47 replies to this topic

[crustydog]

Light rush - Stormcrow rush = Boring.

It's burning out the warriors.

I want to fight battles - not shoot Clanners in the legs. In eight defences yesterday, seven constituted Clan Gen rushes - match over quickly - la la la.

This sucks - and it sucks BADLY!

It doesn't matter if you stop them or not - this is simply not decent gameplay - it is not what Clanners were created for. There is no epic anything to shooting at legs, on mechs who do not have the time to shoot back.

There is no skill.

You don't learn anything.

You only win a planet, which can simply be retaken with another rush.

You don't even make any money.



You want to end this cycle of lameness? Change the objectives - bring the Battle back to the Battlefield.

It is why we are all here.

[Joseph Mallan]

crustydog, on 11 January 2015 - 08:33 AM, said:

Light rush - Stormcrow rush = Boring.

It's burning out the warriors.

I want to fight battles - not shoot Clanners in the legs. In eight defences yesterday, seven constituted Clan Gen rushes - match over quickly - la la la.

This sucks - and it sucks BADLY!

It doesn't matter if you stop them or not - this is simply not decent gameplay - it is not what Clanners were created for. There is no epic anything to shooting at legs, on mechs who do not have the time to shoot back.

There is no skill.

You don't learn anything.

You only win a planet, which can simply be retaken with another rush.

You don't even make any money.



You want to end this cycle of lameness? Change the objectives - bring the Battle back to the Battlefield.

It is why we are all here.

SO what you want is no objective and just fight for no reason?

[TheSilken]

No he wants them changed. I take that to mean that he wants more objectives and have them be spread out.

[Joseph Mallan]

TheSilkenPimp, on 11 January 2015 - 09:05 AM, said:

No he wants them changed. I take that to mean that he wants more objectives and have them be spread out.

That will not change the tactics that win a match. A stronger defense by the objective... The last stand if you will, is the best way to stop a Zerg Rush. Protecting the gate Might work but the speed to get past a stout defense also makes it bad when you have to withdraw to protect the Objective.

A properly layered defense might be effective but still runs the risk of not enough fire power AT the objective.

[Rhaythe]

I'd have liked to see the Rush gamemode in Battlefield somehow adapted to MWO for CW. Provide some variation and stages to the assault, but still maintain the open field warfare. Dunno.

[Davers]

In any mode with destroyable objectives light mechs will be powerful. Any mode that is 'stand and fight' light mechs will be sup par. We just need to have a mix of modes. Of course if PGI lets people know the exact game mode or allows multiple saved drop decks we will never have to make balanced lances.

[crustydog]

You want to know when we have good matches? We have good matches when we attack with the primary goal of destroying every enemy mech.

Win or lose, it is a good battle... a real battle, with real rewards... where we shoot at each other, and may the better warriors win.

Rushing gens and destroying them - what did I prove? - that my luck was better than yours, in this particular fight?


This is supposed to be Mech WARRIOR online - not Mech Zerg Rush I don't have to fight to win online.


Remove the objectives that inspire this behaviour... and replace them with something worth fighting for.


You can criticize the public queue, or some of the public queue variations, but at least they have a real fight, if not a long one.










.

[JadeTimberwolf]

My answer to this is to vote in the linked thread in the suggestion forum.

http://mwomercs.com/...e-to-see-added/

[Davers]

crustydog, on 11 January 2015 - 06:06 PM, said:

You want to know when we have good matches? We have good matches when we attack with the primary goal of destroying every enemy mech.

Win or lose, it is a good battle... a real battle, with real rewards... where we shoot at each other, and may the better warriors win.

Rushing gens and destroying them - what did I prove? - that my luck was better than yours, in this particular fight?


This is supposed to be Mech WARRIOR online - not Mech Zerg Rush I don't have to fight to win online.


Remove the objectives that inspire this behaviour... and replace them with something worth fighting for.


You can criticize the public queue, or some of the public queue variations, but at least they have a real fight, if not a long one.










.

It's a shame that PGI is unwilling, or unable, to make game modes interesting or fun to play. Why they don't just bite the bullet, say 'Sorry, we messed up here', and create (or blatantly copy) better game modes is beyond me. They seem unable to make 'fighting' modes that have any depth past 'form a blob' and objective modes that are more complex than 'shoot this and win' or 'stand here and win'.

