52 replies to this topic

[Evan20k]

So how do you encourage people to spread out in a game like MWO and not run around in a deathball?

I've noticed this game has a huge lack of AoE weaponry aside from the consumables and honestly I think that carefully balanced AoE could help against deathball squads. This would encourage lances to function independantly of each other compared to what we have now. Lots of players want LRMs retooled anyway; I think this is actually a decent oppertunity to do so and solve another one of the game's problems at the same time.

[CDLord HHGD]

Thunder LRMs

[ShadowWolf Kell]

cdlord, on 16 July 2015 - 01:08 PM, said:

Thunder LRMs

Swarm LRMs as well.

[LordKnightFandragon]

You encourage people to break up into smaller groups by making it viable. By lowering how much damage a single mech can output, so when you do break up into smaller groups you wont MELT upon first contact. So the deathball is not 100% absolutely needed to survive more then 2 seconds.

Secondly, add objectives that require you to break up the deathball.

[jlawsl]

Evan20k, on 16 July 2015 - 12:59 PM, said:

So how do you encourage people to spread out in a game like MWO and not run around in a deathball?

I've noticed this game has a huge lack of AoE weaponry aside from the consumables and honestly I think that carefully balanced AoE could help against deathball squads. This would encourage lances to function independantly of each other compared to what we have now. Lots of players want LRMs retooled anyway; I think this is actually a decent oppertunity to do so and solve another one of the game's problems at the same time.

Don't think more crap the likes of artillery strikes or artillery strike-like lrms are going to stop this trend. In fact, at most, people would just spread out 10 more meters. It doesn't stop people from just balling around, it just makes the ball a little bigger. In the big picture, the game needs objectives that are further apart.

It also may want to implement(as reluctantly as I may believe) more choke points on maps, but more options in direction. Usually we have about 3 options of movement on any map and at least one, if not two lead to certain loss. Therefore, everyone balls up. People tend to spread out in games if they can't get a shot, or they can just sit around ala-therma and get blasted in a doorway.

My third option would be larger open spaces. If there were more viable avenues of approach, or a firing line as opposed to a ball could be formed, there would be far more dynamic fighting. Right now, every map caters to terrain hugging play styles. Every map is made so that a whiny brawler can feel right at home. Ranged mechs, which split up combat and force cover in different areas are usually very vulnerable close up. They say "don't bring a gun to a knife fight", but it doesn't help when you are in a maze with narrow corridors or you start your fight 2 ft away from your opponent. The game has catered to the med laser crowd and the ridge humper crowd a little too much.

[Alistair Winter]

As I see it, there's only two ways to do it.

• In Conquest, spread the bases out further. I was blown away with how close the bases are to each other in the new River City map. Such a huge map, and the bases are all around the center. It made me really sad, because it means there will never be any point in fighting along the perimeters of that map. But more importantly, it means deathballing is more effective.
  
• In Skirmish, you have to do two things:
  1- Spread the deployment zones further from each other. It should take a long time to gather your forces in a deathball.
  2- Move the lances from opposing teams closer to each other. Red Alpha lance needs to be closer to Blue Alpha lance, etc. This increases the chances of early engagements, and makes it harder to just turn your back on the enemy and run towards your friendly lances.

I also agree with everyone who's saying that artillery and AoE weapons would help. But I don't think MWO will ever be a proper simulation of modern warfare, where airstrikes and artillery play a pivotal role. They're always just going to be a minor bonus to the gameplay.

And I do agree that lower TTK would prevent deathballing, but I don't want lower TTK. I want higher TTK.

[AlphaToaster]

In BF2 each team had a Comms Trailer and an Artillery battery which could be destroyed to remove the commanders ability to use those assets for a period until they re-spawned.

I can see adding an Airfield/Forward Vtol base and an Artillery Battery to maps. Your team can't use either unless you control them.

On Skirmish/Conquest I would suggest 1 of each (airfield/artillery base) that starts the match neutral in a static location on each map. Controlling these points doesn't grant tickets but allows that team to use that asset.

