Jump to content

Dropzone Farming, Qq Some More About It Pls, Your Tears Are Sweet


132 replies to this topic

#121 Jumping Gigolo

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • The 1 Percent
  • 207 posts
  • LocationAny red light district or above 27,000ft on a mile-high club jet

Posted 02 January 2017 - 10:55 AM

View Postnehebkau, on 01 January 2017 - 09:20 AM, said:


as we have said 1000 times, usually the people being spawn-camped are the newbies to FW and the experience of repeated spawn-camps makes them leave FW and never return. Without adding new players the game-mode runs out of players as there are always a slight bleed of players from any game mode. Think of it as a population that is having no new children.

We are all in agreement that it isn't against the rules and that the whole issue is PGI's fault for not building something more than the "we can code this in 5 minutes" solution.


But the lurmers and snipers are not leaving the spawn.... what do you expect us to do? still not attack the dropzone? Posted Image

and its so far to resist the urge to spawnca.... attack the dropzone when your middle finger is permanently pressed on the "W" key Posted Image

Edited by Jumping Gigolo, 02 January 2017 - 10:58 AM.


#122 Insanity09

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Death Wish
  • 551 posts

Posted 02 January 2017 - 01:08 PM

@ Jumping

How is spawn camping an exploit?
An exploit can be defined as using a program function to gain an unintended and usually unfair advantage over a competitor. There is often an element of something being broken (such as a wall that is missing from a particular angle or simply does not block fire the way it is supposed to), but at times it is simply an unintended consequence of how the game works.

For example, there have been moments in some first person shooters where somebody logging into the game is registered in the game and can be shot for several seconds before the person logging in can actually see or do anything.

The situation here in MWO is obviously closely related to what I described above. While it is true that your mech seems to respond to keystrokes, it doesn't actually do anything ( I just tested this, so I'm certain). You cannot turn or otherwise do anything defensive while you are dropping (even with a jump-capable mech), so there are several moments of complete vulnerability. (note: even if if I could turn or fire effectively, dropping by ones or twos without a choice into a group of enemy mechs is a death sentence)
Sounds like an unintended exploit to me.

About people who hide in their own drop zones...
First off, if someone is hiding like that, they clearly aren't going to be winning for their side. True, their opponent might not get the points, xp and cbills, for damaging and killing them, but still, a win is good. Take the win.
As for snipers, direct fire weapons, mostly, the only way to be shot at from someone inside a drop zone is if you could be firing in. In some cases the truth of that is marginal, a drop zone occupant could simply peek around a corner or hill hump, shoot out, and then duck back in. For each of those instances, the answer is obvious, set up to ambush them when they come out or peek, without being able to shoot into the drop zone.
For LRMs, the situation is a tad more difficult. The indirect fire capability makes LRMing from inside the DZ a possibility. However, one significant question: where are they getting the lock if they themselves are not visible? Kill their spotter (who must be visible), and no more LRM fire (after a couple seconds). They peek to get a lock and duck back in? Same situation as direct fire, firing line for when they peek.

The thing is, drop zones need multiple exits (to give a chance against ambushes), maps need to be set up to minimize (or nullify) the ability to fire into and out of DZs, and some way to prevent another unintended exploit must be implemented.
What is that last thing? If your side's goal is simply to out-kill the enemy (often the goal on defense) and you are behind (say 12-16), there needs to be a way to prevent the enemy from holing up in their (inaccessible/impregnable) DZ until the timer runs out.

Sadly, human behavior being what it is, a lot of this rests on PGI's shoulders. Some further, minor map changes might help (higher DZ walls and mountains, corners, distance between objective points and DZs, the multiple exits, better/more drop zone locations, etc.), counting any mechs in the DZ as autokills on timeout might help resolve a host of problems, possibly adding any number anti-DZ camping methods (turrets, increased dropship firepower where dropships actually fire, mines, gates, strikes, etc.), anti-DZ hiding methods (aforementioned autokill, radar/lock prevention while in the DZ, some sort of inactivity timer triggering strike response, etc.).
There is a current problem, unrecognized or acknowledged by some, which does cry out for something to be done to rectify it.

#123 exiledangel

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 200 posts
  • Locationhalifax ns canada

Posted 02 January 2017 - 05:24 PM

there is a easy fix to spwan campers

spwan camping problem solver #1

Enemy team as taking the defenders/attacker drop zone

Spotter on top of hill somewhere around spawn

This is spotter to Long tom artillery guns. enemy mechs have taken the drop point fire for effect. ( then purple smoke comes out blows up all the attacking mech in spwan) then resumes dropping defending mech.

spwam camp problem solver #2

Leopard has an impressive weapons loadout for such a small [color="#0f72da"]DropShip[/color], most useful to defend against [color="#0f72da"]aerospace fighters[/color]. It can be easily overwhelmed, however, if swarmed. While it does count on three [color="#0f72da"]Long Range Missile[/color] racks for heavy hitting, two [color="#0f72da"]PPCs[/color], five [color="#0f72da"]Large Lasers[/color], and seven [color="#0f72da"]Medium Lasers[/color] give it more than enough combat capability when its munitions run out


easy fix to the game.

