40 replies to this topic

[NocturnalBeast]

Khobai, on 16 April 2017 - 06:45 PM, said:

bonus.
That would also make very difficult to get the tanking bonus with an ISXL engine. Which makes sense to me since you shouldnt be rewarded for tanking if you have an ISXL engine.

No one in their right mind would put an XL on an IS "Tank".

[General Solo]

Ed Steele, on 16 April 2017 - 04:42 PM, said:

"Tanking" is forcing the enemy to focus on you so that your team can push, or get into better firing positions, or to escape.

If your getting focused, mistakes were made, by yourself, your team or both. I don't see the best players or teams tank.

When they move they move together and spread that damage across multiple mechs.

[Khobai]

Quote

When they move they move together and spread that damage across multiple mechs.

Yep there is no tanking really.

There is skillfully spreading damage over your mech with torso twisting though. Thats what should be rewarded.

Quote

No one in their right mind would put an XL on an IS "Tank".

obviously

but you seem to want to reward anyone for taking damage including mechs with XL engines even if they die.

Whereas I only want to reward mechs that skillfully survive taking more damage than what should normally kill them.

Edited by Khobai, 16 April 2017 - 09:06 PM.

[NocturnalBeast]

Khobai, on 16 April 2017 - 09:04 PM, said:

Yep there is no tanking really.

There is skillfully spreading damage over your mech with torso twisting though. Thats what should be rewarded.



obviously

but you seem to want to reward anyone for taking damage including mechs with XL engines even if they die.

Whereas I only want to reward mechs that skillfully survive taking more damage than what should normally kill them.

I would be ok with adding a stipulation that you only get the bonus if you survive the match.

[General Solo]

Reward damage recieved and survived so that mech with 12% health at the end of the game gets some cookies.
Could encourage more teamwork I think cause CBill's is great.

[Shifty McSwift]

Khobai, on 14 April 2017 - 11:41 PM, said:

So basically you wanna reward people for suiciding? thats not gonna work.

If a tanking bonus is added you should only be eligible for it if you survive the match.

That way you get rewarded for surviving as long as possible. Rather than getting rewarded for dying as quickly as possible.

Call it a survivor bonus. If you survive a match, you get bonus match score/cbills for surviving based on how much damage you suffered, divided by the tonnage of your mech, times whatever score multiplier.

Reward people for taking damage and living. Not for dying.

This is why my thread was better

I made the point of stipulating bonuses for good tanking behaviour, one example was like an inverted version of the hit and run bonus, to reward a player who takes damage, lives and gets to cover for a certain period. I am sure a few flags could be set for other ideas, like taking damage while closeby enemy mechs die giving a reward etc etc.

But more specifically, rewarding torso twisting by paying off players who expend a certain percentage of armor before dying, and using limbs effectively.

Most importantly I stressed this needs to be done in a non abuse-able way (or at least no more so abuseable than what we have). And in no way reward suiciding or dying stupidly or quickly in general.

[HammerMaster]

Ed Steele, on 16 April 2017 - 04:42 PM, said:

Exactly, you would be rewarded for "spreading" damage effectively and lasting as long as you can, which takes as much, or more skill than peeking and poking.



"Tanking" is forcing the enemy to focus on you so that your team can push, or get into better firing positions, or to escape.

.

Load up your favourite assault. Get on the field. Draw fire. Tell me how much "tanking" you accrue in seconds from an enemy Lance. I'll give you a hint: suicide ( 5 to 10 seconds). Your asking for an individual act that is not backed up by a MMORPG game mechanic. Nor should it. Not now. Not ever.

Edited by HammerMaster, 17 April 2017 - 07:18 AM.

[Shifty McSwift]

HammerMaster, on 17 April 2017 - 07:18 AM, said:

.

Load up your favourite assault. Get on the field. Draw fire. Tell me how much "tanking" you accrue in seconds from an enemy Lance. I'll give you a hint: suicide ( 5 to 10 seconds). Your asking for an individual act that is not backed up by a MMORPG game mechanic. Nor should it. Not now. Not ever.

Well alone yeah for sure, you will probably not even be able to get much damage off due to visual distortion too, but if you are with a lance of your own, and taking direct fire while your lance is firing, the "tanking" part comes in when the player getting railed makes that potential; 2 seconds - dead, period into anything more than that. Turning a CT core out in 2 seconds into a couple of body parts blown out and potential death in 10-15 seconds, you have technically succeeded in tanking in those moments, it doesn't matter what size class you are really.

That is all that is being inferred by the idea of "tanking" here, the act or ability of a player to ensure the opponent doesn't maximise their damage and take-down time.

[NocturnalBeast]

HammerMaster, on 17 April 2017 - 07:18 AM, said:

.

Load up your favourite assault. Get on the field. Draw fire. Tell me how much "tanking" you accrue in seconds from an enemy Lance. I'll give you a hint: suicide ( 5 to 10 seconds). Your asking for an individual act that is not backed up by a MMORPG game mechanic. Nor should it. Not now. Not ever.

I have done what you describe many times and yes, I either die in less than a minute, or I manage to walk away with a torso or two missing.

[HammerMaster]

Ed Steele, on 17 April 2017 - 01:53 PM, said:

I have done what you describe many times and yes, I either die in less than a minute, or I manage to walk away with a torso or two missing.

Don't get me wrong brother. I want assault to be more assault-y. It just doesn't pan out. And incentivizing will lead to abuse.

