40 replies to this topic

[Johnny Slam]

justcallme A S H, on 27 April 2021 - 02:24 PM, said:

Well this thread took a rather strange turn.

Yeah I guess it is what happens when someone points out a problem in arty strikes that is starting to look like it wasn't an oversight but possibly a manifestation of Game-playstyle bias by the changer. Fact is mate that the change has made the Arty useless at anything but farming some secondary damage, the question is how do you Cauldron gents take on feedback and acknowledge oversights in your changes? Just because it's a change that feeds your playstyle doesn't mean a feature like arty's should be neutered of any effective battlefield impact.

Bud Crue, on 27 April 2021 - 02:31 PM, said:

"sport"..."lifted your skirts"..."Ash thinks he is"...

Sounds personal to me. So you can pretend you are not engaging in a "cat-fight", but your statements sure make it sound pretty katty.

Oh, you're that guy. Thanks for the heads up.

[justcallme A S H]

Well it's not a fact at all.

I have still used strikes to great effect - throwing out easily 200dmg by placing them well.

Again the states aim we to stop/reduce the instant nuking of mechs as it is not a fun gameplay mechanic. That's been achieved.

[Johnny Slam]

justcallme A S H, on 27 April 2021 - 02:41 PM, said:

Well it's not a fact at all.

I have still used strikes to great effect - throwing out easily 200dmg by placing them well.

Again the states aim we to stop/reduce the instant nuking of mechs as it is not a fun gameplay mechanic. That's been achieved.

No it hasn't. Dude, arty's were not just a damage mechanic, hey I'm glad that you got some big numbers, good for you! 200 pts thats great... but it is just damage.

The problem is that Arty's were, in their proper form, not just damage but a mechanic to exert some control over a small portion of a battlefield for brief moments as a defensive ploys or even clever force-multipliers. Stalling momentum, redirecting nascar and other pushes into firing lines and enfilades, drawing attention from scouts and flankers, punishing sloppy snipers who get spotted, etc... the list of ways to use an arty to briefly impose a pilots will on a swirling combat is only limited by the imagination and skill of that pilot.

But with the actual threat removed, all that is gone, it is nothing more than a brainless secondary source for damage to pad scores. Now no pilot feels enough concern from the new damage profile to change their tactic or even pause, people are quite content to suck up the piddly hits and "keep firing!" or anything else. It has dumbed down the game and removed a mechanic to impact gameplay other than tons-per-damage.

Do I need to post this with a flow chart? or are you being purposefully obtuse in service of a goal you intended? did you not like that cleverly placed red smoke could change the flow of combat? could spook a lance about to crush an opponent and create a whole new battle? Did you not appreciate how every pilot needed to be alert and aware of his surroundings even though he had memorized the map years ago because he might not notice that red smoke?

Edited by Johnny Slam, 27 April 2021 - 03:05 PM.

[FupDup]

Johnny Slam, on 27 April 2021 - 03:02 PM, said:

The problem is that Arty's were, in their proper form, not just damage but a mechanic to exert some control over a small portion of a battlefield for brief moments as a defensive ploys or even clever force-multipliers. Stalling momentum, redirecting nascar and other pushes into firing lines and enfilades, drawing attention from scouts and flankers, punishing sloppy snipers who get spotted, etc... the list of ways to use an arty to briefly impose a pilots will on a swirling combat is only limited by the imagination and skill of that pilot.

And how did they do that? With damage. They're a damage mechanic. Damage that doesn't cost any tonnage, slots, or heat.

[Wid1046]

Wow. Dude take a few breaths, maybe wait until tomorrow, and then come back. There is no need to be so aggressive and insulting.

Johnny Slam, on 27 April 2021 - 02:23 PM, said:

[redacted]

You Cauldron guys do know it is okay to not be 100% right all the time right? I mean you have realized that you may be off target occasionally and that it is okay to revert changes... the community at large is not going to have to suck it up because you gents don't ever want to admit a mistake right???

Right???????

[redacted]

Maybe you missed the multiple threads they've posted here, on reddit, etc. asking for feedback on their changes and they themselves suggesting that some of the weapons that they changed may need additional tweaking. They are not only listening, but actively looking for feedback. Just because they disagree with you doesn't mean that they aren't willing to listen.

Edited by Wid1046, 27 April 2021 - 04:15 PM.

[dario03]

Johnny Slam, on 27 April 2021 - 02:33 PM, said:

Yeah I guess it is what happens when someone points out a problem in arty strikes that is starting to look like it wasn't an oversight but possibly a manifestation of Game-playstyle bias by the changer. Fact is mate that the change has made the Arty useless at anything but farming some secondary damage, the question is how do you Cauldron gents take on feedback and acknowledge oversights in your changes? Just because it's a change that feeds your playstyle doesn't mean a feature like arty's should be neutered of any effective battlefield impact.

