39 replies to this topic

[El Bandito]

cSand, on 20 March 2015 - 12:12 PM, said:

.. yet.

We got SSRM 4 and 6's in the pipe, yo!

Yeah, in 3058. Which means what? Two years of waiting in PGI time? Three?

Edited by El Bandito, 20 March 2015 - 05:29 PM.

[Telmasa]

Mystere, on 20 March 2015 - 03:30 PM, said:

Are you referring to Alpine peaks? If so, you can flank the enemy base. Unfortunately, players just refuse to do so or don't know how. It very much has something to do with the virulent infestation of one-dimensional thinkers plaguing this game.

No, I was referring to the CW map, where there's really one (really wide) avenue of approach. It's somewhat split into 3 valleys, but that's it.

Quote

I have a suspicion the map and object scales are different. If I am correct, then a lot of work will still be required. There is also that thorny issue called "intellectual property" to worry about.

Yes, clearly it's not realistic to expect them to take Lingshan Island and plop it in Mechwarrior Online & just let us loose. That's not what I'm talking about - I'm talking about map design philosophy and was providing an example of the kind of thing that is ideal in my mind. If it's been around since the first Crysis engine & we're now on engine 3, it's hard for me to see this as something impossible to achieve.

Quote

I see being spawn camped as a very good indicator of a massive failure on the losing team. As such, I have no sympathy to offer. And that's coming form someone who only plays solo.

There's nothing fun about spawn camping.
There's nothing fun about being forced by the game to continue dropping despite a "massive failure" and having to take the punches akin to schoolyard bullies lining up and taking turns with you pinned against the wall.
There's nothing fun about standing around, waiting for some AI dropship to maybe-sort-of damage you while an enemy mech drops down for 12 other mechs to instantly unload on.

There's ways around that situation, the one I described is just one idea.
Having players wait 10+ minutes for a match, spend 20-30 more playing the match, only to become stuck in a situation where they might as well disconnect - that is, making players want to *stop* playing the game - is a poor situation.

Edited by Telmasa, 20 March 2015 - 06:06 PM.

[InRev]

cSand, on 20 March 2015 - 11:32 AM, said:

The real problem is that your average tryhards team goes out fully decked in the latest tastiest meta and then complains that "it's not fair mommmmm!"

I lol'd at this. The serious business competitive tryhards apparently want us to line up and get shot because it adheres to their version of the game.

Screw that. The whole life of this game, tryhards were telling us casuals to "adapt" to their meta-whoring. Now it's their turn. Nothing makes me happier than to hear one of these guys bitching and moaning at the light rush, because they had no problems abusing other stupid and broken mechanics for almost 3 years previously.

It really does separate the wheat from the chaff, because certain units (228, NKVA, NS) have had little difficulty stopping light rushes. What's everyone else's excuse?

[mark v92]

maybe all generators also power the AA gauss rifle or something? i dunno use imagination for that

could use some streak turrets in there tho. some of the turrets with streak 8/12 at the gens?

[MerryIguana]

Mystere, on 20 March 2015 - 10:40 AM, said:

Normally, you would think that players will adjust their tactics to suit the map they are in. But apparently in MWO, players would rather have PGI change the maps to suit their tactics.

Yea CW maps are perfect. Infallible.

[DivideByZer0]

Mystere, on 20 March 2015 - 10:40 AM, said:

Normally, you would think that players will adjust their tactics to suit the map they are in. But apparently in MWO, players would rather have PGI change the maps to suit their tactics.

It's called game design. It's kind of a thing.

[divinedisclaimer]

I'm posting to read my offensive sig

[Xetelian]

I smell a conflict of logic and fantasy.

[Mystere]

MerryIguana, on 20 March 2015 - 07:35 PM, said:

Yea CW maps are perfect. Infallible.

Nobody said they're perfect. In any case, my statement still holds true .. and cuts like a knife into the heart of the guilty.

[DANKnuggz]

I like the people who say I'm just supposed to deal with the maps as they are and like it....

There is a little thing called customer satisfaction where a company tries to satisfy as many of their customers (us players, in case you didn't catch that) as they can... The majority of their players are DISSATISFIED with the CW maps and are migrating to other games (cause ya know we don't HAVE to give them our money) to spend their money there instead of giving it to PGI.... I hope you can see how PGI might not want this to happen. As MWO sits now I cannot see myself staying with it for long unless the maps are made more dynamic and less straight forward or bottle necked.... MW4 had some GREAT maps that allowed teams to take advantage of multiple avenues of attack... heh I miss the old attrition game type.