For Assault, I would suggest 1 of each asset per team, and when the game starts each team controls one of each. Then during the battle you can capture the enemy teams locations and deny them the ability to use them against you.

For Invasion, I would suggest 1 of each asset for the defending team Only and they start the game with control of them. Allow the attacking team free use since their support comes from drop ships.

For Counter Attack, I would say 1 of each for the defending team only, but they start the game neutral. The attackers get free use since their support is from drop ships, but make it so the defenders still have to capture and bring online their assets to mix it up.

What this is attempt to achieve is early game rushes of faster mechs going out and capturing/scouting these so their team can use consumables more freely. Or give a chance to deny the other team this. We would see broken up pockets of fighting, where the victor in these fights determines whose team gets to use air/arty.

I'm thinking this will give incentive to split up into tactical teams to cover all the assets. Paired with the new map refreshes so most of the maps are like the new River City, I think this would add some depth to the fights.

Edited by AlphaToaster, 16 July 2015 - 01:37 PM.

[Necromantion]

Evan20k, on 16 July 2015 - 12:59 PM, said:

So how do you encourage people to spread out in a game like MWO and not run around in a deathball?

I've noticed this game has a huge lack of AoE weaponry aside from the consumables and honestly I think that carefully balanced AoE could help against deathball squads. This would encourage lances to function independantly of each other compared to what we have now. Lots of players want LRMs retooled anyway; I think this is actually a decent oppertunity to do so and solve another one of the game's problems at the same time.

Deathball is really only effective against pugs when youre a group or lesser skilled/organized groups.

Play at higher elo or with more competitive teams vs eachother and notice that split pushes and other strats are a lot more effective

[Thunder Child]

Would love to see mech mounted Arrow IV or Longtoms, though it would encourage the "Skill-less" Indirect Fire game plays that so many of the "Skill" groups utterly despise. After all, it's so hard to point and click with Laser Vomit or Double Goose.

(I am not saying that leading a shot at 800m or landing consecutive strikes on a target component while under fire is not Skillful. Just that too many people claim that "this" is more "Skill" than "that". There is more than one type of Skill in this game, and being a twitchy little bugger is just part of it).

[DONTOR]

LONG TOM

[AlphaToaster]

Also if PGI adds in some method for drop commanders to use way points instead of just single markers, this would allow them to plot a course for everyone to follow, rather than just 1 rally point everyone heads toward. This would help since it would allow faster mechs to follow orders and scout ahead on the path without having to wait for the slower mechs to catch up.

If a drop commander is waiting for everyone to reach a rally point before assigning the next, you get a deathball.

There is a way around it by assigning scouts to a lance and what not, then telling just that lance to scout ahead, but that's some serious micro management. By plotting the course freely so everyone can see, it makes it more likely to be followed since if you give orders to one lance, only that lance can see it. If everyone can see the course, and everyone sees that the team is following, they are more likely to follow as well or at least glean more into what the commander is thinking with the maneuver.

[mailin]

If you spread out the cap points on conquest, it will simply encourage deathballing. Not the other way around. Lights won't want to spend the time travelling from one the other. Instead, they'll just stay with the team.

Edited by mailin, 16 July 2015 - 01:53 PM.

[CDLord HHGD]

Arrow IV

[GRiPSViGiL]

LordKnightFandragon, on 16 July 2015 - 01:09 PM, said:

Secondly, add objectives that require you to break up the deathball.

Conquest still gets played like TDM. PGI isn't smart enough to create anything to cause viable reasons to not deathball.

[Trev Firestorm]

Arrow IV, LongTom & Sniper Arty cannon please... Cluster munitions wherever applicable.

[Navid A1]

Alistair Winter, on 16 July 2015 - 01:29 PM, said:

As I see it, there's only two ways to do it.

• In Conquest, spread the bases out further. I was blown away with how close the bases are to each other in the new River City map. Such a huge map, and the bases are all around the center. It made me really sad, because it means there will never be any point in fighting along the perimeters of that map. But more importantly, it means deathballing is more effective.
  
