151 replies to this topic

[Mystere]

Here is another idea: redesign the bases to be real defensible bases that are difficult to attack. Then balance the attack game mode via drop asymmetry.

Counterattack can have symmetrical drops as it is now.

[Telmasa]

Mystere, on 17 April 2015 - 04:19 PM, said:

Here is another idea: redesign the bases to be real defensible bases that are difficult to attack. Then balance the attack game mode via drop asymmetry.

Counterattack can have symmetrical drops as it is now.

This plus out-of-bounds spawnpoints (including for players who already exited the spawn) that don't have line-of-sight to the base, would make CW really cool.

Maps like Sulfuric Rift and Boreal Vault would need severe redesign (border expansion, terrain changes, more areas around the bases, areas for the spawns); Emerald Tiaga just needs a redesigned (flat!) area within the gates without the unlikely amounts of terrain clutter, plus an expanded area behind the base for the defender's out-of-bounds spawn; Grim Portico is totally fine, just needs expanded map borders plus the "out of bounds" areas for spawns (maybe a couple raised dunes to prevent line of sight to the rest of the map?); and Hellebore Springs probably would need just a little work - a bit of tweaking with the spawn areas to prevent LOS & thus make "out of bounds" areas O.K.

[YCSLiesmith]

if you have out of bounds spawnpoints there would still be a couple of problems. 1: you'd have people camping the exits from the spawnpoint, leading to the same results unless you had a ton of exits all going to different places and shielded from each other. 2: you'd have people just staying in the spawn points, drawing out the game for ghost dropping allies. this would be the case whether you gave attackers or defenders the win on ties.

maybe you could solve 2 by giving a time limit in the spawn point, after which you die. 1 would take some pretty great map design, though

[Sandersson Jankins]

Not sure how I haven't thrown my silly 2 cents into this. Ah well, Mystere probably realizes by now that I agree with most things that he says.

So, uh, yeah!

i'll tweet repeatedly at russ for you if you want me to

[PocketAces]

The OP is what I was hoping CW would of been, alas, just a boring fight at the entrance.

[Soulstrom]

I think for a beta CW is excellent. The only issues that I see at this time is that if you are on a PUG team and no one moves in together, you end up getting long range sniped one-by-one. I think that if people would use the VOIP to coordinate as a more cohesive entity, then each CW match would be fantastic, regardless of the skill of the players.

[TripleEhBeef]

LordNothing, on 02 April 2015 - 09:06 PM, said:

in all the war movies ive watched, never once did blowing up a series of generators resulted in victory.

Well actually...





+1 to the OP's idea. I would love to see this, even in a smaller form (handful of nodes vs lots)

Edited by TripleEhBeef, 19 April 2015 - 07:49 AM.

[YCSLiesmith]

TripleEhBeef, on 19 April 2015 - 07:46 AM, said:

Well actually...





+1 to the OP's idea. I would love to see this, even in a smaller form (handful of nodes vs lots)

i dont know what that picture is because it wont load but im assuming return of the jedi

[TripleEhBeef]

No, it's a poster for "The Dam Busters".

Though I can see how Jedi would work too.

[Mystere]

YCSLiesmith, on 19 April 2015 - 02:24 AM, said:

if you have out of bounds spawnpoints there would still be a couple of problems. 1: you'd have people camping the exits from the spawnpoint, leading to the same results unless you had a ton of exits all going to different places and shielded from each other. 2: you'd have people just staying in the spawn points, drawing out the game for ghost dropping allies. this would be the case whether you gave attackers or defenders the win on ties.

maybe you could solve 2 by giving a time limit in the spawn point, after which you die. 1 would take some pretty great map design, though

Which is why I think trying to eliminate spawn camping without ending up breaking other things is just a fool's errand. I think only dynamic or user-selectable drop points is the solution. Solutions tried in other games (e.g. timed invulnerability via force fields or some other mechanic) don't really fit in the BT universe. As such, I'm afraid your "a time limit in the spawn point, after which you die" is not suitable either.

