209 replies to this topic

[Mystere]

Lily from animove, on 17 December 2014 - 10:53 AM, said:

russ already said they will change something about this, which means it as never meant to be a tactic

Where did he say this? I need to give him a piece of my mind.

[Astarte]

Simple really. Destroy Objective, Disable Defender Respawn.

[AlphaToaster]

*double post*

Edited by AlphaToaster, 17 December 2014 - 11:43 AM.

[Wolfwood592]

Mystere, on 17 December 2014 - 11:03 AM, said:

Where did he say this? I need to give him a piece of my mind.

Looks like someone doesn't wanna stop using the zerg rush

Im gonna laugh my a** off when clowns who can't win anyway but this get shutdown and have to actually fight.

[Mystere]

AlphaToaster, on 17 December 2014 - 11:02 AM, said:

The problem you are describing stems from no scouting and a failure to prepare defensive positions properly. Why spread out when you know they're pushing a particular gate? No scouting.... so you don't know which gate they're pushing until they're jumping over it.

Plan for the light rush, since the heavier rush is slower you will have more time to react than if you plan for a heavy rush, and stack at the gate. The light rush is dangerous when the defenders stack at the gate. That makes it just that much easier to run past them. The gates have nasty bottlenecks just inside that the attackers have to funnel into. There's need to clog it with mechs unless you know it's a heavy rush (scouting helps), but even then you want them running at you, not past and away from you, so stack further off the gate to give yourself time to shoot them.

All of these things are harder for a pug but easier for a coordinated unit to do. It is not rocket science by any means.

Just highlighting the most important words and phrases.

Wolfwood592, on 17 December 2014 - 11:05 AM, said:

Looks like someone doesn't wanna stop using the zerg rush

Mystere, on 17 December 2014 - 10:59 AM, said:

Also, I've had a match where a single Daishi -- of all things -- supported by 4 turrets finished off 4 lights that managed to get past the other defenders during their rush. Wave 1 was a 12-0 massacre. The battle ended at 48-8.

That Daishi was me.

Edited by Mystere, 17 December 2014 - 11:11 AM.

[Savage Wolf]

Kirkland Langue, on 17 December 2014 - 11:01 AM, said:

My definition of zerg rush: A strategy where you have no goal of fighting enemies in your attempt to reach the enemy base.

If you kill enough defenders that you can just muscle past them, that's not really a zerg rush.

So you don't like if people push at all? Only by eliminating enemies?

[Curccu]

Deltron Zero, on 17 December 2014 - 08:21 AM, said:

There has been a lot of debate of the zerg rush tactics. One thing I am repeatedly seeing is pro-zergers saying that the anti-zergers need to learn to coordinate with their team and learn tactics to stop the rush. The pro-zegers will dismiss arguments for changing up the objectives by saying things will just be a mindless deathmatch, or if you want deathmatch then get out of CW, or that if you want an easier game then go somewhere else.

These counter-arguments are misguided, as a lot of people against the zerging tactic are against it because it is boring and counter to the desire of having cinematic mech-on-mech battles, not because they are unable to learn or that it is too difficult. Most don't want to replace the zerging tactics with deathmatch, they want to replace the zerging tactics with something more thoughtful.

But CW is game mode with main objective that doesn't include words like deathmatch or mech-on-mech battles, instead it says "Destroy Omega".
PS. I don't like to do zerging but I like defending them.

[AeusDeif]

Agreed that the lag and hit reg issues make this easier.

Agreed that having a single objective is a bit too simple.

Even so, this type of complaint threads usually amounts to 'PGI gave an objective and someone used the most effective/surgical means to obtain it, and therefore the match didn't cater to my personal playing style'

It isn't possible to make every single game mode fun for every single player and playing style.

Plz learn the counters and try them before making a thread... I'm betting when everyone in a house/clan can group up that will have an effect on coordination too.

Also, be grateful that we are seeing something new with these light rushes. As I recall, lights and mediums were supposed to be the most common mechs...

Edited by AeusDeif, 17 December 2014 - 11:21 AM.

[STEF_]

AlphaToaster, on 17 December 2014 - 10:43 AM, said:

My streaks are registering with deadly effect. Are you having trouble with your streaks?

Yes if I'm piloting laserboat, or dakka mech.

Do you mount streak in every build you drop in? Seriously?

Mystere, on 17 December 2014 - 10:51 AM, said:

Then fix that instead and leave the current Invasion mode alone. That is a more logical approach, don't you think so?

Completly agree, of course.
And it's a fact that I play only CW now...

[Savage Wolf]

Saying that attackers only have one objective is both debatable and also doesn't really say anything. You could also say that in skirmish you only have one objective. You could also say, you have 12 objectives in skirmish.

Most push tactics in invasion depends upon carving a path towards the reactor, so there are secondary objectives along the way that help defeat the primary one. Even the gate count here.

The attackers don't have a singular objective anymore than the defenders does.

[AeusDeif]

Savage Wolf, on 17 December 2014 - 11:32 AM, said:

The attackers don't have a singular objective anymore than the defenders does.

Incorrect. It's entirely possible to win killing nothing but the turret generator. One objective.

[Telmasa]

Amen to this.

A match that is drawn out with lots of fighting = 600k ~ 800k cbills, and around 700-900 loyalty points on average, without the contract bonus, for me.


