32 replies to this topic

[Mystere]

Quxudica, on 03 April 2015 - 11:33 PM, said:

No cover was used, there were just enough mechs sitting there in the open that the drop ships various lasers were spreading damage completely ineffectively.

That's called playing smart.

Marc von der Heide, on 03 April 2015 - 11:34 PM, said:

I would prefer an area for both sides wich are safe and out of bounce for the other Team.

Your suggestion is incomplete. What's to stop players from not leaving their impregnable drop zone then?

Edited by Mystere, 04 April 2015 - 11:10 AM.

[Mystere]

joelmuzz, on 03 April 2015 - 11:36 PM, said:

Attacking team can have stronger dropships, to keep defenders out of their spawn.
But if defenders dropships do more damage they will be a problem for attacking team who are supposed to be in defenders spawn.

Really defenders should be coming out of tunnels/buildings in the base.
If defenders get camped then tough, invading their base is the entire point.

Currently, attackers can end the game quickly by concentrating on destroying the cannon generators. As such, what do you propose that will allow defenders to do the same?

Also, I have been noticing that some suggestions here, and in others threads about spawn camping, are so one-sided that I have my suspicions about the actual intent of those same "suggestions".

And by the way, the dropship weapons are there, by intent mind you, to discourage getting close to LZs, not make it practically impossible.

[Alienized]

main problem of most suggestions:
the lack of seeing stuff from an neutral point of view and from more than just one side....
so basically 90% of suggestions are pure useless idiocracy from mad people.

[Mystere]

Mercer Skye, on 04 April 2015 - 04:44 AM, said:

Alpine Peaks...probably would be better getting scrubbed from regular play and slid into the CW rotation (More likely chopped in half, too), since it's a cool map that just never feels fair in those game modes.

Off topic, but ...

Alpine peaks is a problem for at least 2 kinds of players:

• those who love bringing nothing but big, fat, and slow behemoths
  
• those who do not know how to use the rest of the map other than going to Mt. Murder

Bulletsponge0, on 04 April 2015 - 06:19 AM, said:

or they simply got inside the gate on Sulphur....

Meh!

Mystere, on 03 April 2015 - 03:12 PM, said:

Just today, a mostly PUG group faced <unnamed 9(?)-man IS Unit> while defending on <map I can't remember>. The <unnamed 9(?)-man IS Unit> did their usual spawn camping run and won.

On the next match, my next mostly PUG group faced the same group, this time while defending on Sulfurous Rift. Their first wave did exactly what they did the last time (i.e. set up another spawn camping session), while at the same time boasting to all that the map was so easy to attack. Well, this time we new better. They got bogged down and surrounded on their pretty C2 perch for their next 2 waves and started losing. And just to cut the story short, their last wave was a desperate run to get the last generator ... and failed.

A mostly PUG group won against <unnamed 9(?)-man IS Unit>. So much for Sulfurous Rift being such a bad map that it is so easy to attack.

[Aresye]

Mystere, on 04 April 2015 - 11:27 AM, said:

Off topic, but ...

Alpine peaks is a problem for at least 2 kinds of players:

• those who love bringing nothing but big, fat, and slow behemoths
  
• those who do not know how to use the rest of the map other than going to Mt. Murder

I wonder why people still call it Alpine Peaks? I mean, out of ALL the different joke names for maps, locations, mechs, etc, Alpine would have been the easiest.

Alpine Peak

[Mystere]

Aresye, on 04 April 2015 - 12:45 PM, said:

I wonder why people still call it Alpine Peaks? I mean, out of ALL the different joke names for maps, locations, mechs, etc, Alpine would have been the easiest.

Alpine Peak

???

And in my defense, I just knocked off a bottle and a half of Chardonnay (not by myself, of course).

Edited by Mystere, 04 April 2015 - 01:04 PM.

