66 replies to this topic

[Savage Wolf]

Viktor Drake, on 20 December 2014 - 02:00 PM, said:

I agree Summon3r the maps favor the defenders strongly so to win efficiently you have to resort to gimmicky tactics.

However, I am about at my breaking point because I am having zero fun attacking in CW. Honestly I at the point where I don't care about winning as long as the battle results in good fight but unfortunately I am only getting into that good fight with PUGs not with my unit.

I think the worst thing is that generally I consider myself to be a pretty good pilot but I feel my skill is degrading because CW is either rush the generators while making sure you don't actually kill any of the enemy or if on defend, burn down enemies who aren't even firing back at you and hope you manage it before they can pop the generators.

I am seriously at the point where I wish PGI would just remove the generators completely and make winning totally dependent on killing off all the enemy. That would be a hell of alot more fun a game.

Honestly, what you want is an entirely different game mode. What is boring for you is the best fun in MWO I've ever had. I absolutely love attacking in CW, it's the game mode I hoped Conquest would be and here it finally is. And it does indeed require skills, just other skills.

But there will probably be other game modes later on in CW that will cater better to your liking. But so far this is the only objective based game mode in MWO and there are plenty more fighting based game modes in MWO already. So no need to remove the only one that is different.

[Savage Wolf]

Summon3r, on 20 December 2014 - 02:07 PM, said:

i dont mean a % of the currently on the battlefield mechs, i mean of the entire 48 mech drop dec, regardless i think we are both kind of getting at the same thing and as Viktor has said above us CW is really no fun at all unless u get to defend against a mix group pug drop where get to kill all 48 of them and have them shoot back at you.....

unfortunately CW has badly missed its mark in this early beta so lets be happy its early beta and hope things will progress somehow into a better game.....

Viktor i agree whole heartedly with you, except i do very much enjoy when we drop in 6-8 man groups vs another mix group and a zerg rush isnt what they do and each side slugs it out up to the 48 kills.

It's a objective based game mode, it should be able to be finished in 2 minutes of attackers meet no resistance at all. Setting an objective to force the game to have a certain length is artificial and totally ruins the idea of an objective based game mode.

Of course it should be unlikely to be able to win as attackers in the first wave, but if someone is skilled enough to pull it off, they should be rewarded for it, not be forced to keep fighting because someone still hasn't had his fill of battle.

Fighting should not be mandatory, just a very handy tool to getting to the objective. If someone can still win as attackers without killing defenders once this gets correctly balanced, they should be allowed to do so.

[Angel of Annihilation]

Summon3r, on 20 December 2014 - 02:07 PM, said:

i dont mean a % of the currently on the battlefield mechs, i mean of the entire 48 mech drop dec, regardless i think we are both kind of getting at the same thing and as Viktor has said above us CW is really no fun at all unless u get to defend against a mix group pug drop where get to kill all 48 of them and have them shoot back at you.....

unfortunately CW has badly missed its mark in this early beta so lets be happy its early beta and hope things will progress somehow into a better game.....

Viktor i agree whole heartedly with you, except i do very much enjoy when we drop in 6-8 man groups vs another mix group and a zerg rush isnt what they do and each side slugs it out up to the 48 kills.

Yeah I do enjoy my unit and especially we were are only doing a 6-8 man CW drop where it ends up being more about actually fighting and being a warrior rather than winning. Honestly I think this is part of the issue. I absolutely want to win but I want to win by virtue of being a superior pilot or by extension being part of a superior unit. I guess it makes me kind of clan-like in real life personality but I want to win by facing their guns and burning them down in a test of skill, rather than suicide rushing the Generator.

I may get a bit into trouble with my unit because they are so competitively focused on winning, especially since I am just a Bondsman, but winning for the sake of winning is not more important than winning with good from and superior skill demonstrated by matching an enemy face-to-face in combat. That being said, I really do hope PGI figures out how to insure CW is about face-to-face combat so good units who legitimately want competitive battles won't be forced into using gimmicky tactics as the most efficient strategy to win.

Edited by Viktor Drake, 20 December 2014 - 03:56 PM.

[Savage Wolf]

Viktor Drake, on 20 December 2014 - 03:54 PM, said:

Yeah I do enjoy my unit and especially we were are only doing a 6-8 man CW drop where it ends up being more about actually fighting and being a warrior rather than winning. Honestly I think this is part of the issue. I absolutely want to win but I want to win by virtue of being a superior pilot or by extension being part of a superior unit. I guess it makes me kind of clan-like in real life personality but I want to win by facing their guns and burning them down in a test of skill, rather than suicide rushing the Generator.