• In Skirmish, you have to do two things:
  
  
  1- Spread the deployment zones further from each other. It should take a long time to gather your forces in a deathball.
  2- Move the lances from opposing teams closer to each other. Red Alpha lance needs to be closer to Blue Alpha lance, etc. This increases the chances of early engagements, and makes it harder to just turn your back on the enemy and run towards your friendly lances.

I also agree with everyone who's saying that artillery and AoE weapons would help. But I don't think MWO will ever be a proper simulation of modern warfare, where airstrikes and artillery play a pivotal role. They're always just going to be a minor bonus to the gameplay.

And I do agree that lower TTK would prevent deathballing, but I don't want lower TTK. I want higher TTK.

I agree with your first suggestion. River city has some beautiful outskirts. we should have some cap points outside of the city.

However, i completely disagree with you on spreading the drops zones in skirmish. The current MM system does not account for your weight class when it decides to drop you somewhere (take a look at alpine... or late river city). If the assault lance drops anywhere near the enemy fast movers, then its game over... light harassment + LRM rain from 800m away by other enemy lances. If assaults drop a million miles away from any vantage point.. its game over.

Edited by Navid A1, 16 July 2015 - 02:03 PM.

[Sadist Cain]

Heat penalties

You telling me that 4 assault mechs should be able to go hell for leather within 50m of each other and not get a lil warm?

[Felbombling]

You wanna see Death-ball tactics? Just wait until ECM drops to 60m radius. lol

[Alistair Winter]

Navid A1, on 16 July 2015 - 02:03 PM, said:

However, i completely disagree with you on spreading the drops zones in skirmish. The current MM system does not account for your weight class when it decides to drop you somewhere (take a look at alpine... or late river city). If the assault lance drops anywhere near the enemy fast movers, then its game over... light harassment + LRM rain from 800m away by other enemy lances. If assaults drop a million miles away from any vantage point.. its game over.

It depends on the map, but I don't think these things would happen either way.

If all 3 lances are spread out and in close proximity to enemy lances, then LRM rain from 800 meters away won't happen. If Blue Charlie lance has 2 LRM boats shooting at distant targets, then Red Charlie Lance will have 4 mechs attacking the remaining 2 mechs in Blue Charlie lance. That's not a good idea. And since MM ensures that both teams have an equal amount of lights and assaults, you would just ensure that light mechs spawn next to light mechs, assaults next to assaults.

In group queue, there's no guarantee of same number of lights and assaults, but you can at least weigh each lance. Right now, my understanding is that most groups in group queue drop really heavy, because the MM safety valves keep blowing up. So forcing more people to take light mechs in the group queue to avoid getting blitzed would only be a good thing, as I see it. But you can still weigh each lance, to make sure that each lance drops closest to an enemy lance of relatively similar weight.

In the case of 2 lances dropping next to the enemy, with 1 lance dropping further back, LRM boats will definitely have a bigger impact right away. But again, you would want MM to put the heaviest lance in the spawn point further from the enemy. I.e. the assault lance would always be furthest away from the enemy. This makes sense from a realistic point of view as well. Of course, you will see a lot of stomps in the solo queue if one side has lots of LRM boats and the other doesn't. But that's already a problem, and in my opinion it's because target locks are so easy to get. You don't actually have to put the reticule on the mech you're shooting, just anywhere inside the box. And it's almost impossible to lose target locks from a distance too. If PGI just fixed target locks, then low skill players wouldn't be able to destroy multiple mechs from 800 meters while eating doritos and drinking watching Family Guy.

Inevitably, whenever you try to fix any major issues in MWO, whether it's weapon boating, low TTK, mech imbalance or whatever else, there's rarely an easy fix. So yeah, you would need to do something about the current LRM situation before implementing my suggestion. But there's plenty of people who think PGI needs to look at LRMs and indirect fire anyway. Myself included.

[Andi Nagasia]

ive also brought up how to Tone down Death Balling,
many will always agree and many will always disagree,
many dont see a problem with Death Balling,

my solution is Map design,
the new River City seems to see less Death Balling,