Telmasa, on 18 April 2015 - 03:56 PM, said:

This plus out-of-bounds spawnpoints (including for players who already exited the spawn) that don't have line-of-sight to the base, would make CW really cool.

Maps like Sulfuric Rift and Boreal Vault would need severe redesign (border expansion, terrain changes, more areas around the bases, areas for the spawns); Emerald Tiaga just needs a redesigned (flat!) area within the gates without the unlikely amounts of terrain clutter, plus an expanded area behind the base for the defender's out-of-bounds spawn; Grim Portico is totally fine, just needs expanded map borders plus the "out of bounds" areas for spawns (maybe a couple raised dunes to prevent line of sight to the rest of the map?); and Hellebore Springs probably would need just a little work - a bit of tweaking with the spawn areas to prevent LOS & thus make "out of bounds" areas O.K.

Making spawn points out of bounds and isolated from the others will not solve the problem. It will not stop a good team from setting up ambushes near each zone and move on from one to the next. And if the spawned mechs are not forced out of the zones, then they will just stay inside them.

Eliminating the 4-wave concept (i.e. make the 4-mech drop deck a maximum and not a requirement) and dynamic/user-selectable will have a better chance of solving the spawn camping "problem" (note the double quotes -- I myself do not see it as a problem).

[Mystere]

Here is a bit more detail on my Alpine Peaks idea on page 2 ...

Build a base on top of the easternmost hill (H11-I13). Strategically place a dozen or so LRM and ERLL turrets in places that overlook the uphill approaches. It will literally be an uphill battle for the attackers, whether from the north (F13-G13) or the south (I12-J12). You do not even need walls. But, the attackers would probably need a bigger drop deck than the defenders to succeed.

Alternatively, and for an even tougher time for the attackers, wall off the uphill approach from the south, forcing the attackers to expose themselves while climbing uphill from the north.

A faction that loses such an imposing fortress deserves a tough time taking it back via a counterattack, and an even tougher time taking back the planet.

[Telmasa]

Mystere, on 19 April 2015 - 10:06 AM, said:

Which is why I think trying to eliminate spawn camping without ending up breaking other things is just a fool's errand. I think only dynamic or user-selectable drop points is the solution. Solutions tried in other games (e.g. timed invulnerability via force fields or some other mechanic) don't really fit in the BT universe. As such, I'm afraid your "a time limit in the spawn point, after which you die" is not suitable either.




Making spawn points out of bounds and isolated from the others will not solve the problem. It will not stop a good team from setting up ambushes near each zone and move on from one to the next. And if the spawned mechs are not forced out of the zones, then they will just stay inside them.

Eliminating the 4-wave concept (i.e. make the 4-mech drop deck a maximum and not a requirement) and dynamic/user-selectable will have a better chance of solving the spawn camping "problem" (note the double quotes -- I myself do not see it as a problem).

YCSLiesmith, on 19 April 2015 - 02:24 AM, said:

if you have out of bounds spawnpoints there would still be a couple of problems. 1: you'd have people camping the exits from the spawnpoint, leading to the same results unless you had a ton of exits all going to different places and shielded from each other. 2: you'd have people just staying in the spawn points, drawing out the game for ghost dropping allies. this would be the case whether you gave attackers or defenders the win on ties.

maybe you could solve 2 by giving a time limit in the spawn point, after which you die. 1 would take some pretty great map design, though

I think both of you don't quite see what I'm seeing when I'm imagining a proper "out of bounds" spawnpoint.

It would have to have two features:

One, that camping inside the spawns provides you no advantage when it comes to protecting objectives or trying to win - no line of sight whatsoever; whether this means S-curve terrain features, or things like spawning in at the end of a riverbed canyon, I don't really know, but there's all kinds of creative ways to ensure this happens. (If you really want I'll open up mspaint and try to draw some pictures.)

Plus, nowhere did I say that mechs inside the spawn area have to be invulnerable. Merely that the area be 'out-of-bounds' when approached.

