81 replies to this topic

[Pht]

trollocaustic, on 30 June 2013 - 02:22 AM, said:

Tell me, what's wrong with peakaboo?

NOTHING

What's wrong is when hill/wall humping is the only viable tactic in the majority of games. It also flatly ignores the 'mech's needing to align it's weapons to converge on the target from, say, the wall right in front of it, to a target at extreme range, which should take at least a couple of seconds.

[Malora Sidewinder]

trollocaustic, on 30 June 2013 - 02:22 AM, said:

Tell me, what's wrong with peakaboo?

NOTHING

true to your name i see.
you cannot honestly mean that, at any rate.

[Elizander]

Adding random deviation to ballistic shots fired beyond listed maximum range might be a good solution. They'll still be dead accurate within reasonable range but anything too far will have RNG affect it. It's another alternative solution. Not bad enough to cause massive misses, but enough to spread damage randomly over an enemy mech for a dead center hit.

Make it so the advanced zoom module can offset the RNG slightly (and please drop the PIP function on it and just make it zoom normally until the PIP issue is resolved!).

[Lord de Seis]

Great post, thank you for the thought and effort into it.

[ThePartyProbe]

Dragonfodder, on 30 June 2013 - 03:16 PM, said:

It's funny actually, there is one map that negates sniping significantly, and everyone hates it save for me it seems like.

River City Night is the one place where brawlers are still kings.

With sight range being reduced to about 600m and cover GALORE, you can get right up into a ppc-stalkers face...
And, even then, you still have to hope that they aren't erppcs, cause those still do a ton of point-blank damage. But MOST cases you still win.

Hate to burst your bubble, but if a semi-coordinated PPC team gets the upper base on River City or River City Night it's almost impossible for a brawler team to push up onto them, even more so when they implement terrain scaling effecting speed. Even if say 6 of your brawler squad reach the base, they're still forced into taking 1 of 3 chokepoints that funnel their numbers up onto the base, while all of this is happening the PPC team simply has to casually walk backwards and spread out and kill you anyway. None of that is hard to do for the PPC squad, our competitive team practices 4-5 hours a night and I can assure you if you get upper base as snipers you automatically win.

[Peter2000]

ThePartyProbe, on 01 July 2013 - 02:16 AM, said:

Hate to burst your bubble, but if a semi-coordinated PPC team gets the upper base on River City or River City Night it's almost impossible for a brawler team to push up onto them, even more so when they implement terrain scaling effecting speed. Even if say 6 of your brawler squad reach the base, they're still forced into taking 1 of 3 chokepoints that funnel their numbers up onto the base, while all of this is happening the PPC team simply has to casually walk backwards and spread out and kill you anyway. None of that is hard to do for the PPC squad, our competitive team practices 4-5 hours a night and I can assure you if you get upper base as snipers you automatically win.

This leads to the other problem with River City: the bases are not equal (nor are Alpine's). This is a bit off topic, but those maps should probably be looked at, in particular. High ground with cover is just really, really, good right now.

Edited by Peter2000, 01 July 2013 - 08:49 AM.

[Odins Fist]

Peter2000, on 01 July 2013 - 08:47 AM, said:

This leads to the other problem with River City: the bases are not equal (nor are Alpine's). This is a bit off topic, but those maps should probably be looked at, in particular. High ground with cover is just really, really, good right now.

Yeah EXACTLY what I said a couple of days ago.... 2+2=4

Odins Fist, on 28 June 2013 - 01:49 PM, said:

The terrain changes are going to be very interesting, I see them pushing MWO matches further into the stand off and fire mode on the bigger maps, but I also see a possibility to funnel, or force contact in certain areas of smaller maps creating murder holes.

