33 replies to this topic

[Agent Super Chicken]

I think it's great that Francois indicated some look-fors with arrows and circles BEFORE the map came out.
It would be extremely helpful for a) new players getting seal clubbed, and people falling into old habits with nascar and such, if PGI was able to shake Francois loose for a day to draw up a few minutes briefing video on each map, and compile them for easy access on the website - content creators may take that and extend it greatly, offer extensions or differing opinions, but if new or average players were to have a birds' eye view right from the start, a few minutes of info each, I think the game would be a lot more enjoyable for everyone.
It shouldn't be the case that each new player needs months of training on a comp team to know call-outs for popular positions or preferred ramps or such, before they can feel like they're pulling their weight.
It's always been needed, and we saw a bit of it included with this longer video today. It would be lovely to see a set of them.

[Dregian Bloodwrath]

great work pgi keep it up... but Is just me or did someone els also notice they forgot about the monthly mech lol

[Kodan Black]

Lockheed_, on 19 April 2022 - 07:23 AM, said:

brawling is totally viable.

I hear this loads on the forums. Then in the game everyone complains it is a sniper fest that isn't fun anymore. Dunno what is the disconnect there, but when you hear it over and over in game from players unsolicited I have to think it might be an actual issue.

[Buenaventura]

InnerSphereNews, on 18 April 2022 - 04:22 PM, said:

Intro 00:00 to 00:26
Maps 00:27 to 05:35
Mechs 05:36 to 08:34
Design and Gameplay 08:35 to 11:02
Outro 11:03 to 12:00

So, how about a tl,dw - too long, didn't watch - version of the important bits? Especially considering this:

InnerSphereNews, on 18 April 2022 - 04:22 PM, said:

*Apologies for the audio quality and volume fluctuations

[Heavy Money]

Kodan Black, on 19 April 2022 - 11:29 AM, said:

I hear this loads on the forums. Then in the game everyone complains it is a sniper fest that isn't fun anymore. Dunno what is the disconnect there, but when you hear it over and over in game from players unsolicited I have to think it might be an actual issue.

See, if you take a brawler and a sniper and plonk them down on a map and they are both good players, then the brawler is going to approach using cover or some sensible path that minimizes damage, and the sniper is going to try to position well and deny cover. The sniper will try to do enough dmg that, once the brawler makes it into close range, they are damaged enough that the sniper can still win despite being much less effective than them. The skill of both players matters, but generally speaking the sniper is in the much more passive role. They have less to work with in terms of positioning because they need to be constantly watching for the brawler when they are in the open, etc. The difference between a very good and very bad sniper is not going to be all that large because there probably isn't any super strategic move to pull off at all. It'll mostly be a matter of taking shots as they are presented and trying to stay on target.

In contrast, what the Brawler does matters a LOT. They are in the active role. If they charge straight at the sniper and stay in the open the whole time, they'll take a ton of damage. If they use some of the potential cover, they'll take less. If they get the most out of the potential cover, they'll take the lowest amount of damage. Generally, getting the most out of potential cover and making the most efficient approach will be much harder than what the sniper is doing.

So this dynamic is inherently unbalanced because the brawler has to work much harder than the sniper. But this isn't unfair, because the brawler is rewarded in that as long as they achieve at least a decent amount of cover use, they will basically always win with the way things are currently balanced (with the exception of very very large maps and/or very very slow brawlers.)

Now of course in a real match you have more people, more speeds of mechs, and generally more variables of every type. But this basic dynamic still exists: Brawlers are rewarded if they can pull off their active role. Snipers are much more passive and are generally at the mercy of what the enemy team lets them get away with.

So this is why there are complaints about Sniper meta, especially at lower tiers. People don't know how to properly perform their active role, both as an individual and on a team level. And they aren't necessarily bad for not knowing, because its not really taught that well, and it can be ruined by people not playing properly. Bad brawlers crash and burn hard. Bad snipers still do some damage, and may even get to farm hard if the enemy team blunders around and lets them do it enough. People observe this and draw conclusions.

