16 replies to this topic

[BourbonFaucet]

So now that I've played some good CW to get a grasp of how it works and the general strategy of the game, I'd like to give you some conclusions I drew while playing both as a PUG, and in small groups. I'll make a few points, and perhaps we can discuss balance and other issues with invasion mode.

My conclusions:

1. The Big Group Bogeyman is usually not true.

I both dropped with and against large teams, and have played against the... might I add very rare, 12 man team. My win and loss rate was no different than usual. In fact, 12 mans seemed to lose just as easily as a pair or trio of smaller groups, or a slightly smaller big group with a PUG or two. My point here is that seeing a large group usually does not automatically mean a loss, and frequently that's because I usually see teams as a conglomerate of multiple smaller groups instead.

2. Clans do far better on defense than they do on offense.

At first I thought that a pure clan team would roll games very easily, but after some play it's clear to me that while the clans have some major advantages, they're not extremely broken. It actually seems like it's just the Timberwolf, Stormcrow, Dire Wolf, and to a lesser extent the Hellbringer that cause trouble. There's very little variety in the clan drops that I've played against, and it's rightfully so. Perhaps we should nerf the better 'mechs and buff the weaker clan 'mechs (especially the summoner and adder) so that we'll see more variety.

I suppose my point here is that the clans are perceived as overpowered because of a handful of 'mechs that are arguably superior to the others. If the clanners were forced to pilot adders, summoners, and novas, nobody would be complaining that the clans were op. Note that I'm not suggesting we force the clans to play certain mechs, I'm suggesting we re-shift clan mech balance to improve variety and stop the universal eye rolling that occurs when we see a team full of TBR's.

3. The way the game is setup makes the Defense OP IF, and only if, you attack with a conventional attack/defend mindset.

This is the most important discovery I've made. The reason why people were zerg rushing lights at the beginning was because that was really the only way to make up for the overwhelming advantages the defenders have, besides a massive assault push. Now that the zerg rush has been nerfed with the multiple generators idea, we need to re-balance the defense, otherwise, suicide rushes against the buildings is going to be the only strategy we see, besides of course, stacking things and praying the defense is completely uncoordinated.

There's more or less no motivation for the attackers to fight the defenders because doing so detracts time and armor points away from shooting the necessary buildings to win. If you kill a defender, they get a fresh 'mech seconds later to fight you with.

My proposal is to increase the HP of the buildings, while at the same time vastly increasing the defender's respawn time. Many other Attack/Defense games like Team Fortress 2 utilize an increase in defender respawn time in order to allow attackers to make a push after they've taken down a portion of the defender's units.

Hopefully, what this will do is make fighting the defenders more worthwhile. if the attackers can fry a good number of the defenders, they can then proceed to take out the buildings and the turrets without having to worry about fresh 'mechs dropping on their heads.


Well, that's been my experiences so far. Lemme know what you think.

Edited by Techorse, 01 January 2015 - 05:50 PM.

[Jabilo]

It seems there are two different experiences depending on how you roll.

High end co-ordinated teams seem to have no problem on attack.

I can tell you now dropping as a PUG you end up with both teams made up of PUGS and small groups.

In what must be close to 75+ invasion games I think I have seen the attackers win once or twice.

I would be interested to see the official stats but in my personal experience being the attacker is a thankless and demoralising experience.

Increasing the defenders respawn time seems a valid change to try.

[BourbonFaucet]

Jabilo, on 01 January 2015 - 05:56 PM, said:

It seems there are two different experiences depending on how you roll.

High end co-ordinated teams seem to have no problem on attack.

It's true that the high-end "big groups" tend to have "no problem" on attack, but when I watched these guys attack, it wasn't a conventional battle, it was always some form of rush. Unless of course, you happen to drop with those guys that farm the defenders.

By the way, I could use a little input from the clan players themselves as to how it feels to go up against the IS. Is my statement about re-balancing all clan 'mechs at least semi-valid?

