291 replies to this topic

[Tasker]

VeeDog, on 10 April 2015 - 11:07 AM, said:

Spawn camping is not a skill. Specially on the new map, where gate generators are in the open (on top gates) for the enemy to destroy. What skill is that? Like WTF? May as well have those Gate generators just under the attacking drop zone. A team needs scouts, defenders, and offenders, even If pugging using VOIP and it has been done (even smallest usage). But when enemy just runs inside straight to the spawn to spawn kill (with only assaults, heavies) is no skill. Just run with team, under the drop ships and go at it. No communication needed.....none. Just sit under the ships and wait. In CW, their was only one time change (fixes). Never been fixes after that. That was to illuminate firing on ECM mechs from turrets and drop ship lasers. Those turrets are truly pointless on maps. I really do not know who makes these bases, but needs to check out how to build a base.

Emerald Taiga is extremely poorly designed map and for once will agree with those who complain about spawn camp. Is very much easy to spawn camp on this map, which is probably worst map I see in this game. Not only does map have stupid tree blocking all vision but drop points have MAJOR problems.

Defender drop points are in front of objectives, and cut off from each other by impassable terrain. Who think this is good idea???? Attacker drop points 1200 meters apart, again cut off by terrain. Who think THAT is good idea???

Awful map.

[Coordinator Toxic Kerensky]

Tasker, on 10 April 2015 - 11:26 AM, said:

Emerald Taiga is extremely poorly designed map and for once will agree with those who complain about spawn camp. Is very much easy to spawn camp on this map, which is probably worst map I see in this game. Not only does map have stupid tree blocking all vision but drop points have MAJOR problems.

Defender drop points are in front of objectives, and cut off from each other by impassable terrain. Who think this is good idea???? Attacker drop points 1200 meters apart, again cut off by terrain. Who think THAT is good idea???

Awful map.

Hope you enjoy your imminent suspension for 168 hours after the devs read this post; this is now toxic language, which is against the ToS, leaving us no choice

Edited by Coordinator Aigis Kurita, 10 April 2015 - 11:35 AM.

[Suzumiya Haruhi no Kerensky]

Chef Kerensky, on 08 April 2015 - 07:32 PM, said:

I haven't played a cod game in years but you can bet your ass I ran around with an rpg-7 and danger close in mw2 and I shot rockets at people, and then I reloaded those rockets with OMA, and then did it again. I did this because it was very effective, and because it was extremely funny.

Similar principles apply to spawn camping.

uh you cant use rpg and one man army on the same loadout

[GuardDogg]

If 12 mechs come in first (What ever wave) wave and then they are all destroyed. At least their was a battle. No spawn camping. Their is nothing wrong with that.

[Stoned Prophet]

Telmasa, on 06 April 2015 - 04:45 PM, said:

Hypocritical nonsense.
"let myself be spawncamped"
"you...let them [attack]"
"not the people good enough to [spawn camp]"

People are supposed to play the game the way it was intended. It's that simple.

I've said it multiple times this thread, I will repeat it just for your one-track mind: Developers* don't design games so that you can spawncamp.

*EA games & Call of Duty titles excluded.



But by all means, Stoned P & YCS, if you want to kill anybody's urge to bother with this game, so you can continue farming freebies by abusing all the gimmicks you can create out of all the little flaws and niches of an incomplete & unfinished game, you go right ahead.

I'm done arguing here, I've laid out all salient points in posts prior.

If PGI really is naiive enough to listen to players like you, then just like so many other titles that have flopped and failed over the last decade, all hope is lost for this game and any kind of future it won't have.

Awww, see, you have no ACTUAL argument, other than We are bad for beating you because we took the effort to get good.
If youre not good enough to take on a team, dont play it. Simple

[Chef Kerensky]

Telmasa, on 10 April 2015 - 07:47 AM, said:

@ Second question:
Because they exploit as many one-sided gimmicks as possible against teams that don't.
It's a pretty straightforward B.S. contest, dude, complete with circlejerking each other. The way they're all posting gibberish nonsense and liking each other's post proves that point.

"Everybody who says spawncamping isn't bad wins a lot so there must be a conspiracy going on. This makes it impossible for me to take advantage of those same mechanics."

Are you familiar with the story of the bear and the grapes?

[Chef Kerensky]

MechaNagato, on 10 April 2015 - 11:40 AM, said:

uh you cant use rpg and one man army on the same loadout

Scavenger pro? All I remember is shooting a lot of rockets.

[Telmasa]

Ghost Badger, on 10 April 2015 - 08:09 AM, said:

By being here Telmasa, you're a part of that circle-jerk...you're just going the opposite direction.
One-sided gimmicks? From what I recall you've complained about:
Artiller/Airstrikes
Quirks
Spawn-camping
Light-rushing
Was Clamz OP in there somewhere too, before you joined them?
I'm sure I'm missing some...I don't read your posts terribly often. If you've got a problem with SO MANY parts of this game...well...I'm not sure why you still play it. What you call one-sided gimmicks other people call "playing the game to win."
Every time PGI "fixes" something the community cries about being broken, the teams that won using that "gimmick" find out what NEW strategy works...and changes to that. And continue to win. Adapting to the rules of the game is ALWAYS going to happen. Period. And the CRAZY part it, when other people use those "gimmicks" against the teams who win...they don't work. Because that team still beats them. Because usually, they play better.