But what people regularly do is not the same as what can be done. If brawlers get it together even a little bit, they can generally smash everyone. But when this happens, we don't call it 'brawler meta' because people think it is proper and normal. People apply an analysis that lacks overall context, and often apply it to themselves as a solo slow brawl atlas or something, and they draw incorrect conclusions.

And of course, it is often top players who are the snipers that stand out because they know they can count on the enemy team blundering around and letting them farm. So this introduces a further bias. People don't notice all the low tier snipers who are basically irrelevant every match.

Edited by Heavy Money, 19 April 2022 - 02:04 PM.

[Stargazzer811]

C337Skymaster, on 19 April 2022 - 08:09 AM, said:

Secondly, I got the boot over a misunderstood remark, rather than a request for clarification.

Sadly I can see this happening, and not because of the cauldron.

Lockheed_, on 19 April 2022 - 11:46 AM, said:

I don't hear that in game very often.
When I hear it, it usually comes from a player who you will see repeatedly walk out in to wide open areas, refusing to make proper use of cover and ending up with sub 300 dmg. The actual issue seems to be some players simply refusing to learn how to use cover and adapt to a meta where ranged play styles are viable too.

The actual issue, Lockheed, is people are idiots and refuse to not be idiots. I know that's probably harsh for some people but if you walk into the open and get massacred by ERLLs, PPCs, LRMs or any long range ballistic because you failed to take cover, that's on you and you alone. Its why at the start of alot of matches I tell people, "Stay together, focus your fire, and use the buildings/hills/snow drifts as cover, conserve your armor where you can." If you do all those things, and communicate with your team as best as you are able, then 12 strangers can become a team that wrecks face. I've seen it, and some of you who are here on this forum have fought alongside and against me enough to know that it's not only feasible, but possible.

[LordNothing]

Buenaventura, on 19 April 2022 - 12:11 PM, said:

[/left]

So, how about a tl,dw - too long, didn't watch - version of the important bits? Especially considering this:

[/center]

the video is an acceptable length this time.

[Culnan]

Lockheed_, on 19 April 2022 - 11:46 AM, said:

I don't hear that in game very often.
When I hear it, it usually comes from a player who you will see repeatedly walk out in to wide open areas, refusing to make proper use of cover and ending up with sub 300 dmg. The actual issue seems to be some players simply refusing to learn how to use cover and adapt to a meta where ranged play styles are viable too.

Firstly, this really isn't a useful approach to take. 'Git Gud' is a terrible piece of feedback because it just drives away players. If the players that aren't that good (assuming for the moment that only bad players don't like the new meta) used to enjoy the older meta, but don't like the sniper meta. then they just won't play the game. And while I dislike the whole 'this game is dying' chorus, I don't really want to see the game itself or the community driving away players because the response to 'this change makes the game less fun' is 'only stupid and bad players that don't understand the game or how cover works dislike the new meta'.

Ranged play styles were always viable, but recent changes in weapons and especially map design have made playing them much more common, and frustrating to play against. Spending 5+ minutes hiding behind a rock waiting for the 'snipers poke at each other' phase of the game to pass (and maybe lose the game before you've pulled a trigger because your snipers lost and you're now 4-0 down) because you literally cannot damage the enemy mechs at the current engagement range is not a fun game experience.

'Just use cover' often doesn't work due to things like multiple enemy snipers, the general flow of the game, or there just not being much viable cover (the back of Canyon I want to say around D6 from memory, but might be wrong) is terrible for this as there's no real way to approach the back hill under cover, it's just 'hope the enemy is looking the other way' while you try to cover 100s of meters to the enemy. It's also just incredibly punishing with how high the sniper damage output is. One misplay can shave so much armour off your mech you're basically crippled before being able to get to cover. Every complaint the player-base ever made about LRMs and the lack of counter play applies equally, if not more so (because snipers have even more range, don't need locks and so can fire instantly, AMS does nothing and ECM and Stealth rarely matter because they don't need targeting data), to sniper spam.

