Winning a standoff

[TuRbOlAg]

Surely the introduction of aricraft virtually eliminates the ability to avoid conflict?

We went over this.  It's a yes and no.  Being able to hide?  Not possible really, but if they are hiding then most likely there is some sort of ambush waiting, so the other team going in for a strike is iffy.  However a TAG mounted on a BA or aero with a few supporting LRM's should convince them to come out of their hole.  I still think this isn't as big of a deal as some here are making it, but it's an interesting problem to think about for the time being.

[Stalker]

Personally I think you just like to talk on-and on about thing that: A. You make you as you go along(or so it seems most of the time) B. You don't believe people who know what their talking about like Stormin' here.

I don't need to make anything up as I go, I've given it long thought since the problem first showed itself in the early days of Mechwarrior4 leagues. 

And while Stormin' may have league experience he hasn't contributed anything to this conversation.  All that has been revealed is that he has accepted this as a flaw in time limited games and to cope with that he has redefined retreating as "tactics".  I'm sorry, but I disagree.  When a team retreats and has no intention to continue battle, they have lost.  If the league rules say otherwise than so be it, but both sides know who won the battle.  I'd just prefer a mechanism that makes it clear rather than a default ruling which is unfortunately the best we can do now.

If such a mechanism were included, neither he nor anyone else is forced to use it.  They can keep their previous ruleset and let the retreating team win by default if they want so I don't know what his problem is.  But for those leagues that try to force a resolution through combat and not hiding, it gives them the option to do that.  See how good choice is?

[SPARTAKYS]

Hi all!
Just ideas after reading the start of thread, goes like that...
How about if *damage taken-damage given* rate per minute would be quantified as *active battling* points, versus inactivity will get you nowhere. Not that *nOOb rushing* will get you a win either, but just a way to measure the involvment of each individual.
Sorry for bad english, but some of you all know me by now.
I'll be following this thread, np......<S>

(CT) SPARTAKYS

[Stalker]

It doesn't work that way unfortunately.  If one side is hiding or retreating from contact then both sides will record zero points as an average, the team that wants to fight can't do anything to make their opponent come to battle.  The retreating team then claims afterwards they were setting up an ambush but darn it, they just ran out of time to execute it.  So long as a rule is in place that essentially states;

"Team A wins automatically if team B can't find them"

then team A is going to be strongly motivated to avoid combat either by running away from their opponent or hiding in an inaccessable place.  Why risk fighting when you can win by default?

[Landros Radick]

It doesn't work that way unfortunately.  If one side is hiding or retreating from contact then both sides will record zero points as an average, the team that wants to fight can't do anything to make their opponent come to battle.  The retreating team then claims afterwards they were setting up an ambush but darn it, they just ran out of time to execute it.  So long as a rule is in place that essentially states;

"Team A wins automatically if team B can't find them"

then team A is going to be strongly motivated to avoid combat either by running away from their opponent or hiding in an inaccessable place.  Why risk fighting when you can win by default?

That sounds like a league related rule and not an actual gameplay related rule. If the league is instating that defenders win by default if no fire has been drawn and rewards these kinds of tactics, why is it up to the developers to combat this league specific problem?

IMO, that was one thing I didn't like about some of the leagues was the rewarding for no-contact-defenses. If both teams are at 0-0, the drop will be replayed until there is a clear victor, no buts, what's or if's with an infinite timer. Because there are currently no "attrition" points awarded in MWLL, it would be down to the kill board. 

[Stalker]

If there was a rule that fixed this, don't you think the leagues that ban camping would use it? 

The fact is, the situation arises because there is no rule that can address it effectively and so the blurry line between ambushing and camping is used as cover to avoid combat.  I don't want hiding in cover to be banned because genuine ambushes are very useful and I'm sure most other players feel the same.  So what can you do?  By allowing the full range of tactics the door is also opened to people who abuse the privilage to the detriment of everyone.  The solution has to be part of the game itself, something that forces a side into battle if they want to win the drop.  It doesn't have to be a control point though, perhaps other solutions I haven't thought of are better but without something in the sim this problem won't go away simply through rules. 

It is a minor thing in the scheme of mechwarrior of course but it is a persistent thorn in the side of leagues.  There are always some who are happy to bend the rules out of shape when they can get away with it.

[Defender]

Unlike MW4 it will be neigh impossible to "camp" a location. You can entrech yourself and utlize cover for sure. When you fire, people will know where you are, when people know where you are, you'll likely get tagged or narc'd. Aircraft can home in on your position, elementals can hot-drop on you.

There Are No Ninjas in MWLL.

