75 replies to this topic

[SaltiestRaccoon]

... And it's not what you think.

So let me preface this slightly. How many of you find it frustrating that even if you place your shots well, twist when you should and utilize cover and movement well, you will still lose almost every time to 2 or more potatoes face-tanking you?

The lengthy TTK in MWO has created a metagame where individual skill is almost meaningless in asymmetric engagements, and this hurts the game in many different ways

The first, is that it's extremely frustrating, as I mentioned before to lose to players that you know to be worse than you based on the play they display.

The second, is a huge snowball effect. If one team loses a few mechs early, they will lose the game... almost invariably. With massed fire being the only way to quickly destroy mechs, having several extra mechs worth of firepower is a hard obstacle to overcome. As a result of the first few mechs being such a giant advantage, the skirmish phase of a battle is grossly overemphasized, making brawlers significantly less fun to play, as the battle is often decided before you get a chance to pull the trigger on those SRMs

Third, a long TTK makes positioning feel far less rewarding. It should feel great to catch a team from behind. Like being in a shooting gallery, but as it stands, you're lucky if you manage to core out one mech before a team turns around and forces you to retreat.

Fourth... And this is probably the biggest point... What makes a game fun to play or watch? You don't watch football for the perfectly executed plays that go completely according to plan. You're watching it for that huge punt return for a touchdown. You don't remember the games you played where you absolutely stomped the other team, you remember the ones where you nearly lost and fought your way to a win against all odds. Excitement and fun requires that a game allow for an unexpected outcome or event. When numerical superiority means so much more than any individual pilot skill, there is virtually no chance to see or experience those big plays.

The developers and many members of the community feel that the TTK is too low. I couldn't disagree more. When I quit playing shortly after beta, it was due to the TTK problem... and after coming back to it after five years, it still exists.

One good pilot should be able to kill several inferior ones in a straight up fight. Those last two or three mechs should be able to run it back against an enemy team, but that's not the way the game works presently and virtually every game can be called as soon as one team gains a three kill lead or so.

So the detractors to the 'low TTK' argument will always cite one of two things in response, and both are completely wrong or misleading:

The first complaint is always, 'This is Mechwarrior, not Call of Duty. You should have long fights.' Completely wrong. ANYONE who has played previous entries in the series is being either dishonest with themselves or others. Most older entries in the Mechwarrior series used tabletop weapon AND armor values. This meant mechs had less than half the HP they do in MWO. On top of that in MWO, add in further damage-limiting in the form of ghost heat, and less effective heatsinks.

The second complaint is always, 'But individual player skill is better exemplified with higher TTK because it allows more decisions to be made in a fight.' Yes, that is true, but it is only true for 1 on 1 engagements. Because mass damage is so much more important than maneuver, twisting, shot placement or anything else, in MWO two inferior players will beat a better player the majority of the time. This is a problem with the game, for all the reasons stated above. If you want to see a wider gap between good and bad players, then lower TTK is the answer, not higher. Higher TTK is probably totally acceptable for Solaris type gameplay where the game is 1 on 1 and lower TTK favors the lesser player. The fact of the matter is that MWO is a team game and two mechs duking it out without outside interference rarely, if ever, happens

All this developer talk about lowering alpha damage and raising TTK just reeks of a style of game where the epitome of skill is simply assembling a 12 man team such that you can maximize fire, then calling out a good target priority. That is neither fun, nor is it Mechwarrior, and it never has been and never will be what Mechwarrior should be.

Edited by SaltiestRaccoon, 10 July 2018 - 08:44 PM.

[ShiverMeRivets]

Short TTK favors light mechs. If you can't take much damage and your armor gets stripped by 1 alpha anyway, you may as well be as small and nimble as possible to avoid the damage altogether. The historical response to effective firearms in the real world battle fields was to remove armor altogether from the troops, and then to allow them to move around and take cover - not to make them wear thicker armor, because that did not stop bullets anyway.

The current attempts of taming the laser alpha will make armor matter again, I hope. Dual HGR will be looked at sometime in the future I suppose.

[Anjian]

TTK also needs to match whether the game has a single spawn or respawn mode format.

[MTier Slayed Up]

SaltiestRaccoon, on 10 July 2018 - 08:37 PM, said:

... And it's not what you think.

So let me preface this slightly. How many of you find it frustrating that even if you place your shots well, twist when you should and utilize cover and movement well, you will still lose almost every time to 2 or more potatoes face-tanking you?

The lengthy TTK in MWO has created a metagame where individual skill is almost meaningless in asymmetric engagements, and this hurts the game in many different ways

The first, is that it's extremely frustrating, as I mentioned before to lose to players that you know to be worse than you based on the play they display.

