417 replies to this topic

[Darth Hotz]

Does someone maybe have some statistics numbers for IS attacking Clans on Boreal Vault? I rarely seen a succesfull attack vs Clans there, or is this just my impression?

The gates are too close to each other and you have the LRL Stormcrows and Timberwolves just sitting and waiting on the sniper hill. Even better when they do the forward defending and are coming to the spawnpoints. BTW i have not seen IS forward defending on Boreal Vault so far.

[Tesunie]

Darth Hotz, on 21 January 2015 - 03:47 PM, said:

Does someone maybe have some statistics numbers for IS attacking Clans on Boreal Vault? I rarely seen a succesfull attack vs Clans there, or is this just my impression?

The gates are too close to each other and you have the LRL Stormcrows and Timberwolves just sitting and waiting on the sniper hill. Even better when they do the forward defending and are coming to the spawnpoints. BTW i have not seen IS forward defending on Boreal Vault so far.

My success so far on Boreal Vault has been... Load in. Die once or twice just trying to open a gate. Open a gate, get rolled to spawn. Die in spawn till the match ends...

When CW first started, it didn't happen like this. But, as people learned how to fight in the new game mode, this has been happening a lot more as of late.

Edit: Against the clans, to be specific, encase it wasn't already clear.

Edited by Tesunie, 21 January 2015 - 05:34 PM.

[Lukestah]

Thanks to the 20-Jan patch with an Oceanic cease fire I managed to get some CW matches!

CW has potential and needs further work to the gameplay.

The strategic CW meta game is weak and in need of significant review. Taking and holding territory should be the outcome of player-vs-player (pvp) matches and not player-vs-environment (pve).

I understand that ghost drops are required to ensure an opposition force turns up to defend a planet otherwise putting up no defence is a good defence strategy in the current planets = queues = mm that is CW’s hot mess. My two cents…
To improve CW requires new maps and scenarios for attack and defence that are interesting and challenging at the tactical level and fit into and drive the strategic bigger picture.

Scenarios like capture the air field, raid the ammo dump, seek and destroy or escort a convoy would add flavour to CW and provide a narrative to a planetary invasion or defence.

Providing some form of consequence to losing an air field or ammo dump scenario, e.g. denying air strikes or artillery for the next match, would introduce strategic consequence to wins / losses.

This would give the planetary information panel some form of purpose other than lore fluff (e.g. Faction X has lost aerospace superiority no air strikes available until air field captured).

Warhammer Age of Reckoning (a game that promised much and failed to deliver) focused on end game pvp that had a chain of maps between opposition faction’s fortress bases. Capture the base and this opened up a capital city. Resets occurred after a capital was one or lost. This was a persistent world, where anyone could walk on to a map to fight rather than waiting in a lobby to drop into an instance.

I think MWO could have similar “tug-of-war” dynamic by allowing maps and scenarios to be fought over until a final elimination of enemy assistance locks control of the planet. This would mean an attacker or defender would need to win matches in a chain of unbroken victories across different maps to seize control.

Ghost dropping to seize a map is one thing, winning a planet through ghost drops is something else. Opening up a final instance, a battle for planetary control, with no ghost drop capability would funnel the fate of the planet down to a single 12v12 match. A loss for the defenders means loss of the planet, a win for the defenders pushes the fight back to another map.

[Mirkk Defwode]

Lukestah, on 21 January 2015 - 05:38 PM, said:

Thanks to the 20-Jan patch with an Oceanic cease fire I managed to get some CW matches!

CW has potential and needs further work to the gameplay.

The strategic CW meta game is weak and in need of significant review. Taking and holding territory should be the outcome of player-vs-player (pvp) matches and not player-vs-environment (pve).

I understand that ghost drops are required to ensure an opposition force turns up to defend a planet otherwise putting up no defence is a good defence strategy in the current planets = queues = mm that is CW’s hot mess. My two cents…
To improve CW requires new maps and scenarios for attack and defence that are interesting and challenging at the tactical level and fit into and drive the strategic bigger picture.

Scenarios like capture the air field, raid the ammo dump, seek and destroy or escort a convoy would add flavour to CW and provide a narrative to a planetary invasion or defence.

Providing some form of consequence to losing an air field or ammo dump scenario, e.g. denying air strikes or artillery for the next match, would introduce strategic consequence to wins / losses.

This would give the planetary information panel some form of purpose other than lore fluff (e.g. Faction X has lost aerospace superiority no air strikes available until air field captured).

Warhammer Age of Reckoning (a game that promised much and failed to deliver) focused on end game pvp that had a chain of maps between opposition faction’s fortress bases. Capture the base and this opened up a capital city. Resets occurred after a capital was one or lost. This was a persistent world, where anyone could walk on to a map to fight rather than waiting in a lobby to drop into an instance.

I think MWO could have similar “tug-of-war” dynamic by allowing maps and scenarios to be fought over until a final elimination of enemy assistance locks control of the planet. This would mean an attacker or defender would need to win matches in a chain of unbroken victories across different maps to seize control.

