Jump to content

Strategic Strikes Should Be Detached From Matchscore: A Roundtable Discussion.


27 replies to this topic

#1 OneTeamPlayer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • 377 posts

Posted 01 August 2020 - 05:18 AM

Proposal:

Strategic Strikes (artillery, airstrike) should be removed from calculations of matchscore.

Reasoning:
  • Strategic strikes multiply damage for zero risk and are arguably not much of a measure of skill. Find a cluster of enemies and press one button, then cause a reasonable amount of damage without need for lock, while safely behind cover if one so chooses.

  • Strategic strikes attached to matchscore makes them a de facto re-arm and repair fee, a concept which was scrapped quite early in the game's lifespan

  • Strategic strikes form a decent chunk (not a majority, but a solid percentage) of final matchscore with two available per round thus making them critical gear for anyone attempting to improve their stats and thereby increase rank. Since matchscore is a competition with all 23 players, anyone not padding their damage with strategic strikes is at a disadvantage.

  • Strategic strikes cost 80K per match to keep rearmed. Along with a UAV it's 120K which creates a situation where to be "competitive" one is highly advantaged by having premium time. Pay to Win mechanics are generally frowned upon (yes i know premium is given out on occasion, but it is not constant).

  • In keeping with the above point, Strategic Strikes also heavily favor veterans over newer players in the following ways:
  • Veteran players don't need to continue purchasing mechs at the pace newer players do making the 80 to 120K fee less noticeable. With no real need to upgrade mechs using possibly half or more of a non-premium win bonus isn't an issue for Veterans but huge for newer players of up to months of play

  • The skill tree system makes it so that Newer players have to pay to use Strikes in the first place, while they're struggling to upgrade initial mechs, buy engines, and put on enough skills to compete at approaching an equal level with everyone else (see: survival skills) instead of instantly dying (thus making no money).

  • Points 1 and 2 create a "skill" system in PSR that is heavily influenced by factors of time-played and money spent (either real cash or long term cbill investment) neither of which have any relevance to personal ability to play MWO.
Conclusion:

I feel that Strategic Strikes, because they are hidden behind the skill tree system (regressive punishment to newer players), because they are a cbill sink that prefers veterans to newer players for an extended portion of the newer player experience (up until they have a full stable of upgraded and skilled mechs, months of play), and because they are not an active measure of personal "skills" as much as they are a finance check favoring longer term players (though i'm sure someone will come along and argue that they are the height of personal skill) should be removed from damage calculation and thus matchscore calculations.

As a caveat, I think components destroyed and kills from arty could count as normal as a compromise, but even then it's a bit iffy.

Questions:
  • Do you feel Strategic Strikes are a beneficial component of matchscore and thus PSR? Why?
  • Do you feel it's conducive to accurate skill placement (PSR based on MM) that major components of Strategic Strikes are gated behind skill tree? Why?
  • Do you feel Strategic Strikes represent the kind of "skill" that is intended to be measured by a Matchmaking system? Why?
  • Do you think there would be a change to gameplay if Strategic Strikes were not attached to matchscore? What might those changes be?
  • Do you feel it's fair that the Strike System gives advantage to premium players (P2W) and older players over newer players (cbill devaluation over time played, crucial at start, worthless stacks as veteran)?
Thank you for taking the time to read, consider, and respond.

#2 Ryokens leap

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 1,166 posts
  • LocationEdmonton, Alberta, Canada

Posted 01 August 2020 - 05:38 AM

Don’t mean to stray of OP’s topic but placing strikes is way too easy for their damage potential. I’d like to see strike function in two ways. First a player shud have to maintain their crosshairs on target until strike drops, no more look at a spot, push a key and forget. Second a mechanic where a marker pod can be dropped designating the target. I can envision a brave fast mover racing through enemy position to dropping off a little gift. Would add a level of skill or daring to an uninteresting, cheeseball mechanic and possibly cut down the strike spam.

#3 Bud Crue

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Rage
  • Rage
  • 9,242 posts
  • LocationOn the farm in central Minnesota

Posted 01 August 2020 - 05:46 AM

So if we separate strike damage from match score, does that mean I still get my team damage penalty (e.g. my regular 10 second to 20 minute time outs) but not a penalty on match score; such that even when I do, say, 227 points of team damage with a strike (this is purely hypothetical of course), I sill get sent to the penalty box, but my match score is unaffected?