So you're saying...That 2 potatoes using potatowork against you is bad and frowned upon? Wut?

SaltiestRaccoon, on 10 July 2018 - 08:37 PM, said:

The second, is a huge snowball effect. If one team loses a few mechs early, they will lose the game... almost invariably. With massed fire being the only way to quickly destroy mechs, having several extra mechs worth of firepower is a hard obstacle to overcome. As a result of the first few mechs being such a giant advantage, the skirmish phase of a battle is grossly overemphasized, making brawlers significantly less fun to play, as the battle is often decided before you get a chance to pull the trigger on those SRMs

Okay, so yes and no.
I do find it overtly annoying if the assault lance just heads down D line on mining collective in QP, ignoring the "don't go that way" text. But it's not a game ender.
Welcome to Quick Play, where strategy is made up and your mech doesn't matter.

SaltiestRaccoon, on 10 July 2018 - 08:37 PM, said:

Third, a long TTK makes positioning feel far less rewarding. It should feel great to catch a team from behind. Like being in a shooting gallery, but as it stands, you're lucky if you manage to core out one mech before a team turns around and forces you to retreat.

i mean, it can be if you're stripping a torso off or outright killing something. If a team is reacting to one mech and ignoring the main force, then you just accomplished what folks would like to call a "DIVERSION!" While in QP, reactions are typically slower, but you're still contributing to a degree to where you're forcing people to look in two different directions, exposing their rear to others. Not sure what the drawback here is, or your gripe?

SaltiestRaccoon, on 10 July 2018 - 08:37 PM, said:

Fourth... And this is probably the biggest point... What makes a game fun to play or watch? You don't watch football for the perfectly executed plays that go completely according to plan. You're watching it for that huge punt return for a touchdown. You don't remember the games you played where you absolutely stomped the other team, you remember the ones where you nearly lost and fought your way to a win against all odds. Excitement and fun requires that a game allow for an unexpected outcome or event. When numerical superiority means so much more than any individual pilot skill, there is virtually no chance to see or experience those big plays.

Wait, wtf? Lol. Your meaning of entertainment is purely opinion and not factual. What you described is exactly why I like to watch football. I like it when a team brings their A game, brings a solid plan, and works for a victory. Yeah, the unexpected interception to touchdowns or punt return touchdowns are great, but I'm not sitting there for roughly 2 solid hours just to catch those moments solely. That's basically saying people watch NASCAR just to see the crashes.

SaltiestRaccoon, on 10 July 2018 - 08:37 PM, said:

The developers and many members of the community feel that the TTK is too low. I couldn't disagree more. When I quit playing shortly after beta, it was due to the TTK problem... and after coming back to it after five years, it still exists.

One good pilot should be able to kill several inferior ones in a straight up fight. Those last two or three mechs should be able to run it back against an enemy team, but that's not the way the game works presently and virtually every game can be called as soon as one team gains a three kill lead or so.

Here's the problem with your argument though. You expect that one good pilot to basically throw the 11 other potatoes on his back, every game, and to kill basically everyone on the opposite team. Like...No...It doesn't work like that. If that were the case, you'd see a 12v1, where the 1 pilot is just immune to damage and the 12 others are figuring out how to tie their shoes.
I have my gripes and complaints with QP, but I understand the meaning of "power in numbers". This isn't 300 Spartans vs A million shoes.
Virtually every game doesn't work like that. Even in Call of Duty, you could be a phenomenal player, but if you run into 3 or 4 people waiting for you to pop around a corner, you're going to get killed, or damn well near it.

SaltiestRaccoon, on 10 July 2018 - 08:37 PM, said:

So the detractors to the 'low TTK' argument will always cite one of two things in response, and both are completely wrong or misleading:

The first complaint is always, 'This is Mechwarrior, not Call of Duty. You should have long fights.' Completely wrong. ANYONE who has played previous entries in the series is being either dishonest with themselves or others. Most older entries in the Mechwarrior series used tabletop weapon AND armor values. This meant mechs had less than half the HP they do in MWO. On top of that in MWO, add in further damage-limiting in the form of ghost heat, and less effective heatsinks.

