164 replies to this topic

[Khereg]

Kieva, on 13 March 2016 - 10:16 AM, said:

Withdrawing to a defensible location is one thing. Withdrawing in to the Dropships auto-CT hitting LL roulette is not a good example of a defensible location.

I'm going to contradict you there and say that not only is it a defensible position, it's a far superior defensible position to any other on the map.

That's the problem.

Other statements that it doesn't seem to violate the CoC also hold, so the problem persists. Many suggestions have been made that could correct this, but so far PGI hasn't taken any of them up.

This is rehashing a very old argument, but keeping the pressure on PGI to do something isn't a bad thing.

Edited by Khereg, 14 March 2016 - 06:24 AM.

[Rushin Roulette]

Prof RJ Gumby, on 14 March 2016 - 03:42 AM, said:

The problem with this "true up strategy called defending" is that you're not defending what you're supposed to be defending. You're not fighting for your dropzone. You're not fighting for your mechs. You're fighting for your base. And the enemy is in your base. You abandoned it, left it to be destroyed, looted, dismantled, stripped clean of anything valuable. They could just set up new generators and turn the planetary back on while you're "defending". By any logic, you failed. Yet according to the artificial game objectives you're "winning". If my country invades your country and all your soldiers abandon the cities and hide in the mountains, refusing to engage the enemy, who is winning the war?

I want community warfare to resemble warfare. That's it. All dirty tricks are fine as long as they would make any sense in a real war. Defending your facilities by abandoning them doesn't

Actually, in counterattack you are not defending the base. That is also the reason why the game does not end after the Omega mobile base is destroyed. You are fighting over control over the sector (map).

If you really in insist on needing a real world wafare setting to get into RP. Imagine that the mobile base is jamming the landing beacon signal for mass troop transports needed to secure the beachhead. As long as the enemy has a numerical superiority it is too risky to land those troops as well. therefore you need to;
1 destroy the jamming source and
2. clear out the enemy far enough that there is less of a risk to your general, who is waiting to land with his prized collectors edition Humvee Hovercraft and doesnt want to risk scratching the paintjob.

Edited by Rushin Roulette, 14 March 2016 - 07:18 AM.

[C E Dwyer]

Kieva, on 13 March 2016 - 08:37 AM, said:

Recently, I have been observing more and more units resorting to camping in their drop zone if they're defending a counterattack and acquire kill lead after an offensive rush.

My interpretation of the Code of Conduct is that this is a violation of it's rules aforementioned. The players are taking advantage of a game mechanic to protect fresh spawns (and honestly, something that would realistically happen in BT lore) to get that extra 12 LL or however many the dropship has, and on maps such as Hellebore Springs, it's an extremely cheap alternative to actually playing the game the way it's meant to be played.

In my opinion something really... REALLY needs to be done to eliminate this tactic.

Ideas worth submitting are that dropships will fire on all mechs, not just hostile, though I would prefer just turning off their lasers all together. I've yet to be in a CW game where my team actively spawn camped, so all those dropships do is create situations like this.

Of course, these are just thoughts. Share yours.

The drop ship zones were introduced to stop camping of mechs by winning teams, and in assault it works ok, as the defending team gets to organise and not get farmed, and if the other team hide in the back field you can still win your match.

Counter attack however organised teams exploit these zones, they attack get a one or two mech advantage, take down the base, then retreat and hide, in one drop zone, with the drop caller, altering the lances to make sure should the supposed defending team, actually get a kill, the fresh mech drops in the DZ that the supposed attacking team is hiding.

Yes it Happens.

I dropped in a Davion 12 man that did exactly this before I went back to the Lyran Commonwealth, and its disgusting.

Also defending teams do this because the counter attacker needs to have kill advantage and take down the mini base.

Its an exploit and one of the reasons I stopped playing CW before I gave up completely on CW I made a point of reporting the people in teams that do this.

Frankly the old way was better, because fail teams that can't defend their own DZ's deserve everything they get, but this fix made CW worse and brought a big easily abused exploit into the game, which didn't exist until P.G.I tried to fix things for the cry babies.

Edited by Cathy, 14 March 2016 - 07:39 AM.

[Lord Baconburger]

Shooting camping mechs in the DZ is like shooting ducks at the gallery in a fairground. When they fall, they fall like the cheap plastic they are.


On a serious note, we can understand the frustration of those who don't want to camp. It's either camp and get some damage through poking, or go out and die a glorious death to the awaiting organised mech unit. This happened as recent as yesterday in a match, the latter, where a pug said in all chat that they were fed up with sitting in the DZ with their terrified team and went out in a blaze of glory. Muchos respect for those type of people, seen a few of those around, and also empathy for the situation they find themselves in.

