93 replies to this topic

[Alistair Winter]

A lot of different suggestions have been offered to change Invasion game mode from what we have now. One suggestion has been to try to make the fighting take place all over the map and specifically make the fight for the gates more significant, instead of having the defenders stay close to Omega and try to make it a brawl around the orbital cannon.

Some people have been asking for a gradual push from the attackers, where defenders have to be pushed back untill the attackers finally make their way through the gates, past the defenses and all the way to the orbital cannon.

Other people have been asking for gate breaching to be more significant. They want to open up the maps to make more fighting take place at the gates, not just have 3-4 mechs on both sides snipe over the walls.
http://mwomercs.com/...almost-useless/

My understanding from listening to the Town Hall meeting is that Russ wants almost the exact opposite. He wants a good brawl inside the base, does not want to make gate breaching a more significant part of the game, because he thinks trading shots at the gate leads to boring gameplay. So basically, the idea is to change Invasion game mode for more brawling inside the base.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying Russ Bullock is doing something contrary to the desire of the majority of players. I'm not saying it's an unpopular decision. His decision may indeed be what the community wants, for all I know. I'm just starting a thread to explain how gameplay will change, because it's useful to know what plans Russ has made.

TL;DR - Forget the gates, forget the areas outside the gates. Moar brawling in the base incoming.

Edited by Alistair Winter, 17 December 2014 - 08:10 PM.

[Agent 0 Fortune]

The gate breach is a formality allowing the defenders to take an advantageous position. But they don't want Attackers to be constantly pushed back to the gate (or open an option other than zerg rush)

[Mystere]

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.

[InspectorG]

Orbital fire support on the Attacker's drop zone. Support that HURTS.

If spawn camping is what Russ is talking about.

I hope this doesnt devolve into Skirmish v.2

[Roadbeer]

Why would you want to leave your heavily defended fortification?

Do you even tactics?

[Alistair Winter]

Roadbeer, on 17 December 2014 - 09:00 PM, said:

Why would you want to leave your heavily defended fortification?
Do you even tactics?

It's called a layered defense or defense in depth. If the goal is to protect an orbital cannon, you don't want all the fighting to take place within 200 meters of that orbital cannon. Because it leaves you open for, say, a zerg rush where all the attackers are ignoring your forces and focus firing the orbital cannon with complete disregard for their own health.

Just speaking hypothetically.

Now it doesn't quite work in MWO, because the map and the game mode does in fact punish players who attempt a layered defense. But in traditional military strategy, if you're dealing with a highly mobile attacker, you want layered defenses to slow them down, thus reducing the significance of their speed and giving you more time to call in reinforcements. Right now, the defenders often lose the match without having lost more than 10 mechs, because they all stick close to Omega rather than taking the fight to the attackers and try to diminish their numbers as they advance.

http://en.wikipedia....efence_in_depth

[Mystere]

Alistair Winter, on 17 December 2014 - 09:10 PM, said:

It's called a layered defense or defense in depth. If the goal is to protect an orbital cannon, you don't want all the fighting to take place within 200 meters of that orbital cannon. Because it leaves you open for, say, a zerg rush where all the attackers are ignoring your forces and focus firing the orbital cannon with complete disregard for their own health.

Just speaking hypothetically.

Now it doesn't quite work in MWO, because the map and the game mode does in fact punish players who attempt a layered defense. But in traditional military strategy, if you're dealing with a highly mobile attacker, you want layered defenses to slow them down, thus reducing the significance of their speed and giving you more time to call in reinforcements. Right now, the defenders often lose the match without having lost more than 10 mechs, because they all stick close to Omega rather than taking the fight to the attackers and try to diminish their numbers as they advance.

http://en.wikipedia....efence_in_depth

<steps out of the shadows>
Psst! People are already successfully employing layered defenses to stop rushes.
<steps back into the shadows>

[Alistair Winter]

Mystere, on 17 December 2014 - 09:13 PM, said:

<steps out of the shadows>
Psst! People are already successfully employing layered defenses to stop rushes.
<steps back into the shadows>

Some people are, some people aren't. We'll see how the meta changes in the coming weeks, but there's relatively few good positions for the defenders, right now. It's very hard to stop the attackers from destroying the gates, because you simply can't get enough eyes on the targets before the gates are open. It's just 2-3 snipers inside the base fighting 2-3 snipers outside the base. That's a very weird design feature, IMO.

