Here's my thoughts on increasing the armour to 250% or whatever the current argument is now:
• Maps that tend to stalemate (like River City) would see more action because lobbing PPCs and LRMs across the channel at the other base wouldn't do as much damage - it would get boring really fast and time would start wearing down, creating an incentive to brawl more.
• People wouldn't be as afraid to walk around a corner or start a push, so we'd see less poking and more brawling.
• Maps like Alpine would need their time limit increased (actually, I'm in favour of doing this anyway, I can't tell you how many times I've had a bright idea and once I command my team into the position I had envisioned, there's only 7 minutes left in the match. That's a bit dumb - we have such a large map and hardly enough time to use it tactically.)
Rebas Kradd, on 10 October 2014 - 09:29 AM, said:
However...higher TTK would also give more breathing room for nuance in the game, such as targeting of components, noticeable battle damage like destroyed arm actuators, and opportunity for individual reinforcement. Right now, such things are completely buried by the intensity of the firefights. PGI isn't going to bother with immersive elements like leg actuators when you're 0.7 seconds from death anyway.
I agree that walking into five heavy mechs should be a death sentence. But when the entire match is composed of such encounters, there's a problem. 12v12 is doing that, and it has to be accounted for.
Not by blindly reducing weapon damage, though. Perhaps Victor's frequent suggestion of reducing ROF on heavier weapons should be looked into.
I'm agreeing with the notion that we should raise TTK by some method or another (frankly I don't care how) and Rebas makes the perfect point right here: more nuanced play. Right now gameplay consists of "Oh look, a mech, let's only aim at it's CT because that will put it out of the match ASAP." when game play should be more like "well, that's an Atlas, it won't go down easy, but it's arms will come off pretty fast." Since it would take so much more time to down an Atlas, we might be more tactical about where we're aiming rather than consider shots on anything but the CT to be wasted, which is how the game feels right now.
Voivode, on 10 October 2014 - 09:52 AM, said:
Some maps need to be 8 v 8 (river city / forest colony) and some are fine in 12 v 12 (Crimson Straight). Improving time to kill can be done by having appropriate group to map size ratio and also having maps that are less conducive to deathballing.
Dock Steward, on 11 October 2014 - 09:33 AM, said:
I really liked 12 v 12 when it first came out, but 8 v 8 would probably help with a LOT of things. MM would probably be able to build teams with closer Elo's, the small maps wouldn't be so cluttered....could be a good move for the devs to consider.
While I don't think this is a viable solution, I do think it should be done regardless. Maps like River City and Forest Colony just ache from being overpopulated during matches. I know it's slightly off-topic, but why can't we have matchmaker decide the map first, and if the map is one of those smaller ones, only match 8v8?
Kirkland Langue, on 10 October 2014 - 10:44 AM, said:
As others have said, the problem is the convergence and pin point accuracy.
To be honest, every weapon in the game should get a new attribute: accuracy - and then make the actual hit spot a random location within a radius determined by that weapon's accuracy rating.
Then even if every weapon you fire is aimed at exactly the same location - their actual hit spots would vary a little bit.
This is CoF as far as I'm concerned, and while so much of the community seems completely against, I sure would like to see how it would pan out on a test server.
Edited by Tarogato, 12 October 2014 - 04:55 PM.
2