*sigh* Alright, you asked for this wall of text:

- Artillery/air strikes & consumables are one-sided paytowin gimmicks that either summon incredible damage wherever you point, or summon a nigh-invisible wallhack scout that lasts for an extensive duration. These consumables are powerful enough that they are often and repeatedly singlehandedly determining the flow of the game, both in public qeue and in CW. So yes, I do complain about them.

- Quirks, at least when they add up past a certain extent, are by and large one-sided. The Thunderbolt-9S was proof of that, the MPL Firestarter & Thunderbolt are still proof of that, the Grid Iron, Dragon-1N, and LRM-10 Hunchback are still proof of that, many of the Battlemaster laser-barf mechs are proof of that, and the list continues to go on from there the harder you look and dig. To PGI's credit, the 'iterative' waves of quirks appear to be more balanced and well-rounded in nature; so my complaints with quirks lie with the fact that there are alot of wild outliers when it comes to balance - the complaint here is not that the quirks exist, it's that they need to be balanced, as otherwise it creates another level of unbalanced gimmicky.

- Spawn-camping: go read through earlier pages of this thread if you're unclear on my view of this.

- Light-rushing: It's cheesy. It's dumb. You and I have both done it, you and I sometimes were on the same team doing it, so I know full well you know how stupid it makes the game. The reason it's possible to begin with has alot to do with faulty map design, and speed-induced lag-shields affecting light mechs, though to smaller degrees it's also often thanks to too much quirking. The bottom line here is that for the tonnage required to bring a light mech into a match, all but a select few are able to hit & take punches way above and beyond what their tonnage limit is. If I can take a Spider, Jenner, or Firestarter and compete evenly - or even favorably - with mechs twice, thrice my own weight, I say that's pretty imbalanced. Why bother playing anything heavier at that point? (Which is exactly why alot of units take nothing but mass lights.)

- Clan mechs are not inherently OP. Hear me out: CERML and Streak6s are causing all the imbalance issues with Clan mechs. They produce the most power/range-to-tonnage ratios out of all the weapons, and because of loopholes in how ghost heat works, are still able to be boated in vast amounts with little-to-no penalty, and because of the aforementioned tonnage ratio, simultaneously allow optimum investment in heatsinks and ammunition. If you introduced nerfs, whether it be damage, range, heat, ghost heat, or some combination thereof, I guarantee you'll see alot less of the "hurrdurr laserbarf/doomcrow meta", and as a result far less of the "omg clan mechz so OP plz nerf". Even without quirks, mechs like the King Crab and Banshee are able to compete quite well with the Dire Wolf; my Warhawk and Stalker are identical for all intents and purposes; I've played extensively enough in both my IS stable and Clan stable to get the gist of where cause of perceived imbalance most often lies - and it's in the CERML/streak6 builds (albeit often with LPLs tossed in for good measure and additional exploitation of ghost heat loopholes).
That all aside, my CW dropdeck involves mechs like the Nova, Warhawk, Summoner, and so on - so my reasons for permanent Ghost Bear contract frankly has nothing to do with "clanmechsOPmeta" garbage. FRR and Ghost bear form the Dominion in the near future, and I was tired of the stale IS meta quirkening-induced bandwagon garbage, so I went to CGB where I might enjoy my decidedly non-meta fetishes.

- It's because I'd like to keep on playing the game and be able to enjoy it that I happen to be vocalizing my complaints and issues with it. Seems like we just went full circle here, didn't we?

And really, that's some real hyperbole nonsense - "well players are gonna keep finding ways to gimmick/cheat/abuse the system, so just let them cheat and never fix any of the problems"? Is that really how you think this should work? Cause I think that's frankly pretty darn stupid.
Carrying that attitude kills games.
I've been at this at length before: if the game is not balanced and fair in addition to being competitive, it will die.

Would you play chess with anybody if, due to various gimmickry, glitches, or whatnot, they had a full row of Queens versus you with only Pawns? Would anybody even bother trying to play that game of chess?

Imbalance and one-sidedness sucks the fun and creativity out of a game, and just like on other games throughout the years, it won't be long before all you see is a dead game not even inhabited by those select few players who carry attitudes like NVKA here.

Ghost Badger, on 10 April 2015 - 11:26 AM, said:

Question...if you start a match...and the 12 enemy mechs kill your 12 mechs in the first wave without losing a single mech...was that skill? Or was that "spawn camping?"

Now you're being facetious.

But despite this being an extreme far from being the norm, I'll play along:

This depends quite a bit: was it all 12 mechs from the first wave, or did the enemy kill 4 mechs, then proceed to spawncamp their dropship zones and start wiping out the rest of their dropdecks before they get a chance to lift a finger, while the remaining 8 players are outnumbered and unable to do much thanks to extremely faulty terrain that favors spawncampers?

Spawncamping is spawncamping, no matter how you slice it. Clearly if a player's got the opportunity to engage and maneuver freely after being spawned in, then a "spawncamp" is not what's going on. Which is why many units who enjoy some self-respect and dignity specifically do not move in and spawncamp even if the match's score is heavily sided in their favor already - they still grant the remaining enemies the chance to spawn, move up, and fight, which is really pretty darn simple, don't you think?
And those units still win despite playing fair - so ask yourself why other units still seem to have to spawncamp in order to win. I think the answer is pretty clear - they lack the skill, abililty, and balls to do so.

