81 replies to this topic

[Khobai]

strikes arnt overpowered

but they are toxic because theyre no cost trash and theres no reason not to spam them which makes them bad game design.

better game design would be getting rid of strikes and adding the naga and catapult-3 (and/or thunder hawk) to the game with hardwired ARROWIV and actually creating a new role in the game in the form of artillery mechs. then using artillery would come with the opportunity cost of having to devote a mech on your team to that role.

getting rid of ALL consumables in the same manner and replacing them with actual equipment would be way better for the game.

Edited by Khobai, 10 March 2019 - 03:09 PM.

[Mystere]

AncientRaig, on 10 March 2019 - 02:57 PM, said:

Firstly, both teams were nascaring.

Secondly, the arty was more of a contributor to the nascar than anything else. Any time we tried to organize for a push across the center, the enemy team would drop it on the ramps which usually ended up starting the nascar again.

That does not change the fact that the enemy took advantage of the situation.

[Redshirt4Life]

Khobai, on 10 March 2019 - 03:03 PM, said:

strikes arnt overpowered

but they are toxic because theyre no cost trash and theres no reason not to spam them which makes them bad game design.

better game design would be getting rid of strikes and adding the naga and catapult-3 (and/or thunder hawk) to the game with hardwired ARROWIV and actually creating a new role in the game in the form of artillery mechs. then using artillery would come with the opportunity cost of having to devote a mech on your team to that role.

getting rid of ALL consumables in the same manner and replacing them with actual equipment would be way better for the game.

Yeah they did that in WoT. Call them arty and the community absolutely hates them. There are no redeeming factors. They are boring to play and terrible to play against. They add no strategic elements. No interaction. No counterplay. They are just awful. Nothing less fun then getting chunked away just because you were the blip they happened to select on the minimap.

LRMs are bad enough. See all the people complaining about the current LRM changes? Amplify that by a million.

Edited by Redshirt4Life, 10 March 2019 - 04:09 PM.

[Prototelis]

If you're having trouble eating strikes you're camping or standing where strikes usually get placed.

If you see the smoke; MOVE at a 45 degree angle. Most airstrikes come from in front of you, they follow the path the user was looking. Artillery strikes make a pattern kind of like an Asterix, if you move at a 45 degree angle away from the smoke there is a strong chance you will take less damage.

[Khobai]

Prototelis, on 10 March 2019 - 05:38 PM, said:

If you're having trouble eating strikes you're camping or standing where strikes usually get placed.

If you see the smoke; MOVE at a 45 degree angle. Most airstrikes come from in front of you, they follow the path the user was looking. Artillery strikes make a pattern kind of like an Asterix, if you move at a 45 degree angle away from the smoke there is a strong chance you will take less damage.

its mathematically provable that certain mechs such as the dire wolf cannot accelerate out of an artillery strike's radius in time. its definitely not true that you can always avoid them. and theres also still a lot of issues with seeing the red smoke in time or even seeing it at all. the way artillery strikes work is just all around BAD.

also moving through artillery strikes increases the likelihood of getting hit by multiple shells before the duration of the strike ends. if you cant move out of the strike in time, youre better off just stopping so you only get hit with one shell at most. but again thats bad design on PGI's part... its just more punishment for being too slow which is something the dire wolf cant help.

and the main argument for why strikes are toxic isnt because theyre not avoidable (and theyre not always avoidable). Its because they have no appreciable cost, whether its an opportunity cost or a fungible cost in tonnage/crits. That makes them compulsory and spammable in every game.

im not saying the game shouldnt have strikes. just that strikes need to actually cost something instead of being no cost trash thats constantly spammed. although I would prefer if strikes were replaced with mech-based artillery weapons altogether. I think that would be way more fun.

Edited by Khobai, 10 March 2019 - 06:01 PM.

[HammerMaster]

Khobai, on 10 March 2019 - 05:46 PM, said:

I think that would be way more fun.

Immersion is what you are looking for.

[Prototelis]

Khobai, on 10 March 2019 - 05:46 PM, said:

its mathematically provable that certain mechs such as the dire wolf cannot accelerate out of an artillery strike's radius in time. its definitely not true that you can always avoid them. and theres also still a lot of issues with seeing the red smoke in time or even seeing it at all. the way artillery strikes work is just all around BAD.

A direworf is more than fast enough to avoid an AIRSTRIKE when moving at a 45 degree angle unless placed closed to the edge of the map. (IE with the user on the border and reciever 400 meters away. Airstrike time isn't static, an airplane drops them) If I can do it in the ******* king crab a direwolf can do it.

