Phades, on 18 February 2012 - 05:08 PM, said:
First off, you have no idea of how and if melee (as much as I would like to see it) exists in the game. Secondly, you have no idea how much leeway we are going to get with our machines and how the meta evolvement will occur based upon basic weapon handling of the items involved in conjuncton with the map geography. Third, you are failing to address how a counter meta effectively creates a force multiplier thus effectively invalidating a number of combatants which becomes more painfully obvious when observing the munition based weapon systems.
You're right in that we don't know how or if melee (close-quarters combat typically employing non-projectile bludgeoning, piercing, slashing, and/or cutting weapons; as distinct from non-melee physical attacks like charging/ramming and DFA) will be implemented in MWO.
We don't know when or if the in-game time-line will get to 3058 (the canon deployment date for Reflective Armor).
We don't know if the Devs will wait that long to release Reflective Armor for player use.
We don't know if Reflective Armor will be released for player use.
We don't know if the MWO implementation of Reflective Armor will feature its canonical strengths and weaknesses.
We don't know how, when, or if LI Missiles would be implemented.
We don't know when or if the in-game time-line will get to 3053 (the canon deployment date for LI Missiles).
We don't know with certainty if the CLPT-C3 will be implemented (though, it was alluded to in
the 12/03/2011 ISN post).
Outside of what is explicitly stated in the Q&As and the Dev Blogs, there isn't much about MWO that is known with any certainty. As such, that we're effectively debating hypotheticals with some grounding in BT/MW canon (to which we know that the Devs intend to generally adhere where practical and possible) is something of a given.
Secondly:
This goes back to the first sub-point - beyond the fact that some form of MechLab will exist (as customization is alluded to several times between
Q&A 3 and
Q&A 4), at this time very little is concretely known by (m)any outside of PGI itself and/or IG.
Also, "you have no idea... how the meta evolvement will occur based upon basic weapon handling of the items involved in conjuncton with the map geography"?
Really?
We can make several reasonable and rather basic assumptions:
- Maps composed mostly or totally of large swaths of open, relatively level terrain will generally see players favoring use of long-range weaponry while maps composed mostly or totally of numerous large obstacles and very short lines-of-sight (as might generally be the case with urban environments and, if implemented, the interiors of such facilities as 'Mech production plants and Castles Brian) would generally see players favoring high damage weapons, and/or those that are judged to adequately balance damage-per-salvo and salvos-per-second in such a manner as to be regarded as "good for" close combat.
- If environmental effects are implemented, maps set in environments with low external temperatures ("ice worlds" and the dark sides of atmosphere-less telluric/terrestrial planets and/or moons far from their parent star(s), for example) would generally favor 'Mechs that have sacrificed heat sinks (generally less necessary in such environments) in favor of more weaponry, while maps set in environments with high external temperatures ("desert worlds" and atmosphere-less telluric/terrestrial planets and/or moons near to their parent star(s), for example) would generally favor 'Mechs that minimize heat generation and/or maximize heat dissipation - 'Mechs with a lot of heat sinks (examples include the ANH-1E Annihilator with its 41 standard heat sinks or the Supernova with its 26 double heat sinks) and/or armed primarily with relatively cool-running ballistic weaponry (examples include the ANH-1A and ANH-2A variants of the Annihilator or the Thunder Hawk).
Third:
"...you are failing to address how a counter meta effectively creates a force multiplier..."
Again, really?
I thought I was rather clear in stating that my hypothetical "anti-energy"
Catapult would be quite the force multiplier against 'Mechs that rely primarily on laser-based weapons (and, to a somewhat lesser extent, on 'Mechs that rely on other energy weapons, such as PPCs; these aren't, to the best of my knowledge, affect by LI warheads, but they are affected by Reflective Armor).
I also thought I was rather clear in acknowledging that there were a number of options available to counter/negate the advantages and capabilities of said
Catapult - namely, use of weapon systems that are largely or wholly unaffected by said
Catapult's anti-energy attributes and use of physical and (if implemented) melee attacks against which said
Catapult is particularly vulnerable (assuming the canon limitations of its systems are also implemented).
There are also a number of tactical and strategic options for dealing with said
Catapult, as well - retreating or taking cover until the LI cloud disperses (and, with LI missiles coming at 5 missiles per ton, the LI clouds can't be maintained for too long), closing to a range where deploying the LI missiles (as well as the Cluster Arrow Missiles!) would prove as much a detriment to said Catapult's allies as to the opponent(s), and massing so much energy-based fire that even the combined damage-reduction of the LI cloud and the Reflective Armor are overwhelmed, to name a few.
Phades, on 18 February 2012 - 05:08 PM, said:
More importantly, why would you want to encourage reflective alterations supported by AMS being a baseline and simply use the inherent limitations of the cannons against themselves instead of encouraging the application of control methods, such as heat (ie inferno), LOS (re fire), ECM (targeting/range), in addition to shake and fall mechincs (normally associated with damage) as pilot based control methods?
I don't seem to recall ever mentioning AMS.
Moreover, there seems to be some debate as to whether Arrow IV missiles, as "artillery", are affected by 'Mech-scale AMS in the first place; see post #18777 and some of the other responses in
this thread.
Also, you mention the employment of Inferno rounds against opponents as one of the "control methods" that you seem to favor.
How, precisely, is the choice to use Inferno rounds (and, specifically, the heating/overheating of the opponent caused by employing said Inferno rounds) to mitigate the opponents' ability to return fire (particularly with regard to using relatively high-heat energy weapons) significantly different, in a tactical sense, from the choice to use LI warheads to largely (but not totally) mitigate the effectiveness of what energy weapon fire is returned?
If anything, using Inferno rounds (if implemented) would probably be
more effective, overall, than using LI warheads (if implemented), as the heating would probably impair mobility and the ability to return fire with other weapon types as well as potentially shut down the target 'Mech(s), making for relatively easy pickings for the 'Mech(s) firing said Inferno rounds...
So, what makes using Inferno rounds (what you suggested) any more "valid" or "acceptable" than using LI rounds (what I suggested)?
Phades, on 18 February 2012 - 05:08 PM, said:
The how of you are going to do something should be more inportant than the what you are doing it with. Hard counters eliminate the choice once on the field. Plenty of games out there base their balance approach around the what is employed. As a consequence, you will find that they end up endlessly adjusting (buff/nerf) the what in order to change which element is more effective in order to attempt to remove percieved bias. The problem lies in the foundation of prioritizing the what over the how barring user error.
"Hard counters eliminate the choice once on the field."
That is, indeed, the point of technological counters ("hard counters") - to attempt to preemptively minimize the number of viable options/responses available to the opponent(s) as well as the effectiveness of what options/responses do remain viable, while simultaneously maximizing the range and effectiveness of one's own options/responses.
The point of strategic and tactical counters ("soft counters") is very similar - to attempt to place (preemptively, if possible) and employ one's capabilities - and those of one's allies - in such a manner as to minimize the number of viable options available to the opponent(s) as well as the effectiveness of what options/responses do remain viable, while simultaneously maximizing the range and effectiveness of one's own options/responses.
Your recent posts seem to imply a belief that technological counters and strategic/tactical counters are somehow mutually-exclusive, that one should, or must, be forced to use only one or the other (with your posts seeming to espouse a forced choice in favor of the latter) rather than to employ both in concert - a belief that, IMO, is both false and deeply flawed.
Phades, on 18 February 2012 - 05:08 PM, said:
You are going to make me do a dissertation if you keep this up.
;
Is that so?
That should be interesting...
2