Two, the area ought to give the mechs spawning in *every* tactical advantage and any potential spawncampers *no* tactical advantage whatsoever; like, immediately by the spawn area, having terrain just elevated enough to offer a newly spawned team a superior firing line as they advance, while any potential spawncampers would be at a disadvantage, and would be better off forming a 'defensive' line somewhere else, while relying upon a couple scout mechs to keep an eye on the progress of the spawning team. (ALL of this without having any line of sight to any part of the base/objectives, mind you!)

Again - and as YCS pointed out - it comes down to the quality & ingenuity of the map design.


Now, I'll admit, it's possible some players might wind up trying to 'troll' by just never leaving the spawn...but if implemented as I described, all that means is you can then walk all over the objectives without issue.

If you then say, "well, what about the teammates who're willing to keep playing that are essentially down to 44 mechs and 11 players?"...well, in *this* instance I'll actually agree with everybody who always says "well, go find a unit and join up". This is the price paid to run around lone-wolfing it like I do - you don't get to pick your teammates.

That said, though, a time limit to exit the spawn - say, 2-4 minutes? - would be reasonably long enough to allow a team to form up, but not so long that it becomes overwhelmingly exhaustive. On reflection, defense & counter-attack do rely heavily upon kills in order to get through a match.

Edited by Telmasa, 19 April 2015 - 02:43 PM.

[rolly]

LordNothing, on 02 April 2015 - 09:06 PM, said:

unfortunately this ^ is what i expect out of pgi. so i dont exactly think we will get it. i want battle simulation but no matter what pgi does it feels like game. in all the war movies ive watched, never once did blowing up a series of generators resulted in victory.

Yeah ! "Dambusters". But unlike back then, those Lancasters doing the Light Rush met overwhelming defences and had one shot at it with one weight class "Heavy". That and the "Generators" were huge targets with passive and active defences and a lot harder to destroy.

It would be ideal if PGI read up and implement something from history.

Edited by rolly, 19 April 2015 - 02:55 PM.

[Mystere]

Telmasa, on 19 April 2015 - 02:38 PM, said:

That said, though, a time limit to exit the spawn - say, 2-4 minutes? - would be reasonably long enough to allow a team to form up, but not so long that it becomes overwhelmingly exhaustive. On reflection, defense & counter-attack do rely heavily upon kills in order to get through a match.

Counter attack objective destroyed. Attackers winning in kills. Less than 4 minutes left for match. What do you think a team playing to win will do?

[YCSLiesmith]

Telmasa, on 19 April 2015 - 02:38 PM, said:

I think both of you don't quite see what I'm seeing when I'm imagining a proper "out of bounds" spawnpoint.

It would have to have two features:

One, that camping inside the spawns provides you no advantage when it comes to protecting objectives or trying to win - no line of sight whatsoever; whether this means S-curve terrain features, or things like spawning in at the end of a riverbed canyon, I don't really know, but there's all kinds of creative ways to ensure this happens. (If you really want I'll open up mspaint and try to draw some pictures.)

Plus, nowhere did I say that mechs inside the spawn area have to be invulnerable. Merely that the area be 'out-of-bounds' when approached.

heres my problem: I've seen examples (thankfully rare) of teams who lurked in their spawn like cowards. attacking teams who the defenders couldn't even get past their own gates to fight. they choose to accept a loss (they sucked and were cowards so were doomed anyway) in order to piss away half an hour, letting their allies ghost drop. contemptible play, far worse than spawn camping, and something I think is of much greater concern.

[destroika]

Clearly there's no shortage of ways to improve upon the current CW. It obviously leaves a lot to be desired. It begs to question what these people actually do? How are they thinking when they approach improvements on this game? What conditions have to be met before they commit to programming the latest content? How hard are they willing to work? Do they care about their own game? Are they making plenty of money as it is? WHERE ARE THEY TAKING US?!

--and why are we still along for the ride? To each his own I suppose. Above all, this game has a unique replay-ability to it even if you're getting your face drug through a pile of BS along the way.

