421 replies to this topic

[UberStuka]

just wow that this thread has gone on for so long..... who the f cares if a arty/meta mech hits you L2P

[masCh]

Nori Silverrage, on 15 May 2015 - 07:58 AM, said:

Not sure if any of you played BF2142 or other games like that that had commanders... But I for one loved that conecpt.
For those that don't know how that works, someone in game would take commander (could be changed to be a voting system) at the start of the game. They would still be in the match, but would have additional abilities that are activated on the map.
For instance, they could throw down a UAV, or a Arty strike. They could drop supplies, give orders and move people around the squads. They also had the ability to talk to each seperate squad.
The UAV, Arty and supplies were balanced because each had a cooldown period of something like 30s and a short delay to activation. In addition each ability had a in game building associated with it for each team. Destroy the building and the ability is gone until it is repaired.

This sort of system would bring some much needed tactics and strategy into the game (assuming the commander abilities are powerful enough and consumables are removed or reworked).

Nice, like MechCommander.

It could be done with a week's work, have a 13th player drop with no 'mech but only map view and/or spectate view (still functioning mechs would have cameras). The command building can be destroyed thus rendering the Mechcommander useless until a team member comes and recapture it.

[IraqiWalker]

Nori Silverrage, on 15 May 2015 - 07:58 AM, said:

Not sure if any of you played BF2142 or other games like that that had commanders... But I for one loved that conecpt.
For those that don't know how that works, someone in game would take commander (could be changed to be a voting system) at the start of the game. They would still be in the match, but would have additional abilities that are activated on the map.
For instance, they could throw down a UAV, or a Arty strike. They could drop supplies, give orders and move people around the squads. They also had the ability to talk to each seperate squad.
The UAV, Arty and supplies were balanced because each had a cooldown period of something like 30s and a short delay to activation. In addition each ability had a in game building associated with it for each team. Destroy the building and the ability is gone until it is repaired.

This sort of system would bring some much needed tactics and strategy into the game (assuming the commander abilities are powerful enough and consumables are removed or reworked).

I've literally used that exact example before in arty, and UAV discussions.

[Mystere]

masCh, on 15 May 2015 - 08:09 AM, said:

Nice, like MechCommander.

It could be done with a week's work, have a 13th player drop with no 'mech but only map view and/or spectate view (still functioning mechs would have cameras). The command building can be destroyed thus rendering the Mechcommander useless until a team member comes and recapture it.

LOL. I don't think you understand the work involved.

[HC Harlequin]

Quote

I was talking about how to call an arty strike right now, in modern day, all a soldier needs to do is say "grid G5", and boom, the artillery units know that location, they have been pre-calibrated, and will bombard it. The soldier doesn't need to stick around the entire time to guide the shells

This is what makes artillery horrible against armor. Armor is designed to take the blast effect and without guidance artillery takes an exponentially higher number of rounds to destroy an armored vehicle because of how many miss. This doubles down on just how bad artillery is against armor.

Quote

What our mech pilots do in MWO is say "THAT SPOT", where their mech's rangefinder pointed. Then they boogie. The shells will land, without the pilot needing to stay there to continue marking the area

Yes... and the rounds may hit a general area, but in order to hit armor/mechs you are either depending on mass fires,which is inefficient, to increase the chance of gaining a hit or you figure out some way to guide the round to a mech.

Quote

I asked you to provide an alternative to Arty for indirect fire support, that doesn't require threatening the pilot with prolonged exposure, and you brought up the FAF, which is nowhere near as flexible as Arty, nor as far reaching, and versatile. (Arty can use varied shells ... etc.)

Well, you are wrong. Fire and forget missiles are just more expensive. A Fire and forget missile that uses visual guidance can have the imagery of the target pre-loaded and it will track the target visually, and the range is only limited to how much propellant is in the engine.

Quote

Here's a little piece of tech, invented a long time ago Called "IFF". It helps designate friendlies from foes. If we go with a self-sufficient guided shell, then it's very easy for the shell to identify on it's own the friendlies. Anything else, is fair game.

So, civilians and non-combatants are fair game... interesting, and a war crime.
Well, to be fair, our current necessity for precision accuracy is also an economic need. Artillery without precision guidance is a horrible waste of money. If it takes 100 rounds of artillery to kill a tank, but only 1 missile, and the missile only costs 10 times what an artillery round costs then the missile wins for cost efficiency. The primary necessity now is and always should be civilian casualties. And civilians and non-combatants won't have IFF. Artillery without precision guidance is horribly indiscriminate.

