Jump to content

Dropzone Camping


164 replies to this topic

#121 Crockdaddy

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 1,684 posts
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationSaint Louis

Posted 19 March 2016 - 09:25 AM

View PostKhereg, on 19 March 2016 - 04:53 AM, said:


I'm pretty sure we've seen the last of Mechreg....on this thread anyway.


Have no fear, more Clan OP threads will be forthcoming I am sure just as Der Hesse will eventually accuse some other group of cheating. Its like clock work.

#122 nehebkau

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,386 posts
  • LocationIn a water-rights dispute with a Beaver

Posted 19 March 2016 - 10:49 AM

View PostKieva, on 13 March 2016 - 09:21 AM, said:


You do realize I refer to camping in your OWN drop zone... Right? You either didn't read the whole post, or need to up your comprehension skills. The scenario was: Counterattack on Hellebore Springs. The team defending Omega got kill lead after the first wave, of 11-9, so they all withdrew to their dropzone and stayed there to let the Dropships do all the work for them.

What it boils down to, is this: Is that the way PGI meant for people to play the game? Probably not. If not, does that make it a CoC violation? Yes.



I have said it before and I will say it again. ANY unit that spends too long in the dropzone should experience heat buildup, quickly and eventually shutdown and asplode! ASPLODE I SAY!

#123 nimdabew

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Liquid Metal
  • Liquid Metal
  • 211 posts

Posted 19 March 2016 - 05:57 PM

Instead of guns on the drop ships, why not have turrets with high health? Make many different types of turrets too. Close ranged turrets for the entrance to a spawn point with SRM6's, LRM turrets for whatever, etc. Make these turrets much harder to kill and that would prevent the enemy team from coming in and "waiting" for the dropships who only have about 4 shots to do all their damage. True, 60 ERLLAS isn't anything to snub your nose at, but turrets in addition to the drop ship would prevent the freefall targets.

Now, that being said, spawn points should also have a are where mechs are destroyed after say 90 seconds if the client is connected to the game. Make these zones blue outlined so turrets and dropships can't be used as a impenetrable tarp of protection.

#124 nehebkau

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,386 posts
  • LocationIn a water-rights dispute with a Beaver

Posted 19 March 2016 - 06:53 PM

ASPLODE!

#125 Chef Kerensky

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Big Brother
  • Big Brother
  • 908 posts

Posted 20 March 2016 - 12:41 PM

View PostRjBass3, on 18 March 2016 - 09:17 AM, said:


I have a better idea. In the school I teach at we have a student club called the Tech Club (the geeks of the school, me included) and we meet every Mon after school to build PC's, play video games, learn more about tech etc..

On the days we play video games, we like to setup our own in house Alien Arena server (one of the few FPS games the students are allowed to play while at school) and have a one our boil off. One of the standard server settings is Anti Camp. A player can only stand in one spot for a maximum of two minutes before the game auto frags him for camping. First the server give the player a couple of hits, decreasing his health. If the player still has not moved, the damage the player is taking will kill him after two minutes have passed.

Now obviously a blanket rule like that won't work in MWO, but I think it could if in the drop zone. Say when a mech drops, that mech has 4 minutes to clear the specified drop zone or else it starts taking damage. If after another 4 minutes of the mech taking damage it has still not moved out of the specified zone, the auto damage becomes enough to destroy the mech.

That gives the player a full 8 minutes to clear the drop zone, or 4 if he/she doesn't want to start taking auto damage.

This very same rule would also help with curbing the time we have to wait for a disco to redrop when all other players have been killed.

Thoughts?


Applied in the drop zone only? It could work, but if the attackers push defenders to their spawn it would become a very funny bloodbath very quickly.

On the other hand, the match is over at that point so it doesn't so much matter.

