47 replies to this topic

[Setun]

Rhaythe, on 11 January 2015 - 10:47 AM, said:

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.

If MWO ever implemented that style of gameplay mode it'd be amazing. Not only will the matches feel like epic conquests for attackers / desperate territory holds for defenders, it'll feel like a proper MechWarrior mission like in the single player campaigns. Add in some mech bays in the areas to defend and you got yourself one solid CW gameplay mode.

Actually, on this thought how about this:

Attackers spawn / respawn as they currently do in CW (respawns every 30 sec until drop deck eleminated)
Defenders: 1 spawn per objective location (so 1 spawn per person at point alpha, another at beta, then gamma, and finally delta. If a defender player survives even after losing an objective, they instead are given an extra drop per objective lost w/o having to respawn.)

Attackers have to cap and hold the objectives (similar to conquest) to move on to the next point. Defenders can stop this by either killing mechs entering / in the cap zone, or by body blocking within the cap zone.

Edited by Setun, 12 January 2015 - 03:59 AM.

[pwnface]

oldradagast, on 11 January 2015 - 06:49 PM, said:

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.

I pretty much disagree with everything you've said here.

If I had to guess, you've been dropping solo in CW and have not enjoyed the tactical checkers match (it's not quite chess yet) that many of us are experiencing in grouped play.

Boreal favors defenders and sniping and has 2 gates relatively close together. Sulfurous favors attackers and brawling and has 3 gates farther away from each other. Doesn't sound that one dimensional to me at all.

Scouting is critical in certain stages of CW matches (especially on Sulfurous) as you need to know which direction the enemy is coming from and how many there are for a successful defense. Being able to scout how many defenders are in which positions can also be useful in deciding how you want to attack.

Nobody is forcing you to rush stupidly through a kill-zone to kill turrets and focus objectives when you are attacking. It is a valid tactic but definitely not the only way to approach attack matches. Often times having a slower, deliberate approach can be just as effective and even more rewarding.

[oldradagast]

Too each their own, but CW has some serious flaws:

1) Both maps heavily favor the defenders. Any map with equal attack vs. defense + NPC's only on defense + obvious kill zones for the defenders is going to favor defense. I'm not saying the attackers can't win - I've won in an attack with nothing but small groups - but with equally matched teams and mechs, the defenders have a large edge.

2) Scouting in CW is nothing compared to scouting in the Public queue. There are only 2 or 3 places on the map where the enemy team can be heading - the gates - and they all have obvious lanes and kill zones. While some of the Public queue maps are equally shallow, they at least are not complete railroading as in CW

3) There probably are ways to win on attack that doesn't involve light rushing or stupid kill-zone charges, but those are the exception, not the rule, and when one seems the same dull game play over and over again, one will complain about it. For the record, I feel the same way about that stupid hill at I9 on Alpine since it renders the rest of the map nearly useless. Again, there are other paths and ways around it, but they are rarely used.

I'm not saying CW lacks skill, but I laugh at the notion that it is far deeper than the public queues because it simply isn't. Skilled teams can make both game modes much deeper than they appear, but again, the public matches have better maps with more options and less repetitive game play over static, 100% predictable locations. It's not a huge edge, but it does exist.

Edited by oldradagast, 12 January 2015 - 04:23 AM.

[pwnface]

Both maps favor the defenders if you are trying to win by killing all enemy mechs. The objectives on sulfurous are much more difficult to protect compared to on Boreal.

Not scouting when defending on Sulfurous will cause you to lose against any decent team. It takes time to shift your forces from gate to gate and if you don't know what direction they are coming from until they are inside your gate you are going to lose objectives.

I think having 4 mechs per player and not knowing what the next wave will look like makes CW matches more dynamic than public queue. Having to worry about the possibility of 12 dire wolves or 12 firestarters in a single wave adds way more complexity than the forced 3/3/3/3 of public drops.


It seems like your CW experience has been incredibly different from my own. I have to ask if you are regularly playing with an organized group or braving CW as a solo player?

