209 replies to this topic

[Revengex]

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

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.

Again, you attack me personally "There's nothing constructive in your posts.

Dropping this.

[Mystere]

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.

I don't know what "Clan" you are complaining about, but the teams I was with last night repeatedly faced IS Zergs, and all of their first waves were crushed 12-0 or thereabouts. The rest of their attacks were not much better. I was already "shouting" at them the definition of "insanity". But they just kept on coming ... and dying. Even the Japanese kamikaze pilots had more success than these guys.

[M4NTiC0R3X]

.. I had something to say but I forgot and it's probably useless for that matter so I'll just leave this here. Do like the other smart pugs do and step aside

[Dimento Graven]

Sandpit, on 18 December 2014 - 10:50 AM, said:

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.

Except for the fact that those units who are supposedly 'not going to do to well' have an over abundance of planets they've captured, even in spite of concerted efforts of multiple units attempting to prevent it...

It stands to reason your assumption of how well they are going to do is a fallacy.

Quote

period
keep ignoring the quoted phrase from Russ.

I'm not, NOR am I ignoring EVERYTHING he said, AND THE ACTIONS that are going along with the statement.

Quote

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

And you're apparently trying to focus on a single minutia as opposed to considering the "whole" in an attempt to justify an incorrect argument.

The fact that they HAVE to make changes to make OTHER strategies viable should very plainly tell us there was a problem. The fact that they made these changes THIS QUICKLY after the initial release, taking resources not only from hit detection fixes and hit box work, but also new content, should ALSO tell us that this was a fairly big deal.

Edited by Dimento Graven, 18 December 2014 - 11:25 AM.

[Sandpit]

Revengex, on 18 December 2014 - 11:21 AM, said:

Again, you attack me personally "There's nothing constructive in your posts.

Dropping this.

sure thing chuckles (now THAT was sarcasm and a bit of a personal attack so you'll know the difference in the future)

You keep on keeping on like you have been. Everyone else will keep ignoring and dismissing you just as they have been.

[Sandpit]

Dimento Graven, on 18 December 2014 - 11:24 AM, said:

Except for the fact that those units who are supposedly 'not going to do to well' have an over abundance of planets they've captured, even in spite of concerted efforts of multiple units attempting to prevent it...

data?
Please show me those units own a bunch of planets
then show me that they used rush tactics exclusively
I'm not the one using fallcies

Dimento Graven, on 18 December 2014 - 11:24 AM, said:

I'm not, NOR am I ignoring EVERYTHING he said, AND THE ACTIONS that are going along with the statement.

yes, yes you are when you try to imply in any way that PGI feels rushes are exploits, bad, wrong, don't want them in the game etc. because neither their statements or actions support that in any way.

Dimento Graven, on 18 December 2014 - 11:24 AM, said:

The fact that they HAVE to make changes to make OTHER strategies viable should very plainly tell us there was a problem. The fact that they made these changes THIS QUICKLY after the initial release, taking resources not only from hit detection fixes and hit box work, but also new content, should ALSO tell us that this was a fairly big deal.

The fact they they added a couple of objectives to make sure rush tactics are still extremely viable but aren't able to "quickly" end a game is a far cry from some "huge problem"

[pwnface]

Blakkstar, on 18 December 2014 - 11:00 AM, said:

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.

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.


"Perhaps the attacker can pull off a win great majority of the time with a single tactic."

We don't have statistics on this but for the sake of argument, let's assume this statement is true. This still doesn't equate to "great majority of the time, no matter what the defender does". Even if 90% of teams are bad and are losing to this tactic due to poor defense, even if ONLY 1 or 2 teams ( for the sake of argument) are able to defend against it 100% of the time because they use the correct defensive tactics your statement is invalid.

Logic. It's not for everyone.

Dimento Graven, on 18 December 2014 - 11:24 AM, said:

Except for the fact that those units who are supposedly 'not going to do to well' have an over abundance of planets they've captured, even in spite of concerted efforts of multiple units attempting to prevent it...

Haven't you figured it out yet? You don't have to be good at this game to capture planets. You just need a lot of people.

[HUNTERS MOON]

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...

You shut that ignorant guy up Sandpit. Thanks. Its nice to know you are here to make people shut up. You are my hero.

[Airox]

First, didn't get to read pages 2-9 so might've missed some context.
Second, I'm a part of a high level (probably tier 2) competitive team. So I'm speaking from that context.
Third, when I say zerg rush, I mean 12 IS lights at least 150kph from a decent 12 man team. PUGs can bring the right mechs but just fail.

In CW we have not lost a single attack, but we never use the zerg rush. We don't use the zerg rush for 2 reasons. 1, we don't need it. 2, We view it as broken. In competitive games if there is 1 character that will win, then that character is often banned in tournaments (Meta-knight in SSBB).

On defense we can successfully defend against PUG attempts at a zerg rush, but the odd occasion we find a real zerg rush we can only defeat a wave or two. 4 waves is just not possible. That is why we're happy PGI is looking into changes to make it a viable strategy yet not what it currently is.

And please no one respond with, "Well you must not be very good". Our tournament record says we are.

