Jump to content

Pgi. Stop The Bleeding Or Cw May Never Recover.


417 replies to this topic

#381 mania3c

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Scythe
  • 466 posts

Posted 20 January 2015 - 10:23 PM

View PostTesunie, on 20 January 2015 - 10:11 PM, said:

Once a planet says 60+, how many more is +? For all we know, there could be 200 players a side on those worlds!

Just saying... :ph34r:


right now..there is one contested map which says 34/37 .. I know..shortly after ceasefire ..so will check after few hours..but..this is still ghost town for me.

#382 Mirkk Defwode

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Blade
  • The Blade
  • 748 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • LocationSeattle, Wa

Posted 20 January 2015 - 11:52 PM

View PostTesunie, on 20 January 2015 - 09:38 PM, said:


Oh, trust me I know. After some... incidents between me and another Davion unit along the Marik boarder, I was basically forced to play on the clan boarders to avoid them completely.

Three games, we got pushed back into our own spawn zone before we even got to the second wave. Couldn't even open the gates without heavy loses. Then, the clan mechs stood just outside the Dropships ranges (because they only shoot at "optimum" ranges now) and shot us as we spawned.

In non-CW matches, clan mechs feel good. Not too powerful, not too weak. In CW matches though, that range! (And it's not the mechs, nor the tech. It's how Boreal Vault is set up, as I landed on that map all three times.)

When you can't even press your way out of spawn, 12 man or not, then that needs some work. But what would help?
....


There are a few options here...

1.) Could add terrain that blocks the spawn unless you're within range of the "Defenses" from the dropships

but I think that'd still end up being a duck hunt as people come over a blind ridge with a firing squad setup on the otherside.

2.) Establish an RTB zone for the defenders that cordon them off within the defensive area. I'd say that goes a little outside the gate and maybe to that little pass on Boreal outside the gate...but even then the clan weapons reach out and touch the better portion of the spawn space. The RTB zones are used fairly commonly. Red Orchestra has a good example of this when the combat zones have been pushed back, the defenders are supposed to be on their defensive line as part.

3.) Make landing mechs invincible for a short period of time. Let's say 3-5 seconds to get oriented and moving. Not a great option but it's been done before.

4.) Make the map wider and allow for more approaches to the objectives, two obviously isn't enough, can we make like 4-6? Cause then defenders actually need to have intelligence for where the opposition is attacking from, rather than just sitting on a series of hills that look directly at the tiny little hills the attackers have to climb up to shoot the gate generators exposing them to a firing squad...

5.) My personal favorite, Dynamic spawns... Use the spawn beacons to detect if opposition is within a.) proximity or b.) looking in that general direction and if either of those are true, respawn to a secondary or tertiary spawn location outside of their view and location. If that means having the dropship land WAAAAAAAAY behind their line and closer to the base, so be it, at least it'd encourage the defenders to well...defend. I'd roll the Bro-Spawning system into this as well, but that might be just as devastating.

Though any or all of those changes wouldn't make it fun. That's more just an attempt to not have spawn ****** happen. The dynamic spawns would help out a little bit with opposition spawning ontop of you while you're trying to attack the objective, kinda makes it meaningless to kill the enemies if you want to just rush past them to blow up the little boxes.

View PostTesunie, on 20 January 2015 - 10:11 PM, said:


Yeah. That match was rough, to say the least... And was about typical of all my drops against clans tonight so far. And we weren't always against premades either.

You didn't do half bad yourself. (I just know how to hide myself well I guess...)

...

Thanks for the compliment, but really I did poorly in those matches and I know I can do a lot better. It's a matter of being out of practice and my mouse feels too sensitive.

#383 SgtKinCaiD

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 1,096 posts
  • LocationBordeaux

Posted 21 January 2015 - 01:04 AM

I did not play in CW last week because of the 0/0 queues on the faction map, but thanks to the patch yesterday there was finally some action last night, and i did 3 matchs => i'm out unitl next patch.
There was no point in rushing CW just to disgust players from it.

#384 Kjudoon

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Rage
  • Rage
  • 7,636 posts
  • LocationWisconsin

Posted 21 January 2015 - 01:06 AM

You want a game mechanic to clear the LZ from defenders camping it? Simple. "Orbital strikes". Any mech inside a certain radius of the attacker's spawns draws down artillery without smoke giveaways, 3 at a time with standard recharge till dropships or attackers mechs show up then they stop.