If so, then that's just more up arrows for me! Sign me up.

#4 Roland09

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Tai-shu
  • Tai-shu
  • 466 posts
  • LocationLuthien, Draconis Combine

Posted 01 August 2020 - 05:47 AM

Placing effective strikes does require skill, as evidenced by the fact that I cannot use them well. As such, OP's basic tenet is incorrect, and so is the conclusion he reaches.

#5 Nesutizale

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Privateer
  • The Privateer
  • 2,787 posts

Posted 01 August 2020 - 05:57 AM

Sorry for not going through all of it...have quite some headache still wanted to put in my two cent.

Do strikes involve skill? Not much still I see people placeing strikes in places that hurt the own team more then the enemy. So yes there is a little bit of skill involved.

Risk...this one depends of your mech and situation I think the most. A light mech can get into a position to make a risk free drop pretty easly. An assault has it a bit harder.

Change of gameplay if they where not tied to PSR....doubt it. I not only use them for damage farming but also to deny the enemy terretory because most people pull back or push through when you place a strike where they can see it. With that you can either seperate a few, make them go back into cover or just get damage.
So I would say of the players mindset on how they are used and they are, PSR or not, still a pretty usefull tool.

Haveing strikes put into the skilltree I think is a good idea. When people want to be dedicated strikers it should be reflected by their skilltree choices like I can decide that I want my mech to be tankier, cooler or whatever.
I would even say restrict the amount of spendable skillpoints more to have an even more focused specialsation of mechs and playstyle. Currently I have a 30/30/20/10/1 distribution as a standart, rarely going away from that and it provides me with a rather cool mech that is improved all over the board. Reduce skillpoints by at least 30 points IMO to have a bigger focus. Cool and Tanky, Better weapons and mobility....limit things to two focus points....but I am rambling.
Short, yes strikes should be in skilltree.

Cost of strikes. Yes that is a pretty silly one. Longtime players have the money and make enough during a match to supply themself regularly with new strikes, so while its a money sink its pretty unfair to new players and not a big enough one for longtime players. Gosh I am bad and I still make a plus on a regular basis...also it took me some time to get there.

Soo in conclusion I would say let them count less for PSR but they should still be there.

#6 East Indy

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Hammer
  • The Hammer
  • 1,011 posts

Posted 01 August 2020 - 06:23 AM

View PostOneTeamPlayer, on 01 August 2020 - 05:18 AM, said:

Questions:
  • Do you feel Strategic Strikes are a beneficial component of matchscore and thus PSR? Why?
  • Do you feel it's conducive to accurate skill placement (PSR based on MM) that major components of Strategic Strikes are gated behind skill tree? Why?
  • Do you feel Strategic Strikes represent the kind of "skill" that is intended to be measured by a Matchmaking system? Why?
  • Do you think there would be a change to gameplay if Strategic Strikes were not attached to matchscore? What might those changes be?
  • Do you feel it's fair that the Strike System gives advantage to premium players (P2W) and older players over newer players (cbill devaluation over time played, crucial at start, worthless stacks as veteran)?
Thank you for taking the time to read, consider, and respond.

  • Data on how many players use their full complement every match with some resulting damage would be interesting, as would the average amount of damage for all strike usage. Otherwise, yes: there's a technique to effective use. Although damage can be high, it's lower than it once was (games don't seem to hinge on usage) and higher than originally (at one point, people didn't bother with them!).
  • I don't think it's ideal, but I don't think it's avoidable, either. The same argument could be made for any skill point dividend.
  • First, while strikes are a useful component of good matchscore and can occasionally pad or redeem matchscore, strong matches are possible without use. But second, as with any question about matchscore, I've found over the years that top players do not need to resort to anything other than meta build choices and skillful performances to achieve high scores, while lesser players are unable to consistently do this. Overall, it's part of effective play.
  • No, based on the behavior of players killing a DC'd 'Mech quickly early in a match to improve team and personal odds, instead of slowly to manipulate matchscore. Min-maxers might adjust consumable selections. And matchscore would uniformly drop, but be more reflective of direct actions.
  • As with question #2, there are too many other factors separating experienced players from new ones to single out strikes.