I didn't say you could avoid an entire ARTILLERY STRIKE in a slow mech. You can however greatly mitigate the damage by backing away from the center of the strike at a 45 degree angle due to the placement of pallets.

It seems to me you don't know the difference between the two. Not surprising.

Quote

also moving through artillery strikes increases the likelihood of getting hit by multiple shells before the duration of the strike ends. if you cant move out of the strike in time, youre better off just stopping so you only get hit with one shell at most.

WRONG. You are always better off moving AWAY from a strike at a 45 degree angle. The best thing to do is back away AS SOON AS YOU CAN to minimize the chances of taking a back hit.

Quote

and the main argument for why strikes are toxic isnt because theyre not avoidable (and theyre not always avoidable). Its because they have no appreciable cost, whether its an opportunity cost or a fungible cost in tonnage/crits. That makes them compulsory and spammable in every game.

There is more opportunity cost associated with using strikes efficiently than IDF LRMS.

Quote

I would prefer if strikes were replaced with mech-based artillery weapons altogether. I think that would be way more fun.

Not for light mechs.

[MW Waldorf Statler]

The Problems of the new autistic narcistic Generation Z ...im will Fun and Win, without learning or Train and with the dumbest actions...nerf Thinking

[General Solo]

I think strikes add to Immersion and thinking is required to do strikes good.

Plus every one can equip and effectively use this awesome Immersive weapon well if they think guid

Its a battlefield for goodness sake, people should be afraid, not walking around totally unafraid like Zues (not the mech).

Yes they can do big damage

For example I did 250 damage yesterday, To my team, so its a double edged sword.
Was an accident

Old MW4 Ranger, on 10 March 2019 - 07:44 PM, said:

The Problems of the new autistic narcistic Generation Z ...im will Fun and Win, without learning or Train and with the dumbest actions...nerf Thinking

I cant see your point over all that negging

[Khobai]

Redshirt4Life, on 10 March 2019 - 04:07 PM, said:

Yeah they did that in WoT. Call them arty and the community absolutely hates them. There are no redeeming factors. They are boring to play and terrible to play against. They add no strategic elements. No interaction. No counterplay. They are just awful. Nothing less fun then getting chunked away just because you were the blip they happened to select on the minimap.

LRMs are bad enough. See all the people complaining about the current LRM changes? Amplify that by a million.

im confused how WoT is at all relevant to MWO

just because people hate something in WoT doesnt mean theyll hate it in MWO. you cant make blind assumptions about MWO based on a completely different game. Especially when the artillery mechanics would be completely different. people hate artillery in WoT because of the visibility rules, which dont exist in MWO. You can see clear across the map in MWO.

There may not be counterplay in WoT but there certainly would be in MWO. The only way to know for sure whether or not people would hate artillery weapons in MWO would be to add them and see.

Redshirt4Life, on 10 March 2019 - 04:07 PM, said:

LRMs are bad enough. See all the people complaining about the current LRM changes? Amplify that by a million.

Why would people complain more about ARROWIV than LRMs? ARROWIV would require TAG to lockon and guide it to the target. It would actually require teamwork and effort to guide it to the target.

People complain about LRMs for the exact opposite reason: That they require no effort. The whole purpose of ARROWIV is that it would actually require effort to pull off and have a bigger payoff as a result.

Edited by Khobai, 10 March 2019 - 11:51 PM.

[Redshirt4Life]

When I'm comparing a very similiar mechanic in a very similiar game its not a blind assumption. A blind assumption is assuming it will be different without any basis for how or why. People do not like being shot without being able to shoot back. Not ever. Shooting something tagged requires no skill.

Edited by Redshirt4Life, 11 March 2019 - 03:32 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

Redshirt4Life, on 11 March 2019 - 03:31 AM, said:

When I'm comparing a very similiar mechanic in a very similiar game its not a blind assumption. A blind assumption is assuming it will be different without any basis for how or why. People do not like being shot without being able to shoot back. Not ever. Shooting something tagged requires no skill.

No when you are narced or tagged there is a player that have done so. This is a question of team work to prevent the narc or TAG. With a slightly more delicate Info-War module this would include counter-scout tactis but also improve the role of the scout.
Currently everybody with a LOS can spot for LRMs - this requires no skill and should not be effective - (on the other hand guys that hunt for their own locks - using TAG and PPCs should get better performant LRMs.

And with the Artillery and Air-Strike Modules its exactly the same- with better integration those tools would add tactical and narrative deep.

[Redshirt4Life]

Either its going to be effective, and the meta will shift to ecm lights constantly lighting up the enemy while they melt to shots from targets they can't see, turning the game into chase the squirrel. Or the mechanic will be underpowered and everyone will rage at these useless mechs taking up tonnage in QP.

