93 replies to this topic

[operatorZ]

Mystere, on 18 December 2014 - 09:26 AM, said:

Give me urban maps with the size and skyscrapers of Hong Kong to fight in and I promise I will refrain from challenging your mental capacity.

And imagine if River City looked like this instead:

I think you may be missing a key point here...if the mode is deathmatch, skirmish, base defense, base cap or TAG or Red Rover or kick the can......what makes it community warfare is the:

A: a "community"

and ...wait for it...

B: An overall "War" instead of un-linked mindless battles i.e. PUG Que or Group Que...you know like strategy outside of just one match

Your picking on a "skirmish" mode like it would unseat the value of the overall "War" going in in CW...that's not logical and doesn't fit....

In fact it does not matter at all how the "battles" in CW are carried out...at all...as long as the rules confining those battles encourage fair play and discourage unfair play


....it only matters whether these battles are felt to contribute to the overall "War", thats what makes it CW


NOT..having skirmish mode

[codynyc]

Mystere, on 17 December 2014 - 08:40 PM, said:

Oh **** it, just replace Invasion with Skirmish already, as that seems to be what the larger mentally-challenged portion of player base wants.

Community Warfare, it was nice knowing you.

Completely agree alot of the kiddies cant figure out the r button let alone how to attack and defend...

Edited by codynyc, 18 December 2014 - 10:49 AM.

[L A V A]

Not sure why folks think that mixing up maps/modes a bit means you are mentally challenged.

I'd like so see some skirmish/assault games in CW because we have lots of maps and that means variety of play.

I've already done quite a few successful Zerg rushes and though I'm sure they will make the invasion mode/maps more interesting, it's going to be awhile until we have more maps and frankly only two maps is quickly becoming boring.

[Screech]

Sandpit, on 18 December 2014 - 10:15 AM, said:

I would like to see a king of the hill type mission. Where a few strategic locations need to be held but are neutral. it's kind of a quasi-conquest type deal.
it would force both teams to split off and handle multiple objectives. Tons of coordination and strategies.

I'd also like to see a modified CTF type mode. Both teams have bases that contain "data". Each team would be required to download the data and return it to their home base. First team to successfully bring home the objective wins.

Yeah I think that CW would be a great place to introduce more modes to the game. I would also like to see some form of escort mode. Some form of slow moving train with a switch or two so defenders have some choice in path.

Though it sounds that modes are much further down the road. But from all indications the trip might rival the destination.

[Sandpit]

xLAVAx, on 18 December 2014 - 11:26 AM, said:

Not sure why folks think that mixing up maps/modes a bit means you are mentally challenged.

I'd like so see some skirmish/assault games in CW because we have lots of maps and that means variety of play.

I've already done quite a few successful Zerg rushes and though I'm sure they will make the invasion mode/maps more interesting, it's going to be awhile until we have more maps and frankly only two maps is quickly becoming boring.

because not many interested in CW want "deathmatch". That's what the pub queues are for. Objective based missions and matches are what will make CW a little mor unique and flavorful. I'm not interested in playing the same kill em all we've had for 2 years

Screech, on 18 December 2014 - 11:33 AM, said:

Yeah I think that CW would be a great place to introduce more modes to the game. I would also like to see some form of escort mode. Some form of slow moving train with a switch or two so defenders have some choice in path.

Though it sounds that modes are much further down the road. But from all indications the trip might rival the destination.

the CTF i talked about is essentially the same thing. You'd have to escort your data back

An "escort VIP" mission type could be interesting. Defenders having to get the VIP from point A to B to C to D, while the attackers could set up ambushes, flank, etc.

but give the defenders options on which routes to take. then they could send out feints, scouts, misdirection, etc.

[L A V A]

Sandpit, on 18 December 2014 - 11:37 AM, said:

because not many interested in CW want "deathmatch". That's what the pub queues are for. Objective based missions and matches are what will make CW a little mor unique and flavorful. I'm not interested in playing the same kill em all we've had for 2 years

Variety is the spice of life.

And we have to be a bit more realistic in what PGI can pump out.

I'm all for objective based games and other different modes. But being realistic this isn't going to happen for awhile.

Front loading a few skirmish and assault maps into the queue could give us a bit of diversity fairly quickly.

CW has been going for what... a week? It's already a bit boring.

[Sandpit]

xLAVAx, on 18 December 2014 - 11:50 AM, said:

Variety is the spice of life.

And we have to be a bit more realistic in what PGI can pump out.

I'm all for objective based games and other different modes. But being realistic this isn't going to happen for awhile.

Front loading a few skirmish and assault maps into the queue could give us a bit of diversity fairly quickly.

CW has been going for what... a week? It's already a bit boring.

I never said it won't take time.
I personally find CW FAR from boring. I'm less concerned about the map I'm playing on and more about the IS map i'm trying to conquer and defend.

If CW is getting a bit boring for people, that's why those skirmish and assault modes are readily available in the pub queue to break that up without incorporating it into CW.

[Mystere]

xLAVAx, on 18 December 2014 - 11:26 AM, said:

Not sure why folks think that mixing up maps/modes a bit means you are mentally challenged.

I'd like so see some skirmish/assault games in CW because we have lots of maps and that means variety of play.

I've already done quite a few successful Zerg rushes and though I'm sure they will make the invasion mode/maps more interesting, it's going to be awhile until we have more maps and frankly only two maps is quickly becoming boring.

