62 replies to this topic

[William Petersen]

LackofCertainty, on 10 April 2012 - 08:31 PM, said:

60 tons of armor on my side, 3 ppc's, 6 ML's and 3 AC10's vs your daishi's measly 19-ish tons of armor, 4 ER LL's, 4 MPL's, 2 UAC5's, and 1 LRM 10.

The MSK-6S seems to be the one you're talking about here, and, according to my information, that 20 tons of armour is only 217 points of damage absorption, since it's primitive (opposed to standard or ferro-fibrous) armour.

A Dire Wolf Prime only has 19 tons of armour, but it's standard armour and offers 304 points of protection. I'd also like to point out that Clan ER LLs, Clan UAC/5s, and Clan LRMs out-range anything the Mackie has. I will say that the LRMs don't really matter, since they are torso mounted, but the rest of the armament is in arms that can flip. I can Bee-line away from those Mackies and unload all my out-ranging firepower.

Lastly, a Mackie has a BV 1.0 of 1180 and a BV 2.0 of 1461; the Dire Wolf Prime has a BV 1.0 of 2341 and a BV 2.0 of 2712.

Either way, you're barely getting 2 Mackie MSK-6S for the BV of a Dire Wolf Prime, not 3.5.

[LordDeathStrike]

Grus, on 10 April 2012 - 09:14 AM, said:

now add a fast heavy or crazy/brave med mech pilot that can stay out of his cross-hairs and that Atlas is just another piece of slag...

what kind of momo pilots an atlas that cant keep a heavy or med in its crosshairs? even if they jump over you, slam into reverse turn and twist torso, line up, unload, free kill.

[pursang]

LackofCertainty, on 10 April 2012 - 08:31 PM, said:

You answered your questions in your previous post.




Bolded for emphasis.

Daishi's are fine beasts, but I would probably take 3 and a half mackies for the same cost, myself

60 tons of armor on my side, 3 ppc's, 6 ML's and 3 AC10's vs your daishi's measly 19-ish tons of armor, 4 ER LL's, 4 MPL's, 2 UAC5's, and 1 LRM 10.

Alright, let's play your game.

So one Daishi Prime costs 29,230,000 C-Bills and has a BV of 2,712. 100 tons.

Three Mackie MSK-5S's have a combined cost of 30,114,000 and a combined BV of 4,308. 300 tons.

The one Daishi is piloted by a Clanner who was born and bred to be one of the finest warriors of the galaxy, while the three Mackie pilots probably haven't even seen combat, as they are likely too young to have fought in the Fourth Succession War - on top of the fact that they can't be really good pilots if they get sadled with a Mackie to begin with. And then there's the matter of superior technology: The Daishi has not only a more diverse weapon's payload, each and every system performs better then its InnerSphere counterparts in the Mackies. So, while the Mackies are slowly plodding along trying to get into range, the Daishi is literally tearing apart the Mackies with it's superior range and firepower. Talk about shooting fish in a barrel.

The Mackie - a 'Mech so bad in comparison it takes three of them to come to par with a Daishi - and then that's not even a guaranteed win for the Mackie(s). Tell me: Which crazy unit commander would sadle their unit (and by extension, the precious small amount of space in each dropship) with 300 tons of BattleMech that is so out of date, the Successor States don't even use them anymore?

You're welcome to your 300 tons of scrap metal; all the better for target practice for me and mine.

Edited by pursang, 10 April 2012 - 10:22 PM.

[fearfactory]

Every poll with a flashbulb... flashbulb wins. Hopefully this game won't become as top-heavy as MechWarrior 4. Devs need to learn from that mistake of a game EVEN WITH the mods.

[Victor Morson]

wwiiogre, on 10 April 2012 - 08:55 AM, said:

The standard Atlas has an LRM 20, how is that not having long range punch? And an AC20 for short range punch. It is a jack of all trades and master of none, meaning it is always in the battle as long as it has sight to the enemy or a scout spotting for its indirect fire LRM's. What it s not is a Boat that is setup for one single style of play. Meaning the pilot of an Atlas needs to be adaptable like is mech.

chris

I'm going to go ahead and possibly make the OP's head explode, but the default Atlas is bad. It really is. I mean sure, it's up to taking on a medium 'mech in a similar role and all, so I'm not saying it's the worst design out there by any means, but in terms of the hierarchy of assaults, it's nowhere near the top. Not even close.

