14 replies to this topic

[Aiven Lefant]

I've noted that players in community warfare have stopped trying for the objective and settled for attrition for victory. this is caused by the fact people get more out of killing one another and while that is what this game is about I believe the objective based fights of CW should give serious rewards for completing those objectives such as in the "Attack" game mode; else wise community warfare is just like a normal game only 30 minutes long.

I purpose that PGI should implement a reward comparable to annihilating the opposing team for completing the win objective for the destroying "Omega" objective, giving the attackers a reason and to do it.

this would lead to in innovation in tactics, yes light rushes would come back and so would streak boats and all those tactics. This fact aside would it would solve the stalled out corner shooting done by entire teams. I wish a devoutly hope community warfare is a success and the tactics and counter tactics and game play takes off again.

[Khobai]

Not sure what youre talking about.

In both Invasion and Counter-attack, the attackers absolutely cannot win CW without completing the objective. At some point the attackers have to go after Omega before time runs out or they lose 100% of the time.

The problem isnt that the gamemodes are attrition based. The problem is that the gamemodes simply arnt very fun to begin with for a variety of reasons. Map design issues, weapon/quirk imbalance, pug vs premade, boring static objectives, and more (see two posts below)... take your pick but they all contribute to CW being less fun than it could be.

One thing id really like to see is a dropship gamemode similar to hawken's siege gamemode. Both teams have a union-class dropship and the object of the gamemode is to destroy the other teams dropship. In order to complete that objective you can either attack the enemy dropship directly and face its massive arsenal of weapons or you can capture artillery batteries/missile silos located across the map that periodically attack the enemy dropship. I want a CW gamemode where both teams have to move out of their respective base areas and fight eachother for objectives scattered around the map.

Edited by Khobai, 21 September 2015 - 08:08 PM.

[Kdogg788]

I'd rather have a battle than a light rush. Nothing to see here.

-k

[GI Journalist]

...lack of game modes, lack of rewards for taking planets, wait times for matches, and homicidal rage induced by ghost matches...the list goes on.

[Cyborx]

The problem with CW is not that it´s dying - it was never born. There was never even a bare concept shining through! The most important things you need in a Battletech-related (YES: you can only call it related!!!! ) game is missing.
let me copy a post i did in a different thread:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
View PostFenrisian Wolf, on 29 June 2015 - 10:46 PM, said:


Can the clans not attack Terra or whats up with that:"?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
(angry mode enabled)
It´s simple:
"Someone" , "someone important", "someone important without any interest in delivering" forgot about terra. "Someone" deosn´t even want to put a single goal, a single important planet on this CW map.
Maybe "someone" just forgot that players don´t like fighting itself that much , players prefer to fight FOR! something.
MWO´s CW is absolutly unique:
-no loot
-no salvage
-no benefits
-no goals
-no missions
-no restrictions
-no economics
-no tactics
-no strategies
-no alliances
-no competition (thx arivio)
-no ranking system
-not even a winning condition

"someone" really thinks those "no s" are not worth being focused.
But hey: maybe " someone"´s 4vs4 gamemode and new mechs will fix this motivational and structural problem!

" good luck!"
"tzzzzz"
SLACKERS!!!!!

again- this is just a 30seconds-copy-paste-action. The game isn´t worth more.
PGI doesn´t have a clue how to create a good game.
They just dont give a ******* !

Edited by Cyborx, 22 September 2015 - 10:45 AM.

[Commander A9]

I don't know; I'm seeing alot of attrition, too.

I appreciate both attacks on objectives and wiping out the target.

[crustydog]

I've been doing a fair share of drop commanding recently, and when I do I tend to do so from a mercenary point of view - in other words, I am usually there for the money.

In terms of tactics, that means I intend to try to farm every available C-Bill on the field. I try to kill all of the mechs, turrets, and generators - and leave the field with total victory.

To the outside observer, this may indeed look like war of attrition. It may seem I am ignoring the objectives. What I am actually doing is attempting to destroy the enemy team, prior to destroying the generators.

I admit, this approach is a gamble. If, after the first wave, it becomes clear that our team will not be able to defeat the enemy team in combat, then I will consider if it is possible that we could be successful in rushing the gens. Realize, very often a team that cannot be effective in standard combat operations, also has no hope of a successful gen rush. If they cannot shoot, and they cannot fight, they usually also cannot follow basic commands, or function as an effective group. In most combat drops, you do not discover the actual state of the team until after the results of the first wave.

You go to war with the troops you have.

You must also consider the state of the enemy team, and the balance of red vrs blue within each drop - because it generally changes with each drop. As a commander, you have to be flexible to the needs of each battle, and stay aware as the battle condition change in real time.

In theory all of this is pretty straight forward - but in practice it can get a good deal more complicated.

As far as farming everything vrs focusing only on the winning objective goes, there are different philosophies as to the best approach. I also look at the time spent waiting in queues - the ghost drops - the ROFL stomps - all of it. I choose the farm approach as the best means to achieve the highest rewards in Loyalty points, C-Bills, XP, and all the rest.. the highest possible return in exchange for the time and effort invested. Even when we are losing, we are still taking every C-Bill we can get with the team we have, given the conditions we are facing at the time.