And that has been one of my points across several threads on this same topic.

Do not turn the Invasion map into Skirmish. Add a Skirmish map instead.

Do not "improve" the Invasion map. Create a number of variations and randomly rotate among those.

[Jonathan Paine]

I agree completely with the idea of defending in depth. If defensive scouts are good, first big fight happens at the gate. Surviving defenders drop back while fighting and is met with reinforcements at the halfway point. Then a final stand at base.

Attacker spawn point needs defense. How about first wave attackers arriving in a fully armed overlord ship that remains on spawn to fire at defenders.

[Almond Brown]

Alistair Winter, on 18 December 2014 - 12:32 AM, said:

That's not really what I mean by a layered defense though. That's just a proper defensive positions around the Orbital cannon. Layered defense would be to stop the attackers before they get to the gates, then stop them again at the gates, and finally try to stop them once they breach the gates and push towards the Orbital cannon. The idea would be to slow them down with each passing layer, as the defenders have the advantage of reinforcements from the rear, while the attackers don't.

This is why it's sometimes referred to as defense in depth. It's not so much about stopping the attackers at point blank. It's more about chewing them up gradually as they push through your various lines of defences. If it was just about putting short range units in front and long range units in the back, then the term would be applicable to basically every organized army since the bronze age. It's more specific than that

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.

Edited by Almond Brown, 18 December 2014 - 12:14 PM.

[operatorZ]

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

And that has been one of my points across several threads on this same topic.

Do not turn the Invasion map into Skirmish. Add a Skirmish map instead.

Do not "improve" the Invasion map. Create a number of variations and randomly rotate among those.

Ok, I agree with this post. Don't change invasion map/mode, I want it to be an option...all though in a better form as most of us can agree on. I thought you were saying that Skirmish as an entire map/mode...concept was for mentally challenged people. a non-starter in CW.

I was just saying that variety is the spice of life...and certainly more maps/modes cant hurt CW

[HUNTERS MOON]

Sandpit, on 18 December 2014 - 12:41 AM, said:

uhm
Some people play smart, some people whine on the forums that rushing can't be stopped.

Point being, the attack/defend concept of the current missions is what prevents them from devolving into the mindless deathmatch kill em all style of play that skirmish and assault (i mean seriously, people b*tch and moan if you cap a base) have turned into.

Russ isn't saying anything about "I don't want to add more mission types, more depth, etc.", he's saying that taking out the base defense portion would equate to skirmish mode. This is exactly what would happen. Defender need MORE reasons to say in base, not rush out and get out of position so they can QQ on the forums about how they can't stop a simple rush tactic.


leave the gate and go where exactly?
spawn camp the attackers?

Current CW missions aren't "fight", they're attack and DEFEND.
Defending forces don't rush their entire military force outside of their heavily fortified base in any kind of military strategy. If they did, they'd lose control of that base and come home to its charred remains.

The change is done. Move on, nothing to see here. But I love my long range lasers. I can hit inner spheres far from the gate and they can't touch me. It is good to be the king. Complain all you want, its done.

[Sandpit]

RENEGADEMOON, on 18 December 2014 - 12:17 PM, said:

The change is done. Move on, nothing to see here. But I love my long range lasers. I can hit inner spheres far from the gate and they can't touch me. It is good to be the king. Complain all you want, its done.

what are you talking about?

[HUNTERS MOON]

Sandpit, on 18 December 2014 - 12:21 PM, said:

what are you talking about?

The changes made to CW.

[Sandpit]

RENEGADEMOON, on 18 December 2014 - 12:22 PM, said:

The changes made to CW.

care to be more specific?

[Davers]

Kjudoon, on 18 December 2014 - 08:10 AM, said:

Never doubt the power of the mouse.

[L A V A]

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

And that has been one of my points across several threads on this same topic.

Do not turn the Invasion map into Skirmish. Add a Skirmish map instead.

Do not "improve" the Invasion map. Create a number of variations and randomly rotate among those.

Yep, that is what I'm trying to say as well.

[Zensei]

Roland, on 18 December 2014 - 06:40 AM, said:

That's not really it.

People are taking the "objective" because it's the easiest path to victory. This isn't really the same as people "wanting to go for the objective".

If you gave folks a version that had no objectives, and was simply attrition based deathmatch, then more folks would probably play that mode. As an added benefit, you wouldn't be limited to only two maps.

So.......can we not be lemmings and rush back in only to rinse and repeat. Probably works fine in an organized comm group. Still missing that comm group thing if you are not part of the 12 man that dropped. The game needs the pugs because they are legion. But the legion doesnt take orders.

[Rhaegor]

Mystere, on 17 December 2014 - 08:40 PM, said:

Oh **** it, just replace Invasion with Skirmish already, as that seems to be what the larger mentally-challenged portion of player base wants.

Community Warfare, it was nice knowing you.

Should there be some skirmishes involved in taking planet? A mix of gate maps and skirmish maps?

[Mystere]

Rhaegor, on 18 December 2014 - 05:20 PM, said:

Should there be some skirmishes involved in taking planet? A mix of gate maps and skirmish maps?

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

And that has been one of my points across several threads on this same topic.

Do not turn the Invasion map into Skirmish. Add a Skirmish map instead.

Do not "improve" the Invasion map. Create a number of variations and randomly rotate among those.