84 replies to this topic

[Void Angel]

Tunnel flanking is bad because of seismic sensors more than the (still real) danger of your enemy figuring out that you've created local fire superiority for them and taking advantage of it. What if you just go around the bottom of the dropship ridge? Often, you're still out of luck, because your teammates are too mired down in that sniper-poking mentality to recognize that you're in position to flank - even if you take the time to literally tell them so.

As I pointed out above, I actually think jump sniping liesat the root of the current brawler handicap meta - even more than terrain and speed issues (although I recognize that's not what you were talking about above.) Most places have routes that can be approached using cover for most of the distance; but poptarts can defeat cover, and do so much damage by the time you get to them that they've really already won. It all works out to the same thing, regardless of the cause - the poptarts get to actively play the game; the brawlers do not.

JigglyMoobs, on 15 January 2014 - 06:02 PM, said:

To be successful, a game needs to allow new players to be effective and climb the ladder rapidly, but it also needs to reward skill and depth. I feel like too many times, people are complaining about "balance" when what they are really saying is that they want easy and safe. Well, what's the fun in that?

That's exactly the thing that killed WoW for me: the Madden Gamer Plague. Essentially, after the success of the Burning Crusade expansion, WoW became more mainstream, which brought an influx of players who were new to RPGs - and who thought "hard-core gaming" was playing through a game of Madden NFL without hitting pause. They wanted RPGs to give them constant reward feedback, and to be able to play all aspects of the game, regardless of their skill. The result was that, while there still were some difficult fights, by the time Wrath of the Lich King was over, most gameplay was overly simplistic and easy to do. Which left a player base with high expectations of loot, low expectations of difficulty - and a whole lot of boredom turning rapidly into hostile disaffection.

[JigglyMoobs]

Void Angel, on 15 January 2014 - 09:17 PM, said:

Tunnel flanking is bad because of seismic sensors more than the (still real) danger of your enemy figuring out that you've created local fire superiority for them and taking advantage of it. What if you just go around the bottom of the dropship ridge? Often, you're still out of luck, because your teammates are too mired down in that sniper-poking mentality to recognize that you're in position to flank - even if you take the time to literally tell them so.

As I pointed out above, I actually think jump sniping liesat the root of the current brawler handicap meta - even more than terrain and speed issues (although I recognize that's not what you were talking about above.) Most places have routes that can be approached using cover for most of the distance; but poptarts can defeat cover, and do so much damage by the time you get to them that they've really already won. It all works out to the same thing, regardless of the cause - the poptarts get to actively play the game; the brawlers do not.

This is getting a bit O.T. but I feel like maybe an "active nerf" is the best strategy for defeating some OP tactic like poptarting. "Active" meaning that it's nerfed by giving more options to counter poptarting rather than a "passive" nerf, where the tactic is just handicapped without people on the receiving end having to do anything. This way you increase the reward for counter pop-tarting tactics without nerfing the rewards for the pop-tarting skills, and the game becomes deeper as a consequence.

Maybe a good way to do this is to increase the screen shake from weapons impacts dramatically when your feet are off the ground. This makes sense: you don't shouldn't have the same amount of stability in mid air compared to when your feet are on solid ground, so any weapons impact should shake you a lot more. Practically speaking then lasers and AC/2s would then become good counter poptart weapons. You may not damage the pop tart that much but as soon as you hit them, they lose the ability to accurately target you. Then both sides have an incentives to work harder. The receiving end gets to disrupt poptarts by more actively engaging them with fast shooting weapons. The poptarts have to think twice about the risk vs. reward of jumping when people are already anticipating the move.

[Koniving]

This post in the "Is there any 'trick' " thread happens to touch on this strategy somewhat. Mainly how to use it to your advantage. Check it out and the post by Victor below it.

[Arahantius]

Koniving, on 16 January 2014 - 12:42 AM, said:

This post in the "Is there any 'trick' " thread happens to touch on this strategy somewhat. Mainly how to use it to your advantage. Check it out and the post by Victor below it.

I agree, this thread is actually quite good.

I also believe Jiggly had a great point. Anyone who follows a proper tactical strategy that they have learned and practised to perfect a particular skill should be rewarded for their effort. Penalizing a tactic, ie poptarting, is just a way to reward the people who didn't try to overcome a challenge.

Edited by Arahantius, 16 January 2014 - 12:54 AM.

