Jump to content

Cadet Feedback


6 replies to this topic

#1 GlyphKnightMax

    Rookie

  • The Stryker
  • The Stryker
  • 9 posts

Posted 24 February 2021 - 02:59 PM

There isn't a general feedback section, so we'll try here.

Hello! I'm still quite new to the game (started less than a month ago, I think), and I felt it would be wise to provide some feedback from a legally-not-Cadet's perspective. I would like to preface this by saying that most of what I have to talk about is minor feedback, as the game seems to mostly be in a good place - and the new roadmap and content gives me a lot of hope that I actually DIDN'T miss out on this incredible experience.

In order:

1. LRM/AMS
2. Ballistics/Energy
3. Clarity of text changes


1. LRM/AMS

A lot of people blow this issue out of proportion, I've seen. There's definitely still an issue here, and it needs to be addressed, but the situation seems very delicate and one wrong move could just make things worse.
First, the need for indirect fire is understandable. It also makes sense that allies can feed targeting data, so lock-on through terrain is possible. However, one thing that might help the current situation is to reduce or remove missile tracking on targets that are not directly in sight of the one firing the missiles.
ART4 makes missile grouping closer and improves tracking, so a change like this would mean you'd want to FORGO ART4 to splash missiles over cover. Conversely, taking ART4 would be better for more direct fire with line-of-sight.
Overall, I don't know EXACTLY the right answer, but whatever the change is, it should be minor and help mitigate the feeling of "I can't do anything but take cover, I can't return fire on the guy hitting me, and if I'm not fast I just lose." I DO think the current situation can be mostly mitigated by taking proper cover and excellent team coordination - but on maps where tall enough cover is scarce, or when queueing solo, those are not typically viable options.

Which brings me to AMS. I'll skip the long explanation of how things ARE, and move to what I would suggest. Again, mostly the changes I suggest are in spirit more than letter.
A single AMS is almost useless right now. Multiple mechs with AMS or a single mech with many AMS is the only proper counter to LRM fire without cover or coordination. I would suggest making the two types slightly more distinct from one another while also increasing their individual effectiveness a bit.
For example, Laser AMS could have a greater range. It would begin destroying missiles further away, which would mean more missiles down but more consistent heat generation if using several of them. A Laser AMS Kit Fox, let's say, would need to keep a better eye on the heat they generate to avoid overload or shut down.
In conjunction with that, ballistic AMS could fire faster and be a bit more accurate / deal a bit more damage. The physical option would run out of ammo faster, but would be much more effective at downing missiles once they were in range compared to a Laser AMS. Combining the two, then, would be much more effective for a short time, shoot down more missiles to provide better cover, but would transition to a longer range and less effective system (the Laser AMS) once ammo ran dry.

The two, LRMs and AMS, combined would provide a better environment when both are involved in a match. It seems extremely silly that someone on the enemy team can brag about doing over 1000 damage once they're killed - when almost 900 of it went to killing my allied Atlas who was behind cover most of the match, holding a corner to keep the enemy from pushing. It hurts a little to see people talking about breaking out their LRM boat to "farm matches" because it's just that easy. Again, the changes don't need to be major, but something clearly still needs to be done.


2. Ballistics/Energy

A friend of mine LOVES to theory-craft and meta-game. He's got his own sense of pride that keeps him from trying to outright "break" a game, but he wants to be effective and have fun, so he engineers that experience for himself whenever he can. It was he who brought this next topic to my attention, and my feedback is therefore colored by his observations as well.
Currently it makes little sense to take an AC2 or AC5 over something like an ER Medium Laser. Yes, they generate less heat, but the weight, slots, and ammo cost mean that one should just add extra heat sinks to cover the difference.
Now, here's the problem with that statement: I can't think of constructive and effective feedback, because mechs like the Direwolf Ultraviolet exist. Buffing AC2s, LBX2s, and the like would break mechs that have a ton of ballistic hardpoints. Builds that use smaller ACs to barrage are already effective enough, but carrying just one or two makes no sense for a smaller mech.
The spirit of the feedback is this: lighter mechs could do with better ballistic options that aren't machine guns, but buffing AC2s and AC5s could lead to disaster.
As with the rest of the topic, the whole thing is open to feedback, but there seems to be an imbalance here that is wider than necessary. Yes, the "illusion" of balance is more important than actual balance, that's basic game design theory, but there still seems to be quite a large gap between where the comparison is and where it feels like it should be, I suppose.