[Banditman]

Straight attrition / skirmish is not the answer. Those matches turn into boring stalemates. Objective based gameplay is by far the more attractive style.

I think that maps are absolutely the problem with CW right now. There is absolutely no doubt as to the direction an enemy force is coming from. It makes defense far too easy. Thus, the light rush was created to get past the defense that was otherwise far too strong to defeat.

Right now, the defenders have all the advantages. Terrain, knowledge and firepower.

1. Terrain - the terrain on both existing maps greatly favors the defense. The defensive side of both existing maps generally has fantastic cover for the defender. At best, an attacker can achieve parity of terrain / cover. At best. There is almost no way for an attacker to gain a terrain advantage, and if they do, it's likely because the defender made a mistake.

2. Knowledge - the defense knows exactly where the attackers are going to attack from. They are coming through one of those gates. There is no need for the defense to send out scouts to locate the enemy, to verify the attack vector.

3. Firepower - the defense has parity of mechs with the attacker. The defense also has turrets to support them. I realize those turrets aren't worth very much, but they are worth "something". Ask a solo light.


If this game mode is to be a success, there needs to be some way to bestow some parity. Less spawns for the defense? A way for the attacker to neutralize all the turrets (a turret gen)? More attack vectors?

Yes, the light rush needs to have a fork stuck in it, that's boring gameplay. It is effective gameplay, but boring. Just like the old pop tart meta was boring, but effective. The key is balance. When one type of gameplay is so effective that no reliable counter exists (or that the only counter is itself), it will come to dominate the battlefield. There should always be an effective counter that isn't to use the same tactic.

Good luck PGI.

[Joseph Mallan]

It is only boring if your comms channel is full of boring people Banditman. And that is the truth.

Also FYI What you say about the defenders is a Military truism proven for thousands of years... and folks have wanted to change that for just as long. Better strategists have tried to solve it and most have failed. And you are expecting video gamers and game developers to do what military geniuses couldn't in all that time?

Fighting 101 It is hard to beat a defending force/person without time and patience.

[Action Man]

TBH the Rush is a dying trend. for now it wont feel like it but I am starting to notice it less and less on the field on the fronts I fight on. much like the mobile PPC turret builds. Here is why,
Players adapt! I am starting to see setups that expect that light rush or 3. mixed drops with light sweeper builds, can really ruin a light run. increased LRM usage players are starting to discover 2 main Things with LRMS, first how to use them effectively without relying on locks, second how they are the best suppression weapon in the game, nothing will keep a mechs head down than when the threat of incoming LRMS. I could go on but its mech tactics 101.

Tactical change, I know for example the crew often drop with have a ploy that can stop a rush dead and continue to confuse and cause headaches for the opposing side
Mixed drops, using the classic bait and switch to slip mechs past etc,

Pay attention and take notes (mentally or actual) of regular units you drop against. as 99% will use particular load outs, and behave and particular way. some will have 3-4 "plays" but you work em out and counter them, when they start losing to pugs that know what to expect and are ready they will mix it up.

No CW is still in its infancy, and will continue to see-saw, from one extreme to another, but each time lessening as momentum slows and drop decks and load outs gravitate for more all round setups or whatever. the real challenge for each of us is if it will happen soon enough for our own individual tastes.

[Joseph Mallan]

Action Man, on 12 January 2015 - 06:48 AM, said:

TBH the Rush is a dying trend. for now it wont feel like it but I am starting to notice it less and less on the field on the fronts I fight on. much like the mobile PPC turret builds. Here is why,
Players adapt! I am starting to see setups that expect that light rush or 3. mixed drops with light sweeper builds, can really ruin a light run. increased LRM usage players are starting to discover 2 main Things with LRMS, first how to use them effectively without relying on locks, second how they are the best suppression weapon in the game, nothing will keep a mechs head down than when the threat of incoming LRMS. I could go on but its mech tactics 101.