The problem I foresee is that CW rewards battle - you earn money and exp for damage, and that's the fun part too. As a player, I would try to maximize the amount of money I could earn within reason (not necessarily shaving off components to pad stats and money, but certainly trying to kill all 48 mechs)

So if the defenders just sat in place to suicide instead of fighting it might be pretty funny, but I could foresee 'cbill denial' becoming a new "tactic" (and I say tactic with the biggest air quotes I can muster) since it's not unheard of to see some players simply eject/suicide repeatedly

Ideally, losers should just make decent bank off a CW match IF they participate, and suffer big monetary losses for refusing to do so. It'd make the loss sting less and encourage people to at least try even if the situation seems hopeless

#126 Chef Kerensky

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Big Brother
  • Big Brother
  • 908 posts

Posted 20 March 2016 - 12:49 PM

To clarify, I think the spawn timer is a good idea, but I think it would be even better if supplemented by, say, increased, scaling rewards for damage (loads of cbills for your first 1500 to encourage and reward participation, and taper slowly as damage numbers go up to discourage the practice of artificially inflating your damage by targeting non-critical components) and perhaps some kind of "push bonus" that activates when leaving spawn, when entering the gates (for attackers), and when reaching or defending both the gate chokepoints and the objectives

Edited by Chef Kerensky, 20 March 2016 - 05:42 PM.


#127 ArmandTulsen

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 1,184 posts

Posted 20 March 2016 - 02:46 PM

I've only read the OP, so this may have been mentioned.

The simple solution is to set an out of bounds perimeter around the spawn point for enemy mechs.

#128 VorpalAnvil

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Littlest Helper
  • Littlest Helper
  • 724 posts
  • LocationThe Cantillon Brewery

Posted 20 March 2016 - 04:14 PM

View PostLord Baconburger, on 18 March 2016 - 06:46 AM, said:

I propose an invincible NPC mech formed like voltron sitting in the dropzone wearing a Ushanka, carrying a Moisin Nagant Carbine that shoots the power of 50 gauss rifle rounds at once to anyone who sits in the DZ for more than 20 seconds.

That'll get the ******* moving.

Anime is trash, weeaboo scum.

#129 MischiefSC

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Benefactor
  • The Benefactor
  • 16,697 posts

Posted 20 March 2016 - 10:10 PM

View PostChef Kerensky, on 20 March 2016 - 12:49 PM, said:

To clarify, I think the spawn timer is a good idea, but I think it would be even better if supplemented by, say, increased, scaling rewards for damage (loads of cbills for your first 1500 to encourage and reward participation, and taper slowly as damage numbers go up to discourage the practice of artificially inflating your damage by targeting non-critical components) and perhaps some kind of "push bonus" that activates when leaving spawn, when entering the gates (for attackers), and when reaching or defending both the gate chokepoints and the objectives


Do you understand we are talking about designing mechanics more complex than any PGI has been willing to put into legit weapon balance, all to fix the tendency of some people to act like a hungry, sleepy 4 year old when confronted with the idea that someone else is better at a computer game about big stompy robots than they are?

I'd rather it be reportable and result in a lifetime ban. While I know it wouldn't happen I'm not actually kidding. One of the biggest mistakes that has been made in this game (and several others) is protecting and upholding the idea that someone being better at the game than someone else is, to some degree, 'wrong' or 'unfair'.

One of the things that MW:O actually does really really well is that because of the degree of complexity of combat mechanics you can get into the top 5% skill-wise with only mediocre hand-eye coordination. Twitch skills are not the end-all-be-all here. In that top 5% it starts to get sliced pretty thin skill-wise and that's an advantage that turns matches but the skills that win in MW:O are coordination, communication, forethought, self-discipline and a willingness to actually learn SKILLS instead of practice by rote. Building a good mech, understanding engagement ranges and following a called drop are all skills.

You don't even need a mic. Just download and use Teamspeak and listen. You don't have to join a big unit, just be willing to find, follow and integrate with units on TS. If you're not a complete jackass most people are happy to have a warm body with a decent deck who follows directions and puts up >1K.

Yet we (as in the community and PGI) act like this is all dark sorcery and hax and doing so when playing against people who are literally intentionally unwilling to play with a team in a team game, who refuse to use the setups that work (which we call 'meta') cuz.... whyever, people who refuse to use any viable tool to communicate with their team in a team game.... bluntly people who are actively, intentionally bad at this game, we act like putting people who put in even a half-assed effort against people who are unwilling to do that is some cruel joke.