I may get a bit into trouble with my unit because they are so competitively focused on winning, especially since I am just a Bondsman, but winning for the sake of winning is not more important than winning with good from and superior skill demonstrated by matching an enemy face-to-face in combat. That being said, I really do hope PGI figures out how to insure CW is about face-to-face combat so good units who legitimately want competitive battles won't be forced into using gimmicky tactics as the most efficient strategy to win.

Okay, you definitely just want a different game mode. Nothing wrong with the current game mode in this case, you just want something else.

And please, don't talk like your play style is somehow better than others. It's just different. You are no more a better pilot than me simply because I like this game mode and you don't. You might be able to best me in Skirmish, but I'll probably beat you in Invasion, simply because it's the style of play that suits us best.

So lets just agree to hope that PGI can make us both happy in CW.

[Angel of Annihilation]

Savage Wolf, on 20 December 2014 - 04:15 PM, said:

Okay, you definitely just want a different game mode. Nothing wrong with the current game mode in this case, you just want something else.

And please, don't talk like your play style is somehow better than others. It's just different. You are no more a better pilot than me simply because I like this game mode and you don't. You might be able to best me in Skirmish, but I'll probably beat you in Invasion, simply because it's the style of play that suits us best.

So lets just agree to hope that PGI can make us both happy in CW.

Why are you taking it personal. I said I thought of myself a good pilot and that I wanted to fight battles where my piloting skill was the deciding factor not some random zerg rush. There are a hell of a lot of pilots better than me and that is a fact.

Also Invasion has very little to do with individual player skill except in regards to how the unit commander applies that skill. Basically your unit might do well in Invasion or you might even find you individually do better in Invasion because you can lean on your team more, but that doesn't mean your actual skill level is any different while playing invasion or skirmish or whatever. Skill doesn't change from one mode to the next....well again unless your unit is enforcing some sort of discipline you wouldn't normally have that either enhances or degrades your skill as a pilot.

Edited by Viktor Drake, 20 December 2014 - 06:12 PM.

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

Maybe make one of the win conditions for attackers:

Destroy 1/2 or more of the enemy team.

Ontop of the current win condition of destroying the orbital gun?

[Savage Wolf]

Viktor Drake, on 20 December 2014 - 06:12 PM, said:

Why are you taking it personal. I said I thought of myself a good pilot and that I wanted to fight battles where my piloting skill was the deciding factor not some random zerg rush. There are a hell of a lot of pilots better than me and that is a fact.

Also Invasion has very little to do with individual player skill except in regards to how the unit commander applies that skill. Basically your unit might do well in Invasion or you might even find you individually do better in Invasion because you can lean on your team more, but that doesn't mean your actual skill level is any different while playing invasion or skirmish or whatever. Skill doesn't change from one mode to the next....well again unless your unit is enforcing some sort of discipline you wouldn't normally have that either enhances or degrades your skill as a pilot.

I think you are being mean because you keep saying that the skills I and many others have for playing Invasion doesn't count. Alright you now acknowledge the skill of the commander, but then you continue to patronize the rest of the team. In invasion it is your piloting skills that decide who wins, it's simply different ones that you value. I often end up the commander since I "get" Invasion I can assure you, I'm not carrying the team alone.

As an example, I COULD say that I think that there is no reason to play Skirmish because I see no use for tactical skills or the only strategy is the death ball and then it just comes down to who is best at hill humping. And that is my personal experience. But I know better. I know that it's just not the type of game mode where I can use my skills, where I can see the tactical options and so on. But many others say there is skill in Skirmish and I believe them.

So please, respect that when others enjoy and excel at Invasion, then they too have skill.

Flash Frame, on 20 December 2014 - 07:21 PM, said:

Maybe make one of the win conditions for attackers:

Destroy 1/2 or more of the enemy team.

Ontop of the current win condition of destroying the orbital gun?

Savage Wolf, on 20 December 2014 - 02:16 PM, said:

It's a objective based game mode, it should be able to be finished in 2 minutes of attackers meet no resistance at all. Setting an objective to force the game to have a certain length is artificial and totally ruins the idea of an objective based game mode.

Of course it should be unlikely to be able to win as attackers in the first wave, but if someone is skilled enough to pull it off, they should be rewarded for it, not be forced to keep fighting because someone still hasn't had his fill of battle.

