17 replies to this topic

[HellFox83]

This is a serious question and I am looking for an answer. I've been around gaming for several decades now, (yes bit of an old fox here :-p), but in my experience there usually is some kind of advantage that both attackers and defenders have, to be exploited by either team. Attackers usually had faster redeployment or greater numbers for their advantage. Defenders by contrast usually have a slower redeployment but have the advantage of terrain and defenses. Meaning they pay more for deaths than attackers.

CW on the other hand has equal teams (in both numbers and spawns) in a lopsided situation. Defenders have terrain and defenses but have just as quick a respawn as the attackers. The attackers in CW don't have much of an edge and unless you have a plan you are asking to get farmed. This makes attacking more of an uuugggh feeling for the individual player rather than something to be looking forward to. I bet as time goes on this will only get worse for any poor pugs or small premades who go on the attack as they need to work harder to achieve any kind of success. Where by contrast, ANYONE can play defense, hence why the pugs have a better shot at playing defensive than attacking. Its easier to tell someone to hold a spot and keep everyone out than to pull off an elaborate plan that only you and your friends know how to do.

How can we fix this? I have no clue, right now PGI still has work to do to sort this balance out but needless to say attackers are very much going to have the short end of the stick more often than not.

[Rushin Roulette]

The attackers have an easier objective (Destroy the Generators) whereas the defenders have to make sure, that the generators survive the full 30 minutes or they must kill all of the enemy mechs.

[Texas Merc]

they also have the element of surprise if done correctly.

of course more maps will help change the strategies.

[Kjudoon]

Attackers control the pace of battle in most cases.

[Vassago Rain]

Kjudoon, on 21 December 2014 - 03:40 AM, said:

Attackers control the pace of battle in most cases.

Haha, no.

I setup my dudes in overwatch on the hill.
You go through the chokepoints 6 robots at a time, maximum.
We cut you down where you stand if you're slow, or you make a break for it, and take more damage on the approach.

If MWO was Firearms: half-life, sure, but it's not.

[Alistair Winter]

If they reduced the HP (armour and structure points) of turrets, generators and the orbital cannon to 1% of what it is now, it would become real apparent that the advantage of the defenders is not a fundamental characteristic of this game mode. If you just need to do 5 damage to destroy any structure on the map, it would be dead easy. In other words, it can be adjusted by balancing.

There are two questions right now:
Does PGI want attacking to be just as easy as defending? Or do they want it to be an uphill battle?

If you use the HP of turrets and generators as a balancing tool, to the point where two teams of equal skill have an equal chance of winning, will the gameplay be more fun than it is now? Or will it just result in more zerging and no need for strategy at all?

In my opinion, the main issue isn't the disadvantage of the attackers. The main issue is the lack of strategy needed, both as defender and as attacker. Which leads to predictable gameplay. Which was always the weakness of MWO's game modes.

[Willard Phule]

Kjudoon, on 21 December 2014 - 03:40 AM, said:

Attackers control the pace of battle in most cases.

In reality, you're absolutely correct.

Current teaching states that it takes 4 to 1 odds to remove a dug in defender. That's a relatively accurate estimate.

Unless, of course, you're a Mechwarrior Online armchair general with no practical life experience with regard to tactical situations in a war zone......at which point, you get to make up your own rules of physics and warfare.

It hardly matters.

Victory, whether on defense or offense, is attained pretty much the same way it's done in the solo queue. The group of 12 random people forced to put up with each other's incompetence that comes together to form more of a "team" than the other will win.

The team that makes the fewest "noob" mistakes will win.

The team that actually listens to the intel given to them and reacts accordingly will win.

Or, alternatively....

The team that stops and zooms to shoot every time will lose.

The team that has to look at their hands to unzoom so they can move will lose.

The team that can't find the "R" button and leaves 8 LRM boats standing around waiting to do something will lose.

It is what it is, man.

[Angel of Annihilation]

Willard Phule, on 21 December 2014 - 06:09 AM, said:

In reality, you're absolutely correct.

Current teaching states that it takes 4 to 1 odds to remove a dug in defender. That's a relatively accurate estimate.

