32 replies to this topic

[InnerSphereNews]

Greetings MechWarriors,

The Incursion Game Mode Public Test Session is now offline pending further tweaks and refinements as we approach its release in the April patch. While the Public Test population rarely allowed for full 12v12 matches, the feedback we received from participants running 4v4, 8v8, and private matches has been of great assistance. We'd like to thank all of you for participating and providing your feedback.

Based on your feedback we are implementing a number of changes to the Incursion Game Mode, outlined below. You can look forward to seeing all of these changes in action when Incursion releases with the April 18th patch!

HUD

• When powered, Team Tower HUD icons will now display a countdown timer conveying the duration of power remaining. Enemy Tower timers will not be displayed (they will simply be shown as either ON, OFF, or DESTROYED).

• Mobile Field Base triangular HUD element has been replaced with the standard flag element used elsewhere. • Mobile Field Bases and Towers will no longer be visible in the Compass, to minimize clutter.

Fuel Cell Generators

• Greater protection and cover has been provided around Fuel Cell Generators (where necessary).

Bases and Towers

• Destroying or damaging a Tower now requires that you fire upon the Tower Generator itself; not the upper portion of the Tower structure.

• Air Control Towers will now call in a DropShip over the Enemy base for brief offensive maneuvers, rather than calling in defensive DropShips over your Team Base.

• Radius of the Jamming Tower has been increased.

• Radar Tower remains unchanged.

• Tower Generator Health has been increased.

• Mobile Field Base Health has been increased.

• Mobile Field Bases, Turrets, and Towers can no longer be target-locked; direct or dumb-fire weaponry will be required to damage them. The standard 'R' command will still convey information and health values, but target-lock will not be acquired. This behavior also applies to Turrets and O-Gens in any other applicable Game Modes, such as Siege and Escort.

Rewards and Match Score

• Performing Mission Objective actions will provide greater amounts of C-Bills and Experience.

• Performing Mission Objective actions will now contribute significantly to your Match Score.

Incursion Mission Objectives include:

• Retrieving a Fuel Cell • Installing a Fuel Cell • Destroying an Enemy Base Element (MFB or Tower) • Destroying an Enemy 'Mech while they're carrying a Fuel Cell

[Tarogato]

Sounds like good changes all around. I don't suppose there will be another PTS? (though... probably not worth it without offering rewards for participating on PTS... )


What of the idea for putting this into CW with its dropdeck respawns? I suppose the "offensive dropships" kinda work against that idea. I think they're a weird idea in general, but we'll see how they play out.

Edited by Tarogato, 31 March 2017 - 10:37 AM.

[Tesunie]

Sooo...

We just don't like locking weapons at all?

Another source of non-counterable ECM being dropped into a game mode. Oh, and if it wasn't enough, lets make it have a bigger affect.

Now, I don't always use LRMs, and when I do I'm not boating them. But, what this is telling me is to just pack up any LRM considerations completely for this game mode and Escort...

Thanks!
(Thankfully I always bring plenty of back up weapons, but it's nice to know where my love for LRM stands now.)



Instead of fixing ECM to be more balanced, it seems like it's just being added in more often. Information warfare should not remove weapon systems from the game. Deny me INFORMATION, not locks. Don't let targets under ECM be sharable. Let it disable more advanced systems, such as Artemis, TAG and NARC when under it's effects. Let it hide mech information and it's damage chart. Even give it a "delay before you can lock" when you can see them to maintain an element of stealth to it (or leave that part to the up and coming "stealth armor").

It shouldn't out right shut down currently two weapon systems completely within this game. LRMs are a weapon. I know they are hard to balance well due to it's utility aspects. SSRMs have their diverse spread that helps counter them. There is also AMS and soon to be LAMS.

A delay to being able to acquire a normal lock (that can't be shared) for ECM would maintain an element of stealth as well as still provide protection against things such as SSRMs, as it would prevent their target (unless they were looking at them for a short while) from being able to retaliate immediately.

ECM shouldn't provide immunity to locks if someone is just standing out in the open. It shouldn't matter what the source producing the ECM is. I've only presented one possible aspect of rebalancing ECM here. Many more suggestions lay around. It needs to be addressed!

(And sorry for the rant, but seriously. I feel ECM is massively out of whack. And now it's being spread as core aspects of more game modes. First it was Escort with the sensor towers. Now it's also this new game mode?)

Edited by Tesunie, 31 March 2017 - 10:38 AM.

[Monkey Lover]

Some good updates on the list. Please look Into balancing a few maps. Crimson's for example the side in the lower city will get fired on from the mountain and the pass.The other side has almost nothing to worry about.

Tesunie, on 31 March 2017 - 10:38 AM, said:

Sooo...

We just don't like locking weapons at all?
?)

I think this was a good update. I was able to run Into the base with a lrm 2c mech and basically took the whole thing out before anyone could even return to the base. Dumb fire will still work but will be a little harder.

Edited by Monkey Lover, 31 March 2017 - 11:05 AM.

[Trev Firestorm]

Yeah, I can understand (but not agree with) the anit-LRM lock for turrets and such... but this punishes ssrm as well for absolutely no good reason. Completely invalidates them objective-wise in fact as they cannot even be dumbfired.