Fighting should not be mandatory, just a very handy tool to getting to the objective. If someone can still win as attackers without killing defenders once this gets correctly balanced, they should be allowed to do so.

Edited by Savage Wolf, 20 December 2014 - 07:25 PM.

[jackal404]

Nicolai Kabrinsky, on 20 December 2014 - 10:49 AM, said:

EDIT: And I would be really happy if people stopped using the argument about superior numbers in real life. There are different kinds of military operations and they don't all depend on having superior numbers. Sometimes it's necessary to send in a small taskforce to do a job and then pull out before they're overwhelmed. Ain't none o y'all seen Black Hawks Down with Ewan McGregors and Tom Hardies?

And what was the result of the movie you quoted in terms of both casualties and the success/failure of the operation?

There's a reason that everyone keeps quoting those numbers. Consider the process of attacking a prepared defensive position in CW. There is parity between the number of mechs on each team. There is no adjustment for turrets, nor for the gate or dropship.

This makes the assumption that the attacker can overwhelm the defender, turrets, and dropships. That is the problem and that is why people keep mentioning the 3:1 ratio of attacker to defender. The only reason that there have been successful attacks is the difference is skill and coordination.

This is why the attackers ignore the defenders - the only way they can be successful is to ignore their losses and strike the orbital gun.

[Tristan Winter]

jackal404, on 20 December 2014 - 08:05 PM, said:

And what was the result of the movie you quoted in terms of both casualties and the success/failure of the operation?

It was a tongue-in-cheek comment, but Hollywood has no shortage of movies about a small group of soldiers who go deep into enemy territory, do some damage and evacuate before getting overwhelmed.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0059263/

jackal404, on 20 December 2014 - 08:05 PM, said:

This makes the assumption that the attacker can overwhelm the defender, turrets, and dropships. That is the problem and that is why people keep mentioning the 3:1 ratio of attacker to defender. The only reason that there have been successful attacks is the difference is skill and coordination.
This is why the attackers ignore the defenders - the only way they can be successful is to ignore their losses and strike the orbital gun.

I agree with that last part. And therein lies the balancing factor. It doesn't matter if the attackers lose 10 mechs or 47 mechs, as long as they can take down the gun. It's not the same as when NATO is estimating how many troops are needed to take and hold an enemy defensive position. Modern western armies rarely base their tactics around the premise that they just need a 50% chance to accomplish their goal and it's irrelevant how many lives they lose in the process. It's called zerging because the hive mind doesn't care how many bugs it loses in the process. That's not how modern armies operate, so the comparison fails.

Let's not forget that countries like the USA have a policy to only engage in wars that can be won quickly and decisively, with minimal losses. They're not going for a 50% success rate, but this game mode is, by definition, designed to give the attacker no advantage.

You have to look at really desperate situations in military history to find examples that match the scenario in MWO. Events where one side was forced to attack without the advantage of superior numbers. If you go far back in history, attacking and winning against superior numbers is hardly without precedent.

[the punk who stole your thunder]

KraftySOT, on 20 December 2014 - 12:15 PM, said:

Its about the schwerpunkt.

the holy grail:

Man schlägt jemanden mit der Faust und nicht mit gespreizten Fingern. (You hit somebody with your fist and not with your fingers spread.)

or

Nicht Kleckern sondern Klotzen! (Boot 'em, don't spatter 'em!)

http://en.wikipedia....E2%80%93_Panzer!

[Armando]

How to MAKE attackers fight defenders...that is simple, make killing all the defender to only win objective (remove all other objectives)...aka turn it into skirmish with a base.

That said with our current objective oriented attacking, I been on the attacking team and won both ways...
...kill no one (hit legs), take out the objective, match over in > 3 minutes.
...kill everyone, take out the objective, match over in < 3 minutes.

How you win depends on your overall goals....
...Do you want more wins on the planet? (win fast)
...Do you want more c-bills? (kill them all)
___________________________________________

The exception to wanting more wins on the planet, win fast..... is if you are against a 12 man team of superior skill, but you faction has a numbers advantage? In this rare case you want to draw the match with the '12 man of superior skill' out as LONG as possible and allow your greater numbers to roll over the attacking factions inferior numbers. (See when House of Lords lost their Butte Hold as an example)
___________________________________________
No matter what, ALWAYS, play for the win. However, how quickly you win, that depends on what situation you are in (situation awareness is HUGE in battle...those that have it will win, those who don't...not so much).

Edited by Armando, 21 December 2014 - 04:55 AM.

[kapusta11]

Capping. Remove gun's and that 3 other generators, add 2 objectives that you need to capture so that gun becomes yours and deffending team looses. Simple.

