70 replies to this topic

[A banana in the tailpipe]

ECM means that the ECM mech needs an escort... which means there will always be a 2 vs 1 if someone contests the ECM mech, which means you bring three to take out the ECM mech, which means they bring 4 to escort it, which means they bring 5 to protect it....

ECM... plain and simple.

Welcome to MWO.

Edited by lockwoodx, 10 August 2014 - 12:36 PM.

[Alistair Winter]

DaZur, on 10 August 2014 - 08:18 AM, said:

True battlefield tactics fail at all levels because PGI doesn't make them important or impactful... In short MW:O is too flipping shallow and the battlefields too small and or divisive to allow for viable tactics to be applied.
Right now the flank maneuver and the rabbit with a following flank are the only two that really work with any consistency.

Yeah, this is one of the most important factors. I see it like this:

• Maps are poorly designed and small. Lots of bottlenecks, very few opportunities for flanking or ambushing. You generally know where everyone is, one minute into the match.
  
• Game modes are poorly designed. Assault and Skirmish lead to deathballing. Conquest used to have more complex action, but now it takes 5 minutes to capture a single base, so it's easier to just deathball and wipe the team out, ignoring any attempt to win by cap. The only exception is Alpine, which is sometimes too big for the deathball tactic. Different gamemodes could force the teams to split up more.
  
• In a game like CounterStrike, a single sneaky enemy player with an AK-47 can potentially cause extreme damage if he finds his way behind your defenses, so people will constantly be probing for weaknesses. If an enemy player gets behind 3 guys watching a door, he could possibly take out all three of them before they have time to react, if he gets real close. In MWO, sneaking up on an enemy lance alone to ambush them from behind is suicide. You're lucky if you've legged one enemy mech before all 4 mechs turn to face you and turn your mech to a pool of liquid metal.

PappySmurf, on 10 August 2014 - 06:55 AM, said:

There is not much difference between WOT and MWO but in MWO you cannot solo fight like in WOT the mechs are just too weak and flimsy. In WOT with even a Churchill I can solo a few smaller tanks but in MWO there are maybe 1-3 total mechs that can take on a group and survive for morethan 30 seconds or even take out 2 mechs before dying.
In MWO I feel like in playing in a paper tiger not a BattleMech .

Which is ironic, because slow, grinding battles of atrition are pretty much the trademark of Battletech, in my opinion.

[A banana in the tailpipe]

Alistair Winter, on 10 August 2014 - 01:01 PM, said:

Which is ironic, because slow, grinding battles of atrition are pretty much the trademark of Battletech, in my opinion.

I totally agree with this part. Losing an arm/leg/torso in seconds during MWO, should take minutes.

[Ultimax]

Alistair Winter, on 10 August 2014 - 01:01 PM, said:

In a game like CounterStrike, a single sneaky enemy player with an AK-47 can potentially cause extreme damage if he finds his way behind your defenses, so people will constantly be probing for weaknesses. If an enemy player gets behind 3 guys watching a door, he could possibly take out all three of them before they have time to react, if he gets real close. In MWO, sneaking up on an enemy lance alone to ambush them from behind is suicide. You're lucky if you've legged one enemy mech before all 4 mechs turn to face you and turn your mech to a pool of liquid metal.



Which is ironic, because slow, grinding battles of atrition are pretty much the trademark of Battletech, in my opinion.

These two things you've posted are directly opposed to one another.

[Alistair Winter]

Ultimatum X, on 10 August 2014 - 01:24 PM, said:

These two things you've posted are directly opposed to one another.

No.

I'm saying that I expect Mechwarrior games to give me slow, methodical battles. But when you have big deathballs with focus fire, a single mech will be destroyed very quickly.

But one reason we have a lot of deathballing, is because the you can't do very much when you're outnumbered. You can't single-handedly sneak behind 4 assault mechs and just knife them down. In other games, you can do a lot of damage, even when outnumbered. That's rarely the case in MWO, except if you have a Dire Wolf smashing its way through a tunnel, or something.

[Angel of Annihilation]

TB Freelancer, on 10 August 2014 - 11:48 AM, said:

Sounds an awful lot like your suggesting some form of respawn. HERESY! HERESY I SAY!

DON'T YOU KNOW THE MINDLESS PURISTS ARE DEAD SET AGAINST IT?
No matter how much it would improve the game experience, not matter how much it would skyrocket this game's popularity?

EDIT: Never mind the fact that the most popular formats in EVERY previous Mechwarrior title involved respawn or wave respawn.