#7 Biomechtric

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • 89 posts

Posted 01 August 2020 - 06:32 AM

Some people use LRM's with less skill than it takes to place a strike so let's remove LRM's & ATM's from MS too?
I think that them being a part of the skill tree, as they are now, is also good as strikes have the potential to cause huge amounts of team damage & having people play a few matches before using them is a good idea.
If the cost of using them is too high for a player then they are not using them correctly as if they did they would be doing enough damage\effect that they pay for themselves & then some.
Also it's not only premium time that is given away(in every event from what I can remember??) but also strikes are as well, loads of them if my account is anything to go by.
The only issue I have with strikes as they currently stand is that up to 2 each, is up to 2 too many. 1 strike each would be fine.

#8 Marquis De Lafayette

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Blazing
  • The Blazing
  • 1,336 posts
  • LocationIn Valley Forge with General Washington

Posted 01 August 2020 - 07:10 AM

Sorry...no

-Takes more skill to cause decent damage with a strike (many cause zero damage as they are poorly placed) than it does to cause damage with lrms....

-Really would hose lights (and even some mediums) in terms of MS.... a mech class that we don’t see played as often as others because even with strikes it lacks the raw firepower and is unforgiving (low armor, structure). The best strikes often placed by the light pilot who used speed and sneakiness to get a good angle to place them. That should be rewarded. Take strikes away from MS and even less people will pilot lights.

#9 Kubernetes

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Blazing
  • The Blazing
  • 2,345 posts

Posted 01 August 2020 - 07:12 AM

Discounting strike damage doesn't make sense because MS is supposed to try to account for you positive contributions, and damage is part of that. Strike damage is damage too.
Perhaps the solution here is to make strikes free. Or maybe PGI needs to create a hidden, adjusted MS solely for PSR that discounts no-skill or passive benefits (like UAV detection).

Edited by Kubernetes, 01 August 2020 - 07:13 AM.


#10 HammerMaster

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Benefactor
  • The Benefactor
  • 2,375 posts
  • LocationNew Hampshire, USA

Posted 01 August 2020 - 07:25 AM

Discussion? This should NEVER had been in in the first place!

#11 Lockheed_

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • The Hawk
  • The Hawk
  • 139 posts

Posted 01 August 2020 - 07:34 AM

I suck at placing strikes effectivley, so I consider good strike placement is something that requires skill and should be rewarded by match score.

#12 HammerMaster

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Benefactor
  • The Benefactor
  • 2,375 posts
  • LocationNew Hampshire, USA

Posted 01 August 2020 - 07:44 AM

View PostLockheed_, on 01 August 2020 - 07:34 AM, said:

I suck at placing strikes effectivley, so I consider good strike placement is something that requires skill and should be rewarded by match score.


But YOU didn't do the ACTUALLY LAUNCHING!
There's and AeroSpace fighter flying over with Airstrike. It's HIS XP.
There's an off map Artillery Piece and ArtilleryMan firing the Ground Strike. IT'S HIS XP!
You just called the grid.
Maybe we should get xp for "launching" cool shots too!
Posted Image

Edited by HammerMaster, 01 August 2020 - 08:17 AM.


#13 JediPanther

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 3,510 posts
  • LocationLost in my C1

Posted 01 August 2020 - 08:13 AM

View PostMarquis De Lafayette, on 01 August 2020 - 07:10 AM, said:

Sorry...no -Takes more skill to cause decent damage with a strike (many cause zero damage as they are poorly placed) than it does to cause damage with lrms.... -Really would hose lights (and even some mediums) in terms of MS.... a mech class that we don’t see played as often as others because even with strikes it lacks the raw firepower and is unforgiving (low armor, structure). The best strikes often placed by the light pilot who used speed and sneakiness to get a good angle to place them. That should be rewarded. Take strikes away from MS and even less people will pilot lights.


I play lights a lot and I rarely use strikes. On a bad match I get around 200-300 dmg and when I have one of my good matches I can get 500-800 dmg ranges. I use uavs far more often than strikes.

As for op: wouldn't make much difference at all. People ignore the red smoke just as much the lrm warning. The game rewards dmg over anything else.

#14 Kubernetes

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Blazing
  • The Blazing
  • 2,345 posts

Posted 01 August 2020 - 08:20 AM

I would agree that strike placement takes some skill, seeing that I've worked on it for years and still suck at it. One out of three is a good strike, one is a meh, and one misses totally.