Quote

1- OP says strikes are unrealistic (he's wrong), and aren't canon (he's wrong here too)

True

Quote

3-You start talking about how ineffective artillery is

And unguided artillery is horribly inefficient.

Quote

4- We PROVE that arty is effective (unless you want insta kill shells), against mechs.

No you haven't.. just the opposite. You guys are literally trying to prove that 10 rounds which, to one mech, do 35 points of damage, if and only if 1 of those rounds happens by chance to have a direct hit on a mech. That's 3.5 damage average per round with a horrible hit rate. The only real payoff with arty and air happens when you get a tight clump and you can spread the AE damage to more that 1 mech. And even then, what... 3% armor...5%? per mech? maybe 10% if it's a light?

Now compare that with shooting a mech 10 times with an AC20. See the difference?

Quote

5- I explain to you that we don't need prolonged spotting, nor someone to continue guiding the shells right now.
6- While doing that, I bring up the possibility of shells possibly developing over the next 1000 years, and getting the ability to be fully self guided.
7-You start harping on about their accuracy, if they are auto guided. It's not relevant to the discussion.

Well, yes, that's what Fire and Forget means. You fire it, and you forget it. It's guided to the target by a pre-set guidance system.

Quote

and you brought up the FAF, which is nowhere near as flexible as Arty, nor as far reaching, and versatile. (Arty can use varied shells ... etc.)

Please make up your mind.

[IraqiWalker]

HC Harlequin, on 15 May 2015 - 08:24 AM, said:

Please make up your mind.

Here's me making up my mind:

You've been running in circles.
We've proven that artillery can work, you refuse to see/read it.

Other than that, you've failed to comprehend how artillery works in all three realms of real life, BT, and MWO.

As such, I have no choice but to withdraw from this line of discussion with you. Any further debate is proving to be futile.

[HC Harlequin]

Quote

In this world there are planets, some remote from home worlds some not so remote. What I am saying is that the idea that a 48 art/air strike capability in every scenario you drop in on here is not possible because not every inner sphere planet is going to have the same defense capabilities.

it seems unlikely to me that this would ever be possible and more importantly the methodology to implement them should be changed

Quote

You keep on not making sense.Really. A single 120mm 2 man mortar crew can hang fire 3 rounds in 4 seconds. A four tube mortar section could easily accomplish the current "meta". So 9 guys (1 squad), 4 tubes/tripods/baseplates, and 240 rounds. 2 rounds per case, 120 cases at around 100 pounds per case, so 12,000 pounds,(6 tons) of ammo, 9 men at 250 pounds per at about 1.5 tons and 4 tubes at around 500 pounds each (2 tons total) means a ground commander only needs to commit 10 tons to the battlefield using 20th century tech levels and the least expensive combat force known to man (Infantry) to max out the current "meta"

Quote

When you count the other 24 "meta" strikes. That's only 12 rounds across 2 gunship/CAS elements. So.. 2 "aerospace" fighter/bombers. Again using 20th Century technology. with full combat load at 21 tons, 42 tons total.

Quote

So for less than 60 tons committed a ground combatant commander can guarantee 48 "meta" strikes.

Quote

40,000 C Bills for 1 strike. One strike being 400 pounds or so of explosives delivered from an unassailable position (air/concealed mortar position). Spread that out around the 9-10 "contractors" hired to provide the artillery, plus the equipment maintenance and expendable explosive. Or spread it out on the 1-2 "contractors" hired to provide the air strike, plus the air capable equipment maintenance and expendable explosives.

So one work crew gets say...2,500 C-bills each per 10 rounds fired (10 seconds) for one day of work to incude infil/exfil, or one contracted pilot gets 35,000 c-bills for say 10 minutes of flight?
Because, trust me, the explosive devices (mortar rounds/air strike bombs) are NOT expensive.

Now add in a mechanic wherein said military "contractor" gets twice as much for about the same effort for 2 strikes? Then translate that C-Bill into normal currency used today and let your mind boggle because it's no wonder that PGI doesn't give a bulk discount. Because 10 strikes for 25,000 EU a day per person?

Who said Merc's have to be in Mechs?

So, in a CW match with around 2800 tons of 48 mechs including ammo you think it's improbable to add a couple low tech planes and a squad of infantry with ammo and low tech equipment weighing 60 tons so you can get indirect and CAS? for a battalion sized engagement?

Really?