I've played CoD religiously from the moment it was released up until Black Ops. As for MechWarrior, the only one I did not play was the first one and the one for Xbox. So I'm going to tell you that the statement is true. The fights are typically longer and the TTK is higher than that of CoD. You're not going to sit there and take a full mag of an MP40 in CoD2 and expect to live. But you can take a 94 alpha in a heavy or an assault and still live. Even then, when you cite these other mechwarrior games, the key difference here is that we have the freedom to boat numerous weapons and basically customize our mechs way more than previous installments. For example: MechWarrior 2, you were limited to the mech and the build it came with, and that was it. You couldn't change armor values, or weapon loadouts, you just picked a mech, and dropped. MechWarrior 4, sure, you had a bit more freedom, but nowhere near on the level of MWO. Even then, most mechs have quirks and buffs to make them absurdly tanky and take a punishment, or quirks to weapons to bring goofy builds like the Wubberine and 4 lrg pulse. The ghost heat was an answer to a problem that could be way worse than it is now. Imagine if a BattleMaster or a Stalker firing 6 Large Lasers with no heat penalty, constantly down range? That'd be a nightmare. Another nightmarish build if it wasn't inhibited would be the Quad Gauss Kodi or the Quad AC-10 making a vengful return. The ghost heat is a necessary component.

SaltiestRaccoon, on 10 July 2018 - 08:37 PM, said:

The second complaint is always, 'But individual player skill is better exemplified with higher TTK because it allows more decisions to be made in a fight.' Yes, that is true, but it is only true for 1 on 1 engagements. Because mass damage is so much more important than maneuver, twisting, shot placement or anything else, in MWO two inferior players will beat a better player the majority of the time. This is a problem with the game, for all the reasons stated above. If you want to see a wider gap between good and bad players, then lower TTK is the answer, not higher. Higher TTK is probably totally acceptable for Solaris type gameplay where the game is 1 on 1 and lower TTK favors the lesser player. The fact of the matter is that MWO is a team game and two mechs duking it out without outside interference rarely, if ever, happens

If a good player is forced to face two potatoes, he can beat them. I would know, do it all the time. What I can't do is beat a lance or more by myself. The idea is teamwork. Teamwork OP. And all that jazz.

SaltiestRaccoon, on 10 July 2018 - 08:37 PM, said:

All this developer talk about lowering alpha damage and raising TTK just reeks of a style of game where the epitome of skill is simply assembling a 12 man team such that you can maximize fire, then calling out a good target priority. That is neither fun, nor is it Mechwarrior, and it never has been and never will be what Mechwarrior should be.

Great, so you want LoneWarrior Online, where teamwork is non existant. Glad we established that.

[Tetatae Squawkins]

I don't agree. If anything 1v1 TTK is a bit too short.

Quick kills should require teamwork and focused fire. Not whoever shoots first wins.

[Nema Nabojiv]

SaltiestRaccoon, on 10 July 2018 - 08:37 PM, said:

All this developer talk about lowering alpha damage and raising TTK just reeks of a style of game where the epitome of skill is simply assembling a 12 man team such that you can maximize fire, then calling out a good target priority. That is neither fun, nor is it Mechwarrior, and it never has been and never will be what Mechwarrior should be.

Agree with everything. High TTK diminishes the impact your skill have on the outcome of the game, it encourages murderballs, it makes positioning irrelevant, and it is the main reason for 12-2 stomps, not the matchmaker how most of people think.

[Savage Wolf]

You do have a point to some extend. BUT the gaming market is absolutely packed with games based on twitch shooting and that style have pitfalls of their own. Twitch shooters highly favor mobility and armor becomes irrelevant. Any effect that doesn't just kill, is irrelevant.

Did MWO in turn truly take advantage in this change of style? Haha, not in the slightest. But THAT is the problem of Mechwarrior. Doing something different, yet not utilizing it at all. And with PGI obvious lack in game design talent, I don't expect that to ever be corrected.

[Jose Canto]

A 'skilled' player doesn't 1 v 3....

It is a well written post however I respectfully disagree on most aspects. Skilled players in MWO can completely carry games, watching a well timed Atlas roll the flank of an engaged enemy is a glorious thing to behold.

Getting the Atlas there undetected and choosing the right time to engage takes far more skill than any 360 no-scope headshot play that Youtube is littered with from traditional FPS shooters.

[Daggett]

SaltiestRaccoon, on 10 July 2018 - 08:37 PM, said:

So let me preface this slightly. How many of you find it frustrating that even if you place your shots well, twist when you should and utilize cover and movement well, you will still lose almost every time to 2 or more potatoes face-tanking you?

The lengthy TTK in MWO has created a metagame where individual skill is almost meaningless in asymmetric engagements, and this hurts the game in many different ways

For me your post seems to simply boil down to MWO being not your kind of game, as hard as it sounds.

Your arguments are not wrong if you see MWO from a classic FPS viewpoint. But the truth is that MWO is not a typical FPS and clearly does not want to be one. It fills a niche many of us are here for: A slower-paced shooter for 30+ year old Battletech fans. In that regard it's more similar to World of Tanks (which features even longer TTK while still being successful and fun).