Thanks for the feedback, I'll try to answer the underlined part here. The Cauldron takes on feedback by checking various areas that provide feedback (here, reddit, discord channels, ingame, etc).
If the feedback is pointing out a clear oversight like something is doing more damage than listed it is passed on to PGI, since that is just a bug to fix.

If the feedback is something like a player feels a change goes to far or not far enough we check to see how many agree and how many disagree to get an idea of what the community as a whole might think. If there is enough feedback so it seems like a lot of the community is against a change, then we discuss if it needs to be changed again, or if planned upcoming changes will possibly fix it. If something needs further changing or to be reverted, we would say that the previous change went to far and is being reverted or changed again.

If something needs changed again we look at feedback and our testing to see what might be wanted and how that would effect that items play and counterplay. Does the item work for its role? Does it need to be shifted over to another role? Is there to many overlap in a role? What level of effectiveness makes it something players want to use and would enjoy fighting against?

So far going by posts and likes in this thread, your suggestion to revert the change is supported by yourself and 2 others. The count for those against reverting is around 18, with 4 posts/likes not very clear but 3 seem to lean toward against. So right now, it appears like the majority likes the changes to strikes so it will probably go unchanged. If a large amount shifts to not liking the change then it would be discussed and possibly changed again, maybe reverted, maybe rebalanced again, would depend on feedback and upcoming changes.

Edited by dario03, 27 April 2021 - 10:20 PM.

[Qored]

My (highly subjective and personal) feeling on the arty change is that a lot of people ignore the arty that's coming in. Even poorly placed artillery gets some damage in, where I previously had to place it smart to get any damage at all. As I've moved from tier 4 to tier 3 just around the time of the patch, that does open up some possibility that it's different players who use different tactics, but at tier 4 and 5 when I moved through those, people usually moved out of the arty if they could see the red smoke.

While I understand the intent of reducing frustrations (it isn't fun to randomly get blown up by arty) by reducing the total damage, damage per hit and also spreading it out over longer time, I'm not sure that's the way I would have gone myself. I'd probably have started with either making the same damage happen over the longer time, or reduced damage but still over the shorter time. Mind you, I'm no game designer, my experience with balancing and its effect on player behavior is strictly limited to running Dungeons & Dragons and creating encounters for my campaign.

I think the airstrikes feel completely impotent at this point, with less concentrated damage and still relatively easy to step away from as it works on a thinner line, I ended up moving away from airstrikes at the mechs I had that on and just grabbing arty instead.
The gameplay effect it's had on me in general, is that I no longer choose a good moment to throw out an arty strike to the same degree. I just drop it at the enemy first chance I get and take the little extra damage, rather than try to place it carefully to get the best use of it.

Lastly, as someone who still only has a few mechs, and is constantly trying to afford the next thing, not sitting on millions of c-bills. I feel at this point, bringing an UAV is more worth it for the price than the arty strikes are. It doesn't feel worth the 40k c-bills anymore, at least not on anything but my raven, who has less damage to throw around to begin with, and won't have any need for a coolshot

[D V Devnull]

Hello all... I've read this thread (which definitely has taken weird turns, just like 'justcallme A S H' said) through, and played some games too. Frankly, I am also finding the Artillery & Air Strikes to be too weak, both on the giving & receiving ends of delivery. While it stands that I can definitely say the current values do not feel right, I also equally feel a full revert would be an extremely bad idea. Therefore, I would suggest changing the Strikes' values to...


Artillery Strikes —

• 6 Damage Per Shell (It should not be overkill, but it should not lack sting either.)
  
• Keep the Duration at 6 Seconds (This part is fine... Keep it!)
  
• Total of 22 Shells dropped on the Target Area (We do not have to get stuck on rounding to 10s!)

...at which I'm definitely certain about how I would change the Artillery Strike for an enjoyable future to the MWO game, and then...


Air Strikes (Proposal 'A') —

• 11.25 Damage Per Bomb (It's just missing that little bit of extra pain here, if there is not going to be more Bombs hitting.)
  
• Keep the Total of 7 Bombs (I definitely hated it being shortened to only 6 before by that nut-which-I-will-not-name whose initials is "C.L."... It thoroughly devalued the directional factors of the Air Strike entirely.)

Air Strikes (Proposal 'B') —

• Keep the 10 Damage Per Bomb (Insufficient in the current game climate, and only works out if enough Bombs get dropped in the first place!)
  
• Increase the Total of Bombs to 8 dropped (This would finally give it the required needed reach to warrant the Damage falling all the way to only 10 from each hit.)