[Allen Ward]

I have no issues with Arti in MWO. But actually every exploitation is annoying. I don't think that fielding 12 mechs with 2 arti srikes loaded (1 heavy, 1 light) and bombing the breath out of a group of mechs is a fun way to play, for either side. The same goes for dropping with12 twin ppc mad cats or similar "strategies". In a way, it is ok, as everyone would choose the most efficient and effective way in war, but in a game the first goal is not to win, it is to have fun while winning and by trying to win.

The air strikes could be implemented better. They could be way more expensive, there could be weaker strikes where you have to keep TAG on target for to hit, large scattering hits to a called grid (like cluster bombs), and slow but very heavy hitting strikes. I am sure there are more ideas that could make artillery a more tactical and interesting component of the game without much effort.

Or there could be a delay for every team after using artillery, so that only so and so many strikes could be used in certain time frame (aerospace fighters need time for a second strafe, cannons need to reload/recharge, whatever). The idea is to prevent that all 12 people drop arti strikes on their enemy at the very same spot simultaneously.

It's always frustrating to be the target of such lame ass tactics, but it's actually not player's fault, but game designer's fault.

[Sarlic]

It shouldnt be in the game in the first place.

Problem is that anyonecan use it..

[Crockdaddy]

IraqiWalker, on 14 May 2015 - 10:50 PM, said:

Nope, ballista might count as arty XD.


I'm sorry, have you ever played an LRM boat right?

You really don't know what you're talking about here. LRM boats actually require the most knowledge of the map, mech builds, and positioning. This is coming from someone that ran them in organized 12v12s (For the record, I've only ever owned 1 real LRM boat, a BLR-1S that I am converting into an XL 400 SRM brawler).

To be a successful LRM boat, you need to know where you are, where your enemy is, and what terrain obstacles are between you and them. Since you want to make sure that your salvo hits them, since window lickers like you complained so much about LRMs you had to have a warning given to you the second the LRMs are launched.

LRMs also had their projectile speed reduced, on account of window lickers who with a full 5 second warning, still didn't comprehend the concept of cover.

Buddy, to do LRMs you needed more map awareness than literally any other weapon in the game. It is the hardest weapon to make work right, and the easiest to dodge, and we still get idiots who think LRMs are OP, and only noobs use them.

They are new player friendly, since they allow a player to use them from a somewhat safe distance, but let me give you an example of the difference between the two:

New player: I have a lock, I open fire, and hope to the omnissiah it hits. That is literally their entire MO.

Experienced player:

I have a team that is spotting 6 or so mechs:
01- Any mechs are tagged/Narc'd?
02- Which mech is the biggest threat
03- Is there intervening terrain that will stop my salvo, or make it less effective?
04- When I fire, what's the nearest cover for that pilot?
05- Should I fire in chain fire mode, or full alpha mode?
06- Am I suppressing an enemy here, or trying to kill them?
07- Any enemy ECM nearby?
08- Is the mech I'm targeting being hit by someone else?
09- Do I really need to launch more than 10 missiles for that kill?
10- Will my missiles reach the target before it's dead/behind cover/ECM?

If my spotter is being attacked, then the highest priority mech on the board becomes the one trying to kill the spotter. If there's ECM nearby, then I should reposition, or look for a better target.

Then of course there's the matter of ranges:

I should never fire LRMs at anyone beyond 800 meters, EVER.
If I want my missiles to arc high above cover I need to move to within 500 meters, or less, to give them the high arc.
If I want my missiles to have a lower arc, I need to move closer.

Not to mention that the LRM boat pilot needs to have full knowledge of what the enemy has equipped, for best threat assessment.

An LRM boat player that knows what they're doing is playing chess, while you're playing tic tac toe in your direct fire mech.

So this comes with the full weight of my knowledge, experience, and consideration that you've been in this game longer than I have: Learn to play.

Good LRM write up. I'd tweak some parts of it based on my personal preference.

That being said ... if you made LRMs effective at the upper ELO levels and Comp levels it would destroy the game at all other levels. Direct fire is the ruling class upper ELO levels / Comp levels. That is the nuance I take / view LRMs. I miss running LRM fire teams for fun with a spotter.

[Telmasa]

Chrona, on 15 May 2015 - 04:22 AM, said:

Do arty strikes suddenly do damage or something to get 20 pages on a whine thread? I just tank them because I don't want to move and compromise my position and most they'll do is turn my mech yellow.

If you're taking that little damage from a strike, then it's already mostly missed you - and possibly it's not the upgraded version.