[Void Angel]

JigglyMoobs, on 16 January 2014 - 12:14 AM, said:

This is getting a bit O.T. but I feel like maybe an "active nerf" is the best strategy for defeating some OP tactic like poptarting. "Active" meaning that it's nerfed by giving more options to counter poptarting rather than a "passive" nerf, where the tactic is just handicapped without people on the receiving end having to do anything. This way you increase the reward for counter pop-tarting tactics without nerfing the rewards for the pop-tarting skills, and the game becomes deeper as a consequence.
Maybe a good way to do this is to increase the screen shake from weapons impacts dramatically when your feet are off the ground.

Well, lasers wouldn't do anything, because they don't shake people. I think your solution is interesting, though - the trouble is, I'm not sure it would work. It all comes down to the randomness of the system. If I'm jump sniping, I have to gamble that the enemy team isn't paying attention to me in order to try it. If you had a gun that did better damage per heat, space, and tonnage than any other - but the game flipped a coin to see if it would actually do anything when you hit someone - would you use it? With this system, it's not even a coin flip - unless my entire team is jump sniping, there's usually going to be more people who can shoot at me than are jumping at any one time. I think such a system would end up restricting jump sniping to the sort of people who play the lottery for investment purposes.

Edited by Void Angel, 16 January 2014 - 01:24 AM.

[Void Angel]

I think the best overall solution would be to extend jump shake a little bit after you let up off the jets. That seems like it would put an unavoidable and sorely-needed damper in the jump sniping mechanic, without having to invent (and debug) a totally new system. If we want a pseudo-technical explanation: "it takes the gyros time to stabilize after you turn off the jets." What's more important, in my view, is that putting in a delay between when you stopped going up and when you were able to shoot accurately would take the first domino out of the chain reaction that I think is driving the current long-range meta.

What I'd really like to see is a constant - but much smaller- reticle oscillation whenever you were off the ground ("gyros are compensating imperfectly,) but with each weapon fired having its trajectory calculated differently. So the reticle is outlining a small cone of fire, and each weapon rolls its own "dice" to determine where the shots land. I feel that this is a much more elegant solution than extending jump jet shake - but it also sounds much more technically demanding to me. Given that they're still trying to solve nagging issues with the game engine, I'd expect that shake extension is a far more workable choice.

[The Basilisk]

Void Angel, on 15 January 2014 - 05:11 PM, said:

Actually, I blame Jump Snipers. I had a whole dissertation about this that I painstakingly laid out, then clicked the wrong tab to close and lost all my work. So here's the summary. The problem is a domino effect between three parts of the game. I'm not attempting or intending to lay out or account for the entire state of the game here, but these are the controlling factors of the problem, in my view:

• Jump Snipers are still too strong. Jump jet shake helped a little, but mostly weeded out the copycat scrubs - you can still jump snipe effectively by letting off the jets. Similarly, the nerfs to high-alpha weapons and builds did help, but not enough. Players simply started using different weapons with the same jump sniping mechanic.
  
• The nerfs to high-alpha weapons did help Dakka 'mechs, though! They're stronger than ever, and are becoming more and more common on the battlefield.
  
• The rise of Dakka has resulted in longer engagement ranges for longer periods of time, contributing to a resurgence of LRM boats.
  
• Brawlers, on the other hand, have it tough right now. All of the above roels excel at punishing 'mechs for moving over open ground, which is unavoidable unless you manage to sneak up on an enemy who's not paying attention. It's even worse if you're a large, slow brawler - which is just the kind of 'mech you need to counter large, slow, high-alpha snipers.

All of this has the effect of encouraging long-range builds and discouraging close-range builds by discouraging the brawler role (particularly heavy-combat, non-XL assaults.) People (particularly less skilled or experienced players) can feel punished for leaving cover - which is why you see people increasingly refusing to do it at all. There's a reason the OP mentioned Frozen City - Coward's Ridge on that map is the textbook example of this kind of behavior. They feel safe in their hidey-holes, and that ridgeline blocking their line of sight is ever so scary...




Now, it's not hopeless -although it is occasionally very frustrating. I still play brawlers in PuGs and I can still do well. But in order to make a brawler work, you often have to opt out of much of the fight and hope that your teammates don't fold. You're basically guarding against any pushes from the other side and hoping that all the Dakka 'mechs, LurmWarriors, and Snipers will whittle each other down enough for you to be effective later in the match.

