120 replies to this topic

[Bishop Steiner]

TheArisen, on 25 December 2015 - 03:16 PM, said:

More than a few people talk about TTK being too low. Instead of nerfs, etc. I think it'd be worth introducing defensive technology. Obviously, some of these would need to be modified to be implemented in MWO but they'd make things more interesting.

I know these aren't all in timeline but for the sake of gameplay, Pgi should move up/bend the timeline.

1. Armored Components, extra internal on a single weapon/equipment http://www.sarna.net...ored_Components

2. Modular Armor, extra armor on an individual section. http://www.sarna.net...i/Modular_Armor

3. Reflective Armor, anti energy weapon armor. http://www.sarna.net...eflective_Armor

4. Reactive Armor, anti ballistic weapon armor. http://www.sarna.net.../Reactive_Armor

5. Hardened Armor, extra heavy armor, restricts movement. http://www.sarna.net.../Hardened_Armor

6. Heavy Ferro, heavier ferro.
http://www.sarna.net...o-Fibrous_Armor

7. Light Ferro, lighter ferro (IS attempt to recreate clan FF). http://www.sarna.net...o-Fibrous_Armor

8. Blue Shield Dampener, anti ppc shield, could be an anti energy shield you can activate for a limited time.
http://www.sarna.net...le_Field_Damper

9. Laser AMS, it's ams but with lasers. No ammo needs but increases heat. http://www.sarna.net...-Missile_System

My questions for everyone are, how much of an effect would adding defensive tech. have? And how should these technologies be implemented in MWO?

I don't like number 8....my PPCs already suck ATM, lol.

[Jman5]

What would be interesting would be replacing the AMS slot with a customizable Defensive slot. You could slot in the classic Anti Missile Shield to reduce missile damage. Alternatively, you could add an Anti-Ballistic shield or Anti Energy Shield. Basically you give people a choice for what sort of threat they want to be stronger against. This meta-proofs it against any future changes in thinking.

They could provide a 15-25% damage reduction. I would keep the look of the AMS attack animation because I think it's really cool, but I would make it visual and personal only. The other two should also have some sort of visual element that lets the attacker know, what weapon type you're strong against.

Mechs with multiple AMS or defensive slots like the Kitfox and Nova could also fit a different defensive weapon type in. To make it more balanced, you might make adding two or even all 3 to your mech less effective. (e.g: 25% vs energy, 15% vs ballistic, 10% vs missile).

Of course if you really don't want to deal with that, you could always just make it an upgrade purchase like Endo or Ferro.

Edited by Jman5, 26 December 2015 - 09:01 AM.

[Zoid]

After seeing the results of the structure buffs I think that those are more the way to go. You want there to be some result from beating on a 'mech, you just don't want it to instantly die. Yes, you lose your weapons just as fast but that's a GOOD thing. I'd love to start seeing games where the last 2 'mechs standing are just trying to spit each other to death with a single medium laser instead of everyone instantly vaporizing after poking over a hill.

[Rebas Kradd]

TTK isn't going away until 12v12 is reduced or the maps enlarged. The OP's suggestions are rather worrying from a design perspective.

[Kjudoon]

TheArisen, on 25 December 2015 - 03:16 PM, said:

More than a few people talk about TTK being too low. Instead of nerfs, etc. I think it'd be worth introducing defensive technology. Obviously, some of these would need to be modified to be implemented in MWO but they'd make things more interesting.

I know these aren't all in timeline but for the sake of gameplay, Pgi should move up/bend the timeline.

1. Armored Components, extra internal on a single weapon/equipment http://www.sarna.net...ored_Components

2. Modular Armor, extra armor on an individual section. http://www.sarna.net...i/Modular_Armor

3. Reflective Armor, anti energy weapon armor. http://www.sarna.net...eflective_Armor

4. Reactive Armor, anti ballistic weapon armor. http://www.sarna.net.../Reactive_Armor

5. Hardened Armor, extra heavy armor, restricts movement. http://www.sarna.net.../Hardened_Armor

6. Heavy Ferro, heavier ferro.
http://www.sarna.net...o-Fibrous_Armor

7. Light Ferro, lighter ferro (IS attempt to recreate clan FF). http://www.sarna.net...o-Fibrous_Armor

8. Blue Shield Dampener, anti ppc shield, could be an anti energy shield you can activate for a limited time.
http://www.sarna.net...le_Field_Damper

9. Laser AMS, it's ams but with lasers. No ammo needs but increases heat. http://www.sarna.net...-Missile_System

My questions for everyone are, how much of an effect would adding defensive tech. have? And how should these technologies be implemented in MWO?

