Jump to content

Suggestion: Remove Artillery / Air Strikes From Qp


6 replies to this topic

#1 Water Bear

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Liquid Metal
  • Liquid Metal
  • 1,137 posts

Posted 13 February 2019 - 06:15 PM

The purpose of artillery / air strike is to deny certain strategic positions from the enemy - they never get used for that purpose in quick play. There is so little team work in general, that there is no coordinated usage of map positions to deny in the first place. Besides that, most players just use it to drop damage on teams who have no choice but to stick to whatever cover they have. It's basically a modern version of pop-tarting. Some random medium or light jumps over the hill you're hiding behind and pops off an artillery. You can run into the open or just tank the damage.

Edited by Water Bear, 13 February 2019 - 06:24 PM.


#2 Blacksheep One

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 73 posts
  • LocationThe Land of Beer and Cheese

Posted 13 February 2019 - 09:53 PM

Here's an idea.

Leave them in so people *do* learn to use it.

Honestly, what irks me more is seeing people *not* use it - even if they're facing a clumped up group of enemies. Especially late match with a bunch of red torsos and components.

#3 Water Bear

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Liquid Metal
  • Liquid Metal
  • 1,137 posts

Posted 14 February 2019 - 06:51 AM

View PostBlacksheep One, on 13 February 2019 - 09:53 PM, said:

Here's an idea.

Leave them in so people *do* learn to use it.

Honestly, what irks me more is seeing people *not* use it - even if they're facing a clumped up group of enemies. Especially late match with a bunch of red torsos and components.


What do you mean by "learn to use it"? I stated in the OP that the intended use for them, as far as I am aware, is to deny map position. They are not intended to punish players for being clumped up. In point of fact, this game has an XP bonus for "unit in formation." So it would seem the game designers intend for players to be relatively clumped up.

I am making this suggestion from the perspective of game design, not from the perspective of learning to cope with the game that we have.

Edited by Water Bear, 14 February 2019 - 09:37 AM.


#4 Water Bear

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Liquid Metal
  • Liquid Metal
  • 1,137 posts

Posted 14 February 2019 - 06:55 AM

To be clear, the idea behind this suggestion was asking the question "Are air / artillery strikes doing what the designers intended for them to do?" and believing the answer to that question is negative (at least in QP).

#5 Blacksheep One

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 73 posts
  • LocationThe Land of Beer and Cheese

Posted 15 February 2019 - 04:04 AM

I mean exactly what I said. Leave them in so players learn to use it.

Quote

. They are not intended to punish players for being clumped up. In point of fact, this game has an XP bonus for "unit in formation." So it would seem the game designers intend for players to be relatively clumped up.


And just because there's an award for "Lance in formation," that doesn't mean "We intend for you to stay clumped up." Why would someone NOT want to take advantage of that and break a formation? If they're in formation, they can concentrate fire. If you're using artillery to break up that formation, you're introducing confusion and NOT letting them concentrate fire, and if they don't break up, yes, they're taking damage - making it easier for the rest of your side to get kills. As stated in the OP - "You just run into the open" (IE: break formation, making yourself an easier target) or tank the damage (assuming you can, also making it easier for someone to kill you more quickly.)

Just because there *is* an award for something doesn't mean you should hand it over to the other team. There are awards for component destruction and KMDD, too. Should we then just stand still and let the other side shoot us up? There's an award for UAV detections. Should we not shoot them down?

Doing damage to the enemy with arty or air strikes is not "punishing" them any more than shooting at them with a medium laser is. And you acknowledge it's "Area denial." How else would you discourage an enemy from being (or staying) in a specific area other than dropping a bunch of damage on them?

Edited by Blacksheep One, 15 February 2019 - 04:24 AM.


#6 Water Bear

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Liquid Metal
  • Liquid Metal
  • 1,137 posts

Posted 17 February 2019 - 05:01 AM

View PostBlacksheep One, on 15 February 2019 - 04:04 AM, said:

I mean exactly what I said. Leave them in so players learn to use it.



And just because there's an award for "Lance in formation," that doesn't mean "We intend for you to stay clumped up." Why would someone NOT want to take advantage of that and break a formation? If they're in formation, they can concentrate fire. If you're using artillery to break up that formation, you're introducing confusion and NOT letting them concentrate fire, and if they don't break up, yes, they're taking damage - making it easier for the rest of your side to get kills. As stated in the OP - "You just run into the open" (IE: break formation, making yourself an easier target) or tank the damage (assuming you can, also making it easier for someone to kill you more quickly.)

Just because there *is* an award for something doesn't mean you should hand it over to the other team. There are awards for component destruction and KMDD, too. Should we then just stand still and let the other side shoot us up? There's an award for UAV detections. Should we not shoot them down?

Doing damage to the enemy with arty or air strikes is not "punishing" them any more than shooting at them with a medium laser is. And you acknowledge it's "Area denial." How else would you discourage an enemy from being (or staying) in a specific area other than dropping a bunch of damage on them?


Again, you are talking about how to use air and artillery strike. I am talking about whether they should be in the game in the first place.

As far as I can tell, this discussion boils down to whether or not you believe the purpose of artillery and air strike is to strategically deny positions (what I think) or whether it's just there so you can splash a bunch of damage on the enemy (apparently what you believe). I believe there was a post / tweet / something about this in the past, but I am struggling to find it. Some justification from upstairs about why arty / air strikes were included in the game.

#7 Blacksheep One

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 73 posts
  • LocationThe Land of Beer and Cheese

Posted 17 February 2019 - 09:25 AM

The two are the same. We have no other way (short of stuffing a bunch of mechs somewhere) to "deny" areas besides damage. And that's what the strikes *do.* We don't have other AOE options - there are no mine laying missiles (which would still be "damage.") We don't have a diggermech to cut trenches, we don't get to break building structure to put people inside buildings, and we don't have a Trumpmech that goes around building walls. Aside from Air/Artillery strikes, what would *you* put in to "strategically deny positions?"

This is not an RTS or turn-based game where you build and fortify a position to defend and/or sortie out from. (Mind you, I wouldn't MIND that in the MW universe, but that's not this game.) This is "Drop 12 people to kill those 12 people (or maybe get some other objective, but killing the other 12 people works too, numbers may vary depending on engagement type.)" Other than UAVs (which point targets out for damage,) our options to do so are ballistic damage, energy damage, missile damage and collision damage, with two options for AOE damage - air strikes and artillery.

As for "Whether they should be in the game in the first place?" Yes, they should. They're part of the world MWO is set in. And they give options for breaking up or slowing enemy progress.

Edited by Blacksheep One, 17 February 2019 - 09:32 AM.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users