Secondly, it seems a bit of a self fulfilling prophecy there. 'Players that I see complaining didn't do well in that particular match'. Well duh. That doesn't mean they're bad players, just that they had a bad game. If someone posts a 700 damage, 4 kill game, they're obviously less likely to complain in that game about anything (except maybe the rest of the team if it's a loss...), whatever their opinion on the current game meta.

[Heavy Money]

Culnan, on 19 April 2022 - 02:49 PM, said:

Firstly, this really isn't a useful approach to take. 'Git Gud' is a terrible piece of feedback because it just drives away players. If the players that aren't that good (assuming for the moment that only bad players don't like the new meta) used to enjoy the older meta, but don't like the sniper meta. then they just won't play the game. And while I dislike the whole 'this game is dying' chorus, I don't really want to see the game itself or the community driving away players because the response to 'this change makes the game less fun' is 'only stupid and bad players that don't understand the game or how cover works dislike the new meta'.

Ranged play styles were always viable, but recent changes in weapons and especially map design have made playing them much more common, and frustrating to play against. Spending 5+ minutes hiding behind a rock waiting for the 'snipers poke at each other' phase of the game to pass (and maybe lose the game before you've pulled a trigger because your snipers lost and you're now 4-0 down) because you literally cannot damage the enemy mechs at the current engagement range is not a fun game experience.

'Just use cover' often doesn't work due to things like multiple enemy snipers, the general flow of the game, or there just not being much viable cover (the back of Canyon I want to say around D6 from memory, but might be wrong) is terrible for this as there's no real way to approach the back hill under cover, it's just 'hope the enemy is looking the other way' while you try to cover 100s of meters to the enemy. It's also just incredibly punishing with how high the sniper damage output is. One misplay can shave so much armour off your mech you're basically crippled before being able to get to cover. Every complaint the player-base ever made about LRMs and the lack of counter play applies equally, if not more so (because snipers have even more range, don't need locks and so can fire instantly, AMS does nothing and ECM and Stealth rarely matter because they don't need targeting data), to sniper spam.

Secondly, it seems a bit of a self fulfilling prophecy there. 'Players that I see complaining didn't do well in that particular match'. Well duh. That doesn't mean they're bad players, just that they had a bad game. If someone posts a 700 damage, 4 kill game, they're obviously less likely to complain in that game about anything (except maybe the rest of the team if it's a loss...), whatever their opinion on the current game meta.

The problem is that if Snipers are made much weaker, they will quickly flip to being useless. And if Brawlers were made much stronger, they would quickly become unstoppable. They are already effective when used correctly, and snipers are not that effective when properly countered (or poorly played.)

There may be some issues in how difficult it is to get results with different sorts of mechs, but you cannot really balance the game around people completely failing to play properly. Sure, "git gud" isn't a very satisfying thing to be told. So don't tell people that. Tell them "You have more options than you realize, and things can be done to deal with the situations that currently feel unfair to you, and you are capable of doing them." And also don't let them fall into the state of mind that the game is dominated by some unstoppable sniper meta, because this will discourage them from doing what they need to win.

Yes, you will have a bad time trying to approach a sniper nest in a slow Atlas without support. Just as those snipers will have a terrible time dealing with fast harassment mechs without support. But there's a whole world in between these options where its much easier. You don't need to be some twitch reaction time god to deal with snipers either, you just need to know a few basic things about the given map and pay attention to your team.

Of course, if your whole team is just overly timid you're going to lose. And we often see a whole team get spooked by a few long blue lasers. But that is just them psyching themselves into a loss for no reason. That cannot be a balance point. Its not uncommon for teams to get bogged down for a variety of reasons that may involve some snipers. And an individual on the team may be stuck bogged down with them due to one person not being able to break free of the sniper cover alone. But this doesn't mean Snipers are overpowered overall. It just means they are the mechanism that you notice. But the real problem was the team blundering into some low ground and then milling about for no reason. They could win just fine if they don't do that 9 out of 10 times.