That's not to say the chassis is bad. Tear out the AC/20 for a Gauss Rifle and upgrade the mediums to ER and you'll end up with a brutal long range 'mech. Possibly remove the LRM entirely and upgrade the lasers into ER Large, and it turns into a hell of a sniper. On the flip side rip out the LRMs and replace them with SRMs and you've got quite a brawler.

Long story short (and I believe his point) is that mixed range 'mechs don't work very well if it takes much out of them - and the big guns (LRM/20s, AC/20s) do. Look at the Catapult: That's an example of a good mixed range 'mech, because 4 Medium Lasers are great point-defense and only take 4 tons out of the 'mech. Also dedicated range 'mechs that can adequately perform at close range fill the role (Large Laser boats, for example) of a mid-range 'mech, without being nerfed at any given engagement by guns not reaching / not being able to hit in the window.

Example: An Atlas with an LRM/20 and AC/20 can't hit things up close with the LRM/20 (I believe they're doing minimum ranges like MWLL handled them, pretty much, from what I've read) - and at long range, it can't hit with the AC/20. That's nerfing a lot of it's firepower at all but optimal medium range.

Meanwhile a modified Awesome sporting 6 Large Lasers would be able to engage at long range, medium range or close range. Dedicated 'mechs at any of those ranges might be able to give it a hard time, but the point is no matter what range it's engaging in it can bring everything it's got to the fight.

So yeah, that's pretty much the long and short of it. Either the mixed range stuff is a backup (i.e. the Catapult example or say, a brawler with a couple ER Large) or it's a weapon that can be used at any given range otherwise the design is unoptimized.

[William Petersen]

Victor Morson, on 11 April 2012 - 06:15 AM, said:

That's not to say the chassis is bad. Tear out the AC/20 for a Gauss Rifle and upgrade the mediums to ER and you'll end up with a brutal long range 'mech. Possibly remove the LRM entirely and upgrade the lasers into ER Large, and it turns into a hell of a sniper. On the flip side rip out the LRMs and replace them with SRMs and you've got quite a brawler.

Oh look, another player who thinks long is the only range. The atlas is a beast at close range. Oh noes! It can't use its LRM! The humanity! Guess what: it doesn't have the HEAT to use it's MLas*, SRM, AC/20 *and* LRMs. Heck, even not using the LRMs and standing still it still goes up to 25 heat and can only dissipate 20 of that, and at 5 heat the next turn, it loses a movement point and goes down to the even more abysmal speed of 2/3. The LRM was added to the chassis so it has a weapon to fire while closing with the enemy. A lot of old Mechs have such systems. It's not about being a 'jack of trades', or even really staving off the threat of being out-ranged it's about not wasting the gap-closing time. This is a team game, Mechs are not and were not meant for 1v >1 competition, they were meant for coordinated team action. Yeah, the Atlas is awful at long range, that's why you have a Catapult and a Whitworth up on a ridge keeping an eye on those threats and giving them something to worry about.


* = Assuming the rear-facing MLas are made front-facing, because rear weapons are just silly, IMO. I don't think I've ever run into a situation where I *really* needed rear-facing weapons.

[Victor Morson]

William Petersen, on 11 April 2012 - 08:18 AM, said:

Oh look, another player who thinks long is the only range. The atlas is a beast at close range. Oh noes! It can't use its LRM! The humanity! Guess what: it doesn't have the HEAT to use it's MLas*, SRM, AC/20 *and* LRMs.

1: We don't know how the heat scale is in MWO. DHS also may be available to fix that.
2: "On the flip side rip out the LRMs and replace them with SRMs and you've got quite a brawler." - Me
3: Brawlers are great. Range support is great. All-range designs (Laser, Gauss, etc.) are great. 50/50 mixed bags generally aren't. I'm pretty much 100% confident the Atlas can be adopted to any of these. That's why we have a Mechlab.

William Petersen, on 11 April 2012 - 08:18 AM, said:

Heck, even not using the LRMs and standing still it still goes up to 25 heat and can only dissipate 20 of that, and at 5 heat the next turn, it loses a movement point and goes down to the even more abysmal speed of 2/3. The LRM was added to the chassis so it has a weapon to fire while closing with the enemy. A lot of old Mechs have such systems. It's not about being a 'jack of trades', or even really staving off the threat of being out-ranged it's about not wasting the gap-closing time. This is a team game, Mechs are not and were not meant for 1v >1 competition, they were meant for coordinated team action.