Heck even with smoke, a ferocious bombardment of camped defenders till the drop ships come in would be both believable and help balance out the issue.






#385 Joseph Mallan

    ForumWarrior

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 35,216 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationMallanhold, Furillo

Posted 21 January 2015 - 02:40 AM

View PostSgtKinCaiD, on 21 January 2015 - 01:04 AM, said:

I did not play in CW last week because of the 0/0 queues on the faction map, but thanks to the patch yesterday there was finally some action last night, and i did 3 matchs => i'm out unitl next patch.
There was no point in rushing CW just to disgust players from it.

Well since its Beta... The reason is for players to try to break it. Problem is Players found the weaknesses faster than PGI can create fixes and players will keep exploiting what works. That isn't a insult. In a fight if an opponent can't defend against a round kick... Guess how I am winning the match? Same for Baseball, Football whatever. If the opponent fails to defend against a action, you take that action till they learn!

#386 SgtKinCaiD

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 1,096 posts
  • LocationBordeaux

Posted 21 January 2015 - 04:58 AM

View PostJoseph Mallan, on 21 January 2015 - 02:40 AM, said:

The reason is for players to try to break it. Problem is Players found the weaknesses faster than PGI can create fixes and players will keep exploiting what works.

It's not weaknesses, it's serious design flaws that should have been prevented if the CW was not rushed just to say : hey look ! CW is out ! I'm ahead of my schedule for once !

#387 Joseph Mallan

    ForumWarrior

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 35,216 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationMallanhold, Furillo

Posted 21 January 2015 - 05:15 AM

View PostSgtKinCaiD, on 21 January 2015 - 04:58 AM, said:

It's not weaknesses, it's serious design flaws that should have been prevented if the CW was not rushed just to say : hey look ! CW is out ! I'm ahead of my schedule for once !

You cannot prevent 1,000 year old tactics from working. And you cannot stop people from being bored from dealing with them. We are Beta testing CW. It is seriously limited by a lack of scenarios and maps.It is perfectly playable but in need of player input. Lots of player input. The Chat covered PGIs take on what needs doing to fix the issues. Now how quickly they can do that... we will see, but remember as they are fixing it, we are trying to break it still.

#388 SgtKinCaiD

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 1,096 posts
  • LocationBordeaux

Posted 21 January 2015 - 06:10 AM

View PostJoseph Mallan, on 21 January 2015 - 05:15 AM, said:

You cannot prevent 1,000 year old tactics from working.

Just lol, every time you post you manage to reach a new level of troll.

Zerg rush was the first thing that came to my mind when they first announced the gate mechanism and the ability for lights to jump over (it was before september if i recall correctly). Was it so hard to think about it ???
Talking about zerg rush : before => Yeah ! Let's rush Omega ! Now => Yeah ! Let's rush the gens THEN Omega. Great improvement ...
And the generators are a quick thrown bandaid, they are right near the dz of the defenders. When the attackers are taking out a generator, the defenders are droping right on top of them. Let me play you the Benny Hil theme while we watch the issue of this ...

I do recognize that PGI is doing better from some time now, but they screwed this over.

Do you see how many basic features of the CW they are rewritting/patching ? It's not even an alpha let alone a beta. And given the fact that PGI wants to sort out several others features in 2015 like the steam integration, the solo experience, etc. CW has to be done and quickly that is.

And I don't want CW to be like the rest of the game : good enough for now, we'll improve it later ...

#389 Joseph Mallan

    ForumWarrior

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 35,216 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationMallanhold, Furillo

Posted 21 January 2015 - 07:44 AM

View PostSgtKinCaiD, on 21 January 2015 - 06:10 AM, said:

Just lol, every time you post you manage to reach a new level of troll.

Zerg rush was the first thing that came to my mind when they first announced the gate mechanism and the ability for lights to jump over (it was before september if i recall correctly). Was it so hard to think about it ???
Talking about zerg rush : before => Yeah ! Let's rush Omega ! Now => Yeah ! Let's rush the gens THEN Omega. Great improvement ...
And the generators are a quick thrown bandaid, they are right near the dz of the defenders. When the attackers are taking out a generator, the defenders are droping right on top of them. Let me play you the Benny Hil theme while we watch the issue of this ...

I do recognize that PGI is doing better from some time now, but they screwed this over.

Do you see how many basic features of the CW they are rewritting/patching ? It's not even an alpha let alone a beta. And given the fact that PGI wants to sort out several others features in 2015 like the steam integration, the solo experience, etc. CW has to be done and quickly that is.

