93 replies to this topic

[Kristov Kerensky]

GrimJim, on 13 December 2011 - 11:05 AM, said:

I for one am looking forward to a really dense jungle map. I think people are hyped for the destructibility of urban terrain, but I'd love to see the craziness coming out destructible forests.

Flame on.

(As an aside, there should be a flat, no cover, plains/lunar map that lets everyone just go hog wild...CODs, unrestricted viewing for explosions, clear LOS, zero tactics... let those with the fastest finger rule the day.

It would be a nice XBox-ish way to blow off steam for those too impatient enough to deal with chains of command, scouting, subterfuge... and, well, team play).

Ah..yes..what was that quote from a Smoked Kitty personage of some renown amongst the stravags...something along the lines of..
"If your enemy hides in the forest, set it on fire"
Typical of the Smoke Jaguars, brute force as the proper response to any situation.

verybad, on 13 December 2011 - 12:56 PM, said:

I really would prefer if mechs were not this agile. They're supposed to be lumbering behemoths not Japanese style Mecha. I would be ok with sidestepping as a skill a pilot had to learn before it was available in a mech, and certainly not for straifing.

Mechwarrior is a different style of FPS, too much agility and you lose the style.

Actually, according the TT and the novels, Mechs ARE agile, but the amount of agility varies due to the pilot of the Mech and the condition of the Mech, not restricted by the size of the Mech except in a few cases, as some Mechs are just..well..ungainly as all hell. NONE of the MW titles to date have really shown this, sadly, but maybe PGI will do this with MWO. A very good Mech Warrior can make the Mech perform as fluidly and as fast as their own bodies, something that's very vividly and beautifully described in a few of the novels.

[Raeven]

'Mechs are agile, but they aren't MMA fighters either. A 'Mech might be able to make one sidestep in one direction. Such as out from cover then back into cover. You don't need a side step because you can do the same thing with torso twisting and reverse.

[Ra-ul]

TheMagicMan, on 13 December 2011 - 04:36 PM, said:

Yeah that would be awesome.

I could care less about CoD, it's like turn fighting (or even a rolling scissor) in a dog fight, and if your on a team then your teammates have to shoot through you. Plus as stated it can be reduced by good map design. What I hate is when you've got a heavy mech jump-sniping from across the map.

I also see it more a map design issue than anything else. Limiting battles mostly to cities is not the only solution IMO. Apart from the fact that most commanders would try to avoid city battles as much as possible for obvious reasons. The damage a single BattleMech can do to a city and it´s inhabitants could be devastating.

Now if technology allows realistic cities, I think it also allows for realistic and varied terrain features and other stuff that limits maneuvering a BattleMech enough to avoid circle strafing.

Edited by GraySho, 14 December 2011 - 05:05 AM.

[Mechteric]

Personally I think circle fighting is a result of it taking too long to take out an enemy mech 1-on-1. While using exact CBT values for armor and damage value leads to frustratingly fast deaths in a real time game, I think perhaps its been a bit overcompensated for in some of the Mechwarrior titles, especially Mechwarrior 4 which turned the medium laser into a joke.

Edited by capperdeluxe, 14 December 2011 - 08:11 AM.

[Kristov Kerensky]

Raeven, on 14 December 2011 - 02:48 AM, said:

'Mechs are agile, but they aren't MMA fighters either. A 'Mech might be able to make one sidestep in one direction. Such as out from cover then back into cover. You don't need a side step because you can do the same thing with torso twisting and reverse.

Actually, if the pilot is a martial artist and has spent enough time in a Mech, it will be as agile as an MMA fighter provided the chassis doens't work against it, again, this is covered in the TT and novels. Some Mechs are just not very agile, their designs preclude it, and they are usually pretty easy to spot..like the Annie Some are extremely agile with even a mediocre pilot at the controls, like the old Phoenix Hawk, but that's what you get with a Macross design None of the MW games have ever done justice to this part of how Mechs work, we can only hope that PGI does it. Chassis picks should be based on more then just how big it is, they should be based on how well it moves and how agile its as much as on how big it is..or isn't.

