18 replies to this topic

[Dead Tom Kerensky]

I have an idea on how to lower the kill factor of strikes but allow them to retain their effect. I believe the main point of the strike is to punish or prevent camping and clumping. Currently they deal a very large amount of damage sometimes to the point of critting a weapon through the back armor.

What if the strike did significantly less damage but also left a temporary environmental effect that increases heat. Similar to the lava on Terra Therma. I think this accomplishes the goal of the strikes design while limiting how devastating they can be with some good RNG rolls.

Edited by Dead Tom Kerensky, 11 August 2017 - 05:52 PM.

[N0ni]

Not only to punish clumping, but also to play mind games in order to take control over the field. Someone lays down a strike, what do people usually do? Back up/side step to avoid it allowing the team who laid down the strike to strategically place themselves in a better position for map control. You have good map control, your team wins.

Now let us say we reduce the damage of strikes and add the heat effect, what will happen is they will eat the pillow damage/heat and trade so that your team does not get a free advance into a better spot. Your team's chance at winning will get reduced.

I say leave it as is, avoid it if you don't want to take damage or eat it like a boss as you wallop them in return.

[Mystere]

Did someone just ask for incendiary shells as a new consumable?

[Bombast]

Inferno Artillery you say?

[Davegt27]

OP your speculating

they wont change strikes because its obvious its a money maker for PGI

[AncientRaig]

N0ni, on 11 August 2017 - 06:06 PM, said:

Not only to punish clumping, but also to play mind games in order to take control over the field. Someone lays down a strike, what do people usually do? Back up/side step to avoid it allowing the team who laid down the strike to strategically place themselves in a better position for map control. You have good map control, your team wins.

Now let us say we reduce the damage of strikes and add the heat effect, what will happen is they will eat the pillow damage/heat and trade so that your team does not get a free advance into a better spot. Your team's chance at winning will get reduced.

I say leave it as is, avoid it if you don't want to take damage or eat it like a boss as you wallop them in return.

As it is, strikes deal too much damage at too little risk to the user, with too little warning for the target. Pop down a strike behind someone where they can't see the smoke, and watch as you get 3-400 damage easy and ruin the game of 3-4 mechs at least. Direct fire weapons can't match the damage potential of a strike, and generally if you can shoot somebody they can see you and try to take steps to avoid being hit by you. LRMs, the only actual weapon we have that are similar to strikes, require constant target lock, have a long travel time, do relatively little damage, and give the user a massive "WARNING INCOMING MISSILES" alert get plastered onto their HUD as well has having Betty yell their ear off about it when fired. If strikes are going to stay where the are, the user should have to paint the target area for at least 3-4 seconds with a TAG or something like that (which would actually help strike users because it would make aiming the strike location easier.) and any pilots in the target zone should get a warning message.

[Pjwned]

That could be cool as an addition to air/artillery strikes, but not so much as a replacement.

[Requiemking]

I say we bind Airstrike/ Arty to TAG then implement stuff like FASCAM Strikes and Inferno Strikes.

[Shifty McSwift]

N0ni, on 11 August 2017 - 06:06 PM, said:

Not only to punish clumping, but also to play mind games in order to take control over the field. Someone lays down a strike, what do people usually do? Back up/side step to avoid it allowing the team who laid down the strike to strategically place themselves in a better position for map control. You have good map control, your team wins.

Now let us say we reduce the damage of strikes and add the heat effect, what will happen is they will eat the pillow damage/heat and trade so that your team does not get a free advance into a better spot. Your team's chance at winning will get reduced.

I say leave it as is, avoid it if you don't want to take damage or eat it like a boss as you wallop them in return.

I mean sure, if it is obvious and/or at all possible I avoid strikes, but considering I mostly pilot assaults, there is usually no real warning received, or you receive a warning or part of a warning far too late to really do anything about it. I think though, in the same way that I avoid being hit by obvious strikes, most people try to place them in non obvious ways, and those ideas counter eachother out, if the point is area control. Strikes don't have that effect on me at all really, even the ones I avoid because they are obvious, I am not walking into enemy fire or out of position, just getting out of the way of that one strike then living strike free for some 15 seconds.

