39 replies to this topic

[DANKnuggz]

A light zerg is a perfectly legitimate tactic and is not a problem in and of itself.... The problem lies in feeble base defenses and a match making system that pairs entire 12 man groups against 12 man teams of individuals or pairs which (as is true in most online games) do not coordinate well....

First: Base Design

Why are base turrets and sensors so feeble?? They are stationary turrets HARDWIRED into a large generator which should have VASTLY more power than any 100 ton mech. Why does it take a generator the size of a large house to hold a gate closed?? Considering I've seen more firepower displayed from 1 lance of mechs than I see combined in an entire base and those generators are bigger than 4 mech engines combined there should be more than enough power for more turrets. If this Omega cannon is such a large asset that they would deploy an entire 4 companies of mechs to protect it, would they not also make sure the base is well defended w/o mech support?? Why do Large Laser turrets wait so long to fire?? A stationary base cannot afford to wait on targets to be in "optimum" firing range since by that time the attacking mechs have long since destroyed the turret from less than "optimum" range.... The bases do not feel logical at all. They are as hard to move around for defenders as they are for attackers usually which defeats the purpose of defensive structures. Why are there not more places for defending mechs to be able to visually see more of there surroundings (i.e. more places to get up higher and see or fire from)?? The bases need to be designed as if they were really meant to be defended while still maintaining game balance...

Second: Matchmaker

This one is more difficult. I do not believe MWO has a population to support splitting CW into small group/single and large group queues since it can take forever to find a match in CW as it is already.

As the CW game sits now it won't be long before the organized groups have driven off the less organized casual players which means less matches and longer wait times. The bases are feeble and organized attacking teams have little to no respect for the power of their defenses, especially if the defending team is a bunch of pubs. Defensive structures are meant to give a smaller force a fighting chance against larger numbers but more often than not the obstacles in a MWO base provide as much of a problem for me as they do the attackers. Even if everyone starts running light killers in the first round it will not stop smart organized teams from switching their light zerg to wave 2 or 3 as I've already seen many teams do.

CW matches are getting boring and frustrating when defending against large outfits since they all employ 1 tactic to win.... Not a very complicated match design if 1 way to win is so overwhelmingly successful that EVERYONE who can organize it, does so and usually wins...

I have played MW and BT since MW1 (lol solid colored polygons baby) in the early 90's and have LOVED the franchise with each installment so it would really bum me out to see this game stall out due to frustrated players.

[Funkmaster Rick]

The maps in this game are something of a long-running joke, even the CW ones.

I'm sure there are legitimate reasons behind the scenes for why they build the maps the way they do, but I am not a fan of their design choices in this particular field.

I haven't played CW in a while, but I hear the new map is kind of like a Castle Brian in its construction. Maybe it'll help alleviate the issue, force varying tactics instead of the same-old two-minute CW rounds.

[Mystere]

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.

[Deathlike]

You know... just because light zerging happens, doesn't actually mean the PUGs can't be killed through other means.

The problem though it moreso the education on what real teams do on a map, and the knowledge gap that has to be filled is large in of itself.

That's even before we get to the part of players that are not doing well in the non-CW queues.

I'd like to think CW should be for everyone, but those partaking in CW should understand there's a lot to learn, and coordination is only as good as people understand what they have to do and what they shouldn't be doing.

[Madcap72]

Cool, go back to pug drop then.


CW is in beta, and it's not intended for solo or small group drops.


It was originally intended for all 12 man drops. The expectation is you know what you're doing and communicate with your team.

[El Bandito]

Light Zerging just sucks as an experience overall. Especially if it is repeated match after match. And when some groups wisenes up and equip their Crows with SSRM6s, the Light pilots cry on the forums for SSRM6 nerfs.

One can only imagine what the IS will do once the Clanners Zerg with their Arctic Cheetahs. No SSRM6s for them.

Edited by El Bandito, 20 March 2015 - 10:58 AM.