[Dimento Graven]

Sandpit, on 18 December 2014 - 11:30 AM, said:

data?
Please show me those units own a bunch of planets
then show me that they used rush tactics exclusively
I'm not the one using fallacies

To use a tactic you apparently find acceptable (and also because there are policies against "name and shame" in the forums), log in, go to the map, find various units with lots of planets, and then go "defend" some worlds in conflict around those areas and tell me your experience.

Quote

yes, yes you are when you try to imply in any way that PGI feels rushes are exploits, bad, wrong, don't want them in the game etc. because neither their statements or actions support that in any way.

Again, you are totally convoluting what I've stated, I've more than once indicated where the line is.

A "rush" in of itself is NOT exploitive, however, their are circumstances and factors where it becomes VERY exploitive. I refer you back to my previous posts in this thread...

Quote

The fact they they added a couple of objectives to make sure rush tactics are still extremely viable but aren't able to "quickly" end a game is a far cry from some "huge problem"

Really... And considering it's a running joke in the MWO community about PGI's statements of "Soon™", having a change on something that is theoretically 'working as intended', even of this limited scale this quickly, should be indicative of some sense of urgency on PGI's part.

pwnface, on 18 December 2014 - 11:43 AM, said:

...

Haven't you figured it out yet? You don't have to be good at this game to capture planets. You just need a lot of people.

More specifically you need a lot of people with jump capable Firestarters and/or Spiders, on the same team speak server, capable of moving in one direction, ignoring everything else around them and capable of firing at and hitting a building sized target from only a few hundred meters away.

[pwnface]

Dimento Graven, on 18 December 2014 - 11:51 AM, said:

More specifically you need a lot of people with jump capable Firestarters and/or Spiders, on the same team speak server, capable of moving in one direction, ignoring everything else around them and capable of firing at and hitting a building sized target from only a few hundred meters away.

No you don't. You just need a lot more people attacking then defending and you get free ghost drop wins. You won't even face actual opponents. If I could coordinate 200 players to attack your planet, it doesn't matter if your 3x 12 mans win every single defense you are still losing your planet to us.

[HUNTERS MOON]

Airox, on 18 December 2014 - 11:48 AM, said:

First, didn't get to read pages 2-9 so might've missed some context.
Second, I'm a part of a high level (probably tier 2) competitive team. So I'm speaking from that context.
Third, when I say zerg rush, I mean 12 IS lights at least 150kph from a decent 12 man team. PUGs can bring the right mechs but just fail.

In CW we have not lost a single attack, but we never use the zerg rush. We don't use the zerg rush for 2 reasons. 1, we don't need it. 2, We view it as broken. In competitive games if there is 1 character that will win, then that character is often banned in tournaments (Meta-knight in SSBB).

On defense we can successfully defend against PUG attempts at a zerg rush, but the odd occasion we find a real zerg rush we can only defeat a wave or two. 4 waves is just not possible. That is why we're happy PGI is looking into changes to make it a viable strategy yet not what it currently is.

And please no one respond with, "Well you must not be very good". Our tournament record says we are.

You can not make everyone happy. Every change some inner sphere ignorant nut complains about a Clan player conspiracy with PGI. If they can not deal, haul. Zerg rush was not fair to us Claners defending, so what not have the developers give is what we want?

[Sandpit]

pwnface, on 18 December 2014 - 11:43 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.

just not accurate.
There's PLENTY of ways to defend a rush.

[Dimento Graven]

pwnface, on 18 December 2014 - 11:54 AM, said:

No you don't. You just need a lot more people attacking then defending and you get free ghost drop wins. You won't even face actual opponents. If I could coordinate 200 players to attack your planet, it doesn't matter if your 3x 12 mans win every single defense you are still losing your planet to us.

That's a different matter altogether... I would imagine it has its own thread.

[HUNTERS MOON]

Sandpit, on 18 December 2014 - 11:56 AM, said:

just not accurate.
There's PLENTY of ways to defend a rush.

I agree, but why put up with it?

[Sandpit]

Dimento Graven, on 18 December 2014 - 11:51 AM, said:

To use a tactic you apparently find acceptable (and also because there are policies against "name and shame" in the forums), log in, go to the map, find various units with lots of planets, and then go "defend" some worlds in conflict around those areas and tell me your experience.

No dude, you made a statement of fact. I'm asking you for your data the backs up that statement of fact. You implied that many units are ONLY using this one attack tactic to win many planets.
It's an erroneous statement because you don't have access to any data that WOULD back that up even if it were true

Dimento Graven, on 18 December 2014 - 11:51 AM, said:

A "rush" in of itself is NOT exploitive, however, their are circumstances and factors where it becomes VERY exploitive. I refer you back to my previous posts in this thread...

You're trying to imply that if a team uses a successful tactic they're exploiters.