No the cruel joke is that we cater to people intentionally being bad. We need singleplayer and coop to let people be stupid and terrible and incompetent. We don't have that though, right now we have a PvP team v team game. There is no 'solo' play here. It doesn't exist outside the testing area. You can't drop in quickplay or CW FW (effing whatever) without being on a team. There is no 'don't play in team v team' in MW:O. There is only 'play on a team well' and 'play on a team incompetently'.

All that to say.... no to the original idea. We've got way too much time invested in trying to cater to people who are bad at the game and intentionally so. **** them. **** them in their ******* **** holes. If you banned them from CW, every single one, people would cry for about 48 hours then we'd put in the modicum of effort to coordinate to find matches and the game would be a billion times better.

Spend the time, money and energy on singleplayer/coop. If someone wants to suckle at mommies teats they can do so where everyone else isn't having to suffer through them being intentional bads. It's why I favor the queue split for CW - we'll find matches. They just won't have as many idiots in them. Let the idiots play with other idiots, make sure them being idiots doesn't screw up the map and for the love of god just let us all forget they are there. Everyone will be happier. Making new mechanics that will end up being exploited some other way to try and mitigate everyone else suffering through them being here is an absolute waste of time.

#130 Chef Kerensky

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Big Brother
  • Big Brother
  • 908 posts

Posted 20 March 2016 - 10:46 PM

I like your enthusiasm but in all seriousness CW populations are low enough as it is, and I firmly believe that even scrubs and cowards can be made into men of action, given the right prodding. There are a bunch of ways to simplify the idea, like so: you get half of your faction's contract bonus at the end of a round if you exit your spawn and participate in the match (i.e. moving through the gates as attackers) with every mech you have. If you fail to meet these conditions and you lose, you receive nothing, just like you do now.

#131 Chef Kerensky

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Big Brother
  • Big Brother
  • 908 posts

Posted 20 March 2016 - 10:50 PM

The real point is that the current direction that CW 'fixes' are going aren't really addressing some of its bigger issues: namely that people who lose can't find any motivation to keep going, can't find any resources to get better, and so either quit entirely or throw temper tantrums in game. There are a million ways to address this and most of them involve gently and/or violently prodding these people in the right direction by actually giving them a carrot to follow

It really doesn't matter how 'meaningful' planets are - people will play CW if it's fun to play. Winning is fun, I personally really like winning. People will win more often if they practice and learn the right lessons. It's the game's responsibility to provide the resources for players to do that, and quite frankly part of that requires that PGI man up and admit that they do not understand the game and its meta as well as the game's veterans do (as is the case with literally every video game developer in the history of the world) and consult people who actually participate in CW on a regular basis when trying to address potential issues.

Edited by Chef Kerensky, 20 March 2016 - 10:54 PM.


#132 Chef Kerensky

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Big Brother
  • Big Brother
  • 908 posts

Posted 20 March 2016 - 11:13 PM

This discussion actually reminds me of a few debates I read recently over the 'accessibility' of fighting games (fighting games of course being notorious for being very rewarding of players who understand the system and practice, and very punishing to those who don't bother,) and whether the recent trend towards catering to new players by making execution simpler is a good thing or a bad thing. So you're right in that any game that does not offer a pve experience is likely to run into this problem

#133 Crockdaddy

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 1,684 posts
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationSaint Louis

Posted 20 March 2016 - 11:24 PM

View PostChef Kerensky, on 20 March 2016 - 11:13 PM, said:

This discussion actually reminds me of a few debates I read recently over the 'accessibility' of fighting games (fighting games of course being notorious for being very rewarding of players who understand the system and practice, and very punishing to those who don't bother,) and whether the recent trend towards catering to new players by making execution simpler is a good thing or a bad thing. So you're right in that any game that does not offer a pve experience is likely to run into this problem

Reporting for sounding utterly un NKVA like. I think you are intentionally trolling sounding reasonable and stuff. Don't worry though, I merely took a screen shot I never in fact hit the report button.