Edited by Techorse, 01 January 2015 - 06:00 PM.

[Lukoi Banacek]

Clans have a more limited menu of mechs to choose from, which I believe contributes to why we tend to stick to the better ones.

What I have seen of the IS (both as opponent and as participant) is that a laaaarge number of IS players insist on playing mechs other than the recognized leaders, or quirk-optimized versions they can utilize and then rampantly complain about balance.

The fact is mech to mech parity will never occur in this game and some people need to accept that their pet LRM/Gauss Atlas is not the best option. Those folks need embrace the mechs that work FANTASTIC for the IS and fight as a team.

I use three TDRs and a 5D for IS matches. Most of us will be in nothing but those TDRs, FS9, 5D, SHD, WVR, KGC and similar mechs ALL quirked to make the most of their best options.

Much like we do not take ECM-less kitfoxes and rarely use the Nova, you cannot expect to win the game with LRM10/AC20 CNAs, MG Hunchies and brawling STK with XL engines (all are builds I have seen more than once).

[BourbonFaucet]

Lukoi Banacek, on 01 January 2015 - 06:02 PM, said:

Much like we do not take ECM-less kitfoxes and rarely use the Nova, you cannot expect to win the game with LRM10/AC20 CNAs, MG Hunchies and brawling STK with XL engines (all are builds I have seen more than once).

I'd just like to point out that there's suboptimal, and then there's stupid and mediocre builds. Stupid builds should not bring expectations of victory. Suboptimal though? Taking the AUG instead of the M4 in counterstrike is suboptimal, and yet it's still used fairly well and often in competitive, except for the very highest of high level gameplay.

If CW is going to become counterstrike level antifun, then no thank you will be my answer. I will wait to see if PGI will let us add invasion mode to the PUG queue.

[Kuritaclan]

On your 1st point:
I support and Disagree. Fighting a 6+ premade in a pug 12 man has low chances to win. I got so far playing all time as puger 1/4 of all my drops 6+ premades and the chance to win against them with only pugs is low. Doable but low compared to 12 randoms vs 12 randoms with maybee one or two of a unit. So yes getting a premade isn't a lose but a heavy way to win.

On your 2nd point:
Yes. Totally, as long as you have a long range. Sulfor defense because of very much heat of some weapons can get a pain in def. As long as the atkers do not rush/brawl small range and use sprints from cover into next cover clans are somewhat fine. The coinflip is when IS comes with good longrange qirked mechs stacking (and pilots with good aim) - than the advantage isn't up, and it is just a long range snipe determined by aimskill+heatcontroll, what is mostly easier in is mechs.

On your 3rd point:
Maybee respawn of defenders is to fast - on sulfor it is somewhat okayish - since the way from gate to objectiv isnt that great. At the ice map Boreal i'm totally with you. - if you kill one or more defenders on the gate they are pretty much up when you reach the objectives.

What i don't think have to be done is increase in building HP - well premades will rip them with coordination fast away, but it would hurt pug vs pug very heavy. Defenders have the advantage of turrets. They do not need even more. I think that 6 2ll turrets are pretty good to stop waves. Its like having beside of the 12 man defenders additional 6 raven 3L. This should be enough. If it isn't, defenders don't deserve to win.

Techorse, on 01 January 2015 - 05:58 PM, said:

By the way, I could use a little input from the clan players themselves as to how it feels to go up against the IS. Is my statement about re-balancing all clan 'mechs at least semi-valid?

Not really - well yes the TBR is supposed to be the top tier mech stated by russ, so there won't be much of a change. Also with fixed JJ they got some adjusting. SCR are essential for clans, its the Workhorse. Nerving them down, you will take a major step to prevent people of playing cw, who dont have spend money for clan packs. (Tbr+3scr is the best way to go for clan drop deck - everything away from it have major drawback mechs and/or are pretty more expensive to master them out.) And btw Go for scr legs. Yes you are right, that scr/tbr dropdeck combinations may have a edge on random IS dropdeck. But as it is now with quirks IS have some very good awnsers. And the best part of the awnsers are, chassis what have a special roll and are heavyly customizeable, what helps to make drop decks for atk and defend (in special distance fights - yes 12 random player with a couple long range dudes/mid range dudes/small range dudes don't do that fine, but premades or a fortune by pugs who are heavly into on out of this ranges have a pretty good standing, since you can walk as pack and fokus as a pack), while clan mechs for the most time are more generalistic.