[Heavy Money]

C337Skymaster, on 19 April 2022 - 08:09 AM, said:

Tried that. Firstly, the Cauldron folks don't seem to have as much respect for the source material as the original developers at PGI tried to have. They're more focused on their Comp play, and less on the idea that this is a simulation of something that should be "real" in about 1000 years.

The Cauldron is focused on making a game that actually works within the fairly narrow confines of being a real time shooter, and the even narrower confines of only being able to change certain XML values. The general dynamics and systems of the game were all chosen and defined by PGI years ago. The same PGI that you say respected the source material more.

The Cauldron is not even particularly focused on comp play, unless you define any form of having a tight game system as 'comp.' Most of the changes they have implemented make little difference to comp play. And they have deliberately chosen many policies where they have prioritized QP experience over Comp or high level play.

C337Skymaster, on 19 April 2022 - 08:09 AM, said:

"A Battleship's 18" guns are too OP, so we'll just make them 17" because that's better balance. And the 16" guns on their opponent are a bit underpowered, so we'll bump them up to 16.5". The bigger guns are still bigger, but not by as much". 18" guns are 18 inches. You technically "can" sleeve them, but nobody's going to unless the barrel's worn out, and then only back to the diameter of the ammo. And nobody's going to widen the bore on a 16" gun, because it'll weaken the barrel and the ammo similarly won't work anymore.

Likewise, A Clan ERLL does 10 damage for 12 heat. Not 12 damage for 9 heat. Technically, cooldown for EVERYTHING is a flat 10 seconds. Now, acceptable alternatives would be to consider that the DPS is 10 damage over 10 seconds, but actual firing rate can be anything that achieves that, with heat sinking being the main limiting factor, etc. Or we can just agree that capacitors take awhile to charge up.

But they don't like to be "constrained" by that kind of thinking.

You realize this is basically gibberish, right? What are you even proposing? That all weapons have 10s cooldown? That weapons have to deal exactly the same dmg as on tabletop, and that you're only allowed to reign in things that are too strong by making them hotter? We've already got tons of constraints trying to stay true to the spirit of what these things are supposed to be. What does any of this have to do with battleship guns?

You are trying to act like they just are afraid to think outside the box or be loyal to the source material or something, but you are barely even making a suggestion. The thing that constrains them is needing to pick a value to assign to the already existing weapons, and not change things too much too fast, and not take too big of risks. They need to actually deliver something well thought out that doesn't render a whole weapon system or mech useless for weeks.

Whereas you are not constrained by any need to actually deliver something coherent or that works. So you spout gibberish, don't explain what you want or how it should work, don't engage with any criticism or disagreements, don't account for any of the parts of the game you don't understand, and then act like people just don't get it or are just serving their own selfish needs when they don't agree with you. This is exactly what happened when you came into their Discord, and they still put up with that even XD

[C337Skymaster]

Heavy Money, on 19 April 2022 - 04:00 PM, said:

C337Skymaster, on 19 April 2022 - 08:09 AM, said:

Tried that. Firstly, the Cauldron folks don't seem to have as much respect for the source material as the original developers at PGI tried to have. They're more focused on their Comp play, and less on the idea that this is a simulation of something that should be "real" in about 1000 years.

The Cauldron is focused on making a game that actually works within the fairly narrow confines of being a real time shooter, and the even narrower confines of only being able to change certain XML values. The general dynamics and systems of the game were all chosen and defined by PGI years ago. The same PGI that you say respected the source material more.

The Cauldron is not even particularly focused on comp play, unless you define any form of having a tight game system as 'comp.' Most of the changes they have implemented make little difference to comp play. And they have deliberately chosen many policies where they have prioritized QP experience over Comp or high level play.

C337Skymaster, on 19 April 2022 - 08:09 AM, said:

"A Battleship's 18" guns are too OP, so we'll just make them 17" because that's better balance. And the 16" guns on their opponent are a bit underpowered, so we'll bump them up to 16.5". The bigger guns are still bigger, but not by as much". 18" guns are 18 inches. You technically "can" sleeve them, but nobody's going to unless the barrel's worn out, and then only back to the diameter of the ammo. And nobody's going to widen the bore on a 16" gun, because it'll weaken the barrel and the ammo similarly won't work anymore.

