58 replies to this topic

[UberStuka]

@ the guy who said attrition is dead....


attrition is the only way 228 rolls / wow look at all that the planets we have taken sighhh...... zerg is for those who don't feel confident with their piloting skills

[Drunk Canuck]

JackOfDiamonds, on 14 January 2015 - 03:40 AM, said:

Usually I don't comment, but attrition is no longer part of any viable military strategy. It is all about the rapid concentration of force at a single location, then destroying the enemy's ability to fight.

CW objectives that force a defender to protect critical assets (or locations) is more interesting than straight attrition, and more 'realistic'. Though I don't think there is anything vaguely realistic to giant stompy robots.

Capture points might make for a better ebb and flow, particularly if taking outlying regions provides some benefit to the attacker, and therefore forcing the defender to spread out their resources.

Borreal is a bad map because there is no reason not to do anything but set up defending mechs on the ridges. You can put full firepower on each entrance without needing to move.

Both maps need to make it easier for the attacker to change lanes.

And SR needs better ways for the defenders to not get rushed so easily. It's not very hard to defend on Boreal Vault, but Sulfurous Rift can be a pain if you aren't running Clans.

UberStuka, on 28 January 2015 - 06:36 PM, said:

@ the guy who said attrition is dead....


attrition is the only way 228 rolls / wow look at all that the planets we have taken sighhh...... zerg is for those who don't feel confident with their piloting skills

It hasn't won QQ a lot of planets, but we don't even play as much CW as we used to, kinda got old fast for a lot of people.

Edited by Drunk Canuck, 28 January 2015 - 06:37 PM.

[Strykewolf]

Nuclear landmines.

[dervishx5]

How about giving the clans 40 less tons to play with?

[Mystere]

UberStuka, on 28 January 2015 - 06:36 PM, said:

@ the guy who said attrition is dead....

attrition is the only way 228 rolls / wow look at all that the planets we have taken sighhh...... zerg is for those who don't feel confident with their piloting gunnery skills

FTFY.

[Lily from animove]

Am I the only one understanding the concept of steelshielding?

get 3 fatties with JJ's in front of the main generator, and you stretch the generators HP by a big bunch of HP provided by your mechs.

same can be done with the generators, block them with getting your mechs buts at them, the more shots hit your mehc, the less eaisly cna the zerg push through the objectives, and the best of all this is: you bakc is to a safe object so no one oepns your squishy back easily.

dervishx5, on 28 January 2015 - 09:50 PM, said:

How about giving the clans 40 less tons to play with?

I ahve seen things yesterday, that even work in a one mech 60t dropship

Edited by Lily from animove, 29 January 2015 - 01:38 AM.

[Gyrok]

Anjian, on 14 January 2015 - 01:58 AM, said:

By simply changing the conditions of the attack.

Destruction of the Main Cannon + 75% of the defending force. (The actual percentage subject to tweaking).

or

100% of the defending force.

Mission victory for the attacker can be attained by any of these two conditions.

The cannon will remain invulnerable until 50% of the defending force is dead. (Actual percentage subject to tweaking).

The three generator requirement must be removed and replaced with the new requirement.

A possible nerf on the turrets and the gate generators (subject to tweaking).

One can consider this as a band aid until more maps and modes arrive.

This requires minimal changes to the code base and will utilize existing map resources.

Sometimes I really wish there was a down vote feature on the forums.

[Joseph Mallan]

Gyrok, on 29 January 2015 - 07:06 AM, said:

Sometimes I really wish there was a down vote feature on the forums.

I think you just used it Gyrok.

[Commander A9]

Referencing Tom Clancy's EndWar, they could add new a game mode in which your objective is to destroy the enemy force, either between 75-100%.

In mentioning Tom Clancy's EndWar, said game mode was titled "Assault." You were tasked with destroying the majority of the enemy combat company, while maintaining control of Control Points that got you points which you could spend on bringing in reinforcements.

[jaxjace]

Im so ******* sick of sucide zerg rush its not even funny at all.

[Corwin Maxwell]

Thing is to make CW a war zone type sim/experince, you would have to implement game modes based on each style of tactic. A game mode for Siege warfare, a mode for hit and run/raid type war fare, and a mode for combination style tactics warfare. Also the maps really need to be bigger and thought out more. As CW is now its really just Mechwarrior style League of Legends or Moba style game play..just with very limited tactics and styles. Understandably it is in a beta/alpha state right now. If game modes designed for specific tactical styles can not be produced, then possibly adding diferent types of objectives to the game is the only way to improve CW and make it a viable product. Examples could be Destroy and enemy convoy that is being escorted by the opposing team. Another could be attacking team needs to capture set number of buildings turning the defenses of the building against the defenders. The types of modes based on objectives could all most be limitless. It just all depends on what PGI is willing to make and invest into CW and MWO.