Don't go confusing me with someone who thinks this is gamebreaking though, my issue comes in with what is essentially supposed to be an area control consumable, is in fact the only AOE weapon in the game with the way it gets used, and its a fricken consumable.

It is what it is now, but not only doesn't it have to be, but it would make sense with other changes too. The idea of an actual equippable weapon that utilises strikes of some kind (sneakily like they are used now), is also fine to me. If they stay as is, then it's not the end of the world, I am able to play fine with it like this, but the only AOE weapon in the game being mislabelled as area control (wherever it got the label that it was supposed to be area control) being a consumable item, to me just doesn't sit right.

[Angel of Annihilation]

One of my problems with strikes is that they disregards physics. For example, airstrike is incoming, well just like with LRMs, I should be able to step behind a tall object and avoid the strike. Same with Arty because it both cases the shells, bombs or whatever are going to be coming in at some sort of ballistic arc.

Also they are just used much too commonly and I think that it the problem. 3-4 strikes used per match ok I am deal with that. 10+ is which is pretty damn common, that is way too much.

[Shifty McSwift]

Mmmm, well if you start bringing logic in you have to start wondering how you can call in strikes from planes as big as the mechs they are shooting, if not bigger, just to drop some mildly damaging explosives on a mech or group.

I mean it takes something like 10 airstrikes to actually kill an assault from fresh.. Which seems incredibly ineffective and wasteful.

[Funk1777]

AMS should shoot down air and artillery munitions. Star wars defense initiative.

Maybe we should have a counter-consumable. Umbrella of flares, chaff and pain.

The biggest thing that irriatates me about them is when you get right to the edge of it and think you may be safe but it still opens up your back.

Edited by Funk1777, 12 August 2017 - 11:59 AM.

[Davegt27]

being able to shoot down the incoming aircraft would be cool

other then that artty and air strikes are not a big problem

and if PGI can make some money then that's great

[Brain Cancer]

I'd take napalm, sure. Especially if it was a heat-over-time effect.

[Shifty McSwift]

Brain Cancer, on 12 August 2017 - 12:26 PM, said:

I'd take napalm, sure. Especially if it was a heat-over-time effect.

Well that would certainly work better as area control, it could still be damage based too.

[Snazzy Dragon]

Just to point out, strikes do not generate critical hits

[Andi Nagasia]

Viktor Drake, on 12 August 2017 - 08:45 AM, said:

One of my problems with strikes is that they disregards physics. For example, airstrike is incoming, well just like with LRMs, I should be able to step behind a tall object and avoid the strike. Same with Arty because it both cases the shells, bombs or whatever are going to be coming in at some sort of ballistic arc.

um they do,
if its an Arty Strike and it hits on the other side of a building you wont take damage,
the thing is they dont land exactly at the red smoke, but around the smoke, which is mostly luck based,
ive seen Strikes in RiverCity hit the Tops of buildings doing no damage to the mechs in the streets below,
-
little known fact, you can also Shield from a Strike,
turning your weak side away will cause less damage to that side,
this can save your life in some intances if your a light,

Viktor Drake, on 12 August 2017 - 08:45 AM, said:

Also they are just used much too commonly and I think that it the problem. 3-4 strikes used per match ok I am deal with that. 10+ is which is pretty damn common, that is way too much.

so PGI can just increase the Global Timer, so theirs more time between strikes,
this would help slow down how many strikes can happen in a given match,

[Calcite]

are we helping .... or giving advice. andi

[Brain Cancer]

Andi Nagasia, on 12 August 2017 - 02:07 PM, said:

so PGI can just increase the Global Timer, so theirs more time between strikes,
this would help slow down how many strikes can happen in a given match,

But then how would everyone get to spam all their strikes and spend more C-bills?