Like in WoT the skill needed for MWO is more about positioning and less about aiming and reaction. You are not supposed to win against two mechs even if you are the better player. You are supposed to create opportunities by your positioning to avoid such situations and to deal more damage than you receive to help trigger the snowball-effect to your team's favor. The only problem is that this approach emphasizes teamplay but many players are bad teamplayers (maybe because they expect to be the one-man army they can be in other shooters?).

And this will not change fundamentally, it's the very core of MWO. You can either deal with this and accept that aiming and reaction are only secondary skills or you play a classic shooter that emphasizes this more and allows you to be the one-man army when your aiming and reaction are much better than everyone else's.

To make it crystal-clear: I play MWO because it is NOT twitchy and let's me with my 37 years perform well without having the aim/reaction of a 16-year. MWO is not perfect, but almost without alternatives.
And yes, individual skill does make a big difference in match outcome, unfortunately it's simply not the skills you are best at.

If PGI would listen you you and make aiming and reaction much more relevant then MWO would not only lose a big part of it's players, it would also still not be able to compete with existing focused twitch-shooters.

Personally i like the TTK where it is right now. If anything i would rather increase TTK than decrease it, simply to differentiate MWO more to all those low-TTK shooters out there. Battletech and high TTK are MWOs key selling points and i bet this will not change.

It makes no sense to give up a working niche and playerbase to jump into the twitch-shooter shark-pond filled with so many high-profile titles like Fortnite, Battlefield, CoD and Overwatch. Such an experiment would most likely fail.

MWO has some problems even i as a big fan of the game can't deny. But high TTK is definitely not one of those, in fact it's the whole reason why guys like me are playing the game at all. The games market does not need another low-ttk twitch-shooter, even if it features cool Battlemechs.

Edited by Daggett, 11 July 2018 - 04:03 AM.

[Abaddun]

SaltiestRaccoon, on 10 July 2018 - 08:37 PM, said:

One good pilot should be able to kill several inferior ones in a straight up fight. Those last two or three mechs should be able to run it back against an enemy team, but that's not the way the game works presently and virtually every game can be as soon as one team gains a three kill lead or so.

Wrong. A good pilot should know he's outgunned and fall back. If my team isolates and outguns a lone pilot then we have earnt the kill through teamwork and not twitch reflexes. Like it or not, co-ordination can easily make up for a numbers disadvantage in a fight, you might not always see that with potatoes, but the very existence of units testify to the power of teamwork.

In addition, you seem to forget that it's not just kills, it's components. I've seen a 1vs 6 turnaround because of a well positioned and relatively fresh stalker fight 6 other stripped and hobbled mechs. Catching someone from behind might not be a kill, but it might be a destroyed side torso, halving or even outright stripping the firepower of that mech.

In addition, we play a game with long range, indirect weapons that, in high enough quantities, can easily take out a well armoured mech. If you played during LRMageddon, you would know how frustrating it is to be nuked by cheap damage with little to no recourse.

Finally, reducing TTK pulls MWO out of it's niche of a pseudo tank simulator and into the niche of Hawken, where speed is king because of low TTK. judging by the state of the game right now, I don't think MWO can afford to lose one of its few draws.

[SaltiestRaccoon]

DrtyDshSoap, on 11 July 2018 - 12:31 AM, said:

Okay, so yes and no.
I do find it overtly annoying if the assault lance just heads down D line on mining collective in QP, ignoring the "don't go that way" text. But it's not a game ender.
Welcome to Quick Play, where strategy is made up and your mech doesn't matter.

If they die early and it goes 4/0? That's pretty much a game ender.

DrtyDshSoap, on 11 July 2018 - 12:31 AM, said:

i mean, it can be if you're stripping a torso off or outright killing something. If a team is reacting to one mech and ignoring the main force, then you just accomplished what folks would like to call a [/color]"DIVERSION!"[color=#959595] While in QP, reactions are typically slower, but you're still contributing to a degree to where you're forcing people to look in two different directions, exposing their rear to others. Not sure what the drawback here is, or your gripe?

Because it's not punishing enough to a team that allows themselves to be flanked, and not rewarding enough to a team that outmaneuvers them. This takes emphasis away from positioning, which should be a huge part of any even moderately tactical game.