[David Sumner]

http://mwomercs.com/...13#entry4113913

Zerg rush == We kill all your mechs as you spawn one at a time. So shielding generators, etc don't matter for damn all.
As in just now, oh look, you lived long enough to power up and take 3 steps.

CW is a complete waste of time now. Not playing it again until some major work is done.


How about we move the drop zones off a bit and USE those dropship fusion drives to clear obstacles before landing?

[David Sumner]

Davers, on 14 January 2015 - 05:42 PM, said:

Any game mode that can be decided by destroying 'something' will favour light rushes. Doesn't matter if it is a convoy or a big gun. We can either accept that light mechs have a powerful role in CW or design game modes that promote heavier mechs. If you had to capture the generators rather than destroy them, it would be a radically different game mode.

Except it's not "a powerful role". It's a "dang near always EXPLOITABLE role"

Actually, the CW was in some way RESEMBLING "campaign mode", that might make things behave better. Repairs, ammo, consumables, etc.

[Joseph Mallan]

David Sumner, on 30 January 2015 - 01:55 AM, said:

http://mwomercs.com/...13#entry4113913

Zerg rush Spawn Camping== We kill all your mechs as you spawn one at a time. So shielding generators, etc don't matter for damn all.
As in just now, oh look, you lived long enough to power up and take 3 steps.

CW is a complete waste of time now. Not playing it again until some major work is done.


How about we move the drop zones off a bit and USE those dropship fusion drives to clear obstacles before landing?

You defined Spawn camping not Zerg rush.

zerg rush
A term used for a swarming attack, and/or winning a battle by throwing bodies and outnumbering an opponent.

This term was derived off of a video game called Starcraft which had a tactic where you are able to rush opponents by mass producing zergs and rushing them.

It is a very Basic tactic and the fact some refuse to learn how to defeat it, is quite shameful.

[Lily from animove]

Joseph Mallan, on 30 January 2015 - 03:03 AM, said:

You defined Spawn camping not Zerg rush.

zerg rush
A term used for a swarming attack, and/or winning a battle by throwing bodies and outnumbering an opponent.

This term was derived off of a video game called Starcraft which had a tactic where you are able to rush opponents by mass producing zergs and rushing them.

It is a very Basic tactic and the fact some refuse to learn how to defeat it, is quite shameful.

soon when your unit meets the CWI in CW you can show your tactical skills and bring up a new tactic to defeat them (especially interesting on sulferous )

Edited by Lily from animove, 30 January 2015 - 05:07 AM.

[AlmightyAeng]

Lily from animove, on 29 January 2015 - 01:37 AM, said:

Am I the only one understanding the concept of steelshielding?

get 3 fatties with JJ's in front of the main generator, and you stretch the generators HP by a big bunch of HP provided by your mechs.

same can be done with the generators, block them with getting your mechs buts at them, the more shots hit your mehc, the less eaisly cna the zerg push through the objectives, and the best of all this is: you bakc is to a safe object so no one oepns your squishy back easily.

So you land some Highlanders on top of some King Crabs...

[MischiefSC]

Lily from animove, on 29 January 2015 - 01:37 AM, said:

Am I the only one understanding the concept of steelshielding?

get 3 fatties with JJ's in front of the main generator, and you stretch the generators HP by a big bunch of HP provided by your mechs.

same can be done with the generators, block them with getting your mechs buts at them, the more shots hit your mehc, the less eaisly cna the zerg push through the objectives, and the best of all this is: you bakc is to a safe object so no one oepns your squishy back easily.





I ahve seen things yesterday, that even work in a one mech 60t dropship

You can't do it on ogens. They all have a high point nearby and most the good zerg-folks know how to get up there. Getting up on Omega is *much* harder and easier to shoot down.

Biggest problem is actually getting people to do it. It doesn't work against heavy pushes but shuts the zerg down.

[InspectorG]

Different tonnage limits with different objectives.

Low tonnage for recon/raiding.

Current for a main battle.

A heavier limit with a higher low end cap for serious drawn out attrition battles. 250-400 tons?

Objectives appropriate for each tonnage class.

[Ax2Grind]

InspectorG, on 30 January 2015 - 02:45 PM, said:

Different tonnage limits with different objectives.

Low tonnage for recon/raiding.

Current for a main battle.

A heavier limit with a higher low end cap for serious drawn out attrition battles. 250-400 tons?

Objectives appropriate for each tonnage class.

Various battle types? Changing tonnage limits and different types of battles and maps with unique objectives? Yes please.

As for the OP, shoot the legs.