[Telmasa]

Mystere, on 19 April 2015 - 03:40 PM, said:

Counter attack objective destroyed. Attackers winning in kills. Less than 4 minutes left for match. What do you think a team playing to win will do?

That's a long match if it's lasted 26 minutes, isn't it? (Not too rare either though, so fair point.)

I didn't mention it earlier, but your idea for 4+ spawn points and being able to choose your own spawn point would help alot too.

I dunno, to me, if there's only 4 minutes left in the match...big deal. If I'm fresh and have the guns to take a few ranged potshots at any spawnhiders, I might do that.

Maybe counter-attack specifically could have dynamic spawnpoints that kinda rotate around the map depending on which team is where, rather than being in the same places as attack/defense modes.

Maybe keep the timer to leave spawn down to 2 minutes; I'm just saying it has to be long enough for a team to spawn in *and* form up, rather than being so short that players either have to trickle out piecemeal or get ganked by the game for taking too long.

It's worth thinking more about.

YCSLiesmith, on 19 April 2015 - 03:50 PM, said:

heres my problem: I've seen examples (thankfully rare) of teams who lurked in their spawn like cowards. attacking teams who the defenders couldn't even get past their own gates to fight. they choose to accept a loss (they sucked and were cowards so were doomed anyway) in order to piss away half an hour, letting their allies ghost drop. contemptible play, far worse than spawn camping, and something I think is of much greater concern.

Okay, it's a fair concern that some teams (rarely) will try to non-participate - but I feel like the timer forcing you to leave spawn would address this. Map design would, as always, have something to do with it.

I do agree that there shouldn't be means of pissing away a full half hour of a match without actually playing the game.

I just think it should also be possible to make it so spawncamping doesn't make playing the game - or continuing to play the game - a moot point to begin with, too.

The solution to both things exists, it just has to be found and/or created.

Edited by Telmasa, 19 April 2015 - 10:26 PM.

[YCSLiesmith]

Rameau, on 21 April 2015 - 03:32 PM, said:

in 30-40 minutes of game in public matches, I can earn at least three times as many credits as I would get playing a CW match.

thats cool. in 30-40 minutes of game time in CW matches, I can earn at least three times as many credits as you would get playing a CW match

[BearFlag]

The spawn camping problem has several solutions - in single or combined. I too have thought of variable out-of-bounds maps. That could work, properly set up.

But I've also been trying to catch up on the lore of which I knew nothing a few months ago. Apparently, circa 3050 there were NO operational capital ships due to lostech and enormous expense. They're not far off but in 3050, forget it. We can imagine that an FTL dropship is a very expensive item. By comparison, some machines - like atmospheric fighters and battlemechs - are considered rather low tech and ~relatively~ cheap.

Right now the dropships are indestructible and Russ floated the idea giving them a bunch of ERLarge to discourage camping. Wrong solution.

No battalion commander would drop his mechs into a kill box and certainly wouldn't risk an expensive dropship at a hot LZ. He would divert. In fact, if he saw the entire enemy force sitting on the our initial drop point, he'd have an epiphany. "If they're all here, then they ain't at their drop zone or base. Let's go there." Some mechanism to divert is a good idea.

Finally, there's the case where the enemy has 30 mechs and you're on your last 12. This is clearly an "Abort Mission" case. When the friendly force sinks to 12 or fewer mechs, put a button on the drop screen - "Abort Mission" or "Abort Drop". If there were a battalion commander he would call it off when the objective is no longer achievable. Abort. Shorten. Move on to the next game.

[Mystere]

BearFlag, on 05 May 2015 - 11:34 PM, said:

Finally, there's the case where the enemy has 30 mechs and you're on your last 12. This is clearly an "Abort Mission" case. When the friendly force sinks to 12 or fewer mechs, put a button on the drop screen - "Abort Mission" or "Abort Drop". If there were a battalion commander he would call it off when the objective is no longer achievable. Abort. Shorten. Move on to the next game.

Yes, I am leaning towards a need for a "surrender" or "withdrawal" mechanic. The problem though is how to make such a thing not prone to abuse.