Chef Kerensky, on 10 April 2015 - 01:54 PM, said:

"Everybody who says spawncamping isn't bad wins a lot so there must be a conspiracy going on. This makes it impossible for me to take advantage of those same mechanics."
Are you familiar with the story of the bear and the grapes?

Trying a strawman argument now?

That isn't what I said, nor is it remotely close. Either your reading comprehension levels suck, or like others in this thread you have a personal agenda to accomplish, leading you to twist words and meaning at your will in the face of any rational or logical argument - so either way you're coming up with nonsense.

Edited by Telmasa, 10 April 2015 - 02:58 PM.

[Richter Kerensky]

[Deathlike]

Telmasa, on 10 April 2015 - 02:54 PM, said:

- Artillery/air strikes & consumables are one-sided paytowin gimmicks that either summon incredible damage wherever you point, or summon a nigh-invisible wallhack scout that lasts for an extensive duration. These consumables are powerful enough that they are often and repeatedly singlehandedly determining the flow of the game, both in public qeue and in CW. So yes, I do complain about them.

I had airstrikes and arty, but I've learned to deal with it. I hated it when it was boosted 400% unceremoniously on the Phoenix Pack release. If you don't want to use it, fine... but you better put up or shut up if you don't want to rely on them to succeed (in which case, whining about losing generally suggests being bad). You could argue balancing it, but you can't claim "pay to win" when it's really just losing more C-bills if you are not using them well.

However, if you stink @ identifying and shooting UAVs... that is ultimately on you. The only real reason they exist is because of ECM... and no other reason honestly.

Quote

- Quirks, at least when they add up past a certain extent, are by and large one-sided. The Thunderbolt-9S was proof of that, the MPL Firestarter & Thunderbolt are still proof of that, the Grid Iron, Dragon-1N, and LRM-10 Hunchback are still proof of that, many of the Battlemaster laser-barf mechs are proof of that, and the list continues to go on from there the harder you look and dig. To PGI's credit, the 'iterative' waves of quirks appear to be more balanced and well-rounded in nature; so my complaints with quirks lie with the fact that there are alot of wild outliers when it comes to balance - the complaint here is not that the quirks exist, it's that they need to be balanced, as otherwise it creates another level of unbalanced gimmicky.

That's on PGI, not on the players. The inability to properly quirk stuff isn't a player issue... since the players will expose the behaviors... whether you agree with it or not. Instead of just saying "quirks are bad", you should be more constructive about that, but I have yet to see that.

Quote

- Spawn-camping: go read through earlier pages of this thread if you're unclear on my view of this.

This is mostly a PGI created issue (mostly on the map creation side, but also on the spawn mechanics side as well), but also partly a player skill/understanding/aggression/working together issue. Many of that can be solved, but it's up to the players to work together to succeed... regardless of the terrible state of many maps.

Quote

- Light-rushing: It's cheesy. It's dumb. You and I have both done it, you and I sometimes were on the same team doing it, so I know full well you know how stupid it makes the game. The reason it's possible to begin with has alot to do with faulty map design, and speed-induced lag-shields affecting light mechs, though to smaller degrees it's also often thanks to too much quirking. The bottom line here is that for the tonnage required to bring a light mech into a match, all but a select few are able to hit & take punches way above and beyond what their tonnage limit is. If I can take a Spider, Jenner, or Firestarter and compete evenly - or even favorably - with mechs twice, thrice my own weight, I say that's pretty imbalanced. Why bother playing anything heavier at that point? (Which is exactly why alot of units take nothing but mass lights.)

Actually... you're not using them right. The better players don't complain because they can shoot lights. How about practice shooting them? That is step #1 into getting better. I don't think you adhere to that basic premise that all good players try to at least follow. If you can't shoot them sufficiently, learn to "get gud".

Quote

- Clan mechs are not inherently OP. Hear me out: CERML and Streak6s are causing all the imbalance issues with Clan mechs. They produce the most power/range-to-tonnage ratios out of all the weapons, and because of loopholes in how ghost heat works, are still able to be boated in vast amounts with little-to-no penalty, and because of the aforementioned tonnage ratio, simultaneously allow optimum investment in heatsinks and ammunition. If you introduced nerfs, whether it be damage, range, heat, ghost heat, or some combination thereof, I guarantee you'll see alot less of the "hurrdurr laserbarf/doomcrow meta", and as a result far less of the "omg clan mechz so OP plz nerf". Even without quirks, mechs like the King Crab and Banshee are able to compete quite well with the Dire Wolf; my Warhawk and Stalker are identical for all intents and purposes; I've played extensively enough in both my IS stable and Clan stable to get the gist of where cause of perceived imbalance most often lies - and it's in the CERML/streak6 builds (albeit often with LPLs tossed in for good measure and additional exploitation of ghost heat loopholes).

You're totally forgetting about the durability of XL engines compared to what the IS has an alternatives. This increases Clan TTK while indirectly reducing IS TTK. I don't know about you, but forgetting vital information depreciates your argument.