Tactical change, I know for example the crew often drop with have a ploy that can stop a rush dead and continue to confuse and cause headaches for the opposing side
Mixed drops, using the classic bait and switch to slip mechs past etc,

Pay attention and take notes (mentally or actual) of regular units you drop against. as 99% will use particular load outs, and behave and particular way. some will have 3-4 "plays" but you work em out and counter them, when they start losing to pugs that know what to expect and are ready they will mix it up.

No CW is still in its infancy, and will continue to see-saw, from one extreme to another, but each time lessening as momentum slows and drop decks and load outs gravitate for more all round setups or whatever. the real challenge for each of us is if it will happen soon enough for our own individual tastes.

But you are suggesting people use their brains instead of just their trigger finger. Almost Nobody want to do that! if I can beat you by punching you in the gut "every time" why would I try something different until you learn how to stop me?

(Had to fix an accidental faulty generalization)

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 12 January 2015 - 07:39 AM.

[Sprouticus]

pwnface, on 12 January 2015 - 04:49 AM, said:

Both maps favor the defenders if you are trying to win by killing all enemy mechs. The objectives on sulfurous are much more difficult to protect compared to on Boreal.

Not scouting when defending on Sulfurous will cause you to lose against any decent team. It takes time to shift your forces from gate to gate and if you don't know what direction they are coming from until they are inside your gate you are going to lose objectives.

I think having 4 mechs per player and not knowing what the next wave will look like makes CW matches more dynamic than public queue. Having to worry about the possibility of 12 dire wolves or 12 firestarters in a single wave adds way more complexity than the forced 3/3/3/3 of public drops.


It seems like your CW experience has been incredibly different from my own. I have to ask if you are regularly playing with an organized group or braving CW as a solo player?

I totally agree on most of your points, the problem is that the subtly of such tactical games is lost in pug groups due to lack of coordination/communication.

One of the best drops we had last week was when NS surprised us with a new tactic and we had to adjust on the fly. You guys won, and we now have to account for just such a situation in our loadouts, etc.

the problem is pugs would never see that adjustment, or it would take a long time for it to filter into the collective gestalt. Where as a good team can adjust in 1 or 2 drops.

[Sprouticus]

Action Man, on 12 January 2015 - 06:48 AM, said:

TBH the Rush is a dying trend. for now it wont feel like it but I am starting to notice it less and less on the field on the fronts I fight on. much like the mobile PPC turret builds. Here is why,
Players adapt! I am starting to see setups that expect that light rush or 3. mixed drops with light sweeper builds, can really ruin a light run. increased LRM usage players are starting to discover 2 main Things with LRMS, first how to use them effectively without relying on locks, second how they are the best suppression weapon in the game, nothing will keep a mechs head down than when the threat of incoming LRMS. I could go on but its mech tactics 101.

Tactical change, I know for example the crew often drop with have a ploy that can stop a rush dead and continue to confuse and cause headaches for the opposing side
Mixed drops, using the classic bait and switch to slip mechs past etc,

Pay attention and take notes (mentally or actual) of regular units you drop against. as 99% will use particular load outs, and behave and particular way. some will have 3-4 "plays" but you work em out and counter them, when they start losing to pugs that know what to expect and are ready they will mix it up.

No CW is still in its infancy, and will continue to see-saw, from one extreme to another, but each time lessening as momentum slows and drop decks and load outs gravitate for more all round setups or whatever. the real challenge for each of us is if it will happen soon enough for our own individual tastes.

there are a couple of counter tactics that work fairly well. There are also a couple of attacking tactics that seem to have some value. But rushes work almost as good as they have in the past few weeks.

I do agree that tactical alterations are in play though.

[Dawnstealer]

Capture-and-hold makes more sense than destroy. I think the "blow up the gun" game is a fun one, but in moderation (like...1-in-12 or less). Most of CW drops should be - take and hold territory, more like Conquest. FAR more strategic and Clans would need more than Stormcrows to pull it off. IS would need more than SPL Firestarters.

[AlmightyAeng]

#knockdown

[Joseph Mallan]

Sprouticus, on 12 January 2015 - 07:31 AM, said:

I totally agree on most of your points, the problem is that the subtly of such tactical games is lost in pug groups due to lack of coordination/communication.