And I don't want CW to be like the rest of the game : good enough for now, we'll improve it later ...

Zerg Rush
Posted Image
Before there were Zergs!

#390 Tesunie

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Seeker
  • The Seeker
  • 8,627 posts
  • LocationSeraphim HQ: Asuncion

Posted 21 January 2015 - 07:56 AM

View PostMirkk Defwode, on 20 January 2015 - 11:52 PM, said:


There are a few options here...

1.) Could add terrain that blocks the spawn unless you're within range of the "Defenses" from the dropships

but I think that'd still end up being a duck hunt as people come over a blind ridge with a firing squad setup on the otherside.

2.) Establish an RTB zone for the defenders that cordon them off within the defensive area. I'd say that goes a little outside the gate and maybe to that little pass on Boreal outside the gate...but even then the clan weapons reach out and touch the better portion of the spawn space. The RTB zones are used fairly commonly. Red Orchestra has a good example of this when the combat zones have been pushed back, the defenders are supposed to be on their defensive line as part.

3.) Make landing mechs invincible for a short period of time. Let's say 3-5 seconds to get oriented and moving. Not a great option but it's been done before.

4.) Make the map wider and allow for more approaches to the objectives, two obviously isn't enough, can we make like 4-6? Cause then defenders actually need to have intelligence for where the opposition is attacking from, rather than just sitting on a series of hills that look directly at the tiny little hills the attackers have to climb up to shoot the gate generators exposing them to a firing squad...

5.) My personal favorite, Dynamic spawns... Use the spawn beacons to detect if opposition is within a.) proximity or b.) looking in that general direction and if either of those are true, respawn to a secondary or tertiary spawn location outside of their view and location. If that means having the dropship land WAAAAAAAAY behind their line and closer to the base, so be it, at least it'd encourage the defenders to well...defend. I'd roll the Bro-Spawning system into this as well, but that might be just as devastating.

Though any or all of those changes wouldn't make it fun. That's more just an attempt to not have spawn ****** happen. The dynamic spawns would help out a little bit with opposition spawning ontop of you while you're trying to attack the objective, kinda makes it meaningless to kill the enemies if you want to just rush past them to blow up the little boxes.


Thanks for the compliment, but really I did poorly in those matches and I know I can do a lot better. It's a matter of being out of practice and my mouse feels too sensitive.


1. We would need that terrain more so on the upper ramps by the gates, so we can open the gates with less possible incoming fire. Or some ridges need to be moved or something... I know one map I died twice trying to open the gates against he clans. The clans actually asked us to open the gates! We took heavy losses and the gates weren't even open yet. (And you saw how I played in that video... I'm rather sneaky when I want to be.) More terrain, possible solution.

2. Not sure what you mean by this. You mean like an invisible wall, that forces them to remain within their own areas? I don't think that would be overly good, but I see how that could help.

3. Invincible? Heck. I'd rather just be able to land FACING THE ENEMY! In the match you recorded, my Battlemaster did so poorly only because I dropped back to he enemy team. Otherwise, I would have probably faired a little better (a few seconds better... okay? Feel better now? ;) )

4. A few more dispersed paths would be nice. Or a single generator controlling both the gates on Boreal vault, seen as the gates are so close together. (Or you take out one gen, both gates fall.) This presents more area that attackers can attack that gate, and thus more areas that the defenders have to shoot over. Just a possible solution. (Or just create more paths, which could also work. I do wish to say, one of the problems I have with the Sulfur map is the long corridors of movement. Once you pick a path to a gate as an attacker, you are committed. At the same time, the defenders area seems much too small. My opinion of course. That map is a little easier against the clans though, as you get closer faster.)

5. I could see that, but then Dropships having weapons would be less of a point. What I saw, and you can see it in the video you took, is that Dropships no longer concentrate their fire on the single most closest targets. Thus, they are spreading their damage. Don't see very many "Dropship has killed" anymore.


You give yourself too little credit. Considering the situation and the circumstances, you did well.

View PostKjudoon, on 21 January 2015 - 01:06 AM, said:

You want a game mechanic to clear the LZ from defenders camping it? Simple. "Orbital strikes". Any mech inside a certain radius of the attacker's spawns draws down artillery without smoke giveaways, 3 at a time with standard recharge till dropships or attackers mechs show up then they stop.

Heck even with smoke, a ferocious bombardment of camped defenders till the drop ships come in would be both believable and help balance out the issue.