#134 MischiefSC

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Benefactor
  • The Benefactor
  • 16,697 posts

Posted 21 March 2016 - 01:13 AM

View PostChef Kerensky, on 20 March 2016 - 10:46 PM, said:

I like your enthusiasm but in all seriousness CW populations are low enough as it is, and I firmly believe that even scrubs and cowards can be made into men of action, given the right prodding. There are a bunch of ways to simplify the idea, like so: you get half of your faction's contract bonus at the end of a round if you exit your spawn and participate in the match (i.e. moving through the gates as attackers) with every mech you have. If you fail to meet these conditions and you lose, you receive nothing, just like you do now.


Scrubs and cowards don't get turned into men of action by doing what they've always done though. The behavioral decision tree that leads to a change away from justification of failure/under-performance and toward self-improvement is either fight-or-flight (threat of being fired, thread to survival, other significant fear-based event), bottom-out (fail so completely that you have no viable excuses. Think of getting broken in boot camp), peer-driven (I Wanna Be Like Mike), or leadership driven (willing acceptance of a mentor).

So either a QQ ragequit experience where they decide to stop sucking or they get friends who are successful and, ideally, get someone to show them.

All those things more or less *require* the elimination of excuses for failure though. There's no peer pressure for success if you have a constant, steady supply of changes to 'make it easier' to justify why you fail. 'I would have won if only X, this is correct because PGI is coding in something to protect me from X'.

You split out solo/coop play and let it be scrubtown and you make it EASIER for people to accept that PvP is harder and requires that they apply themselves. You give them a point of reference between 'this is how I play when I'm alone' and 'this is how I compare directly with other people' and you make it easier for them to adapt to the idea that they have to be better to play PvP.

When the environment is only PvP the frame of reference instead becomes how the developer treats things. Is this an expectation or an exception? Is this particular excuse validated or denied? We have an environment of validation for failure in a team only PvP only game. We have whole processes in place to literally nerf teamwork in QP and PGI literally saying that 'big groups are the problem' for FW. This *creates* the behavior that drives players being failures at the game and still thinking they're doing it right.

A big chunk of the population only changes and adapts when they have no other choice. A classic example is the quote 'You can always count on America to do the right thing - after they have exhausted every alternative'. That's a broad stroke at the behaviors around procrastination and fear of failure.

You could cut the population of FW in half and still find just as many matches as you do now - just need to narrow the fronts and combine attack/defend queues and a tiny amount of coordination between units and groups of players. I've been on games with a population of ~50 online at any given time who easily kept up 10v10 conflicts pretty much around the clock in a big open world environment. You'd post up 'Hey, we're going to X and we'll be there pretty consistently for a few weeks, especially around Y times'. That's it. You wouldn't have MS going to Steiner/FRR/wherever at the same time as everyone else because then they wouldn't get nearly as many matches.

Same thing as above. People adapt pretty quickly. The idea of 'everyone would just leave' has never held true - CW went through huge gaps of players and it's actually got *more* content now than it did before.

You don't cater to new players by making execution simpler. You do it by making it seamless to integrate them with more experienced players. A lobby for a start. Second you have new players in a different lobby for their first 50 matches and only volunteer experienced players can go into the lobby who want to show them how to play. That's just one example.

There's a lot of them. There have been successful mechanics for onboarding new players for decades. The idea that you'll get and retain more players by just making the whole game so simple that a scrubtard can show up, be terrible and still get by has never worked. Even scrubtards don't want to play with other scrubtards. You give someone something to progress toward and they'll stay longer and be more invested in what they get.

View PostCrockdaddy, on 20 March 2016 - 11:24 PM, said:

Reporting for sounding utterly un NKVA like. I think you are intentionally trolling sounding reasonable and stuff. Don't worry though, I merely took a screen shot I never in fact hit the report button.


I'm noticing a theme here.

#135 50 50

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,145 posts
  • LocationTo Nova or not to Nova. That is the question.

Posted 21 March 2016 - 01:54 AM

The issue of camping in the drop zone came into play when the dropships got more firepower.
The reason dropships got more firepower was to try and discourage the other team from camping the drop zone.
the drop zones were also relocated and a few other things done to try and find a solution but they have only been little band aid fixes that hid the problems.
These issues have been around since CW was introduced and has been discussed in various threads.