One of the best drops we had last week was when NS surprised us with a new tactic and we had to adjust on the fly. You guys won, and we now have to account for just such a situation in our loadouts, etc.

the problem is pugs would never see that adjustment, or it would take a long time for it to filter into the collective gestalt. Where as a good team can adjust in 1 or 2 drops.

And is why better teams win and poor(ie bad) teams don't.

[Sprouticus]

Banditman, on 12 January 2015 - 05:43 AM, said:

Straight attrition / skirmish is not the answer. Those matches turn into boring stalemates. Objective based gameplay is by far the more attractive style.

I think that maps are absolutely the problem with CW right now. There is absolutely no doubt as to the direction an enemy force is coming from. It makes defense far too easy. Thus, the light rush was created to get past the defense that was otherwise far too strong to defeat.

Right now, the defenders have all the advantages. Terrain, knowledge and firepower.

1. Terrain - the terrain on both existing maps greatly favors the defense. The defensive side of both existing maps generally has fantastic cover for the defender. At best, an attacker can achieve parity of terrain / cover. At best. There is almost no way for an attacker to gain a terrain advantage, and if they do, it's likely because the defender made a mistake.

2. Knowledge - the defense knows exactly where the attackers are going to attack from. They are coming through one of those gates. There is no need for the defense to send out scouts to locate the enemy, to verify the attack vector.

3. Firepower - the defense has parity of mechs with the attacker. The defense also has turrets to support them. I realize those turrets aren't worth very much, but they are worth "something". Ask a solo light.


If this game mode is to be a success, there needs to be some way to bestow some parity. Less spawns for the defense? A way for the attacker to neutralize all the turrets (a turret gen)? More attack vectors?

Yes, the light rush needs to have a fork stuck in it, that's boring gameplay. It is effective gameplay, but boring. Just like the old pop tart meta was boring, but effective. The key is balance. When one type of gameplay is so effective that no reliable counter exists (or that the only counter is itself), it will come to dominate the battlefield. There should always be an effective counter that isn't to use the same tactic.

Good luck PGI.

1) Agreed. defense is favored. Which is ok. The defense should have an advantage. the question really is how much. And how do you lower defensive advantage without making rushes easier?

2) This is not as much of an advantage as you might thinlk. The attackers have lots of options. 6/6 splits. 8/4 splits. On sulpher you can jump gates. On sulpher you have 3 gates you can attack from. You can feint to draw folks to one side or the other. You can try to draw defenders into a kill zone for attrition. You can open gates with 1 mech. you can do a split push to allow folks to move up unopposed. We have tested a lot of methods, and almost all of them are viable in one tactical situation or another.

3) See #1. Any solution I have heard so far would just make rushes easier.


the issue IMO, is not rushes, it is the difficulty that pugs have using counter rush tactics. Even good pugs groups setup on defense have a hard time countering a good rush.


what is the answer, Im not sure. I agree that rushes are annoying from a purely tactical standpoint. But at an operations level they can be countered just fine.

[Sprouticus]

Joseph Mallan, on 12 January 2015 - 07:40 AM, said:

And is why better teams win and poor(ie bad) teams don't.

totally agree but it is more complex than that.

Even a good team may require mlutiple drops and experiments to figure out a conouter to a new tactic. Especially if the counter requires adjusting loadouts. That is totally fine.

But pugs only learn about such tactical changes on the forums (which will not have the info for a while if the teams in question are smart) or by getting on comms (which some folks just won't do).

And it can be frustrating when you drop and half your team doesn't know what the common tactics are much less how to counter them. Which makes it tough for pugs. I feel for them.

Eventually the tactics flush themselves out and eventually that knowledge filters down to the solo players. But it takes time.

Is that ok? Im not sure. If it drives people away, then it may be an issue. It depends on how many people it drives away I guess.