Not too sure how that would work out... Then they may just figure it out and leave one enemy mech alive so they don't get bombarded...?

#391 DI3T3R

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 549 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 21 January 2015 - 08:12 AM

View PostSgtKinCaiD, on 21 January 2015 - 06:10 AM, said:

Just lol, every time you post you manage to reach a new level of troll.

Zerg rush was the first thing that came to my mind when they first announced the gate mechanism and the ability for lights to jump over (it was before september if i recall correctly). Was it so hard to think about it ???
Talking about zerg rush : before => Yeah ! Let's rush Omega ! Now => Yeah ! Let's rush the gens THEN Omega. Great improvement ...
And the generators are a quick thrown bandaid, they are right near the dz of the defenders. When the attackers are taking out a generator, the defenders are droping right on top of them. Let me play you the Benny Hil theme while we watch the issue of this ...

I do recognize that PGI is doing better from some time now, but they screwed this over.

Do you see how many basic features of the CW they are rewritting/patching ? It's not even an alpha let alone a beta. And given the fact that PGI wants to sort out several others features in 2015 like the steam integration, the solo experience, etc. CW has to be done and quickly that is.

And I don't want CW to be like the rest of the game : good enough for now, we'll improve it later ...


Do you want PGI to develop CW in a vacuum? Or do you want it developed with maximum efficiency?

If you develop a game, you have to test and tweak and test and tweak and test and tweak... And the more complicated the game, the more tests it takes.

It totally makes sense to start with a dumbed-down version of CW to get some initial data you can work with. And once PGI sees what works and what does not, they will tweak. They already replaced the medium lasers on the dropship with large lasers.




You know what? Do a quick experiment: Invent a game and write a rule-set for it. Let's say, one full page of text. (That's what? 1kB?) A whole game, just existing on paper. And you have to set all parameters in a way that the game is balanced and fun, without anybody ever having played it. (Number of players, rules, number of rules, complexity of rules, gaming-materials, design of gaming-materials, probabilities of different outcomes of the game, calculating the score, how long is the game in minutes...)

#392 Almond Brown

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • Philanthropist
  • 5,851 posts

Posted 21 January 2015 - 09:24 AM

View Postoldradagast, on 16 January 2015 - 07:13 AM, said:

stuff

so here's the flip side: Why should I - or anyone else - be forced to play CW your way?


Ummm, I am sorry but we all play CW as PGI provided it. My way, your way? Wtf! There is the current way and if you wish to participate, the rules will govern.

If you wish it different just make a case. "We" never forced anything on anyone else, "we" are just playing CW as it was provided to "us".

Yeesh... only on the internet does everything turn into a epeen polishing contest and when some people play by the current Rule Set, as set by the Dev team, it can be misconstrued as "forcing them to do something." :rolleyes:

#393 Almond Brown

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • Philanthropist
  • 5,851 posts

Posted 21 January 2015 - 09:27 AM

View PostDavers, on 16 January 2015 - 09:03 AM, said:

Yup 4v4 will be a new game mode for CW. Representing recon missions and such.


So no Teams, just 4v4 PUG's right, otherwise... "same shite, different reason" or aka, "we got beat so it ain't fair!"

#394 Tarogato

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Civil Servant
  • Civil Servant
  • 6,558 posts
  • LocationUSA

Posted 21 January 2015 - 09:38 AM

I read the OP when it was actually originally posted, and I don't think I've visited this thread since.

My impression from my point of view? CW is dead right now, as predicted. Rasalhague isn't fighting regularly, Kurita isn't fighting regularly, Ghost Bear doesn't seem to be active, Wolfs are ... kinda doing stuff.

I've been trying to go on recruitment campaigns for the FRR when I play public queue, but whenever I start talking about it, all I get is "cw is broken/sucks/imbalanced/f**k you/queues always empty-why bother" in return. Seems people have tried it, didn't like it, and are staying as far away from it as they can.

I get a strong feeling CW will remain pretty much dead until we have at least 4 maps and the existing ones are improved some more. But those new maps will have to be very good. Very. Good.

#395 Davers

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 9,886 posts
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationCanada

Posted 21 January 2015 - 09:41 AM

View PostAlmond Brown, on 21 January 2015 - 09:27 AM, said:


So no Teams, just 4v4 PUG's right, otherwise... "same shite, different reason" or aka, "we got beat so it ain't fair!"

