19 replies to this topic

[Tamago Ausf F2]

i don't know rule do not know if MWO was to follow.
MW3 height or MW4 height. I hope MWO follow through MW4.

increase weight.
now: light: 20~under 40t Medium: 40~60t heavy: 60~80t assault: 80~100t.
Suggestion: light 25~under 50t Medium: 50~75t heavy: 75~100t assault: 100 ~ 130t
i think mech is A little lighter. Seems plausible a little more should be heavier.
weapons, equipment, armor The ratio is heavier according to

weapon range 1km->2km.
max speed lowest 50km/h. (base assualt)

[DarkTreader]

... My first question is, why?
The weights have been pretty well established by canon for the past 30-ish years, and really haven't changed. If this was done, MWO would have to completely re-write which mechs are classed in which weights... and there would be some mechs completely left out. By boosting the lower end of the light side up by 5 tons, you've effectively removed 7 mechs that would've been available at the time, specifically because they're only 20t.

Secondly, there has always been a 100t cap on a Mech's limits - I'm sure there's a reason for it, but I'm not sure off the top of my head. Sure, there was the Orca, which was an April Fool's joke, that was listed at 200t, but... again. April Fool's joke. Why would you add an extra 30 tons to the top end of the Assault bracket? Trying to rebalance these weights, or shuffle around all of the Mechs and rebalance the mechanics involved with each, would be a nightmare, and a waste of time on PGI's part.

Next, you're doubling the range of weapons. If you want a real-world comparison, the longest range for a standard weapon in BT would be about 1200m (Long Toms and Arrow IV systems notwithstanding). That's about 3/4 of a mile. You double that, and there would be the potential for battles that would occur without even seeing the enemy... which is EXACTLY what the entire story of BT was supposed to be about. Getting rid of the 'train an ***** to push a button, and he can decimate a population' crap, and making it about people actually having to put themselves in harm's way - supposed to be a deterrent to war, though that didn't exactly work out.

So... yeah, no. Highly doubt that this is gonna happen.

[Mchawkeye]

no point messing with tonnage. the tonnage in BT was already bobbins, I think done becasue anything on a metric scale like that is easy to make sense of in game terms.

So it;s already rubbish, but it's nice, harmless rubbish.

Height again isn;t really that important so long as it's all relative to each other and the surroundings.

DarkTreader, on 26 January 2012 - 12:18 AM, said:

Next, you're doubling the range of weapons. If you want a real-world comparison, the longest range for a standard weapon in BT would be about 1200m (Long Toms and Arrow IV systems notwithstanding). That's about 3/4 of a mile. You double that, and there would be the potential for battles that would occur without even seeing the enemy... which is EXACTLY what the entire story of BT was supposed to be about. Getting rid of the 'train an ***** to push a button, and he can decimate a population' crap, and making it about people actually having to put themselves in harm's way - supposed to be a deterrent to war, though that didn't exactly work out.

Humans, from a 2 meter height can see roughly about 5k/3 miles. then add another 10 m to that and you can see much further. and then it all depends on the size of planet you are on...so beyond visual range all depends on any number of variables...I am personally all for weapon ranges to be altered into a more realistic bracket. the concept that a firesupport mech can get hit by a laser whislt both at range is A) annoying and 2) contradictory to the whole point of fire support; at the very least, LRMs should have a significantly longer range than they currently do now.

Edited by Mchawkeye, 26 January 2012 - 02:39 AM.

[Agent CraZy DiP]

This is silly.

[Dlardrageth]

I can haz orbital bombardment at request as well? Or an "I-win-button" perhaps? Sounds equally reasonable...

[Corsair114]

Dlardrageth, on 26 January 2012 - 02:44 AM, said:

I can haz orbital bombardment at request as well? Or an "I-win-button" perhaps? Sounds equally reasonable...

Yeah, you unlock that kill streak bonus after your seventh consecutive non-team kill. I thought everyone knew that?

That said, there's really no reason to mess with the tonnage.

[God of War]

@MecatamaMK2:
If that´s what you need, go and play Heavy Gear!
This is Mechwarrior/Battletech!

And that´s the bottom line,
cause "Stone Cold" said so!

[Tamago Ausf F2]

Agent CraZy DiP, on 26 January 2012 - 01:55 AM, said:

This is silly.

God of War, on 26 January 2012 - 06:40 AM, said:

@MecatamaMK2:
If that´s what you need, go and play Heavy Gear!
This is Mechwarrior/Battletech!

