291 replies to this topic

[Lord0fHats]

Quote

Spawn camping is an exploit in the most basic sense of the word - taking advantage of something

That's not what an exploit is (in gaming). An exploit is an abuse of an unintended game interaction. Nothing about CW suggests that drop ship camping was an unintended or unforeseeen outcome. Exploit does not mean "I don't like it." Some games (Gunz the Duel) have actually thrived on exploits more than the actual game.

Quote

- Saying removing public qeue would be a good thing is...just ridiculous. That's where the vast, VAST majority of players are in MW:O, even during events like this last one.

You missed the part where I said I want it removed and replaced. Solaris is an excellent candidate for this, but just about anything would be better. The current structure of the public que, the maps it uses, and the game modes themselves renders it a shallow experience. People make threads asking why so many assaults and heavies are in the que and they just seem to ignore that it's been like that for years. It was like that when I first started playing when open beta launched (and there were only 4 mechs in the game!) and it's like that for a reason. When the way to win is to kill the other team (who can't ever respawn), there is no reason other than personal preference not to be in heavier and harder hitting mechs.

Edited by Lord0fHats, 02 April 2015 - 05:24 AM.

[Averen]

Lord0fHats, on 02 April 2015 - 04:20 AM, said:

That's not what an exploit is (in gaming). An exploit is an abuse of an unintended game interaction. Nothing about CW suggests that drop ship camping was an unintended or unforeseeen outcome. Exploit does not mean "I don't like it." Some games (Gunz the Duel) have actually thrived on exploits more than the actual game.

Thoughts~

- A game about one side defending and the other attacking, and the defending site makes it completely impossible for the attacking site to even prepare an attack.

- A game about fighting in mechs, and you're just dropping down and get instantly killed.

- There are arrays of ERLLs on the defenders dropships, but only MLs on the attackers.

- Doesn't feel like you thought that through.

[Lord0fHats]

Averen, on 02 April 2015 - 05:41 AM, said:

- A game about one side defending and the other attacking, and the defending site makes it completely impossible for the attacking site to even prepare an attack.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here... All four CW maps have multiple means of attacking the defending force (some better than others).

Quote

- A game about fighting in mechs, and you're just dropping down and get instantly killed.

I never said it was fun. In fact, I said a MOBA style surrender option would be nice,

Quote

- There are arrays of ERLLs on the defenders dropships, but only MLs on the attackers.

lol. If the attackers are getting camped by the defenders, than something truly truly awful has happened (and I know from experience as two of the times I've been camped were when attacks went so horribly wrong that this happened).

But it is not PGI's job to fix bad play and it takes truely bad play to get spawn camped as the attackers.

Edited by Lord0fHats, 02 April 2015 - 05:51 AM.

[Mad Porthos]

A few thoughts on this based on some of what's being discussed above and elsewhere...

- Spawn Camping is not per se an exploit, it is a flaw in game design - especially in mechwarrior, where having a spawn point is meant to be a representation of mech transport to surface by pilots and sensible dropship crew, who do not and would not mindlessly drop mechs in the middle of enemy forces, out numbered. Senseless.

- Having a single location to drop attacking mechs at that your drop ships will drop those mechs at regardless of presence of enemy does not make sense. This is not D-Day and even if it were, then D-Day like you would find that attacking forces would be laying down continual bombardments of artillery, airstrikes and orbital bombardment to clear the area for the drop off. You would not find that attacking dropships would go and strip off their lasers and switch to other lasers, nor switch lasers because they were defense dropships - drop ships are dropships, thier armament should not change. Senseless again.

Solutions?

- Multiple drop points, based on where nearest team is and proximity of enemy forces. Create many possible drop points that could be used by either team's dropships all over the map. There will be some that the enemy force's drop ships will prefer to use, particularly behind thier defenses and likewise there will be ones that the allied force use, outside the defenses, but once enemies push out and try the spawn camp, it should be possible for the assaulting force to play the flip side of the coin, you abandoned your base that you are supposed to be defending because you think you can overwhelm an GAME MECHANIC - your fault that the next mechs drop INSIDE the base they are assaulting because they now can, with no defenders there.