#124 David Sumner

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 437 posts
  • LocationAuckland, New Zealand

Posted 02 January 2017 - 09:36 PM

View PostDANKnuggz, on 22 December 2016 - 01:33 PM, said:

FP is supposed to be more like open warfare (it isn't really but its supposed to be...) and as such my MAIN goal is to come up with the tactics that my enemies HATE... Let me restate that.... In WAR, if your strategy is pissing the enemy off, you're doing your job right...


you know, I read this and I went "A**H***", why post this unless you basically want to boast.
Then I went
Eh, maybe it's cultural, maybe it's a response to another post, maybe he's had a bad day, I'll write it off.
But something kept nagging at me about this.
And I figured it out.
This IS a game, NOT war.
Why?

Because if it was a war, and I was in the command hierarchy on EITHER side of one of these campaigns, your commanders would have been broken in rank, cashiered or executed for gross incompetence in the face of the enemy.

And I'm not talking about the "company commander" on either side either.

Badly picked drop zones
Failure to provide necessary logistic and support elements such as ammo resupply, armour repair, and air support.
Designing military defence facilities with systems that fail OPEN instead of closed.
Linking those defence elements to supply systems that are readily accessible to attackers outside the facilities
Failure to adequately provision a defence perimeter and security elements

Given just the elements available in various game modes:
UAVs - attacker
The sensor and ECM nodes from the escort missions - both sides - including drop zone defence
Conceal the gate and other generators under or behind real walls/roofs or embankments - defenders

Making the gates destructible
Making the generators vulnerable to artillery and air support

Screw taking out the naval rail gun generator -pump 200 points of damage into one of the barrels, cause a super conducting magnet to fail and destroy every 'Mech in a 300m radius - Yes, seriously, take a Gauss rifle explosion and multiply it by 20,000 to 50,000 given a multiple kilo projectile being launched at around 20kps in order to reach orbit at KEW strike speeds.
A cascade failure of the super conductor would have VERY severe energy release consequences.

Even at cube root decay rates, the blast would be sufficient to destroy a 'Mech head component outright at 300m.

If your only objective it to protect the dropships from fire during deorbit, kill the gun. You also get the bonus of wiping out almost all the defenders.

It's a GAME. There are actions and decisions taken because it is one. There are other actions and decisions made because people don't know any better.

If you really want it to be war, even I could give you a d@mn sight more realism than you currently get.

Edited by David Sumner, 02 January 2017 - 09:39 PM.


#125 Grus

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Little Devil
  • Little Devil
  • 3,979 posts

Posted 13 January 2017 - 11:50 AM

View Postnehebkau, on 31 December 2016 - 12:24 PM, said:


Problem being, PGI has only had the urge to code 1 type of dropship -- so you can't have a *real* dropship in scouting or escort which means you get stuck with a crappy dropship in Invasion.

Would it be so hard to build a stationary Overlord-C dropship in the dropzones that mechs can walk out of -- rather than the whole fly-in crap?

wait -- if we did that then people would just hide in the dropzone... never mind
if you made the Droppships destructible then you wouldn't, you would have to push out to defend it. The big problem is maps arnt big enough to support a Overlord. If they were bigger and the team would have to make a tactical decision to move on and take out the Droppships while leaving the base with less defences then it's would be a option. But you would have to make sure the Overlord had naval weaponry and multiple hit boxes to be taken out before a "kill" to prevent gauss/PPC spam rush.

#126 MischiefSC

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Benefactor
  • The Benefactor
  • 16,558 posts

Posted 13 January 2017 - 03:45 PM

View PostCommander A9, on 30 December 2016 - 01:26 PM, said:

And I can't make it any more simple on my end.

It's not my job to make sure my enemy has fun.

It's my job to win, and if I have to destroy him to do it, so be it.

I will not handicap or censure myself.

I will not hold back or restrain myself.

I will use all legal tools I have at my disposal to win regardless of how my enemy feels about it.

There are no participation trophies here. You either win, or you lose.

So scream all you want about 'balance,' or 'griefers,' or how 'bad 12-man murderballs are ruining this game.' It only provides for mid-match entertainment.


I would be genuinely insulted if the other team gimped themselves to give the false impression of "balanced" matches. I can not imagine a more contemptuous display. I'm not a 6 year old playing with my dad- I don't need him to keep a hand behind his back.