Edited by kapusta11, 21 December 2014 - 05:35 AM.

[Sam Slade]

KraftySOT, on 20 December 2014 - 12:15 PM, said:

But yeah people dont seem to understand its not about holding what youve captured, or even taking the territory, its about destroying an objective.</p>

</p>This is the core problem. Even in pug games now fighting is secondary... folks are looking more and more at high DPS + Speed/ECM for hitting generators and Omega more then hitting enemy mechs. The pug games I've been in today have been far far closer but the outcome was generally a result of the damage infliceted by the first two waves. If enough damage wasn't done to objectives by then... attackers didn't seem to care so much. More and more defenders are ending the game with a full drop deck because no one is shooting them.Sidenote: 'It's not for Pugs" is a bs response; if that's what you're thinking and if that's what PGI was really thinking then CW would be locked for solos... but it's not... so we need a real solution.I'm still in favor of the secondary drop zones objective... like Alpha Bravo and Charlie Lance all get to secure a secondary dropzone somewhere closer to the base(with maybe one IN the base on Boreal?). This would bring the fight closer and harder

[Savage Wolf]

kapusta11, on 21 December 2014 - 05:34 AM, said:

Capping. Remove gun's and that 3 other generators, add 2 objectives that you need to capture so that gun becomes yours and deffending team looses. Simple.

This does not solve the problem for the same reason that I mentioned in the original post. Still no reason to fight the defenders.

[kapusta11]

Savage Wolf, on 21 December 2014 - 08:45 AM, said:

This does not solve the problem for the same reason that I mentioned in the original post. Still no reason to fight the defenders.

No reason? So you're goind to stay and do nothing while defending team fires at you while you're caping? Ok.

[Savage Wolf]

kapusta11, on 21 December 2014 - 11:39 AM, said:

No reason? So you're goind to stay and do nothing while defending team fires at you while you're caping? Ok.

Yes. It would be my best option. Otherwise I would shoot back, kill someone and suddenly have an immortal dropship shoot at me while the defender just gets a new mech. The problem remains, nothing changes.

Otherwise, please explain how you suggestion changes the problems that I mentioned in the original post or explain why they don't apply.

And here I assume capping should also be changed so that an enemy mech in the cap zone, doesn't stop capping. Otherwise it would be neigh impossible to pull of.

[Sergeant Miles]

I think that if your defending you should need less troops and therefore less tonnage to defend with. In most game I have played in the last 30 years. If you were the defender.. your defenses made up part of your points to build your army with.. so you ended up with less points to spend on troops.

You need less troops because 1. you have base defenses 2. you have dropships that drop nearby and quickly, 3. you have a generator system as a backup.

[Savage Wolf]

Sergeant Miles, on 21 December 2014 - 01:08 PM, said:

I think that if your defending you should need less troops and therefore less tonnage to defend with. In most game I have played in the last 30 years. If you were the defender.. your defenses made up part of your points to build your army with.. so you ended up with less points to spend on troops.

You need less troops because 1. you have base defenses 2. you have dropships that drop nearby and quickly, 3. you have a generator system as a backup.

I see the number of defenders more as a discouragement to actually try to eleminate all the defenders instead of actually playing for the objectives which should be the focus for attackers.

[InspectorG]

KraftySOT, on 20 December 2014 - 12:15 PM, said:

And its moderately off topic.

People seem to have this idea that its SUPPOSED to be a big giant brawl and the gun is destroyed all the time with only moments to spare.

When in reality, no matter what you do, the people who know what theyre doing, are always going to do the same. Make contact with a small force, use TS as a force multiplier, manuever to build up fire superiority, move the defenders from their positions, then complete the objective.

Basically.

They need to think less of swarms of armored knights and more of Paratroopers and Spec Ops. Technology mitigated the 3x number rule.

Team composition, communication, meeting Objectives, and as CW progresses- more Faction strategy.

We already have mech brawling in the Pug/Team que. CW is SUPPOSED to be bigger.
But i have the feeling most will view it as Pug drops with x3 extra lives. We will likely see this well into Beta.

[Sergeant Miles]

The "Immortal Dropship".. man you said it all right there. Godlike,, can kill anything and can't be killed. LOL

In the game "Call of Cthulhu"- Fighting gods is normal part of the game. DOH I didn't think it was part of MWO hehehehe..

But, since we're talking about it. Does sort of seem like it. Immortal Defenders.. cool.. who wouldn't want those?