Example: (River City) Going to upper city from dockside (water side start) there will be only (1) viable route to upper if I estimate the level of incline correctly. The broken overpass, the left path up seems too steep, and even if you can climb that your speed would be reduced to the point of creating a traffic jam, if the enemy team uses the long bridge from base to upper city you will have a turkey shoot, consisting of (2) possible murder holes, not to mention the streets between buildings in lower.. That example is of course using non jump jet mechs as a majority of the attacking force from lower city.. This would definately create an advantage for the enemy team starting on the high side of the map, and if the high side team uses this to their advantage it would also create an easy cap scenario for the team starting high side, all they have to do is wait for the lower city team to move across the water and try to attack from that direction (that already occurs presently). Also any kind of frontal attack down the middle would be suicide, at that point only one way into the enemy base would be possible (the curved ramp), and again anything without decent jump jets would have (1) way in to enemy base.

I see more forced contact at pinch-points, I see murder holes being a big thing, and I see (fish in a barrel) being quoted soon.
River City is only one example, a very easy example to explain..
Take note though, terrain that one team cannot climb means that the enemy team has the same disadvantage if they fall down, or get caught in a position with no way up and over, BUT the intial advantage will still be there for the high side enemy team.
This all examples of NON Jump Jet Mech issues.

I do not like forced contact, or funneling in certain instances.. I liked the open world of Crysis (the original), I disliked forced contact and funneling in Crysis 2, and I didn't bother with that title for long. MWO is not the same animal, and that isn't the best comparison, but if you know what i'm talking about, then you will understand.

With the current maps we have, I see "stand off" being the tactic of necessity, more so on some maps over others.
What impact 12 v 12 instead of 8 v 8 will have is unkown at this point..

Will terrain changes/mech mobility changes cause more varied strategies being used, or fewer.??
Yet unkown, I will be watching this carefully.

[Peter2000]

Odins Fist, on 01 July 2013 - 09:53 AM, said:

Yeah EXACTLY what I said a couple of days ago.... 2+2=4

True, but you also added that you think the main problem is chokepoints. I don't think this is the case. For example, Caustic seems to have what you love, but I'd hardly want all the maps to be like it (and has always been massively biased in the favor of LRMs and snipers). Canyons is far more interesting in my eyes.

[Malora Sidewinder]

Elizander, on 30 June 2013 - 07:46 PM, said:

Adding random deviation to ballistic shots fired beyond listed maximum range might be a good solution. They'll still be dead accurate within reasonable range but anything too far will have RNG affect it. It's another alternative solution. Not bad enough to cause massive misses, but enough to spread damage randomly over an enemy mech for a dead center hit.

Make it so the advanced zoom module can offset the RNG slightly (and please drop the PIP function on it and just make it zoom normally until the PIP issue is resolved!).

blarg dude don't give PGI these ideas...
They're the kind of ideas that *seem* find upon first look, and since we all know pgi doesn't actually think about the changes they make, first look is all that they need.

As is, drop off in damage is significant enough. if you're *really* skilled, on alpine, you can land a gauss slug at 2000 meters... for one point of damage. does it really need to be randomized?

also advanced zoom is not working as intended and has no fix on the horizon.

[Peter2000]

Malora Sidewinder, on 01 July 2013 - 12:11 PM, said:

also advanced zoom is not working as intended and has no fix on the horizon.

I was unaware - that boxiness isn't an intentional throwback to Mechwarrior2?

[Grits N Gravy]

The weapons balancing that has been ongoing since beta has exaggerated the problem, but it's not the causal factor. Map design, team size and the doubling of armor are the major contributing factors which have led to this meta.

All the maps basically function as a form of trench warfare and seem to be designed with this in mind.
The current meta is to stay behind the line of contact and pick off those that step into no man's land.

The problem with MWO is you can't maneuver and bring enough firepower to put the enemy positions behind the lines of contact at risk. With teams of 8, double armor, small maps (relative to the speed and sighting ranges), and teams with random compositions, flanking isn't possible, for the same reason flanking maneuvers of cavalry were no longer effective on the western front in 1914. There isn't room, there isn't a covered approach, you're not fast enough, and you can't bring enough firepower to bare to reduce an enemy position before your flanking maneuver is reduced.

If you want more "brawling", the positions of cover have to be way more precarious. Does it hurt that all the weapons of a fast flanking mech have had their effectiveness reduced, certainly. But I'll remind the OP that is was the people who are now PPC camping were the ones who complained about the Laser-backs, 4 Srm's awesome boats, streak boats. The community drove the game to this state and it works for 50% of the people, 50% of the time.