Unless, of course, you're a Mechwarrior Online armchair general with no practical life experience with regard to tactical situations in a war zone......at which point, you get to make up your own rules of physics and warfare.

It hardly matters.

Victory, whether on defense or offense, is attained pretty much the same way it's done in the solo queue. The group of 12 random people forced to put up with each other's incompetence that comes together to form more of a "team" than the other will win.

The team that makes the fewest "noob" mistakes will win.

The team that actually listens to the intel given to them and reacts accordingly will win.

Or, alternatively....

The team that stops and zooms to shoot every time will lose.

The team that has to look at their hands to unzoom so they can move will lose.

The team that can't find the "R" button and leaves 8 LRM boats standing around waiting to do something will lose.

It is what it is, man.

The ratio depends on alot of factors William and ranges from 3-1 to 5-1 depending on the situation. However you are essentially correct. According to conventional combat doctrine, the attacking force must have some sort of power advantage or force multiplier in order to press a successful attack against an enemy that is ready for the attack and in fortified, defensive positions. This force multiplier can be anything from better air and artillery support, better quality equipment, better training, higher moral and/or numerical superiority.

Well in MWO, we don't have any better support and the equipment is pretty much completely balanced. Also they don't allow the attackers numerical superiority so that just leaves training and moral and this is why a coordinated 12 man is realistically the only way you can achieve attacker wins with any consistency and this is only due to the fact they are often taking those wins from PUGs. Given two equal quality 12 man units, victory is almost always going to go to the defender unless game design allows that attacker to apply gimmicky tactics like the zerg rush.

However those victories aren't really victories because in a real war, you could not sustain the sorts of losses. Also lets face it, I don't care if you manage to take the objective or not, losing a full battalion of mechs while only managing to take out a lance or two of the enemy means that while you might temporarily prevent the orbital cannon from firing, your still leaving the enemy in control of the battlefield. This means that any follow on attackers will have to face this 30+ mechs you didn't kill while not having your 48 mechs available as an offensive force. Also they are just going to come in and repair the generators so in a day or two, your right back to where you started. No to win an invasion, you have to take and control the ground, simple as that.

Honestly I think this is my major problem with MWO, nothing feels like a battle. Not one damn thing we do makes sense tactically or strategically which leads to a feeling of zero immersion. Those orbital cannons aren't that important. Why? Because obviously they suck at doing their job or else you wouldn't be able to land dropships and mechs in the first place and if you can drop a damn cluster or battalion of mechs, then you can just as easily drop an entire Galaxy or several regiments.

[Jor Jurgenson]

Good points by Viktor and William.

I am not sure if this is applicable, but, in MW4 the custom maps that modders put together would often have two or more objectives for attack and defense.

There wasn't usually a 'destroy the HQ' condition for attacker victory, it was usually 'level the entire base' or a conditional of percentage destroyed. The bases of course had aerospace, tanks, turrets etc in addition to whatever defending mech forces there were.

Damn those maps were fun. Lots of tactics, good spawn points (depending if multiple drops were allowed) and lots of just wild battles between the bases themselves, as usually the defenders would intercept the attackers somewhere. There were not a lot of chokepoints, or the 'usual' battle places, just wild assaults wherever one force happened to run into the other.

I had forgotten all about those maps until I was on Boreal the other day.

[Angel of Annihilation]

Jor Jurgenson, on 21 December 2014 - 12:01 PM, said:

Good points by Viktor and William.

I am not sure if this is applicable, but, in MW4 the custom maps that modders put together would often have two or more objectives for attack and defense.

There wasn't usually a 'destroy the HQ' condition for attacker victory, it was usually 'level the entire base' or a conditional of percentage destroyed. The bases of course had aerospace, tanks, turrets etc in addition to whatever defending mech forces there were.

Damn those maps were fun. Lots of tactics, good spawn points (depending if multiple drops were allowed) and lots of just wild battles between the bases themselves, as usually the defenders would intercept the attackers somewhere. There were not a lot of chokepoints, or the 'usual' battle places, just wild assaults wherever one force happened to run into the other.

I had forgotten all about those maps until I was on Boreal the other day.

