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?
Even when Arty strike was god's thunder fist raining down on groups, People still clumped together.
AOE isn't going to push people apart much. It's just punishing players for play how the game is designed to be played. The underlying flaw with the game is that it favors strength in numbers rather than strength in tactics and planning. There's a huge thing missing called role warfare that's has about the same depth as a plate.
But that's not going to change until PGI implements more meaningful objectives to change the game from an arms race to objective based.
Edit:
Kiiyor speaks the truth as well..
I posted before reading the rest of the posts, so when I came across this post it felt good to see others on the same track.
Kiiyor, on 16 July 2015 - 03:30 PM, said:
It's the nature of the game.
With lower health games like COD and CS, you can sort of be a one man army. 1v1's can be over almost instantaneously. One burst from a decent weapon can take out two dudes, and that's before grenades come into the picture.
In MWO, any 1v1 situation is a far more drawn out affair, and even with large discrepancies in weight, the outcome is rarely a foregone conclusion. DireWolf vs FireStarter? Hmmm... YLW vs Warhawk? Still uncertain...
Until you add another player into the mix. Two mechs vs one mech will almost always run in favour of the more numerous, unless they're up against a particularly skilled player. Two mechs vs 3 mechs is the same. 6 mechs vs 3 mechs, the same.
It's all about safety in numbers. TTK is at that point where 1v1's are still sort of drawn out, but any sort of focus fire is almost immediately lethal. The only way to avoid focus fire is to either be in a target rich environment, or to be the ones focusing.
I see all sorts of forum topics and post match whine fests about the MM being screwed or whatever, but most fights usually boil down to numbers: who had more pointing at fewer first. If you roll in a deathball, you'll almost ALWAYS be guaranteed to have the upper edge in the initial firefight. If you remove 30 tonnes of armour from the enemy at the start of the match with the loss of 5 or 10 on your side, the match is probably over, and no-one has even died yet.
The only time I ever see splits working, is if the enemy encountered is particularly timid and can be held up by a small force, or the layout of the ground gives an absolute advantage to the split force. Otherwise, it's deathballs all the way.
How do you fix that? With our current game modes, I'm not sure you can. I think it's just a natural evolution of battle tactics. If you add AOE, it will simply enlarge the deathball by X%, or people will ignore the AOE damage entirely - because to apply AOE damage, i'm assuming you will still need LOS to your target, and if you can see a deathball, chances are the entire deathball can see you.
True objective based gameplay is the way to go. Removing the turrets on Assault was a godsend for this. People may hate that mode, but it's really the only way to get truly tactical battles - even moreso than conquest, which can still be won by deathballing. I've seen innumerable matches where split forces can win the day.
I think Assault needs to evolve. Perhaps multiple objectives on the one map. How about we bring back the turrets, but have to capture a point to power them up, and another to power the enemy turrets down? Or to capture another point to call in air support? Or to close the gates to a city you are defending? Or to call in a dropship?
As soon as you add objectives that are worth splitting your force for, you'll see more split force tactics.
Edited by MoonUnitBeta, 17 July 2015 - 07:09 AM.
5