We had the brawling game in closed beta, no one wanted to play it because it's more complicated than camp and boat. Unless they rework the maps, re balance many of the weapons and add more players per match than not much is really going to change in the Meta game. I realized that this probably wouldn't happen and was the main reason I asked for a refund on my founders and haven't put any money in mwo since.

Edited by Grits N Gravy, 01 July 2013 - 08:15 PM.

[Odins Fist]

Peter2000, on 01 July 2013 - 11:12 AM, said:

True, but you also added that you think the main problem is chokepoints. I don't think this is the case. For example, Caustic seems to have what you love, but I'd hardly want all the maps to be like it (and has always been massively biased in the favor of LRMs and snipers). Canyons is far more interesting in my eyes.

Ahh but that is only 2-dimensional thinking you are displaying...
#1. River city was my prime example, and it will indeed funnel traffic, and create murder holes galore for mechs without jump jets, I also said that was only one example, and that I would be watching this carefully.

#2. Bigger maps like Alpine that have huge amounts of severely tall and steep slopes will also funnel traffic into 4 major pinch points for mechs without jump jets (you have seen those slopes right?).
It doesn't matter how BIG certain maps are, if they are already designed a certain way, and then mobility is reduced to a small handful of valleys to travel for mechs without jump jets.
At that point you could have all the space you want, but if the paths are spread out far enough you will have THOUSANDS of meters of useless map, and if your team is dumb enough to travel 2500 meters out of their way to try and be sneaky, then what happens..?? hmmmm... No fight... It's bad enough that the maps we currently have now only lend themselves to at least 2 decent strategies, and now it looks like SOME maps may be dictated even more by small travel lanes, funneling large groups of mechs into a shooting gallery for the sandbagging crowd..??

#3. I understand we will be getting 12 v 12, and that may help, but what are you willing to wager that some of our CURRENT maps will have funneling/murder holes that almost guarantee the "Charge of the Light Brigade" factor happening. If your options to approach a target are severely limited, then whatever else is left is usually a positon that favors a defender.

DO NOT get me wrong though, i'm NOT saying that I see this as the case for every map we have currently but...
Some of the maps I have looked at will definately lend themselves to a well placed defender whipping the attackers like Charles Martel did to that inept, bush league whelp of a wanna be warlord, Abdul Rahman at the Battle of Tours..!!!
"They broke like waves upon rocks", and that's what ol' Abdul's own people, and chroniclers said.

This is not a doom and gloom response about MWO, it's an observation, I have seen the slopes on these maps, and I have calculated a lot of impassable slopes, these as statements by the DEVs themselves on the degree of the slope.

My question and statements were these below...

"With the current maps we have, I see "stand off" being the tactic of necessity, more so on some maps over others.
What impact 12 v 12 instead of 8 v 8 will have is unkown at this point..

Will terrain changes/mech mobility changes cause more varied strategies being used, or fewer.??
Yet unkown, I will be watching this carefully."

Edited by Odins Fist, 01 July 2013 - 09:19 PM.

[Peter2000]

Odins Fist, on 01 July 2013 - 08:26 PM, said:

Ahh but that is only 2-dimensional thinking you are displaying...
#1. River city was my prime example, and it will indeed funnel traffic, and create murder holes galore for mechs without jump jets, I also said that was only one example, and that I would be watching this carefully.

#2. Bigger maps like Alpine that have huge amounts of severely tall and steep slopes will also funnel traffic into 4 major pinch points for mechs without jump jets (you have seen those slopes right?).
It doesn't matter how BIG certain maps are, if they are already designed a certain way, and then mobility is reduced to a small handful of valleys to travel for mechs without jump jets.
At that point you could have all the space you want, but if the paths are spread out far enough you will have THOUSANDS of meters of useless map, and if your team is dumb enough to travel 2500 meters out of their way to try and be sneaky, then what happens..?? hmmmm... No fight... It's bad enough that the maps we currently have now only lend themselves to at least 2 decent strategies, and now it looks like SOME maps may be dictated even more by small travel lanes, funneling large groups of mechs into a shooting gallery for the sandbagging crowd..??

