164 replies to this topic

[Dawnstealer]

what about instead of turrets or dropships, you have minefields? Blow off or severely damage the legs of enemy mechs. By the time they get to the dropzone, they're severely beat up.

[TKSax]

Dawnstealer, on 21 March 2016 - 09:01 AM, said:

what about instead of turrets or dropships, you have minefields? Blow off or severely damage the legs of enemy mechs. By the time they get to the dropzone, they're severely beat up.

Yet that would make the problem the OP is talking about worse. When your own team camps thier own dropzone in CounterAttack.

[Bjorn Coston]

[Crockdaddy]

Bjorn Bekker, on 21 March 2016 - 09:38 AM, said:

They removed that once they super armored up the Generators. Light tactics was a strategy. I do agree that making it "more" difficult to take out a Gen was a good idea ... but I think they went a bit overboard with it (like every other buff and or nerf ever done). We basically ignore the generators completely now. Realistically unless we are Derping hard and not paying attention we cannot lose in a Defense Map with generators. I find it a bit of a shame really as a few Davion / Marik teams made it very hard to defend against when they started perfecting the rush tactic.

[MischiefSC]

Widowmaker1981, on 21 March 2016 - 02:48 AM, said:

They DO make bank if they do something, even while losing. Ive made 700k from a CW loss before (with premium and a couple of +Cbill mechs, granted). You just don't get any money for doing 200 damage across 4 mechs, as you shouldn't because its pathetic.

Really is the gist of it.

You can make money by playing even when you lose - you just have to not suck at the game.

What we're talking about here is rewarding people even when they suck.

That is, fundamentally, the problem. What we're doing is telling people that when they suck at the game they should still feel like a winner anyway - they should get rewarded regardless.

This is a self-perpetuating cycle that prevents people from taking the steps required to get better at the game. If you're going to reward people no matter how good they play do it in single player/coop. If you start that cycle in team v team PvP you're creating a 'rush to the bottom'. Rewarding 'minimum viable product' which makes MVP (see what I did there) the expectation of behavior.

If you remove the tacit acceptance and rewarding of being bad at the game the only players you lose are the ones who are a net loss to the games experience. For people who do put effort into the game and are invested in doing well having a team full of Lord Sir Derp Derpington of Derping Downs sucks the joy out of it. Populations self-manage by expectation. You shake the bads loose and you'll find more goods wanting and willing to play more often.

It's not about the total number of players so much as the total hours of play. 4 terribads who make the game less fun for everyone they play with are inferior to 2 decent players who, because it's more fun, play more often and make their matches more fun for the people on both sides.

[Repasy Cooper]

I thought of a possible way to fix this just now. What if on counterattack, instead of having to destroy the mobile base you can also sit on it a la Domination mode, and what if this was an alternative way to win the match? This would force the enemy team to actively defend the mobile base for the duration of the match, punishing hiding in the dropzone with forfeit match. It would also bring those games where the defending team is naturally pushed back to spawn to a close faster, because it's pretty hard to bounce back after the enemy has set up position right at your spawnpoint. Would this be viable?

[Crockdaddy]

MischiefSC, on 21 March 2016 - 11:16 AM, said:

Really is the gist of it.

You can make money by playing even when you lose - you just have to not suck at the game.

What we're talking about here is rewarding people even when they suck.

That is, fundamentally, the problem. What we're doing is telling people that when they suck at the game they should still feel like a winner anyway - they should get rewarded regardless.

This is a self-perpetuating cycle that prevents people from taking the steps required to get better at the game. If you're going to reward people no matter how good they play do it in single player/coop. If you start that cycle in team v team PvP you're creating a 'rush to the bottom'. Rewarding 'minimum viable product' which makes MVP (see what I did there) the expectation of behavior.

If you remove the tacit acceptance and rewarding of being bad at the game the only players you lose are the ones who are a net loss to the games experience. For people who do put effort into the game and are invested in doing well having a team full of Lord Sir Derp Derpington of Derping Downs sucks the joy out of it. Populations self-manage by expectation. You shake the bads loose and you'll find more goods wanting and willing to play more often.

It's not about the total number of players so much as the total hours of play. 4 terribads who make the game less fun for everyone they play with are inferior to 2 decent players who, because it's more fun, play more often and make their matches more fun for the people on both sides.

I make in a typical quickplay match 300 to 400K ... in great matches I make over 500K. I can do this 6 to 8 times per hour. CW on a rewards basis doesn't really match up for the time invested into it. Most CW matches I make 750K to 1.4 million CBills ... depending if I am tanking or not. If all goes well ... .I can get 2 to 3 (maybe) in an hour. If it doesn't go well ... then it sucks. Too much time for lower payout and a game mode which doesn't currently mean much. I hate saying it too btw. I loved CW 1 ... before I became jaded. I became a founder in MWO simply because of CW ... I sure hope CW 3 does something useful.

