84 replies to this topic

[Appogee]

A funny story about strikes...

Two months ago, I aimed a strike into the middle of an enemy team that was turtling behind some buildings on Frozen City.

Except, the strike clipped the dodgy invisible hitbox of building right in front of me. So it fell right in the middle of my reasonably dispersed team.

That strike did 581 team damage. FIVE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY-ONE !

It didn't kill anyone. It didn't even remove a component. But it still did 581 damage to my team.

Now, I don't know about you, but the number of strikes I've used that have ever done that much damage to an enemy team is ... zero. In fact, these days, I lob quite a few strikes that land in the enemy team and do no damage at all.

So, for that one strike to have done 581 damage to my team, which was reasonably spread out, without killing anyone or even taking off a component, I reckon every damn shell must have landed on or right next to a team mate.

What are the odds?

[Koniving]

So to repeat the counters I've learned for strikes if you Cannot Avoid Them... i.e.you're in an assault mech.

Air Strike: Look at plane as it flies toward you. You can't avoid damage but this prevents rear damage. If you're like me you only have 2 rear armor on most assault mechs. Maybe 12. So that is precious and vulnerable. Looking at the plane prevents rear damage as you take the hit.

Artillery Strike: The safest place to be is in the middle of it as the bombs come down. The edges are the dangerous area and its center is a laughable joke; most people get damaged trying to avoid it and scatter. I push directly through one, especially if I'm near the edge. If there isn't time to work up the full acceleration, I stop on the smoke itself, the safest spot to behe booms land around me harmlessly.

This game is so ******* broken....

[Bud Crue]

Appogee, on 05 November 2017 - 04:53 AM, said:

A funny story about strikes...

Two months ago, I aimed a strike into the middle of an enemy team that was turtling behind some buildings on Frozen City.

Except, the strike clipped the dodgy invisible hitbox of building right in front of me. So it fell right in the middle of my reasonably dispersed team.

That strike did 581 team damage. FIVE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY-ONE !

It didn't kill anyone. It didn't even remove a component. But it still did 581 damage to my team.

Now, I don't know about you, but the number of strikes I've used that have ever done that much damage to an enemy team is ... zero. In fact, these days, I lob quite a few strikes that land in the enemy team and do no damage at all.

So, for that one strike to have done 581 damage to my team, which was reasonably spread out, without killing anyone or even taking off a component, I reckon every damn shell must have landed on or right next to a team mate.

What are the odds?

Last night one of the guys did 383 doing the same thing. In scouting.

[El Bandito]

Appogee, on 05 November 2017 - 04:53 AM, said:

So, for that one strike to have done 581 damage to my team, which was reasonably spread out, without killing anyone or even taking off a component, I reckon every damn shell must have landed on or right next to a team mate.

What are the odds?

One Zeus that was caught by our Crab rush had managed to land a perfect Airstrike on top of us before dying. He died with close to 900 damage, and fired his weapons once.

[Koniving]

El Bandito, on 05 November 2017 - 04:51 AM, said:

I find your "solution" very infantile, as many players, myself included, have learned to place them (Airstrikes, cause Arty is for noobs) where the smoke can't be seen

It somewhat proves my point, that artillery strikes (and Air Strikes) are best when placed away from the enemy. Air strikes are just more reliable since you can predict them and know you'll hit with at least something.

With an air strike you can pretty much hit the enemy regardless, and smoke right behind their feet with the right incoming angle will produce amazing results.

Artillery strikes as most effective against enemies at the edge of its spread, and taking the spotter node to reduce the spread by 20% is actually somewhat of a debuff, but produces a more predictable spread.

For some mechs, strikes are about the only chance they have at contributing to the match. It is a valuable part of warfare that helps to break the stale monotony that is "camp, shoot, camp, shoot".

By itself it kind of sucks and if a large number of players are using it then it can suck. But short of faction play it is rare. In faction play it is almost essential to allow progression against defense and since defense can also use it, there's hardly reason to complain.

It would be nice if there were counters for it.
We have at least two anti-air mechs in the game, and no anti-air capabilities.

Air strikes don't make any damn sense. The cannon explosions are reminiscent of autocannons but the damage is that of an AC/20 or greater and the fact is that is NOT consistent with any autocannons in MWO due to the fire rate... and the damage is not consistent with BattleTech even if the fire rate is.