DrtyDshSoap, on 11 July 2018 - 12:31 AM, said:

Wait, wtf? Lol. Your meaning of entertainment is purely opinion and not factual. What you described is exactly why I like to watch football. I like it when a team brings their A game, brings a solid plan, and works for a victory. Yeah, the unexpected interception to touchdowns or punt return touchdowns are great, but I'm not sitting there for roughly 2 solid hours just to catch those moments solely. That's basically saying people watch NASCAR just to see the crashes

You're making a bit of a strawman there. I don't think anyone would argue that it is more exciting to see big plays on offense or defense, whether that be in football, NASCAR or any other sport or game. If you find a 0-3 slog in football to be more rewarding than a game with big plays, I'd wager it's because you have one of those defenses in Fantasy.

DrtyDshSoap, on 11 July 2018 - 12:31 AM, said:

Here's the problem with your argument though. You expect that one good pilot to basically throw the 11 other potatoes on his back, every game, and to kill basically everyone on the opposite team. Like...No...It doesn't work like that. If that were the case, you'd see a 12v1, where the 1 pilot is just immune to damage and the 12 others are figuring out how to tie their shoes.
I have my gripes and complaints with QP, but I understand the meaning of "power in numbers". This isn't 300 Spartans vs A million shoes.
]Virtually every game doesn't work like that. Even in Call of Duty, you could be a phenomenal player, but if you run into 3 or 4 people waiting for you to pop around a corner, you're going to get killed, or damn well near it.

Again, you're building up another strawman. I do not expect that to happen every game, or even most games. I want the possibility to exist so that big plays and good games as possible on an individual level and not just a team one.

DrtyDshSoap, on 11 July 2018 - 12:31 AM, said:

For example: MechWarrior 2, you were limited to the mech and the build it came with, and that was it.

That is patently untrue. Again, as with most people arguing for the high TTK your memory of the older games is a bit skewed. As for the rest of the paragraph: You don't like boating, that's fine, but ghost heat fixes a problem that is only a matter of opinion. I am absolutely fine with any of those things you mention, it's not as though only those builds can be made and would be powerful. My point in even bringing up ghost heat was to emphasize another way that damage has been further nerfed. I wouldn't even be bothered by its inclusion in the game were defensive statistics significantly lower.

DrtyDshSoap, on 11 July 2018 - 12:31 AM, said:

If a good player is forced to face two potatoes, he can beat them. I would know, do it all the time. What I can't do is beat a lance or more by myself. The idea is teamwork. Teamwork OP. And all that jazz.

I can do it too, the point is that a better player is disproportionately disfavored in that matchup because massed damage is more important than individual skill. I sound like a broken record, but you've refused to acknowledge that. You feel that the game should more heavily favor massed fire. I find that pretty damn dull because the skill ceiling as far as piloting your mech and shooting is obscenely low.

DrtyDshSoap, on 11 July 2018 - 12:31 AM, said:

Great, so you want LoneWarrior Online, where teamwork is non existant. Glad we established that.

Strawman number three and bonus points for being insulting about it. A lower TTK does not de-emphasize team play. It simply means that individual players have a chance to shine also. You can look at virtually ANY multiplayer game out there, especially those more popular than MWO, and despite being team games, there is more room for individual achievement. The chances of a good player winning despite their team is very low in such a situation, but unlike in MWO, it does exist.

Edited by SaltiestRaccoon, 11 July 2018 - 04:16 AM.

[SaltiestRaccoon]

Abaddun, on 11 July 2018 - 04:09 AM, said:

Wrong. A good pilot should know he's outgunned and fall back. If my team isolates and outguns a lone pilot then we have earnt the kill through teamwork and not twitch reflexes. Like it or not, co-ordination can easily make up for a numbers disadvantage in a fight, you might not always see that with potatoes, but the very existence of units testify to the power of teamwork.

In addition, you seem to forget that it's not just kills, it's components. I've seen a 1vs 6 turnaround because of a well positioned and relatively fresh stalker fight 6 other stripped and hobbled mechs. Catching someone from behind might not be a kill, but it might be a destroyed side torso, halving or even outright stripping the firepower of that mech.

In addition, we play a game with long range, indirect weapons that, in high enough quantities, can easily take out a well armoured mech. If you played during LRMageddon, you would know how frustrating it is to be nuked by cheap damage with little to no recourse.

Finally, reducing TTK pulls MWO out of it's niche of a pseudo tank simulator and into the niche of Hawken, where speed is king because of low TTK. judging by the state of the game right now, I don't think MWO can afford to lose one of its few draws.

If you're naive enough to think that falling back is always an option, then I guess we're at an impasse. I acknowledge that good pilots will fall back from disadvantageous fights, and will seek positions where they have an escape plan, but when your team is collapsing, that really doesn't help much.