A match where one team zergs (and either succeeds or loses, either way it goes quickly) nets me at most maybe 200k cbills, and maybe 50-100 loyalty points WITH the contract bonus.


That's the reason I think it's lame.

Not because it's an invalid tactic, not because I can't cope, not because I'm bad - it's because it's boring and reduces the reward for both defender AND attacker by a huge amount.

[AlphaToaster]

Stefka Kerensky, on 17 December 2014 - 11:30 AM, said:

Do you mount streak in every build you drop in? Seriously?

I run at least 1 dedicated streak build, usually a stormcrow in any hold/defense drop. Streak boats are like goalkeepers right now. Don't want to go into a game without a goalie.

[SocketWrench]

I for one would like to see a slightly more nuanced battles than "rush at the generator and pray they can't kill us too fast for us to take out Omega." There's a couple pieces I see to this that have encouraged this.

First is that, particularly on Boreal Vault, there's not much viability from an attackers standpoint of any other strategy, given the ridiculous advantages granted to the defenders. This breeds all-or-nothing strategies. The rush strategies, as have been aptly pointed out, are not invincible, they can be countered. That being the case, you have maybe a 40-60% chance of success with a coordinated rush. The problem isn't that this is too high, it's that this is so much higher than any other attack strategy.

The Sulfur map has some other avenues of attack that allow for the attackers to take and hold ground and grind down the enemies to get an eventual win with roughly the same success rate as a rush attack, as a result, you see less rush tactics on that map. The push/rush to generator strategies have some big obvious holes in them that can be countered so you're effectively relying on the ineptitude of your enemies for that strategy to work, not the skill of your own pilots.

However, when attacking a fortified position where you have equal numbers, with the same tonnages, the same drop frequency, against a better position across open ground, with enemy turrets, there's only so much that a skilled group can make up for short of all-or-nothing tactics. I think if there was a decent viability of a win outside of the zerg rush, you would see the zerg rush fade away.

Granted that attacking a defended, fortified position has it's advantages, but there are some definite tactical advantages of being an attacking force as well in warfare. Namely, you get to choose the approach, you typically have more versatility in where you place troops and you have momentum and initiative on your side. The way Invasion plays today on the maps we have, completely neglects these advantages.

I think you fix these issues and Rush tactics start to look a lot more "chancy" and becomes less utilized. There are a number of ways you can fix these issues. I would consider taking out the gates entirely. They're not really much of an obstacle, other than to by time for the attackers to setup a position, which robs the attackers of the initiative. The second is to make maps with more approach vectors or simply make it feasible to climb the hills surrounding the defensive positions so that attacks can set up firing lanes from multiple locations, not just one or two. There's really no reason why they couldn't other than that they're "out of bounds" if they do, as it stands. The third is to allow the attackers to set move their drop locations around when they drop and establish more forward drop zones to allow for freedom of movement and varying attacks.

[Savage Wolf]

AeusDeif, on 17 December 2014 - 11:43 AM, said:

Incorrect. It's entirely possible to win killing nothing but the turret generator. One objective.

Even if it was impossible to get to the reactor without first opening a gate, it would still technically be one objective. Even if the reactor had more hit points than it was possible to remove, it would still technically only be one objective. The sentence means nothing. It says nothing. It's technically correct, but it adds nothing to the conversation.

[Sandpit]

Stefka Kerensky, on 17 December 2014 - 11:30 AM, said:

Do you mount streak in every build you drop in? Seriously?

There's a big difference in adjusting your drop deck to make sure you carry ONE of these mechs out of 4 and saying "every build I drop in"

This is why people don't take many suggestions on here seriously. The hyperbole knows no bounds. People want to take tips and suggestions and try to turn them into twisted and extreme example that are just ridiculous

[Revis Volek]

Deltron Zero, on 17 December 2014 - 09:20 AM, said:

The second part, about 12 lights finishing the match before it has even started.

There is grey area between a legit and exciting final push that wins the game, and a zerg rush. As long as the objective is 'kill this and win the game instantly' there will always be a zerg potential, so I am in favor of at least removing the 'win the game instantly' part of fulfilling the objective.

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!

[Savage Wolf]

Hans Kajawski, on 17 December 2014 - 11:58 AM, said:

First is that, particularly on Boreal Vault, there's not much viability from an attackers standpoint of any other strategy, given the ridiculous advantages granted to the defenders. This breeds all-or-nothing strategies. The rush strategies, as have been aptly pointed out, are not invincible, they can be countered. That being the case, you have maybe a 40-60% chance of success with a coordinated rush. The problem isn't that this is too high, it's that this is so much higher than any other attack strategy.

Any strategy that has less chance of success would never be used. Why would you? If all the strategies only have 30% chance of success then the attackers only win 30% of the time and then no one would bother attacking.
And isn't 40 - 60% actually the sweet spot where it's exciting to see if it works or not? If you want more viable strategies then you should want more strategies with that chance of success.

[Sandpit]

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

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

ding ding ding

[AlmightyAeng]

Lily from animove, on 17 December 2014 - 10:53 AM, said:

It's also no "flanking" tactic, you can run right through the opps, becasue the chance to defeat yout quick rushing lights is too low to make sure to stop them.

"Fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man." -Patton. Your mech has legs. Use them. If they're "running through you" it's partly your fault. You CAN move and shoot at the same time.

Edited by Ghost Badger, 17 December 2014 - 12:09 PM.