70 replies to this topic

[Hardin4188]

It's still early in the morning, and I thought for a moment that Michael A. Stackpole wrote about deathballing in one of his novels....

[Joseph Mallan]

Hardin4188, on 16 January 2015 - 06:07 AM, said:

It's still early in the morning, and I thought for a moment that Michael A. Stackpole wrote about deathballing in one of his novels....

He also wrote about Jedi Mind tricks and glancing blows... He is not teh favorite Author of the CBT Devs I would think. He caused a lot of "optional" rules to be written.

[Cerlin]

I know the lore reason for being against stackpoling but I would like to see it. I feel the MWLL way was tastefully done. Besides, watching several crit mechs on both teams chain explode is just fun.

[Blacksoul1987]

Joseph Mallan, on 16 January 2015 - 04:55 AM, said:

Deathballing is the rudimentary form of a battle formation. It lets the ball bring the most damage to bare while allowing incoming fire to be spread over multiple targets.

Id say it is an advancement over the gone to the 4 wins formation We normally see.

I just wanna point out that I don't think deathballing is a huge problem in this game. and it will always exist in some form. In tank warfare a flank can bring you to fire on an enemy formations side armor which is much weaker. in this game flanking will bring you to fire on a mechs arms which often act as shields. a fast moving lateral formation with focused fire is the best way to play MechWarrior.

[Almond Brown]

Alistair Winter, on 15 January 2015 - 01:54 PM, said:

The oldschool BT fans are very opposed to this idea. They should be here in greater numbers soon, talking about fusion engines.

I want mechs to explode. Especially when they're carrying up to 10 tons (!) of ammunition.

Then put all 10 tons of ammo on one side of your Mech. It will explode very spectacularly, on occasion.

P.S. Btw, Alistair is right. Fusion engines don't explode. Any breach in the containment instantly stops the "fusion" reaction. Now if these were "fission reactors" LOL

[Joseph Mallan]

Blacksoul1987, on 16 January 2015 - 08:36 AM, said:

I just wanna point out that I don't think deathballing is a huge problem in this game. and it will always exist in some form. In tank warfare a flank can bring you to fire on an enemy formations side armor which is much weaker. in this game flanking will bring you to fire on a mechs arms which often act as shields. a fast moving lateral formation with focused fire is the best way to play MechWarrior.

The Deathball is new vernacular for horde. And no it likely will never completely go away. This, Sounds about right.

Alistair Winter, on 15 January 2015 - 01:54 PM, said:

The oldschool BT fans are very opposed to this idea. They should be here in greater numbers soon, talking about fusion engines.

I want mechs to explode. Especially when they're carrying up to 10 tons (!) of ammunition.

I wanna explode when I am doing this as well. It would look spectacular!

[operatorZ]

Blacksoul1987, on 15 January 2015 - 01:54 PM, said:

nope. in games with high ttk it is best to group up and focus fire. in games with low ttk you split up to take good positions, since one guy can drop a whole squad.

NAILED IT!!

[Dawnstealer]

I dunno about the grand kersploding on death, even if it were limited. One of the advantages of a fusion generator over a fission one is less waste and, most importantly, less chance of a catastrophic explosion. Yes, I know fusion bombs are a thing - different from a fusion reactor.

I would like to see legs blow off when they're blown up. That's my big thing. Also, I'd like to see things that would require an in-game "piloting check." How so? You take hits to a gyro, or get that leg blown off, you now have to hop and your mech moves like it's drunk.

Wobbles all over the place. Not a 40kph cap, just because basically unpilotable over anything other than "slow." You can try, though, and a good pilot might be able to still move and shoot, but it would be HARD. Of course, then you have to implement falling over, knock-downs, etc, and most of us know how that turned out the first time around.

[Felio]

Arty strikes are an obvious deathballing deterrent, but we already hate them.

They would be more effective at area denial if we reduced the damage and extended the duration. That would also make them less frustrating to deal with.

They could be taken out of the hands of players and launched automatically on clumped-up groups of allied mechs (they would not launch if there would be "friendly fire," like a brawling situation or up-close light harassment). Bitching Betty could give a warning.

[Joseph Mallan]

Harathan, on 15 January 2015 - 01:40 PM, said:

There's no reason for the 'mech's engines to explode in this catastrophic way, so I can't support that idea. Ammunition explosions having an AoE? That I could get behind. Finally a reason for CASE to exist.