Something could be done, a whole multitude of options given by the previous posters here for PGI to consider and play with. It's obvious that its a problem, longstanding, and seems to be a problem that can quite moderately be resolved.

[Prof RJ Gumby]

Rushin Roulette, on 14 March 2016 - 07:17 AM, said:

Actually, in counterattack you are not defending the base. That is also the reason why the game does not end after the Omega mobile base is destroyed. You are fighting over control over the sector (map).

If you really in insist on needing a real world wafare setting to get into RP. Imagine that the mobile base is jamming the landing beacon signal for mass troop transports needed to secure the beachhead. As long as the enemy has a numerical superiority it is too risky to land those troops as well. therefore you need to;
1 destroy the jamming source and
2. clear out the enemy far enough that there is less of a risk to your general, who is waiting to land with his prized collectors edition Humvee Hovercraft and doesnt want to risk scratching the paintjob.

I dunno how much would I need to stretch my imagination to pretend that one side maintains control over a territory by hiding in one tight spot in the back and refusing to engage enemy forces roaming freely on the other 95% of the area.

Cathy, on 14 March 2016 - 07:26 AM, said:

(...)
Frankly the old way was better, because fail teams that can't defend their own DZ's deserve everything they get, but this fix made CW worse and brought a big easily abused exploit into the game, which didn't exist until P.G.I tried to fix things for the cry babies.

Well yes and no. Easy spawncamping needed to go away, because it drives people away from CW, by it dragging the already defeated players through a few minutes of being butchered after the match is already decided and could've just end. People play games for fun, insult added to injury is not fun. The real problem IMHO is that the win conditions and rewards do not correspond well with the intended objectives for the mission.

In general, PGI does a really bad job at defining and incentivising the intended objectives, in both pugland and CW. First and foremost fail - letting "killemall" solution being far, far more profitable than playing for objectives. We would get much less painfull defeats/pissed of pugs in CW and more strategic gameplay in assault&conquest if the game provided winners with rewards for not killed enemies. Hardly anyone would bother spawncamping if it wouldn't provide any better rewards than just finishing the omega (which is quicker once the enemy defense collapses), or insult base cappers in assault for not letting them murder that last disarmed enemy hiding on the other side of the map.

Edited by Prof RJ Gumby, 14 March 2016 - 08:00 AM.

[Mystere]

Scrap Catastrophe, on 13 March 2016 - 12:05 PM, said:

Arguing about a tactic distracts PGI from developing the game. Stop bogging down PGI because you cannot adapt and overcome.

Well, that's been the story of MWO since it was made available to the idiotic masses who whine about anything and everything.

[Mystere]

Well, I blame the loud and incessant whiners playing this game. Originally when CW came out, defenders dropped within the base itself and not in some secluded drop zones. But we all know how PGI reacts to loud and incessant whining.

Prof RJ Gumby, on 14 March 2016 - 07:59 AM, said:

Well yes and no. Easy spawncamping needed to go away, because it drives people away from CW, by it dragging the already defeated players through a few minutes of being butchered after the match is already decided and could've just end.

A better solution was to allow variable drop sites, not this abomination we now have as demanded by the loud and incessant whiners.

The Mecha Streisand, on 13 March 2016 - 08:18 PM, said:

Is it not possible to put the drop zones themselves under some sort of extended out-of-bounds status, where you have like, say, 40 seconds to get out or you blow up? Say, it's out of bounds altogether for Team A to be in Team B's DZ, and vice-versa. And Team A mechs have 40 seconds to get out of their own DZ, same for Team B and THEIR DZ.

Stefka Kerensky, on 14 March 2016 - 04:06 AM, said:

The easier fix to this is to consider the dropzone like out of bound area (1 minutes after being dropped, if you are still there, you pop)

How is that supposed to resemble "warfare"?

Edited by Mystere, 14 March 2016 - 11:34 AM.

[Mystere]

Prof RJ Gumby, on 14 March 2016 - 03:42 AM, said:

I want community warfare to resemble warfare. That's it. All dirty tricks are fine as long as they would make any sense in a real war. Defending your facilities by abandoning them doesn't

Given PGI's and much of the player base's e-sports obsession where everything needs to be set up 1-to-1 in the name of "balance" and "fair play", good luck with that. <smh>

Edited by Mystere, 14 March 2016 - 11:25 AM.

