181 replies to this topic

[Lefty Lucy]

Jaeger Gonzo, on 13 November 2014 - 12:23 PM, said:

I did, but you don`t listen.

lower damage output = lower TTK = more tactical game = better gameplay = thinking mans shooter

This is an oft-repeated meme, but you don't really support it. Playing in stock mechs requires "murderballing" even more than playing in customized mechs, as your video demonstrates admirably: "form a firing line here, as soon as they poke their heads over blast them."

A single tactic being the only winning tactic is not "better game play" or "thinking mans shooter."

[Lily from animove]

Lefty Lucy, on 13 November 2014 - 11:35 AM, said:

This game having a relatively slow TTK is the reason why "the blob" dominates tactics, and why things like flanking maneuvers are basically pointless against competent opponents.

In order to effectively reduce the enemy team's ability to fight, you need to kill their mechs. Most importantly, you need to kill their mechs as fast as possible in order to minimize damage to your own team as well. For all but the most powerful mechs, 1 v 1 TTK is slow in this game. Slow enough that if one mech is losing a solo fight it can quite easily return to its team before dying. This is why focus fire is of utmost importance.

Similarly, if you attack a mech from an angle it is not currently observing, it almost always gets a chance to return fire. Combine this with relatively long cooldowns compared to other shooters, and the only way to effectively damage an enemy mech without simply trading damage with them is to hug cover obsessively. It also means that trying to "flank" a prepared defensive position is pointless because getting the first shot in combat is only a minor advantage, rather than a decisive one.

Don't get me wrong, I think this game is fun with relatively slow TTK, but suggesting even *slower* TTK as a way to improve gameplay is incredibly misguided.

actually kinda now, the ttk is often extremely short, with the right mechs, like a SCR you can appear shoot disappear and you can very easily kill mechs in 3 strikes. And as long as you are not in a fatlas or Nova returnfire is rare.
Then you have those lights with the new quirkks being able to core and kill heavis withing a few seconds, while in return you need like 30+ secods to kill a light if he isn't standing still. The games issue is the way how some chassis are kinda immortal while others pop like they are made of paper.

[Jaeger Gonzo]

Lefty Lucy, on 13 November 2014 - 12:31 PM, said:

This is an oft-repeated meme, but you don't really support it. Playing in stock mechs requires "murderballing" even more than playing in customized mechs, as your video demonstrates admirably: "form a firing line here, as soon as they poke their heads over blast them."

A single tactic being the only winning tactic is not "better game play" or "thinking mans shooter."

I didnt watch this film, maybe watch other, or better yet try it yourself, be cause for now you clearly don`t know what you are talking about.

[Ursh]

Eh, the whole point of flanking is to both pressure the enemy, as well as get unopposed clean shots on enemy mechs. That second one is worth the flanking maneuver itself, getting to shoot people who aren't shooting back right away.

Low TTK will only drive away more of the $300+ club who MWO desperately needs to keep.

[CDLord HHGD]

Ursh, on 13 November 2014 - 12:38 PM, said:

Eh, the whole point of flanking is to both pressure the enemy, as well as get unopposed clean shots on enemy mechs. That second one is worth the flanking maneuver itself, getting to shoot people who aren't shooting back right away.

Low TTK will only drive away more of the $300+ club who MWO desperately needs to keep.

I disagree, we've stuck it out through all sorts of questionable IGP decisions... I actually support a lower TTK....

[EvilCow]

Ursh, on 13 November 2014 - 12:38 PM, said:

Low TTK will only drive away more of the $300+ club who MWO desperately needs to keep.

I belong to that club and please don't speak for me.

[Burktross]

The Boz, on 13 November 2014 - 11:54 AM, said:

Disagree.
Also, the blob is not a result of a slow TTK, but a lack of objective-oriented gameplay.

This.

I agree... TTK aint perfect... but I'd rather it than one-shot kills.

[Prezimonto]

Jaeger Gonzo, on 13 November 2014 - 12:37 PM, said:

I didnt watch this film, maybe watch other, or better yet try it yourself, be cause for now you clearly don`t know what you are talking about.

It's been my experience with stock matches that lances, or pairs are much more likely to split and try to flank, because they know they can:
1. likely make a running defense if they get away
2. trash any lone stragglers, if not kill at least incapacitate them
3. provide crossfire situations where blobs are forced to split attention and fire

Generally, tactics in stock matches (at least Stock Mech Mondays with mostly long term players) are several steps above and beyond blob tactics, and more fun due to longer closer fights.

[Arkbird_]

Ursh, on 13 November 2014 - 12:38 PM, said:

Eh, the whole point of flanking is to both pressure the enemy, as well as get unopposed clean shots on enemy mechs. That second one is worth the flanking maneuver itself, getting to shoot people who aren't shooting back right away.