Likewise, A Clan ERLL does 10 damage for 12 heat. Not 12 damage for 9 heat. Technically, cooldown for EVERYTHING is a flat 10 seconds. Now, acceptable alternatives would be to consider that the DPS is 10 damage over 10 seconds, but actual firing rate can be anything that achieves that, with heat sinking being the main limiting factor, etc. Or we can just agree that capacitors take awhile to charge up.

But they don't like to be "constrained" by that kind of thinking.

Secondly, I got the boot over a misunderstood remark, rather than a request for clarification.

You realize this is basically gibberish, right? What are you even proposing? That all weapons have 10s cooldown? That weapons have to deal exactly the same dmg as on tabletop, and that you're only allowed to reign in things that are too strong by making them hotter? We've already got tons of constraints trying to stay true to the spirit of what these things are supposed to be. What does any of this have to do with battleship guns?

You are trying to act like they just are afraid to think outside the box or be loyal to the source material or something, but you are barely even making a suggestion. The thing that constrains them is needing to pick a value to assign to the already existing weapons, and not change things too much too fast, and not take too big of risks. They need to actually deliver something well thought out that doesn't render a whole weapon system or mech useless for weeks.

Whereas you are not constrained by any need to actually deliver something coherent or that works. So you spout gibberish, don't explain what you want or how it should work, don't engage with any criticism or disagreements, don't account for any of the parts of the game you don't understand, and then act like people just don't get it or are just serving their own selfish needs when they don't agree with you. This is exactly what happened when you came into their Discord, and they still put up with that even XD

What I am proposing, is that weapon damage and heat values are DEFINED, as are their range, tonnage, and crit sizes, by the TT source material from which they are derived. Cooldown is also DEFINED, as we use that time interval for the calculations that result in 'mech movement speed.

What I am also proposing is that the mechanics by which different weapons work can be tweaked in relation to each other to maintain overall consistency with DPS and DPH figures as DEFINED in the TT rules while making the "feel" of the weapons more flexible.

An IS Large Laser does 8 damage for 8 heat over 10 seconds. That's defined. Those values are set in stone, just like an 18" gun is not a 17" gun. It's 18 inches, no matter what you might want it to be. If you want it to be 1 dmg and 1 heat every 1.2 seconds, be my guest, although that sounds more akin to how a Pulse Laser should vary from its standard counterpart. They already did this for Clan Ultra Autocannon to differentiate it from its Inner Sphere standard counterpart.

Similarly, a Crab with 16 standard heat sinks should be able to stand perfectly still and cycle the large lasers non-stop without suffering any heat effects or retaining any heat.

Edited by C337Skymaster, 19 April 2022 - 05:09 PM.

[Albert C]

Heavy Money, on 19 April 2022 - 02:01 PM, said:

See, if you take a brawler and a sniper and plonk them down on a map and they are both good players, then the brawler is going to approach using cover or some sensible path that minimizes damage, and the sniper is going to try to position well and deny cover. The sniper will try to do enough dmg that, once the brawler makes it into close range, they are damaged enough that the sniper can still win despite being much less effective than them. The skill of both players matters, but generally speaking the sniper is in the much more passive role. They have less to work with in terms of positioning because they need to be constantly watching for the brawler when they are in the open, etc. The difference between a very good and very bad sniper is not going to be all that large because there probably isn't any super strategic move to pull off at all. It'll mostly be a matter of taking shots as they are presented and trying to stay on target.

In contrast, what the Brawler does matters a LOT. They are in the active role. If they charge straight at the sniper and stay in the open the whole time, they'll take a ton of damage. If they use some of the potential cover, they'll take less. If they get the most out of the potential cover, they'll take the lowest amount of damage. Generally, getting the most out of potential cover and making the most efficient approach will be much harder than what the sniper is doing.

So this dynamic is inherently unbalanced because the brawler has to work much harder than the sniper. But this isn't unfair, because the brawler is rewarded in that as long as they achieve at least a decent amount of cover use, they will basically always win with the way things are currently balanced (with the exception of very very large maps and/or very very slow brawlers.)