[RoboPatton]

Fine, but drop ships should be shoot-down-able then

[Stoned Prophet]

Quxudica, on 03 April 2015 - 11:28 PM, said:

When a team can sit right on top of the respawn locations with complete impunity, the supposed camping counter measure of drop ship weapons is clearly a complete joke. The team I was with refused to stop camping and kill the generator even though it was a clear crushing win. This shouldn't be possible. Either the drop locations need to be inaccessible to mechs and mech fire or dropships need to be a serious threat to anything dumb enough to stand under them.

Dint be bad enough to get capmed. If you get camped, you had alr3ady lost, you nust had mechs left. Outplayed, stop whining.

[Tiamat007]

Didn't dropships have Navel guns in Battletech? Ie. AC-20's A drop zone should be a very bad place to be for an enemy force.

[Tiamat007]

My bad, these are Leopard ships so no Ballistics other than LRMs. Still a couple ER PPC's 4 ER Large and 7 Mediums, if they focus fired more they would be much more effective.

[Quxudica]

Tiamat007, on 17 April 2015 - 09:40 AM, said:

Didn't dropships have Navel guns in Battletech? Ie. AC-20's A drop zone should be a very bad place to be for an enemy force.

Some are supposed to yes. Others have mech weapons, but in large numbders. Any type of armed Dropships are supposed to be very unpleasant things to engage. You certainly aren't supposed to be able to sit under them with impunity picking off the mechs they drop off.

Mystere, on 04 April 2015 - 11:10 AM, said:

That's called playing smart.

That's not really being debated, what's at issue is it shouldn't be possible to begin with. Sure it's smart to camp spawns, it always has been, but well designed maps don't let you do it easily if at all.

[Mystere]

Quxudica, on 17 April 2015 - 09:53 AM, said:

That's not really being debated, what's at issue is it shouldn't be possible to begin with. Sure it's smart to camp spawns, it always has been, but well designed maps don't let you do it easily if at all.

People keep harping about "well-designed maps". And so I ask, what is a so-called well-designed map?

Edited by Mystere, 17 April 2015 - 10:16 AM.

[Quxudica]

Mystere, on 17 April 2015 - 10:16 AM, said:

People keep harping about "well-designed maps". And so I ask, what is a so-called well-designed map?

Ideally the spawn point is inaccessible to people outside it, attacking enemies cannot get into it and players who leave cannot come back to it. Barring that, it's a heavily and easily defensible location that makes it untenable for enemies to even try to hold.

In a broader sense, a well designed map is one that offers a variety of options. In MWO terms it would be a map that offers avenues that are advantageous to both brawling close range mechs and long range set ups. Ideally, with a map is designed with it's game mode(s) in mind, it's lay out and the placement of objectives within naturally guide confrontations to important areas of the map without feeling forced. In Conquest for example, a well designed map would have the nodes set in locations that the players gravitate towards on their own because the map is structured in a way to subtly take you to those places. First engagement may take place at point A or point B but the flow of the battle naturally results in the second engagement taking place near point C, etc. Contrast this with what we have in our current conquest, where nodes have been arbitrarily dropped into maps that weren't designed with Conquest in mind (or if they were, were done poorly) and you see the difference.

Or course map design is only half the battle (so to speak), you also need objectives with some nuance beyond just "stand in the square". This is why Conquest is really a bad game mode to try with one life per round style game play. Typically you want to set up nodes to be strategic respawn points, providing tangible tactical advantages to holding them while also having that respawn location naturally encourage the flow of the battle. Outside of that, objectives that have actual consequences can be of great importance. For example if the CW generators were just lazily placed in a shootable location next to their gate - but somewhere else on the map - you could use them as an objective that can diversify fight locations, maybe even encourage splitting the death balls if more optional objectives are also included. Maybe, for example, you need to shut down the generator but also have mechs at the gate to open it before the generator comes back online.

Edited by Quxudica, 17 April 2015 - 10:41 AM.