-Dropships with SAME armament regardless. Complaints that dropships are part of the fight were baseless and when you get down to it, a fight underneath dropships SHOULD have been a poor idea. If dropships would only drop mechs off at unoccupied locations, then the danger or "EXPLOIT" that was claimed where dropships were killing opposing force mechs would be resolved, because it would only be the case that dropships were laying down covering fire as they were delivering mechs to a sight that was empty as they started their run, but where enemy have just arrived in response.

Edited by Mad Porthos, 02 April 2015 - 06:02 AM.

[DustySkunk]

Just my two cents:

I literally just started playing CW a few days ago. Before that point I had stayed away because of the wait times and I often didn't have long periods of time I could definitely commit directly to MWO. Regardless...

Last night I experienced the infamous spawncamp as a defender. After the first wave, Alpha and Gamma were open. Both teams had traded favorably and we were set in good position to defend omega. After a few minutes, ten DWFs and two HBRs roll into Alpha and proceed to make there way behind spawn. Although we took out several DWFs we couldn't take them all out and this resulted in about five of them sitting there directly behind spawn. Rather than shoot Omega for the win, they proceeded to either cripple/kill each mech as it dropped. This had a cascade effect because for each mech of theirs we'd kill, they'd just stroll leisurely back to our base completely unharmed and reinforce the DWFs while we were in a shooting gallery where for each free-roaming mech we lost, we were more incapacitated. By the time we could deal with it, the match was so far gone it didn't matter. My experience is typical from what I understand.

I know CW is "hardcore" mode. I'm totally okay with that. What I'm not okay with are situations that make it impossible for one team to recover. INB4 someone says "get gud" I want to emphasize that before the DWF wave we had traded favorably and would have continued to do so if the other team wanted to actually fight and not farm. Watching your teams assaults die before they even hit the ground is not a question of being good.

To be clear: I'm not ranting about DWFs or Clan/IS balance. I happen to think that the balance is pretty good right now. Also, Clans have it just as bad dealing with IS light rushes.

My point here is that currently some maps allow for a situation to develop that makes it impossible for the other team to even compete. Something should be done about this and that something is as simple as either redesigning the spawn location so that it's more secure, or having spawns in multiple areas. There is absolutely no reason a dropship would drop mechs into a zone that hot.

It's not a question of a team being good or bad, and it's not asking for easymode. It's fixing an issue with CW that clearly needs fixing. You should always have a chance to fight. Instadeath != fighting. This is Mechwarrior, after all.

Edited by DustySkunk, 02 April 2015 - 06:11 AM.

[Repasy Cooper]

Let's get something clear here guys, the REAL issue is population disparity between factions. Until this issue is mitigated, ComWar is nothing other than spamming an attack point with overwhelming numbers. All other issues are irrelevant at this time.

[Mystere]

Barantor, on 01 April 2015 - 08:07 PM, said:

RP perspective a dropship commander wouldn't dump out mechs in a killzone like that. They would regroup farther from the enemy and try it again.

That's the enemy drop commander's fault (i.e. PGI ), not mine. They should have alternate drop zones, just in case.

Barantor, on 01 April 2015 - 08:07 PM, said:

I'd go so far as to say why not put a point at which more mechs can't spawn if the defending team has control of all the map or something. Defending team would win if no mechs left active in the map to attack them and dropships wouldn't drop.

I have no problem with that at all.

Barantor, on 01 April 2015 - 08:07 PM, said:

I'm sure some folks will cry about the loss of potential c-bills though...

I don't give a damn.

[Mystere]

Barantor, on 01 April 2015 - 08:04 PM, said:

A whole lot of people don't like CW, something should be done about that.

A whole lot of people (like me) want this game to be better than it is, something should be done about that.

A whole lot of people have moved on to other games....

A whole lot of people will slaughter this game in reviews on steam...

A whole lot of people will be disappointed if it fails...

I totally agree. But still, short of implementing PvE with "God Mode" on it, none of the above will satisfy those players who just can't take dying/losing in a video game. And there are a lot of them playing this game.

[Telmasa]

Mystere, on 02 April 2015 - 06:55 AM, said:

I totally agree. But still, short of implementing PvE with "God Mode" on it, none of the above will satisfy those players who just can't take dying/losing in a video game. And there are a lot of them playing this game.