That's not really the point of the thread though. I just thought it was interesting that Russ wanted the meta to move towards brawling in the center of the base, instead of making the fight a gradual attack from the drop zone to the orbital cannon. It sounds like he wants the attackers to quickly move to the brawl zone and then have a long fight there while disabling generators and turrets.

So while some people are using layered defenses right now, it seems Russ isn't really towards that as a goal. He wants big brawls. Unless I totally misunderstood him, of course. He was getting a bit tired by the end of the interview.

EDIT: Just to clarify - On Sulphur Rift, it's pretty damn hard to get a layered defense working, in any meaningful sense of the word. When you can get attacked from 3 different angles, 2 of which are diametrically opposed, you can't really do a good layered defense without the advantage of numbers. On Boreal Vault, it works slightly better, but you very rarely see someone defend outside the gate, as there's really no good way to go outside before the enemy opens the gate. And outside the gate, you don't really have any good defense positions anyway.

Edited by Alistair Winter, 18 December 2014 - 12:22 AM.

[InspectorG]

Mystere, on 17 December 2014 - 09:13 PM, said:

<steps out of the shadows>
Psst! People are already successfully employing layered defenses to stop rushes.
<steps back into the shadows>

Did this the other day on Sulfur pit.

Attacking GB went through middle door. (?)

We put longer range lasers in back, AC20/srm brawlers up front.

They advanced, lasers hit them.
They got in the gate, they got boom to the face, plus laser from near Omega.

I had to keep on the scouts to stay at the side gates and reign in a 'Steiner scout' who wanted to camp their dropships...solo.

It worked though.


Not that hard, but, i admit we werent facing the best of the Bears. Mike Ditka must have been on lunch.

[Alistair Winter]

InspectorG, on 17 December 2014 - 09:58 PM, said:

Did this the other day on Sulfur pit.
Attacking GB went through middle door. (?)
We put longer range lasers in back, AC20/srm brawlers up front.
They advanced, lasers hit them.
They got in the gate, they got boom to the face, plus laser from near Omega.
I had to keep on the scouts to stay at the side gates and reign in a 'Steiner scout' who wanted to camp their dropships...solo.
It worked though.

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

[Karl Streiger]

I also hope that the gates will be some days possible to cross.
Oh and of course it would be better to destroy the gate instead of an reactor - that opens magicaly the gate.

Currently there is hardly any sense in the gate - the actions that take part before the gate are destroyed are for the most part meaningless.
That the defender can't leave the base with intact gates is another "curiosity"

[Sandpit]

Alistair Winter, on 17 December 2014 - 09:17 PM, said:

Some people are, some people aren't.

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.

Karl Streiger, on 18 December 2014 - 12:38 AM, said:

I also hope that the gates will be some days possible to cross.
Oh and of course it would be better to destroy the gate instead of an reactor - that opens magicaly the gate.

Currently there is hardly any sense in the gate - the actions that take part before the gate are destroyed are for the most part meaningless.
That the defender can't leave the base with intact gates is another "curiosity"

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.

[Karl Streiger]

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

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.

Spawn camping? nope - only Richard Camerons do this.

You are right - currently there isn't much sense to sally out. Simple because you will stand right in the "spawn location" of the other team the moment you do it.

So yep the Invasion Maps are again - to small..... ok considering the grid - of Smurfy Maps they are mediums sized.

I did have expected "before" the CW beta that you have to drop as defender in the first wave with light Mechs - to harass the attacker before he reaches the gates - considering that maybe the attacker uses his most heavy units in the first wave to "assault" the heavy fortified gates and make the break through.

But things played out different - gates are a joke - nothing but a "artificial" barrier - with no meaning. The real fight starts when the gate is broken - and all the defender has to do - is to block the routes of the attacker.

[zortesh]

Personally...

I've kept people behind gateas for a while by narcing over the gate in my loup gurre, poptarting with wifi flavour.... and the pug lrms smash them into the ground, course I lack for range but I can reach the ramps and most of the positions they can snipe the generator from.(on snow map neways)

I also think there is a purpose to sallying forth currently... theres nothing to take out there, but rushing out to gate to mopup small groups, or hit a large group in the flank is perfectly valid, hell even splitting off your fastmechs to nail the enemy as they single file up to the gate after the first wave dies is good tactics.