Exactly why my point stands even more: You want 12 specialty 'mechs out there that cover each other's weaknesses and not 12 'mechs gimped at various engagement ranges, generally.

If all your LRMs are on your Catapults and all your SRMs and AC/20s are on your Atlas, the Catapults can start running away firing while the Atlas block anyone trying to get at them. Likewise, the close range guys can push up while the ranged support keeps the pressure on.

If you split everybody's firepower 50/50 a unit dedicated at either will keep their optimal range (close OR long) and you will always, always be outmatched. It's just the way it is.

William Petersen, on 11 April 2012 - 08:18 AM, said:

Yeah, the Atlas is awful at long range, that's why you have a Catapult and a Whitworth up on a ridge keeping an eye on those threats and giving them something to worry about.

* = Assuming the rear-facing MLas are made front-facing, because rear weapons are just silly, IMO. I don't think I've ever run into a situation where I *really* needed rear-facing weapons.

Yeah, pretty much what I was saying but all the more reason to just strip the Atlas's LRMs out and make it a brawler or a sniper, like I was saying. The vast majority of CBT designs were gimped on purpose to balance things out, which is why people complain about them - and why a Mechlab pretty much fixes any problems you might have. I'm sure the Atlas will be great as a brawler or sniper or whatever you want to do with it.

I'm pretty sure nobody will want to run a stock one, though. Ever.

On the upside, we totally agree about rear facing weapons.* They're confirmed dropped in MWO, so rejoice!

* Unless you are custom making 'mechs. Rear facing weapons cost far less BV than forward facing ones. A friend of mine built an hilariously cheap ER PPC sniper that always runs away from it's targets while keeping them in it's forward arc for really low BV. It's an abused but amusing system in TT.

[Jawbreaker6]

Its truly annoying because its a topic rooted in fantasy. I liken it to the lenghty and passionate arguments on "How many angels can dance on a pin."

I guess we could have called those guys "Religion Fanboys"

But as long as their talking about it and excited by it MWO will succeed.

[wwiiogre]

Victor your arguments only work on open fields. In terrain where scouting matters more and moving unobserved can happen. Then your specialty mechs will be caught flat footed as they are either all Long Range or all Short Range. Good luck with your choices they work on an open field in Mech4 where you are circle strafing against other circle strafing mechs. But on a real battlefield with folds in the ground, scouting mechs bringing on the indirect fire and a commander dropping the rain on your mechs standing way back by using arty, naval or aero.

There is a place on the battlefield for all of the mechs, having played with all of them for more years than most. all can be used correctly, it really is up to the pilot and the team overall to get the most out of what they have. Since the mech lab isn't going to allow a lot of diversion from canon variants and the standard mechs I wish you luck. I will use what I have to the best of its ability thru cunning piloting, good team work and above all taking advantage of the shortsightedness of players that specialize. The Tiger tank is a good example, on open fields it was a beast, and sometimes even in closed spaces, but once in awhile you just shouldn't take a long range specialist vehicle into an urban environment. While the standard Atlas can engage at range, it is at heart an Assault Mech meaning it is designed to get close and beat everything to death. The LRM 20 truly is used as a weapon to use as it closes the gap and with good scouting it will get to launch all of its missiles before it fires a single salvo with its SRM's or even uses its AC20. Then when it steps out of cover the first time at close to medium range and starts bringing the death of that AC20, SRM and 4 medium lasers to bear, which is enough to core most Light mechs in a single volley of death and blow off arms or legs of most mediums. Then hey you gots to deal with it now on its terms. A big bad 100 ton assault mech up close and personal. The battles will not be fought in the open circle strafing with the biggest boats of long range weapons winning every game. There will be little to no pop tarting snipers. These are things the Dev's have already confirmed. So maneuver, information warfare and bringing the right tool to the battle and getting it to the right spot at the right time will mean more than the ultimate configuration. Period. Pilot skill, commander skill, map use, terrain use, tactics, strategy. All more important than which mech you used or how you customized it.

Chris

Edited by wwiiogre, 11 April 2012 - 09:48 AM.