Quote

That all aside, my CW dropdeck involves mechs like the Nova, Warhawk, Summoner, and so on - so my reasons for permanent Ghost Bear contract frankly has nothing to do with "clanmechsOPmeta" garbage. FRR and Ghost bear form the Dominion in the near future, and I was tired of the stale IS meta quirkening-induced bandwagon garbage, so I went to CGB where I might enjoy my decidedly non-meta fetishes.

So... you using bad mechs is good indicator of balance? Oh boy!

Quote

Would you play chess with anybody if, due to various gimmickry, glitches, or whatnot, they had a full row of Queens versus you with only Pawns? Would anybody even bother trying to play that game of chess?

The question really isn't what you're stating... it's more like "do you actually understand how to play the game?" From the answers/questions you are providing... I doubt it.

Every single time people actually explain game mechanics incorrectly, it fosters all sorts of incorrect conclusions and whatnot. Instead of complaining about things that are broken (mind you, there's a lot that's broken), how about you take the time to learn how to succeed? It doesn't mean "exploiting" things, it means actually taking the time and effort, and skill to get better. Once you do that, people will take you seriously... because to everyone that doesn't agree with your viewpoint.. you can't even prove you understand how certain things work. How do you properly debate things that you don't have a grasp on? You might as well claim IS/Clan is OP... just because the "sky is falling". But hey... whatever makes you feel better I guess.

Quote

Now you're being facetious.

But despite this being an extreme far from being the norm, I'll play along:

This depends quite a bit: was it all 12 mechs from the first wave, or did the enemy kill 4 mechs, then proceed to spawncamp their dropship zones and start wiping out the rest of their dropdecks before they get a chance to lift a finger, while the remaining 8 players are outnumbered and unable to do much thanks to extremely faulty terrain that favors spawncampers?

Spawncamping is spawncamping, no matter how you slice it. Clearly if a player's got the opportunity to engage and maneuver freely after being spawned in, then a "spawncamp" is not what's going on. Which is why many units who enjoy some self-respect and dignity specifically do not move in and spawncamp even if the match's score is heavily sided in their favor already - they still grant the remaining enemies the chance to spawn, move up, and fight, which is really pretty darn simple, don't you think?
And those units still win despite playing fair - so ask yourself why other units still seem to have to spawncamp in order to win. I think the answer is pretty clear - they lack the skill, abililty, and balls to do so.

I hate to say this... but if a group loses 12-0 in the first wave... more often than not, they are usually in for a roflstomp. This has been demonstrated in non-CW play... and it works just as well in CW with 48 mechs on each side. It begs the question... could this 12-0 stomp have been prevented? The answer is yes, but with the caveat that every player has to get better, play better, and work together as a team. Failing to do so just allows spawn camping to accelerate the process. GOOD TEAMS do not get spawn camped... they just DO the spawn camping. It doesn't matter which side you are on for this.

Ultimately, the moral of this story is "learn to get better" or continue to repeat prior history.

Edited by Deathlike, 11 April 2015 - 03:02 PM.

[Telmasa]

Deathlike, on 11 April 2015 - 03:01 PM, said:

I had airstrikes and arty, but I've learned to deal with it. I hated it when it was boosted 400% unceremoniously on the Phoenix Pack release. If you don't want to use it, fine... but you better put up or shut up if you don't want to rely on them to succeed (in which case, whining about losing generally suggests being bad). You could argue balancing it, but you can't claim "pay to win" when it's really just losing more C-bills if you are not using them well.

No, I don't have to put up or shut up. It's breaking the game *I* want to enjoy.
Matches in both public and CW qeue are literally determined by who uses consumables more & most effectively - matches can be won and lost by single UAVs, let alone 12+ airstrikes while camping a chokepoint.

And it's still pay to win. Just because you might possibly screw it up, doesn't change anything about that fact. A game gimmick doesn't have to have a guaranteed 100% success rate in order to be "paytowin". If you really don't understand that, go look into "gold ammo" over on World of Tanks and how many year's worth of debate and grief has gone on about it.

Quote

However, if you stink @ identifying and shooting UAVs... that is ultimately on you. The only real reason they exist is because of ECM... and no other reason honestly.

Myself aside, most players generally don't spent time looking up. Not to mention smoke, hills, buildings, or whatnot can make it impossible to see or shoot down said UAVs.

And using ECM as justification for it is a poor excuse - one OP part of the game doesn't justify another OP gimmick to come in and try to counterbalance it.

UAVs should be nerfed/removed, and at the same time, ECM should be changed over from "Angel" to basic "Guardian" ECM that we saw back in MW4.

Quote

That's on PGI, not on the players. The inability to properly quirk stuff isn't a player issue... since the players will expose the behaviors... whether you agree with it or not. Instead of just saying "quirks are bad", you should be more constructive about that, but I have yet to see that.

Constructive? OK:
- remove all cooldown & heat quirks
- switch/replace quirks on mechs that justifiably need the help (according to performance-by-tonnage, not some fake arbitrary tiering system) to things like range, velocity, burn time, spread - nothing that affects DPS or HPS (heat per second), with the exclusion of jam chance

Seems rather simple an obvious to me. Any quirks that affect DPS or HPS instantly throw all weapon balance out of the window. There's plenty ways to make 'bad' mechs viable without giving them god-mode quirks that allow them to use half the tonnage to pump out the same damage as a mech more than twice its own weight. (And when those quirks exist on some of the heaviest mechs in the game...ugh)

Quote

This is mostly a PGI created issue (mostly on the map creation side, but also on the spawn mechanics side as well), but also partly a player skill/understanding/aggression/working together issue. Many of that can be solved, but it's up to the players to work together to succeed... regardless of the terrible state of many maps.