Edited by Kuritaclan, 01 January 2015 - 06:42 PM.

[Lukoi Banacek]

However you want to split the hair, the point remains. IS have plenty of optimal mechs to choose from, especially since the quirkening, and yet their is (in my experience) a higher proportion of IS people playing builds away from their demonstrable strengths and then complaining about balance ingame and on these forums.

[Willard Phule]

Techorse, on 01 January 2015 - 06:20 PM, said:

I'd just like to point out that there's suboptimal, and then there's stupid and mediocre builds. Stupid builds should not bring expectations of victory. Suboptimal though? Taking the AUG instead of the M4 in counterstrike is suboptimal, and yet it's still used fairly well and often in competitive, except for the very highest of high level gameplay.

And the most sub-optimal builds of all are.....wait for it.....the trial Omnis!

I am here to tell you that those of us that do the whole solo thing in CW see an awful lot of trial Omnis in our drops. So much so, in fact, that when we see 4 Badders and 3 Dire Wolves, we pretty much know where this one's going.

As for the AUG/M4 debate...I've been playing CS since Beta 3.2 and I always preferred the AUG to the M4. Same with the AK/SIG choices. But I tend to make my shots count.

Techorse, on 01 January 2015 - 06:20 PM, said:

If CW is going to become counterstrike level antifun, then no thank you will be my answer. I will wait to see if PGI will let us add invasion mode to the PUG queue.

But, you see, that's just the point. If you're going into CW as a solo, then you're going to get one of two things.....you're going to be "filler" for a larger group (or cluster of groups) OR you're going to be tossed together with 12 other random people in your faction, much like in the solo queue, but Elo is no longer a factor in match making.

It is what it is. I think you'll see gameplay get better as the maps become old hat. We've got maps now where you can almost predict the outcome by where you spawn. This won't be any different.

[Willard Phule]

Lukoi Banacek, on 01 January 2015 - 06:35 PM, said:

However you want to split the hair, the point remains. IS have plenty of optimal mechs to choose from, especially since the quirkening, and yet their is (in my experience) a higher proportion of IS people playing builds away from their demonstrable strengths and then complaining about balance ingame and on these forums.

You wanna know one thing they could do that would significantly change the Clan builds?

That whole "placeholder" AC crap they did when they couldn't figure out how to use swappable ammo needs to be reworked.

I get it, you can't do swappable ammo. Cool enough. But even the description of the weapon says that it can use "cannister" ammunition or "HEAP (High Explosive Armor Piercing)" ammunition. It says NOTHING about that TTK spazz fire UAC crap we've got. Firing solid shot from an LBX does not turn it into an Ultra Autocannon.

Switch those "placeholder" ACs to standard ACs with a single projectile but at clan weight and space allocation.

THEN you'll see a change.

[BourbonFaucet]

Willard Phule, on 01 January 2015 - 06:36 PM, said:

And the most sub-optimal builds of all are.....wait for it.....the trial Omnis!

It is what it is. I think you'll see gameplay get better as the maps become old hat. We've got maps now where you can almost predict the outcome by where you spawn. This won't be any different.

1. Yeah... trials aren't exactly wonderful.

2. Maybe. We'll have to see.

[Lukoi Banacek]

I am talking about IS habits in that quote there WP.

