80 replies to this topic

[Agent of Change]

Vasces Diablo, on 02 April 2013 - 10:43 AM, said:

No strikes for 60 sec. and no more than 1 at a time. Read the patch notes again.

Lets' thank the devs for that little bit, as much as i'm excited about them with out this kind of mechanic we all know we'd see drop zone carpet bombing from the git go.

[Barbados]

use A/A for point control too..

[Quicksilver Aberration]

In case you guys didn't realize, this just made brawling stupid. Think about it, a brawler doesn't carry many modules to being with, so I have a slot or two free, mount artillery or airstrike, or both. Pushing in against an entrenched enemy, artillery. About to die or stripped of weapons, hug a fatty and launch airstrike in the middle of fight.
I think this is the worst thing they could've done, too much will rely on this module, it will be like ECM all over again. You will be required to mount one of these on every mech.

[Pygar]

I can't sit still from anticipation- between these new strike modules, the new vision modes (read:thermal vision sniper nerf) and the new hero pop tart mech the "metagame" is going to do a "barrel roll" tonight....should be deliciously terrifying

majora incarnate, on 02 April 2013 - 10:51 AM, said:

In case you guys didn't realize, this just made brawling stupid. Think about it, a brawler doesn't carry many modules to being with, so I have a slot or two free, mount artillery or airstrike, or both. Pushing in against an entrenched enemy, artillery. About to die or stripped of weapons, hug a fatty and launch airstrike in the middle of fight.
I think this is the worst thing they could've done, too much will rely on this module, it will be like ECM all over again. You will be required to mount one of these on every mech.

This is bad because of why? (was already mentally preparing module slot adjustments so that I could have at least one strike module on every mech.)

Edited by Pygar, 02 April 2013 - 10:57 AM.

[Gregore]

Byk, on 02 April 2013 - 09:53 AM, said:

I really really really really dislike the idea of artillery/airstrikes in the game modes we have now. Not looking forward to this.

Any particular reason why? Or just because they are different?

[Roadbeer]

majora incarnate, on 02 April 2013 - 10:51 AM, said:

In case you guys didn't realize, this just made brawling stupid. Think about it, a brawler doesn't carry many modules to being with, so I have a slot or two free, mount artillery or airstrike, or both. Pushing in against an entrenched enemy, artillery. About to die or stripped of weapons, hug a fatty and launch airstrike in the middle of fight.
I think this is the worst thing they could've done, too much will rely on this module, it will be like ECM all over again. You will be required to mount one of these on every mech.

Gee, you mean huggybear warrior will come to an end? Where combat is basically a bunch of gingerbread cookies (mech shaped) that are mashed together by a 3 year old and the side with the most whole parts wins. Is that what your complaining about?

People will actually have to make loadout choices where they are effective at a variety of ranges.

BLASPHMEY

[Rippthrough]

You'll have no choice but to take them in competitive 8 vs 8, so much for diversity....

[ikitai]

Yokaiko, on 02 April 2013 - 10:09 AM, said:

The power balance just changed a bit.

There are only a few mech that can sport 4 module slots.

Spider-5V (lol)
Jenner-K
Raven -3L(!)
Yen Lo Wang
Atlas D-DC


If artillery and airstikes are at all effective a few "worst" variants just became a bit more tempting.

As a Jenner driver it is nice to see that the metagame can benefit builds beyond the Raven 3L (while still helping them again?!?). With 60 damage in a pretty large radius it doesn't appear at first glance to be a game changer, but it adds some more layers to the game.

[A banana in the tailpipe]

Vasces Diablo, on 02 April 2013 - 10:43 AM, said:

No strikes for 60 sec. and no more than 1 at a time. Read the patch notes again.

Reading patch notes is a lesson in futility. Quoting them will get you somewhere.

majora incarnate, on 02 April 2013 - 10:51 AM, said:

In case you guys didn't realize, this just made brawling stupid. Think about it, a brawler doesn't carry many modules to being with, so I have a slot or two free, mount artillery or airstrike, or both. Pushing in against an entrenched enemy, artillery. About to die or stripped of weapons, hug a fatty and launch airstrike in the middle of fight.
I think this is the worst thing they could've done, too much will rely on this module, it will be like ECM all over again. You will be required to mount one of these on every mech.

What is the difference between this scenario and if self destruction with splash damage was in the game from the start?

[Pygar]

Rippthrough, on 02 April 2013 - 11:00 AM, said:

You'll have no choice but to take them in competitive 8 vs 8, so much for diversity....

A couple things that will balance this out:

First, the modules are consumable and cost money, so even mechs that clear slots for them might not find it very practical to use them every time. Second, using them effectively in battle will only be good if your opponent is standing still (or moving into a predictable choke point) and will require line of sight...and will also "require" no friendly targets are in harms way.(lol) Third, the damage is relatively low, and sounds to be fairly spread out so the strikes sound annoying enough to be good, but probably wont result in many kills.

Even though the module might end up feeling like the newest spam in the short term, I think in the bigger picture it opens the door for more mechs to find useful roles, which will increase battlefield diversity from where it currently is now... and it will also be another thing that works better for teams to utilize than for solo players- I dunno if every mech in an 8v8 would really need it, but that in itself could add a huge new dimension to big team strategy.