How about not creating band-aid solutions to increase TTK while ignoring the root problem: Convergence.

We didnt' have perfect convergence in the game before this, now let's end the farce. Let's fix that by adding Cone of Fire to all direct fire weapons and this fixes multiple problems instantly.

I don't believe it's an engineering issue anymore. I beleive it's a laziness/whiner issue on the part of PGI and conflicted interest by tryhards profiteering from easy mode.

Edited by Kjudoon, 26 December 2015 - 11:23 AM.

[Jman5]

Rebas Kradd, on 26 December 2015 - 11:13 AM, said:

TTK isn't going away until 12v12 is reduced or the maps enlarged. The OP's suggestions are rather worrying from a design perspective.

I don't see how making maps bigger will help with TTK. All it has ever done is increase the time it takes before the fighting begins. People still ball up and head to the usual place so they can get straight to the fighting. Adding Objectives doesn't seem to help either. One or both teams generally ignore them.

[Kjudoon]

Jman5, on 26 December 2015 - 11:26 AM, said:

I don't see how making maps bigger will help with TTK. All it has ever done is increase the time it takes before the fighting begins. People still ball up and head to the usual place so they can get straight to the fighting. Adding Objectives doesn't seem to help either. One or both teams generally ignore them.

I agree, TTK won't change with larger maps. QQ will although it will make the game much better. Convergence is the problem of TTK. Always has been, always will be. Proof? Which would you rather be hit with?

2 AC20s?
2. LB20xs?
2 CAC20s?
2 CLB20x?
2 LRM20s?
2 CLRM20s?

Dollars to donuts says that the worst are the 2 AC20s while the least is the 2CLRM20s. Why? Convergence as mitigated by spread... a function already in game.

[TheArisen]

Kjudoon, on 26 December 2015 - 11:16 AM, said:

How about not creating band-aid solutions to increase TTK while ignoring the root problem: Convergence.

We didnt' have perfect convergence in the game before this, now let's end the farce. Let's fix that by adding Cone of Fire to all direct fire weapons and this fixes multiple problems instantly.

I don't believe it's an engineering issue anymore. I beleive it's a laziness/whiner issue on the part of PGI and conflicted interest by tryhards profiteering from easy mode.

Adding defensive tech. makes way more sense than "My super advanced war bot can't shoot straight".

It also gives us more options in the mechlab. Currently it's just "stuff as many weapons as possible on ur mech".

[Kjudoon]

TheArisen, on 26 December 2015 - 03:40 PM, said:

Adding defensive tech. makes way more sense than "My super advanced war bot can't shoot straight".

It also gives us more options in the mechlab. Currently it's just "stuff as many weapons as possible on ur mech".

It made perfect sense for the game, and the novels which make up lore. Makes perfect sense here. They had it before Host State Rewind too.

Edited by Kjudoon, 26 December 2015 - 03:45 PM.

[Weeny Machine]

Reflrective armour would finally kill the light mech class.

I also see no reason why you want to complicate things. The culprits are: instant convergence & huge alphas

Heck, already a proper heatscale which makes firing huge alphas a gamble or tradeoff (like in the original BT heatscale) would help to curb those builds.

[YueFei]

Jman5, on 26 December 2015 - 11:26 AM, said:

I don't see how making maps bigger will help with TTK. All it has ever done is increase the time it takes before the fighting begins. People still ball up and head to the usual place so they can get straight to the fighting. Adding Objectives doesn't seem to help either. One or both teams generally ignore them.

They could make objectives worthwhile, as in, actually affect the battle itself.

If air strikes didn't materialize out of the aether, but were launched from an airbase, those airbases would be worth attacking/defending. Likewise with artillery coming from actual artillery pieces rather than materializing from the sky. Possibly include ammo depots, repair bays, comm towers (which disrupt data-sharing between teammates if destroyed), etc. Maybe have the ability to call for a field base to move up to tend to damaged mechs, which could be intercepted and destroyed by the enemy team.

A team that deathballed its way across the map would be attrited to death by air/arty, be cut off from data-sharing with each other, and have its own access to air/arty destroyed.

At the same time, a team couldn't simply sit on defense, either, and let the enemy march down without pressing them. If you did that, the enemy would call strikes and artillery on your base if your team sat around hiding passively, and eventually you won't have a base anymore.

