93 replies to this topic

[Alistair Winter]

Sandpit, on 18 December 2014 - 09:08 AM, said:

With all due respect I never accused you of whining. If you have a guilty conciense take it up with your therapist.
You presented a thought and idea. I explained why I dont' like ti and why the maps are set up the way they are. You're the only one who's trying to turn that into "L2P" rhetoric.
You're just pissy because you weren't agreed with.

By whom? You?

I wish you all the best, Sandpit.

[Mercules]

Roland, on 18 December 2014 - 06:26 AM, said:

The greatest level of depth you will achieve is from a simple game type like deathmatch, but after giving players the tools to leverage various strategies... Then, the complexity comes from the players, who are an infinite font of depth as they are intelligent beings, rather than trying to construct artificial complexity via artificial game mode goals like boxes.

That depends. If the boxes are a resource or possible a "Buff" that is balanced enough to make the effort worth going after then you would see multiple tactics taking place where the enemy team goes for the resource/buff one time and the next time feints as if they will be going that route and instead skips over it and just hits hard right away.

Right now the Attackers have one resource... mechs...

Defenders have gates, turrets, mechs, time.

Attackers have to attack and do so quickly since when they start the match the Defenders are already winning from the first tick of the timer. Taking time out for feints means that precious time is slipping away from the attacker and bringing the Defender closer to victory.

The defenders really can't defend their gates but if the attacker doesn't open them all then those gates act as a short term buffer allowing slower mechs to hang somewhat back from that gate and focus on a different one. So having a gate that is up is a good thing.

Turrets are a force multiplier. Doesn't look like they overheat so they just add constant DPS so stepping in and taking a shot for one of them so it can add to the damage you are doing is gravy. I've seen drops where we as attackers killed/crippled 11 of their mechs on the first push, but only took down a couple of turrets. Game was lost because they were able to push out further and slow us down again.


Defense in Depth won't work in this game. The reason it can't is you don't have a position where 4 mechs could hold off 8-12 until reinforcements arrive. They will either slaughter them or move past them and do so quickly and in a manner that will leave the reinforcements out of position or dead.


What they need to do this properly is alternate out of the way points that are not FORCE upon the attackers but will help them out. A generator that can be destroyed that will put the turrets out of commission for 3 minutes. A resource that would allow the attackers a couple forward turrets of their own, maybe an NPC tank that drives forward to a specific spot and then goes "Hull Down" when it reaches it.

[Alistair Winter]

Almond Brown, on 18 December 2014 - 12:06 PM, said:

Sounds like something a 12 man could do if they were very, very well organized, and could open the gate themselves. Front wave (4) loses are replaced with second liner Mechs, who's loses are replaced with 3rd liners and re-spawns refill the 3rd line, until called up to the next layer.
Enemy travel times are always more than Defenders so attrition favor defenders even under this scheme.
P.S. Defenders can totally get out of the Base with the Gate open. Just need the proper builds. And yes the right side of Sulfur on the enemy side of the gate is a strong defensive position and with just a few BIG Mechs, can make the Gate approach very intimidating.

This is the way it works in PVP battles in TOR, for example. You defend a position, and when it's overrun you either pull back or die and respawn at the next line of defense. I wish we had more of that here, instead of just fighting, dying and respawning at the same place.

But who knows, maybe the majority of MWO players just want a big brawl.

[Alistair Winter]

Airox, on 18 December 2014 - 07:33 AM, said:

Most people want more mech on mech combat. Less of where the attacker just ignores defending mechs. The layered defense mentioned earlier would make this happen. It is the best solution to what most people (Russ included) have been asking for. The big issue is how to implement that.
I believe the best solution is layered defenses through tiered gates. Gate 1 is mostly as is now with defenders sitting right behind the gate. Attackers break through and take gate 1 territory, but they are delayed by Gate 2. This delay allows for the 2nd wave of defenders to get into place. Now gate 2 is destroyed and attackers move in to take gate 2 territory. Now gate 3 delays them but is all that prevents them from getting to the generator. Naturally, defenders would need access to all areas within the gates.
Everything mentioned is doable with resources already in game. It is simply a matter of map design. No need for additional spawn points or VTOLs. Simply have defender spawn be higher elevation (2nd floor) and they can fall into their desired zone.

This would definitely give a nice simulation of a layered defense, whilst also increasing mech on mech combat and stop the mindless zombie rush to the orbital cannon. There's one major flaw with this though.