#15 Marquis De Lafayette

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Blazing
  • The Blazing
  • 1,336 posts
  • LocationIn Valley Forge with General Washington

Posted 01 August 2020 - 09:02 AM

View PostJediPanther, on 01 August 2020 - 08:13 AM, said:


I play lights a lot and I rarely use strikes. On a bad match I get around 200-300 dmg and when I have one of my good matches I can get 500-800 dmg ranges. I use uavs far more often than strikes.

As for op: wouldn't make much difference at all. People ignore the red smoke just as much the lrm warning. The game rewards dmg over anything else.


You do play lights a lot...but a quick look at your stats indicates you shouldn’t be giving out advice on how to play them. Based on your Jarls list stats (which aren’t good) you have to be averaging close to what you listed above as a “bad match” as far as damage goes. You should probably use some strikes to help your team more. Not trying to “stat-shame” here, it’s just your actual stats don’t match what you are saying (above) about your performance in lights. You might feel you average 400-500 average in a light, but you can’t be with the stats you have.

#16 HammerMaster

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Benefactor
  • The Benefactor
  • 2,375 posts
  • LocationNew Hampshire, USA

Posted 01 August 2020 - 09:08 AM

View PostMarquis De Lafayette, on 01 August 2020 - 09:02 AM, said:

You do play lights a lot...but a quick look at your stats indicates you shouldn’t be giving out advice on how to play them. Based on your Jarls list stats (which aren’t good) you have to be averaging close to what you listed above as a “bad match” as far as damage goes. You should probably use some strikes to help your team more. Not trying to “stat-shame” here, it’s just your actual stats don’t match what you are saying (above) about your performance in lights. You might feel you average 400-500 average in a light, but you can’t be with the stats you have.


Not trying to stat shame. Quotes Jarl's.

#17 RRAMIREZ

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 78 posts
  • LocationIn the Blob

Posted 01 August 2020 - 09:10 AM

Do you feel Strategic Strikes are a beneficial component of matchscore and thus PSR? Why?
Considering the damage you can output with a "good" strike, for sure it can be.

Do you feel it's conducive to accurate skill placement (PSR based on MM) that major components of Strategic Strikes are gated behind skill tree? Why?
hummm, I don't think I have something constructive to say about that ^^

Do you feel Strategic Strikes represent the kind of "skill" that is intended to be measured by a Matchmaking system? Why?
IMHO a really "good" strike (in terms of damage) is not that easy to place and/or without risk.
Moreover a "bad" strike (or if it's not called out to your team) can result in team damage and huge MS negative inpact.
A "good" strike in term of aera denial/enemy path control is not rewarded (MS wise) so the intensive may be to use it as a "direct tool"
In fact it's all about the place of damage in MS... debatable but not specifically for strike, imho.

Do you think there would be a change to gameplay if Strategic Strikes were not attached to matchscore? What might those changes be?
See above
Just adding that my feeling is that strikes are a more effective tool than UAV for personnal PSR gaming if you can't pack both.
(the fact that strikes CD is always on use may be in correlation with that)

Do you feel it's fair that the Strike System gives advantage to premium players (P2W) and older players over newer players (cbill devaluation over time played, crucial at start, worthless stacks as veteran)?
In the old times of 3 mech rules, I felt cbills was a really farming effort.
Today, I don't fell like it's a real problem, except for REAL new comers.

my 2 cts.

Edited by RRAMIREZ, 01 August 2020 - 09:11 AM.


#18 thievingmagpi

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,356 posts

Posted 01 August 2020 - 09:17 AM

strikes are trash.


easily guaranteed several hundred damage and probably a kill or a bunch of good component destructions with basically zero punishment.

Edited by thievingmagpi, 01 August 2020 - 09:17 AM.


#19 Marquis De Lafayette

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Blazing
  • The Blazing
  • 1,336 posts
  • LocationIn Valley Forge with General Washington

Posted 01 August 2020 - 09:33 AM

View PostHammerMaster, on 01 August 2020 - 09:08 AM, said:


Not trying to stat shame. Quotes Jarl's.


If people are going to say how they perform as evidence on some subject....I am going to “check the receipts” before I just take their word on it. When you bring up your own performance, just expect people are going to check it out...


#20 Nesutizale

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Privateer
  • The Privateer
  • 2,787 posts

Posted 01 August 2020 - 09:58 AM

Out of the worst idea department....do you wanna buy an Arrow IV?





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users