Yes and no. Players can struggle and try to work around problems, sure, but there's a huge limit on what a player can do within a flawed system.

You are correct that fixes so that there is no spawncamping has to come from PGI; to those who say that's impossible, I say you have a severe lack of imagination.

Quote

Actually... you're not using them right. The better players don't complain because they can shoot lights. How about practice shooting them? That is step #1 into getting better. I don't think you adhere to that basic premise that all good players try to at least follow. If you can't shoot them sufficiently, learn to "get gud".

I followed the pack back in the day, that's a little different from me choosing consciously to light rush as the best thing I can possibly do with a light mech.
And last I checked, even the best players still complain about lights because the speed-related lagshield is quite real. Add jumpjet bunnyhop manipulation on top of that, and it becomes a complete crapshot every time you shoot at that light mech.

And really, I think I could use a little less practice, personally. Just about every pug match you go into, and certainly guaranteed for at least 1 wave in CW from all but the most reputable groups - you have to try to NOT get practice shooting at light mechs.

Quote

You're totally forgetting about the durability of XL engines compared to what the IS has an alternatives. This increases Clan TTK while indirectly reducing IS TTK. I don't know about you, but forgetting vital information depreciates your argument.

I was not claiming that Clan Mechs have no advantages. I was claiming that they are not inherently OP. They have plenty disadvantages, too - the main point, which you have adroitly ignored, was that the perception of clan imbalance is largely created by CERMLs and c-Streaks being too powerful for too little tonnage.

Quote

So... you using bad mechs is good indicator of balance? Oh boy!

How far out of context did you have to reach to type that sentence with a straight face?
My answer to Ghost Badger on how & why I chose to join a clan faction - to demonstrate that it was not, in fact, because "well clan mechs are sooo obviously OP that i'm gonna jump on the bandwagon" - had nothing, at all, to do with "balance" indication.

Though while we're at it, I'll point out if I can succeed in CW with those "bad mechs" and without the gimmicky aid of consumable spam, what does that say about you players who *must* follow the meta to the letter with all your superquirk metacheese and gimmickry galore? Hmph.

Quote

The question really isn't what you're stating... it's more like "do you actually understand how to play the game?" From the answers/questions you are providing... I doubt it.

Now you're just getting lazy and jumping on the adhominem bandwagon, huh?

Quote

Every single time people actually explain game mechanics incorrectly, it fosters all sorts of incorrect conclusions and whatnot. Instead of complaining about things that are broken (mind you, there's a lot that's broken),

Hey, an honest admission! Seems like the first from the other side of the fence here.

Quote

how about you take the time to learn how to succeed? It doesn't mean "exploiting" things, it means actually taking the time and effort, and skill to get better. Once you do that, people will take you seriously... because to everyone that doesn't agree with your viewpoint.. you can't even prove you understand how certain things work. How do you properly debate things that you don't have a grasp on? You might as well claim IS/Clan is OP... just because the "sky is falling". But hey... whatever makes you feel better I guess.

I've already posted my stats if you have doubts that I don't know how success is achieved in this game. I wouldn't be here expressing my opinions if I hadn't invested hundreds of hours in the game, playing mechs of all types, classes, and experiencing each weapon and witnessing the effects of the many variables on how the game goes.

Just because I chose to forgo unit tags does not automatically mean I am inexperienced or ignorant of what is affecting the game I've been playing.

And please, "sky is falling"? Aren't there enough straw men hoisted elsewhere in this thread?

Quote

I hate to say this... but if a group loses 12-0 in the first wave... more often than not, they are usually in for a roflstomp. This has been demonstrated in non-CW play... and it works just as well in CW with 48 mechs on each side. It begs the question... could this 12-0 stomp have been prevented? The answer is yes, but with the caveat that every player has to get better, play better, and work together as a team. Failing to do so just allows spawn camping to accelerate the process. GOOD TEAMS do not get spawn camped... they just DO the spawn camping. It doesn't matter which side you are on for this.

Ultimately, the moral of this story is "learn to get better" or continue to repeat prior history.

1. It's very unlikely for a match to start out 12 - 0.
2. "Get good" is not the fix-all solution if the game itself is flawed. Unless it's undeniably balanced and fair, true competition will never exist - and without that, "getting good" is a moot point, because ability in the game is replaced by a fake perception of superiority created by exploting as many flaws as possible all at once.
3. How can you possibly tell if a team is "good" or "bad" if a spawncamp is involved? A spawncamp prevents players from actually playing the game - doesn't allow them to spawn, maneuver, or enter combat. It specifically nullifies the existence of any relative skill between the two teams. For all you know, if spawncamping was not possible, the 'losing' team would walk all over the team that's doing the spawncamp.

I've said this before, I will say it again:
Spawncamps are NOT a forgone, natural conclusion to a one-sided match.
They are the cause of one-sided matches.
It does not "accelerate" a forgone conclusion - it creates one.