I see VA is again at advocating BRAWLERS.
Ok again: YOU DONT GO INTO A FIREFIGHT WITH A POCKET KNIFE
This is Mechwarrior not drunken brawler, not S4 League, and not Mortal Combat.
Yea the current meta is encouraging thought out positioning, ranged fights and movement.
If you, as the posts opener rightfully said, just walk into people trying to brawl or just sitting there holding the middle, you loose and die. The main problem isn't that ppl try to snipe or something.
The main problem is that people just mindlessly want to smash something. Thats where most of my lost games come from.
And the incentive to be mindless, rash and overly bloodthirsty is a gameplay mechanic that focuses on brawling.
Thank god the devs saw this and put an stop to this.
At least there is a smal chance atm that people hold on a moment trying to think or to communicate.
And often enough when I stand back at cowards ridge with my Victor seeing the brawly boys rushing away typing "push push push" or similar CS gibberish over open chanel I see one or two other Warriors forming up at my sides. And those ore mostly the people you can talk with. Making an agreement regarding the right time and the right place to hit the enemy where it hurts most.
I saw you and other ppl point out the "Cluster - theorie" in the folowing posts.
Front and flanking group.
Isn't it obvious to you guys that less ranged combat (and there for coutionous behavior) and more incentives for brawling would also put Incentives for players temped to just charge into the enemy creating a large mindless mainbody, reducing the ( I admit it its only a smal chance ) chance for forming up and so on ?

Edited by The Basilisk, 16 January 2014 - 02:28 AM.

[mogs01gt]

Whao good posts people!!!! A lot of what has been said is pretty accurate to what I have been saying to myself. One thing I have notice is that there are more "brawler" mechs than ridge humpers or "sniping" mechs in MWO. Which is way you always see similar mech and similar builds.

I have two brawlers, a 4sp and an Orion. If I build and play them as brawlers, I fail miserably. If I build and play them more like a support mech, I have much more success. The negative side of that is there are better support mechs than these two..

[AaronWolf]

mogs01gt, on 16 January 2014 - 05:49 AM, said:

Whao good posts people!!!! A lot of what has been said is pretty accurate to what I have been saying to myself. One thing I have notice is that there are more "brawler" mechs than ridge humpers or "sniping" mechs in MWO. Which is way you always see similar mech and similar builds.

I have two brawlers, a 4sp and an Orion. If I build and play them as brawlers, I fail miserably. If I build and play them more like a support mech, I have much more success. The negative side of that is there are better support mechs than these two..

4SP? The Hunchback?

When SRMs are fixed, it is gonna be my primo-brawler.

Why? SHOTGUNSRMS!

But yeah, its not the "best" of supports in the indirect fire sense. Their more of direct fire support. (Atleast the Orion is.)

[mogs01gt]

AaronWolf, on 16 January 2014 - 05:52 AM, said:

4SP? The Hunchback?
When SRMs are fixed, it is gonna be my primo-brawler.
Why? SHOTGUNSRMS!
But yeah, its not the "best" of supports in the indirect fire sense. Their more of direct fire support. (Atleast the Orion is.)

Yep, my first mech was the 4sp and I've been hating it ever since.....

I play Orion as a direct fire support, sustained DPS with low alphas.

[AaronWolf]

mogs01gt, on 16 January 2014 - 06:22 AM, said:

Yep, my first mech was the 4sp and I've been hating it ever since.....

I play Orion as a direct fire support, sustained DPS with low alphas.

The 4SP gets good when you make it a special-purpose harasser. Right now I relegate it to a anti-light position. Due to stacking SSRM's.

The Orion you are doin' it right. *Thumbs up* They are a great direct fire support, and have enough beef to take some hits while doing so.

[VIPER2207]

that's a known problem, but the reasons for that are disputatious.

maybe it's the hunt for kills regardless for the consequences, or maybe people think getting a certain point of the map is a huge (tactical) advantage.

the best examples for this are the calderas on Caustic Valley and Terra Therma. Most players rush for the caldera right at the start of the match, because they think it gives them an advantage to be there first.
while we could discuss that whether it's good or not in conquest mode, in assault or skirmish, the tactical advantage diverges to zero (in my opinion). We could discuss again about Caustic Valley and the advantage of holding the caldera in assault or skirmish (at least you have a good view to all sides, so you have good chances to see where the enemy goes... but the enemy will push the caldera, just like your team, so there is no need to know where the enemy is =/ ), there is absolutely no advantage of holding the caldera on Terra Therma.
By the way, the players who suggest "PUSH CALDERA NAO!!!" in team chat at the start of the game, are the same guys who complain about their ****** team and how stupid everyone is, because they got killed first in the caldera by the pushing enemy... kind of annoying =/

[Mott]

I rush to the center for 2 tactical reasons.

