43 replies to this topic

[Davers]

Sandpit, on 19 November 2014 - 04:11 PM, said:

I said largER not what PGI currently considers larger

I never said anything about more cap points either. Larger maps would give purpose to those scout and recon builds. It would give more opportunity to use strategies other than "deathball" to point A.

It would give more strategy than "I just spawned and within 10 seconds I'm already under fire from enemy forces".

There's not much point when you can see across the map and spot the entire enemy force right after spawning.


That happens because you're spawning so close to enemy forces and know exactly where they're at before you even enter the map. I'd also add in a more random spawn mechanic instead of set spawn points. You don't get swarmed by enemy mechs when you're not within range of enemy weapons after 10 seconds of spawning which is the case on a few of the current maps.

Recon would be useful if there were multiple objectives that had to be contested. If the enemy always goes to the same places, like we have now, there really is no need to scout.

[Sandpit]

Davers, on 19 November 2014 - 04:15 PM, said:

Recon would be useful if there were multiple objectives that had to be contested. If the enemy always goes to the same places, like we have now, there really is no need to scout.

Recon is pointless when you can actually see the enemy force right after spawning though. What's the point? You know where they're at. No need to recon. That's where bigger maps would help

[Davers]

Sandpit, on 19 November 2014 - 04:16 PM, said:

Recon is pointless when you can actually see the enemy force right after spawning though. What's the point? You know where they're at. No need to recon. That's where bigger maps would help

No question that some of the maps are too tight for 12 v 12, but the real problem is that the maps are all designed with 2-3 avenues of attack. So everyone KNOWS where you are going to go. This won't change on large maps if they are built the same way. On the smaller maps it's just worse since you can see which way the enemy is going to go within 30 seconds of spawning.

[Sandpit]

Davers, on 19 November 2014 - 04:22 PM, said:

No question that some of the maps are too tight for 12 v 12, but the real problem is that the maps are all designed with 2-3 avenues of attack. So everyone KNOWS where you are going to go. This won't change on large maps if they are built the same way. On the smaller maps it's just worse since you can see which way the enemy is going to go within 30 seconds of spawning.

Then change the way they're built

In the smaller maps you're in range of weapons within 10 seconds 30 seconds my butt lol

I'd just like to see the opportunity for more strategy in general. Larger maps and random spawn points would help that along in my opinion

[Davers]

Sandpit, on 19 November 2014 - 04:35 PM, said:

Then change the way they're built

In the smaller maps you're in range of weapons within 10 seconds 30 seconds my butt lol

I'd just like to see the opportunity for more strategy in general. Larger maps and random spawn points would help that along in my opinion

Not a fan of random spawns myself. I would rather have several different strategies than, "Oh look, the slow lance spawned the furthest away from everyone else and right near 2 enemy spawn sites". Too many chances for a 'bad roll' with random spawns.

[Slepnir]

One has but to look at the MW4 maps for inspiration. they were big with multiple objectives to take out-comms arrays, repair facilities, barracks, ammo and fuel depots etc.... that all had to be destroyed to win the map along with fighting the defenders. hopefully CW will give us more of that kind of gameplay.

[Sandpit]

Davers, on 19 November 2014 - 04:43 PM, said:

Not a fan of random spawns myself. I would rather have several different strategies than, "Oh look, the slow lance spawned the furthest away from everyone else and right near 2 enemy spawn sites". Too many chances for a 'bad roll' with random spawns.

Let me clarify a bit, by random spawns I mean random withint set areas. So you have 5 locations that Team A can spawn. That means you don't always know exactly where they're at. They could be adjusted to prevent what you're describing, but that's exactly what we already have on some maps. If you're unlucky enough to spawn in one spot on Tour and the enemy has long range weapons, you're literally killed or severely damaged before you can even move out.

[Lefty Lucy]

Sandpit, on 19 November 2014 - 04:35 PM, said:

Then change the way they're built

In the smaller maps you're in range of weapons within 10 seconds 30 seconds my butt lol

I'd just like to see the opportunity for more strategy in general. Larger maps and random spawn points would help that along in my opinion

Without objectives recon would still only be important to tell your murderball where to go.

[terrycloth]

Winning by objectives without facing the enemy is kind of boring. If the maps are big and twisty enough that it's plausible to completely miss the other team, that's not really a good thing.

[Lefty Lucy]

terrycloth, on 19 November 2014 - 06:38 PM, said:

Winning by objectives without facing the enemy is kind of boring. If the maps are big and twisty enough that it's plausible to completely miss the other team, that's not really a good thing.

That's equally true. The thing is though that until the game gives us a reason to split, a deathball will *always* defeat a smaller force, and so that will be the default effective tactic. Personally, I find that Conquest is at least somewhat tactically complex because there are circumstances under which splitting is effective, even if it is only after you're already winning the match. In either of the other game modes, there is basically no reason for the team to split under any circumstances, as you gain no tactical advantages by doing so.

[Davers]

terrycloth, on 19 November 2014 - 06:38 PM, said:

Winning by objectives without facing the enemy is kind of boring. If the maps are big and twisty enough that it's plausible to completely miss the other team, that's not really a good thing.

That's why objectives, by themselves, shouldn't win the game. But imagine an objective where if you capped it, it would send a small number of AI tanks to the enemy base. Or how about some gunship style aircraft that would head towards enemy mechs? The AI units don't have to be particularly powerful, but they can wear you down if you don't retake the point.

[Tombstoner]

Recon drones would be nice. mine field ownership. unkill able turrets with a capture control node. map wide seismic sensor array.