[(TLL)Cowking]

This is besides that fact that MWLL is (like I've already said) is OBJECTIVE BASE Nobody would want to jump into a hole and stay there while their Dropship is being destroyed and in Solaris you definitely don't want your enemies inside your spawn area so you will try your best to stop them. (If you don't your teammate won't like you probably)

[Luger]

This is besides that fact that MWLL is (like I've already said) is OBJECTIVE BASE Nobody would want to jump into a hole and stay there while their Dropship is being destroyed and in Solaris you definitely don't want your enemies inside your spawn area so you will try your best to stop them. (If you don't your teammate won't like you probably)

Most leagues for Mech don't focus on objectives but instead focus on what you'd call team death match.  Most objective based play doesn't fit mech combat as it is, or has been done in the past.  It's hard to judge whether MWLL will be like that without having ever played it, so none of us can really make a judgement.

You also have to remember that people like Stalker and I come from Planetary Leagues and not ladder leagues.  In a planetary league you have limited resources and you have to preserve them.  For exmple, if you could only bring 15 TimberWolf & X this and that chassis as well as X this many tanks and BA as wella s fighters, to a Planetary Assault (trying to take the planet from the other team), then if you lose to many your out of luck.

The main reason people "camp" is because they don't want to lose their precious resouces.  People take a certain pride in the size of their mech forces and number of planets and money in HC.  That's what makes camping worth it to them.  Now the reason Stalker proposed a solution (I've heard nobody else propose a solution to this) is because the team that doesn't campe is usually bored out of their minds looking for the camping team.

This being a combined arms game it may be more difficult for said teams to camp.  However your overlooking one very important factor.  Whether based upon honor or not.. planetary leagues implement mostly limited resources.  So you don't have infinite numbers of fighters, mechs, tanks or any other unit.  In that case camping may be difficult but it will be possible.  Especially if the opposing team intent on camping sets up to defend against fighters and dropped in Ele's or excuse me BA.

I don't believe 5 BA are going to survive very long in a nest of 16, mechs, tanks and counter BA.  Especially if the BA dropped in don't have support.  Campers are good at picking out very defensable terrain and learn to use it effectively.

I know this is related to league play and not game play in general, but the longegivity of your game is going to be based upon leagues and not just open internet pickup games.  I'd highly recommend that the MWLL dev team not overlook league play.  MW4 has been going for over a decade and the reason it lasted this long was because it was good for league play.

[Luger]

In the 4th paragraph there when I say based on honor.. I'm referring to honor in regard to how many times you can spawn in a game that doesn't limit respawning.  In the NBT if you take 2 Summonder (Thor) to a particular drop you can only spawn 2 Summoner.  If you respawn and engage, your team loses the engagement by default.  It's a more realistic scenario because you can only put so many ground forces in an engagement area.

[Stormin']

"Team A wins automatically if team B can't find them"

Hey, I fixed it!  Yay!

The way I am addressing this is each battle is fought in waves, depending on how much equipment is committed to the fight and how many pilots a team can field at a time.  If mechs and/or other equipment survive a wave, they fight in the next wave.  The battle doesn't end until one side retreats to friendly territory or all equipment on one side is out of commission.  So...there is no point to camping, other than trying to survive long enough to receive "reinforcements" on the next wave.  If a battle cannot be decided in one night, there will be an option to reschedule remaining waves.

I have also been considering an honor system for teams, with some actions affecting a team's honor % positively and some negatively.  Certain actions, like retreats, would affect honor negatively.  Each unit type would be held to a minimum honor %...clans 75%, house/mercs 50%, and pirates 25%.  If a team drops below its minimum honor % it would go rogue, severely limiting its league involvement, or in some cases it may even be disbanded.  This all could be handled automatically within the automation.

Again, as I've said, this is a league issue, and not a game issue.

[Luger]

I'm sorry Stormin' but you are incorrect.  League's can make rules but they can always be circumvented.  Leagues themselves can modify the maps as one of the devs suggested, but overall it's a game issue.  Your waves idea is mostly a game play style and not a solution.  We do the same thing in the NBT.  If nobody dies the drop is logged as no losses.  However people (especially grown ups with lives) cannot spend hours on the computer in competitions that last countless hours because a team refuses to engage.  You can make rules til your fingers fall off but I've yet to see one inventive enough it could not be worked around in some way.

[Valaska]

 I don't get the problem with camping.. Or finding a position to defend and defending it, these are very real strategies with very real counters, a defending force usually has some disadvantage because they will loose momentum unless its completely flat ground!
 Two forces just rushing out though, willy nilly to grind themselves to death? Thats.. Well hasn't been exhibited as any real strategy since the imperial ages..

[Stalker]

This isn't about defending a position, it is about choosing a deliberately inaccessable position on the map that your opponent cannot approach except at extreme disadvantage, with the intention of not fighting at all.  I have no issue with people actively defending a chosen location, who would?  But to choose it solely with the intent of avoiding combat - that isn't part of the game.

[Valaska]

 Sounds like good tactics to me..