1 reply to this topic

[Zoid]

As expected, there are significant complaints about CW as PUGs getting munched by premades. I don't really have an issue with this (as a mostly solo player) but the one thing I think should change is that PUGs should be on defense most of the time against premades.

The reason for this is simple: defending PUGs will probably lose to a good premade. Attacking PUGs will not only lose, but get absolutely creamed. Attacking takes coordination, defending just requires you to shoot the red things. There are better ways of shooting them, but that's really what it comes down to.

And before all the "I beat premades as PUGs all the time" players, if this is true, you were fighting some awful premades. I was in a mostly-PUG the other day against what appeared to be a clan premade and we just killed them all on attack. We did this because after the first rush we were even on kills and had taken out one generator, so we figured we could just beat them in a straight-up fight. If you're winning on offense against a premade, that's a terrible premade.

With the new generator change, you're not going to destroy everything in one push, so it gives PUGs some feeling of doing decently well and some rewards against premades. I really doubt all the units out there want PUGs dropping out entirely so the number of games drops dramatically.

[Zultor]

I think the problem here is that the attacker is at such a disadvantage in the current implementation. Why can't we have maps/objectives where the odds aren't stacked so much against one side?

I don't understand the thought process behind these scenarios. What same skill level attacking force would attack an equally manned defending force, without the element of surprise, who is entrenched behind gates with turrets on terrain that heavily favored the defenders? Someone at PGI needs to read Sun Tzu.