Exactly. This is what CW should have been like. Huge, OPEN battlefield that had multiple objectives scattered all across the map so that you would have to split forces and actually have light mechs scout and such. The maps we have kinda suck.

[Savage Wolf]

It's an asymmetrical game mode. One does not have advantages over the other per se as both sides have different goals. Cannot be summed up. If you can, then it's probably more symmetrical than asymmetrical.

[Tarl Cabot]

Viktor Drake, on 21 December 2014 - 12:19 PM, said:

Exactly. This is what CW should have been like. Huge, OPEN battlefield that had multiple objectives scattered all across the map so that you would have to split forces and actually have light mechs scout and such. The maps we have kinda suck.

Examples from the original MPBT 3025 (GEnie). First set of battles were scouting/raiding missions, primarily lights/med max. After a specific percentage it moved to meds/hvys, escorts/raid/etc. Then to hvy/assaults allowed, destroy targets, bunkers/other units. For defenders things were turned around on objectives but it also started off as lights first.

With that said, tis a good start but there is so much that they can build on. Have to remember they did not have a few years behind closed doors nor the manpower to put out an almost complete setup. What does matter though is their next steps.

[Fox Kell]

Viktor Drake, on 21 December 2014 - 12:19 PM, said:

Exactly. This is what CW should have been like. Huge, OPEN battlefield that had multiple objectives scattered all across the map so that you would have to split forces and actually have light mechs scout and such. The maps we have kinda suck.

Its not too late for that, they can still make this right and expand the maps and make this better.

[EvilCow]

Attackers need maximum armor on a fast mech and good coordination, weaponry is not that important.

Clan XLs are the winning card IMO.

[Willard Phule]

Viktor Drake, on 21 December 2014 - 07:23 AM, said:

The ratio depends on alot of factors William.....other stuff

Jor Jurgenson, on 21 December 2014 - 12:01 PM, said:

Good points by Viktor and William.

Willard, not William. William is my sister.

Regardless, all the cries and whines on the forums about CW is just ridiculous. These people OBVIOUSLY don't understand the meaning of the word "beta."

CW is in "beta" testing. There are LOTS of things they're supposedly working on (if you don't believe me, run on over to the "official" MW:O information site on Twitter or Reddit. This isn't it, it's a fan based website run by people only peripherally associated with PGI). Hopefully, we'll see more than just Attack/Defend on two maps when it's all said and done.

[ztac]

To put it bluntly , no matter what PGI try to do with the current setup it will not work ... as long as you have objectives people are just going to rush them down all be it using ECM to try to sneak past the defenders or a headlong rush or just try to PvP the enemy team.

There is obviously no matchmaker for the actual teams taking part , probably due to a small player base. So we have a situation where good players can easily encounter the worse players in MWO! (yes you top tier guys get to see us low tier guys again!).

AS for this is a Beta, easy for PGI to say that (good PR strategy for getting out of anything in CW , All they have to say is 'this is a beta' ). In all essence it is an add on. They have a core game, they are using the core game to make CW. Thy should know how to make maps by now, The game should be 'balanced' by now, they should have a working matchmaker by now. All they had to do for CW was implement the idea. Just something to think about!

[speedy mechanic]

Ok I have some ideas, seeing as most agree you don't attack with even numbers in a well defended base.

First make attacker dropships 15 seconds to keep the defenders alert.

Second have 2 separate dropships in the que screen, 1 for attack and 1 for defense but lower defense mech's to 3 vs the attackers 4 (can share mech's between the. 2 dropships). Now advantage is defenders can bring big tonnage being capped at 240 tons as well. Ok sounds good but what slows down the Zerg rush then? Move minimum to 160 tons which prevents 4 lights (yeah I know most only need 1 or 2 waves of lights). Some might think losing a wave of defender mechs is not realistic but remember there's turrets and dropships helping around the base.

Another minor thing possible is the turrets around the base become medium lasers but add a few more (near the generators)

These are some of my thoughts, what do you think?

Edited by speedy mechanic, 22 December 2014 - 08:05 AM.

[Blixx]

The big advantage is the attackers don't need to kill mechs to win. That is why the light swam works so well, they just avoid the enemy and attack a few inanimate objects. Attackers win...