[oldradagast]

Joseph Mallan, on 11 January 2015 - 09:03 AM, said:

SO what you want is no objective and just fight for no reason?

Or, maybe an game mode that consists of something other than:

- 2 horrible maps with 1-dimensional play and zero room for creative tactics.
- A single, repetitive objective in a fixed location that, by definition, precludes any need for real scouting, flanking, etc.
- A game mode that heavily rewards defenders with almost free wins.
- A game mode that doesn't basically require one side to spend their time fighting NPC's (for no payout, I might add) and then rush like lemmings through a kill-zone to shoot... more NPC's

Heck, I've played DOOM levels with more depth and complexity than the current CW setup... it's inexcusable, really.

Edited by oldradagast, 11 January 2015 - 06:50 PM.

[crustydog]

Davers, on 11 January 2015 - 06:22 PM, said:

It's a shame that PGI is unwilling, or unable, to make game modes interesting or fun to play. Why they don't just bite the bullet, say 'Sorry, we messed up here', and create (or blatantly copy) better game modes is beyond me. They seem unable to make 'fighting' modes that have any depth past 'form a blob' and objective modes that are more complex than 'shoot this and win' or 'stand here and win'.

I'm assuming that they are going to figure this out, sooner rather than later. Now that this company is PGI, there does seem to be a faster pace of development. I certainly hope I am not wrong about that, even if some players do not agree. PGI has not been "just" PGI for very long. In that short time they have covered a lot of ground.

Should they get it together, then great, believe me when I say I am all for that. I want a great Battletech game. I love it.

The worst possible outcome, in my mind, is for the game to linger on for years and years, in the "not good enough" purgatory of limited growth... I don't want to wait for my next life before someone finally gets it right.


----------

JadeTimberwolf, on 11 January 2015 - 06:21 PM, said:

My answer to this is to vote in the linked thread in the suggestion forum.

http://mwomercs.com/...e-to-see-added/

Yes, like that and more - Nice poll by the way....

The thing I am trying to emphasize is that the real product here is the mech fighting action - keep things centered around the battle itself - objectives should provide bonuses sure - but the battle is where we find the real entertainment.

Pizza is the meal, with extra toppings and side orders to enhance the quality of the experience.

[Davers]

crustydog, on 11 January 2015 - 07:41 PM, said:

I'm assuming that they are going to figure this out, sooner rather than later. Now that this company is PGI, there does seem to be a faster pace of development. I certainly hope I am not wrong about that, even if some players do not agree. PGI has not been "just" PGI for very long. In that short time they have covered a lot of ground.

Should they get it together, then great, believe me when I say I am all for that. I want a great Battletech game. I love it.

The worst possible outcome, in my mind, is for the game to linger on for years and years, in the "not good enough" purgatory of limited growth... I don't want to wait for my next life before someone finally gets it right.

Well, they certainly haven't seemed to learn anything from this game in 3 years. The entirety of CW is a rehash of every single problem from Beta combined. Light rushes? Check. Forcing people to defend a base with little tactical options? Check. No MM/premade vs pug? Check.

I doubt this game has the depth or complexity to last another 3 years as purely an Arena Shooter. It certainly doesn't have the balance to be an Esport. I really hope Phase 3 of CW makes it more than just another game mode.

[xWiredx]

We played several matches "attrition" style tonight, despite being in teams of primarily solo players or players whose units weren't particularly active at the time. It takes a lot longer, and playing attacks that way is a little more difficult than light-rushing the gens. The light rush is popular for teams that want to win and don't think they can outgun the other team, or teams that just want to knock out wins as quickly as possible.

[Kdogg788]

Here is how you limit the amount of rushing in CW. Bookmark this if you will...

Have the objectives open up sequentially as a certain number of defending mechs are eliminated. If Omega is only open after 30 defenders are down, then the majority of the battle will be just that, a battle.

-k

[zortesh]

Well if you wan't combat... make victory by pure combat means possible, and then give a huge cbill boost for essentially capturing that giant valuable cannon intact.

Make kill all enemys a victory condition for attackers.......

Rushing is the only really viable way to win, doing anything but rushing plays into defenders hands... I mean you could kill everyone and then gradually siege the base, destroy turrets, and then take omega...... but that'd make defending far easier then it already is for the defenders, and risk running out of time.