I've said years ago the Air Strike should be deploying an Arrow IV missile. One that AMS would struggle to fight against if it can at all. Such as a large missile should be able to be shot down by conventional fire, if you're aware of it. But since you might not be, and given the homing nature of Arrow IV missiles, a hit should otherwise be guaranteed for 20-30 damage if not shot down. This also limits the potential victims to a single mech, instead of up to 4 mechs (my personal record with an air strike).

As a final note since I need to get ready to go. It would be nice if PGI shifted to 8 players per team along with some AI opponents (vehicles of various sorts possibly infantry) using whatever they have learned (and the models from) Mechwarrior 5: Mercs. Having played several combined player and AI games, and knowing that Star Citizen is also taking this route, there's a lot of potential here that could add to both the utility of existing but underused weapons as well as shift metas from pure laser vomit death machines to more practical general purpose ones (as the anti-player builds would find themselves seriously ill-equipped to deal with infantry, aircraft and tanks).

Edited by Koniving, 05 November 2017 - 05:22 AM.

[JC Daxion]

Xulld, on 05 November 2017 - 02:57 AM, said:

I am just not interested in playing Strike Warrior Online. I love most of the changes made to this game over the last year and really want to start investing in the game again but the idea that we need to pay cbills for so powerful an ability is very unattractive.

Just remove it entirely. Please, I want to shoot stompy robits not push a button for a strike.

funny, i was thinking about making a post that the nerfs went to far and they are far to hard to use against anyone but the campers that have no clue how to press W.


Try brawling,,. You will never get hit by an airstrike.. EVER!

[ocular tb]

I’d be glad to see them removed. I just think the game would be better without them. They feel cheap and cheesy. And I say that as someone who carries and uses two airstrikes every match. The SP and c-bill costs are low and worth the damage they do hence why there’re so many of them being used.

[Bud Crue]

JC Daxion, on 05 November 2017 - 05:13 AM, said:

funny, i was thinking about making a post that the nerfs went to far and they are far to hard to use against anyone but the campers that have no clue how to press W.


Try brawling,,. You will never get hit by an airstrike.. EVER!

?

My groups pretty much only brawl, yet we get hit all the time. Sure some maps are better than others (allowing you to close with cover) but many maps (most) don't have sufficient cover to get into brawling range unseen and when you are seen, the strikes fall. I mean, whatever, I'm just not sure where you are coming from here.

[El Bandito]

Koniving, on 05 November 2017 - 05:12 AM, said:

For some mechs, strikes are about the only chance they have at contributing to the match. It is a valuable part of warfare that helps to break the stale monotony that is "camp, shoot, camp, shoot".

Which is why I advocate only letting Lights and Mediums to have Strikes in this game. Heavies and Assaults don't need em.

[Mr Snrub]

Jun Watarase, on 05 November 2017 - 04:38 AM, said:

Strikes are very underpowered now. Almost anyone can walk out of the AOE before it lands, and even those that dont can stand there and take barely any damage.

Yes, because it takes absolute leet skills to put a strike where no one can see the smoke... .

[LowSubmarino]

Xulld, on 05 November 2017 - 02:57 AM, said:

I am just not interested in playing Strike Warrior Online. I love most of the changes made to this game over the last year and really want to start investing in the game again but the idea that we need to pay cbills for so powerful an ability is very unattractive.

Just remove it entirely. Please, I want to shoot stompy robits not push a button for a strike.

Strikes are only so insanely effective because mwo players - i think maybe 10 players in the entire game do not play like that (e.g. bear claw, ttb, bandido, and a few others) - simply cannot understand what formation means.

If you clump up....you get massacred by strikes. Brutally. Again and over again.

If you stay too far apart - specially witihout los-weapon range- cover - you get massacred as well.

Mwo players dont understand that. They play the same basically every single game.

Strikes are not the problem.

Ppl whined about basically anything.

First it was ppc and gauss in the early days. Which never stroke me as even remotely op or unfair. Never. I used lasers back in the days when not even a single other mwo players thought lasers were good.

Then - after heavy gauss and ppc nerfs - ppl go for lasers. Before that I think I was the only guy on the entire planet that used IS erLLs.

After nerf ppl go for lasers. Realizing just how good lasers were.

Then ppl start whining that laser vomit is so op.

Lasers were nerfed.

Nobody. Not even a single guy or girl on the planet used (c) erppc boating about 1,5 - 2 years ago.

