10 replies to this topic

[Bashfulsalamander]

I already seen at least one post regarding removing Omega from counter attack, but i did not read it.. yet. Personally i did not really have much of a problem with the game mode until now. Dropship camping has existed for awhile, but was rare. Not during this event though i went into i think two or three games in a row where PUGS attempted this. Now i did not care much after all i couldnt blame them they where against a 12 man premade. That said i have seen this done by premades aswell. It is becoming a problem and should be seen as an exploit by PGI and the community. I was in a 12 all day yesterday (pretty much) and we of course got a match agaisnt some pugs... its boring sometimes due to the skill difference, but after the second game of them dropship spawn camping it was annoying. They had no chance of winning and the dropships where doing pretty much all the work/ damage. the dropships of course would kill us after we killed them and it actually dragged the game on for much longer then it should have.

Pugs doing this isnt really that bad, but it still leaves a bad taste in at least my mouth. After all the objective of the gamemode is to destroy Omega, which is completely unguarded as a result of this strategy. ( exploit).... So what could PGI do to fix this?

My first idea is by making it possible to tie the match... and by doing so give the match different reward values as well. ie: Most kills + gen dead= win for attackers. Most kills+ gen alive= loss for attackers. less kills+ gen dead= tie for attackers

of course losing team gets paid little to nothing.. I don't really think rewards should be changed though because then that would be pretty crappy for pugs especially. And this really wouldn't discourage the tactic (exploit) either. I don't see how PGI could prevent this, so that the LZ be safe and not be a hiding spot for players.... other then one way.. make it against the rules as a ban able offence and possibly make it so enemy mechs can not walk in there physically, maybe with a special out of bounds?


This is just my thoughts on the matter though. I understand that this would take a crap load of programming, but I think the community should focus a little on this subject as extra encouragement.

[MechWarrior849305]

T_T Flood more

[Kissamies]

Hmm, I think counter attack is mostly fine, but it can be somewhat a problem when, with Omega already down, one side achieves the lead and then just camps. Gets cheesy if they decide to do this in the cover of their dropships, though I haven't seen this much.

An alternative to "tie" I can think of is bringing in the concepts of "decisive victory" and "minor victory" from the tabletop scenarios.

[Bashfulsalamander]

DuoAngel, on 07 December 2015 - 04:35 AM, said:

T_T Flood more

roses are red and violets are blue.... I can make crap up to.....

Kissamies, on 07 December 2015 - 06:46 AM, said:

Hmm, I think counter attack is mostly fine, but it can be somewhat a problem when, with Omega already down, one side achieves the lead and then just camps. Gets cheesy if they decide to do this in the cover of their dropships, though I haven't seen this much.

An alternative to "tie" I can think of is bringing in the concepts of "decisive victory" and "minor victory" from the tabletop scenarios.

Yeah I never really hated the game mode, but after more then 5 of games like this I only see the trend growing. At first to be honest I only seen a mixed 10- 12 man from Davion doing it.. then like a week or so later I seen an FRR group doing it. Now I see pugs doing it frequently maybe because of the event.

What is decisive victory and minor victory though? I am unfamiliar with the table top unfortunately.

[Hotthedd]

It is a perfectly valid tactic.

The enemy is under no obligation to lemming march through a choke point into a pre-made team's firing line. In war, when there is no chance of success winning a battle, delaying the superior force (and not allowing them to drop into another battle) while minimizing casualties is actually the SMRT thing to do.

[Kissamies]

Valid tactic, yes. I'm not contesting that. Maybe not so enjoyable to all parties and some ways to encourage something else can be considered, as long as they don't break anything else. We can pretend this is a war, but in the end it is really a game which people voluntarily play. Also when dropships truly get involved, the validity becomes questionable.

Bashfulsalamander, on 07 December 2015 - 07:30 AM, said:

What is decisive victory and minor victory though? I am unfamiliar with the table top unfortunately.

Just terms to describe degrees of victory. For example, in counter attack getting more kills could determine victory, but the destruction/protection of the Omega mobile HQ would determine if it's a decisive or minor victory. In this game the decisive one would be worth more cbills and LP. Could be paired with minor and crushing defeat for the losing side to encourage them to at least try to sneak attack Omega even if they are clearly losing as minor defeat would still give them a bit more reward than crushing defeat.

Of course, this is basically same that win-draw-loss, but with 4 stages instead of 3: major win-minor win-minor loss-major loss. Maybe it would be better to not have the ambiguity of tie, maybe not. Could easily have even more stages, but I don't think that's worth it.