[Karn Evil]

If you get me in a 1-on-1 fight with a mech of equal or greater power, I will immediately begin circling it, with my targeting priority being, not the legs, not the back, but weapons. I will cripple the enemy's weapons, damage one of their legs so they can only limp, and then allow them to retreat to a point where taking them out is at least a moderate gunnery challenge.

If you get me in a 1-on-1 fight when I've got a significant range advantage (And a good reason not to close distance), and it's possible for me to hit them from long-range, then I will snipe them until they drop over dead.

If you get me in a proper battle, with competent team-mates, a clever enemy, and a good mix of weapons on both sides, I'll do whatever works, which usually means neither of those two tactics.

Circle-of-Death fighting isn't an issue the developers need to deal with, it's an issue the players need to deal with. If your enemy has you in a circle-of-death, it can only mean that your team-mates have abandoned you, and their team-mates are sitting back to watch your demise.

Edited by Karn Evil, 14 December 2011 - 05:35 PM.

[Roland of Gilead]

Technocide Rex, on 09 December 2011 - 10:28 AM, said:

The obvious solution to the tactical problem of combating COD isn't one of whether to "allow" or "ban" the method of attack. It is simply a matter of teamwork. Any modern military tank commander knows that he needs infantry and combat engineer assets nearby to defend against the likelihood of a small fast man-portable antitank weapons and mines. The same situation can be applied to small gunboats loaded with explosives that go up against larger surface ships. And yes, even in the air, heavily laden bombers such as the B-24s in WWII were beset by the smaller, faster **** fighters that would have been no match against the sheer amount of armament the bombers carried to defend themselves if not for their advantage of speed and maneuverability. The failure to protect heavy, powerful assets has been a tactical problem for centuries.

    The solution to the problem is practiced coordination and communication between heavy and light team members. Any team that feels they can win a battle of Atlases against light and medium mechs with supporting fire deserves the predictable losses they will suffer, especially against a well coordinated enemy. The battlefied graveyards are full of arrogant fools who felt that more/bigger is always better.

   You don't like the COD? Then defend against it. Protect the assault mechs with more agile chassis.

Two cents...

Agreed, in MW4(as with any team based mulitplayer game) there always seems to be the team that "dug in" and waited. They just sat and sniped or fired a whole pile of missles. In our group of 8 team mates advancing on their position, there where always 2 small fast mechs that would advance for a little distraction and harassment (in some cases the circle of death). This would give the rest of the team time to advance on the enemy. You see this in real life military operations and is an accepted tactic.  There have been those here who say that a new player will do this or this will be done as a last resort. I disagree, from what I have seen (and done) usually something big gets chosen when a player first starts out and they attempt to sit and snipe, with no regards to using terrain or teamwork. As their understanding of how the team works and seeing how others use terrain, they learn. Sitting and sniping is really quite boring, nothing like taking an uziel and smacking the hell out of larger mech...without legging.

Edited by Roland of Gilead, 14 December 2011 - 08:51 PM.

[Yeach]

I'm just bumping this thread because I would like to have circle-fighting in MWO.
Because without circle of death fighting the game would not feel like Mechwarrior IMO.

[Orzorn]

Karn Evil, on 14 December 2011 - 05:35 PM, said:

Circle-of-Death fighting isn't an issue the developers need to deal with, it's an issue the players need to deal with. If your enemy has you in a circle-of-death, it can only mean that your team-mates have abandoned you, and their team-mates are sitting back to watch your demise.

Well put. The Circle of Death is a direct result of players not playing as a team and instead splitting off into one versus one fights to duel. If both sides stuck with their team and played as a team, the Circle of Death would go away unless it was a true one versus one situation.

Indeed, it is like that in Mechwarrior Living Legends. Due to the rather heavy team based nature of the game, you dont' see Circles of Death happening often, because its a really great way to get into a stupid position after you circle them and realize you're standing between the enemy mech and his entire team. Hammer and anvil ready to drop on your stupid head. In addition, the landscapes of that game are much more varied than past Mechwarrior games. You can't circle very often because the layout of the land doesn't support that sort of play. Its better to dart quickly between hills while taking shots at your opponents.

