122 replies to this topic

[pbiggz]

LordNothing, on 13 November 2023 - 12:40 PM, said:

you mean lots of shooters, i dont play, because they are boring.

Just because you havent played them doesn't mean they're bad, nor does it mean there aren't lessons to be learned. All you've done is admit you aren't willing to imagine a world where respawns would work. That's a you problem, not a me problem.

[Weeny Machine]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 13 November 2023 - 12:44 PM, said:

I mean Counterstrike does more with 2 minutes than MWO does with 15 in a typical match. I'm not saying we need to speed things up that fast, but 15 minutes is slow and it has nothing to do with MWO being more "tactical" and everything to do with mobility and TTK. Rotations take longer in MWO, and TTK is higher so the matches typically have longer periods of teams looking for openings.

The reasons are simple:
1. What playstyle dominates? Sniping/big alphas
2. What classes are played? Mostly heavies and assaults because they can do no.1 best
3. Does speed matter? Less and less. Over the years it has become all about arnour and big alphas thanks to power creep

So, why do you think the matches take so long? Because people camp spots and/or are afraid to move because they get shredded in seconds. You also have those thrilling fights of attrition where both teams sit tight. And if they move, then it takes quite some time because the majority of the team sits in fatties.

Edited by Weeny Machine, 13 November 2023 - 01:18 PM.

[Der Geisterbaer]

LordNothing, on 13 November 2023 - 11:11 AM, said:

c3 as a concept is completely different from its implementation by a game of a certain format.

Which doesn't change the fact that we don't have C3 or C3i "for free" in MW:O (and that's about the only part that I actually objected to there).The current indirect fire implementation is pretty much verbatim what the indirect fire rules of that "certain format" that you don't want to name provide: The ability to lock onto and then fire at targets that are seen by other units.

LordNothing, on 13 November 2023 - 11:11 AM, said:

in video game format it worked out quite well in mwll as a means to add depth to information warfare.

And yet their C3 represented a different implementation when compared against the original because so far nobody has managed to come up with an fps suitable implementation that would properly reflect the original mechanic of dropping TNs on indirect fire that works fine in turn based TT but does nothing in an "aim to shoot" fps environment. To make things "worse" (not the quotation marks!) MW:LL admitted that their implementation was ultimately closer to C3i (although that's also debatable).

LordNothing, on 13 November 2023 - 11:11 AM, said:

of course having that in mwo is meaningless without passive sensors, or the tag/narc mechanics, or large maps, or respawn, or match times upwards of an hour.

=> So mentioning MW:LL is (again) more akin to the "moving the goal post fallacy" when it comes to "C3(i) for free".

Edited by Der Geisterbaer, 13 November 2023 - 01:49 PM.

[pbiggz]

Weeny Machine, on 13 November 2023 - 01:17 PM, said:

The reasons are simple:
1. What playstyle dominates? Sniping/big alphas
2. What classes are played? Mostly heavies and assaults because they can do no.1 best
3. Does speed matter? Less and less. Over the years it has become all about arnour and big alphas thanks to power creep

So, why do you think the matches take so long? Because people camp spots and/or are afraid to move because they get shredded in seconds. You also have those thrilling fights of attrition where both teams sit tight. And if they move, then it takes quite some time because the majority of the team sits in fatties.

Considering clan midrange is currently the most widespread strategy i question your analysis.

[Weeny Machine]

pbiggz, on 13 November 2023 - 01:49 PM, said:

Considering clan midrange is currently the most widespread strategy i question your analysis.

We could argue about that but actually it doesn't change much because the high damage numbers flying around and the fragility of mechs makes people camp one spot. Also, there is no reason to get in close anymore if you can have long range weaponry. There is nothing to be gained - and HAGs shred you also in close range...

You see, at the end it always boils down to risk vs reward and moving offers too much risk for not enough reward. And, as I said before, the amount of fatties make the overall fight time long despite the TTK is actually pretty low

[Tarteso]

Weeny Machine, on 13 November 2023 - 10:43 AM, said:

Lock on weapons are really problematic...especially the inidrect fire part. They can lock down the complete gameplay and again we are in camping mode.

The next problem is...imagine you sit in a light mech, wait for the perfect moment to attack, your victim is finally isolated, you attack...then your targets pop a UAV and you get "missile incoming". Yeah, great fun! You got shot by your intended victim and missiles and all just because of a button press - zero skill needed. That is a hardcounter to light mechs.