CW maps need to be LARGER with progressive objectives that are spaced wide enough so defending teams have advantage of position as well as time to get there before the assaulting team arrives. With all the objectives in a relatively small area it is VERY easy to wipe all 5 generators (gates and omega gens) in one go unless a team comes specifically packing for a light rush in the first round... and that is IF the light rush comes in the first round and not round 3. Organized teams have a HUGE advantage in this area since pug teams rarely, if ever, coordinate well. Why do you think they send soldiers to basic training and make them into a unit instead of just pulling people off the street and telling them to go to war?? You people who expect the pug teams to coordinate better are not learning from your examples in real life and yes, some things from RL do actually translate to video games. Like human behavior and mob mentality to name a couple...

The CW bases are ridiculous... why are they all in the bottom of some kind of canyon?? Why would you build a base down in a rut where you cannot see more than a few hundred meters in any direction?? Take a queue from modern and ancient fort design.... The FIRST thing you do outside your compound is to clear ANY and ALL visual obstructions preventing you from seeing an approaching enemy. As a defender I shouldn't have to wonder where the rush will come from since I know they are attacking... The bases seem designed as if to invent the possibility of surprise... My point is when I'm defending a base I feel like I'm in a poorly balanced arena rather than in a fortified position built to defend the Omega turret. The base itself adds little to no challenge for attackers other than physical obstacles (which are just as much an obstacle for defenders) so why is it even there?? As the base is now it provides nothing but a hindrance to the defenders, forcing us to defend poorly sheltered generators and ourselves, while providing little to no defensive advantage. Why would military engineers building a military installation not think to clear the internal areas of the base of obstructions or maybe build a wall that every light pilot and his mother couldn't jump?? Why not place obstacles that have to be destroyed by attackers rather than jumped or gone around?? Why the hell isn't there a MANUAL locking mechanism on those doors that prevents them from opening unless you WANT them to??

W/O a proper base to attack and surmount I do not see why any attacking team can feel ANY pride in victory. "WOOHOO did you see how we just pooned those guys cause they didn't have just the right mechs out when we hit them with our light zerg!!" I could see how maybe the light zerg was fun at first but after a couple times how can you still enjoy that one trick, over and over and over and over and over and over and............ Even sex gets boring if you do it the same way over and over (if you don't believe that, try having more sex...)

The reason the light zerg works is because the bases are so feeble the lights have no respect for them. Turrets should be scary for lights but with jenky hit boxes and just plain weak turrets the lights can just bolt right past them and the defending mechs... why are there not sensor outposts inside the base so attacking teams cannot hide behind our own base structures as they attack?? If I wanted to defend a base you can be sure I'd place ground sensors as well as visual sensor drones at the top of structures.

Point is MANY things can be done to the bases to make them an actual base and not just some stupid canyon I'm stuck trying to fight in... Maybe then the 12 man teams will have to work for their wins.

Edited by DANKnuggz, 21 March 2015 - 11:09 AM.

[Madcap72]

HellAvenger, on 20 March 2015 - 12:10 PM, said:

Please drive this game to ground, please. This elites attitude is getting rather annoying. I am sure I have payed way more money for this game than you, and I barely spend time in CW due to the unbalance of pug vs premade.

I'm sure you have spent more too, which means one would have assumed you kept up on development and intentions of CW.

I did, which is why I know why they allow solo ques in CW in the first place vs what they had intended.

It's not an "elitist attitude" it is an informed opinion.

[Madcap72]

LordKnightFandragon, on 20 March 2015 - 01:37 PM, said:

Then it really shouldnt be called "Community Warfare".....That to me sounds like its a Community type of thing, where everyone can come and have a good time. Atleast WoT calls theirs "Clan Wars" so you basically know its about meta tanks and big premade clans.

MWO should call it something more...1337 sounding so the pubs know to stay away...and let it just be the 12 mans pummeling each other.

No, no it's pretty much been billed since day one as a mode of game playing that emphasis creation of large organized units that play together against other units and vie for control.


"where everyone can come and have a good time"

That's the public matches...

