148 replies to this topic

[MuKen]

A common complaint about alpha strike builds, and pinpoint aiming in general, is that battles are "too short", and more protracted build-up-the-damage style fighting is more fun. Maybe some people find this to be so, but the truth is taking a long time to down an opponent reduces the strategic and intellectual component of this game.

I speak as an avid paintball player. In paintball, positioning, lines of fire and battle-lines, and flanking maneuvers are the lifeblood of the game. This is possible because it is one-shot-one-kill. If a fast player manages to get to a key flanking position, he can wipe out multiple opponents and doom the enemy team. This threat forces both teams to carefully watch battle lines and be aware of the "bigger game" at all times.

In mechwarrior, this is harder. If a lone unit manages to get completely behind enemy lines, he's still not entirely guaranteed to take down an opponent UNLESS he's got a good alpha build. He's certainly not able to take down multiple guys in his moment of surprise. In most situations, he might do slightly more than his own value in damage to the enemy team before they turn around and wipe him out because he's alone (unless he's a light). If an assault mech manages to get into such a position, this should be a huge feat, and he should be rewarded for this clever maneuver by doing massive damage to the enemy team as a whole.

Am I saying things need to change from where they are now? No, I think we have a pretty good balance between that, and having good drag-out fights the way it is now. But we certainly should not be moving in the opposite direction, as a lot of people are suggesting.

EDIT: bolded the paragraph a lot of people seem to be missing

Edited by MuKen, 28 March 2013 - 08:22 PM.

[Karr285]

If this was true at all they would not have doubled Armour PERIOD.

[Nonsense]

Karr285, on 28 March 2013 - 07:25 PM, said:

If this was true at all they would not have doubled Armour PERIOD.

Perhaps they shouldn't have doubled armor...

Bottom line is, Elo matchmaking in team games requires high Elo players to sometimes carry games. Longer combat times gives newbs time to fumble around and kill a high-skill player. As that high-skill player, you have a MUCH harder time winning 1v2s and 1v3s. With higher and higher armor values, gunnery skill means less and less. Long range combat means less and short range weapons get an indirect buff. Do you think 6xSRM6 cats and 2xAC/20 mechs would be as effective if armor hadn't been doubled? Sure you'd still see them because they could one-shot people, but they'd also be higher risk/reward and take more skill to get close with.

On the other hand, high armor emphasizes team play because you can't do it all alone. This is the source of nearly all the complaints about PUGs. In other multiplayer shooters you don't have to rely on your team as much to get kills. In this game you actually have to rely on them, and on top of that, there's a steep learning curve for new players. It makes lots of PUG games rather frustrating.

Edited by Nonsense, 28 March 2013 - 07:32 PM.

[FupDup]

Nonsense, on 28 March 2013 - 07:26 PM, said:

Perhaps they shouldn't have doubled armor...

They should've halved it.

Edited by FupDup, 28 March 2013 - 07:27 PM.

[Pater Mors]

Finally, a post with some intelligence behind it. The analogy is not completely correct but it's better than the rest of the QQing about how everything is OP and needs a nerf/everything is rubbish and needs a buff.

This game is about tactics, strategy and communication. It is not, as people want to believe, big, giant, stompy robots simply shooting at each other. The better your strategy and tactics, the more successful you will be, especially if paired with out people who share that outlook.

Long, protracted battles I guess could be fun but for me at least will get boring fast. A little bit longer than they currently are would be good but I don't want to play a 15 minute fight every time I hit launch.

[Karr285]

Pater Mors, on 28 March 2013 - 07:28 PM, said:

Long, protracted battles I guess could be fun but for me at least will get boring fast. A little bit longer than they currently are would be good but I don't want to play a 15 minute fight every time I hit launch.

Go play Hawken then, cuz its doing so well.

[MadSavage]

Completely agree with OP. Current armor values and weapon damage bias to a longer drawn out fight, but I think it's where it needs to be now. Doubling armor again would simply make penalties for missing less than they already are.

[Pht]

MuKen, on 28 March 2013 - 07:23 PM, said:

A common complaint about alpha strike builds, and pinpoint aiming in general, is that battles are "too short", and more protracted build-up-the-damage style fighting is more fun.

Ignoring the fact that most of the MW video games haven't fully implemented the through-armor-critcals/critical damage combat mechanics (critical damage = damage to internal structure/components)... somewhat longer gameplay is one of the foundations of the Mechwarrior Video game genre - it's not meant to be like ut, or quake 3.