It's an exploit. Teams do it because it means they don't have to get good. *THAT* is the real moral of the story.


But as you yourself have admitted, ultimately it's not up to us players - I can berate and chide chumps like the NVKA bandwagon all night and day, and it won't change a thing, even assuming I can possibly change the minds of players out there.

The only way to fix things for good to make the game playable for *all* concerned - not just units willing to exploit as much as possible to get a few jollies - is for the developers, PGI, to step up, step in, and repair, remove, add, change anything and everything they need to create the intended product.

And if at this point, you're going to try to argue that PGI, let alone any game developer in their right mind, would intentionally create one-sided gimmicks that disrupt the game entirely - the spawncamp merely being the most offensive gimmick of many - then I believe you are being willfully delusional in the hopes of personal gain and that there's no further point trying to reason with you.

Edited by Telmasa, 12 April 2015 - 02:59 AM.

[Havoc1606]

The spawn camping is a serious issue. I fully agree that if a team camps you its your fault. However, that is now a guaranteed tactic for a win. The way the game is designed demands that all players use this tactic and nothing else. kinda defeats the purpose of comm warfare. I came back to this game to play comm warfare, but i'm leaving again. fought the same 12 man team 3 times in 2 days. they charged the spawn point and sat within 100 meters a blasted anything landing. the only counter is to go sit on there point and burn the timer. Whats the friggin point of playing?

[YCSLiesmith]

Havoc1606, on 12 April 2015 - 08:34 AM, said:

The spawn camping is a serious issue. I fully agree that if a team camps you its your fault. However, that is now a guaranteed tactic for a win. The way the game is designed demands that all players use this tactic and nothing else. kinda defeats the purpose of comm warfare. I came back to this game to play comm warfare, but i'm leaving again. fought the same 12 man team 3 times in 2 days. they charged the spawn point and sat within 100 meters a blasted anything landing. the only counter is to go sit on there point and burn the timer. Whats the friggin point of playing?

spawn camping isn't a tactic though. It's just shooting mechs where you find them. like, obviously, if you just kill mechs you find, advance to the next mech, kill those, doing it at a steady pace without losing guys, you're gonna end up in the enemy spawn. it's not like you're doing anything unfair, it's just winning through main strength.

it's like if you armwrestle with candles on either end of the table, you can't say 'wow you only beat me because I got burned by the candle' because that's the endpoint. you got burned because you were beaten, your hand forced into the fire by a strong opponent. the burning didn't contribute to your loss because you were already getting stomped by the time you reached the flame.

Telmasa, on 12 April 2015 - 02:56 AM, said:

No, I don't have to put up or shut up. It's breaking the game *I* want to enjoy.
Matches in both public and CW qeue are literally determined by who uses consumables more & most effectively - matches can be won and lost by single UAVs, let alone 12+ airstrikes while camping a chokepoint.

Seriously dude learn to play the game. if you are getting airstrikes on you, push through them or go around. if a single UAV is beating you (lmao how?) shoot down the UAV. it's really simple. your refusal to adapt to the actions of the enemy are the reason you lose all the time and never ever win. it's not because quirks op UAV pay to win airstrike more like unfairstrike or whatever you want to believe.

[YCSLiesmith]

your argument that spawncamping is unfair and prevents people from even having a chance to play would be 100% true, if the game was designed so that, say, the attacker spawns and then when they're all set the defender has to drop among them. But you consistently ignore the entire initial stages of the match, where the game is won or lost. if you let 10-12 healthy mechs into your spawn you've already been defeated. you had a shot.

[Deathlike]

Telmasa, on 12 April 2015 - 02:56 AM, said:

Myself aside, most players generally don't spent time looking up. Not to mention smoke, hills, buildings, or whatnot can make it impossible to see or shoot down said UAVs.

Your argument ended here.

No further discussion needed.

[Telmasa]

YCSLiesmith, on 12 April 2015 - 08:52 AM, said:

spawn camping isn't a tactic though. It's just shooting mechs where you find them. like, obviously, if you just kill mechs you find, advance to the next mech, kill those, doing it at a steady pace without losing guys, you're gonna end up in the enemy spawn. it's not like you're doing anything unfair, it's just winning through main strength.

it's like if you armwrestle with candles on either end of the table, you can't say 'wow you only beat me because I got burned by the candle' because that's the endpoint. you got burned because you were beaten, your hand forced into the fire by a strong opponent. the burning didn't contribute to your loss because you were already getting stomped by the time you reached the flame.

Well, if it's a problem if the game is such that you can immediately press your opponent's arm right to the candle from the get-go, thanks to the table being flawed by being too narrow, your possesion of a magically quirked arm, and the ability to light a match and hold it to your opponents arm (airstrikes) along with chucking wasabi seeds at their eyes (bad analogy for UAVs + LRMs, but best I can figure for this analogy).

Quote

Seriously dude learn to play the game. if you are getting airstrikes on you, push through them or go around. if a single UAV is beating you (lmao how?) shoot down the UAV. it's really simple. your refusal to adapt to the actions of the enemy are the reason you lose all the time and never ever win. it's not because quirks op UAV pay to win airstrike more like unfairstrike or whatever you want to believe.