[Sandpit]

Dimento Graven, on 18 December 2014 - 11:51 AM, said:

Really... And considering it's a running joke in the MWO community about PGI's statements of "Soon™", having a change on something that is theoretically 'working as intended', even of this limited scale this quickly, should be indicative of some sense of urgency on PGI's part.

like I said, you're trying to project your opinion into PGI's statements and actions to add more objectives. PGI and "soon" hasn't been much of a running joke for several months since they cleaned up their act. Now you're just trying to imply that because they took a week to collect data instead of making some immediate knne jerk reaction it was "huge"

That's what your'e supposed to do. You don't make big changes to stuff after 24-48 hours of playing it. That's who you wind up with crap like the one true lurmageddon we had.
That's how you wind up with skewed data sets
That's how you wind up with a bunch of players scratching their heads wondering "wtf"

RENEGADEMOON, on 18 December 2014 - 11:58 AM, said:

I agree, but why put up with it?

put up with what?

[HUNTERS MOON]

Sandpit, on 18 December 2014 - 12:00 PM, said:

No dude, you made a statement of fact. I'm asking you for your data the backs up that statement of fact. You implied that many units are ONLY using this one attack tactic to win many planets.
It's an erroneous statement because you don't have access to any data that WOULD back that up even if it were true


You're trying to imply that if a team uses a successful tactic they're exploiters.

Yea, Sandpit is always right.

Can't we get back to the fact that the change is made. Its done. PGI is doing the best it can. You can't make everyone happy. I feel sorry for the developers. Zerg rush, complaints, no zerg rush, complaints. You want change, buy something from them. Pay a bill or two.

Sandpit, on 18 December 2014 - 12:03 PM, said:

like I said, you're trying to project your opinion into PGI's statements and actions to add more objectives. PGI and "soon" hasn't been much of a running joke for several months since they cleaned up their act. Now you're just trying to imply that because they took a week to collect data instead of making some immediate knne jerk reaction it was "huge"

That's what your'e supposed to do. You don't make big changes to stuff after 24-48 hours of playing it. That's who you wind up with crap like the one true lurmageddon we had.
That's how you wind up with skewed data sets
That's how you wind up with a bunch of players scratching their heads wondering "wtf"


put up with what?

Zerg rushing. When we can get PGI to address a problem, why put up with it.

[Dimento Graven]

Sandpit, on 18 December 2014 - 12:00 PM, said:

No dude, you made a statement of fact. I'm asking you for your data the backs up that statement of fact. You implied that many units are ONLY using this one attack tactic to win many planets.
It's an erroneous statement because you don't have access to any data that WOULD back that up even if it were true

As I guessed, you're not letting me get away with making a statement without providing fact, BUT ONLY, because you disagree with my view point. The OTHER idiot, making even more egregious statements but not providing proof, it was ok for HIM to do that because HE apparently is in agreement with YOUR view point.

In the web vernacular: "Hypocrite much?"

Anyway, I COULD provide those facts, even dig through the vids I recorded where we came up against certain teams who would play as indicated, but as I stated before, there a policies on this forum against "name and shame", I've already been hit once for accidentally doing it, I'm not about to do it again.

To parrot others who responded so snarkily to me, 'Go find it for yourself, it ain't hard.'

Just log in, go to the map, find the areas where certain teams 'own' lots of planets and start defending and see what tactics they use.

Quote

You're trying to imply that if a team uses a successful tactic they're exploiters.

No. I'm trying to stating that if the ONLY tactic they EVER use is to zerg rush with 'mechs with KNOWN hit box issues, constantly feathering jump jets to take advantage of KNOWN hit registration issues, THEN they are purposely exploiting all of the weakest mechanics in the game.

To do it once or twice to prove there's a problem, and then move on to other tactics, that's BETA testing.

To do it over and over and over, match after match after match, JUST to get your unit's tags on more planets than anyone else so as to inflate your epeen, an exercise in egobation, THAT is exploiting.

[ContingencyPlan]

pwnface, on 18 December 2014 - 11:54 AM, said:

No you don't. You just need a lot more people attacking then defending and you get free ghost drop wins. You won't even face actual opponents. If I could coordinate 200 players to attack your planet, it doesn't matter if your 3x 12 mans win every single defense you are still losing your planet to us.

The single most broken thing about CW and IMO something that needs to be dealt with before real balance changes. Ghost drops should not happen, ever. My proposal/idea is this: If the queue has been idle/unable to find a team for a certain amount of time, it then presents you with a prompt asking if you would like to be shuffled into another queue where you are guaranteed a fight, possibly even against opponents from that same exact faction you are looking to fight against. If you decline you are given an immediate match. If you decline you then continue to wait in queue endlessly until opponents do present themselves. This appeals IMO to both groups. Looking for fights? Hit the "yes" button and you'll get them. Want that planet so badly you're willing to wait for it? Hit "no" and continue to wait your turn.

As I mentioned in another post, my hope is that this issue allowing ghost drops to even exist, much less count for anything, is fixed, and when it is, all capture progress is reset. The idea that the faction with more active players should win the planet by default (which is essentially what people who don't mind this system are saying) is absolutely idiotic, and is born from the minds of people who forget that this is a real game that is supposed to be enjoyable for people on all sides and not a real war.

Edited by ContingencyPlan, 18 December 2014 - 12:13 PM.