7
Ghost Badger, on 13 April 2015 - 06:03 AM, said:
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.
Bull. Doesn't actually do much? You're delusional, bro. I've already gone over this at length in other threads, the amount of damage you can get by taking artillery strikes is astronomically absurd.
I'm glad you've gotten used to Clay Pidgeon Simulator Online. That still doesn't make it right.
Quote
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.
Most? No, some.
Dragon-1N, Hunchback, Wolverine, the MPL firestarter, the LRM10 hunchie, MPL Thunderbolts, Battlemasters, the Ac-5 Banshee...there's still plenty offenders when it comes to insane quirks.
Quote
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.
That's playable and enjoyable, to an extent, I'll admit that. But ultimately better map/objective design is needed.
Quote
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.
Depends on the legs you see & the legs the server sees....
Quote
See, I TOLD you that you were part of the circle-jerk. Congrats on going "around the world."
dammit....fine, touche here, that was a good one
Quote
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.
I don't see, and will never see, consumable spam, spawn camping, or metacheesing as "good strategy" by any normal definition of that phrase. They're all available as unintentionally overwhelming exploits, that doesn't mean it involves talenting piloting.
And, I actually do think people who suck do jump into these meta-gimmick habits because then they don't *have* to be good anymore. Then they get in comms with like-minded people, form groups, and do it together, then thump each other on the back and pretend that they did something amazing. NVKA is a shining example. (I've seen them soloing in pugs, I'm not impressed.)
Quote
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.
Sometimes. That's because you - and (some of the) other guys in the Kell Hounds - actually try to be good at the game, as in you don't necessarily ride the meta bandwagon in order to succeed: you actually do bother with tactics and skill, and don't rely on aforementioned gimmicks in order to win.
That's also how I've managed to succeed now and then, despite my adamant refusal (thus far) to give in and abuse the broken parts of the game.
But it's the exception that proves the rule...if those gimmicks weren't available for exploiting, I guarantee you'd be succeeding even more, given how many teams out there use them as their bread & butter.
Quote
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."
How is it a gimmick?
If those players don't get so much as the opportunity to spawn in, maneuver, and engage thanks to the spawncampers, then that's a gimmick.
I personally have found it very unlikely that such a roll occurs, but assuming it did, what happens next is what determines whether it's a spawncamp: are you then going for objectives and staying out of the dropzones, or are you camping right next to the dropzones (with the aid of PGI's ever-frustrating map design) killing player's mechs almost before they touch the ground?
If it's the former, then no problem - if you're killing mechs by ones and twos, but only after they've already spawned in and moved up to the engagement, then that's fair game. "Camping" tactically sound locations that don't surround a spawnpoint is fine by me; I'm not saying you have to line up in the open and say "ok, let's do this fisticuffs - vermont style!".
But if it's the latter, and those players haven't gotten so much as a chance to play before they're being shot down - that's a gimmick.
Quote
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.
Yes, I'm aware there's a partially-effective workaround.
That isn't an actual fix. It's a bandaid that's too small to really cover the problem. What do you do if you're in solo qeue (or small group) in CW, and you're being spawncamped, and you can't get the Commander button because of PGI's interface & the fact your mech dies too quickly for you to access the map and do it?
Again, it's an exception proving the rule...anyone ought to be given the means to form up and push an enemy out of their base, without having to jump through hoops and require at least one player to spend half their time just watching the map/spawns/etc. to make sure players spawn on the right side of the map.
Quote
Or maybe we don't feel like holding your hand and giving you a participation trophy.
Alright, this one, I'm drawing a blank. I have no idea how this connects to the post you quoted.
Participation trophy...?
(Sounds like Loyalty Points to me, but that's another subject.)Ghost Badger, on 13 April 2015 - 06:13 AM, said:
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.
That's where the argument falls apart for me.
Well, you're right, this is where we disagree - I say teams that can only take metacheese mechs, run up and with the aid of consumable spam, establish a spawn camp on the very first wave, and then do nothing for the rest of the match but exploit the living hell out of the spawncamp "strategy", are teams that suck donkey balls. They just cover it up by crutching themselves with the combined use of as many gimmicks as possible.
Quote
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.
As I described earlier - taking a defensible position in preparation for the next wave, versus camping right around the spawn, are two totally different things. One is good for competitive fun gameplay, one is absolutely not.
If you take a team in, blow your way in thanks to metacheese/superquirks/consumable spam, and comfortably settle in a spawncamp, at that point you've chosen to break the game - you're literally preventing your opponents from playing the game. The only 'justification' for it is that you've managed to break the game in your favor if you spawncamp.
I don't see breaking the game as a "strategy", or having anything to do with skill - in fact, I see it as the very exclusion of skill.
Anybody, and I mean anybody, can line up with metamechs, mount consumables, follow the voice of 1 dude on comms, and stand around a spawnpoint and shoot stuff. That does not involve skill or competitive combat.
Quote
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.
But I do not hold that the spawncamp IS the source of the win/skill. It's not.
See, that's a reasonable response.
Even if you don't care about the spawncamp - what could it possibly hurt if PGI went in and fixed things so that spawncamps (let alone other forms of gimmicky) weren't possible?
It really just chafes my hide that players actually try to stick up for it and cling to it as some weird kind of 'necessity'...but, you know, that only makes sense if you consider that those players might not actually be any good at the game and would be helpless if PGI took their exploits away.
Quote
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.
PGI has done their *best*, despite lots of trials and tribulation along the way, to create a MechWarrior product.
But it's not the intended product. It's changed, many times, from the intended product, and will likely continue to do so.
I think PGI, Paul, Russ, and the gang know full well that this state of affairs isn't really what they conceptualized...the years of IGP stagnation is solid proof of that. They're human, and they're doing what they can, and I respect and acknowledge that.
But this game could - and deserves - to be better. If I knew how to just make it happen with my own two hands, I'd go ahead and do that.
As for my attitude, I don't ask you to like it or agree with it; I acknowledge my own verbosity, and that's got alot to do with why I went lone wolf; but, here's a link to another post of mine that (at least in the latter half of it) I think describes my point of view in a manner that might be understandable. http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__4357098
Edited by Telmasa, 13 April 2015 - 08:32 AM.