One - I'm new and not the greatest pilot. I have awesome accuracy, but my mech's legs and head are too often moving in opposing directions which eventually end up with my warbot face down, tush up. Grouping up allows others to take the hits while i move around slowly/carefully maneuvering for good shots.

Two - I'm just now starting to reach 350pts of damage per match. Kills are hard to come by but assists are REALLY easy to rack up if you hit the center with the large groups. I never get less than 5 assists and usually 9+. It's helping my match scores.

Last night i tried to get too pretty with my play... tried flanking and other long-game maneuvers and it ended up biting me really hard. Twice i was ambushed in my CTF-IM by 2 ECM Atlases and once in Terra Therma i was just always behind the play... the battle constantly cycled away from me and i ended up with just 1 assist and 80 damage.

Playing pretty has it's place, but really only if you have a nice quick mech, and a supporting lance, to do it.

Otherwise, get to the brawl, deal some damage and do whatever it takes to stay alive the longest.

[Glitchbit]

Unfortunately, I think many new users see it as FPS only, just poppin heads and pew pew pew. However there is a lot of strategy that should be involved that can make it more fun when you're playing in a group that communicates, even if it's just with waypoints on the map and typing.

[VIPER2207]

Mott, on 16 January 2014 - 07:28 AM, said:

I rush to the center for 2 tactical reasons.

One - I'm new and not the greatest pilot. I have awesome accuracy, but my mech's legs and head are too often moving in opposing directions which eventually end up with my warbot face down, tush up. Grouping up allows others to take the hits while i move around slowly/carefully maneuvering for good shots.

Two - I'm just now starting to reach 350pts of damage per match. Kills are hard to come by but assists are REALLY easy to rack up if you hit the center with the large groups. I never get less than 5 assists and usually 9+. It's helping my match scores.

Last night i tried to get too pretty with my play... tried flanking and other long-game maneuvers and it ended up biting me really hard. Twice i was ambushed in my CTF-IM by 2 ECM Atlases and once in Terra Therma i was just always behind the play... the battle constantly cycled away from me and i ended up with just 1 assist and 80 damage.

Playing pretty has it's place, but really only if you have a nice quick mech, and a supporting lance, to do it.

Otherwise, get to the brawl, deal some damage and do whatever it takes to stay alive the longest.

so basicly, you are saying that you rush the caldera, because the rest of your team does is... so you follow them. That's ok, and maybe the best thing a player can do, stick to your team.

the funny thing is... everyone is ask that question responds with "just because i follow the team".. BUT... if everyone is following the team, who has the lead then?

[Dan Nashe]

The thing is, in a PuG good tactics is supporting your team, no matter what random lack of strategy develops. So staying with the group is kind of inevitable. Good flanks can happen but develop oddly. So when 6 mechs group and head center, it tends to be in your best interest to go with em. And no one likes standing still.
Your job is to help this half assed mob win. Not expect them to execute your ideal strategy. So you might get all decent players engaged in a bad tactic because you're relying on body language for tactics.

Personal pet peeve? Half the team breaks formation to pursue the first red triangle they see the fast light mech that is obviously not with 90 percent of the enemy's forces.

Random note, sometimes you have to cower behind a hill and wait because you're not a sniper. No Freaking peeking! That is really really hard psychologically in a game. And then you see this guy who can't aim and did nothing for five minutes get three kills. Who's the better pilot? I have no idea! When it's a close match, and you're dead, and the last guy on your team seems incompetent but outscores you, who is really the better player? (I'm always the dead guy.)

Edited by DanNashe, 16 January 2014 - 08:18 AM.

[mogs01gt]

DanNashe, on 16 January 2014 - 08:06 AM, said:

Personal pet peeve? Half the team breaks formation to pursue the first red triangle they see the fast light mech that is obviously not with 90 percent of the enemy's forces.

sometimes I scream at my monitor when this happens but sadly no1 can hear me!!! "STOP CHASING THAT GD LIGHT!!!!!"