[DANKnuggz]

Streaks are nice if they don't have ECM to counter your lock and leave you with a mech that can't fire... or they hold off on the light rush until wave 3... my point is no winning tactic should be as simple as adding 1 fat wave of suicide jump jet lights with ECM cover... If you 12 man groups think it is fun to use the same tactic over and over again you're welcome to your rinse and repeat match style. Oh and @ Madcap72 that kind of thinking is what kills game populations since there never are enough of you elitist {Richard Cameron} to keep a game afloat for long. So if it is Beta we are not supposed to question the game function and map design??? Do you really think you can pull enough 12 man groups into CW to keep it going as a game type with that kind of attitude??.... probably not.... pop is already pretty small and going to get smaller if nothing changes and ******* like Madcap have their way...

[Metus regem]

El Bandito, on 20 March 2015 - 10:56 AM, said:

Light Zerging just sucks as an experience overall. Especially if it is repeated match after match. And when some groups wisenes up and equip their Crows with SSRM6s, the Light pilots cry on the forums for SSRM6 nerfs.

One can only imagine what the IS will do once the Clanners Zerg with their Arctic Cheetahs. No SSRM6s for them.

https://youtu.be/MVlI_S_D4GE

I'll just leave this video here for how the IS can respond to Light rushes....

[HumptyWasPushed]

They should lock drop decks between ceasefires forcing teams to take that ton of lights when they're counter attacked or need to defend a planet.

[cSand]

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!"

If anyone could think outside the tiny box once in a while they might actually be dangerous in their own right, not only when they have 8-11 other meta humping clowns with them

Edited by cSand, 20 March 2015 - 11:40 AM.

[Mystere]

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!"

If anyone could think outside the tiny box once in a while they might actually be dangerous in their own right, not only when they have 8-11 other meta humping clowns with them

Well, I would surmise that an astounding majority of gamers are more known for their "monkey see, monkey do" attitude and less for their individualism -- just like much of the human race.

Edited by Mystere, 20 March 2015 - 12:03 PM.

[HellAvenger]

Madcap72, on 20 March 2015 - 10:47 AM, said:

Cool, go back to pug drop then.


CW is in beta, and it's not intended for solo or small group drops.


It was originally intended for all 12 man drops. The expectation is you know what you're doing and communicate with your team.

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.

Edited by HellAvenger, 20 March 2015 - 12:10 PM.

[Augustus Martelus II]

Meh i did play CW and i did stop....since its the same as the assault or capture resources and skirmish....they all finish as a blob fight.

I would have love maps with many bases like in MWLL...some harder to take some easier...but if you team all stand at the same place = for sure you ll lose.

If it would be like in MWLL, we wouldnt see only top tier mechs on the field but mechs with more different weapons than er ppcs or larges laser (Clan or IS).

Damn i miss this game.... :/

[cSand]

El Bandito, on 20 March 2015 - 10:56 AM, said:

....No SSRM6s for them.

.. yet.

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

[Telmasa]

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 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.

Edited by Telmasa, 20 March 2015 - 01:35 PM.

[LordKnightFandragon]

Madcap72, on 20 March 2015 - 10:47 AM, said:

Cool, go back to pug drop then.


CW is in beta, and it's not intended for solo or small group drops.


It was originally intended for all 12 man drops. The expectation is you know what you're doing and communicate with your team.

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.

[Adamski]

If PGI ever fixes netcode, mech models, and hitboxes, then Light Rush would be as dumb of a tactic as it sounds.

[Vassago Rain]

Why does shooting the generator open the gate?

[LordKnightFandragon]

Vassago Rain, on 20 March 2015 - 01:44 PM, said:

Why does shooting the generator open the gate?

Cuz it disables the locking mechanisms and shuts off power to it....so I guess by default the gate slides open on some auxillary power unit? Besides, light rushes just jump it anyway...

Adamski, on 20 March 2015 - 01:43 PM, said:

If PGI ever fixes netcode, mech models, and hitboxes, then Light Rush would be as dumb of a tactic as it sounds.

Wishful thinking much?

[Mystere]

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).

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.