[Tesunie]

Monkey Lover, on 31 March 2017 - 10:58 AM, said:

I think this was a good update. I was able to run Into the base with a lrm 2c mech and basically took the whole thing out before anyone could even return to the base. Dumb fire will still work but will be a little harder.

Oh. I agree that base components shouldn't be lockable with guidance weapons. That's something I can agree with as a point of balance for the game mode (or maybe you have to get within 90m to lock onto it, for SSRM mechs consideration).

My issue is with the ECM tower (and the sensor towers in Escort, and ECM in general) when it is active. From what I heard (I was unable to get into even a single match on the PTS, despite several attempts at it), the ECM tower had a rather large area of effect on the map. With ECM out right denying locks completely, and thus lock on weapons abilities, it's basically removing at least two weapon systems form the game. Of course, when ECM tower is active.

[Monkey Lover]

Tesunie, on 31 March 2017 - 11:02 AM, said:

Oh. I agree that base components shouldn't be lockable with guidance weapons. That's something I can agree with as a point of balance for the game mode (or maybe you have to get within 90m to lock onto it, for SSRM mechs consideration).

My issue is with the ECM tower (and the sensor towers in Escort, and ECM in general) when it is active. From what I heard (I was unable to get into even a single match on the PTS, despite several attempts at it), the ECM tower had a rather large area of effect on the map. With ECM out right denying locks completely, and thus lock on weapons abilities, it's basically removing at least two weapon systems form the game. Of course, when ECM tower is active.

Ahh I see what you mean, I agree
I didn't test it but did tag override it? If not it should be able to. There should always be a counter even for the base.

Edited by Monkey Lover, 31 March 2017 - 11:12 AM.

[Tesunie]

Monkey Lover, on 31 March 2017 - 11:11 AM, said:

Ahh I see what you mean, I agree
I didn't test it but did tag override it? If not it should be able to. There should always be a counter even for the base.

I would imagine TAG would, if at range. But, what if you are pushing the base with your team, and you have some LRMs? Those LRMs are under the effects of ECM being too close, with no counter at all (besides the destruction of the tower, and/or it running out of energy). Now, you have rendered LRM mechs to either pure base defense, or to not use their LRMs on a push (and hopefully people start to bring back up weapons again). Forget about SSRMs if you are on the opposing side of the field with that ECM tower powered...

I see that as a vast imbalance. I'm not sure if those weapons got tested in the new game mode... but this looks like a problem to me once this game mode goes live.

[Felicitatem Parco]

I assume the reason they block lockons is to prevent mass LRM spam on a generator. Remember, LRMs are indirect fire so a single scout getting a target lock resulted in a whole team's worth of LRMs pouring on an objective...

... However it is illogical from a combat perspective. It just makes sense balance-wise because it's a video game.

[Tesunie]

Prosperity Park, on 31 March 2017 - 11:42 AM, said:

I assume the reason they block lockons is to prevent mass LRM spam on a generator. Remember, LRMs are indirect fire so a single scout getting a target lock resulted in a whole team's worth of LRMs pouring on an objective...

... However it is illogical from a combat perspective. It just makes sense balance-wise because it's a video game.

Having it were the base is too easy to destroy and subjectively weak to a specific weapon system wouldn't be much fun. It would make sense lore wise and combat wise, but I agree that it would become a balance issue.

[naterist]

can we please test this with dropdecks.

[process]

It'll be good to release this to the general public so PGI can get more accurate feedback.

I like the idea of offensive dropships -- question is whether they'll attack the bases. If it's not too OP, it would create a worthy incentive to collect resources and put pressure on playing offensively.

[Trev Firestorm]

Prosperity Park, on 31 March 2017 - 11:42 AM, said:

I assume the reason they block lockons is to prevent mass LRM spam on a generator. Remember, LRMs are indirect fire so a single scout getting a target lock resulted in a whole team's worth of LRMs pouring on an objective...

... However it is illogical from a combat perspective. It just makes sense balance-wise because it's a video game.

Better solution is AMS turrets. Or AMS on current turrets and/or on the towers/MFBs.

Edit: Infact we should really campaign for this instead of no lockons, its a much more balanced solution. SSRMs aren't completely invalidated, LRMs could potentially still overwhelm the defenses but wont just roll through them.

Edit2: And as an added bonus it would also make for a nice, cinematic even, show seeing the base come alive with active defenses. (mix in some LAMS maybe?)

Edited by Trev Firestorm, 31 March 2017 - 12:12 PM.

[Monkey Lover]

Tesunie, on 31 March 2017 - 11:25 AM, said:

I would imagine TAG would, if at range. But, what if you are pushing the base with your team, and you have some LRMs? Those LRMs are under the effects of ECM being too close, with no counter at all (besides the destruction of the tower, and/or it running out of energy). Now, you have rendered LRM mechs to either pure base defense, or to not use their LRMs on a push (and hopefully people start to bring back up weapons again). Forget about SSRMs if you are on the opposing side of the field with that ECM tower powered...