The key factor that would prevent such a game from stretching into infinity is that, even though the mechs themselves can be repaired and re-armed, the bases can't be, and are eventually destroyed. You'd have to strike a balance between preserving your own mechs and being aggressive at destroying the enemy's bases.

It could be a whole new game mode or something. All this is back-of-the-napkin thoughts, it could be fully fleshed out by people who are supposed to be paid to do this kind of thing.

Edited by YueFei, 26 December 2015 - 04:13 PM.

[Weeny Machine]

Kjudoon, on 26 December 2015 - 11:29 AM, said:

I agree, TTK won't change with larger maps. QQ will although it will make the game much better. Convergence is the problem of TTK. Always has been, always will be. Proof? Which would you rather be hit with?

2 AC20s?
2. LB20xs?
2 CAC20s?
2 CLB20x?
2 LRM20s?
2 CLRM20s?

Dollars to donuts says that the worst are the 2 AC20s while the least is the 2CLRM20s. Why? Convergence as mitigated by spread... a function already in game.

The AC/20s. Why? Because chances are good that only 1 hit registers

[Lyoto Machida]

YueFei, on 26 December 2015 - 04:12 PM, said:

They could make objectives worthwhile, as in, actually affect the battle itself.

If air strikes didn't materialize out of the aether, but were launched from an airbase, those airbases would be worth attacking/defending. Likewise with artillery coming from actual artillery pieces rather than materializing from the sky. Possibly include ammo depots, repair bays, comm towers (which disrupt data-sharing between teammates if destroyed), etc. Maybe have the ability to call for a field base to move up to tend to damaged mechs, which could be intercepted and destroyed by the enemy team.

A team that deathballed its way across the map would be attrited to death by air/arty, be cut off from data-sharing with each other, and have its own access to air/arty destroyed.

At the same time, a team couldn't simply sit on defense, either, and let the enemy march down without pressing them. If you did that, the enemy would call strikes and artillery on your base if your team sat around hiding passively, and eventually you won't have a base anymore.

The key factor that would prevent such a game from stretching into infinity is that, even though the mechs themselves can be repaired and re-armed, the bases can't be, and are eventually destroyed. You'd have to strike a balance between preserving your own mechs and being aggressive at destroying the enemy's bases.

It could be a whole new game mode or something. All this is back-of-the-napkin thoughts, it could be fully fleshed out by people who are supposed to be paid to do this kind of thing.

Back of the napkin thoughts...sounds like a certain, familiar design philosophy.

[Kjudoon]

Bush hopper if true why dont we see more lrm 20s in competitive level play as compared to af20s?

[Kjudoon]

Bush hopper if true why dont we see more lrm 20s in competitive and higher tier meta level play as compared to ac20s?

[TheArisen]

What if we got both defensive tech & CoF? I don't think they're mutually exclusive.

As for all the individual pieces of tech, I think it's obvious they'd have to modify a few so that they have a point or aren't OP. Tbh, it'd be easy to pick the best 2 or 3 so that things don't get overly complex. I like Jman's idea of replacing the ams slot with a general defense slot.

[Captain Stiffy]

I feel like different armor types would either be cosmetically challenging and/or lead to an even more difficult enemy-assessment environment than already exists.

[Anjian]

Captain Stiffy, on 26 December 2015 - 07:16 PM, said:

I feel like different armor types would either be cosmetically challenging and/or lead to an even more difficult enemy-assessment environment than already exists.

Why? Its not like that some of these have not already been implemented in a game before --- the Mechwarrior 4 series.

[Captain Stiffy]

Anjian, on 26 December 2015 - 07:20 PM, said:

Why? Its not like that some of these have not already been implemented in a game before --- the Mechwarrior 4 series.

I think that the information you need to make tactical choices should be available to you in a digestible form. Always doubting if you should stand or flee because you haven't thought about their resists yet is not a game environment I think I would enjoy. If it changed the game cosmetically enough to be readily apparent I don't think that is a compromise the devs would make. I think we are likely to see this in some form or other eventually but I really don't see this happening in the near future.

[Narcissistic Martyr]

Kjudoon, on 26 December 2015 - 11:16 AM, said:

How about not creating band-aid solutions to increase TTK while ignoring the root problem: Convergence.

We didnt' have perfect convergence in the game before this, now let's end the farce. Let's fix that by adding Cone of Fire to all direct fire weapons and this fixes multiple problems instantly.

I don't believe it's an engineering issue anymore. I beleive it's a laziness/whiner issue on the part of PGI and conflicted interest by tryhards profiteering from easy mode.

HSR and the server side authenticated hit reg can't handle CoF according to PGI.