Nori Silverrage, on 15 May 2015 - 07:58 AM, said:

Not sure if any of you played BF2142 or other games like that that had commanders... But I for one loved that conecpt.
For those that don't know how that works, someone in game would take commander (could be changed to be a voting system) at the start of the game. They would still be in the match, but would have additional abilities that are activated on the map.
For instance, they could throw down a UAV, or a Arty strike. They could drop supplies, give orders and move people around the squads. They also had the ability to talk to each seperate squad.
The UAV, Arty and supplies were balanced because each had a cooldown period of something like 30s and a short delay to activation. In addition each ability had a in game building associated with it for each team. Destroy the building and the ability is gone until it is repaired.
This sort of system would bring some much needed tactics and strategy into the game (assuming the commander abilities are powerful enough and consumables are removed or reworked).

It's been suggested many times before that consumables be a commander-only thing.

I don't like the idea, because it just becomes another level of B.S. - a contest to grab the commander title before anybody else, because it comes with magic card priveleges.

The higher cooldown has been mentioned a few times already too, and while it would help the current situation, it's ultimately a band-aid fix for the whole "magic card" problem.

Tactics & strategy would be far better added to the game in the form of Long Toms & Arrow IVs than continuing down the "magic card" route.

UberStuka, on 15 May 2015 - 07:58 AM, said:

just wow that this thread has gone on for so long..... who the f cares if a arty/meta mech hits you L2P

If you're not going to read the ongoing discussion or even browse for salient points being made, why bother posting?

Allen Ward, on 15 May 2015 - 11:34 AM, said:

I have no issues with Arti in MWO. But actually every exploitation is annoying. I don't think that fielding 12 mechs with 2 arti srikes loaded (1 heavy, 1 light) and bombing the breath out of a group of mechs is a fun way to play, for either side. The same goes for dropping with12 twin ppc mad cats or similar "strategies". In a way, it is ok, as everyone would choose the most efficient and effective way in war, but in a game the first goal is not to win, it is to have fun while winning and by trying to win.

The air strikes could be implemented better. They could be way more expensive, there could be weaker strikes where you have to keep TAG on target for to hit, large scattering hits to a called grid (like cluster bombs), and slow but very heavy hitting strikes. I am sure there are more ideas that could make artillery a more tactical and interesting component of the game without much effort.

Or there could be a delay for every team after using artillery, so that only so and so many strikes could be used in certain time frame (aerospace fighters need time for a second strafe, cannons need to reload/recharge, whatever). The idea is to prevent that all 12 people drop arti strikes on their enemy at the very same spot simultaneously.

It's always frustrating to be the target of such lame ass tactics, but it's actually not player's fault, but game designer's fault.

I really think it's just easier, simpler, more effective - better in every way really - to go for the Long Tom & Arrow IV along with hard-wired coolant flush (like we had in MW4), and get rid of consumables altogether.

Sarlic, on 15 May 2015 - 11:36 AM, said:

It shouldnt be in the game in the first place.
Problem is that anyonecan use it..

Almost...the problem is that there's no trade-offs.

Even if not everybody could use it, that would turn either into a more blatant "paytowin" scenario, or a button-grabbing contest that would just upset more people - and whatever the implementation would be, the immediate complaint would be that not everybody has the opportunity to use it.

Long Toms & Arrow IVs deal with that whole problem in a manner that's fair and understandable for everybody, because everybody understands tonnage & crit restrictions (at least once they start immersing themselves in MWO).

[Uncle Totty]

Grisbane, on 15 May 2015 - 04:06 AM, said:

no map awareness? only in low elo games. for those of us who don't suck, map awareness sets up proper positioning, which is the basis of good play. not to mention in EVERY MMO i have played (and i have played a lot) the biggest destroyer of games when the dev implements indirect fire. if lrms were direct fire, i would love to see flight speed increased to actual missile speeds, hell, i wouldn't mind a damage buff.. because I CAN SHOOT BACK.

lets say you are right, lrm boats take more skill to use effectively.. and even then they are less effective than a direct fire mech. so you freely admit that you willingly and purposefully detriment your team by denying them a mech that is actually viable. that is by definition griefing and is a violation of the ToS. by your own admission you should be banned every time you play a LRM boat.

LRMs need UAVs and/or spotters to work. (THINGS YOU CAN SHOOT.)

[Uncle Totty]

IraqiWalker, on 15 May 2015 - 04:20 AM, said:

Wow, the levels of I don't even know what to call it you dove into are stunning.

So by your idiotic logic, anyone that isn't bringing a meta build should be reported for griefing!?

Just think about the words you typed.

I'm not going to bother with addressing the rest of .... whatever this is, since you either missed the point, or I really don't care anymore.

Wow, the level of wrong...

I am a "griefer"!