A tank simulator would be a lot more lethal and position dependent, by the way... So would a Battletech universe simulation. So the argument that it's a tank simulator is pretty poor. Ideally it shouldn't be any sort of simulator, but rather a Mechwarrior game. As such, it should feature gameplay consistent with that franchise, lower TTK included.

[SaltiestRaccoon]

Daggett, on 11 July 2018 - 03:18 AM, said:

For me your post seems to simply boil down to MWO being not your kind of game, as hard as it sounds.

Your arguments are not wrong if you see MWO from a classic FPS viewpoint. But the truth is that MWO is not a typical FPS and clearly does not want to be one. It fills a niche many of us are here for: A slower-paced shooter for 30+ year old Battletech fans. In that regard it's more similar to World of Tanks (which features even longer TTK while still being successful and fun).

Like in WoT the skill needed for MWO is more about positioning and less about aiming and reaction. You are not supposed to win against two mechs even if you are the better player. You are supposed to create opportunities by your positioning to avoid such situations and to deal more damage than you receive to help trigger the snowball-effect to your team's favor. The only problem is that this approach emphasizes teamplay but many players are bad teamplayers (maybe because they expect to be the one-man army they can be in other shooters?).

And this will not change fundamentally, it's the very core of MWO. You can either deal with this and accept that aiming and reaction are only secondary skills or you play a classic shooter that emphasizes this more and allows you to be the one-man army when your aiming and reaction are much better than everyone else's.

To make it crystal-clear: I play MWO because it is NOT twitchy and let's me with my 37 years perform well without having the aim/reaction of a 16-year. MWO is not perfect, but almost without alternatives.
And yes, individual skill does make a big difference in match outcome, unfortunately it's simply not the skills you are best at.

If PGI would listen you you and make aiming and reaction much more relevant then MWO would not only lose a big part of it's players, it would also still not be able to compete with existing focused twitch-shooters.

Personally i like the TTK where it is right now. If anything i would rather increase TTK than decrease it, simply to differentiate MWO more to all those low-TTK shooters out there. Battletech and high TTK are MWOs key selling points and i bet this will not change.

It makes no sense to give up a working niche and playerbase to jump into the twitch-shooter shark-pond filled with so many high-profile titles like Fortnite, Battlefield, CoD and Overwatch. Such an experiment would most likely fail.

MWO has some problems even i as a big fan of the game can't deny. But high TTK is definitely not one of those, in fact it's the whole reason why guys like me are playing the game at all. The games market does not need another low-ttk twitch-shooter, even if it features cool Battlemechs.

Well first off, I'm only a few years younger than you. I've been a Battletech fan for over 20 years at this point. Second, you're misrepresenting what I would like to see lower TTK accomplish. I don't want any player to be a one man army. In fact a lower TTK more heavily punishes people for playing recklessly. I'm fine at the skills that MWO necessitates. I regularly am top damage on my team with laser vomit or dakka and usually nab a few kills. Again, like most people arguing high TTK, you're accusing me of wanting a twitch shooter, which I don't. The TTK should be longer than most shooters, however, as it stands, the TTK is far too high to allow for one player to make game changing plays in the right circumstances.

Perhaps I'm a niche in the niche playerbase, but I want my mechs to play like mechs and not gundams that can soak up missiles and lasers like they were wet noodles.

Edited by SaltiestRaccoon, 11 July 2018 - 04:31 AM.

[Nema Nabojiv]

Daggett, on 11 July 2018 - 03:18 AM, said:

Like in WoT the skill needed for MWO is more about positioning and less about aiming and reaction. You are not supposed to win against two mechs even if you are the better player. You are supposed to create opportunities by your positioning to avoid such situations and to deal more damage than you receive to help trigger the snowball-effect to your team's favor. The only problem is that this approach emphasizes teamplay but many players are bad teamplayers (maybe because they expect to be the one-man army they can be in other shooters?).

Former WoT player reporting in.

In Wot you absolutely can carry against agains 3 to 5 enemies thanks to combination of various mechanics like true armor, visibility, cone of fire and huge disparities in mobility. They even have the achievement for 1vs5 carry iirc. It is hard but not impossible.

I wouldn't want MWO to be that extreme, but the one thing they did right in wot is that you skill matter a lot more, eventhough theres more people in the mach than in mwo.

[SaltiestRaccoon]

Tetatae Squawkins, on 11 July 2018 - 01:48 AM, said:

I don't agree. If anything 1v1 TTK is a bit too short.

Quick kills should require teamwork and focused fire. Not whoever shoots first wins.

That's not what I'm suggesting, but alright.

[Tetatae Squawkins]

SaltiestRaccoon, on 11 July 2018 - 04:29 AM, said:

TTK is far too high to allow for one player to make game changing plays in the right circumstances.