CW is for players looking to play other players without being nerf padded by ELO to ensure they have a more "fair fight".

Go back and look at old posts about CW, it was really never intended for solo drops in the first place.

It's in beta testing, and they need bodies.

[Kiiyor]

Mystere, on 20 March 2015 - 10:40 AM, said:

Normally, you would think that players will adjust their tactics to suit the map they are in. But apparently in MWO, players would rather have PGI change the maps to suit their tactics.

Well said.

We're a cantankerous old bunch. Resistant to change, yet clamoring for it, and full of complaints when we get it.

The MWO community is that one old dude that buys a single piece of fruit from the supermarket, refuses to eat it while it isn't perfectly ripe, waits for it to go rotten, then returns it and complains about it for an hour.

[Ace Selin]

Light Zerg is a crappy tactic and they need to make CW so that attackers must kill 75% or more of defenders before they can take omega.

[HARDKOR]

In about half of CW matches, the turrets and dropships get more kills than one of the teams. If they were stronger, the weaker teams would only have a chance of succeeding at an attack if it was a turrets only drop.

[PurpleNinja]

There's not match making in CW.

[Madcap72]

Ace Selin, on 21 March 2015 - 06:37 PM, said:

Light Zerg is a crappy tactic and they need to make CW so that attackers must kill 75% or more of defenders before they can take omega.

Not really, what it needs is more testing, more tweaking and to implement the financial component of having to pay for the logistics of dropping.

Organized teams that utilize good communication can stop light rushes.

But, lets look farther into the lack of logical thinking on your suggestion.


If a team has to kill 75% to be able to attack the genny, then they have already shown themselves to be able to kill the last 25% with ease, on top of having a numbers advantage.


GOOD teams don't need light rushes to win. They focus fire and prioritize targets. REALLY good teams do it down to a component level. I.E. one match where the attacking team, one of the top level corps, took off the ECM arm of my buddies kitfox with focused ERLL fire from 3 mechs, then left him alive forcing him to either keep fighting with the most important component gone, or eject and drop in a new mech.

Pugs just can't stand up to teams that utilize good tactics, teamwork, and train together.

[Eider]

People still cw? So long as it caters to the die hards dont expect it to be popular all of a sudden.

[DANKnuggz]

Well I hope they got the data they needed from by participation in this CW event cause I think I'll be giving it a break for a bit... If they intend it for only large groups of tryhards then they obviously didn't mean it for the regular masses that just don't have the time for that kind of dedicated game play... It would be nice if CW targets were more varied rather than always some orbital cannon protected by 48 mechs... Suppose planets did not open up for attack via game chosen targets but instead smaller units, one lance with maybe a 2 mech drop deck, could attack a series of smaller targets to open up a planet for conquest via larger attack forces....There are many smaller units that cannot field 12 mechs and at times are at the mercy of the pugs they get paired with. A series of smaller pre-targets would allow smaller outfits to contribute to the overall objective w/o having to dive into the larger battles better suited to large outfits and it would add some MUCH needed variety to the CW game play. Attacking the Omega cannon gets old no matter how many maps you add.

[Burktross]

Telmasa, on 20 March 2015 - 01:32 PM, said:

It would help if the maps given were true, open, realistic-terrain Mechwarrior maps, rather than DotA/League of Legends lane style mess.

Imagine if, rather than being hemmed in by mountains and canyon walls, the 'lanes' on all the current maps were only hemmed in by hills that you could cross over? What if you could flank around behind the base on the Arctic map? What if you had the distance to really do hit & run skirmishes, and scouting maneuvers, with light/medium mechs? The pug-match Arctic map is a great example of what a "good" community warfare map ought to look like, in my view - it strongly recalls MW4 maps (though some oddly shaped cliffs and peaks could probably be done away with).

Or, if you've played Crysis or Farcry or other games that *use* the same engines as this game, take any of the maps or areas you might find there, and imagine plugging those into MW:O.

Say PGI does something to prevent spawncamping, like if you spend too much time in enemy drop zone, you get destroyed by an orbiting naval cannon - your new alternative, in order to get the objectives and so on, would have to be to surround the enemy base (possibly with a bit less clutter so it's not 0-47 with the last mech hiding imperviously).

None of these things seem possible to me with the current philosophy of map design.

So MW LL?