[Bashfulsalamander]

Hotthedd, on 07 December 2015 - 07:40 AM, said:

It is a perfectly valid tactic.

The enemy is under no obligation to lemming march through a choke point into a pre-made team's firing line. In war, when there is no chance of success winning a battle, delaying the superior force (and not allowing them to drop into another battle) while minimizing casualties is actually the SMRT thing to do.

I am so glad you have experience in war..
So lets talk about the game rather then "war" .... because I can tell you are probably like a command Sargent Major General.
First of all you say its a valid tactic to slow the attacking force down and minimalize casualties.. Well that's funny because for some reason those dropships keep sending people to their deaths in a hot LZ where they have no chance of winning.. rather then just deploying them in a different LZ further back that does not exist in the game. Secondly and here is the real important part what are you slowing the attacking force for in the first place? reinforcements? Well they just destroyed your Comm array, which is probably why the dropship keeps sending reinforcements to their death, so I guess that should be in the LZ as well and behind a barrier where you cant hit it from the front or sides. Does this sound stupid yet because I think it does.. But this is your logic turned in on itself....

As for Validity its NOT.. the reason dropships have weapons is to stop those evil premades from killing you before you even land. where as hiding behind the dropships should be seen as abuse to this privilege.. after all its your own incompetence that allowed the attacking force to get to your LZ.. So yeah... that's why I think its not the " SMRT thing to do"

Kissamies, on 07 December 2015 - 09:14 AM, said:

Just terms to describe degrees of victory. For example, in counter attack getting more kills could determine victory, but the destruction/protection of the Omega mobile HQ would determine if it's a decisive or minor victory. In this game the decisive one would be worth more cbills and LP. Could be paired with minor and crushing defeat for the losing side to encourage them to at least try to sneak attack Omega even if they are clearly losing as minor defeat would still give them a bit more reward than crushing defeat.

Of course, this is basically same that win-draw-loss, but with 4 stages instead of 3: major win-minor win-minor loss-major loss. Maybe it would be better to not have the ambiguity of tie, maybe not. Could easily have even more stages, but I don't think that's worth it.

I like it, sounds like a great idea with a little more depth for the actual game mode.

[L Y N X]

Am I reading this right? Are you complaining that your 12-man team was spawn-camping the enemy?

[Hotthedd]

Bashfulsalamander, on 07 December 2015 - 12:49 PM, said:

I am so glad you have experience in war..
So lets talk about the game rather then "war" .... because I can tell you are probably like a command Sargent Major General.

No, I'm not. But luckily you do not need a military commission to understand strategic battlefield concepts, whether it is in a game, or in real life.

Bashfulsalamander, on 07 December 2015 - 12:49 PM, said:

First of all you say its a valid tactic to slow the attacking force down and minimalize casualties.. Well that's funny because for some reason those dropships keep sending people to their deaths in a hot LZ where they have no chance of winning.. rather then just deploying them in a different LZ further back that does not exist in the game.

Yes. I have often imagined the conversations that must theoretically happen between the MechWarrior and the Drop Ship Captain in those situations. I'm certain it is NSFW.

Bashfulsalamander, on 07 December 2015 - 12:49 PM, said:

Secondly and here is the real important part what are you slowing the attacking force for in the first place? reinforcements? Well they just destroyed your Comm array, which is probably why the dropship keeps sending reinforcements to their death, so I guess that should be in the LZ as well and behind a barrier where you cant hit it from the front or sides. Does this sound stupid yet because I think it does.. But this is your logic turned in on itself....

If I have no chance of winning the battle, but I CAN delay a 12-man premade team from a quick victory, thereby making them wait longer in the queue to get another quick victory, then that gives my side more chances to win the overall war.
Does that really sound stupid?
As long as there is the in-game re-spawn mechanic, there will be spawn camping and/or spawn retreating. In my opinion it would be better for CW to use the dropship mode for a campaign-style series of battles instead of in game re-spawns.

Bashfulsalamander, on 07 December 2015 - 12:49 PM, said:

As for Validity its NOT.. the reason dropships have weapons is to stop those evil premades from killing you before you even land. where as hiding behind the dropships should be seen as abuse to this privilege.. after all its your own incompetence that allowed the attacking force to get to your LZ.. So yeah... that's why I think its not the " SMRT thing to do"

It is every bit as valid as camping in the opponents spawn zone killing them as they get off the dropship.
I never said premades were evil. And it doesn't take someone's own incompetence to get camped. It is a team game. If just a couple of your teammates are bad, and the OpFor is good, you're going to get camped eventually.