No I am not suggesting respawn, not in the slightest. Once a mech gets killed, it is dead for the entire match. However, just because your mech gets destoryed, it doesn't mean your dead, in fact, your rescued and brought back to the drop ship where you are then able to jump into the cockpit of any other mech you own an return to battle.

Seriously, in any given 30 minute battle the average player would probably only go through 3-5 mechs, especially if you added the ability to repair and rearm during the battle and also made it so that dying gave the enemy team victory points toward a win. Basically people would actually retreat from battle or an objective, rather than suicide and generally try to keep their mechs alive so as to not give the enemy an easy victory however the penalty of dying wouldn't be so great that people would be camping, I mean after all, if you did happen to die, well yeah you lose some victory points but you can always jump into another mech and make those points up later.

This would definately make the game much more fluid and feel a hell of alot more realistic. Hell if done right PGI wouldn't even have to make a ton of maps. Basically they would need to design maybe 5-10 maps then make it so that the objectives and spawn points randomly spawn in different locations each and every battle. I mean it couldn't be that hard to have 5-6 objectives each have maybe 10 different and random spawn locations. That would give each map a total of what 60+ plus different, random variations that couldn't be predicted prior to the fight. Hell it would give light scouts a hell of a role having to go out and actually identify and find the objectives and direct the rest of the teams to them.

PGI just needs to to hire me as creative director. All problems would be solved hehe.

[Randodan]

PappySmurf, on 10 August 2014 - 07:32 AM, said:

MWO offers nothing like the older PC CD MechWarrior games had to offer as far as meta choices tactical choices or just plain fun as in social and league play dam I miss playing MechWarrior.MWO is such a shallow MechWarrior experience I can understand why new players just install then bail on the game.

Well said. That sums it right up. I am 100% with you. I am not a fan of the idea that MWO is for "competitive players" anymore - not for old-school Mechwarrior players. Sad but true.

[Wingbreaker]

This thread has descended so deeply into circlejerk nostalgia goggles that you believe MW4 was a balanced game.


Wow.

[Wintersdark]

Lefty Lucy, on 10 August 2014 - 08:31 AM, said:

Yup. This combined with the fact that slow death does not equal "tactical depth" (counterstrike proves quite the opposite) and people who want slow TTK at the expense of *actual* tactical depth are simply clueless.

Maybe I'm unique in this, but I feel we have a very long TTK currently. I absolutely detest FPS games, too - I'm definitely not looking for CoD or whatever else the kids are playing these days. But when I stomp out in an Assault or Heavy, I almost never die without having taken a substantial amount of damage.

The problem is people want to stand up to a tremendous amount of abuse without actively participating in their defense. They want a long TTK even if they're just standing still getting shot.

And that leads to a drab, dull game.

In MWO, it's absolutely possible to endure heavy fire and keep fighting, but it's all in the hands of the pilot. Defensive piloting is a critically important MWO skill.

[Wintersdark]

TB Freelancer, on 10 August 2014 - 11:48 AM, said:

Sounds an awful lot like your suggesting some form of respawn. HERESY! HERESY I SAY!

DON'T YOU KNOW THE MINDLESS PURISTS ARE DEAD SET AGAINST IT?
No matter how much it would improve the game experience, not matter how much it would skyrocket this game's popularity?

EDIT: Never mind the fact that the most popular formats in EVERY previous Mechwarrior title involved respawn or wave respawn.

I'm one. Respawn in any form other than the "you bring X mechs and only have those mechs" a'la dropship mode is without a doubt 100% a dealbreaker for me.

Of course, I don't enjoy any other PvP games at all, because respawn first and foremost. I hated even prior MW games with respawn.

Respawn is to make bad players feel better about themselves. Don't die, instead. And if you do, learn to not-die better next time.

[PappySmurf]

Wintersdark
[I'm one. Respawn in any form other than the "you bring X mechs and only have those mechs" a'la dropship mode is without a doubt 100% a dealbreaker for me.

Of course, I don't enjoy any other PvP games at all, because respawn first and foremost. I hated even prior MW games with respawn.

Respawn is to make bad players feel better about themselves. Don't die, instead. And if you do, learn to not-die better next time. ]

I think most MWO players don't understand the older PC MechWarrior games catered to so many play styles game modes and players desires to diversify the game the way they liked it through leagues and community social interactions. You could play leagues where you had re-spawn-no-respawn-tonnages-class only like light leagues-role-play-ladder high competition leagues 1v1-12v12.

What the communities made was a situation where MechWarrior even modeled Battletech in planetary leagues with over 100,000+ players playing 24/7 7 days a week on in-game servers and the MSN gamming Zone.