Point is: buff the direct fire mode and reward people for exposing themselves and get their own locks, but leave them weak in indirect fire or the sniping and camping will get even worse.

I use LRMs once in a blue moon so take this with a grain of salt but what frustrated me most was the overlapping ECMs basically made me target the enemy for ages while he fired at me and ducked into cover and even dumb firing them made a lot miss the target. So...maybe increase dumb firing speed as well?

Direct fire mode would hardly work better in MWO, even buffed, because of maps (re)design, no fire-and-forget mechanics, radar dependency, and the multiple and strong counters to missiles. All this makes LRMs fall more into the support role using the shared targets. And this, again, barely works after all the PGI-cauldrom efforts to make all the guided missiles systems pathetic balanced. They should have ported the MW4 scheme, instead. Too late, I think.

As for the oversimplified scenario you are talking about, the fellow lurmer still has to get the lock, then hit (ECM, stealth, raderp, AMS, terrain, ... 50% failed hits, dmg dispersion). I rather see a light pilot (usually 2 and more) assuming the job is done, no big drawbacks, and yeah, it is easy peasy most times, get some paint scratches then fly away (but this is another story). This is not going to change even if LRMs were restored to 10 years (?) ago.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Weeny Machine, on 13 November 2023 - 01:17 PM, said:

The reasons are simple:
1. What playstyle dominates? Sniping/big alphas
2. What classes are played? Mostly heavies and assaults because they can do no.1 best
3. Does speed matter? Less and less. Over the years it has become all about arnour and big alphas thanks to power creep

So, why do you think the matches take so long? Because people camp spots and/or are afraid to move because they get shredded in seconds. You also have those thrilling fights of attrition where both teams sit tight. And if they move, then it takes quite some time because the majority of the team sits in fatties.

So there are a number of issues here.

Camping and NASCAR can't simultaneously be a problem that plagues the game.

Camping is typically a result of objectives that don't effectively discourage it (conquest is the best at this, while skirmish is understandably garbage).

Camping is less a problem than scared and passive teams are, typically what people interpret as camping is people holding a strong position and projecting their firepower while the rest of their team tightens the noose because the opposing side is not projecting enough firepower and thus not controlling the map starting the death spiral that ends in a stomp. It's what plagues so many soup queue stomps is one side is too scared to actually hold an angle and slowly but surely get cornered as they run from every engagement until they can't run away anymore because they've backed themselves into an indefensible hole.

Even with all of that, even comp matches take a while and conquest typically doesn't afford you the ability to "camp".

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 13 November 2023 - 03:10 PM.

[VeeOt Dragon]

as others have pointed out the troubles with LRMs are many fold as so many systems effect them (locking weapons have the most systems that effect them either directly or indirectly of any other weapon) that finding that right balance is hard. honestly even if you just stick to value changes that the oh so obviously biased Cauldron can do it isn't something that i think could be done in just one pass.

i would do it in this order. at any stage one can simply stop and say we are good if it works out.

1-- set Radar dep nodes to max 75% and make each node of target decay directly counter a node of RD (these two being intrinsically linked)

2-- then we can look at increasing the velocity to a decent number. (perhaps just a touch slower than say MRMs)

3-- increase range so that they can counter the sniper mech range.

also something most people forget is that MWO does have a test server they should use it more often. i remember back when the mega nerf hit LRM (same one where they added the two firing arcs.) they tested it in this public test server first. (i remember that i liked the firing arcs but all the other changes were negative). i don't think i have seen a test server announcement since.

in the end it would be best to do small changes slowly if they insist on testing balance passes with just tossing them in the full game and seeing how players respond. so a small velocity buff here a range buff there and see how it goes.

ther have though been some pretty good suggestions. (for ones i haven't heard before i really like the one about TCs giving a lock time reduction. it make sense to be honest and and would be far more worth the devoted tonnage than Artemis is currently)

Edited by VeeOt Dragon, 13 November 2023 - 04:03 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

VeeOt Dragon, on 13 November 2023 - 04:01 PM, said:

also something most people forget is that MWO does have a test server they should use it more often. far more worth the devoted tonnage than Artemis is currently)

They don't anymore likely because it costs more than its worth in resources for a game with no dedicated engineering. The cauldron would've used it by now if they could've.

