19 replies to this topic

[Micheal Hessek]

How do you guys think about Artillery Strike and Strafing Run availability to commanders based on BV of each side and extra support to smaller forces with 75% or less BV of bigger force.

I think it would balance out Boating of Mechs and All Assault Mech loadouts (go big, get smacked).

[Aegis Kleais]

I personally feel that artillery should not be used as a feature that is enabled when a team begins to lose. There should be some mechanics in place in order to ensure it is not abused, overly readily available or too powerful.

As far as Mechs boating, this is a viable tactic and has both its pros and cons to it. As with any tactic, there are ways of getting around it and addressing it.

[raptorian]

Everyone runs about in Lights and then spams artillery and airstrikes.

Yes I don't see this as a problem, not at all like the Assault PPC/Gauss boat issue of the past.

[Skye Storm]

Raptorian, on 26 May 2012 - 04:46 PM, said:

Everyone runs about in Lights and then spams artillery and airstrikes.

Yes I don't see this as a problem, not at all like the Assault PPC/Gauss boat issue of the past.

Sarcasm???

[Corpsecandle]

There's a couple of logistical problems with that. First being, who gets to call in the strikes? We'd assume the "leader", but odds are they'll already have the command modules in place to allow them to perform these actions in the first place. I can't see them allowing anyone to spam this feature, so the artillery strikes would essentially get bottle-necked on a the commander. Sure they would get to use them more in total, but if there's too much of a disparity it would become a moot point as the side with the lesser BV has already been stomped out.

So if not the command mechs, who? Would they have the equipment to use this feature effectively? Maps, enemy locations? I don't think it would be feasible, and would most likely create it's own imbalances.

Hopefully they'll have a system in place so that when a match starts it will be fairly balanced. In addition, I hope that there's some sort of penalty to discourage deserters so that people don't start leaving the match as soon as an assault gets dropped.

[Toothman]

Why would there be such a disparity of forces? The match maker should get them pretty close.

[Woska]

No, I don't think fire support should be used as a balancing mechanism. All that would do is tell the team if they're outmatched otherwise. You'd have people looking at it and saying, "Crap, look at how much arty they gave us. We'll never beat these guys." Then they'll just quit. I think those "oh crap, an Atlas, run" moments would be lost.

[ManDaisy]

I feel this takes away from the area of mech on mech combat and well... is cheap.

[Micheal Hessek]

Corpsecandle, on 26 May 2012 - 04:53 PM, said:

There's a couple of logistical problems with that. First being, who gets to call in the strikes? We'd assume the "leader", but odds are they'll already have the command modules in place to allow them to perform these actions in the first place. I can't see them allowing anyone to spam this feature, so the artillery strikes would essentially get bottle-necked on a the commander. Sure they would get to use them more in total, but if there's too much of a disparity it would become a moot point as the side with the lesser BV has already been stomped out.

So if not the command mechs, who? Would they have the equipment to use this feature effectively? Maps, enemy locations? I don't think it would be feasible, and would most likely create it's own imbalances.

Hopefully they'll have a system in place so that when a match starts it will be fairly balanced. In addition, I hope that there's some sort of penalty to discourage deserters so that people don't start leaving the match as soon as an assault gets dropped.

The commander should be the one to call stikes.
Strikes should not take too long and strafing should be able o be adjusted on the flie with commander highlighting area of concentration. Think Cresent Hawks Revenge, the only thing that stands between you and clanner waves overrunning you are strafing runs adusted by commander (you).
If artillery takes a little time to drop, then lights could us their own coordinates less a couple of hexes and circle/zig-zag to attract unwitting Heavy/Assaults. This could make top heavy (slow moving) forces leary, and for good reason. In cannon Assault only units did not operate alone. they had support of swift Light/Medium Mechs or were support to other units.
If you are slow you should be easy pickings for artillery, but if you are fast and to light you should be easy pickings for skimmishers (fast Heavies).

[Arkas]

Micheal Hessek, on 26 May 2012 - 04:39 PM, said:

I think it would balance out Boating of Mechs and All Assault Mech loadouts (go big, get smacked).

You don't need artillery or airstrikes to fix this issue because in Mechwarrior even a flea can down an Atlas. If you use hit and run tactics you can fire on enemies and the only thing the atlas awesome swarm could do is attempt to keep track and fire if they get the chance. An all Assault lance is too slow to move around effectively and faster mechs like a cicada mounting a PPC can run in and out of cover while taking shots and crush a bunch of slow moving targets.