3. Clarity of text changes

This section will be the shortest. As a new player, and with some friends who joined around when I did, there's just a few things about the text of the game that could be improved.

Some direction to the fact that skill trees exist would be a good idea. I found them right away, but one of my friends played for two weeks before he knew what match XP was even for, and he only realized because I held up our group from starting matchmaking to put in skill points - and said as much.
A few of the skills could do with a better explanation of what they truly do. We thought "Cooldown" in the Firepower tree meant that we dissipated heat faster, until our veteran friend pointed out that the tooltip could be misleading. Wording more like "Once fired, weapons ready faster," or something would help that a bit.
Finally, the damage report on death would be helped by including how MUCH damage each listed event dealt. Time to kill feels very on-point in the game, but there are anomalies. I've been instantly killed by a shotgun of SRMs to the back in my Night Gyr, and a friend died to 10 damage to the back left torso in a Piranha from a Gauss Rifle. Even with a clan XL, that shouldn't kill him as far as we're aware - he has more combined armor and structure in that spot than 10.


Really, that's all we could think of, even as new players. We took some time, a few weeks, to truly familiarize ourselves with things. We've gone to testing grounds, the academy, played tons of matches, and really enjoyed our time. This topic, and the feedback here, are the reflections of new players on the experience. Most of us don't know anything about the lore; our feedback is strictly on the experience as a PvP game.

Thanks for all the great matches so far, and I look forward to seeing you all in battle again soon.

~ Max

#2 GlyphKnightMax

    Rookie

  • The Stryker
  • The Stryker
  • 9 posts

Posted 24 February 2021 - 03:37 PM

I forgot to mention:
One of my friends suggested simply making LRMs travel slower. Same tracking and grouping, but with a slower travel time, AMS as they currently are become more effective, and people can run for cover a bit easier.

I also forgot that it would be much appreciated to be able to make the text larger. I can't afford glasses, but I do need them for reading sometimes, so I have to squint or lean forward half the time to read chat or tooltips.

Edited by GlyphKnightMax, 24 February 2021 - 03:43 PM.


#3 Sasuga

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • The Widow Maker
  • The Widow Maker
  • 127 posts

Posted 02 March 2021 - 10:56 PM

As someone who plays all different mechs and styles, LRMs are fine as are right now IMO. Maybe even a little on the weak side, but fine.

Between AMS, ECM, Terrian, The fact they turn deadfire when target lock is lost... they're fine.

Edited by Sasuga, 02 March 2021 - 10:57 PM.


#4 KursedVixen

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Wolf
  • The Wolf
  • 2,880 posts
  • LocationLook at my Arctic Wolf. Closer... Closer...

Posted 04 March 2021 - 09:51 PM

the only issue i have is that all clan AC's even the non-existant Normal Ac's AC-2,5,10,20 Which are really LBX with slug shots have burst fire. The way I see it either all UAC"s (IS and Clan) should have burst fire or none.... and on that note give Clan LBX with slugs so the AC a single shot instead of burst.

Edited by KursedVixen, 04 March 2021 - 09:51 PM.


#5 ScrapIron Prime

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 4,743 posts
  • LocationSmack dab in the middle of Ohio

Posted 05 March 2021 - 05:38 AM

Welcome to the game (belatedly)!