Ghost dropping to seize a map is one thing, winning a planet through ghost drops is something else. Opening up a final instance, a battle for planetary control, with no ghost drop capability would funnel the fate of the planet down to a single 12v12 match. A loss for the defenders means loss of the planet, a win for the defenders pushes the fight back to another map.

WAR was a nice system in design, just didn't work as well in practice. But that may be due to having all that other PvE stuff, and the brilliance of the group/area quests that they created and were later refined in RIFT.

[Thorqemada]

WAR did not work bcs they did not go to the end - having a bipolar gameplay will always screw 1 side as there is a "Join the Winners" mentality.
Something MWO-CW will also suffer from without some participation control.

[Mystere]

Mirkk Defwode, on 21 January 2015 - 10:02 AM, said:

Right now it feels like they can't iterate on it fast enough to get the updates and content people are looking for, or what many expected even from the original presentation years ago. And that's just for CW mechanics. There are still too many other things in flux that should've been resolved and fairly set in stone before proceeding with this. The whole larger expansive experience relies on having the core mechanics locked in place and those are still fairly in flux. We're seeing changes to weapons, heat, speed, and just falling physics still. A lot of this needs to be done and in a state never to be touched again or at the very least very little.

Do you know why things seem to always be in constant flux? It's the endless whining that causes PGI to comply, revisit things that should be left alone for now, and come up with new and complicated mechanics to try to solve an "identified" (i.e. endlessly and loudly whined about) "problem".

Edited by Mystere, 21 January 2015 - 06:58 PM.

[Mirkk Defwode]

Mystere, on 21 January 2015 - 06:57 PM, said:

Do you know why things seem to always be in constant flux? It's the endless whining that causes PGI to comply, revisit things that should be left alone for now, and come up with new and complicated mechanics to try to solve an "identified" (i.e. endlessly and loudly whined about) "problem".

Well it's their choice to make fixes that add more complicated systems versus going back to the root of the issue. Which depending on the issue can have quite a few different answers there.

[RustyBolts]

Boreal Vault greatly benefits the defender. The elevated 6 line hills make it really hard to push when you put some TDRs or LL Clan mechs on it. So the answer is the light rush, which benefits the IS. The clans cant really light rush so they are forced to slug it out.

Sulfurious Rift greatly benefits the attackers due to lots of cover and is more for brawling.

So I wonder how the new map would be set up. Hopefully more equal.

[Argent Usher]

"Sometime they'll give a war and nobody will come."

Edited by Argent Usher, 22 January 2015 - 01:01 PM.

[Triordinant]

Now that this topic has gone for over 20 pages, I'll give my 2 space cents' worth. To quote The Matrix, the problem is choice. PGI had a choice: delay the release of CW until they've tested and debugged it more and risk the wrath of the playerbase for not meeting their own deadline; or release it on time with the risk that people will be beta testing an even rawer version and PGI won't be able to react to what happens with any sort of agility until after the the holidays.

I'm not sure if the option they didn't go with would have been better or worse, but their choice is the reason CW is half-baked and has a Beta sticker on it. I'm not even going to try it until the Beta sticker is gone -I don't have the time to spare (and by all accounts CW involves using up a lot of time) to play as a guinea pig.

Edited by Triordinant, 22 January 2015 - 08:10 PM.

[Yokaiko]

Thorqemada, on 21 January 2015 - 06:29 PM, said:

WAR did not work bcs they did not go to the end - having a bipolar gameplay will always screw 1 side as there is a "Join the Winners" mentality.
Something MWO-CW will also suffer from without some participation control.

Either that or people would just roll around each other and make sure everyone got max points.

....played that to

[ShinobiHunter]

CW needs much better rewards. I know it's supposed to be "hard mode", but if they want space poors to play it needs to pay at least as well as solo que.

Also, I think Counterattack is rather a stupid idea. When we que up to defend, let us defend. I happen to have separate drop decks for attack/defend, and I know other do too.

[Kjudoon]

A solo queue would do nothing but deplete the CW group queue, not help it just the same way it did the PQs. Now for the PQs, they needed that just as much as we need a small group/ lance queue there but can't have it due to terminally small player base.

When that changes who knows?

[Keira RAVEN McKenna]

Mott, on 08 January 2015 - 05:31 AM, said:

Not to put words in another poster's mouth... but i think he was more referring to the fact that PGI took the easy way out and slapped a BETA tag on a product they know is complete trash just to give themselves wiggle room.

So... if its complete trash... why are you still here?
There must be something about it that keeps us here.

[Herzog]

ShinobiHunter, on 22 January 2015 - 08:42 PM, said:

Also, I think Counterattack is rather a stupid idea. When we que up to defend, let us defend. I happen to have separate drop decks for attack/defend, and I know other do too.

I think Counterattack is fine, but someone suggested being able to build a "defend" deck and an "attack" deck and have both ready in the system.