[Runecarver]

pbiggz, on 13 November 2023 - 11:25 AM, said:

What you're suggesting is blanket buffs to all lock on weapons such that the opportunity cost is justified. If they do this, and especially, if they nerf the countermeasures hard enough, then the issue flips on its head, and lockon weapons become oppressive almost instantly.

Case in point, if you make streaks good enough to fight anything bigger than a light, by definition its oppressive to lights. There is no way around it with the current mechanics that exist in the game.

Yes, blanket buffs to the currently weakest weapons within the confines of whats possible to change while also toning down indirect DPS on lrms. You immediately assume nerfs to ECM and Radar deprivation would be massive and make these weapons oppressive, when the idea I have for them is to simply remove the skill tree component for ECM (ie. The sensor range reduction increasing part) for it so that you could spot ecm protected targets at 560m / 750m depending on how much sensor range you invested in. ECM would still be providing its 120m bubble that increases lock times and target info acquisition times, but it wouldn't be free stealth armor. This would also help stealth armor itself become a more distinct option as a result.

For radar deprivation, it should be capped out at 70%. This would mean it effectively nullifies the benefits of target decay, while leaving players who did invest in it the base value of 1.5 seconds before radar lock is lost when targets break line of sight. And those without target decay, get 0.5 seconds of time.

As for your streak argument, if these weapons simply get more dps without increasing their damage, it doesn't make them quite as oppressive against lights as you claim. Light mechs for the most part have received notable armor and structure quirks over the years, as well as even more mobility. They would still have the opportunity to take cover before streaks can get a lock, or before they can start pumping out damage. This dps improvement would require a streak user to commit to chasing a target in order to kill said light/ medium mech. Since you can't fire streaks without a lock, and they do still have that forced spread.

[Besh]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 13 November 2023 - 03:09 PM, said:

[...]

Camping and NASCAR can't simultaneously be a problem that plagues the game.

[...]

I have seen way too many QP NASCARS where "I am just going to camp here" "Snipers" or LRM boats whined about "having been left behind" to accept this as truth . Oh, and WAY too many ragefilled Forum posts about it .

Otoh, almost nothing better in MW:O QP than havin the team and comms ( it works with randos, if comms are good ) than simply make an OpFor NASCAR run headlong into the Wall a well setup firing line can be .

[LordNothing]

pbiggz, on 13 November 2023 - 01:05 PM, said:

Just because you havent played them doesn't mean they're bad, nor does it mean there aren't lessons to be learned. All you've done is admit you aren't willing to imagine a world where respawns would work. That's a you problem, not a me problem.

a 2 minute a pop game does not even sound remotely interesting. the best games are the ones that keep you out of the ui for most of your play session. mwll did this. you entered a server at the start of a match and you were guaranteed an hour of uninterrupted play. you didnt spend most of it waiting for a mm to measure everyone's epeen. get a mediocre match, die and repeat several times. so you spend a pretty good fraction of time doing nothing, thats a recipe for boring in my book.

i dont need to imagine a world where respawns work, mwll exists.

[LordNothing]

Der Geisterbaer, on 13 November 2023 - 01:48 PM, said:

Which doesn't change the fact that we don't have C3 or C3i "for free" in MW:O (and that's about the only part that I actually objected to there).The current indirect fire implementation is pretty much verbatim what the indirect fire rules of that "certain format" that you don't want to name provide: The ability to lock onto and then fire at targets that are seen by other units.



And yet their C3 represented a different implementation when compared against the original because so far nobody has managed to come up with an fps suitable implementation that would properly reflect the original mechanic of dropping TNs on indirect fire that works fine in turn based TT but does nothing in an "aim to shoot" fps environment. To make things "worse" (not the quotation marks!) MW:LL admitted that their implementation was ultimately closer to C3i (although that's also debatable).




=> So mentioning MW:LL is (again) more akin to the "moving the goal post fallacy" when it comes to "C3(i) for free".

coming at this from a game design angle. the fact that so many mechanics were lifted verbatim from tt may be why this game has so many problems, you need to go back to original design intent and figure out how to express that in an fps environment. mwll simply did this better than mwo did.

in mwll a mech either has c3(i)(ish) or it doesnt, and if you took it, this was a passive source of scoring for early match to rank up while providing your team with a info warfare asset. there were of course more proactive ways to rank up that got you into assaults faster. but it made scouting a viable playstyle and kept missiles from being too oppressive without being completely useless or skill free (walking missiles in with tag with no targeting data or active sensors requires aiming). or using teamwork, an established c3 network, an aecm mech covering the missile boats and battle armor with tag up front. not only was this depth but it also made the game rather fun.