Nobody used a targeting computer.

Cerppcs were hardly used by anybody at all.

I used them. With one of the biggest targeting computers I could stuff into my hunchbackIICA.

Then ppl realized just how strong (c) erppcs were.

And then - you can imagine - mwo players start to moan and cry and whine. Ppcs are so op. Its sniper warrior online. What about brawls?? What about close quarter fighting.

As a consequence - like always - ppcs were heavily nerfed. Massively nerfed.

Now ppl whine about strikes.

Strikes are fine.

You need to learn go play the game. Then strikes are no problem whatsoever. I like strikes. Its wildly satisfying to bombard clustered, clumped groups of aimlessly wandering and oblivious players. Brings unparalleled joy.

[Koniving]

El Bandito, on 05 November 2017 - 05:21 AM, said:

Which is why I advocate only letting Lights and Mediums to have Strikes in this game. Heavies and Assaults don't need em.

I could agree with that. Thing is I don't use them in heavies or assaults anyway. Surprised anyone does. They are not terribly effective and as an assault at least it is difficult to get into a practical position for them. 5 skill points is 5 too many to spend on such nonsense. I build my skill tree to last without changes, so strikes go out the window.

In Megamek / Mek HQ, I find during my Battletech scenarios and mock missions for a real time Battletech simulator, artillery and airstrikes are a vital component to combined arms warfare. The aircraft (conventional and Aerotech) however can be shot down. The artillery units on the same map need to be protected, and playing a simultaineous FP-style mission and a scout-style mission in another window with the physical placement of the artillery, 2 mechs and some vehicles to protect it against a rush of four mechs with no vehicles that are both trying to destroy the artillery as well as intercept incoming reloads (which keep them able to fire repeatedly) and fuel (which allow them to relocate to hit other positions).

It all works really well together. But as you may have noticed, there's counter play options here. The efforts of the scouting (raiding) team directly correlate to the continued fire (or discontinued fire) against the assault team. Even when on the same map, you could stop artillery by destroying it (such as on quickplay) so long as you find it. Not without irony, the ones best suited for the task are Lights and fast Mediums. The same sorts most likely to aim the strikes. This increases their versatility and virtually their requirement to be on the battlefield.

No more "worthless metal baby" bullying for being "stupid" enough to bring a light mech as they have true versatility and use.

But hey, what do we know about game design, right? We're only gamers.

BTW, try Megamek with simultaneous movement, firing and melee phases. Damn that **** is awesome.

[JC Daxion]

Bud Crue, on 05 November 2017 - 05:20 AM, said:

?

My groups pretty much only brawl, yet we get hit all the time. Sure some maps are better than others (allowing you to close with cover) but many maps (most) don't have sufficient cover to get into brawling range unseen and when you are seen, the strikes fall. I mean, whatever, I'm just not sure where you are coming from here.

If you are moving how are you getting hit? the strikes take a while to come in. Heck even assaults can out maneuver strikes these days they take so bloody long to drop. The only time ever get hit by them is when i'm waiting for the team to decide to move because they are camping..

You don't really need cover to get into brawling range often, what you need is cover fire to keep them pinned. But i do agree that there could be more cover on many maps.. LIke playing DOM GRIM.. god i hate that map in a brawler with camp warrior..


But seeing as i've never dropped with you, i dunno what to say as to why your brawler groups get hit.. Perhaps there are some adjustments that can be made? I dunno

[Bud Crue]

JC Daxion, on 05 November 2017 - 05:51 AM, said:

If you are moving how are you getting hit? the strikes take a while to come in. Heck even assaults can out maneuver strikes these days they take so bloody long to drop. The only time ever get hit by them is when i'm waiting for the team to decide to move because they are camping..

You don't really need cover to get into brawling range often, what you need is cover fire to keep them pinned. But i do agree that there could be more cover on many maps.. LIke playing DOM GRIM.. god i hate that map in a brawler with camp warrior..


But seeing as i've never dropped with you, i dunno what to say as to why your brawler groups get hit.. Perhaps there are some adjustments that can be made? I dunno

Yeah, see moving units and groups get hit all the time. Brawling, peak and poke, snipers, whatever, even the fastest of units can get nabbed by a well placed strike, especially if the target doesn't see it. I think that's what I am not understanding. Mere movement, is not a guarantee to avoiding strikes and your comment seems to be implying that it does. That's just not my experience. I never stop moving, and I get hit and likewise hit other moving targets all the time.