The reason for CASE to exist Is that ammo explosions destroyed teh Mech it blew up in. CASE saved money and repair time. 2 Things that were removed from the game cause some folks didn't want there to be a cost to fighting and waging war.

[Mirkk Defwode]

Stahler, on 15 January 2015 - 08:34 PM, said:

regardless of the reasons or the how, it worked well, especially in MWLL. Those booms could really send people running

I don't debate that, I'm just looking at the reasoning behind why it was implemented originally, and do those reasons fit the design for the title we have laid before us now? That's the real question. I almost feel like a lot of decisions for MWO were made to be different from MWLL because they didn't want that sort of competition or be accused of stealing material from the mod team.

[Kjudoon]

Joseph Mallan, on 16 January 2015 - 09:09 AM, said:

The reason for CASE to exist Is that ammo explosions destroyed teh Mech it blew up in. CASE saved money and repair time. 2 Things that were removed from the game cause some folks didn't want there to be a cost to fighting and waging war.

What? Whining cancels consequences? What hardpoint is that?

Must be energy. Yes energy... no maybe ballistics, oh yes forgot about that. Hmmmm... certainly can't be missile, look at the state they're in. I mean just really!..

:::closes door behind him.:::

Edited by Kjudoon, 16 January 2015 - 11:01 AM.

[Khobai]

the problem is certain maps like river city just shouldnt be 12v12.

i personally think they need to bring back 8v8... and have smaller maps be 8v8 and larger maps be 12v12.

Quote

nope. in games with high ttk it is best to group up and focus fire. in games with low ttk you split up to take good positions, since one guy can drop a whole squad.

the solution to that is larger maps and objectives that are more important than killing the enemy team. then your team has to split up to go after objectives.

Edited by Khobai, 16 January 2015 - 11:24 AM.

[Aethon]

Stahler, on 15 January 2015 - 01:36 PM, said:

How do we stop death balls in CW and public drops? Do what MW4 and MWLL did. Have mechs blow up at death. Personally I like MWLL's mechanic where it didn't happen everytime, only on engine hits and I think there was a percentage chance even then that it would happen so it wasn't too often but spectacular when it did, and enough that grouping up in a tight formation, while still advantageous, carried some risk. Thoughts on this?

Personally, I liked the glitched mechanics when the Adder was first added; I cannot remember who broke it, but the Adder used to have an 83% chance to go critical for some reason. Thus, the Close-Range Assault Puma (CRAP) became a thing, briefly, lol.

[Jman5]

Deathball is just a simple tactic that is easy for players to understand and follow. Safety in numbers and overwhelm with more guns/armor. Because it's easy to pull off people confuse that with it being OP. Realistically it is not an optimal play style. Here are some problems with Deathball:

1. Reduced firing lines. It can be difficult to bring 12 mechs to bear on your opponent if you're all clustered up. Often times you wind up with a significant amount of your firepower hanging back or jockeying for position. Don't get me started on the friendly fire or people hugging your back while you're trying to get to cover.

2. Vulnerable to Strikes, and UAV spotting. You make an easy target this way and you can't move as easily. Sometimes you don't even have a choice as you can't stop without moving without blocking your entire team's push.

3. Vulnerable to getting flanked. Deathballs usually set up in areas that are defensible against the other deathball. This often leaves them exposed to fire from the sides. I have seen a single flanking mech completely freeze an entire 12 team because no one wants to step out and get smashed by his ER lasers, Daka, or LRMs. This is actually one of my favorite past-times in my LRM hunchback 4J. It's fast enough to flank/retreat and the firepower it brings to bear is withering.

So if you want to stop a deathball, you set up a good clear firing line, you strike the hell out of them, you pop UAVs for LRM support, and you get a couple of guys to flank.

[Dutch334]

Mirkk Defwode, on 16 January 2015 - 09:15 AM, said:

I don't debate that, I'm just looking at the reasoning behind why it was implemented originally, and do those reasons fit the design for the title we have laid before us now? That's the real question. I almost feel like a lot of decisions for MWO were made to be different from MWLL because they didn't want that sort of competition or be accused of stealing material from the mod team.