As I see it, there are several changes that could be looked at to change the behaviour and make the battles more dynamic:
  • Change the match timer to an objective timer.
    If your team does not complete it's primary objective (defend/destroy Omega) before the objective timer runs out, then your team no longer gets the option to drop any more mechs in. Remaining mechs on the defeated side can then retreat or be eliminated as a secondary objective.
  • Make Counter-Attack an event that happens straight away.
    The team that has just attacked, eliminated Omega and driven off the defenders has to take up defensive positions straight away. They don't leave the match. Their drop zone is now inside the base and they can finish off the drop with what ever mechs they might have left in their decks.
    A brand new wave of mechs from the defending faction drops in either at the original attacker drop site (ie. the drop zones are swapped over for the teams) or the maps are extended to have a 'counter attack drop zone'.
    The new wave of mechs are brand new players and could just be a single wave.
  • Make the dropships interactive.
    Essentially, allow teams to shoot them down. This can create a delay with the incoming wave having to wait for another 30 seconds before they can drop in. I do not suggest that the players that were in the dropships be destroyed with the dropship. More to this idea but you can read it here:

    http://mwomercs.com/...01916-dropships
  • Allow drop zones to be captured.
    Add a capture mechanic to the zones. This is simply the addition of the existing capture mechanics we have with Assault, Conquest and now Domination.
    Mechs that have gone into an unoccupied enemy drop zone start to capture it and eliminate it as an option.
    For this to work, the maps that only have the single drop location should be split up into three drop zones.
    Also note that this applies to both sides in the conflict.
These suggestions are meant to work together.

#136 D A T A

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Death Star
  • Death Star
  • 893 posts
  • LocationCasamassima, Bari, south Italy

Posted 21 March 2016 - 02:24 AM

dropships should not pinpoint ct
job done

#137 iLLcapitan

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Caladbolg
  • Caladbolg
  • 654 posts
  • LocationBirdhouse

Posted 21 March 2016 - 02:39 AM

I would pay hard cash for a dropship consumable that does some drive by shooting.
Getting shot by the unloading dropships while working on gens is a bit stupid though.
Make cockpits of mechs who doesnt leave the drop area in time EXPLODE.
Make new FW (new!new!new!) maps, that avoid these issues with a proper layout.

#138 Widowmaker1981

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Widow Maker
  • The Widow Maker
  • 5,031 posts
  • LocationAt the other end of the pretty lights.

Posted 21 March 2016 - 02:48 AM

View PostChef Kerensky, on 20 March 2016 - 12:41 PM, said:

Ideally, losers should just make decent bank off a CW match IF they participate, and suffer big monetary losses for refusing to do so. It'd make the loss sting less and encourage people to at least try even if the situation seems hopeless


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.

#139 nehebkau

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,386 posts
  • LocationIn a water-rights dispute with a Beaver

Posted 21 March 2016 - 06:33 AM

ASPLODE! Make any friendly mech ASPLODE if in the dropzone fore more than 2 minutes and any enemy mech ASPLODE if in the dropzone for more than 30 seconds!


ASPLODE!
ASPLODE!
ASPLODE!


(maybe 5 minutes if you DC)

Edited by nehebkau, 21 March 2016 - 07:05 AM.


#140 dervishx5

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Workhorse
  • The Workhorse
  • 3,473 posts

Posted 21 March 2016 - 08:51 AM

View PostChef Kerensky, on 20 March 2016 - 11:13 PM, said:

This discussion actually reminds me of a few debates I read recently over the 'accessibility' of fighting games (fighting games of course being notorious for being very rewarding of players who understand the system and practice, and very punishing to those who don't bother,) and whether the recent trend towards catering to new players by making execution simpler is a good thing or a bad thing. So you're right in that any game that does not offer a pve experience is likely to run into this problem


Wow, Chef isn't being condescending?

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

Edited by dervishx5, 21 March 2016 - 08:56 AM.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users