[TKSax]

Repasy Cooper, on 21 March 2016 - 11:49 AM, said:

I thought of a possible way to fix this just now. What if on counterattack, instead of having to destroy the mobile base you can also sit on it a la Domination mode, and what if this was an alternative way to win the match? This would force the enemy team to actively defend the mobile base for the duration of the match, punishing hiding in the dropzone with forfeit match. It would also bring those games where the defending team is naturally pushed back to spawn to a close faster, because it's pretty hard to bounce back after the enemy has set up position right at your spawnpoint. Would this be viable?

That would work, I also though they could just make it the Match a Draw if Omega is Killed and the score is tied.

[Derek_Wildstar]

i say have PGI put a time limit on the spawn area and if your are not out of it by then your mech is suicided and once you leave the spawn area make a artificial barrier that you can't cross back into.

[Chef Kerensky]

dervishx5, on 21 March 2016 - 08:51 AM, said:

Wow, Chef isn't being condescending?

Next you'll be telling me Tasker has actual human emotions.

I can empathize with bad players who put in effort because I am a garbage Millia player and I'm bad at GG Xrd

[Tasker]

I know I've said this before, but let me just put it here:

For every noob you don't camp, I'll camp two.

[Commander A9]

Truth is, we've all done it.

All the major units have done it.

I know this because I've been involved with the major units when they did it.

It's unfortunately one strategy that can be employed.

[Windscape]

the only time i camp in the dropzone was in a mixed FRR drop when we were pitted against MS. We were attacking, so our DC just said screw it, were staying at the dropzone. We still lost, but yeah, that would be the only excuse for dropzone camping imo, if you are in a casual group or pugs against a super competitive unit and you have little to no chance.

[TKSax]

Commander A9, on 22 March 2016 - 09:56 PM, said:

Truth is, we've all done it.

All the major units have done it.

I know this because I've been involved with the major units when they did it.

It's unfortunately one strategy that can be employed.

Stop speaking for, All I have never camp my dropzone on either attack, nor Defense on counter attack. Have a pulled a team back out of the games after kill Omega and had a kill lead? Sure but never all the way back to the drop zone. I love the excuse of "strategy" yes it takes a great tactical mind to not leave your dropzone....

[KahnWongFuChung]

Russ and PGI need to fix this exploit played a group last night the 12man refused to come out of there spawn after getting a 1 kill lead and we were pugs? go figure. They must have no spines at all but it did result in a win for them not because they were good but because the drop ships killed us we lost by 2 kills.

My suggestions would be to allow 120 seconds to leave the drop zone or your mech dies the first time you drop in a mech if you reenter the drop zone you have 15 seconds to leave or your mech dies 3rd time you try to enter your mech just dies.

The other way to deal with spawn camping is to place a barrier in the area once a player leaves spawn the barrier wont let them back in.Ether way no team can be spineless and spawn camp.

Edited by KahnWongFuChung, 26 March 2016 - 06:10 AM.

[Tarogato]

TKSax, on 24 March 2016 - 04:28 AM, said:

Stop speaking for, All I have never camp my dropzone on either attack, nor Defense on counter attack. Have a pulled a team back out of the games after kill Omega and had a kill lead? Sure but never all the way back to the drop zone. I love the excuse of "strategy" yes it takes a great tactical mind to not leave your dropzone....

BulIshit. If you've played CW, then you will have at least once camped an enemy dropzone or been camped by the enemy at your own. It's a simple matter of fact in unbalanced matches. And I still don't understand why people are still suggesting solutions to the "camping problem", such as "make a timer!" "make dropships stronger!" "make dropships weaker!" "move the spawns!" "create another objective!" ... the same fuсking thing is still going to happen: matches between two imbalanced teams are going to lead to one team losing so bad that they get camped or one team being so bad that they can't push up on a cowering enemy. There is *NO* solution to this problem without creating a skill-based matchmaker for CW (which isn't going to happen) or completely changing the gameplay mechanics of CW (which isn't going to happen) or preventing the worst players in the game from playing CW at all (which would kill CW populations, so it isn't going to happen.)

Edited by Tarogato, 26 March 2016 - 06:46 AM.

[Lord Baconburger]

[dervishx5]

Did they turn off the profanity filter?

[TKSax]

Tarogato, on 26 March 2016 - 06:44 AM, said:

BulIshit. If you've played CW, then you will have at least once camped an enemy dropzone or been camped by the enemy at your own.

I have never camped my OWN dropzone. Enemy, yes, my own, never, that is what this whole thread is about. Specifically teams defending on Counter attack the Camp their OWN drop-zones because they no they will win on a tie if Omega is destoyed. It is exploiting the reason Dropships where made stronger.

[Commander A9]

Indeed; I've been a part of groups that have done the camping, and been the victims of camping; I've seen it everywhere.

And what do you do when you're in the less desirable spot of losing in Community Warfare? You fall back to the drop zone.

Isn't that camping, too?