#3. I understand we will be getting 12 v 12, and that may help, but what are you willing to wager that some of our CURRENT maps will have funneling/murder holes that almost guarantee the "Charge of the Light Brigade" factor happening. If your options to approach a target are severely limited, then whatever else is left is usually a positon that favors a defender.

DO NOT get me wrong though, i'm NOT saying that I see this as the case for every map we have currently but...
Some of the maps I have looked at will definately lend themselves to a well placed defender whipping the attackers like Charles Martel did to that inept, bush league whelp of a wanna be warlord, Abdul Rahman at the Battle of Tours..!!!
"They broke like waves upon rocks", and that's what ol' Abdul's own people, and chroniclers said.

This is not a doom and gloom response about MWO, it's an observation, I have seen the slopes on these maps, and I have calculated a lot of impassable slopes, these as statements by the DEVs themselves on the degree of the slope.

My question and statements were these below...

"With the current maps we have, I see "stand off" being the tactic of necessity, more so on some maps over others.
What impact 12 v 12 instead of 8 v 8 will have is unkown at this point..

Will terrain changes/mech mobility changes cause more varied strategies being used, or fewer.??
Yet unkown, I will be watching this carefully."

Good points. I would like to add that what I would really think would make things interesting is Caustic-like (and -sized) maps with 12 mans, and conquest as "default". This would force teams to spread their forces somewhat, encourage attacks on poorly defended locations (and those not with a chokepoint between you and the enemy), while giving enough firepower to prevent 12 lights from circle-capping (assuming they still don't have some form of tonnage limits or tonnage matching by this point).

[MavRCK]

So obvious to us...

Completely oblivious to PGI...

Amazing how important a couple of letters are to rtards.

Edited by MavRCK, 02 July 2013 - 08:04 AM.

[zolop]

Really good write up. Read through it all and agree with most.and only want to add Overheating penalty that causes damage to the overheating mechs internals (or loss of a weapon with major signifigant heat) is a good start.

Maybe make PPCs projectile speed slower to compensate for their range and power? Not super slow like Mechwarrior 2, but slightly slow so light mechs out manuaver? Just a thought / idea, that is all.

Edited by zolop, 02 July 2013 - 08:19 AM.

[Peter2000]

zolop, on 02 July 2013 - 08:13 AM, said:

Really good write up. Read through it all and agree with most.and only want to add Overheating penalty that causes damage to the overheating mechs internals (or loss of a weapon with major signifigant heat) is a good start.

Maybe make PPCs projectile speed slower to compensate for their range and power? Not super slow like Mechwarrior 2, but slightly slow so light mechs out manuaver? Just a thought / idea, that is all.

The overheating penalty is fine, but ultimately isn't going to do too much to PPCs - at least not much more than it will do to other weapons.

Also, if you were dropping an alpha at 90% before, it was usually with override on, because you were about to die, and wanted to get an extra shot or two off. A few extra damage (it ends up being ~1/s) isn't going to make a huge difference to an assault being overrun by several opponents anyway.

[Homeless Bill]

Peter2000, on 28 June 2013 - 10:31 AM, said:

Brawling vs. Sniping: Ballistics

[Gauss vs AC/20 - both relatively balanced for their intended role]

Ballistic Supplementary

[All other ballistics are fire support or inferior]

Brawling vs. Sniping: Energy

[PPCs are preferable due to other energy weapons because they have no beam duration, good range, and manageable heat]

Energy Supplemental

[ERLL sucks because beam duration; small (pulse) lasers suck because of range; pulse lasers suck]

Brawling vs. Sniping: Missile

None of the missile weapons really fall into either category effectively at the moment. For the same reason AC/2 is not a sniper weapon, but a fire support, the LRM is also relegated to the fire support role. SSRMs are useful, but the very low total damage (3/hardpoint) means they are really only useful against smaller, harder-to-hit ‘Mechs.