MechWarrior communities were about making all the PC MechWarrior games better and more fun overall no matter what game mode or play style you liked even First person view or 3rdperson view all was playable and welcomed as MechWarrior.

I cant understand or belive PGI devs and staff do not understand this simple concept or MechWarrior in general.

P.S can I get a cockpit hologram of these 2 dolls for my dash?

Edited by PappySmurf, 10 August 2014 - 03:14 PM.

[Sephlock]

Alistair Winter, on 10 August 2014 - 01:01 PM, said:

Which is ironic, because slow, grinding battles of atrition are pretty much the trademark of Battletech, in my opinion.

Well in MW:O we have slow, grinding poptart battles.... does that count?

[Khobai]

Quote

Once the shells start connecting, how long do tanks last IRL? If the shell is sufficient to penetrate? 1-2 hits, DONE.

If all it took was 1-2 shells to take out a tank there would be absolutely NO point in putting armor on tanks at all. The cost of armoring the tank simply would not be worth it.

Modern battle tanks can take a friggin beating from multiple shells. Generally the tank crew will die from concussive forces well before the tank itself is destroyed.

Even so tanks are pretty much obsolete nowadays. Theyre mostly used as stationary turrets in Iraq. The days of conventional warfare are over. Now its all tactical strikes from the air mostly using drone or gunship based weaponry.

Edited by Khobai, 10 August 2014 - 03:57 PM.

[BLOOD WOLF]

A team that does not adapt to the situation, is a team that will most likely not succeed.

[Ultimax]

Alistair Winter, on 10 August 2014 - 01:30 PM, said:

No.

I'm saying that I expect Mechwarrior games to give me slow, methodical battles. But when you have big deathballs with focus fire, a single mech will be destroyed very quickly.

But one reason we have a lot of deathballing, is because the you can't do very much when you're outnumbered. You can't single-handedly sneak behind 4 assault mechs and just knife them down. In other games, you can do a lot of damage, even when outnumbered. That's rarely the case in MWO, except if you have a Dire Wolf smashing its way through a tunnel, or something.

You're still contradicting yourself.

If ONE mech could singlehandedly "knife down" FOUR assault mechs we'd either need to be doing MORE damage, or have less resilience.

[Alistair Winter]

Ultimatum X, on 10 August 2014 - 03:51 PM, said:

You're still contradicting yourself.
If ONE mech could singlehandedly "knife down" FOUR assault mechs we'd either need to be doing MORE damage, or have less resilience.

Oh for the love of God. Why do people on this forum insist on this sort of behavior?

I'm not suggesting that one mech should be able to do that. I am only explaining why this game plays out different from other games. Deathballing is not an effective tactic in every FPS, but it's effective in this game. And I gave some explanations why. That doesn't mean I want to change every factor in this game that leads to deathballing. I'm just explaining why it happens.

Move along, guy.

[Bishop Steiner]

Khobai, on 10 August 2014 - 03:47 PM, said:

If all it took was 1-2 shells to take out a tank there would be absolutely NO point in putting armor on tanks at all. The cost of armoring the tank simply would not be worth it.

Modern battle tanks can take a friggin beating from multiple shells. Generally the tank crew will die from concussive forces well before the tank itself is destroyed.

1 RPG
http://www.liveleak....=3eb_1343046318
these didnt fare much better
http://www.dailymail...tal-ambush.html

true these were last generation, Soviet tanks, but well, you don't see much footage of modern western tank battles, because the reality is, for the most part, they AREN'T worth the cost, as aircraft or a man with an RPG can turn millions of dollars of combat vehicle to scrap, pretty dang fast. Tanks are largely a relic of the Cold War that military thinking can't divorce itself from yet.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Alistair Winter, on 10 August 2014 - 03:57 PM, said:

Oh for the love of God. Why do people on this forum insist on this sort of behavior?

I'm not suggesting that one mech should be able to do that. I am only explaining why this game plays out different from other games. Deathballing is not an effective tactic in every FPS, but it's effective in this game. And I gave some explanations why. That doesn't mean I want to change every factor in this game that leads to deathballing. I'm just explaining why it happens.

Move along, guy.

Except deathballing inst the most effective tactic in this game, as someone pointed out earlier. Deathballing leads to crossfire as well as movementissues. Hell I saw more depth in this game back in the CB days before we had massive PPFLD and ECM. Then DHS, the Stalker, and ECMcame around. 12 mans exacerbated the problems as well. Many maps simply aren't meant for an extra lance.

Mapdesign does have a big impact on this as well and these maps are just bad.