And that´s the bottom line,
cause "Stone Cold" said so!

noob of noob's idea. it's nut. i know.
heavy gear? what this?

[Liam]

66 m per hex would be nice but well ...

[chapaew]

I have now have 2 suggestions : 1. never could understand why a huge robot in the game weighs only 50 to 100 tons , normal tank in our time weighs 60 tons , please change to increase the weight in realistic 2. new sketches, drawings robots, why they are wide, in contrast to the previous models of robots - please change !

[Fiachdubh]

Agree the weight is a little wierd compared to tanks in BT but as for real life tanks guess they just have super light weight materials by then (they have 427 years to figure it out after all) but it has worked for nearly 30 years and its pretty well embedded in the canon (with nearly 100 novels and all) so there is no real reason to change it now.

As for number 2 the old drawings largely sucked ***.
I just hope they do not take away the Ravens beak if/when it is introduced, it woud look awfull as a boxy nosed mech and loose its distinctivness.

Edited by Fiachdubh, 28 January 2012 - 12:16 PM.

[Alaric Wolf Kerensky]

First off, I can barely understand what MecatamaMk2 and Chapeaw are trying to say.

There is no reason to change the weight scale, after all, in the end it is just numbers. Yes it is weird that all 'Mechs have weights with a factor of 5, and that with their size they weigh 100 tons or less. But in the end it is just a number used to give an idea where that particular 'Mech is in relation to others. Making the number higher would just cause a major pain in the *** for everyone, and for no profit other than "hey the weights seem more realistic now!"

When you said:
"don't know rule do not know if MWO was to follow.
MW3 height or MW4 height. I hope MWO follow through MW4."
I have no idea in hell what you are trying to say. But in canon, 'Mechs are generally 10 meters in height.

And lastly to chapaew's complaint about the redesigns; The new models look fantastic, and are a massive advance past the old TRO drawings. They have found the perfect style, big, gritty, and functional, with smaller caliber cannons than the honestly junky TRO images.

[Undead]

MecatamaMk2, on 25 January 2012 - 11:31 PM, said:

i don't know rule do not know if MWO was to follow.
MW3 height or MW4 height. I hope MWO follow through MW4.

increase weight.
now: light: 20~under 40t Medium: 40~60t heavy: 60~80t assault: 80~100t.
Suggestion: light 25~under 50t Medium: 50~75t heavy: 75~100t assault: 100 ~ 130t
i think mech is A little lighter. Seems plausible a little more should be heavier.
weapons, equipment, armor The ratio is heavier according to

weapon range 1km->2km.
max speed lowest 50km/h. (base assualt)

So basically you want the new MW game to not be MW.... oooooo kaaaayyy.

[Yeach]

Alaric Wolf Kerensky, on 28 January 2012 - 12:37 PM, said:

When you said:
"don't know rule do not know if MWO was to follow.
MW3 height or MW4 height. I hope MWO follow through MW4."
I have no idea in hell what you are trying to say. But in canon, 'Mechs are generally 10 meters in height.

I agree on this point from the OP.

In general MW4 mechs got taller and bulkier the higher the tonnage; much more drastically than any previous mechwarrior game.
The shortest Mech was like 6 m tall and the Atlas was like 18 m.
In MW3 I think the shortest was like 8-9 m and the tallest was like 14m.
(somebody correct me if I am in error for the heights)
The MW4 Wolfhound althought not short was one of the "skinniest" mechs available

MW4 made smaller mechs "physically" much harder to connect with weapons.

In regards to range, i wouldnt be opposed if a Battletech Hex was increased in distance.
Instead of 30m increase it to 40 or 50m.
Weapons range and speed would all be affected proportionally so I don't see any harm in that because it keeps all ranges relative.

Edited by Yeach, 28 January 2012 - 01:57 PM.

[Alaric Wolf Kerensky]

Ah, in that case I agree fully. Lights should be shorter than Assaults, and I liked how it was done in MW4 as well. And if ranges were increased I do not mind as well, as long as it is proportionate, although it would make long-ranged weapons and "sniping" more popular, just as a warning. But it would make weapons feel more significant if they could hit at a further range.

[Yeach]

Bump.
Cause I want to know if people prefer smaller mechs having smaller sizes to hit.
or whereas in TT, the speed of the mech (rather than size) makes faster mechs harder to hit.
(All mechs are basically the same size in TT)

[Strum Wealh]

Yeach, on 28 January 2012 - 01:52 PM, said:

I agree on this point from the OP.