[icepick37]

Circle fighting will be in whether they want it or not. Hopefully teamwork will prevent too much of it, though.

[Brakkyn]

Circle fighting is a plague that gestates in the bowels of poor game design, boring maps, and too much opportunity. People are spolied by MechWarrior 4's unfortunately rampant style of combat. I could argue that spinning in a circle doesn't require skill either, and it barely clings to the idea of a "tactic". Sniping is fine--but not when everyone is doing it.

[Sug]

Never understood circle fighting. Sure maybe against the AI cause it loses track of you but I've never had any trouble keeping my crosshairs on someone that's circling me.

[LionOne]

There is only one reason why players use this tactic. That reason is that it works.

Some really good observations have been offered as to why it works, but I think it basically boils down to the availability of torso twisting. If you introduced torso twisting into battlefield, call of duty, or counterstrike, you would see circle strafing in those games, too.

Making urban maps isn't going to fix this - in fact, I think it is going to backfire. The more 'mechs that run into each other, 1 on 1, at close range the more of these dogfights you are going to see.

Some things that could resolve the issue:

No torso twisting (I know no one will think this is a good idea, but it would keep people from circle strafing, and I think it is really the only guaranteed way to prevent it)

Torso twisting with "sway" - similar to the sight movement you get in other popular FPS' - the further you deflect your torso from the centerline the more your accuracy degrades. This gives a non-torso twisting player an advantage.

Quicker kills. If you can take down an opponent in 1 or 2 shots there is less time for the "death spiral" to develop.

Better ranged weapons. If you kill the guy before he can get in close circling is less likely to occur. A BT hex is supposed to be 30mx30m. This means that a machine gun with a range of 3 hexes can shoot 90m. The maximum effective range of an M16A3 rifle against a point target is 500m. Against an area target it's 800m. Apparently, an M16 shoots further than an ER PPC... (Those are table top stats, but that is one thing that has always bothered me about the game. They based hex sizes on 'mech moving 40-60kph and then made the weapons fit the maps)

Edited by LionOne, 09 February 2012 - 10:06 PM.

[Sug]

LionOne, on 09 February 2012 - 10:03 PM, said:

If you introduced torso twisting into battlefield, call of duty, or counterstrike, you would see circle strafing in those games, too.

Pretty sure people have been circle strafing in fps since like Quake. No need to torso twist.

[Yeach]

LionOne, on 09 February 2012 - 10:03 PM, said:

There is only one reason why players use this tactic. That reason is that it works.

Some really good observations have been offered as to why it works, but I think it basically boils down to the availability of torso twisting. If you introduced torso twisting into battlefield, call of duty, or counterstrike, you would see circle strafing in those games, too.

Making urban maps isn't going to fix this - in fact, I think it is going to backfire. The more 'mechs that run into each other, 1 on 1, at close range the more of these dogfights you are going to see.

Some things that could resolve the issue:

No torso twisting (I know no one will think this is a good idea, but it would keep people from circle strafing, and I think it is really the only guaranteed way to prevent it)

Torso twisting with "sway" - similar to the sight movement you get in other popular FPS' - the further you deflect your torso from the centerline the more your accuracy degrades. This gives a non-torso twisting player an advantage.

Quicker kills. If you can take down an opponent in 1 or 2 shots there is less time for the "death spiral" to develop.

Better ranged weapons. If you kill the guy before he can get in close circling is less likely to occur. A BT hex is supposed to be 30mx30m. This means that a machine gun with a range of 3 hexes can shoot 90m. The maximum effective range of an M16A3 rifle against a point target is 500m. Against an area target it's 800m. Apparently, an M16 shoots further than an ER PPC... (Those are table top stats, but that is one thing that has always bothered me about the game. They based hex sizes on 'mech moving 40-60kph and then made the weapons fit the maps)

I agree, increasing the range will actually reduce the need for circle-fighting (as opposed to closing the range)
and if not circle fighting... it will be the next best thing side-stepping.