[Alizabeth Aijou]

Aegis Kleais™, on 10 April 2012 - 03:01 PM, said:

It equally sickens me as it does saddens me that this upcoming gaming generation is so phallo-centric.

To be honest, I blame it on the artist.
Or maybe I should blame it on the one who came up with the stats of the 'Mech.

Quote

They had to rewrite the rules of the game to discourage people from taking enormous swarms of Savannah Masters and simply burying their opponents under the sheer weight of cheap firepower.

Wasn't it because people kept ramming all their opponents with all those Savannahs?

Quote

1: We don't know how the heat scale is in MWO. DHS also may be available to fix that.

Expect those to be a rarity in the initial days, since pretty much all the DHS you'll see will be in either A rank regiments (Swords of Light, Genyosha, etc.) or on the black market (at 10 times regular price, most likely).

[karish]

whats really sad is that people refuse to look at the time line and keep begging for mechs that are 5-10 years down the road,
or the people that scream that if i cant be Clan Water Weasel or Clan Trouser Trout the game is just going to suck
and last but not least is the Mech Fanboys ohhhh the Awesome this or the Awesome that or then ones that think the Raven is the only Recon mech that there should be well its not i really does have a lot of drawbacks as a recon chassis.
recon mechs should be small and fast they dont need a lot of armor or arms. Each mech has its role and people should really read up on the mech before you claim that mech sucks becuase it doesnt have enough weapons or what ever

Edited by karish, 11 April 2012 - 02:10 PM.

[Alizabeth Aijou]

Well, how would *you* feel if the number of "faction-specific" 'Mechs for the faction of your choices manages to see a 400% increase within those 5-10 years?
Yeah, I did the numbers.
The Combine has about 5 different 'Mechs that are "typical" for it (7 if you count Grand Dragon and Daboku as seperate desgins), and 10 years later, we got 25 different designs (27 assuming the above).

At least we got something to look forward to.
My biggest problem with 3048/3049 is the lack of MRMs.

[Lightfoot]

It's not the 'mech/loadout, it's the tactic that determines whether the 'mech will be superior or not. In otherwords, if you bring short range, but your opponent draws you into a long and mid-range battle, your 'mech is going to be the weak choice unless you can screen it while it closes to short range, etc.

[Aegis Kleais]

karish, on 11 April 2012 - 02:07 PM, said:

whats really sad is that people refuse to look at the time line and keep begging for mechs that are 5-10 years down the road,
or the people that scream that if i cant be Clan Water Weasel or Clan Trouser Trout the game is just going to suck
and last but not least is the Mech Fanboys ohhhh the Awesome this or the Awesome that or then ones that think the Raven is the only Recon mech that there should be well its not i really does have a lot of drawbacks as a recon chassis.
recon mechs should be small and fast they dont need a lot of armor or arms. Each mech has its role and people should really read up on the mech before you claim that mech sucks becuase it doesnt have enough weapons or what ever

I guess I could be seen as a fanboy of the Wolf (but I'm not so ravenous one that I would see anyone else's preference of a different Mech as something bad) Rather, 'to each their own'. I choose a Wolf because I want to become very proficient in one. I'm sure there will be times when either it's just to expensive to take Clan tech out, or a different chassis will suit the role I am going to play just fine at a significantly cheaper cost; and when that time comes, I'm not so blind a fanboy that I wouldn't take said chassis.

But some people love variety and others don't. If that turns into a tactical advantage for you, then, well, there you have it.

[Solis Obscuri]

Lord Trogus, on 10 April 2012 - 08:04 PM, said:

Well, everyone wants the perfect 'mech, the "I Win" button, if you will. The sad reality is that this thought is garbage. Hence, the use of a full lance is designed to compensate for the weaknesses o.O

I really don't understand the logic either, OP.

Anyone coming from the previous video game titles is likely to have a "one man army" expectation - vis-a-vis that the campaign mode expected you to routinely take out 4x - 8x your effective tonnage in enemy units, and the game maps, weapons balance, loose heat tracking, and fast weapon cycle times all combined to heavily reward "specialized" loadouts centered around massed fire from a single type of weapon system, and these tended to carry over well into multiplayer modes as well. I think that an increased emphasis on terrain, good reconaissance, and company-level tactics in MWO is going to turn a lot of that on its head.