Now of course in a real match you have more people, more speeds of mechs, and generally more variables of every type. But this basic dynamic still exists: Brawlers are rewarded if they can pull off their active role. Snipers are much more passive and are generally at the mercy of what the enemy team lets them get away with.

So this is why there are complaints about Sniper meta, especially at lower tiers. People don't know how to properly perform their active role, both as an individual and on a team level. And they aren't necessarily bad for not knowing, because its not really taught that well, and it can be ruined by people not playing properly. Bad brawlers crash and burn hard. Bad snipers still do some damage, and may even get to farm hard if the enemy team blunders around and lets them do it enough. People observe this and draw conclusions.

But what people regularly do is not the same as what can be done. If brawlers get it together even a little bit, they can generally smash everyone. But when this happens, we don't call it 'brawler meta' because people think it is proper and normal. People apply an analysis that lacks overall context, and often apply it to themselves as a solo slow brawl atlas or something, and they draw incorrect conclusions.

And of course, it is often top players who are the snipers that stand out because they know they can count on the enemy team blundering around and letting them farm. So this introduces a further bias. People don't notice all the low tier snipers who are basically irrelevant every match.

In 1v1 situation, ofc snipers are more or less "passive". But this is a team game, and the meta aspect of snipers is that they can overwatch wide area in several maps and deny positions near several key area that are critical to the flow of the match. The positioning usually decides the outcome of the game as we all know expecially in Tier 1. And the most effective counter which is a wolf pack that flanks sniper while the rest of team trying to stay alive, requires better teamwork, commnication and patient to make it work, which is much harder to get than simply selecting a sniper mech in mechlab. Even harder to counter if the snipers are in group and have some close range support. I know this because I joined the rank of snipers since April and have been farming crazy high damage in my NTG-H and MCII-1. As a tactics it's a bit overpowered due to game design and flow.

[JC Daxion]

I think I'm going to like this map and the IS platinum pack is really solid.. I'd love to platinum skin my Grinner.


BTW, Can you Please do a QP version of SOLARIS FACTORY

I've been wanting a true factory map for a very long time. And one of the things that have bugged me about this game for so long is Low slug arms have always been a hindrance with so much emphasis on Hillhumping and peaking.. While some maps have places that small mechs can run under.. There has never been any pl;ace that having low slung arms and weapons as a bonus to shoot UNDER something.

A factory map is the perfect place for machinery, or boxes/racks,, perhaps small roads that say a forlife or small real life trucks would be moving things around that a light could go but also would be a great UNDERSHOOT lane.. So that Cataphract might be able to blast something in a spot that say a Marauder could not. (at least with most of the weapons)
,.

[Roodkapje]

C337Skymaster, on 19 April 2022 - 07:54 AM, said:

Make us feel like we've marched across a continent/planet and we happened to run into an enemy force in this wilderness/moon/city area.

I have had exactly !! 1 !! game on the Hellebore Outpost QP map that could be described like that and I really hope that in the future there will be more of those across ALL MWO MAPS !!!

Buenaventura, on 19 April 2022 - 12:11 PM, said:

So, how about a tl,dw - too long, didn't watch - version of the important bits?

They really need to start doing written versions of these things!

I am not watching a video that costs me twice as much time compared to reading an article!

Avalon91211, on 19 April 2022 - 02:07 PM, said:

The actual issue, is people are idiots and refuse to not be idiots.

TRUE for a majority of MWO players at the moment!

Quote

Its why at the start of alot of matches I tell people, "Stay together, focus your fire, and use the buildings/hills/snow drifts as cover, conserve your armor where you can."

But they never listen and follow their "Spread out Team = Dead Team" logic every damn time!

Quote

If you do all those things, and communicate with your team as best as you are able, then 12 strangers can become a team that wrecks face.
I've seen it, and some of you who are here on this forum have fought alongside and against me enough to know that it's not only feasible, but possible.

Once every 100 games or so it can be the most amazing experience you ever had indeed!