[NocturnalBeast]

HammerMaster, on 17 April 2017 - 02:55 PM, said:

Don't get me wrong brother. I want assault to be more assault-y. It just doesn't pan out. And incentivizing will lead to abuse.

Abuse is ever-present in the game, jumping in front of someone to steal a kill while getting shot in the back is already incentivized and the person who got "blocked" may even get an unavoidable, unintentional team-kill and be penalized for it while the "kill-stealer" gets rewarded.

[General Solo]

No kill steal in a team game

Imagine some football dude saying to the quarterback, "You stole my touchdown by passing it to THAT guy.

The correct terminology is "Kill Secured"

[Shifty McSwift]

OZHomerOZ, on 18 April 2017 - 01:48 AM, said:

No kill steal in a team game

Imagine some football dude saying to the quarterback, "You stole my touchdown by passing it to THAT guy.

The correct terminology is "Kill Secured"

Yeah but the guy making the touchdown doesn't get paid more per touchdown in each game, the team in this case isn't necessarily equally rewarded for takedowns that actually involve teamwork.

For example if kills actually provided no cash payout at all alone, but rather just rewarded all involved in the damage dealt by a percentage it would make a lot of sense.

Getting that last bit of damage and killing a mech is too rewarding in that sense, and ends up making people do silly things.

I totally agree with the idea there is no "kill stealing" in theory in a game setup like this, but 1 we track k/d ratios and use it to judge players and 2 we pay players for getting that very last hit. These ideals just work counter to the notion of it being a team effort.

[NocturnalBeast]

OZHomerOZ, on 18 April 2017 - 01:48 AM, said:

No kill steal in a team game

Imagine some football dude saying to the quarterback, "You stole my touchdown by passing it to THAT guy.

The correct terminology is "Kill Secured"

Crossing in front of an ally while that ally has shots en route to the target, just so you can "secure the kill" seems like kill stealing to me.

[Generic Internetter]

HammerMaster said:

Tanking in Battletech is a myth. This is not WOW. There are no buffs n heals. Therefore no tanking.

This is so, so true I cannot overstate it. This is indeed not WoW.

The only kind of tanking in MWO is Dodge tanking using LIGHT mechs to attract aggro and dodge the incoming firepower.

Tanking with an Assault mech by having a bigger armour number for the enemy to pummel through is a nonsense game mechanism, and I'm glad it isn't the case in MWO.

As an Assault player, I am sick of people expecting me to go in first like a meat shield for them to run in behind and lay waste to the enemy. It works beautifully, but that's not the purpose of an Assault mech.
Assault mechs are gunboats, slowly trundling through the battlefield, shaping the flow of the battle by providing a massive array of domineering firepower (For example: The Kodiak 3 with 4 Ultra AC's!)

Lights are dodge tanks. Assaults are glass cannons.

[NocturnalBeast]

Generic Internetter, on 18 April 2017 - 10:33 AM, said:

Lights are dodge tanks. Assaults are glass cannons.

This, unfortunately is one of the biggest problems with MWO. Lights are supposed to be scouts, spotters and strafers where Assaults are supposed to either be gun / missile boat turrets or Juggernauts that wade into battle and ASSAULT positions.

[HammerMaster]

Generic Internetter, on 18 April 2017 - 10:33 AM, said:

This is so, so true I cannot overstate it. This is indeed not WoW.

The only kind of tanking in MWO is Dodge tanking using LIGHT mechs to attract aggro and dodge the incoming firepower.

Tanking with an Assault mech by having a bigger armour number for the enemy to pummel through is a nonsense game mechanism, and I'm glad it isn't the case in MWO.

As an Assault player, I am sick of people expecting me to go in first like a meat shield for them to run in behind and lay waste to the enemy. It works beautifully, but that's not the purpose of an Assault mech.
Assault mechs are gunboats, slowly trundling through the battlefield, shaping the flow of the battle by providing a massive array of domineering firepower (For example: The Kodiak 3 with 4 Ultra AC's!)

Lights are dodge tanks. Assaults are glass cannons.

Gets it.

Ed Steele, on 18 April 2017 - 02:45 PM, said:

This, unfortunately is one of the biggest problems with MWO. Lights are supposed to be scouts, spotters and strafers where Assaults are supposed to either be gun / missile boat turrets or Juggernauts that wade into battle and ASSAULT positions.

Also gets it.

[Nightbird]

There should also be a back stab bonus... if you destroy a torso component from the rear you get credit for front armor remaining on that component. While this favors lights, all mechs can do it, and it better shows contribution when you're being a stealthy ninja.

[HammerMaster]

NlGHTBlRD, on 18 April 2017 - 05:04 PM, said:

There should also be a back stab bonus... if you destroy a torso component from the rear you get credit for front armor remaining on that component. While this favors lights, all mechs can do it, and it better shows contribution when you're being a stealthy ninja.

While I like this on a basic level, you are letting the genie out of the bottle of all the exploitable little payable things.
Eg. Didn't over heat and shut down during match 500xp 100 CB
Eg. Didn't ram friendly light mech and break it's legs 500xp 100CB


Things you're SPOSED to do?
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/B0B_ekSrsEk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

https://youtu.be/B0B_ekSrsEk

Edited by HammerMaster, 18 April 2017 - 05:17 PM.

[Nightbird]

If killing a mech with a tiny amount of rear damage is an exploitable little payable thing, then sure...

Edited by NlGHTBlRD, 18 April 2017 - 06:27 PM.