Edited by Bud Crue, 05 November 2017 - 06:12 AM.

[El Bandito]

JC Daxion, on 05 November 2017 - 05:51 AM, said:

If you are moving how are you getting hit? the strikes take a while to come in. Heck even assaults can out maneuver strikes these days they take so bloody long to drop. The only time ever get hit by them is when i'm waiting for the team to decide to move because they are camping.

That's cause experienced opponents can easily read the route your team is taking and place a strike in anticipation of it, out of sight. Which becomes even more predictable in Siege maps in FP.

[JC Daxion]

Bud Crue, on 05 November 2017 - 06:12 AM, said:

Yeah, see moving units and groups get hit all the time. Brawling, peak and poke, snipers, whatever, even the fastest of units can get nabbed by a well placed strike, especially if the target doesn't see it. I think that's what I am not understanding. Mere movement, is not a guarantee to avoiding strikes and your comment seems to be implying that it does. That's just not my experience. I never stop moving, and I get hit and likewise hit other moving targets all the time.

Yes just moving is not the answer, but it helps a ton.. the key is to moving in the right direction. Speedy mechs can outrun the air strikes from a dead stop.. slower mechs need to move to the side of the strip..

I was in testing measuring i think its about 50m wide and maybe 175m long?

El Bandito, on 05 November 2017 - 06:29 AM, said:

That's cause experienced opponents can easily read the route your team is taking and place a strike in anticipation of it, out of sight. Which becomes even more predictable in Siege maps in FP.

yes there are certain maps/modes where it is easier like you mentioned. but it's still a strip to avoid.. and why scouting helps to know if the smoke is there or not. But from what i've noticed a lot, is many of those strikes could easily have been avoided if people don't just sit in the same spot for 2+ mins

[ocular tb]

Just last night in an Alpine Domination match I was in an Osiris near that hill they added by Kappa where I was running around, jumping, staying mobile and mostly out of sight and the moment I peek around the edge of the hill I get blasted with an incoming airstrike that took 28% of my armor away. Granted it was an unskilled light mech. But, point being is that even being fast and constantly moving isn’t a sure way of not getting hit.

[Asym]

As I have said before, if we link Strikes to Targeting Computers, Strikes become a weapon that has a cost beyond the c-bill/MC cost of the consumable and is taking tonage from the user to just employ the weapon.
The larger the TC and skill nodes selected, the faster and more concentrated the strikes become.... Add a TAG to the calling unit in sight of the enemy formation and well, good luck bad guys and that TAG pilot is in LOS of the enemy and not a coward as many of the forum contributers infer....

This linkage would solve a lot if issues and I'b bet, you'd see less strikes........because they aren't free anymore.... The opposite is true as well, many of us like the indirect fire role and would team up with light pilots and seriously use strikes as a role expansion and a valuable combat multiplier...........

Edited by Asym, 05 November 2017 - 08:20 AM.

[Nightbird]

Change the nodes for more bombs to more accuracy, so that you have 3 +15% accuracy nodes with no extra bombs.
Move the node for extra strike earlier so you don't have to take accuracy nodes if you don't want to.

Now, strike will be harder to use but as rewarding if you get a good one off.

[Alcom Isst]

Asym, on 05 November 2017 - 08:18 AM, said:

As I have said before, if we link Strikes to Targeting Computers, Strikes become a weapon that has a cost beyond the c-bill/MC cost of the consumable and is taking tonage from the user to just employ the weapon.
The larger the TC and skill nodes selected, the faster and more concentrated the strikes become.... Add a TAG to the calling unit in sight of the enemy formation and well, good luck bad guys and that TAG pilot is in LOS of the enemy and not a coward as many of the forum contributers infer....

I almost like a tonnage requirement except for the fact that it limits light mechs more than it limits assaults as the tonnage is more valuable on a light. Also targeting computers are already equipped to every super-meta laser boat and Summoner poptart, so using TC only increases the current meta disparity.

Just get rid of this gib money for free damage garbage. It's not fun to use except for the cheap thrill of hitting several mechs at once, it's never fun to play against. The pressure to burn your c-bills or real money on free damage garbage that most players don't actually like is the worst thing in this game. It's worse than the snowball, worse than every matchmaking issue, worse than every UI problem combined, worse than the German typo in the Zeus that's been there for like 3 years.