[Mott]

mogs01gt, on 16 January 2014 - 08:42 AM, said:

sometimes I scream at my monitor when this happens but sadly no1 can hear me!!! "STOP CHASING THAT GD LIGHT!!!!!"

I'm always keeping my eyes open for that tidal wave of my teammates leaving our centre line wide open and chasing the light.

Always a good idea to step back and get some cover when it happens because the 8 enemy heavies & assaults are seconds from boiling over the top of the next hill and opening me like a can of peaches.

[Doctor Proctor]

VIPER2207, on 16 January 2014 - 07:12 AM, said:

that's a known problem, but the reasons for that are disputatious.

maybe it's the hunt for kills regardless for the consequences, or maybe people think getting a certain point of the map is a huge (tactical) advantage.

the best examples for this are the calderas on Caustic Valley and Terra Therma. Most players rush for the caldera right at the start of the match, because they think it gives them an advantage to be there first.
while we could discuss that whether it's good or not in conquest mode, in assault or skirmish, the tactical advantage diverges to zero (in my opinion). We could discuss again about Caustic Valley and the advantage of holding the caldera in assault or skirmish (at least you have a good view to all sides, so you have good chances to see where the enemy goes... but the enemy will push the caldera, just like your team, so there is no need to know where the enemy is =/ ), there is absolutely no advantage of holding the caldera on Terra Therma.
By the way, the players who suggest "PUSH CALDERA NAO!!!" in team chat at the start of the game, are the same guys who complain about their ****** team and how stupid everyone is, because they got killed first in the caldera by the pushing enemy... kind of annoying =/

The real problem here is that most people play all 3 game modes the same. I wonder sometimes if this is because "Any" is the default option, and few people change it before launching...

Conquest Win Conditions:
First to 750 points wins
Destroy all enemy mechs

Assault Win Conditions:
Capture opponent's base
Destroy all enemy mechs

Skirmish Win Conditions:
Destroy all enemy mechs

Most people essentially play Skirmish every match and mostly go after the "Destroy all enemy mechs" win condition. Ironically though, their tactics are usually based around Assault. What I mean by that is that holding certain middle points like the Caldera or the Thunderdome on Terra Therma are holdovers from playing Assault where if your whole team tried a flank, you would often get capped by the enemy. It was entirely possible for the two teams to completely pass each other and get all their mechs on the cap points without anyone doing any damage. Most people hated this because it's not very fun, and you don't earn a lot of CBills or XP, so an easy way to avoid this was to go towards the center of the map (bonus if it gives a high vantage point where you can see large portions of the map) since usually the enemy would as well, or if they didn't, you would have the ability to spot them easily and move to intercept before they capped your base.

So it's not so much an offensive strategy as it is a defensive one to prevent capping. Unfortunately, old habits are hard to break and so Skirmish still operates largely the same way as Assault, even though there is no cap condition. The central location of the Theta cap point in Conquest also tends to become a large central point of contention, possibly due to it's location on many maps at the point where the Assault players would normally gravitate to (case in point: Terra Therma Theta is located in the center of the dome, Caustic Theta is located in the center of the caldera).

Thus, all three game modes essentially suffer from "Assault Syndrome" and rarely break out of it. When they do though, it can be glorious... With no cap points for attacking or defending Skirmish mode offers almost unlimited tactical opportunities, and I have seen some truly complex and impressive flanks be pulled off in that mode, albeit rarely. Conquest's dual objectives similarly offer some additional tactical depth that rarely gets taken advantage of where a savvy team can "lose the battle to win the war" by outcapping the enemy with a small strike force while their main force fights basically a delaying action to buy time. I just wish that more players would embrace the diversity that these game modes offer and truly play them differently...the game would be all the better for it if they did.

[VIPER2207]

Doctor Proctor, on 16 January 2014 - 09:03 AM, said:

-lots of true words here-

while i concur with most of your points, i don't think that the caldera on Caustic or the dome on TT are good defensive spots.
When your whole team sits in the theta area and the enemy team flanks around and hits your base, you will not be able to return fast enough to defeat them. lights will charge the base and will be focused to hell in seconds, your heavies will be too slow, because your lights couldn't delay the cap.
The optimal defensive position is closer to your base, in my opinion.