I win or lose based on my ability and that of my team. I want to win because I played better and if I'm not good enough to win the only solution is my getting better -

Because saying the solution is to make good players play poorly is saying I'm weak and will never improve. It would be me saying I'm bad and can't be good. Embracing being a failure.

Ugh. Sure, you want balanced game mechanics. However there is no nerfing player skill, just rewarding people for failing and not improving. What a horrible concept.

#127 Commander A9

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary Rank 8
  • 2,364 posts
  • LocationGDI East Coast Command, Fort Dix, NJ

Posted 13 January 2017 - 07:04 PM

But PGI tries to bring balance to the game by nerfing mechs used by the teams. :/

Compensation of player skill or lack thereof by installing technological handicaps. :/

PGI wouldn't know how to balance a game if people had to spell it out for them.

You can sure as hell bet if Tukkayyid had been won twice by Inner Sphere, and Inner Sphere continually crushed the crap out of Clans for the past two years, the situation would be reversed.

Edited by Commander A9, 13 January 2017 - 08:49 PM.


#128 Willard Phule

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 3,406 posts
  • LocationThe Omega Company compound on Outreach

Posted 15 January 2017 - 05:44 AM

View PostCommander A9, on 13 January 2017 - 07:04 PM, said:

But PGI tries to bring balance to the game by nerfing mechs used by the teams. :/

Compensation of player skill or lack thereof by installing technological handicaps. :/

PGI wouldn't know how to balance a game if people had to spell it out for them.

You can sure as hell bet if Tukkayyid had been won twice by Inner Sphere, and Inner Sphere continually crushed the crap out of Clans for the past two years, the situation would be reversed.


Fully 90% of PGI's "balancing" efforts have little to do with making the equipment balanced in any way. Even they have noticed that the disparities in range, damage, heat, etc are smaller than the disparities between which side has the talent. It's been that way since the beginning.

You could nerf all of one side's weapons to half their current ability and if you had all the experienced players and units on that side, they'd STILL be harvesting baby seals.

PGI has probably figured out that they don't have enough of an active population 24 hours a day to support any sort of matchmaking that separates people based on experience, skill or customized mech builds. They can't even separate the T1s from the T5s anymore (as if they could in the first place).

Want to see things change fast? Change how ECM operates and how LRMs/Streaks operate with regard to weapon locks.

Streaks aren't supposed to be lock and chase missiles, the Streak system is designed to prevent you from firing until you're guaranteed a hit. Saves you from wasting ammo. LRMs aren't supposed to be fire and forget, either. The tabletop rules for indirect fire are pretty harsh unless TAG or NARC are involved.

Take away the "easy mode" weapons and watch the learning curve change.

Edited by Willard Phule, 15 January 2017 - 05:44 AM.


#129 nehebkau

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,383 posts
  • LocationIn a water-rights dispute with a Beaver

Posted 15 January 2017 - 11:57 AM

Dropzone farming is PGI's fault.

Had they the sense to base rewards on how quickly you finish the match AND provided alternate way to win for skirmish / counterattack it would be a non issues....

#130 Scythe Kagato

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 93 posts

Posted 15 January 2017 - 12:12 PM

Oh the tears when, in Domination or Assault, the objective is taken in the middle of the potato farming. Suddenly the person taking the objective, aka "accomplishing the mission", is the real ********. o.0

#131 nehebkau

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,383 posts
  • LocationIn a water-rights dispute with a Beaver

Posted 15 January 2017 - 02:30 PM

View PostScythe Kagato, on 15 January 2017 - 12:12 PM, said:

Oh the tears when, in Domination or Assault, the objective is taken in the middle of the potato farming. Suddenly the person taking the objective, aka "accomplishing the mission", is the real ********. o.0



Again, PGI's fault for not rewarding effective use of resources to achieve a mission quickly.... [redacted criticism of PGI]

#132 BearFlag

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary
  • 374 posts

Posted 15 January 2017 - 02:40 PM

View Postnehebkau, on 15 January 2017 - 11:57 AM, said:

Dropzone farming is PGI's fault.

Had they the sense to base rewards on how quickly you finish the match AND provided alternate way to win for skirmish / counterattack it would be a non issues....


...or mission abort threshold

...or rolling exclusion zones

...or alternate drop zones

...or synchronized wave drops

#133 Ssamout

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 597 posts
  • LocationPihalla

Posted 15 January 2017 - 10:37 PM

View Postnehebkau, on 15 January 2017 - 02:30 PM, said:



Again, PGI's fault for not rewarding effective use of resources to achieve a mission quickly.... [redacted criticism of PGI]

Yep, there would be a lot less farming if by winning the objective, all winners get lets say 1,5 million cbills (this would change if premium time and/or hero mechs are used) and only the losing side receives compensation for the damage done.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users