I never understand why Mech (as mentioned in some novels) just stand there attacking each other like turrets.
If you aren't circle fighting then what are you doing? Running back and forth? Zig-zagging?

[Cyote13]

Orzorn, on 09 February 2012 - 08:09 PM, said:

Well put. The Circle of Death is a direct result of players not playing as a team and instead splitting off into one versus one fights to duel. If both sides stuck with their team and played as a team, the Circle of Death would go away unless it was a true one versus one situation.

Due to the rather heavy team based nature of the game, you dont' see Circles of Death happening often, because its a really great way to get into a stupid position after you circle them and realize you're standing between the enemy mech and his entire team. Hammer and anvil ready to drop on your stupid head.

Well said, I will watch your flank any day Orzorn

[Omigir]

The simple fact of circle of death is this and simply this: when you have allot of speed, it makes no sens to charge directly at an opponent. Even if you 'snake' in at them, once you are at range, why would you get further away? Where would you go? Show him your back and get range again? for what? Would I slow down and stand right in front of him and let him shoot him? Those of you who are against circle strafing, devs included, need to consider what other options a light mech brawler has. The short answer there inst any. If his weapons are close range weapons, he has to be right there up the rump of the other mech and he cant slow down, so his best bet is get behind the other mech and if he can, stay there. The other pilot is of course going to throw it in reverse and try and get that light back into his cross hairs and thus the circle **** starts.

COD is not to be annoying, its not because the offending pilots are bad, its born out of the simple tactical rule of lights, get in range, stay out of the way of the big guns, and keep speed.

If you throw a light mech in a narrow corridor where it cant out maneuver a larger mech, of course its going to get waisted. Half of what makes a light mech so lethal is its maneuverability. Thats like pitting a Ferrari up against a hummer, with no room to move and get speed, its going to just get driven over.

Of dev's build city maps like they are saying they are going to to 'cut down COD' then the large mechs are going to be the only ones in combat and light mechs wont be able to come out of the 'scout' rolls. Light brawlers will not be possible. hell, a medium scout would probably be more appealing at that rate.

[Revya21]

WardNine, on 09 December 2011 - 10:18 AM, said:

There should be HUGE accuracy penalties while moving (not token ones like some First person shooters) (this includes rotating the torso, but not the the extreme of an accuracy penalty while moving.

Also, for things like missile locks, of you are the one with the missiles and are trying to lock onto a target, the lock should take exponentially longer to obtain if you are moving. Jump jets, walking, torso twisting all should have a varying effect to the length of a lock on, or how soon the accuracy recital settles in.

I Don't see why this is necessary, it's common knowledge that mechs have electronics and other such tings to improve there stability, i would be pretty dumb not to have them on at least the arms too. Therefor a loss in accuracy from movement should come only from a lack of skill from the pilot, same for missile lock.

[FETTY WAP]

I personally try to stay away from circle fighting. I'll walk backwards, away from the enemy mech, and fire. I generally use PPCs or missiles to nudge the enemy mech so it loses accuracy.

[Tifalia]

As I see it, there's no point (or even a challenge) to stand your ground and slug it out with wichever 'mech you are facing, because that just leads to a severely damaged 'mech if you are lucky enough to survive the fight and will end up costing a lot of C-Bills to repair or even a new 'mech if you lose the fight.
Circling and attacking is a far better course of action in combat, because you lower your enemy's ability to hit you, when you can use the terrain to your advantage. It might be a slow battle but if you are smart and patient enough to use speed, tactics and te environment around you, you can pretty much decimate an enemy Lance or Company with your own Units without having to pay for costly repairs to your 'mech o even beig frced to eject and waste your hard-won C-Bills on buying a new 'mech.

If customisation is also included thistime around (obviously not like the previous customisations of the other games) you can get the drop on your enemy becaue most people do not expect certain 'mechs to be customised completely different than how they usually think of a 'mech's weapons systems.