[Bashfulsalamander]

7ynx, on 07 December 2015 - 12:57 PM, said:

Am I reading this right? Are you complaining that your 12-man team was spawn-camping the enemy?

No you are reading this wrong, I am complaining that my 12 man premade team was forced to dropship farm a group of pugs that hide behind their drop ships. And I have seen premades do this as well..

Hotthedd, on 07 December 2015 - 01:46 PM, said:

If I have no chance of winning the battle, but I CAN delay a 12-man premade team from a quick victory, thereby making them wait longer in the queue to get another quick victory, then that gives my side more chances to win the overall war.
Does that really sound stupid?
As long as there is the in-game re-spawn mechanic, there will be spawn camping and/or spawn retreating. In my opinion it would be better for CW to use the dropship mode for a campaign-style series of battles instead of in game re-spawns.

Delaying the enemy is smart I wont argue that, but the way you are doing it is cheap, this is not a war its an event in a game. Really its no different from using a wall exploit or jumping on your teams mech and causing a movment hitbox glitch. If you cant delay an enemy team with skill that doesn't mean you should use a clear exploit to do it. ( might as well power down and hide somewhere). Even if its PUG's its their own choice to do CW solo, so its their own fault for being ill prepared to fight a 12 man group, but I don't think that's reason to use say an aimbot now is it? I also agree that campaign mode would be nice, but rolls could still easily exist. They always will that's just a skill difference. Also you don't just deny a premade another match against pugs you deny them a match against other 12 mans, which after boring matches against cannon fodder always brightens up the day. Overall you just ruin the game experience for every one.

Hotthedd, on 07 December 2015 - 01:46 PM, said:

It is every bit as valid as camping in the opponents spawn zone killing them as they get off the dropship.
I never said premades were evil. And it doesn't take someone's own incompetence to get camped. It is a team game. If just a couple of your teammates are bad, and the OpFor is good, you're going to get camped eventually.

Not really, you see a team actually has to fight in order to get into that position, so if the defending team cant hold the LZ that's their own problem. BUT that's why they buffed drop ships, so that it couldn't happen as fast. Where as if defenders just sit in their LZ's it takes no effort and allows the help of a perfect shot God mode AI. If that's not 100% exploit then I guess they should just allow aimbots and wall hacks so that all players can put no effort into the match.

Edited by Bashfulsalamander, 07 December 2015 - 04:33 PM.

[Hotthedd]

Bashfulsalamander, on 07 December 2015 - 03:59 PM, said:

No you are reading this wrong, I am complaining that my 12 man premade team was forced to dropship farm a group of pugs that hide behind their drop ships. And I have seen premades do this as well..



Delaying the enemy is smart I wont argue that, but the way you are doing it is cheap, this is not a war its an event in a game. Really its no different from using a wall exploit or jumping on your teams mech and causing a movment hitbox glitch. If you cant delay an enemy team with skill that doesn't mean you should use a clear exploit to do it. ( might as well power down and hide somewhere). Even if its PUG's its their own choice to do CW solo, so its their own fault for being ill prepared to fight a 12 man group, but I don't think that's reason to use say an aimbot now is it? I also agree that campaign mode would be nice, but rolls could still easily exist. They always will that's just a skill difference. Also you don't just deny a premade another match against pugs you deny them a match against other 12 mans, which after boring matches against cannon fodder always brightens up the day. Overall you just ruin the game experience for every one.



Not really, you see a team actually has to fight in order to get into that position, so if the defending team cant hold the LZ that's their own problem. BUT that's why they buffed drop ships, so that it couldn't happen as fast. Where as if defenders just sit in their LZ's it takes no effort and allows the help of a perfect shot God mode AI. If that's not 100% exploit then I guess they should just allow aimbots and wall hacks so that all players can put no effort into the match.

Aimbots and wallhacks are cheating, not exploiting.
Refusing to engage the enemy on unfavorable terms is not exploiting, nor is it cheating.

2 examples that I have seen:

12-man defending Boreal.
They killed 2 of our players before we could open the gate! (All pre-nerf TBolts and Stalkers)
So, we decided not to open the gate.
Eventually they agreed to let us open the gate so they could come out and fight. With their long range advantage nullified, it ended up being a close game.

12-man counter attacking Emerald Taiga.
From outside the gate, they long-range kill Omega.
They insta-kill a light that was scouting.
They say: "You have to come to us now"
We say: "No, Thanks. We can queue again in under a minute."

What part of either of these is either an exploit, cheating, or against the TOS?