If sometimes that means it takes longer to obtain planets - then so be it. The attrition approach may well be 50% less effective in terms of achieving victories on the battlefield (at times,) but it is at least 100% more profitable for the warriors involved.

Commanders who fail to consider the needs of their warriors soon find themselves unable to recruit the troops needed to fill the dropships.

Warriors who are fluent in the language of successful attrition warfare are easily the best paid warriors on the field.

Edited by crustydog, 25 September 2015 - 11:15 AM.

[VorpalAnvil]

Killing gens and turrets isn't fun. Killing Davion nuggets in lurm XL Atlases is. Hell, I don't even care about the C-bills. I would lose money to watch them blow up!

[Leone]

Honestly, going for the objective is easier when your not getting shot at by mechs. Even a dedicated objective grab is best served by clearing the first of mechs.

~Leone.

[JernauM]

PGI has made it progressively more difficult to win by objective in response to much complaining about teams winning CW matches by objective.

[crustydog]

I was in a match yesterday with a group from the FRR and we went up against 228 as they were on Defense on Sulfurous.

Our first wave was pretty much annihilated quickly and we were down 12 to 1. Not an auspicious beginning, but not exactly a surprise either. Our second wave we went for a straight old fashioned gen rush, and I am sure we caught them off guard with this switch as we took down gens 1, 2, & 3... and opened the door for Omega. Our third wave showed their preparation, and we took down Omega only by half - and in our final wave we only scratched perhaps another 10% off of Omega. Mission failed.

The call to go for the gens was the correct one - we were obviously not going to beat 228 in a shootout, but the chance remained that we might steal the victory out from underneath them, and we damn near did in that second wave. In hindsight, we probably should have gone for the gens straight from the first wave - and probably would have succeeded if we had done so.

The thing is, doing the pure gen rush only is kind of a cowardly act: a statement that says from the outset that we could not have done it any other way... or that we viewed our opponents with such disdain that they were not worthy of a fair fight. It might be the tactically correct thing to do - but it is not the warrior thing to do.

No - once we were down 12 to 1, we could honestly say we tried the fair fight first... the demands of honor are satisfied - and the harsh reality of the situation is such that it cannot be denied by anyone on the field.

And so - the gen rush.

Judging by the mech ejections of 228 players after our second wave - everybody could also see that by that point they were taking the threat very seriously. The ejection notices sang a very different tune to that of the cat calling after our first wave ended.

We didn't win - but we certainly did wake them up.... we shook them.

Edited by crustydog, 26 September 2015 - 06:46 AM.

[UberStuka]

I think the main problem is ZERG offers very little CBill earnings. Farming = Cash cow

[Spleenslitta]

I can handle just about everything CW throws my way...but there is one thing that just ruins it for me.
The maps. The unclimbable walls and bottlenecks. No way to get properly on the enemy flank....it's just not fun.

[Livewyr]

Spleenslitta, on 04 October 2015 - 12:39 PM, said:

I can handle just about everything CW throws my way...but there is one thing that just ruins it for me.
The maps. The unclimbable walls and bottlenecks. No way to get properly on the enemy flank....it's just not fun.

But there are so many strategies to try!

We can.. go up there and break the gate and snipe it out with the defenders.
Or we can go up there, break the gate and close and fight them in their base!
Or


Or.

umm.

[Hailfire]

It most definitely is a war of attrition. There's a general flow to almost every community warfare match:

Part one, attackers sit back and snipe the gates while defenders sit back and wait. Once the gate is open, the attackers snipe and lurm the steaming **** out of the defenders, who are torn between covering the defensive objectives and trying to retaliate. The smart defenders sit back and wait for the enemy to come closer, while the poor shmucks who are reckless enough to engage the enemy melts under a rain of lurms that makes the arrow scene in 300 pale in comparison. The worthless base defenses are cleaned up from a safe distance, and then part two commences.

Part two: By now there's one defender who disconnected from bad ping, one scrub who died 4 times straight rushing the attackers, and the rest of the team is either horribly battered or on their second or third lives, having survived a wave and a half or so. The attackers group into a death ball and steamroll into the center of the base, tearing the defenders to pieces due to he horrible positioning attained by having to cover the whole base while hiding under cover from the rain.

Part three: attackers mop up the remaining dedicated players who didn't afk, ragequit or simply die 4 times real fast. attackers proceed to wipe out the base and win the match.

This seems to be especially prominent in Clan attackers vs IS defenders, due to the superior range and firepower of clan mechs. The IS defenders have no way of exploiting the weaknesses of the clans when they are forced to cover the base

Clan defenders vs IS attackers is less imbalanced since the attackers are able to push into close range and fight on even grounds, mostly because they don't have a base to defend while the Clan does.

Clan defenders vs Clan attackers is almost even, but has the same horrid, boring gameplay as outlined. Victory is a bit more dependent on who is running metamechs or not

IS defenders vs IS attackers is probably the most even, the gameplay differs slightly (generally more entertaining) as the poking phase is a lot shorter and the majority of the match amounts to glorious mosh pit combat