[Joseph Mallan]

Kiiyor, on 19 November 2014 - 12:45 PM, said:

That's TT though, and I'd say that most of us are basing our conception of TTK on other media, like the novels.

All the BT literature paints the BattleMech as a near-unstoppable behemoth that falls due to attrition rather than lucky enemy shots.

Having an Atlas walk around a corner and turn into vapor kind of flies in the face of this.

Which is Fluff. I used to write FanFiction With the BattleCorps Legion. And battles that sounded like long protracted fights, were literally only a few Minutes on a map in turn based movement. TTK in this media is way longer than what it takes even in the books. But maybe you are just reading slower than me.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 20 November 2014 - 06:56 AM.

[topgun505]

Check your math. ROF in MWO is at LEAST double that of TT. But look at the AC2 or small laser family. You can get off like 5 volleys in 10 seconds. Things like an AC2 which in TT are a pathetic weapon suddenly can be a powerhouse in MWO (and that's before you factor in smoke or screen shake).

The ironic thing is, with all the balance issues PGI has had and all of the things they have done to try and level things out, recycle times of weapons seems to be the one thing they seem loathe to change even though it would be insanely easy to do (one data value in the code and boom, done), and gives them plenty of wiggle room for adjustments. Instead of screwing with projectile speed for a PPC, just increase the recycle. How many people would boat PPCs if they had a 7 second recycle time (for example)?

Edited by topgun505, 20 November 2014 - 07:13 AM.

[LordKnightFandragon]

topgun505, on 20 November 2014 - 07:08 AM, said:

Check your math. ROF in MWO is at LEAST double that of TT. But look at the AC2 or small laser family. You can get off like 5 volleys in 10 seconds. Things like an AC2 which in TT are a pathetic weapon suddenly can be a powerhouse in MWO (and that's before you factor in smoke or screen shake).

The ironic thing is, with all the balance issues PGI has had and all of the things they have done to try and level things out, recycle times of weapons seems to be the one thing they seem loathe to change even though it would be insanely easy to do (one data value in the code and boom, done), and gives them plenty of wiggle room for adjustments. Instead of screwing with projectile speed for a PPC, just increase the recycle. How many people would boat PPCs if they had a 7 second recycle time (for example)?

Yeah, and it would really set sniper weapons and brawler weapons apart. it would really identify weapon roles and loadout roles. PPC with a 5-6s recycle time, GRs with about that much, LL prolly getting a 3.5-4s recycle time. Then you go and put MLs at like 3s, SLs at 2s, PL at a little less then their normal laser counterparts, with shorter durations. LRMs, get about 50% increase to Cool downs, along with flatter trajectory, relying on NARCs and TAGs to operate as the indirect weapons they are now. Artemis improving Missile spread a fair bit more then it does now. Let SRM CD be about half second per missile....so SRM 2 reloads in like 1s, or maybe 1.5s, SRM6 reloads in about 3s. Slower CD would really help this game a fair bit. Then, ACs, increase their reloads according to size, cuz an AC20 isnt going to reload that quickly....

AC2: .75s
AC5: 1.25s
AC10: 3s
AC20: 6s

[Almond Brown]

Kiiyor, on 19 November 2014 - 12:45 PM, said:

stuff

Having an Atlas walk around a corner and turn into vapor kind of flies in the face of this.

Even in BT/TT if an Atlas was targeted by multiple enemy Mechs, that were around that corner, I suspect death or destruction would also be pretty swift.

An Atlas in MWO that turns a corner, to find just another Atlas, will have a real fight on their hands. As it should be. No Mech will survive attack by multiple enemies simultaneously, nor should they. That would be just as stupid but from the opposite end of the spectrum.

[Almond Brown]

Lefty Lucy, on 19 November 2014 - 04:00 PM, said:

Yeah, but there's still no reason for the commander to order a team to split.

Sorry Lucy but that is not true at all. A well executed Flank with a Lance, that is carrying the proper tools, can cause absolute havoc and cannot be ignored by a Death-ball and if it does, it does so to its own demise.

I have seen and been part of many a good proper ones. Of course, the other 8 Mechs also have to be in on the plan, so they can continue to string along the death-ball and not simply get over run by said Death-ball. But Death-balls are only as fast as their slowest Assault, usually.

[Almond Brown]

Slepnir, on 19 November 2014 - 04:51 PM, said:

One has but to look at the MW4 maps for inspiration. they were big with multiple objectives to take out-comms arrays, repair facilities, barracks, ammo and fuel depots etc.... that all had to be destroyed to win the map along with fighting the defenders. hopefully CW will give us more of that kind of gameplay.

And what is the easiest way to take out multiple objectives? Destroy all the Defenders first, then you have free reign. Only a time constraint changes that approach and many don't like time restraints as they can lose without actually losing.

[Almond Brown]

terrycloth, on 19 November 2014 - 06:38 PM, said:

Winning by objectives without facing the enemy is kind of boring. If the maps are big and twisty enough that it's plausible to completely miss the other team, that's not really a good thing.

Or face a lot of Draws as both of the Forces hunker down in their end under the false assumption that the other Team "is" coming for them.

Talk about NASCAR like game-play. Musical chairs more like and the music just never stops.

[Barantor]

Slepnir, on 19 November 2014 - 04:51 PM, said:

One has but to look at the MW4 maps for inspiration. they were big with multiple objectives to take out-comms arrays, repair facilities, barracks, ammo and fuel depots etc.... that all had to be destroyed to win the map along with fighting the defenders. hopefully CW will give us more of that kind of gameplay.

I hope so, but I am very afraid we are going to get maps and objectives that are just a big hallway where we have to unlock the next door to get down the next section of hall.

I hope I am wrong, but we will all see I guess.