Low TTK will only drive away more of the $300+ club who MWO desperately needs to keep.

How and why certain people flank is up to them. I personally do it for the advantage against LRM boats it gives especially if you can close the distance and start ripping them apart.

It's not the paying players you should be worrying about. Few put money into a game and then leave when something they disagree with happens otherwise this game would've been a ghost town many times over already especially when 3PV came out... Players will stick it out, especially the paying players. When you put money into a game you invest in it and generally won't leave unless you have a very good reason. I don't see a meta you don't like being one of them.

[Lykaon]

Fut, on 13 November 2014 - 12:10 PM, said:

Battletech/Mechwarrior has always been a battle of attrition - it's part of what makes the game so much fun.

This statement right here is the key to this discussion.

The O.P. focuses his view of attrition on mech kills.To him the final product of the battle (destroyed mechs) is the focus.The thing is this game is designed around several points of attrition.

Armor,ammo/heat scale,equipment and time are all factors that have a finite supply and dwindle as the match progresses.

Using the "pointless" flanking maneuver as an example.

Moving to flank and enemy has several beneficial effects and many apply attrition pressures.

A well played flank attack should allow the flanker the ability to fire weapons and withdraw into cover by the time the target reacts.This has cause the target to suffer armor attrition and loss of time looking for you.If the target opts to attempt to fire upon you even with a very low likelyhood of placing any significant damage they will also suffer ammo/heatscale attrition as well as now having their attention split between prior targets and the new flanking target(s).

With this split in attention the likelyhood of suffering additional attrition in the form of more armor/equipment loss is improved.

It is my opinion that what makes the "pointless" flank attack pointless in the O.P.'s posting is the failure of the team to execute their part in the flank maneuver.In a Pug match what one player sees as a "flanking maneuver" is actually one player moving to a high risk location without the communication needed to support the success of the maneuver.

Unlike many first person shooters where a sneaky play to move to the flank allows you time to carefully pick a headshot and make a few kills before discovery Mechwarrior instead grants the opertunity to apply improved attrition possibilities on your targets.Due to the lack of respawns in MWo attrition focus was shifted away from the kill and towards the other factors I discussed.

[Lefty Lucy]

Prezimonto, on 13 November 2014 - 01:04 PM, said:

It's been my experience with stock matches that lances, or pairs are much more likely to split and try to flank, because they know they can:

2. trash any lone stragglers, if not kill at least incapacitate them

So part of your argument for why splitting up is effective is because you do well against enemies that split up even more than you? Kind of proves my point.

If you see people succeeding while splitting up in stock mech matches, it's *despite* splitting up, not *because* of it.

[Davers]

There will never be a better tactic than a murderball, or two firing lines picking at each other, until there are meaningful secondary objectives. Things that NEED to be done, protected, attacked, or controlled. Imagine LoL with no jungle/Baron/Dragon. Just 3 lanes. What would happen? Everyone would pile into the centre lane (since it is the shortest distance to the enemy base) and fight it out there. That's exactly what we have here in MW:O. Everyone heads straight top the enemy base/center cap point/place where the enemy usually sets up defensively and fights it out there.

[Jonny Taco]

Finally, someone who understands that increasing time to kill actually dumbs down the game and reduces the impact of tactical decisions.

Edited by lartfor, 13 November 2014 - 01:49 PM.

[Feetwet]

Davers, on 13 November 2014 - 01:33 PM, said:

There will never be a better tactic than a murderball, or two firing lines picking at each other, until there are meaningful secondary objectives. Things that NEED to be done, protected, attacked, or controlled. Imagine LoL with no jungle/Baron/Dragon. Just 3 lanes. What would happen? Everyone would pile into the centre lane (since it is the shortest distance to the enemy base) and fight it out there. That's exactly what we have here in MW:O. Everyone heads straight top the enemy base/center cap point/place where the enemy usually sets up defensively and fights it out there.

Just to expand on this point. The murderball is effective because it can get to all points of the map pretty quickly. It will always be a viable tactic as long as we are playing in a phonebooth.

[Prezimonto]

Lefty Lucy, on 13 November 2014 - 01:21 PM, said:

So part of your argument for why splitting up is effective is because you do well against enemies that split up even more than you? Kind of proves my point.

If you see people succeeding while splitting up in stock mech matches, it's *despite* splitting up, not *because* of it.

No.

That's actually not what I said if you read to the end. Yes, it's effective against stragglers as both sides have a GOOD reason to split and provide crossfire onto a blob.