I've posted about airstrikes at length. Unless you immediately notice it before the smoke actually starts pouring out *and* it happens to be so poorly placed that it's not on/behind you, you cannot reliably dodge artillery. When you're being distracted by the entire enemy team holding a chokepoint, watching for airstrikes the entire time is impossible.

With UAVs, it's the same problem - most players are occupied with (surprise surprise) shooting at the enemy. I shouldn't have to spend the majority of my time playing Clay Pidgeon Simulator: 3050 Style in order to prevent unfair gimmicking.

If one single UAV is managed to be unnoticed or placed in a location that it's impossible to remove it, it will instantly & irretreivablly throw the game. Period. And that's too damn powerful for a single pay-to-use consumable - let alone 12, or up to 48, of the damn things.

Plus, you're really reaching into the realm of irrational arugments - since when do I never win? Since when do I not adapt to the enemy?

My making a point that consumables are unfair and overpowered does not instantly mean I lose more often than I win or that I don't know how to adapt to an enemy in the middle of combat.
You're just grasping for straws at this point.

Deathlike, on 12 April 2015 - 10:23 AM, said:

Your argument ended here.
No further discussion needed.

Wrong. As I just mentioned, UAVs shouldn't be so powerful that players must now be kings of Clay Pidgeon Warrior Online in order to not become victim to what amounts to paytowin wallhack gimmicking.

This game is supposed to be about Mechs shooting at other Mechs - that's why most players don't look up, they're busy looking for other mechs and shooting at other mechs and getting shot by other mechs the majority of the time. Nobody runs up, shoots a Dire Wolf, then pauses to look up in case the Dire Wolf threw up a UAV to give wallhacks to the rest of his team.

Edited by Telmasa, 12 April 2015 - 08:40 PM.

[AlmightyAeng]

Telmasa, on 10 April 2015 - 02:54 PM, said:

*sigh* Alright, you asked for this wall of text:

- Artillery/air strikes & consumables are one-sided paytowin gimmicks that either summon incredible damage wherever you point, or summon a nigh-invisible wallhack scout that lasts for an extensive duration. These consumables are powerful enough that they are often and repeatedly singlehandedly determining the flow of the game, both in public qeue and in CW. So yes, I do complain about them.

Airstrikes and Arty are great for herding people...but despite large boom and shudder they create the RNG often doesn't actually do much...kills are pretty rare. UAV's? Super powerful. But if you learn to look up, you can counter them pretty damned easily...and we do that. We've learned to keep an eye out. Ignore one...and yeah...it's gonna ruin your day.

Quote

- Quirks, at least when they add up past a certain extent, are by and large one-sided. The Thunderbolt-9S was proof of that, the MPL Firestarter & Thunderbolt are still proof of that, the Grid Iron, Dragon-1N, and LRM-10 Hunchback are still proof of that, many of the Battlemaster laser-barf mechs are proof of that, and the list continues to go on from there the harder you look and dig. To PGI's credit, the 'iterative' waves of quirks appear to be more balanced and well-rounded in nature; so my complaints with quirks lie with the fact that there are alot of wild outliers when it comes to balance - the complaint here is not that the quirks exist, it's that they need to be balanced, as otherwise it creates another level of unbalanced gimmicky.

They've scaled back most of the insanely quirked builds...or if they haven't it's because they're placed on chassis with the hitbox of an elephant. In my book the minute the upquirk a bunch of trash clanner mechs things'll be pretty even.

- Spawn-camping: go read through earlier pages of this thread if you're unclear on my view of this.

Quote

- Light-rushing: It's cheesy. It's dumb. You and I have both done it, you and I sometimes were on the same team doing it, so I know full well you know how stupid it makes the game. The reason it's possible to begin with has alot to do with faulty map design, and speed-induced lag-shields affecting light mechs, though to smaller degrees it's also often thanks to too much quirking. The bottom line here is that for the tonnage required to bring a light mech into a match, all but a select few are able to hit & take punches way above and beyond what their tonnage limit is. If I can take a Spider, Jenner, or Firestarter and compete evenly - or even favorably - with mechs twice, thrice my own weight, I say that's pretty imbalanced. Why bother playing anything heavier at that point?

Fair enough. JUST rushing the objectives and ignoring mechs completely is pretty lame. Won't argue against that. Personally I like the way we do it today, rushing objectives in one wave and seeing how many mechs we can kill at the same time...and then taking 3 waves of mechs to kill EVERYTHING before taking out Omega.

Quote

(Which is exactly why alot of units take nothing but mass lights.)

I've never actually seen a unit do this...2 waves of lights and a mix of third? Yes. But not 48 lights. As it is I like seeing light rushes...shooting legs is super OP.

Quote

- Clan mechs are not inherently OP.

I agree with that. "More powerful" comes with drawbacks. Doesn't make it OP. Movin' on.

Quote

- It's because I'd like to keep on playing the game and be able to enjoy it that I happen to be vocalizing my complaints and issues with it. Seems like we just went full circle here, didn't we?

See, I TOLD you that you were part of the circle-jerk. Congrats on going "around the world."

Quote

And really, that's some real hyperbole nonsense - "well players are gonna keep finding ways to gimmick/cheat/abuse the system, so just let them cheat and never fix any of the problems"? Is that really how you think this should work? Cause I think that's frankly pretty darn stupid.