I see that as a vast imbalance. I'm not sure if those weapons got tested in the new game mode... but this looks like a problem to me once this game mode goes live.

I only played 5 games but I can say in the 5 I did, not once did we push a base as a team. Both sides main force was out in the middle. I have a think most lrm boats would do the same thing.

My feeling is as long as there is a tag counter I'm OK with it. Lrm boats need backup weapons anyway.

Edited by Monkey Lover, 31 March 2017 - 12:07 PM.

[Tesunie]

Monkey Lover, on 31 March 2017 - 12:05 PM, said:

I only played 5 games but I can say in the 5 I did, not once did we push a base as a team. Both sides main force was out in the middle. I have a think most lrm boats would do the same thing.

My feeling is as long as there is a tag counter I'm OK with it. Lrm boats need backup weapons anyway.

My LRM style of play is that I am up shoulder to shoulder with my allies. If they push, I'm right beside them. (Actually, all to often I'm leading charges in PUG matches... somehow.) I'd still would hate to have a "do not cross this line" zone, where half my mech build may become non-functional.

I do agree that LRM mechs should take backups, but we have many people who believe in "boat or go home" and will boat nothing but LRMs. Do we want T5 players (who are most known for boating only LRMs, and sitting in the back shooting only indirectly) to be viable depending upon the game mode? (I mean, it's bad enough any time I mention LRMs, everyone always thinks boat and "sitting out back" every time.)

A game mode does need to try and be as viable to as many different levels of play skill. It can't just cater to the higher levels of play, but also needs to at least consider lower levels as well. Though, there does come a point where you may not be able to do anything to help them as well...


Personally speaking, I'd rather be able to move into enemy territory with my team if needed. Not have a "Do not cross" line placed for me. (And yes, as I said, I do bring plenty of other weapons beyond LRMs. So that line would be "inadvisable" to cross, but cross it I would anyway.)

[PraetorGix]

April Patch update: We're about to give you MRMs and ATMs; but those along with lurms are going to be on our development blacklist, they'll be useless except on tier 7 and 6 and you will feel even dumber for using them than you do now.
Oh but the next mech pack will have the Longbow and Naga.

Sincerely, PGI.

[PraetorGix]

Prosperity Park, on 31 March 2017 - 11:42 AM, said:

I assume the reason they block lockons is to prevent mass LRM spam on a generator. Remember, LRMs are indirect fire so a single scout getting a target lock resulted in a whole team's worth of LRMs pouring on an objective...

You mean, they want to prevent actual role warfare, where scouts scout and base defenders have to defend and push that scout away so the fire support cannot support? Yeah that makes perfect sense in a very PGI way.

Tesunie, on 31 March 2017 - 12:24 PM, said:

(I mean, it's bad enough any time I mention LRMs, everyone always thinks boat and "sitting out back" every time.)

A game mode does need to try and be as viable to as many different levels of play skill. It can't just cater to the higher levels of play, but also needs to at least consider lower levels as well.

Agreed. Everyone just assumes that a lurm user will boat 110% launchers and nothing else. Truth is by this time any player with more than 2 neurons knows lurms are a mid range support weapon, but newer guys will boat them and it's just bad policy to lock them out of a game mode completely.
Something I never understood was, why other people b*tch about lurmers instead of actually giving them a lock whenever they can, so, you know, you don't have one of your players being completely useless to your team effort? But no, being a smar*ss seems more rewarding than using all your resources to win.

Edited by PraetorGix, 31 March 2017 - 01:08 PM.

[Virlutris]

Tarogato, on 31 March 2017 - 10:36 AM, said:

Sounds like good changes all around. I don't suppose there will be another PTS? (though... probably not worth it without offering rewards for participating on PTS... )


What of the idea for putting this into CW with its dropdeck respawns? I suppose the "offensive dropships" kinda work against that idea. I think they're a weird idea in general, but we'll see how they play out.

I think it's interesting as an idea for FW. Like almost-seige mode. Would you have Incursion as the game mode before Seige, but after Domination?

[Tarogato]

Virlutris, on 31 March 2017 - 01:07 PM, said:

I think it's interesting as an idea for FW. Like almost-seige mode. Would you have Incursion as the game mode before Seige, but after Domination?

Replacing Skirmish. Skirmish doesn't work well with respawns, imo.


But I'd prefer things we re-ordered so that Domination was the first (default, middle) game mode.

[Marius Romanis]

Tarogato, on 31 March 2017 - 01:38 PM, said:

Replacing Skirmish. Skirmish doesn't work well with respawns, imo.

Agree.

Not sure about offensive dropships idea.

LOVE the idea of modes that discourage people from hiding from damage and doing ineffective damage and complaining their teammates arent holding locks (taking damage for them. If your lurming on any map besides polar, alpine, boreal defence, your doing it wrong. Maybe this will help teach some potatoes to lrn2aim with real weapons and they will actually kill an enemy for the 1st time on their lives instead of just removing its arms and stripping its armor but not destroying a single weapon. And realise doing 100 damage with dakka or lasers or 200 with srms is contributing more to their team than 400 lurm damage. So please ignore the LURMTATERS who dont understand buildings block lurms and keep modes that encourage them to learn other weapons.