data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/b3ae9/b3ae9cf8cfed3e06df6984fcf2a08c460eab065d" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ce10b/ce10bce5f44837c562b59a138f98ee197f69eea5" alt=""
I Still Find This Funny.
#21
Posted 08 February 2015 - 08:24 PM
2) I never said Counter attack was the objective based game mode. If you read carefully, I said that I really like invasion mode, which is an objective based mode, especially now that the changes to counter attack made for some added variety to the CW queue.
#22
Posted 08 February 2015 - 09:44 PM
Edited by dervishx5, 08 February 2015 - 09:51 PM.
#23
Posted 08 February 2015 - 10:05 PM
LordSkyKnight, on 08 February 2015 - 08:24 PM, said:
Actually, I would expect the light to usually win that fight. Lights are one of the best ways to fight the 100 tonners.
#25
Posted 09 February 2015 - 02:09 AM
LordSkyKnight, on 08 February 2015 - 08:24 PM, said:
2) I never said Counter attack was the objective based game mode. If you read carefully, I said that I really like invasion mode, which is an objective based mode, especially now that the changes to counter attack made for some added variety to the CW queue.
There are very simple counters to a light rush.
1. Coordinate with your teammates and anticipate the rush
2. Have me on your team to shoot the lights
#26
Posted 09 February 2015 - 03:00 AM
#27
Posted 09 February 2015 - 05:23 AM
LordSkyKnight, on 08 February 2015 - 07:18 PM, said:
I will ask you this. If light rushes are soooo unbalanced as you say, then how are the clans able to take any planets seeing as they cannot light rush effectively where the IS can.
Just because it is highly frustrating to play against doesn't mean it is unbalanced. Have you gone up against a 12 man of real skilled players who attrition and spawn camp ?? Is that not just as frustrating? I would say that spawning to insta death is more aggravating then a light rush, at least with the latter you can actually do something.
#28
Posted 09 February 2015 - 09:24 AM
Moarginplz, on 08 February 2015 - 10:05 PM, said:
Actually, I would expect the light to usually win that fight. Lights are one of the best ways to fight the 100 tonners.
I think that's wrong. If the best way to kill a bigger mech is to use a light, and the best way to complete objective based is to use a light, why would anyone ever take something other than a light? And that's kinda where CW is at right now. An organized team can take nothing but lights in most situations and expect to be competitive. 12 lights can have a hope of taking on a good balance of heavies and assaults and expect to have a good chance of winning. If you don't think that's unbalanced, then I may as well give up and everyone can just drive lights.
Grynos, on 09 February 2015 - 05:23 AM, said:
Just because it is highly frustrating to play against doesn't mean it is unbalanced. Have you gone up against a 12 man of real skilled players who attrition and spawn camp ?? Is that not just as frustrating? I would say that spawning to insta death is more aggravating then a light rush, at least with the latter you can actually do something.
Clans have better mechs. There, I said it. And they still have trouble dealing with light mechs, but the light rush isn't a defensive strategy, it's an offensive one. It's how House Kurita actually takes planets back when they decide to try to.
Going up against a 12 man skilled players is frustrating as well, but they're using a mix of weight classes, as well as a mix of roles when they do that. If the group you're up against is better than you, you should lose. That's how PvP works. the light rush takes most of the skill out of one of the teams and basically says 'if your team isn't above a certain skill threshold, you're boned, but our team really doesn't need to be all that good cuz we just have to run and kill the static objectives before you manage to kill us.' That's not balanced.
Also the only fix to the highly skilled players stomping pugs is a matchmaking system, which CW does not have the player base to support.
Edit: I'm still kind of in shock that people are trying to defend the strategy. Even the teams that do it say it's boring and cheesy, but they want to win games.
Edited by LordSkyKnight, 09 February 2015 - 09:29 AM.
#29
Posted 09 February 2015 - 10:19 AM
#30
Posted 09 February 2015 - 10:29 AM
HARDKOR, on 09 February 2015 - 10:19 AM, said:
No more than bragging about how great your unit is when 90% of your drops are against unorganized pugs who fall victim to the Call to Arms button.
#31
Posted 09 February 2015 - 02:41 PM
LordSkyKnight, on 09 February 2015 - 09:24 AM, said:
I think that's wrong. If the best way to kill a bigger mech is to use a light, and the best way to complete objective based is to use a light, why would anyone ever take something other than a light?
Rock-paper-scissors.
Lights are really good at killing many, if not most assault mech builds, and they're really good at killing fire support mechs.
They are often NOT the best at killing other Lights, however. There are many Light-killing Medium builds, and a number of Light-killing Heavy builds that are considerably better at killing Lights than other Lights.
The wide flexibility in builds gives much more nuance and diversity to this, but the basic, crude gist of the balance is as follows:
Lights are great at out-maneuvering, harassing, and killing slow and stompies, and fire support.
Fast Mediums, and fast, brawly Heavies are great at killing Lights and other speedies.
Heavies generally bring the majority of firepower to a match (at least, in a balanced world), but can be squishy.
Slow and stompies are great at killing mediums and heavies, and tanking fire for other, squishier mechs so they can survive longer and do more damage.
Fire support mechs are great at killing or wearing down slow, unsupported advances at range.
That is horribly simplified, and the wide variability in mech capabilities and specific builds causes a lot of blurring along those lines, and specific terrain and circumstances can further impact that, and the effectiveness of various roles, but that's the general balance of weight classes.
In Skirmish/Counter-Attack Mode, Heavies and Assaults are emphasized, because you generally want to maximize the amount of firepower you're bringing, and the amount of armor you're bringing (though personally I think there are plenty of ways to use a harassing speedy strategy to wear the enemy down, I just haven't played enough Counter-Attack Mode to develop said strategies).
In CW Attack Mode, Lights and speedies in general are more valuable, because you don't need to kill all the mechs, just knock out an objective. A mobile assault force is always going to have the advantage there, because it can evade defenses and quickly hit the objective. A mobile defense force is also valuable, because it can more easily respond to a mobile assault force.
#32
Posted 09 February 2015 - 09:07 PM
Edited by Sword of Morning, 09 February 2015 - 09:08 PM.
#33
Posted 09 February 2015 - 09:11 PM
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/82dba/82dba3338a88138205eb83111235be69ceb30ce1" alt=":ph34r:"
4 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 4 guests, 0 anonymous users