...where I made two proposals for the Air Strikes because it feels like it only needs just one or the other adjusted. But, I'm personally not fully sure which shift is the best idea, as I tend to find myself feeling differently about it from one battle to the next while playing. Even having typed this just now, I only personally feel about a 66% siding with my "Proposal 'B' Version" as I'm not completely sure due to how it would still stretch the Range of where the Air Strike happened to hit, and potentially thin the Damage out too much for it to work. At the same time, the "Proposal 'A' Version" just seems like it would not have enough reach and might end up still leaving the Air Strike feeling rather undervalued and/or useless on the battlefields.


Basically, what I'm getting at is that now two sides of ideas for the Artillery & Air Strikes have been shown to the general player base. Yet, neither seem quite on the mark, and both appear to leave out the feeling of fun that should be there. Can we try putting it at some middle ground that might work better, and see how people feel on the matter? I really do think it would help the future of the MWO game.


~D. V. "one more voice wanting to help make the Artillery & Air Strikes on all sides feel enjoyable for everyone" Devnull





[Quick Edit by Post Author to fix multiple formatting errors...]

Edited by D V Devnull, 28 April 2021 - 12:11 AM.

[PocketYoda]

Strikes need to go completely.

[Brizna]

justcallme A S H, on 27 April 2021 - 02:41 PM, said:

Well it's not a fact at all.

I have still used strikes to great effect - throwing out easily 200dmg by placing them well.

Again the states aim we to stop/reduce the instant nuking of mechs as it is not a fun gameplay mechanic. That's been achieved.

The thing is that artillery strike has received a theoretical nerf of 33% in dmg, but in practice I'd say it's closer to 50% because of longer duration and how much easier to avoid, even if just partially, they are now. So I honestly doubt very much you can do 200 dmg with a single strike except in exceptional conditions and with luck's intervention. In my experience in normal circumstances dropping an strike on an area with 3-4 mechs damage is more around 100 spread among all those said mechs, most often they don't care at all.

If Cauldron had decided instead of buffing underperforming weapons to nerf the better ones they might have looked at cERPPC as an over performing weapon, what I am sure about is that Cauldron would have never nerfed it by 50% in a single blow. A 50% is undistinguishable from removing it from the game. THIS is my point.

Now before you go on about how strikes are a no slot no weight weapon I want to point that so are Coolshots and UAVs, and they are right now immensely more useful.

[D V Devnull]

MechaGnome, on 28 April 2021 - 12:51 AM, said:

Strikes need to go completely.

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree about this. If those Strike Consumables were completely gone, then players who could coordinate too well on locking down a zone could effectively force a win 100% of the time for themselves, and never leave a chance for anyone else. The end result would be only a few people enjoying while everyone else suffered, and that would not be healthy for the future of MWO in too many ways. The available Strike Consumables seriously NEED to remain around, simply in order to give other players a fighting chance so that they do not feel like MWO is something to avoid, as well as to ensure that gameplay can be shaken up and kept unique from one Match to another. Or are you trying to make sure that the best players are protected against worrying about having to actually deal with moving around?

~D. V. "Strikes should NEVER be removed... Reducing gameplay options will only cause a large unenjoyable divide!" Devnull

[Wid1046]

Brizna, on 28 April 2021 - 12:56 AM, said:

The thing is that artillery strike has received a theoretical nerf of 33% in dmg, but in practice I'd say it's closer to 50% because of longer duration and how much easier to avoid, even if just partially, they are now.
[redacted]

This is kind-of a confirmation that the change is working as intended. Arty strikes are meant to be area denial, not free damage, so if people are walking out of the area that is a good thing.

Also, a well placed arty can still get high damage. The trick now seems to be to place them in choke points or canyons where the enemy team has no choice but to walk through them or get caught by the nascar. Since they now last twice as long and can be chained into unending streams (since the global cooldown is about the same as the duration of an arty strike), they're left with the choice to walk through them or die. And if they do walk through, you can just place another arty strike ahead of that to make them face the same problem again and again until they manage to get out of the canyon.

[Brizna]

Wid1046, on 28 April 2021 - 04:11 AM, said:

This is kind-of a confirmation that the change is working as intended. Arty strikes are meant to be area denial, not free damage, so if people are walking out of the area that is a good thing.

Also, a well placed arty can still get high damage. The trick now seems to be to place them in choke points or canyons where the enemy team has no choice but to walk through them or get caught by the nascar. Since they now last twice as long and can be chained into unending streams (since the global cooldown is about the same as the duration of an arty strike), they're left with the choice to walk through them or die. And if they do walk through, you can just place another arty strike ahead of that to make them face the same problem again and again until they manage to get out of the canyon.

Silly post. If they do no damage they cause no fear and deny no area. As more and more people realize they are insignificant more and more people will ignore red smoke.