Edited by Pygar, 02 April 2013 - 11:18 AM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

lockwoodx, on 02 April 2013 - 11:04 AM, said:

What is the difference between this scenario and if self destruction with splash damage was in the game from the start?

Nothing, and that is the problem. Huggybear warrior was never a problem because you were bad if you were doing that, now I have a reason, because now I can call in an airstrike (with no weapons mind you) and get in your face to attempt to keep you within its range.

This has nothing to do with variety of loadouts (where you got that this encourages it is beyond me), because it fits on all of them, and the only module that was really required in competitive matches, was the cap accelerator, the rest were up to pilot choice (as it should be). If you don't think that all of these consumables are almost required on all but maybe a couple mechs (coolant on Gaussphract for example), then Im sure running 8v8s after this patch will surprise you.

If they wanted to add artillery, they should've found some way to give us Artillery Cannons and Arrows; the only reason they havn't is because all but maybe the Sniper Cannon require splitting criticals between sections.

Edited by majora incarnate, 02 April 2013 - 11:13 AM.

[Roadbeer]

I love when "8 player competitive" comes up in a conversation, because that's they way we all play the game, and that's what it's all about in the end.

I wonder what these 'competitive' teams are going to do come CW? pout until Solaris comes online?

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Roadbeer, on 02 April 2013 - 11:15 AM, said:

I love when "8 player competitive" comes up in a conversation, because that's they way we all play the game, and that's what it's all about in the end.

I wonder what these 'competitive' teams are going to do come CW? pout until Solaris comes online?

Competitive environments are sign of how healthy a game is, look at all the games that have survived for years and years, Counter-Strike, Starcraft, Warcraft, hell even MW4 survived longer than it should have thanks to groups like Mektek, MWL, and NBT. They all had significant competitive environments that lead to their inclusion into "professional" gaming, and guess what, they sell incredibly well. You can complain all you want about balance concerns in 8-mans, but when it comes to PUGs, there is no balance because you can win with some of the worst mechs if your team is good enough and if you out-pilot the enemy.

Edited by majora incarnate, 02 April 2013 - 11:20 AM.

[Yokaiko]

majora incarnate, on 02 April 2013 - 11:19 AM, said:

Competitive environments are sign of how healthy a game is,

failed to find match, failed to find match, failed to find match............

[Stoicblitzer]

depending on cost, i will probably test them out for a few drops. i am very interested in how it will effect the meta. as some have suggested, it's already becoming hard to decide how to fill module slots which is great and provides more incentive to reach master.

[Agent of Change]

majora incarnate, on 02 April 2013 - 11:19 AM, said:

but when it comes to PUGs, there is no balance because you can win with some of the worst mechs if your team is good enough and if you out-pilot the enemy.

some people would call that "fun".

it;'s a foreign concept around here but i assure you it is enjoyable.

balance issues at a "competitive level" are worth looking at and addressing but that isnot, cannot be, and should not be the end all be all. Why you ask? Because competition is not always fun, and a game people want to play should be fun most of the time when they are not compete-ting.

Of course people actually interested in 'competitiveness' will look at everything and use it before dismissing it. Being 'competetive' isn't about keeping things out it's about adapting to the environment.

[Rippthrough]

Pygar, on 02 April 2013 - 11:09 AM, said:

First, the modules are consumable and cost money, so even mechs that clear slots for them might not find it very practical to use them every time.

If you can't, you probably will be sitting on the sidelines for those matches then.

[Roadbeer]

So, if I'm not in some competitive 8-man, I'm just pugging. Got it.
It's going to break all those kids hearts in little league when I tell them to forget all about the friends they make and the good times they have is completely worthless because they're not "Pro" level.

[Stoicblitzer]

Roadbeer, on 02 April 2013 - 11:15 AM, said:

I love when "8 player competitive" comes up in a conversation, because that's they way we all play the game, and that's what it's all about in the end.

I wonder what these 'competitive' teams are going to do come CW? pout until Solaris comes online?

not sure why you are mocking competition teams. i think pgi will implement lobbies/private matches eventually which have 0 bearing on CW. maybe with the advent of UI 2.0.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Agent of Change, on 02 April 2013 - 11:24 AM, said:

some people would call that "fun".

it;'s a foreign concept around here but i assure you it is enjoyable.

balance issues at a "competitive level" are worth looking at and addressing but that isnot, cannot be, and should not be the end all be all. Why you ask? Because competition is not always fun, and a game people want to play should be fun most of the time when they are not compete-ting.

Of course people actually interested in 'competitiveness' will look at everything and use it before dismissing it. Being 'competetive' isn't about keeping things out it's about adapting to the environment.

The question regarding PUGs has nothing to about balance. It has everything to do with, is it fun for all players, and does it fit within the immersion/feel/design of the game.
To me, it sounds like just a carry over from more traditional FPS and has nothing to do with Mechwarrior. If you wanted arty in Mechwarrior, you strapped an artillery cannon on your mech (whether it be a Long Tom, Thumper, Arrow, etc).

Balance and Fun can go hand in hand, so looking at both sides of the coin is important, and I believe that it is bad enough for one that it at least should be not allowed in 8-mans, or just removed for actual artillery weapons.