Look at the metas in the CB/OB. People were FAR angrier about LRMpocolypse than they were about SRM pults and even less about AC20pults and dual gauss and pop tarting.. I would speculate that has to do about percieved ability to control the counter but that's just a guess. Imagined 'proper' gameplay comes into it as some level as well.

[Almond Brown]

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.

Something like "Conquest Mode" perhaps. The one that no one plays properly now either? Sure lets do that... again.

[Joseph Mallan]

Sprouticus, on 12 January 2015 - 07:51 AM, said:

totally agree but it is more complex than that.

Even a good team may require mlutiple drops and experiments to figure out a conouter to a new tactic. Especially if the counter requires adjusting loadouts. That is totally fine.

But pugs only learn about such tactical changes on the forums (which will not have the info for a while if the teams in question are smart) or by getting on comms (which some folks just won't do).

And it can be frustrating when you drop and half your team doesn't know what the common tactics are much less how to counter them. Which makes it tough for pugs. I feel for them.

Eventually the tactics flush themselves out and eventually that knowledge filters down to the solo players. But it takes time.

Is that ok? Im not sure. If it drives people away, then it may be an issue. It depends on how many people it drives away I guess.

Look at the metas in the CB/OB. People were FAR angrier about LRMpocolypse than they were about SRM pults and even less about AC20pults and dual gauss and pop tarting.. I would speculate that has to do about percieved ability to control the counter but that's just a guess. Imagined 'proper' gameplay comes into it as some level as well.

I agreed with them and I was an Atlas dressed as an Archer. 90 degree turns in flight were bad for the game. Had it stayed I would have done what I always do...

try to take over the world Pinky!

[Almond Brown]

MischiefSC, on 12 January 2015 - 12:25 AM, said:

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.

Sadly the only way to make "objective" based warfare doable is 2 fold. Pay heavily for a objective based win or "force" teams to accomplish "every" objective.

Noted issues.

If pay is to good, no other mode will see play. C-Bills will win out.

If you "force" players to do anything, like kill a "Big Gun" while attacking a fortified opponent, the players will just get creative. (rush tactics surface)

I guess we have to see if the next NEW Map is also Gated. If not, then we can see what changes are applied to it.

[Banditman]

Joseph Mallan, on 12 January 2015 - 06:06 AM, said:

It is only boring if your comms channel is full of boring people Banditman. And that is the truth.

Also FYI What you say about the defenders is a Military truism proven for thousands of years... and folks have wanted to change that for just as long. Better strategists have tried to solve it and most have failed. And you are expecting video gamers and game developers to do what military geniuses couldn't in all that time?

Fighting 101 It is hard to beat a defending force/person without time and patience.

I agree, it is. So, since militarily the avenue most often used to beat an entrenched opponent is to bring overwhelming force, doesn't it then stand to reason that perhaps the attackers should be doing so?

If the terrain and firepower advantages are to remain with the defenders, then a numbers advantage should probably go to the attackers. If the numbers are to remain the same on both sides, then some sort of terrain and firepower advantages need to likewise go to the attackers.

Honestly, I'm not trying to argue military truisms. I'm trying to argue for balanced gameplay. I would like to feel that a win was earned, not just handed to me.

[Joseph Mallan]

Banditman, on 12 January 2015 - 10:22 AM, said:

I agree, it is. So, since militarily the avenue most often used to beat an entrenched opponent is to bring overwhelming force, doesn't it then stand to reason that perhaps the attackers should be doing so?

If the terrain and firepower advantages are to remain with the defenders, then a numbers advantage should probably go to the attackers. If the numbers are to remain the same on both sides, then some sort of terrain and firepower advantages need to likewise go to the attackers.

Honestly, I'm not trying to argue military truisms. I'm trying to argue for balanced gameplay. I would like to feel that a win was earned, not just handed to me.

Problem is once you take away the advantage from the original group, they actually cry harder than the original group.

Missiles sucked, they wear not on par with all other weapons. So PGI Sped them up! NOW they were hitting People that never worried before! MAJOR uproar Gigantic tears of the former kings... Missiles returned to weakened state.

Its the circle of gaming.