Lights are already super effective at spotting for LRM boats. And we already know the consensus on that mechanic.

[Blacksheep One]

Are they OP - No.
1. They cost. OK, so money generally rolls in, yeah. But they also cost build slots, other than the very first. They also take from 20-100% of your consumables depending on how many slots you open. Do you want a UAV, an Arty strike, an Air strike or a Cool shot? They don't need to cost tonnage (how would that even work? One ton to point and say "Over there!"?) I'll generally prioritize a UAV on a light, honestly.

(Corollary to 1 - They're available to everyone. You don't need X many slots or tons free. A Flea can use it at the same cost as an Annihilator. They're not IS or Clan specific, and you don't need a certain omnipod or slot type free.)

2. They're the only AOE options we have to do things like break formations (or if they don't break, do a bunch of damage.) We don't have multi-warhead or minelaying missiles.

3. They're limited. You can have, at max, two. Now, yes, if the entire team took them and had two slots dedicated, that's 24 strikes - but if I tallied up the number of games where people had no consumables, had consumables but an arty/air strike wasn't one of them, or just didn't use them when they had them, I'd be surprised if that wasn't at 100%.

4. You don't (really) aim, and there's a delay. Precision on placement is up to you. And even if placed perfectly, the target can still get out of the way (in most instances) for zero cost - no AMS, no armor tonnage, nothing - and at best you have one more shot. And they've even got a decent chance of being warned first (depending on placement and map) because of the red smoke. (Yes, you can cheese this - putting it on the bottom level or under a ramp in HPG, for instance - but there's also cover.)

If you want to do anything because you're worried they're "too much?" Instead of nerfing, push to have other, equally desirable consumables. I've mentioned leg pods for providing an AOE in the past. Perhaps placing some sort of countermeasure - a smokescreen (that covers radar and such) to counter being pinned down by a sniper. Come up with something people will want to spend that slot on instead of a strike.

[Variant1]

Khobai, on 10 March 2019 - 03:03 PM, said:

strikes arnt overpowered

but they are toxic because theyre no cost trash and theres no reason not to spam them which makes them bad game design.

better game design would be getting rid of strikes and adding the naga and catapult-3 (and/or thunder hawk) to the game with hardwired ARROWIV and actually creating a new role in the game in the form of artillery mechs. then using artillery would come with the opportunity cost of having to devote a mech on your team to that role.

getting rid of ALL consumables in the same manner and replacing them with actual equipment would be way better for the game.

Spam? each time someone uses an arty it places the whole teams strikes on cooldown
and heck no i want arty strikes to stay. All pgi can do is simply make the strike take longer to apear or make it so that the smoke has to be launched like the uav.

Redshirt4Life, on 10 March 2019 - 04:07 PM, said:

Yeah they did that in WoT. Call them arty and the community absolutely hates them. There are no redeeming factors. They are boring to play and terrible to play against. They add no strategic elements. No interaction. No counterplay. They are just awful. Nothing less fun then getting chunked away just because you were the blip they happened to select on the minimap.

LRMs are bad enough. See all the people complaining about the current LRM changes? Amplify that by a million.

As someone who used to play WoT i can confirm, the worst decision that the devs ever made. And you want to know the funny part in their excuse in adding arty? to counter campers, which ironic is that arty involves camping one spot the entire round shooting at tanks from across the map with satelite vision.....

[Novakaine]

Add armor to your mechs and learn the color red.
Problem solved.

[Angel of Annihilation]

They aren't OP, they are just annoying.

[Xeno Phalcon]

Anyone that makes use of strikes knows how to get around the 'durrr i see red, I should move now' types. Lights are particularly good at getting into possition to hit people with strikes from angles they wont be expecting, as well as using them on spots that are difficult to see the smoke (such as corners of buildings, tall rocks, even trees - super easy to do this on canyon and mining) only a complete greenhorn puts the smoke some place obvious like right in front of someone.

[Dee Eight]

Darakor Stormwind, on 08 March 2019 - 11:23 PM, said:

BTW, in case somebody wonders... Strillery Strikes are the ones right next to Artillery Strikes...

Distillery strikes ? STAY AWAY FROM MY WHISKEY !!!

[Mystere]

Redshirt4Life, on 11 March 2019 - 03:31 AM, said:

When I'm comparing a very similiar mechanic in a very similiar game its not a blind assumption. A blind assumption is assuming it will be different without any basis for how or why. People do not like being shot without being able to shoot back. Not ever. Shooting something tagged requires no skill.

People also do not like losing. Should we make everyone "winners"?

Edited by Mystere, 11 March 2019 - 04:53 PM.