[D A T A]

Johnny Slam, on 27 April 2021 - 02:44 AM, said:

As the title, the change to the Artilary and Airstrikes has removed any tactical or area denial effect from the weapons.

Since the change, whenever I see red smoke targets will elect to stay in the area or just walk through it ingoring the strike. cutting the damage per hit by 66% has removed the threat that would make a mech avoid or leave the strike area. Smart pilots have done the math and know there is very little real risk now.

Even when used at the end of match versus beat up targets the puny 5pt hits are not doing squat. I'm sure it looked good on paper, but now that it has been run live it is clear that the changes to the strikes have reduced them to nothing more than "secondary damage generators" with no battle space or area-denial capability.

The feast or famine of the orig version wasn't perfect and it did indeed mean that you could quite possibly waste a consumable and end up doing no damage... but the threat of some real damage even if only a possiblity gave pilots pause and made them scramble, the only mechs scrambling now are lights and they were successfully scrambling previously as well.

Revert the change.

Sorry man, no more "pay c bills and press the win button" for you
The "pay to nuke here" function has been nerfed.
Getting hit by a random bomb and losing 40% health was so random and stupid

Edit, even post nerf i run 2 strikes every mech.....this actually means that they are still "meta" in terms of consumables even post nerf.
So we made an OP thing less op, but still functional, goal achieved

Edited by D A T A, 28 April 2021 - 05:20 AM.

[SPNKRGrenth]

The only buff I think current arty/strikes could use is a 30% area of effect increase per shell. Make it more of a promise that multiple shells are gonna hit if you don't move it, without increasing total damage.

Reverting the arty/strike change would be a huge mistake.

Edited by SPNKRGrenth, 28 April 2021 - 08:03 AM.

[Haipyng]

Its a positive change. For a weapon that consumes no slots or tonnage, unlimited range, often used non-line of sight it was too powerful. Then people figured out that you could target certain buildings, hills, structures in an area from across the map and hit the enemy team behind cover and teammates could spam it. As it was, it was too much. It wouldn't hurt my feelings for it to be gone completely, but I suppose they need you to spend C-bills on something.

Edited by Haipyng, 28 April 2021 - 08:33 AM.

[D V Devnull]

Haipyng, on 28 April 2021 - 08:12 AM, said:

<<<snip>>> ... a weapon that consumes no slots or tonnage, unlimited range, often used non-line of sight ... <<<snip>>>

Pardon my stopping in, but when I read this, my brain decided to have a seizure or gag reaction or something. Every time that I have attempted to place a Strike Consumable's Attack beyond 2.5 KM (2500 Meters) on the field, it has always stopped at the 2.5 KM Line and dropped it in that location instead. That also seems to be the limit of how far the game is allowing our Weapon Reticles to target into the distance. While one may have thought or felt that it was unlimited in Range for placement, direct physical experience has shown me that it is not.


That said, the values which we started with (which were created by the-nut-who-I-will-not-name whose initials are "C.L." and made us all angry) before the latest Monthly Patch are definitely never something to return to. But, neither is it a good idea to remove Consumables from the game, nor does the new state feel right to me personally. However, if you go back up this page of the thread, you will find proposals from both myself and SPNKRGrenth on reasonable ways to tweak things to make the Strike Consumables worth the investment but explicitly without making them OverPowered once again. While our angle of proposal may be very different, I think they and I at least agree that there is some kind of middle ground to be reached that would make it enjoyable on both the giving & receiving ends for everyone.


~D. V. "those Strikes never seem to reach as far as you suggest" Devnull

[Haipyng]

D V Devnull, on 28 April 2021 - 08:43 AM, said:

Pardon my stopping in, but when I read this, my brain decided to have a seizure or gag reaction or something. Every time that I have attempted to place a Strike Consumable's Attack beyond 2.5 KM (2500 Meters) on the field, it has always stopped at the 2.5 KM Line and dropped it in that location instead. That also seems to be the limit of how far the game is allowing our Weapon Reticles to target into the distance. While one may have thought or felt that it was unlimited in Range for placement, direct physical experience has shown me that it is not.

Very well. 2500 meters then, but 2500 meters is still outside the range of any meaningful application of any other weapon system in the game or outside the range of a player effectively engaging the enemy (sharing armor, inflicting nominal amounts of damage, spreading fire, etc). My point stands.

[Doctor Fission]

One arty shell hit my Phoenix Hawk and did 6% damage, turning all frontal components yellow.

This is working perfectly fine as a deterrent in my eyes.

[Ensaine]

Both strikes are fine as they are now.

It was NO fun to get rekt by an insta-gib button as things were until this recent fix.

At core, the game is about shooting mechs, not nuke-warrior.

GJ Cauldron ......