Much of the mechanics of the game are simply in place due to the fact that it is a port of a tabletop miniatures game that has been around since the mid 80’s. The “lore” of the game sets the basics for weights and ranges. The trouble comes, of course, in the compromises that have been made in converting the concept from miniatures game to first person shooter.

LRMs in previous incarnations of the game don’t quite work like they do here. In order to get indirect fire, the spotter and the launcher each have to be equipped with special gear. In this game, since there is more hard cover than in the miniatures game, indirect fire is needed to make LRMs a valid choice as a weapon system, so everyone gets the ability for free, essentially. While his has caused a lot of hate over the years, it’s not Armageddon from the skies; people just have to learn how to use cover.

The dichotomy of heat versus weight that you’ve noted with autocannons is a core mechanic of game balance from the original game. Long range was a massive advantage, one you paid tonnage for. Ditto with low heat. So yes, smaller mechs cannot mount batteries of small bore autocannons. There are types of autocannons that are lighter with shorter ranges that have not been implemented in game, mostly because the larger mechs would boat them and the concern is that this would not be a net improvement to the game.

Anyway, keep giving feedback. Much as us lore historians love the game, the reality is that it is a first person shooter and it has to be fun to attract and keep new players!

#6 Theodore

    Member

  • PipPip
  • 29 posts

Posted 05 March 2021 - 10:20 AM

View PostGlyphKnightMax, on 24 February 2021 - 02:59 PM, said:

2. Ballistics/Energy

A friend of mine LOVES to theory-craft and meta-game. He's got his own sense of pride that keeps him from trying to outright "break" a game, but he wants to be effective and have fun, so he engineers that experience for himself whenever he can. It was he who brought this next topic to my attention, and my feedback is therefore colored by his observations as well.
Currently it makes little sense to take an AC2 or AC5 over something like an ER Medium Laser. Yes, they generate less heat, but the weight, slots, and ammo cost mean that one should just add extra heat sinks to cover the difference.


I am still new, so take what I am about to say with a grain of salt. (heck I might actually be spouting non-sense)

I am not exactly sure what the problem is here?
These are different weapon systems with different types of damage.
Lasers are hit scan.
Autocannons are projectile.

Giving the player to choose what they prefer to equip onto their battlemechs is great.
Theory crafting is great, and MWO is a great game to apply that, so your friend has found a great game to play.

But... not everything is about heat/slots/damage.

Application of damage, available hardpoints, mech geometry, range, rate of fire... players personal preference and play style... ect...

That is what makes this game so fun for me, is the multitude of different choices that can be made. Sure there is a "meta" but even with that in mind, there is still a lot of choices to be made. This game has a lot of variety in its "meta" because there are different weight classes, and different roles.

Personally, I have been gravitating towards Pin Point Front Loaded Damage. I still use Lasers as a damage supplement here and there but I really enjoy ballistics as my go-to weapon of choice.

Sure er-medium lasers can do a lot of damage compared to their weight cost, but that does not automatically make it the absolute choice over ac2 and ac5 for all mech chassis and for all pilots.

I have heard of people boating 6 c-ac/2 on rifleman IIc... (its not even the ultra 2... just the regular c-ac2...) It is their preference. They do not mind the extra critical slot it takes up over the c-uac/2, but I can only assume that they want the extra range it provides? Combine that with the mech's +10% range... and possibly the pilot skill tree...

Anyway, there are many factors for when choosing what weapon systems to put on a mech. It is nice that we have so many choices in MWO.

#7 ScrapIron Prime

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 4,743 posts
  • LocationSmack dab in the middle of Ohio

Posted 05 March 2021 - 10:38 AM

Agreed. Mounting (3 AC/10’s) or (2 PPC plus 2 AC/5’s) may not be the most efficient way to dish the damage, but the value of 30 pinpoint damage downrange with matched projectile velocities is just fun. And effective.

Edited by ScrapIron Prime, 05 March 2021 - 10:39 AM.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users