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.
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)?