4 on 4 is much more about individual pilot skill than mass focus fire. And they will have VOIP by that point anyway.

People will always complain when they lose. "No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible"- Voltaire

Edited by Davers, 21 January 2015 - 09:43 AM.


#396 Yokaiko

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 6,775 posts

Posted 21 January 2015 - 09:41 AM

View PostTarogato, on 21 January 2015 - 09:38 AM, said:

I read the OP when it was actually originally posted, and I don't think I've visited this thread since.

My impression from my point of view? CW is dead right now, as predicted. Rasalhague isn't fighting regularly, Kurita isn't fighting regularly, Ghost Bear doesn't seem to be active, Wolfs are ... kinda doing stuff.

I've been trying to go on recruitment campaigns for the FRR when I play public queue, but whenever I start talking about it, all I get is "cw is broken/sucks/imbalanced/f**k you/queues always empty-why bother" in return. Seems people have tried it, didn't like it, and are staying as far away from it as they can.

I get a strong feeling CW will remain pretty much dead until we have at least 4 maps and the existing ones are improved some more. But those new maps will have to be very good. Very. Good.


The new call to arms works decently well, we got a game kicked off on a 0/0 planet in all of about 3 minutes. It took three games before any credible opposition showed up, but they did eventually.


Half of the issue is the rewards. Successfull assualt, you make less than a good pub match, you aren't shooting mechs, just turrets and gens.

whoo hoo, none of that counts for pay out.

#397 Tarogato

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Civil Servant
  • Civil Servant
  • 6,558 posts
  • LocationUSA

Posted 21 January 2015 - 09:45 AM

I agree, the rewards need to be large enough to incentivise playing CW and winning over just playing pubqueue and farming.

I'm talking like... triple or more of the contract bonus. Itneeds to be significant.

#398 Mirkk Defwode

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Blade
  • The Blade
  • 748 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • LocationSeattle, Wa

Posted 21 January 2015 - 10:02 AM

View PostDI3T3R, on 21 January 2015 - 08:12 AM, said:


Do you want PGI to develop CW in a vacuum? Or do you want it developed with maximum efficiency?

If you develop a game, you have to test and tweak and test and tweak and test and tweak... And the more complicated the game, the more tests it takes.

It totally makes sense to start with a dumbed-down version of CW to get some initial data you can work with. And once PGI sees what works and what does not, they will tweak. They already replaced the medium lasers on the dropship with large lasers.




You know what? Do a quick experiment: Invent a game and write a rule-set for it. Let's say, one full page of text. (That's what? 1kB?) A whole game, just existing on paper. And you have to set all parameters in a way that the game is balanced and fun, without anybody ever having played it. (Number of players, rules, number of rules, complexity of rules, gaming-materials, design of gaming-materials, probabilities of different outcomes of the game, calculating the score, how long is the game in minutes...)


Thing is, they're not inventing a new game mode here. This isn't something that hasn't been done before in other games where elements can be emulated. (I'm looking at you Battlefield 2142 and Titan Mode, Red Orchestra 1 and 2 for it's general gameplay...) Emulated doesn't mean it can't be innovated on either, just that it needs to be looked at as we're seeing core issues that existed through the early gameplay for both of those as well. Not to mention issues that exist in many other shooters.

The level design isn't following best practices for how most shooters work these days too. And saying this isn't a shooter isn't really accurate cause it could be called a simulator, but the core mechanics are a shooter overall.

I want this to succeed, and I want this to be a great game. I just think too much stuff is hitting the streets being half baked, and that just sets a really poor precedent that needs to get curbed. What we currently have is a vertical slice, just a proof of concept. Or at least that's how I see it. I just don't think a vertical slice is a good thing to hand to your audience in an uncontrolled environment and say "have fun."

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.

#399 SgtKinCaiD

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 1,096 posts
  • LocationBordeaux

Posted 21 January 2015 - 12:49 PM

@DI3T3R

Actually, i'm a software engineer, that's why it's irritate me so much.
I will write you a lengthy response but not now cause i want to blow up stompy robots.

#400 Mirkk Defwode

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Blade
  • The Blade
  • 748 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • LocationSeattle, Wa

Posted 21 January 2015 - 01:16 PM

View PostSgtKinCaiD, on 21 January 2015 - 12:49 PM, said:

@DI3T3R

Actually, i'm a software engineer, that's why it's irritate me so much.
...


Me too...

Edited by Mirkk Defwode, 21 January 2015 - 01:23 PM.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users