[Alistair Winter]

majora incarnate, on 10 August 2014 - 04:08 PM, said:

Except deathballing inst the most effective tactic in this game, as someone pointed out earlier. Deathballing leads to crossfire as well as movementissues. Hell I saw more depth in this game back in the CB days before we had massive PPFLD and ECM. Then DHS, the Stalker, and ECMcame around. 12 mans exacerbated the problems as well. Many maps simply aren't meant for an extra lance.
Mapdesign does have a big impact on this as well and these maps are just bad.

Well, first of all, I don't know why you started by saying "Except death balling isn't the most effective tactic", when I never said it was. Now I've got one guy contradicting me based on things he thinks I'm implying and another guy contradicting me based on stuff I never said. What's going on?

Beyond that, I agree that ECM, small maps and bad map designs are important factors. It annoys me that so many players pretend ECM is fine just because PGI has proclaimed it.

[Fleeb the Mad]

As a veteran of World of Tanks I can explain the various gameplay differences between it and MWO at length. Simple analogies are going to fall flat because the gameplay is fundamentally different on a number of levels:

Range:

In WoT it's possible to provide fire support from halfway or three quarters across the map, depending on intervening terrain. It's possible for teams to spread way out and support each other, particularly when two or three members on a given team are artillery pieces that can support any part of the line.

MWO maps are actually a lot less open than WoT maps, with more cover and intervening terrain. Since WoT has a spotting system that limits maximum visibility people can also move into cover and fire from places unseen. So if you don't have a spotter and the enemy does, you're going to take a lot of fire without being able to shoot back.

Firing and Damage

WoT gameplay is based around having one gun that fires very slowly, sometimes one round every 30 seconds. It's critical to land precision hits that penetrate your opponents armour. You will have difficulty trying to batter down opponents with volume of fire. Where you hit your enemy is much more important than it is in MWO. If you keep shooting a mech it will eventually die, but WoT tanks can bounce dozens of poorly aimed rounds with no effect.

Since your refire rate is so slow, it becomes critical to land good hits. Successive penetrating hits will kill people quickly and they can drop much faster to focused fire than in MWO, if they're caught in a bad position.

Spotting

WoT has limited view range and a spotting system that can allow people to be literally invisible even in open terrain. This means that if you have poor map coverage, enemies can get into positions where they can see and spot you, and you can't see or shoot back. Unlike MWO where any mech in your field of view will physically render even if it doesn't pop up on radar, in WoT it won't if you haven't spotted it. Friendly tanks can see spotted enemies like in MWO, but because of the ranges being spotted is sometimes instant death as three or four enemies hit you simultaneously. As such you need overlapping view coverage so a scout or flanker can't slip past un-noticed.

Firing Position

On the NA servers WoT is a very static cover-shooting game, where position means a lot more than armour in a lot of cases. You only have one strong facing. If you lose a flank, enemy forces can roll in and quickly shoot unprepared friendlies who get caught outside of cover or on weak armour facings. Spreading out and covering multiple avenues as a tactic is essential and works because one or two people in a good flanking position can destroy a team. A WoT tank can't handle fire from multiple directions, so getting caught in a crossfire can turn ugly very fast. It's also the best way to break a deadlock and force enemies out of good positions covering another avenue of advance.

Mechs in MWO are extremely fast and maneuverable by comparison and don't rely so heavily on cover. Because it's also a raw hitpoint battle, not as much is served by getting into positions to shoot at sides or rear from a distance. WoT is very much a sniping game, where having better angles to shoot enemies often matters more than having lots of guns pointed at them. It's also not very effective to have lots of people clumped together, because there's only a few good spots to fire from in any particular location.

Indirect fire also plays a big role in WoT and most teams have several artillery pieces that are glass canons that can fire the whole length of the map. Very limited in their ability to fire at short range and very vulnerable. If a single enemy manages to spot them, they can all die quickly to enemy artillery. A single light tank can also kill the entirety of your artillery with gunfire.

Travel Times and Capture

Every game mode has an objective apart from killing the enemy team. WoT tanks take quite a long time to traverse the field. Because capture speed increases the more people pile onto a cap circle, if you leave an avenue approach open and two or three enemies slip through, you can lose a match before any of your team can turn around and return from mid-map to the base. This is how it was in MWO before the capture timers increased.

Except because MWO maps have lots of intervening terrain and sheltered paths of advance, a late-game light could get to the base unseen and capture it before the team could do anything about it. With MWO's gameplay it made no sense to try to spread out to cover all approaches, because individual paths would get overrun.