If you can cacth the enemy unawares outside the gates they will suffer, often people don't really expect to be hit there so theres that aswell.

[Alistair Winter]

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.

Sandpit, with all due respect, I don't even have to read your posts anymore. You're just spamming the same thing over and over.
1) Everyone's whining because they don't know how the game works
2) Everyone just needs to get better and see that everything is working as intended.

Ok. I get it. "Learn to play". No need to keep telling me. We're never going to agree on this.

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

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.

There's no need for strawman arguments. I even included a link to a Wikipedia article explaining the whole concept, in case you felt my explanation was too shallow. It even has examples from WW2 and the Roman empire. Check it out.

[Violent Nick]

Does anyone remember MW4 at the last level marching on the palace? I hoped MWO:CW would be like that.. That level was a real thrill and had everything in terms of terrain, balance and realism. You could even re-arm and repair.

Man... good old days.

[Risen]

A way to get a layered defense working would be to put a "construction cooldown" on the turrets near the cannons.
You then need to defend further up front until your base defenses are in working order.

So maybe place just a few 1-2 turrets closer to the enemy with some basic cover (ferrocrete walls and ditches) and maybe forward spawn points for the defenders. Maybe even 2 spawn points per attack lane.
These forward spawn points can then be taken by the attackers to follow up pushes towards the base.

Another addition could be some sort of "carry-all" consumable module.
You press the button and your mech is being picked up by a heavy lifter VTOL and brought to an uncontested spawnpoint of your choice.
During pickup you cannot take damage and have to be "out of combat" for at least 1 minute.

This way the defenders could maneuver their forces better against "zerg rushes" and still defend further forward without overextending .
This way 3 attack lanes could be defended with a lance each and if one way would be attacked by the full company the 8 could transport over if not fast enough to react on foot.

[Karl Streiger]

Violent Nick, on 18 December 2014 - 01:29 AM, said:

Does anyone remember MW4 at the last level marching on the palace? I hoped MWO:CW would be like that.. That level was a real thrill and had everything in terms of terrain, balance and realism. You could even re-arm and repair.

Man... good old days.

Meh - no repair an rearm - its good to have some real drawbacks for ammunition depended weapons.

---

but you are right - the palace mission was great - although the best sentence was "I wan't my family back!"

Some "Audio comments" are complete missing.

And my chat message " Bayonets" before i play "butch cassidy and the sun dance kid" is lame in comparison with this:

[WhoopieMonster]

Alistair Winter, just because something works in real life doesn't mean it will translate well in game.

Defence in depth, as explained by your link, is normally used by a numerically disadvantaged force where attrition and short skirmishes inflicting heavy casualties before retreat to a fortified position are prefered.

In MWO the defenders match the attackers in numbers and likely tonnage as well. The defenders cannot get out of the gate, even if they could the defenders need to cover 2/3 gates. So they either scout and blob up or split up, both of which are I believe are advantageous to the attacker. The biggest advantage the defenders have is their ability to react quickly due to the small map area they have to cover and the weapon emplacements that occupy that area. If you increase that map size their advantage will dimish.

IS mechs are generally slower (ex lights) than their clan counter part so any kind of fall back strategy will be limited based on speed, which will again reduce the effectiveness of this strategy for IS players.

I am not saying it cannot be done, but the game and the way CW is implimented is not suited to such a strategy unless of course you plan to 12 man it with appropriate drop decks. All imo of course.

[Krivvan]

Alistair Winter, on 17 December 2014 - 09:17 PM, said:

On Boreal Vault, it works slightly better, but you very rarely see someone defend outside the gate, as there's really no good way to go outside before the enemy opens the gate. And outside the gate, you don't really have any good defense positions anyway.

All mechs, even a Dire Wolf, can make it up the mountains and over the gate with complete consistency. Almost every Boreal defense game I've played has ended up with us (even when I'm solo or in a small group) pushing out of the gate into the pass, which is a strong position to hold. It really is sometimes the best option to push out into defenders that won't move in when there is weakness.

Edited by Krivvan, 18 December 2014 - 02:21 AM.