A blob will ALWAYS be effective at massing fire in one direction, but if ttk is high enough flanking is a good option to remove cover from a blob and force it to split. And that is a good thing tactically, the blob is powerful, but not more than superior positioning. If you mechs can survive long enough to achieve and effectively use better positions, you have an advantage on a blob. You also have better scouting and spotting, which brings more variety of weapons to the field.

Edited by Prezimonto, 13 November 2014 - 01:43 PM.

[Feetwet]

lartfor, on 13 November 2014 - 01:38 PM, said:

Finally, someone who understands that increasing time to kill actually dumbs down the game and reduces the impact of tactic decisions.

The biggest problem with TTK in this game, from the eyes of a battletech fan mind you, is that weapons are far too accurate. Pinpoint accuracy is not an element of BTech. Now I know you will say this is mechwarrior not battletech. But it is based on that concept.

[Jonny Taco]

Feetwet, on 13 November 2014 - 01:46 PM, said:

Pinpoint accuracy is not an element of BTech.

You're right, dice rolling is.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Felio, on 13 November 2014 - 12:24 PM, said:

TTK is not slow. The fast TTK is what makes maneuvers pointless. Even a simple hammer and anvil won't work because your anvil will be dead before the hammer arrives. That's why we murderball.

It's a sad fact considering hammer/anvil tactics used to work really well back in the days of Closed Beta, especially with undefended bases to cap which allowed a team a flanking team to not only distract and take uncontested shots, but also FORCE the enemy to do something about them otherwise they would lose. The bases probably made that tactic too powerful, but the point is that it was powerful once upon a time.

[Feetwet]

lartfor, on 13 November 2014 - 01:48 PM, said:

You're right, dice rolling is.

Ultimately your right. Dice rolling to simulate ancient technology (for the timeline) that was beat up and patched together by individuals who didn't fully understand it. Dice rolls that took into account a lumbering machine crashing through harsh terrain at high speeds with a pilot and hardware suffering from intense heat build up using a targeting system that was barely adequate. That was battletech.

[Chrithu]

Lefty Lucy, on 13 November 2014 - 11:35 AM, said:

This game having a relatively slow TTK is the reason why "the blob" dominates tactics, and why things like flanking maneuvers are basically pointless against competent opponents.

In order to effectively reduce the enemy team's ability to fight, you need to kill their mechs. Most importantly, you need to kill their mechs as fast as possible in order to minimize damage to your own team as well. For all but the most powerful mechs, 1 v 1 TTK is slow in this game. Slow enough that if one mech is losing a solo fight it can quite easily return to its team before dying. This is why focus fire is of utmost importance.

Similarly, if you attack a mech from an angle it is not currently observing, it almost always gets a chance to return fire. Combine this with relatively long cooldowns compared to other shooters, and the only way to effectively damage an enemy mech without simply trading damage with them is to hug cover obsessively. It also means that trying to "flank" a prepared defensive position is pointless because getting the first shot in combat is only a minor advantage, rather than a decisive one.

Don't get me wrong, I think this game is fun with relatively slow TTK, but suggesting even *slower* TTK as a way to improve gameplay is incredibly misguided.

I absolutely agree with this.

The problem is that without further lowering the TTK it takes a lot of effort to break up the current stagnant gameplay and "The Blob". The CW gamemode might be a way in that general direction. But ultimately I think the game and gameplay could benefit from going back to 8v8. In more than one way.

Back in beta times the idea/impression/expectation with 12v12 was that it would open up more tactical opportunities by breaking up into lances and doing flanking maneuvers. I think after almost 2 years with 12v12 it goes without saying that, compared with 8v8, 12v12 forces the team even more to form up "The Blob" and the move together. The causes for that are manifold: The mechanics of the gamemodes, the sizes and terrain of the maps, the fact that MWO is a shooter with pinpoint aiming rather than a turn based game with random aim and all the mechanics that stem from that.

In 8v8 breaking up into lances was dumb as well. But back then a flanking maneuver of one or two mechs was a viable move. I am aware that some of that was caused by the worse matchmaking and other problems back then. But still I think that in 8v8 a good run of a single pilot can sway the match more than in 12v12 and thus in 8v8 there actually are more tactical possibilities in terms of breaking from the Blob.

I'd like to make the distant comparison to tactical first person shooters here: I think with the way MWO's gamemodes work and with the given map sizes MWO is much more like Counter Strike and less like Battlefield and there are good reasons why Counter Strike is competitively played in small 5v5 teams and not in teams of 16v16 and more like Battlefield.

And this is just the gameplay side of it. Matchmaking especially in the group queue would become a lot easier in 8v8 not to mention the big step back up in performance we could gain from returning to 8v8.

Well long wall of text that is possibly in vain because going back to 8v8 would mean scrapping a lot of work done and thus I don't think PGI will ever do it.