Taking a bunch of assaults just means you're going to get flanked and destroyed by effective focus fire.

[Billy Ray Gund]

I think artillery should be able to pound mechs that are holding up behind a hill and waiting to us LRM's indirectly. The artillery strike should keep them moving.

Battle Management will/should be important to outcomes of skimmishes. Knowing is half the battle... recons should be able to junt down slaggards and let the commander call down steel rain.

If forces are undersized in Mechs they usually get more artillery.

[Insidious Johnson]

Micheal Hessek, on 26 May 2012 - 04:39 PM, said:

How do you guys think about Artillery Strike and Strafing Run availability to commanders based on BV of each side and extra support to smaller forces with 75% or less BV of bigger force.

I think it would balance out Boating of Mechs and All Assault Mech loadouts (go big, get smacked).

That kinda flies in the face of "grind it you get it". So if I grind months for that command tree, I can't use it vs "scrubs" because they are "scrubs"? It sucks being new. That is one of life's permanent truisms. Let it not be false here for the sake of being different.

[Rufus Ingram]

I am against artillery/strafing as a balancing tool. It is in a skill tree so anyone who invests in unlocking it should get to enjoy using it whether in a Centurion or Atlas (or whatever). Part of the fun, I hope, is facing a variety of opposing forces and the tactical challenge of defeating an enemy different than my team. Having the possibility of uneven engagements ties into the immersion experience for me as well. Besides, everyone will lose sometimes. In the right spirit it can still be fun (experimenting, giving best effort, etc). I enjoy a good loss more than an easy win if the rest of my team aren't (choose colorful metaphor).

[Alfred VonGunn]

Toothman, on 26 May 2012 - 04:55 PM, said:

Why would there be such a disparity of forces? The match maker should get them pretty close.

Why would MM make it even all the time.. This is a War not just a game.. If Davion is attacking Liao and Liao has 12 players but they have weak mechs and Davion has a Mid range attack it just sucks to be Liao.

[Tryg]

Based on assorted comments and speculation, I suspect such features will be available to anyone equipped with the proper command-tree modules, however their use regulated by a global team cooldown. Two people have the artillery strike module installed, one uses it, the other cannot trigger it until the global cooldown has completed. (After which point it is quite likely possible the first guy could trigger it a second time, supposing the battle even lasts that long. Just because a match has a timer, doesn't mean it won't end early.)

[Naberius]

Alfred VonGunn, on 26 May 2012 - 10:42 PM, said:

Why would MM make it even all the time.. This is a War not just a game.. If Davion is attacking Liao and Liao has 12 players but they have weak mechs and Davion has a Mid range attack it just sucks to be Liao.

MM will probably take mercs and slot them in for balance if anything, assuming there's room and all. No one likes being curb stomped. Isn't that why us non-affiliated types exist after all?

[Alfred VonGunn]

Naberius, on 26 May 2012 - 11:00 PM, said:

MM will probably take mercs and slot them in for balance if anything, assuming there's room and all. No one likes being curb stomped. Isn't that why us non-affiliated types exist after all?

True.. but to expect every match to be balanced in war is just dreaming.. Thats what so many forget.

[Aldinvor]

Skye Storm, on 26 May 2012 - 04:48 PM, said:

Sarcasm???

No, he's not being sarcastic, he's being facetious.

[Chunkymonkey]

Additional command modules could be naval strike/dropship, AI support(tanks, aerospace fighter, or mech sappers) in addition to arty.
To balance this, They could have it depend on what modules you have and only let you have one reinforcement module. Then, they could put a timer on the support, it wouldnt be spammed. This way, the people with more support would have worse mechs because the support module is useless when cooling down.

[OcO]

Personally I am not a fan of these air/artillery strikes at all, let alone as a balancing factor.

Balancing wise the matchmaker will have to figure a decent way to roughly match the fights or people will just stop playing. If the teams are relatively even then this whole topic is moot.

As to having air/artillery strikes in game as an unlockable player skill I really don't like it. Give the game a year or so and 10 out of 12 people on a team have 1 or more forms of npc strike and its going to be ridiculous. It takes little to no skill to paint an area and carpet bomb it. I just don't see a good reason for adding it.