I don't agree with this either. One or two good players can and do swing games.

[Asym]

OP. Many of us have been talking about TTK and PGI's requirements to lengthen TTK for over a year now. SOLARIS.....

In case you haven't noticed, SOLARIS is the strategic intent of MWO at the moment. It's a play on the 1960's "Rock-and-Sock'em-Robots" game. The red and the blue robot in a yellow boxing arena?!

The goal is to have a least 5 minutes of play time in small format arena FPS's, A friend of mine at another video game company, that has created and marketed a FPS told me that it take 5 minutes of FPS gameplay to capture the players attention so that they then can "influence" their micro-transaction buying patterns.......the longer in game, the better sales...

Fine minutes is a LONG TIME....... So, TTK needs to take no less than 5 minutes. The nerf's started with the skill tree last May and have been, one after another, to do one thing and one thing only: to lengthen TTK for Solaris... Why do you think Divisions are compiled the way they are? Random>????

Can't have an Arena FPS that lasts 30 seconds: no one will play...... Remember, this isn't a linear single player story line with repeatable, linear FPS battles..........the only ways to lengthen the fight is to mix the mechs and nerf the effectiveness of the weapons, mobility and armor....

[Agent of Change]

Also it should be mentioned that arguing that TTK alone is causing "balling" is disingenuous.

"balling" occurs because it is currently the best strategy in every game mode to achieve a likely victory. there are no meaningful objectives that cannot be wholey or largely ignored in favor of "wipe out the enemy team". So long as that is true massed firepower and strength in numbers will be the only practical and preferable winning strategy in most cases.

[MTier Slayed Up]

SaltiestRaccoon, on 11 July 2018 - 04:14 AM, said:

If they die early and it goes 4/0? That's pretty much a game ender.

An uphill battle for sure, a game ender though? Not really. Won dumber games. Loss really really dumb games. Just the nature of QP.

SaltiestRaccoon, on 11 July 2018 - 04:14 AM, said:

Because it's not punishing enough to a team that allows themselves to be flanked, and not rewarding enough to a team that outmaneuvers them. This takes emphasis away from positioning, which should be a huge part of any even moderately tactical game.

Sure it is.
Did half your team derp to Theta to cap on HPG and give up the high ground? Good chance your team is going to get wiped. Likewise, if a team rotates away from their slow derpy assaults, and nascars, better hope they catch the tail end first. There's a lot more to it than you give it credit for.
This all accounts for positioning as well. If you can't see it, I have no idea what to tell you then.

SaltiestRaccoon, on 11 July 2018 - 04:14 AM, said:

You're making a bit of a strawman there. I don't think anyone would argue that it is more exciting to see big plays on offense or defense, whether that be in football, NASCAR or any other sport or game. If you find a 0-3 slog in football to be more rewarding than a game with big plays, I'd wager it's because you have one of those defenses in Fantasy.

I think you need to look up the definition of what a strawman argument is...because once again, your opinion on entertainment is your opinion alone. What you might find entertaining might be completely boring to me and vice versa. Baffled that I have to explain this to a grown adult.

SaltiestRaccoon, on 11 July 2018 - 04:14 AM, said:

Again, you're building up another strawman. I do not expect that to happen every game, or even most games. I want the possibility to exist so that big plays and good games as possible on an individual level and not just a team one.

Pretty sure you don't know what a strawman is.
If you want big plays from individual skills, you should try and play League of Legends. That has a more emphasis on individual skill than MechWarrior does. You're still basically asking for the same thing, wanting that Joe Montana on your team to throw that one in a million pass and bring the game back from 11-0 to 11-12. This is a walking tank simulator with a 12v12. Teamwork is going to be a bigger element. That's the whole premise.

SaltiestRaccoon, on 11 July 2018 - 04:14 AM, said:

That is patently untrue. Again, as with most people arguing for the high TTK your memory of the older games is a bit skewed. As for the rest of the paragraph: You don't like boating, that's fine, but ghost heat fixes a problem that is only a matter of opinion. I am absolutely fine with any of those things you mention, it's not as though only those builds can be made and would be powerful. My point in even bringing up ghost heat was to emphasize another way that damage has been further nerfed. I wouldn't even be bothered by its inclusion in the game were defensive statistics significantly lower.

I'll retract that argument since I haven't played MechWarrior 2 since I was...5? 6? Around there. I do firmly believe that we have way more freedoms in comparison to previous installments though, I'll stick with that. My bad on bringing that up, should have just stuck with 4.