By the same token, there's never going to be a game that fully satisfies anybody with a BDSM fetish either (or in much less extreme terms, "pwning helpless noobs") - which to me appears to be your ideal: as long as everybody can "pwn noobs", that seems to be your idea of 'balance'...when in reality it's the complete lack of game balance - the imbalances are merely 'equally distributed' amongst all players.

I can only come up with two logical sources for that train of thought - one is searching for the laziest form of "balance" possible.
The other is simple selfishness - "as long as the one pwning noobs is having fun, it's a fun game".

I believe both ways of thinking are the wrong way to approach a game with the goal of making it as ideal as possible.

This game is going to get nowhere if it's status quo is accepted as how things ought to be.

It's a given that you can't satisfy 100% of people, 100% of the time, 100% anywhere. Even so, while I'm no statistics major, it makes sense to head towards the middle ground, or more accurately, the apex of the distribution curve - a point that the most players are able to relate to & are satisfied with the game experience - where "balance", "fun", "competition" are the most they can be.

Leaving out balance for the sake of fun, or leaving out fun for the sake of rigorous rules, or leaving out one of the other two for the ideals of competition (see WoT esports...), are all un-optimal ways of imagining how a game ought to be.

So...I say don't accept the status quo. Don't settle for a level of balance that is less than it could be. Don't settle for a perception of "having fun" that is weaker than it could possibly be. And don't settle for doing away with competitive gameplay.

All three can be found, all at once, if you're willing to throw in the effort. That's what I think.

Edited by Telmasa, 02 April 2015 - 07:22 AM.

[Mystere]

Telmasa, on 02 April 2015 - 07:21 AM, said:

By the same token, there's never going to be a game that fully satisfies anybody with a BDSM fetish either (or in much less extreme terms, "pwning helpless noobs") - which to me appears to be your ideal: as long as everybody can "pwn noobs", that seems to be your idea of 'balance'...when in reality it's the complete lack of game balance - the imbalances are merely 'equally distributed' amongst all players.

I can only come up with two logical sources for that train of thought - one is searching for the laziest form of "balance" possible.
The other is simple selfishness - "as long as the one pwning noobs is having fun, it's a fun game".

I believe both ways of thinking are the wrong way to approach a game with the goal of making it as ideal as possible.

This game is going to get nowhere if it's status quo is accepted as how things ought to be.

It's a given that you can't satisfy 100% of people, 100% of the time, 100% anywhere. Even so, while I'm no statistics major, it makes sense to head towards the middle ground, or more accurately, the apex of the distribution curve - a point that the most players are able to relate to & are satisfied with the game experience - where "balance", "fun", "competition" are the most they can be.

Leaving out balance for the sake of fun, or leaving out fun for the sake of rigorous rules, or leaving out one of the other two for the ideals of competition (see WoT esports...), are all un-optimal ways of imagining how a game ought to be.

So...I say don't accept the status quo. Don't settle for a level of balance that is less than it could be. Don't settle for a perception of "having fun" that is weaker than it could possibly be. And don't settle for doing away with competitive gameplay.

All three can be found, all at once, if you're willing to throw in the effort. That's what I think.

Do not attribute malice where there is none.

Having said that, I think you've been following and responding to enough of my posts to get a picture of how I think balance should be achieved. And as a hint, it's not via one-dimensional thinking.

Edited by Mystere, 02 April 2015 - 07:31 AM.

[PFC Carsten]

Easiest solution and first step: Don't mix people (noobs) in trial mechs against 12 pre-mades with fully mastered meta decks including modules. It frustrates them. Maybe allow CW even only after people own the deck for it. Create a tutorial.

[Mystere]

Averen, on 02 April 2015 - 05:41 AM, said:

- A game about one side defending and the other attacking, and the defending site makes it completely impossible for the attacking site to even prepare an attack.

That is called mounting an effective defense, or building a base highly suitable for a highly effective one.

Averen, on 02 April 2015 - 05:41 AM, said:

- A game about fighting in mechs, and you're just dropping down and get instantly killed.

That is called history repeating itself. See Operation Market Garden.

Averen, on 02 April 2015 - 05:41 AM, said:

- There are arrays of ERLLs on the defenders dropships, but only MLs on the attackers.

That is called superiority in equipment.

Averen, on 02 April 2015 - 05:41 AM, said:

- Doesn't feel like you thought that through.

Have you? Where is this so-called "exploit" again?