We have two maps now. On Boreal Vault, a layered defense is possible, but hard to pull off. On Sulfurous Rift, a layered defense is basically impossible, because there are three gates at completely different angles. Now, on Boreal Vault, scouts are almost useless. On Sulfurous Rift, scouts are very valuable, because you can get attacked from any angle, and you constantly need to watch out for new angles of attack.

In other words, if you make a map like a big tunnel with multiple gates for the attacker to push through, then there may not be enough time for the attackers to use different attack angles. You don't have time to blast through 12 gates in 30 minutes, I think. Unless, of course, they are redesigned and the generators are easier to attack. But if each attack route has 3 gates, then it's fairly easy to see which way the attackers are coming. So a map like Boreal vault with 3 Alpha gates and 3 Beta gates just becomes that much easier to scout.

I guess one way around this would be to make the gates easier to pass, so the defenders couldn't just ignore Beta and Gamma gates as soon as the attackers started working on Alpha gates. If you could combine a layered defense with the need for constant scouting on both sides, then we'd be on to something.

[Alistair Winter]

Ugh... just found another reason why it sucks when defenders can't leave base.

If the attackers are trying to camp 30 minutes to keep the best teams busy (which is apparently going on a lot now), the defenders can't really open their gates to go out and smash the attackers. And at some point, the camping attackers will just retreat to their uber dropships to prevent the defenders from winning the game.

30 minutes of camping to keep the best players busy. ggclose.

[oldradagast]

Alistair Winter, on 18 December 2014 - 05:35 PM, said:

By whom? You?

I wish you all the best, Sandpit.

You're far more generous than I am when dealing with trolls like him, but I can respect that.

Countless arguments have been presented on this thread alone as to why the current set-up is shallow, one-dimensional, ultimately dull, and encouraging the game to become even more static. I don't see how anyone can defend that type of dull, repetitive play, but there are far too many tryhards who'd gladly watch paint dry competitively if they could find - or buy - a way to win that requires no creativity and hopefully sucks the fun out of the game for everyone else.

it's disgusting, really, and completely against the whole point of gaming in the first place.

Edited by oldradagast, 18 December 2014 - 06:59 PM.

[Slepnir]

ah makes me nostalgic for some good old BF3 rush maps.

or better yet MW4 sprawling bases on maps twice as large as boreal with multiple objectives to destroy-comms towers, hangers, and of course planetary defense guns.

[Sandpit]

Alistair Winter, on 18 December 2014 - 05:35 PM, said:

By whom? You?

I wish you all the best, Sandpit.

yes, i'm the only one in the entire thread that disagreed with you

If you'll notice, as opposed to just sticking your fingers in your ears, I've more than agreed with a few ideas presented.

Just because I didn't agree with your initial post doesn't in any way suggest I'm doing anything other than simply disagreeing with what you posted because I didn't like or agree with it. I have just as much right to post my opinion and feedback to PGI as you do.

oldradagast, on 18 December 2014 - 06:59 PM, said:

You're far more generous than I am when dealing with trolls like him,
but there are far too many tryhards who'd gladly watch paint dry competitively if they could find - or buy - a way to win

you throw the troll word around a lot

I'm not sure you understand the meaning.

[Chuck Jager]

operatorZ, on 18 December 2014 - 07:38 AM, said:

The mentally challenged want mech on mech combat.....damn them...just when I was getting good at this zerg rush deal...

I kinda like the ignore the combat and go to the objective. Can you imagine how the Osama Bin Laden capture would have worked if the special forces only recognition for the amount of damage and kills they achieved.

It has been my experience that most folks playing video games judge the success of the play only by their damage and kills. At least some measure of effectiveness can be achieved in a win if you have a team of these folks. Also many games do allow an individual with fast reflexes, add on software and OP equipment to face tank opponents in 1v5 encounters. I do not think PGI should be held accountable for this. Unfortunately as designers they are now trying to train cats and dogs to do long division. I personally see the reasoning behind doing long division, but I do not trust my dog to balance my check book.

[Alistair Winter]

Chuck YeaGurr, on 18 December 2014 - 08:28 PM, said:

I kinda like the ignore the combat and go to the objective. Can you imagine how the Osama Bin Laden capture would have worked if the special forces only recognition for the amount of damage and kills they achieved.

I'm pretty sure the Navy SEALs were determined to come back alive. They didn't just eat bullets in order to get to their target.