[Revermen]

Why not add onto this idea rather than nerf it? Attackers move in and destroy omega and pull out to their drop zone where they need to keep a beacon alive for a few minutes for extraction. Scenario has 3 endings; omega lives, defender victory; omega dies and beacon lives, attacker win; omega dies and beacon is wrecked, draw (or lose-lose, but no mans land doesnt exist in cw so whats the point)

[MechWarrior4023212]

Revermen, on 14 March 2016 - 12:24 PM, said:

Why not add onto this idea rather than nerf it? Attackers move in and destroy omega and pull out to their drop zone where they need to keep a beacon alive for a few minutes for extraction. Scenario has 3 endings; omega lives, defender victory; omega dies and beacon lives, attacker win; omega dies and beacon is wrecked, draw (or lose-lose, but no mans land doesnt exist in cw so whats the point)

I think the problem is that the attackers are not destroying it and getting smashed at their DZ after the first attack.

[Chef Kerensky]

We made dropship strong and now player hides by dropship?? Buh?? Who could have seen this coming? - blind man

[Chef Kerensky]

http://mwomercs.com/...12#entry4474212

Reminder

[MischiefSC]

It's a fundamental aspect of the game, really.

Good players will work on ways to find and kill the enemy.

Bad players will continually try to find and petition for new places to hide and someone else to fight for them.

[Clownwarlord]

While you argue about hiding in the drop zone ... I would like to point out drop zone farming STILL HAPPENS!!!

So kinda argument is invalid. Because if you put a time on being allowed in the drop zone and you are forced out into a firing line just outside of drop zone ... isn't that still drop zone farming?

[GrogX]

I don't recall losing a match to offensive (using the term loosely and figuratively) spawn campers, I think it's a convenience thing honestly. It draws a drubbing out. It doesn't beat anyone.

[MechWarrior4023212]

clownwarlord, on 15 March 2016 - 12:19 AM, said:

While you argue about hiding in the drop zone ... I would like to point out drop zone farming STILL HAPPENS!!!

So kinda argument is invalid. Because if you put a time on being allowed in the drop zone and you are forced out into a firing line just outside of drop zone ... isn't that still drop zone farming?

They can only camp if the other team loses 12 to around 4 in the first round and then lose again in the second, after that it is just clean up time!

[Kin3ticX]

sycocys, on 14 March 2016 - 02:43 AM, said:

The solution is simple - you get rid of the re-spawn mechanic because it simply doesn't offer anything that actually improves the game.

I doubt this will ever happen, people already spend tons of $$ & MC on duplicates just for CW and the community rage would be the biggest its probably ever been

[Mystere]

Revermen, on 14 March 2016 - 12:24 PM, said:

Why not add onto this idea rather than nerf it? Attackers move in and destroy omega and pull out to their drop zone where they need to keep a beacon alive for a few minutes for extraction. Scenario has 3 endings; omega lives, defender victory; omega dies and beacon lives, attacker win; omega dies and beacon is wrecked, draw (or lose-lose, but no mans land doesnt exist in cw so whats the point)

Although it probably needs refinement (e.g. What do you do with the current dropship "reinforcement" mechanic once omega is destroyed?), that's not a bad idea.

Unfortunately, there are so many one-dimensional thinkers playing this game (i.e. everything is "Skirmish" to them) any new "objective" will either be ignored or loudly complained about.

[Dawnstealer]

Armando, on 13 March 2016 - 08:41 AM, said:

It is not a strategy that I have ever used, and TBH while I have had enemy teams use this strategy against my teams, they have never done so successfully (always ends with them getting wiped).

They can use the drop ships all they want....isn't going to stop what is going to happen from happening. (They are going to be destroyed either way).

Basically this: if you're a badly inferior team and have to resort to relying on the dropships for help, you're probably doomed anyways. Once you get a kill lead in a situation like that (on the attack), then it becomes stupidly easy to farm the defenseless mechs dropping from the sky.

By the time they hit the ground, they've been so focused down, they're mostly a non-factor. And then it just compounds.

I could see this working against an inexperienced team, but against any team that knows what they're doing, hiding in the drop zone never works out well for the defenders.

Edited by Dawnstealer, 15 March 2016 - 07:31 AM.

[Windscape]

I consider Dropship camping a cheap tactic and dont particularly enjoy doing it, but if im a pug against a 12 man it is probably the only tactic you can use to put up a good fight. So, you are a cheap team if you are organized and decide to camp in the dropzone but if your in a pug drop where it is heard to do organized DC'ing then cowering in the dropzone is the only way to be effective against a 12 man