I get what you mean, but fusion explosions, realistic or not are part of the lore (whether we like them or not). I was just saying their mechanic for it worked really well. PGI wouldn't have to copy it, but it's certainly an example of how to do it right. Now if there is another way to help mitigate death balling, that would be great too. I think larger maps without just a few choke points where the fighting always occurs would be great

[Joseph Mallan]

Jman5, on 16 January 2015 - 11:29 AM, said:

Deathball is just a simple tactic that is easy for players to understand and follow. Safety in numbers and overwhelm with more guns/armor. Because it's easy to pull off people confuse that with it being OP. Realistically it is not an optimal play style. Here are some problems with Deathball:

1. Reduced firing lines. It can be difficult to bring 12 mechs to bear on your opponent if you're all clustered up. Often times you wind up with a significant amount of your firepower hanging back or jockeying for position. Don't get me started on the friendly fire or people hugging your back while you're trying to get to cover.

2. Vulnerable to Strikes, and UAV spotting. You make an easy target this way and you can't move as easily. Sometimes you don't even have a choice as you can't stop without moving without blocking your entire team's push.

3. Vulnerable to getting flanked. Deathballs usually set up in areas that are defensible against the other deathball. This often leaves them exposed to fire from the sides. I have seen a single flanking mech completely freeze an entire 12 team because no one wants to step out and get smashed by his ER lasers, Daka, or LRMs. This is actually one of my favorite past-times in my LRM hunchback 4J. It's fast enough to flank/retreat and the firepower it brings to bear is withering.

So if you want to stop a deathball, you set up a good clear firing line, you strike the hell out of them, you pop UAVs for LRM support, and you get a couple of guys to flank.

See... Tactical thinking! This is how it looks!

Khobai, on 16 January 2015 - 11:22 AM, said:

the problem is certain maps like river city just shouldnt be 12v12.

i personally think they need to bring back 8v8... and have smaller maps be 8v8 and larger maps be 12v12.



the solution to that is larger maps and objectives that are more important than killing the enemy team. then your team has to split up to go after objectives.

But the game is only about the fighting Khob!!!!

[Voivode]

I think a version of attack defend where the objectives were very spread out would be great. Make it so it isn't any one objective but a certain % of the objectives being completed that triggers victory for the attacking team / defeat for defenders. This would be nice because:

1) It would mean that deathballing couldn't work for the attacking team so long as they didn't have enough time to complete the requisite number of objectives as a single group.

2) Deathballing wouldn't work for the defending team because they couldn't just choose one objective to go all in on as the victory condition is % of the total objectives.

3) Smaller engagements would introduce a huge amount of meaning for lances and lance command. In organized units, those ranks that are currently arbitrary will suddenly matter.

4) Scouting will become a thing that has a profound impact on the match for both defenders and attackers.

*sigh*...a robo-jockey can dream....

Edited by Voivode, 16 January 2015 - 12:14 PM.

[Kjudoon]

Voivode, on 16 January 2015 - 12:10 PM, said:

I think a version of attack defend where the objectives were very spread out would be great. Make it so it isn't any one objective but a certain % of the objectives being completed that triggers victory for the attacking team / defeat for defenders. This would be nice because:

1) It would mean that deathballing couldn't work for the attacking team so long as they didn't have enough time to complete all objectives as a single group.

2) Deathballing wouldn't work for the defending team because they couldn't just choose one objective to go all in on as the victory condition is % of the total objectives.

3) Smaller engagements would introduce a huge amount of meaning for lances and lance command. In organized units, those ranks that are currently arbitrary will suddenly matter.

4) Scouting will become a thing that has a profound impact on the match for both defenders and attackers.

*sigh*...a robo-jockey can dream....

The sad part is that we had one... it was Conquest on Alpine peaks. The QQ from the 48kph Atlases was so extreme they redid the entire conquest map to make it "Skirmish with a stop watch". What went from having lance combat became deathball central because you could easily hold the middle three cap points with your cheesiest assaults and heavies who didn't even really move much off the middle point.

I complained bitterly about this back then, and the new 'waddle 50 meters and fire' drop points too. I still don't like it, but nobody cares about actually doing role warfare if it means you don't shoot constantly in a meta deathball.

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

Stahler, on 15 January 2015 - 01:36 PM, said:

How do we stop death balls in CW and public drops? Do what MW4 and MWLL did. Have mechs blow up at death. Personally I like MWLL's mechanic where it didn't happen everytime, only on engine hits and I think there was a percentage chance even then that it would happen so it wasn't too often but spectacular when it did, and enough that grouping up in a tight formation, while still advantageous, carried some risk. Thoughts on this?

no.

Yes it's cool.

No it's not good for gameplay. No it's not good for a team game.

Colissions would be far better to help remedy this.