Doesn't matter what mechs epople use, it'll always be a rush to get in, and destroy gens, turrets, and omega before suffering from attrition, with reinforcements having to walk so far theres really not so much in the way of choice.

The other way would be allowing attackers to capture landing sites increasingly closer to the enemy base......

Edited by zortesh, 11 January 2015 - 11:37 PM.

[MoonUnitBeta]

Joseph Mallan, on 11 January 2015 - 09:03 AM, said:

SO what you want is no objective and just fight for no reason?

Open Planets,
One big ass map
Throw matchmaking, queues, and lobby's away.
Elementals
Max 64+ players per planet (or how ever big their maps will be. 10's by 10's of kilometers)
Conquest, assault, attack defend, all in one map. You can walk from one game mode to another, basically.
Tanks & planes from conquest resources.
Assault bases are safe points for drop ships.
Attack / defend are massive structures in strategic topography, serves as "main bases". Spawn planes and tanks here. Repair bays, and re-loading facilities.

Fight for territory, take locations over by capping them.
Gain salvage items (like parts of mechs, weapons, consumables, etc)

Planets "spin-up" like servers to accompany a higher population (peek times), and "spin-down" after ceasefires with lower populations so that ghost wins are less apparent.

Read: Planetside 2.

Edited by MoonUnitBeta, 11 January 2015 - 11:54 PM.

[MischiefSC]

You'll still want to pop legs; it stops the enemy in place or splits them up.

Having objectives gives people options to win other that straight attrition, which is good - it helps bridge the skill gap.

I'm all for new and interesting objectives and changes to CW. Skirmish style combat though will broaden the gap between premades and pugs, exactly why it does in the group queue. All those complaints about people in group queue getting constantly rolled so much there's no point in playing in less than a 6man group or bigger? That's still with Elo matchmaking. Take that and and it becomes absolutely one-sided slaughter.

You need objectives to balance that out. It provides teams with other tools to manipulate the other team, split them up or bypass them. Without that you're going to end up with a very, very one-sided environment.

[Lily from animove]

if hitreg would work correctly, things would be different. lights would pop left and right, but currently they dodge more damage than assaults. SCR ahs tight hitboxes and slight hitreg issues have very big influence to a negative outcome for thse shooting at the SCR.

with better hitreg many issues would solve.

[Karl Streiger]

Davers, on 11 January 2015 - 12:48 PM, said:

In any mode with destroyable objectives light mechs will be powerful. Any mode that is 'stand and fight' light mechs will be sup par. We just need to have a mix of modes. Of course if PGI lets people know the exact game mode or allows multiple saved drop decks we will never have to make balanced lances.

This is important.

The average King Crab Mech should not be used in the same situation as the Jenner. Both have there advantages and draw backs.
To bring both modes in the same game and map? Almost impossible.

Read Hector - a short novel where the Wolf Dragons working for House Marik try to capture Hesperus II.
There you have a perfect example for the "Slasher Run" Light Mechs killing targets and the Assault Mechs are unable to stop them effective.
Thats the deal - that should be how things work.

Well - currently there are two ways - multiple light targets - that could be attacked and destroyed by a single light Mech.
For example - heavy Gauss and PPC turrets - and there targeting control buildings - that stood behind the turrets.

Those targets could be destroyed by light mechs - while the heavy weapon turrets are unable to fight those swarming lights effective.
On the other hand those turrets will create havoc on heavy and assault Mechs.

The primary target - could be destroyed - but rather then a linear hit points - it has a kind of damage barrier: this barrier soak up 3 points of damage per 100m/s (6 medium laser will deal no damage - while a AC 20 will deal 17 dmg)

Of course the defenders behind heavy turrets only need to defend the "turret control buildings" - so there shouldn't be a line of sight between those control buildings and the "main objective" - so mechs defending those buildings are not available for gate or objective defense

Edited by Karl Streiger, 12 January 2015 - 03:17 AM.

[Willard Phule]

Joseph Mallan, on 11 January 2015 - 09:03 AM, said:

SO what you want is no objective and just fight for no reason?

I'm thinking he means that he'd prefer to fight against a team where they all stand still for him. I think. It's hard to understand what his complaint is, other than "lights kill me, make them go away."