[Mystere]

Techorse, on 01 January 2015 - 05:49 PM, said:

3. The way the game is setup makes the Defense OP IF, and only if, you attack with a conventional attack/defend mindset.

This is the most important discovery I've made. The reason why people were zerg rushing lights at the beginning was because that was really the only way to make up for the overwhelming advantages the defenders have, besides a massive assault push. Now that the zerg rush has been nerfed with the multiple generators idea, we need to re-balance the defense, otherwise, suicide rushes against the buildings is going to be the only strategy we see, besides of course, stacking things and praying the defense is completely uncoordinated.

There's more or less no motivation for the attackers to fight the defenders because doing so detracts time and armor points away from shooting the necessary buildings to win. If you kill a defender, they get a fresh 'mech seconds later to fight you with.

My proposal is to increase the HP of the buildings, while at the same time vastly increasing the defender's respawn time. Many other Attack/Defense games like Team Fortress 2 utilize an increase in defender respawn time in order to allow attackers to make a push after they've taken down a portion of the defender's units.

Hopefully, what this will do is make fighting the defenders more worthwhile. if the attackers can fry a good number of the defenders, they can then proceed to take out the buildings and the turrets without having to worry about fresh 'mechs dropping on their heads.


Well, that's been my experiences so far. Lemme know what you think.

FYI, zerg rushing lights was never "the only way". It was so only for the unimaginative, the non-tactically inclined, and the perpetual whiners.

Edited by Mystere, 01 January 2015 - 09:00 PM.

[Mystere]

Jabilo, on 01 January 2015 - 05:56 PM, said:

It seems there are two different experiences depending on how you roll.

High end co-ordinated teams seem to have no problem on attack.

I can tell you now dropping as a PUG you end up with both teams made up of PUGS and small groups.

In what must be close to 75+ invasion games I think I have seen the attackers win once or twice.

I would be interested to see the official stats but in my personal experience being the attacker is a thankless and demoralising experience.

Increasing the defenders respawn time seems a valid change to try.

Fellow falcon, what have you been doing and who have you been hanging around with?

I myself must have a 60% or better win rate in teams composed of PUGs and small group. Most of the losses were in games where there were kittens, cubs, and mutts involved. All-falcon teams were much better. They were more disciplined, although today seems to have been the exception.

[Mystere]

Techorse, on 01 January 2015 - 05:58 PM, said:

It's true that the high-end "big groups" tend to have "no problem" on attack, but when I watched these guys attack, it wasn't a conventional battle, it was always some form of rush. Unless of course, you happen to drop with those guys that farm the defenders.

There are at least two kinds of rushes.

The first is the now neutralized light mech rush. It ruled for a day but players have now mostly adapted. I show no pity to those who have not.

Another is the more disciplined and commando-style "run and gun" attack, composed of shooters, runners, and screeners.

Techorse, on 01 January 2015 - 05:58 PM, said:

By the way, I could use a little input from the clan players themselves as to how it feels to go up against the IS. Is my statement about re-balancing all clan 'mechs at least semi-valid?

No. I've had enough of these nerfs.

[Kuritaclan]

Learn to use your editing button - nobody needs 3 posts, what could be done in one.

[Mystere]

Kuritaclan, on 01 January 2015 - 08:21 PM, said:

Learn to use your editing button - nobody needs 3 posts, what could be done in one.

Sometimes, I prefer responding to 3 different people in 3 different posts. So tough ...

Also look at the time differences. I must have been doing something else in-between.

Edited by Mystere, 01 January 2015 - 09:04 PM.

[Thorqemada]

I was in a fight on Misery - enemy first wave all out Light rush (mostly Spiders) it seems - Gens down in 30 seconds and the Enemies got killed at the Orbital Gun.
Seconds Wave Heavys got defeated - probably simply to prolong the fight by 10mins and give their Attacker number superiorty a few minutes to take easy wins while the inferior numbered Defenders be forced to hold mission.
Third wave all out Light rush - i got killed by a strike and 10 seconds later when the Dropship dropped me it was already over and the 90% of the Orbital Gun were brought down to Zero = exploiting the game mechanics the most to win.

Edited by Thorqemada, 01 January 2015 - 09:18 PM.