You missed the point of what I was saying. What you're calling "cheats" and "gimmicks" aren't. They're strategies that are completely viable and powerful in the hands of players who can PLAY. People who suck at this game don't automatically succeed from what you've termed "gimmicks" any more than they do from jumping into a "metamech." Bads gonna bad.

And I say they're NOT gimmicks that ensure an auto-win because on a personal level my group successfully beats all of them when they're used AGAINST us.

Quote

Now you're being facetious.

I don't think that words means what you think it means. And no, I'm not. I'm asking, straight up, if I roll in with 12 mechs and destroy yours head on without losing any, and then move into your base and kill people as they straggle in in ones and twos (instead of forming up, because why TALK, right?) as you spawn from 3 different places...how is that a gimmick? Should we back our 12 mechs out of your base and set up again? Should we all eject so that we can do it again? Come on. I'm not turning CW into an even crappier version of assault "just because I can."

Quote

Spawncamping is spawncamping, no matter how you slice it. Clearly if a player's got the opportunity to engage and maneuver freely after being spawned in, then a "spawncamp" is not what's going on. Which is why many units who enjoy some self-respect and dignity specifically do not move in and spawncamp even if the match's score is heavily sided in their favor already - they still grant the remaining enemies the chance to spawn, move up, and fight, which is really pretty darn simple, don't you think?

We've BEEN spawncamped. And do you know what we did? Our Drop Commander moved the dead mechs out of that lance, they spawned on the other side of the map, we reformed and we PUSHED THEM OUT OF OUR DROPZONE. We came out of it down a few mechs...but considering that they'd already pushed in and were ahead to begin with, it was a survivable difference and we came back from behind.

Quote

And those units still win despite playing fair - so ask yourself why other units still seem to have to spawncamp in order to win. I think the answer is pretty clear - they lack the skill, abililty, and balls to do so.

Or maybe we don't feel like holding your hand and giving you a participation trophy.

[AlmightyAeng]

Telmasa, on 12 April 2015 - 02:56 AM, said:

It's an exploit. Teams do it because it means they don't have to get good. *THAT* is the real moral of the story.

Sigh...see...here is our basic disagreement. Teams that suck donkey balls aren't capable of setting up a spawn-camp to take advantage OF in the first place.

That's where the argument falls apart for me.

Spawn camps ARE an acceleration of a skill imbalance (or an INCREDIBLY POOR first choice in mechs dropped). If you take a team in, blow apart your opposition and comfortably settle in a defensible position on their base...it isn't BECAUSE you spawn-camped them. That parts comes second.

Now, if PGI put in a mechanism that allowed people to choose where they drop, individually, every time so they could AVOID a spawncamp setup, I'd be fine with that. Whatever, we'll adapt.

But I do not hold that the spawncamp IS the source of the win/skill. It's not.

Telmasa, on 12 April 2015 - 02:56 AM, said:

The only way to fix things for good to make the game playable for *all* concerned - not just units willing to exploit as much as possible to get a few jollies - is for the developers, PGI, to step up, step in, and repair, remove, add, change anything and everything they need to create the intended product.reason with you.

PGI has created their intended product. It's just not the one YOU want. I've never thought you were a bad pilot. I just can't stand how you manage to ***** about literally EVERY aspect of this game you claim to enjoy.

Edited by Ghost Badger, 13 April 2015 - 06:15 AM.

[HelBound]

Here is my take on spawn camping. Ive been on both sides of this.
Usually our drops fight it out then when we have the advantage we push in and take the landing zone unless theres a better target (like Omega perhaps). But we fight it out and some teams can't hold up to it and get their landing zone pushed early.

On the opposite side Ive been on teams where we cant hold it and get spawn camped, usually try to belt out a few shots before going down...few extra cbills here and there dont hurt.

I see spawn camping not as a BIG issue, its just what happens when your team falls to a superior team. However I think there are 2 mechanics that can be changed to make spawn camping a little less inviting and give the team down a chance to rally up.

Change 1:
-Allow pilots to select the drop zone.
This means the attacking team needs to spread out a bit more making drop ship fire focused and even more dangerous. Also allows the down team to reinforce a single LZ and maybe turn things around with a concentrated push.
*A drop commander can make this happen by shifting around lances, heard it can be done but haven't seen or tried it myself.

Change 2:
-Replace dropship lasers with projectile weaponry.
Keep the damage/range the same (more or less) and switch to UAC5, AC2 hell even SSRMs etc. The combination screen shake and mental distress of being hit with autocannon fire typically makes most pilots back off. The screen shake and vision blocking make targeting more difficult giving the defending team (the new drops) a bit more time to get their mech moving and firing.

Edited by HelBound, 13 April 2015 - 07:20 AM.

[YCSLiesmith]

Telmasa, on 12 April 2015 - 08:38 PM, said:

Well, if it's a problem if the game is such that you can immediately press your opponent's arm right to the candle from the get-go

No it isn't, that's just a bad matchup. if you go up against John Cena he's gonna drop you so fast your hand wont even get burned because the candle will be instantly snuffed out.

Ghost Badger, on 13 April 2015 - 06:13 AM, said:

PGI has created their intended product. It's just not the one YOU want. I've never thought you were a bad pilot. I just can't stand how you manage to ***** about literally EVERY aspect of this game you claim to enjoy.

I do, I think that