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...cd991daa6d96939

[Chocowolf Sradac]

Nathan K, on 15 May 2015 - 02:52 PM, said:

LRMs need UAVs and/or spotters to work. (THINGS YOU CAN SHOOT.)

Lrms are horribly inefficient as they recquire either the player with missles or someone on the team to get out a UAV or direct line of sight on the enemy leaving him open to get gunned down. They are good to shoot down the generator door and to provide a little bit of indirrect fire on targets of opportunity but against the current laser meta Direct fire will win %90 of the time mostly because of the damage spread between lrms and lasers

[Richard Hazen]

Not played CW much but I'm noticing this same meta is happening in random games now, repeated arty/air strikes are a total joke, defeats the point of the game.

[Stealth Fox]

Deimos Alpha, on 16 May 2015 - 07:00 AM, said:

Not played CW much but I'm noticing this same meta is happening in random games now, repeated arty/air strikes are a total joke, defeats the point of the game.

Behold this video holds the answer.

http://www.tubechop.com/watch/5964073

Edited by Seph MacLeod, 16 May 2015 - 08:01 AM.

[Uncle Totty]

Seph MacLeod, on 16 May 2015 - 07:54 AM, said:

Behold this video holds the answer.

http://www.tubechop.com/watch/5964073

I REALLY want to go back to bumping that one post now.

[Telmasa]

Seph MacLeod, on 16 May 2015 - 07:54 AM, said:

Behold this video holds the answer.
http://www.tubechop.com/watch/5964073

Another great movie!

...but that whole option of "move faster" isn't possible in this game. Either you already do move fast (light mechs or ones with huge XL engines), or you don't (pretty much everything else).

Not to mention there's 12 enemy mechs who will rip your face off if you do move faster & it happens to be in front of them. (which is generally where the fight - and where all the strikes - end up, you know)

And all this is assuming you can instantly & reliably see an incoming strike each and every single time, no matter if the smoke is above/behind you or not visible because you're busy being occupied by aforementioned enemy mechs...which, as I think I've made abundantly clear, I have extreme doubts about (which are vindicated every time I play the game or watch someone playing).

Edited by Telmasa, 16 May 2015 - 05:58 PM.

[_Comrade_]

Quote

Not sure if any of you played BF2142 or other games like that that had commanders... But I for one loved that conecpt.
For those that don't know how that works, someone in game would take commander (could be changed to be a voting system) at the start of the game. They would still be in the match, but would have additional abilities that are activated on the map.
For instance, they could throw down a UAV, or a Arty strike. They could drop supplies, give orders and move people around the squads. They also had the ability to talk to each seperate squad.
The UAV, Arty and supplies were balanced because each had a cooldown period of something like 30s and a short delay to activation. In addition each ability had a in game building associated with it for each team. Destroy the building and the ability is gone until it is repaired.

This sort of system would bring some much needed tactics and strategy into the game (assuming the commander abilities are powerful enough and consumables are removed or reworked).

I love the BF series, I remember playing BF2 and getting to be commander for the first time. I wasn't even a officer , I had just made master sergeant and was lucky enough to be commander as an NCO. Because commander always went to the highest rank who requested it, so as commander I really sucked and didn't drop crates and supply in the right place and naturally my team suffered that kind of trump card could work well in CW and place more emphasis on commanders

[Telmasa]

Grimwill, on 16 May 2015 - 06:59 PM, said:

I love the BF series, I remember playing BF2 and getting to be commander for the first time. I wasn't even a officer , I had just made master sergeant and was lucky enough to be commander as an NCO. Because commander always went to the highest rank who requested it, so as commander I really sucked and didn't drop crates and supply in the right place and naturally my team suffered that kind of trump card could work well in CW and place more emphasis on commanders

I get warning lights going off in my head every time someone starts saying they want MW:O to be another game.

Keep the "commander" thing to Battlefield. Let's focus on making Mechwarrior, a Mechwarrior game, 'cause while that would probably reduce "strike meta", it would also frustrate more people than it would appease and create all kinds of strife over fighting for the commander button...and the "magic card" problem, in a game where literally everything else aside from consumables (and modules) has a trade-off. (Even modules, at least, are extremely expensive and have comparatively less effect - they're like player-chosen quirks with a hard cap of 12%, honestly).

Not to mention, we do not have anything in the way of "player rank" - progress within a CW faction doesn't really equate to Battlefield's individual player-progress rank thing. And in a PvP environment, I think it's better this way.

Could be real nice for a PvE campaign/single player mode though? Dunno.

Edited by Telmasa, 17 May 2015 - 08:45 AM.