It (the mw genre) is meant to be for people who enjoy having a little bit of time before getting into hot combat so that they can plan something more complex than "find badguy as fast as possible. Shoot badguy until badguy drops. Rinse, wash, repeat,"

There should be some time spent thinking before engaging; and that's simply not possible if someone can kill you outright in the blink of an eye, Repetitively, with ease.

Quote

Maybe some people find this to be so, but the truth is taking a long time to down an opponent reduces the strategic and intellectual component of this game.

Here's the thing - if someone, anyone, would actually port over the TT combat system, minus the pilot simulating rules... actual combat wouldn't be obscenely long. It would be long enough to have fun, but not so long that people would do nothing more than just rush right at the nearest radar contact and do nothing but blaze away (mw4 style, on any map where poptarting wasn't really viable).

This is where the TAC and normal critical damage combat mechanics and the advanced critting rules would shine.

Edited by Pht, 28 March 2013 - 07:35 PM.

[Vermaxx]

Let's break down what you play here...

PAINTBALL can be anything. Do you play SPEEDBALL (tournament rules, where 'no blind fire' is given token service and games are over in about five minutes) or 'woodsball' or something similar (where the focus is on team play and light simulation over xgames).

If you play some version of 'woodsball' I'm on board because I play airsoft. Same principle, more gearwank, cheaper ammo. One shot one kill, but shots usually come at you in a big enough stream that you call your hits. Still, you can have protracted battles when using simulated weapons because they don't penetrate anything or travel as far. As you said for MWO, a protracted battle starts to lose its effectiveness, since the beseiged players can get respawns or reinforcements, send out flanking attacks, and generally bog down what might have been an effective blitz.

I do think [MWO] has a reasonable balance between mech-life and mech-killing-power. They can easily tweak the armor either way in the future if things start to go nose down.

[Vermaxx]

They're not going to implement tabletop 1-for-1, they said that months ago. I nearly walked when they did, but I got over it. They want MECHWARRIOR, and MECHWARRIOR fluff was always about the PILOT being a badarse who could aim, turn the tides of battles, got the girl, and generally was a rock star.

BATTLETECH was about war - gritty, somewhat balanced, attrition-based war. They took the basic rules from Battletech to build their version of Mechwarrior. No, it isn't MW2 or MW3. It isn't as bad as MW4 either if we're all very honest and objective. It isn't perfect, but the dev had a point when they said the weapon balance in MWO was far better than it ever was in MW3/MW4 multi.

[mekabuser]

No , i agree with OP , but at the same time instead of paintball , 1s1k , think knights in armor.. Even if your a bad **** you still have an enemy that is armored AND can protect himself.
Its nice that battles are somewhat drawn out. Otherwise the noobs would nt stand a chance , literally.


The only thing that is counterintuitive and IMO wrong, is the phantom limb damage transfer nonsense..
I am a fan of ze pinpoint.. If you can make the shot.. well then bully for you.. Thats just how it is..

I had an engagement with a cent pilot last weekend whom I took a shot at on frozen near the DS crest, and this guy in a split second fired a super high deflection shot with an ac10 that just missed my head because I violently twisted at the same time..
You dont penalize guys with those skills, You fear, respect and emulate them.

Btw, would love to see a feature whereby you can add dangerous pilots to your targeting computer if you engage them in a battle.
So the next time you see them , your targeting computer points out that pilot x is regarded as dangerous to whatever degree or system that is implemented.. This could work in conjunction with CW, houses. etc.

You know, its all about community and rep. The round table on a massive scale.

[mekabuser]

Pater Mors, on 28 March 2013 - 07:28 PM, said:

Finally, a post with some intelligence behind it. The analogy is not completely correct but it's better than the rest of the QQing about how everything is OP and needs a nerf/everything is rubbish and needs a buff. This game is about tactics, strategy and communication. It is not, as people want to believe, big, giant, stompy robots simply shooting at each other. The better your strategy and tactics, the more successful you will be, especially if paired with out people who share that outlook. Long, protracted battles I guess could be fun but for me at least will get boring fast. A little bit longer than they currently are would be good but I don't want to play a 15 minute fight every time I hit launch.

In game communication is a massive problem in game right now. No need for details.. Its been done ad nauseam.
Ive never had a 15 minute game in over 1000 battles. I think ive had a literal handful that went 10.
Just sayin.