You could have pointed to the WW2 kamikaze attacks as a better example, but those were not the norm. Kamikaze attacks are the norm in MWO and CW specifically, because there's no penalty for dying, no reward for surviving. So every zerg rush is dozens of mechs stomping over their dying teammates to get the target. The most expensive, precious mechs in the galaxy being used as meatshields.

I look forward to the return of R&R. Maybe some players will hesitate a bit before they throw themselves at the orbital cannon like human ammunition.

[KraftySOT]

Alistair Winter, on 18 December 2014 - 08:38 PM, said:

.

. Kamikaze attacks are the norm in Video Games, because there's no penalty for dying, no reward for surviving. So every zerg rush i. Maybe some players will hesitate a bit before they throw themselves at the orbital cannon like human ammunition.

I fixed it for you.

And no, they wont. Have you missed the last 20 years of multiplayer gaming? Punish people to much, they just leave and go to the game that doesnt punish them as much. Thats why this hasnt changed since Quake, Descent, or Air Warrior.

"Why are 109s trying to turn and burn with spitfires?!"

Because, internets.

Its a game. If you start arbitrarily trying to punish people for being aggressive within the game rules, with constant rule changes, it only ends it disaster. See: Fighter Ace.

[KraftySOT]

And for what its worth, the vast majority of armies in the world, throughout history, have zerg rushed.

The object is to win the fight. Alot of times that means personal danger. Even in real life, people are sacrificed for the over all objective, pretty much without any concern for them at all. Be them Arabian horse archers, or fuedal levies, or conscripted and espirit de corps bashed into your forehead.

Millions, have marched into certain death for the objective...be it the hill, bridge, beach head, town, village, road crossing, fields, what have you...in the most inefficient and horrendously callous to human life kind of ways.

Saying its unrealistic is just a horrible argument.

You have to remember, for the vanguard of an action, almost every action is suicide.

Thats why most all combat in the medieval and modern era, have revolved around engaging with the smallest force possible, then bringing in overwelming force, be it through numbers or force multipliers. Because the vanguard unless they have quality exceptionally higher than the enemy they engage, are lost.

Try being in the front leading columns in Napoleons army.

It was better than freezing to death I guess...you surely didnt make it long. Were talking 90% casualties for those units, every, single, time, they were in the vanguard. Win or loss. For years.

Edited by KraftySOT, 18 December 2014 - 09:12 PM.

[Alistair Winter]

KraftySOT, on 18 December 2014 - 08:59 PM, said:

I fixed it for you.
And no, they wont. Have you missed the last 20 years of multiplayer gaming? Punish people to much, they just leave and go to the game that doesnt punish them as much.

Some people do, some people don't. There are different games with different death mechanics. In some games, there is no punishment. In other games, you start from scratch. Do I really have to list the multiplayer games where players are severely punished for dying?

Not every game is like WoW.

KraftySOT, on 18 December 2014 - 09:03 PM, said:

And for what its worth, the vast majority of armies in the world, throughout history, have zerg rushed.
The object is to win the fight. Alot of times that means personal danger. Even in real life, people are sacrificed for the over all objective, pretty much without any concern for them at all. Be them Arabian horse archers, or fuedal levies, or conscripted and espirit de corps bashed into your forehead.
Millions, have marched into certain death for the objective...be it the hill, bridge, beach head, town, village, road crossing, fields, what have you...in the most inefficient and horrendously callous to human life kind of ways.
Saying its unrealistic is just a horrible argument.

I don't believe I said it was unrealistic. However, you have to look at it in the right context. Mechwarriors piloting King Crabs and Dire Wolves should not readily be compared to infantry in WW1 whose major function was to drain the enemy of ammunition. I assume that's why the comparison to Navy SEALs and Bin Laden was used in the first place - to illustrate that Mechwarriors are elite.

With all that being said, my major concern is bringing back the idea of the thinking man's shooter. Making MWO more about strategy, rewarding teams with good commanders who can make tactical decisions on their feet and adapt to an intelligent adversary. Cookie-cutter recipes for a zombie rush is not enough, for me.

If we're trying to emulate military history, I would rather look at some really complex and strategically interesting tank battles rather than Napoleon's first line of infantry.

Edited by Alistair Winter, 18 December 2014 - 09:31 PM.

[CuriousCabbitBlue]

jump jet over the gates~!!!!1