SRM Balance

[SRMs suck because everything]

Why the "boating penalty" currently proposed will not fix PPCs or the "peek-and-shoot" meta

[Heat doesn't matter during the sniping phase, and alphas aren't necessary for the brawl; also, Gauss]

This is a very well thought-out and organized write-up. This paints a very accurate picture of our relative weapon balance problems. Onto the line-by-line:

Brawling vs. Sniping: Ballistics

As much as I think the boating of large ballistics is a huge problem (more in the future than currently, but still), the weapons are individually very close to what I think they should be. I'd like to see the AC/20 be a bit less effective at range, but it's not a big deal.

Ballistic Supplementary

You're pretty much dead-on here. AC/10s are outclasses by AC/20s in almost all cases, the LBX is a travesty, and everything else is fire support.

Brawling vs. Sniping: Energy

Beam duration has a huge impact on real damage potential. The PPC is simply too good, even when used alone. It's easier to snipe with than the Gauss (essentially a dedicated, volatile, heavy, ammo-bound sniper weapon) due to its ridiculous projectile speed, lack of ammo, and relatively low weight. I think the projectile speed for the PPC needs to be tuned down to around 1300-1500m/s to bring it in line with other weapons.

Energy Supplemental

I agree with all observations made here.

Brawling vs. Sniping: Missile

Again, I agree.

SRM Balance

SRMs are very sad right now, and the easiest change they can make to fix the current meta is to make brawling viable again. Even if everything is doing ridiculous amounts of damage, I'd rather have that than a sniper-only game.

Why the "boating penalty" currently proposed will not fix PPCs or the "peek-and-shoot" meta

I like your analysis of how games play out. There's a lot of standing around at the beginning, but that chill-out time is what usually decides the battle. Even if alphas were key to the second phase of the game, it doesn't matter by then.

80% of the time, matches are decided during the sniping phase. When you lose two of your guys before the big brawl, it's typically game over.

At the end of the day, PGI is going to go ahead with heat penalties, and it will be up to us to show them how ineffective they are.

Edited by Homeless Bill, 10 July 2013 - 02:00 PM.

[Craeshen]

One way to solve this issue may be to give all weapons a penetration amount. IE a single ppc can "penetrate" x points of armor if there is more armor than the weapons penetration amount no damage is done to the armor but the armor is then weakened by the amount of penetration for a short amount of time 2-3 seconds.

Now further attacks on the same point within that time span can further weaken the armor until it is defeated.

Then the component or area starts to take damage if the weakened area is given enough time the armor resolidifies so to speak and the process has to start over again.

If done correctly this can still allow ppc's to be useful. IE give them and gauss rifles the highest penetration amounts, but their refire time is such that they cannot be the only weapon fired on that point otherwise they do 0 damage. Chain firing ppc's would still be viable but this would bring a greater variety to weapon loadout then currently seen.

[Krumenool]

(Sorry, but it looks like this text-editor can't create paragraphs, maybe related to IE.) I just tried my first assault PPC/Gauss build on a training map after I had resisted for some time, and I noticed three things: 1. I agree that more armour could improve gameplay, also because more people could diversify their builds by trading armour for a heavier weapon. I think currently almost everyone puts on close to maximum armour in order to survive due to the high damage over distance. 2. Wouldn't it be better if weapon cooldown only worked while the engine was working? Currently I can immediately fire again after a forced shutdown or overheat. 3. Being able to survive three or maybe even more 2PPC+Gauss alphas fired at 90% heat level seems not very discouraging - my CT stayed yellow. I should've exploded after the second mistake. If you are so good to run these premium weapons in an Atlas you should also be punished swiftly. This could lower the number of these builds by simply being very demanding to manage.

Edited by Krumenool, 27 July 2013 - 01:24 PM.

[Pht]

Krumenool, on 27 July 2013 - 01:21 PM, said:

1. I agree that more armour could improve gameplay, also because more people could diversify their builds by trading armour for a heavier weapon. I think currently almost everyone puts on close to maximum armour in order to survive due to the high damage over distance.

They actually already tried this and it's one of the main causes of all the constant weapons damage tweaking problems. They doubled the external and internal armor numbers. Which obviously threw off the damage profiles on all the smaller weapons (and thus the damage output of the smaller mechs). More of the same wouldn't fix the problem.