SaltiestRaccoon, on 11 July 2018 - 04:14 AM, said:

I can do it too, the point is that a better player is disproportionately disfavored in that matchup because massed damage is more important than individual skill. I sound like a broken record, but you've refused to acknowledge that. You feel that the game should more heavily favor massed fire. I find that pretty damn dull because the skill ceiling as far as piloting your mech and shooting is obscenely low.

No ****? You mean 2 players pack more firepower than 1 player? What a load of crap!
Of course I favor massed firepower. Why wouldn't I? It's a robot game where you have a crap ton of weapons that go pew pew, bang bang. Just because you're a good player doesn't mean that the other team won't have a better player(s), or just be incapable of using the same load outs, etc. Hell, even my personal background is based off of more firepower than the enemy, violence of action. Kind of dumb to think otherwise?
The skill gap is sure low, 250 is an average match score. What I'd like to see is a Ranked Que but I'm a mad man for thinking that.

SaltiestRaccoon, on 11 July 2018 - 04:14 AM, said:

Strawman number three and bonus points for being insulting about it. A lower TTK does not de-emphasize team play. It simply means that individual players have a chance to shine also. You can look at virtually ANY multiplayer game out there, especially those more popular than MWO, and despite being team games, there is more room for individual achievement. The chances of a good player winning despite their team is very low in such a situation, but unlike in MWO, it does exist.

But you don't want a lower TTK, not in the way you described it. You want two potato's that fire at you be unable to kill you or you just remain magically unscathed because of your pure awesome. You also don't want more fire power or priority targets IE: The exact opposite of using teamwork
I certainly can look at other popular games, but I also can't draw up the same exact problems or successes compared to MWO, as MWO is rather unique on the market when we compare it to the likes of CoD or PUBG or League of Legends, etc. Those first two games has a more of an emphasis of a very low TTK (You can't torso twist damage in any of those games), and a hell of alot more fast paced. While the third draws an emphasis of individual skill that leads up to teamwork and team synergy. MWO doesn't have a "team synergy" outside of LRMs/tag/NARC. The comparisons of the more popular games are so low, it'd basically be an Apples to Oranges comparison.

[Daggett]

Nema Nabojiv, on 11 July 2018 - 04:32 AM, said:

In Wot you absolutely can carry against agains 3 to 5 enemies thanks to combination of various mechanics like true armor, visibility, cone of fire and huge disparities in mobility. They even have the achievement for 1vs5 carry iirc. It is hard but not impossible.

True, my comparison was more about positioning vs aim/reaction. You are right that you can fight against multiple enemies at once in WoT. Which is even an argument that high TTK is not a real problem. Because of true armor a skilled driver can live almost forever with some tanks even under heavy fire, at least much longer than in MWO. And yet WoT is a highly successful and popular game, despite that insanely high situational TTK.

Side scraping and hull-down is WoT's equivalent to torso-twisting except that it can mitigate much more damage because armor in WoT does not wear off. So here this form of high-TTK favors the skilled player greatly and makes positioning even more valuable than in MWO.

So if anything the question for MWO is not if high TTK is a problem (WoT proves that it's not), but rather if the mechanics that allow high TTK like torso-twisting involve enough skill to make them worthwhile. And personally i think while WoT rewards survival-skills more than MWO does, it's still good enough in MWO. For me torso-twisting involves enough skill to matter. It's not enough to facetank multiple enemies like in WoT but decides duels more often than not.

SaltiestRaccoon, on 11 July 2018 - 04:29 AM, said:

Well first off, I'm only a few years younger than you. I've been a Battletech fan for over 20 years at this point. Second, you're misrepresenting what I would like to see lower TTK accomplish. I don't want any player to be a one man army. In fact a lower TTK more heavily punishes people for playing recklessly. I'm fine at the skills that MWO necessitates. I regularly am top damage on my team with laser vomit or dakka and usually nab a few kills. Again, like most people arguing high TTK, you're accusing me of wanting a twitch shooter, which I don't. The TTK should be longer than most shooters, however, as it stands, the TTK is far too high to allow for one player to make game changing plays in the right circumstances.

Perhaps I'm a niche in the niche playerbase, but I want my mechs to play like mechs and not gundams that can soak up missiles and lasers like they were wet noodles.

Okay, but don't you think this is maybe just a matter of preference or perception?
In your eyes players can't make game-changing plays while i'm convinced that very good players do those regularly. Who is right, is there even an objective answer?

Maybe the difference is just that we don't always clearly see the game-changing effects of our actions like we do in other games? Or your definition of how much impact a 'game-changing-effect' needs to have is just different to mine?

It does not necessarily need to be a problem with the game if our expectations are not met...