A note to keep matches fun

[zekio]

allow me to add my opinion as a outsider

as few have already said before me, the problem comes from MWLL not having any objective
apart from cbills and K:D ratio. MW has such a wide array of mechs, weapons and equipment,
it seems like a waste to only use that to blow eachother up without any real purpose.
also seems wrong to me from a background story/lore standpoint (tho MW2 is my only
source of MW history)
also seems kinda silly to use these expensive high tech vehicles only to blow each other up
for the purpose of blowing each other up

an objective has to be made the most important thing for the Team to achieve.
individual scores and statistics should only be supplemental, and not the deciding factor on
which team wins.

With the Cbills thing MWLL orients itself on how Counterstrike works. that you earn
money to buy better equipment. i personaly would like it if MWLL would work more
like Teamfortress. the mechs have alot of similarities to the TF classes. light mechs is the scout,
medium mech is soldier/flametrooper, rocketboat is sniper, heavy mech is heavy weapons guy etc.
whats the point of light mechs when firepower is the only thing that matters

i really hope the deav team will add some proper team based game modes that allows all
types of mechs used to their potential and focus more on team effort.

[Stahlseele]

For the record, i don't play any single MMORPG.
I just don't see the point, they bore me to soon.
I don't know what people find so enthralling about them <.<

[=]FC[=Striker]

*SNIP*

Actually Fa1lomenon, you misread every single thing that you made bold in your response. Let me elaborate so you can understand.

- some just like having a high internet number next to their internet name

That is what YOU said to make me reply calling the STATEMENT ridiculous, and not you. I then made a comment stating you may disagree with the support role player tactics, but I disagree with the "charge in and die like an idiot" tactic you like to deploy. I didn't call you a name, so stop crying about it. In fact, read your own post again and then let me know if you don't feel a bit like the pot calling the kettle back. The only difference in my statements that used generalized negative statemets is that I wasn't scared to write out the word while you hid behind insults with words like "bi##h". Classy.

I stated that the tactic is named by myself, "charge in and die like an idiot", because that is generally what I see in that tactic. I see 1 guy with decent kill count on our team, but a bunch of deaths, and the next thing I know I am in a medium facing 3 Assaults from the other team because the "charge in and die like an idiot" type player handed them those c-bills.

You also found it in your power to take "Here is that "all or nothing" bullshit opinion again." out of context and then you, being protector of the universe, felt it was in your best interest to tell me that opinions other than my own aren't automatically bullshit. Hey, good job on that one because you are right. However, in this case, the opinion is bullshit from the start, not because it differs from mine, but because the opinion states that the topic is black or white, when there are so many different colors in between.

- Some players actually like active combat, thus they leave the safety of the base, and do the "damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!". In many cases, it is pretty stupid, I agree, as a lone charging mech has it coming. However, by "brawling" and getting out there I actually mean flanking the enemy and hitting their long-range support/ganging up on their brawlers. What is also a valid tactic is having some of the team go close range and half long, then maneuver the close range mechs so as to expose the enemies' rears to the second-line fire support. Works surprisingly well even in a 2+2 lances.

So what you are saying here is that you made a very ambiguous statement to start this whole mess and waited until now to explain your actual tactic. You are also trying to claim that other tactics that work, and allow you to use flanking tactics, are invalid based solely on your opinion.

Also, 200m you mention is still pretty much base camping. It's 15 seconds away FFS, for a 50KM/h MAULER.

Once again, taken out of context and lacking in reading comprehension. I stated that on some maps the ranged support role has a choice of standing in the open 200m from the base, which puts them in combat in the open, or they can hang back at the base and take advantage of the other team being a bit out of their base. Sounds to me like map issues and not tactics.

Either way, please abstain from calling people whose opinions differ from yours names. Especially on the internets, which are, as we all know, serious business.

You are absolutely right. I should abstain from making broad generalized comments that I back up with common sense and valid arguments because it is much more inappropriate then your "avenger of the internet" persona and passive aggressive nature. This of course is in addition to you actually insulting ranged support role players with at least 5 names, and that was aimed at the majority of the playerbase by your account. Clearly you have humbled me with your "pile of wrong".

Striker

[nordwars]

Boring.

[Shakes]

Boring.

This.

Thread ruined guys, congrats.

[(TLL)Siilk]

Boring.

This.

Thread ruined guys, congrats.

Yup! Looks like some of us are too serious to talk about fun. Making a thread about fun boring as hell -- oh, the irony!    

[ARES]

@Striker

You say that long range fighter don't necessarily have to be campers because they are more like a support role. But who do they support if not the brawlers ? If they don't charge together with their brawlers (of course 600 Meters behind him) then it is not the brawlers fault to get killed by the enemy team, it is the supporters fault not to support him and get some kills while he is getting the enemy's attention. Everything else is "waiting for the other team to run directly under your crosshair" and that is simply a other description for camping.

The difference betwen a range fighter (completely accepted combat role) and a camper is not their behavior when in contact with the enemy team. It is their behavior when there is no one to fight. The range fighter is moving and looking for some enemies to kill, supporting teammates and moving towards the enemies base until they have contact. The camper stays in his save position and lets his brawlers run into their deaths.

I am glad that there are a lot "idiot" brawlers out there because otherwise this would be a very very boring game of "supporters" sitting in their bases waiting for the other team.