[Nonsense]

Again, they doubled armor and people complained that every battle was a short range brawl. They responded by buffing LLs and PPCs. Now people want pinpoint damage nerfed. Don't any of you understand how that tends to, once again, remove tactics by removing punishment for moving in the open with nothing but short range weapons?

[MuKen]

Too many responses for me to quote each one.

I am not saying that we should change mechwarrior to be any faster than it is. I am merely pointing out that a lot of people are completely ignoring the benefits of fast combat, and only considering how much more 'fun' long drawn-out fights are. Faster combat is more tactical, I explained why in my first post. But that is not the only consideration, there are many reasons to like longer combat too, that have already been posted by many at length. There is a balance, and where it is right now is good. That's my main point.

If a lone assault gets completely behind your team right now, it's 'bad', but not the end of the world. In paintball that would be the end of the world, but it's good enough that there is reason right now to avoid letting that happen. If you make combat even slower, flanking would become less and less relevant, and that's not a good thing.

[Fishbulb333]

Agree with the OP, my only issue with the current system is that certain mechs are much easier to 1 shot than others, especially jagermechs (head) and awesomes (anything that's not CT or a limb..)

[hashinshin]

why even play a game at all? We can take this to its natural extreme and just play in a giant "hand slap" tournament.

[MadcatX]

Although a well thought out post, I disagree mainly because I don't want this game to become a twitch shooter of one-shots. Add to that the fact that after you die, you have to stay for the entire match to get your reward.

[HRR Insanity]

MuKen, on 28 March 2013 - 07:23 PM, said:

A common complaint about alpha strike builds, and pinpoint aiming in general, is that battles are "too short", and more protracted build-up-the-damage style fighting is more fun. Maybe some people find this to be so, but the truth is taking a long time to down an opponent reduces the strategic and intellectual component of this game.

I speak as an avid paintball player. In paintball, positioning, lines of fire and battle-lines, and flanking maneuvers are the lifeblood of the game. This is possible because it is one-shot-one-kill. If a fast player manages to get to a key flanking position, he can wipe out multiple opponents and doom the enemy team. This threat forces both teams to carefully watch battle lines and be aware of the "bigger game" at all times.

In mechwarrior, this is harder. If a lone unit manages to get completely behind enemy lines, he's still not entirely guaranteed to take down an opponent UNLESS he's got a good alpha build. He's certainly not able to take down multiple guys in his moment of surprise. In most situations, he might do slightly more than his own value in damage to the enemy team before they turn around and wipe him out because he's alone (unless he's a light). If an assault mech manages to get into such a position, this should be a huge feat, and he should be rewarded for this clever maneuver by doing massive damage to the enemy team as a whole.

Am I saying things need to change from where they are now? No, I think we have a pretty good balance between that, and having good drag-out fights the way it is now. But we certainly should not be moving in the opposite direction, as a lot of people are suggesting.

This is not paintball. This is 'Mech combat. 'Mechs are supposed to be able to tolerate fire and return it. Not explode instantly upon sight of an enemy.

The game will remain broken until some form of weapon/damage spread is implemented to combat pinpoint accuracy.

[Nonsense]

MadcatX, on 28 March 2013 - 07:54 PM, said:

Although a well thought out post, I disagree mainly because I don't want this game to become a twitch shooter of one-shots. Add to that the fact that after you die, you have to stay for the entire match to get your reward.

You mean like the most popular PC FPS of all time (a mod), and the predecessor to all the CoD/BF style shooters, Counter-Strike? A game that had no XP, unlocks, or anything like that?

HRR Insanity, on 28 March 2013 - 07:54 PM, said:

This is not paintball. This is 'Mech combat. 'Mechs are supposed to be able to tolerate fire and return it. Not explode instantly upon sight of an enemy.

The game will remain broken until some form of weapon/damage spread is implemented to combat pinpoint accuracy.

People (myself included) carefully pointed out why you continue to be wrong on that subject.

[Pater Mors]

mekabuser, on 28 March 2013 - 07:50 PM, said:

In game communication is a massive problem in game right now. No need for details.. Its been done ad nauseam.
Ive never had a 15 minute game in over 1000 battles. I think ive had a literal handful that went 10.
Just sayin.

Yeah that's my point. My average game lasts for about 6 - 7 minutes at the moment. If they pushed that out to 9 - 10 minutes I would be very happy, however that doesn't need to be done through armour or getting rid of Alpha builds. TD and Alpine by themselves push fight times more towards 10 minutes and give people plenty of time for planning strategy on the march.