[Zolaz]

Stoned Prophet, on 27 March 2015 - 12:04 PM, said:

OH GOD THEY SPAWN CAMPED THE LAST FOUR GUYS OH NO THEY SO TOTALLY WOULD HAVE WON IF THEY HADNT BEEN SPAWNCAMPED. NOPE. Bads are bad thats all you see with spawncamps. I have NEVER been spawncamped, probably because I dont suck enough to let them push me that hard and fold like a card table.

Is that what you call it when you are dead and disconnected while your team mates are still on their first mechs?

[Romeo Deluxe]

You guys are skipping replies. There are lots of suggestion how to balance this legitamate tactic of spawn camping. I'm only guessing but the a fact that dropships have lasers that can kill spawn campers leads me to believe that this is very much intended. It just needs to be balanced. See other posts about how they can go about it.

Edited by Romeo Deluxe, 02 April 2015 - 06:49 PM.

[Romeo Deluxe]

PFC Carsten, on 02 April 2015 - 02:16 PM, said:

Easiest solution and first step: Don't mix people (noobs) in trial mechs against 12 pre-mades with fully mastered meta decks including modules. It frustrates them. Maybe allow CW even only after people own the deck for it. Create a tutorial.

Other posts about this too. NO! Do not shut out parts of the game from people. This game needs a proper new person experience: in-game tutorials, wiki/FAQ, not go out of game to do research as only option, more tooltips, better UI, training grounds drop with a buddy.

What if a new player joins friends in the game and they want their friend to jump right into CW with them? What is the best place to learn the game? Ans: CW with a few people on comms. The 30 minute battles are a different experience socially even though running 4 different mechs for a new person might be a little rough. Still, they can run 3 variants trial mechs which is a real good way for them to be introduced to a chasis.

[Averen]

Lord0fHats, on 02 April 2015 - 05:47 AM, said:

But it is not PGI's job to fix bad play and it takes truely bad play to get spawn camped as the attackers.

Lol, of course it's their job.

Multiple wave styled game modes like CW are, in the best cases, build around the idea of actually allowing a comebacks and specifically implement countermechanics against snowballing. A simple form of this are the ERLLs of dropships. Lock e.g. at CSGO, where pistols can be insanely powerful in the right circumstances with their short range headshots and unusually high moving accuracy. The TEC9 even had to be nerfed because T-sides were winning eco rounds they should have lost.
Similar Dota&Co can actually swing for a multitude of reasons. E.g., the loosing team may be able to catch up in levels, because leveling is deliberatly slowed down at higher levels.

Compare that with spawn camping, one of the worst offenders in terms of snowballing. That's just terrible design. In this case it's also exacerbated since especially IS vs Clan creates a situation where one team may heavily outrange the other and a spawncamping situation may naturally develope. Even effects of the longer reinforcement path are migitated by the speed advantage of clan mechs.

That's not to say it can't happen with IS, but i'd bet it'll happen with clans a lot more. I've seen many situations where moving back would seem like a bad idea, if you could just push a bit further, pick of some more enemies with the range advantage of weapons like CERLLs and ERMLs. This requires only decidedly beating a wave, or a multi wave fight where you slowly pushed the enemy back.

Edited by Averen, 03 April 2015 - 02:00 AM.

[HimseIf]

i am too honourable to spawncamp as a tactic.

[Koniving]

I remember when the dropships were so savage and aggressive that you wouldn't dare spawn camp.

Then they got nerfed.

[B0oN]

I see the spawncamp not as a "real" problem, but more of a gauge showing (please read very very attentive here) "team-efficiency" and/or "keeping momentum" .

The team pushing most efficient will be in your LZ sooner or later, except they like to untangle 12man deathballs .

In my eyes it ain´t an exploit, nor "dishonorable" (spheroids, you showed long time ago you weren´t worthy of Zellbriggen, so drop the "honor" thing already, since we all are fresh out of it), but I would really like to see multiple LZ´s (or just a secondary) if first is overrun just to appease the people not so used to losing from time to time.

And now ...
Go and play some more Cee-Dub

[Averen]

Koniving, on 03 April 2015 - 02:28 AM, said:

I remember when the dropships were so savage and aggressive that you wouldn't dare spawn camp.

Then they got nerfed.

Yep. The whole thing was about defender dropships killing attackers, and both got nerfed...