In general MW4 mechs got taller and bulkier the higher the tonnage; much more drastically than any previous mechwarrior game.
The shortest Mech was like 6 m tall and the Atlas was like 18 m.
In MW3 I think the shortest was like 8-9 m and the tallest was like 14m.
(somebody correct me if I am in error for the heights)
The MW4 Wolfhound althought not short was one of the "skinniest" mechs available

MW4 made smaller mechs "physically" much harder to connect with weapons.

Canonically, the tallest BattleMechs were on the order of 12 meters (approximately 40 feet) tall, as depth 2 water (12 meters deep) was just enough to submerge a 'Mech while depth 1 water (6 meters deep) would come to a 'Mech's waist.

Granted, some 'Mechs could have antennae, crests, flanges, and such that could technically increase their height - an Atlas with its scalp at 12-meters and a 2-meter antenna could be considered to be either 12-meters tall (scalp height) or 14 meters (approximately 46 feet, and the same as the regulation length of a fencing piste ) tall (top of the antenna, the point furthest from the ground).

Yeach, on 28 January 2012 - 01:52 PM, said:

In regards to range, i wouldnt be opposed if a Battletech Hex was increased in distance.
Instead of 30m increase it to 40 or 50m.
Weapons range and speed would all be affected proportionally so I don't see any harm in that because it keeps all ranges relative.

There is a variant of the game called BattleForce that uses "1 hex = 180 meters" rather than the "1 hex = 30 meters" of normal BattleTech.

I.S. Medium Laser(/AC-20/SRM) max. range: 9 hexes
BattleTech range: 270 meters
BattleForce range: 1620 meters

I.S. ER-PPC max. range: 23 hexes
BattleTech range: 690 meters
BattleForce range: 4140 meters

I.S. Gauss Rifle max. range: 22 hexes
BattleTech range: 660 meters
BattleForce range: 3960 meters

I.S. LRM max. range: 21 hexes
BattleTech range: 630 meters
BattleForce range: 3780 meters

Clan LB 2-X AC max. range: 30 hexes -> (longest canon non-artillery range)
BattleTech range: 900 meters
BattleForce range: 5400 meters

I.S./Clan Long Tom max. range: 340 hexes (20 maps * 17 rows of hexes per BT map) -> (longest canon artillery range)
BattleTech range: 10200 meters
BattleForce range: 61200 meters

Also, keep in mind that a number of weapons (such as PPCs, I.S. LRMs, and the lighter ACs) have minimum ranges on the order of 3-6 hexes...

While a case could be made for longer weapon ranges (up to the BF ranges), I would think that sticking to standard BT ranges would probably be better, as it seems like most maps - especially urban environments - probably won't be 10-12 km long/wide (does anyone know of a Dev citation of approximate map size?) open fields, and most engagements are probably going to take place inside of 1000 meters anyway.

Your thoughts?

Edited by Strum Wealh, 30 January 2012 - 02:18 AM.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

I could see them perhaps doubling the range ie 1 hex=60m but I think 180 is way too far. You would have ranges well in excess of the line of sight or distance at which you could see a mech.On a "non-flat" or urban map you could have clear line of sight well within the range of even "short ranged" weapons, which would seem to defeat the object. Can't see them wanting to do maps of that size either. Could tak forever to get an Atlas from one side to the other.

[jbone]

Battleforce Ranges do not use Battletech Ranges, Battleforce is a fast and dirty (very dirty) rules set for doing large scale engagements, Ranges in battle force are much larger, and an entire lance fits in one hex. Ranges are broken down into flat categories, Short Medium and Long. LRMS don't roll on tables they do a flat amount of damage based on rack size and if they have Artemis IV, same for SRMs. Heat is also very simple.

[MaddMaxx]

jbone, on 13 February 2012 - 10:19 PM, said:

Battleforce Ranges do not use Battletech Ranges, Battleforce is a fast and dirty (very dirty) rules set for doing large scale engagements, Ranges in battle force are much larger, and an entire lance fits in one hex. Ranges are broken down into flat categories, Short Medium and Long. LRMS don't roll on tables they do a flat amount of damage based on rack size and if they have Artemis IV, same for SRMs. Heat is also very simple.

Sounds like they were designed for Console play. hehehehehe