[ScrapIron Prime]

Well I for one am going to be testing the Active Sensor Package when it drops and seeing if it combines with the Beagle. Anything that increases sensor range improves lock on time... the question is whether its worth the tonnage.

Experimentation to follow. Followed by forum posts.

[JediPanther]

Should just rip off wos' acoustic torpedoes at this point. Fire the lrm, hit with a tag and guide the lrm into a mech with tag. Both are just mid range 900m jokes.

[LordNothing]

id love to be able to walk lerms in, but there are managerial technical excuses reasons why we cannot have them.

fun not allowed.

Edited by LordNothing, 14 November 2023 - 11:48 AM.

[Der Geisterbaer]

LordNothing, on 14 November 2023 - 07:34 AM, said:

coming at this from a game design angle.

You have claimed to do so on numerous occasions and nobody ever - particularly myself - did object to that idea in general. For that particular angle the actually objected statement "C3/ C3i for free" is still absolutely irrelevant just like a direct comparison to MW.LL which ...

LordNothing, on 14 November 2023 - 07:34 AM, said:

the fact that so many mechanics were lifted verbatim from tt may be why this game has so many problems,

... didn't adhere to TT rules and design intens for its own reasons and justifications.

Whether the verbatim lifted mechanics from TT are indeed the reason as to why this game has so many problems is still unrelated to the false claim that was made and could be an interesting discussion of its own ... in a different thread.

LordNothing, on 14 November 2023 - 07:34 AM, said:

you need to go back to original design intent and figure out how to express that in an fps environment. mwll simply did this better than mwo did.

The original design intent of indirect fire as a mechanic in contrast to C3 / C3i is pretty clear but MW:O only ever implemented the indirect fire => MW:LL did get that seemingly better unfortunately I'd have to agree to disagree that it was indeed "simply better" because MW.LL made C3 pretty much a requirement for both "leveling up" (which has nothing to do with original intent at all) and indirect fire in general - the latter of which which isn't in line with the original design intent either.

Now if you really want to look at a hypothetical C3 / C3i implementation within MW.O then in terms of game design along the original intent then you should take a look at (regardless of how non-existent chances for an actual implementation are):

• a base LRM velocity in direct fire that is slightly higher than now and decreased LRM velocity for basic indirect fire
  
• a base spread of LRM in direct fire - potentially lower than now - and increased spread of LRM for basic indirect fire
  
• reductions of the velocity decrease / spread increase from C3/C3i provided that both spotting and firing unit have the system in place (possibly with a range limitation)
  
• Making it so that C3/C3i is granting TAG like target acquisition bonuses to the carrying spotter

Edited by Der Geisterbaer, 14 November 2023 - 11:52 AM.

[Weeny Machine]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 13 November 2023 - 03:09 PM, said:

So there are a number of issues here.

Camping and NASCAR can't simultaneously be a problem that plagues the game.

Camping is typically a result of objectives that don't effectively discourage it (conquest is the best at this, while skirmish is understandably garbage).

Camping is less a problem than scared and passive teams are, typically what people interpret as camping is people holding a strong position and projecting their firepower while the rest of their team tightens the noose because the opposing side is not projecting enough firepower and thus not controlling the map starting the death spiral that ends in a stomp. It's what plagues so many soup queue stomps is one side is too scared to actually hold an angle and slowly but surely get cornered as they run from every engagement until they can't run away anymore because they've backed themselves into an indefensible hole.

Even with all of that, even comp matches take a while and conquest typically doesn't afford you the ability to "camp".

Yeah, because moving/changing position is nascaring /facepalm

[ScrapIron Prime]

LordNothing, on 14 November 2023 - 11:48 AM, said:

id love to be able to walk lerms in, but there are managerial technical excuses reasons why we cannot have them.

fun not allowed.

There are no LRM's. At a velocity of 190 m/s, they're well into subsonic speeds. I think of them more like a flock of little helicopters with grenades on each one.

[Curccu]

Weeny Machine, on 14 November 2023 - 11:52 AM, said:

Yeah, because moving/changing position is nascaring /facepalm

Only if you do it counter clockwise.