[=]FC[=Striker]

@Striker

You say that long range fighter don't necessarily have to be campers because they are more like a support role. But who do they support if not the brawlers ? If they don't charge together with their brawlers (of course 600 Meters behind him) then it is not the brawlers fault to get killed by the enemy team, it is the supporters fault not to support him and get some kills while he is getting the enemy's attention. Everything else is "waiting for the other team to run directly under your crosshair" and that is simply a other description for camping.

The difference betwen a range fighter (completely accepted combat role) and a camper is not their behavior when in contact with the enemy team. It is their behavior when there is no one to fight. The range fighter is moving and looking for some enemies to kill, supporting teammates and moving towards the enemies base until they have contact. The camper stays in his save position and lets his brawlers run into their deaths.

I am glad that there are a lot "idiot" brawlers out there because otherwise this would be a very very boring game of "supporters" sitting in their bases waiting for the other team.

You are misreading the situation here. The complaint was lodged, making offensive accusations towards ranged players, when the issue is not ranged players at all. The issue is that the maps mostly support range and a brawler must charge through an open field to get into brawling range, making that tactic mostly ineffective and not tactical in the least. This in turn spreads the issue to something new, which is people like Fa1lomenon who will chastise ranged players because he refuses to adapt to the surroundings.

Many of these issues will be resolved once the mappers stop making small maps that look spectacular and focus on terrain features that allow for focus on mixed range fighting. You stated that there is a difference between campers and ranged fighters, but with the current map implementations that is incorrect. There is no need to move around much because, depending on which way the fighting is going, a ranged fighter is in combat range either immediately or after only about 200m out of their base.

So let's break it down a bit. Wide open fields that range weapons can reach across, no effective means of positional flanking for the majority of the positions, and near instant access to enemies in range right from spawn. It doesn't take a genius to assess the situation and see that brawling is a suicide mission and ranged fighting will play out somewhat stationary until a person is under direct fire.

For the record, I did not call brawlers "idiots". I said the tactic of "charging in and dieing like an idiot" is substandard. This was mainly in reference to those that take short range weapons, charge an open field that is 1200m long, with known ranged fighters on the other side. I understand your last statement, but then again you can say that about any game. When people do something stupid that allows you to capitalize in an extremely dominating fashion with no risk to yourself it is fun, for you, but that is not what should be the defining factor between "very very boring" and "fun".

Striker

*EDIT* Just look at the way MW4 was played. Certain maps would most certainly have specific range strengths. You would play into those strengths. Long range maps with little cover would see the use of long range weapons. Very rarely would you see short range weapons on a long range map, because you would be torn to pieces before you reached weapons range. The only exception was using short range with the intent to implement it in a specific position on the map that would reduce or eliminate ranged weapon effectiveness. Other then the size of the maps, what has changed in this game that would promote disregarding common sense?

[nordwars]

Boring.

Woohoo, I got -3 karma for that (so far). But... its the truth?

[Arghy]

I had a wonderful inferno last night against an extremely organized team on texas server. They were camping a base with only 2 of us spawning with layered 5-6 mechs and tanks waiting for us to spawn. I merely respawned at the other base with everyone else and directed my team to flank them which we did to great effect. The opposing team was mostly made up of ranged units with a few brawlers and a few choosing close range mechs near the end. I can happily say i was a brawler the entire match but i was just forced to stay with my ranged mechs except when i went on suicide sniper clearouts(took out 2 hollanders with the entire enemy team coming from their base taking shots at my back).

The problem is theres no objective to get organized for so you turn a wonderful deathmatch into a clan vs random counterstrike match. Its not the solo base camper its the entire fapping team doing organized base camping so i think once we get objective based gameplay out all of these problems will go away as everyone will get it out of their system and treat SA as it should be.

[pht]

I don't know why this would be a surprise.  The best strategy is clearly to remain next to your point of ammunition and repair, giving your opponent the maximum possible disadvantage.  So long as the game specifically rewards base camping, people will do that because it is effective.

Amen. And seconded.

There's an easy fix for this.  Remove ammo reloading and repair from the mod.  Problem 90% gone. Or just make the bases destroyable in the face of a concerted attack.

Better yet, if the devs wanted to be evil, allow repair and reloading at bases... your *enemies* base. Or perhaps have the maps have centrally located bases with such capabilities, to be contested over - preferably, have them be destroyable.

Really, its not that hard of a thing to fix.

[~SJ~ Blhurr]

The easiest fix is no respawn.  Whether that fits your definition of fun...

[Danger]

Objectives:

Capture the enemies base. Make it destroyable.

Realistically, the whole reason you fight another group or wage war is over something, be it fame, money, or property, or a belief (generalizing). Well in this case they are defending the base so make it capturable. Then in order for the enemy to respawn they have to use their other base or they have to pay an extra fee to be hot dropped from orbit or something... and when both bases are captured and or the enemy can no longer afford to pay the extra fee to hot drop... Game over... we have a winner. Just my idea, would make for a more "realistic" game play.

[=]FC[=Striker]

Boring.

Woohoo, I got -3 karma for that (so far). But... its the truth?

You got -3 so far because you were doing nothing except trolling. The Karma system is meant to be used specifically to reward people that say something on topic that is well put (whether you agree or not), or to give a negative to people that come into a thread and respond with nothing that has to do with the topic.

Striker

[nordwars]

But sometimes its better and easier to just let things go. It's easy to ignore people rather than get into a pointless argument. Which is what I shall do starting.... now!