quote

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"

I'm not going to jump all over this and start calling you names, questioning your intelligence, or other 'troll like' behaviors, I think you're making an honest mistake and mixing up mixing up my posts with someone else's in this thread. That's easy to do, having multiple parallel conversations on a subject, sometimes it's kind of hard to keep things straight.

I never said 'I don't want to play like that', nor have I ever claimed that I represent anyone else.

Quote

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?"

Now that is part of MY discussion, and the fact is that PGI was PROBABLY being kind about it.

I refer you back nearly a year or more to the great "cockpit removal scandal" that I myself was personally involved in.

A competitive player gave me a USER.CFG setting that removed the cockpit from first person view, providing a much cleaner and more enjoyable gaming experience. I posted a video showing it in game and how it looked on a few 'mechs.

The community immediately fell into two camps:

1. I was a cheater.
2. I was not a cheater.

PGI expressly came out and VERY SPECIFICALLY said the words, "not a cheat" (I'll be happy to provide you the threads on that if you like), BUT, one or two patches later fixed it so that you could NOT remove the cockpit using those settings.

Either PGI was being 'politique' (I think that's the right word) about the situation, or they found a problem and they wanted it fixed.

PROBABLY we're in that SAME situation here.

A problem was identified, that in of itself is not an exploit, HOWEVER, once it becomes the ONLY methodology employed, it crosses over into exploit territory.

Quote

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.

Oh **** you on that brother. I set up the parameters early on, on how and when it becomes an exploit. EVERYONE ELSE to the contrary just started with the "we're testing and SUPPOSED to break things" and "QQ" bullshit and what not.

No one even bothered 'debating' the parameters.

Quote

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.

My discussion was specific to those individuals who seemed to believe they have an inherit right to endlessly EXPLOIT weaknesses in the game mechanics. These people apparently aren't even interested in 'mitigating' the rush problem. They feel they should be allowed to do whatever they want until PGI comes to their house and slaps their wrists and gives them a stern "No" with a wag of the finger...

You're probably right, I probably shouldn't have even bothered attempting reasonable discussion with those degenerates.

Shame on me for trying.

Edited by Dimento Graven, 18 December 2014 - 11:05 AM.

[Revengex]

Sandpit, on 18 December 2014 - 11:01 AM, said:

Which is why they adjusted a few things. It's not that rush tactics were "bad", it's really that PGI felt games were ending too quickly so they added some stuff to lengthen games a bit. That's really all that was done.

You'll see a new crop of complaints about it soon though. Promise

"Ending too quickly?" well hells bells why should a quick game be verboten?

[Mott]

Sandpit, on 18 December 2014 - 11:01 AM, said:

they added some stuff to lengthen games a bit. That's really all that was done.

You'll see a new crop of complaints about it soon though. Promise

EXACTLY. Essentially the same amount of HP required to take out just the orbital gun is now spread out among several generators.

If you're facing a light rush... said light rush was actually just made MORE effective, because now they get to remain mobile (you know... a light mechs most significant advantage and all) while destroying these generators BUT getting to spread themselves out and throw your defenders into greater disarray.

The QQing is going to be epic.

[Sandpit]

Revengex, on 18 December 2014 - 11:02 AM, said:

That's your argument? A says: "How about this." and B says: "You are ignorant."

Wow, "dude" thoughtful and profound.

There's no argument to be had.
Your entire "argument" consists of

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

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
The clans are OP

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

Otherwise, delete all IS mechs have the North Koreans take our private information, and let the claners play with themselves (no double entendre intended.)

Like I said, you're just making yourself sound extremely ignorant

Dimento Graven, on 18 December 2014 - 11:03 AM, said:

Do YOU see the difference between 'claiming' you're 'testing' the BETA of CW, and ONLY utilizing that ONE tactic, ENDLESSLY?

No, not when the tactic is easily beaten. If you aren't going to repel or defend against a certain tactic it's not up to me as an attacker to accommodate you and make it easier for you to stop me.

[Dimento Graven]

Mystere, on 18 December 2014 - 10:51 AM, said:

The change is but a small speed bump for the Zerg.

Making it a variation of the same map and randomizing between the two variations would have been better. Smart attackers will want to first find out what variation they are fighting in, and smart defenders will want to make sure the attackers do not figure that out at all (i.e. kill them all ).

And therein lies the rub. I never perceived it as PGI's problem. I see it as the players' problem.

Which is why I am disappointed (to put things ever so mildly).

Any excuse to add more variation in this game is a good one. I'd be fine with two versions of the same map as well...

[Sandpit]

Mott, on 18 December 2014 - 11:05 AM, said:

EXACTLY. Essentially the same amount of HP required to take out just the orbital gun is now spread out among several generators.

If you're facing a light rush... said light rush was actually just made MORE effective, because now they get to remain mobile (you know... a light mechs most significant advantage and all) while destroying these generators BUT getting to spread themselves out and throw your defenders into greater disarray.

The QQing is going to be epic.

Actually
If you're facing a coordinated team that uses tactics, teamwork, and strategy, and you don't use the same, you're going to be outclassed.
Every time
CW isn't set up to allow 2-3 players to "carry harder" and many of those types of players are having a difficult time grasping that

[Mystere]

Mott, on 18 December 2014 - 11:05 AM, said:

EXACTLY. Essentially the same amount of HP required to take out just the orbital gun is now spread out among several generators.

If you're facing a light rush... said light rush was actually just made MORE effective, because now they get to remain mobile (you know... a light mechs most significant advantage and all) while destroying these generators BUT getting to spread themselves out and throw your defenders into greater disarray.

The QQing is going to be epic.

[Revengex]

Sandpit, on 18 December 2014 - 11:05 AM, said:

There's no argument to be had.
Your entire "argument" consists of


Like I said, you're just making yourself sound extremely ignorant

Have you ever heard of sarcasm "dude?" That was frustration at watching YET AGAIN, changes being made to cater to clan complaints.

Clan have the better range weapons, we counter with zerg. Now that's no good. And when we find yet another legal tactic, to counter them, complains from clans will make PGI change to remove them. Its IS "whack a mole."

Give IS salvage rights to clan ER weapons. How can that not be balanced?

With respect. Attacking me personally because you don't like my arguments does not make you look superior.

[Sandpit]

Revengex, on 18 December 2014 - 11:14 AM, said:

Have you ever heard of sarcasm "dude?" That was frustration at watching YET AGAIN, changes being made to cater to clan complaints.

Clan have the better range weapons, we counter with zerg. Now that's no good. And when we find yet another legal tactic, to counter them, complains from clans will make PGI change to remove them. Its IS "whack a mole."

Give IS salvage rights to clan ER weapons. How can that not be balanced?

With respect. Attacking me personally because you don't like my arguments does not make you look superior.

Yes, I'm very fluent in sarcasm

You offer nothing but though. There's nothing constructive in your posts. You just wanted to rant and I pointed that out.

I didn't attack you, I pointed out why nobody else is bothering to respond to you or take anything you say seriously.

As far as mixed tech, that's a long ways down the road but when the timeline allows PGI has said it will get implemented.

[FupDup]

This thread is amusing.