49 replies to this topic

[Strykewolf]

Being able to change your drop point (selecting predrop - A/B/C) could help, at times. Having server detect drop zone proximity and bringing 3-4 air strikes in support of the drop ship could help, as well.

[sycocys]

It really wouldn't be much of an issue if there was some sort of goal that engaged lances separately prior to the final goal of taking 'alpha' point. If the numbers were whittled down some on both/one side in the case of bad teams, before the final push there wouldn't be camping involved unless one team was truly horrid to the point they got insta-wiped at their goal and never proceeded back out at an attempt to complete it.

If the timing was such that 2 drops roughly worth of lances were competing for their initial goals, then 2 drops competing for the final point together on both sides there should never be an issue with any camping and the whole mode would operate much more cleanly.

Strykewolf, on 06 March 2015 - 11:33 AM, said:

Being able to change your drop point (selecting predrop - A/B/C) could help, at times. Having server detect drop zone proximity and bringing 3-4 air strikes in support of the drop ship could help, as well.

Not opposed to being able to select your drop point after the first one, air strikes would kill just as many friendlies as enemies though, making them a pretty moot point most of the time, plus on the teams that are getting stomped hard enough to be fully camped to the point airstrikes would be non-detrimental to that team, the dropships and turrets are usually the most effective members of their team.

But basically the entire problem comes down to poor design or under design, how ever you want to look at it. There's simply not enough competition parts between dropping in and taking the base so the only real goal is to get to the opposing base as quickly as possible to get the numbers advantage as quickly as possible or try to stop that from happening.

[NotSoCoolJ]

Hmm, I don't know if I agree with this. Seems like the dropships are better than my teammates 80% of the time. I don't understand how people can go through four mechs and still not kill anything, but it happens a lot. Make the DS too much stronger and attackers would have a heck of a time dealing with that considering you have to be right under them to attack the objective targets.

I have a better idea. How about you just defend the drop zone. Seriously, if you lost the drop zone, you pretty much lost anyway.

If I have any major gripe about CW it would have to be the terrible maps. I don't know what the map designers are thinking. Too much clutter and too much of the area is useless and inaccessible by 99% of the mechs that exist. I can see some potentially game breaking problems with light jumpers toting PPCs being able to clear the objectives while being immune to return fire. Even most of the standard game maps leave little reason to use ranged weapons. Rarely is there a sight line that is greater than about 400m for practical mech fighting. One example is the swamp map with the huge dead critters everywhere. That map is atrocious and whom ever made it should feel bad.

People talk about laser vomit all the time. One simple reason. There is no single weapon that can compare with the effectiveness of boated lasers. That is squarely a game design problem. Not something the players can fix. The answer is not to nerf lasers either. It's to fix the uncanny uselessness of the other weapons platforms. Auto cannons are terrible damage dealers for their weight. Gauss was nerfed so hard it's nearly useless against all but the slowest of opponents. Missiles are false damage. AKA, they don't hit the parts you are aiming at. Lasers are simply the best brawling and sniping weapons in the game.

Players will flow like water down the path of least resistance. Like many other game developers before them, PGI only seems to know how to use the stick and totally ignores the carrot.

[Summon3r]

Necromantion, on 06 March 2015 - 08:27 AM, said:

I believe the only viable solution that would solve the problem without causing others is to allow players to choose 1 of 3 (or more if they were smart enough to implement that) prior to dropping.

i like this, pretty common sense tbh

[Cer6erus]

Am I the only one that thinks if the enemy managed to defeat you soundly enough to set up shop under drop ships that go pew pew, that maybe, just maybe, you have bigger problems, and are going to lose regardless of if you get spawn camped or not?

[YCSLiesmith]

Cer6erus, on 06 March 2015 - 06:01 PM, said:

Am I the only one that thinks if the enemy managed to defeat you soundly enough to set up shop under drop ships that go pew pew, that maybe, just maybe, you have bigger problems, and are going to lose regardless of if you get spawn camped or not?

no, you're not. getting spawn camped is the natural result of a massive skill disparity. it will never happen unless one team is manifestly better than the other. the massive cbills earned from spawn camping all the way to 48 is the reward for being head and shoulders better than the other guy.

that said I imagine its no fun at all to get spawn camped so letting people choose to drop to other spawns is maybe worthwhile.

[Asmosis]

you should just be able to hit "jump jet" at any point along the dropships path to be dumped out, once its on the approach path at least over the base.

[An Anime Princess]

Alik Kerensky, on 03 January 2015 - 03:22 PM, said:

Yes you can blame them for being lazy and using an exploit to win instead of actually having to fight to win.

why not blame yourself for getting so brutally owned in the first place? ha ha ha ha.

[Kjudoon]

Vassago Rain, on 02 January 2015 - 11:25 PM, said:

They did, and it turns out that causes problems.

Who'd have thunk it?

What we need are maps that aren't prone to spawn camping and zergrushes like it's 2003.

Yes because the dropzone was on the objective. Now... if some serious thought had gone into the map design... and they were actually as big as they promised, not this little 'promenade to the 1000m arena in which we are to fight garbage that is about the size of HPG Manifold but uses half the area... we could have some real interesting matches.

Do you realize there are 3 bigger and better utilized maps in the PQs than all the CW maps?

Terra Therma 9x9
Tourmaline Desert 9x9
Alpine Peaks 16x16 (and even that is actually only 12x12)

All CW maps are 8x8, with the vast majority of fighting happening in a 2x2 sector. (2x3 on Boreal)

This is why spawn camping is a problem, and defender dropships had to be nerfed.

Tell you this much. If the Tourmaline theme coming out on the 17th is SMALLER than tourmaline and not bigger by half (12x12) I am going to be upset at the map design department.

Edited by Kjudoon, 07 March 2015 - 04:30 AM.