Victor Morson, on 11 April 2012 - 09:09 AM, said:

1: We don't know how the heat scale is in MWO. DHS also may be available to fix that.
2: "On the flip side rip out the LRMs and replace them with SRMs and you've got quite a brawler." - Me
3: Brawlers are great. Range support is great. All-range designs (Laser, Gauss, etc.) are great. 50/50 mixed bags generally aren't. I'm pretty much 100% confident the Atlas can be adopted to any of these. That's why we have a Mechlab.



Exactly why my point stands even more: You want 12 specialty 'mechs out there that cover each other's weaknesses and not 12 'mechs gimped at various engagement ranges, generally.

If all your LRMs are on your Catapults and all your SRMs and AC/20s are on your Atlas, the Catapults can start running away firing while the Atlas block anyone trying to get at them. Likewise, the close range guys can push up while the ranged support keeps the pressure on.

If you split everybody's firepower 50/50 a unit dedicated at either will keep their optimal range (close OR long) and you will always, always be outmatched. It's just the way it is.



Yeah, pretty much what I was saying but all the more reason to just strip the Atlas's LRMs out and make it a brawler or a sniper, like I was saying. The vast majority of CBT designs were gimped on purpose to balance things out, which is why people complain about them - and why a Mechlab pretty much fixes any problems you might have. I'm sure the Atlas will be great as a brawler or sniper or whatever you want to do with it.

I'm pretty sure nobody will want to run a stock one, though. Ever.

The Atlas is actually a pretty good stock 'mech. Not the best choice on wide open terrain, but a single LRM/20 is no joke, and the Atlas has enough armor to outlast most lighter 'mechs while it closes in. Ideally, it is a close-range damage machine, though, and as mentioned before, it mounts about as much close-range firepower as its heat sinks can manage. The ability to dish out 42 damage per turn without any overheating (not to mention massive 10-point punches and 20-point kicks which cost no heat accumulation), plus the frontal armor to withstand concentrated fire from multiple enemy units of any weight class, all combined to make the Atlas a brutal close-range combatat. The LRM is really just a little something to soften up a target on the way in, and to give lighter "sniper" units something to think about.

As for specialization vs. all-rounding, I think there isn't an answer that either case is better - realistically, at the company level, you are going to want a few specialized designs that max out speed or armor or long or short range firepower, and a number of more generalist designs that are effective under a range of conditions and can support the more specialized units. You go to war with what you have, and generally speaking, entire companies and regiments aren't purpose built for just one thing, since they aren't going to be able to pick where all their battles are fought, and refitting takes too much time to do on the fly before battle. Setting up a unit with say, 3 Dragons, 6 Catapults, 2 Awesomes, and a lone Commando for recon sounds nice from the perspective of massing as much long range firepower as possible, but it becomes almost useless once my enemy withdraws into a thick forest and starts fighting a guerrila hit-and-run campaign. Likewise, a company of 4 Atlases, 5 Hunchbacks, and 3 Jenners may mount a nasty urban defense, but are going to be severely disadvantaged if they get tasked to hunt down a more mobile enemy in open country. And if you pit the two units against each other, and each has some discretion in choosing the battlefield, it becomes a stalemate.

But by contrast, a company set up with, say, 2 Jenners, 2 Hunchbacks, 3 Centurions, 1 Dragon, 2 Catapults, and 2 Atlases, has the ability to compete under a variety of conditions, and despite the fact that nearly half the 'mechs are "all-round" configurations, I'd give it better than even odds of besting either of the more "specialized" units under anything but their own ideal conditions.

And I wouldn't be at all surprised to see some stock Atlases running around. They are a very effective 'mech.

[BerryChunks]

victor, according to your view, everyone should specialize in a given range. What happens if you have 1 long, 1 medium, and 1 short range vs 3 units on the other side which specialize in a specific range, but also pack a medium and long weapon? 2 ships with their non-spec long range weapon and 1 mech with a long range spec > your single long range mech, and then they can focus that mech down and be able to attack from range with impunity afterward.

overspecialization leads to destruction.

Edited by BerryChunks, 11 April 2012 - 05:39 PM.

[Christopher Dayson]

Overspecialization very much leads to destruction, it's why light mechs have to generally have speed on their side because they cannot typically engage at a variety of ranges.

The power of the Atlas, and the Battlemaster, isn't that they're so wicked they can't be beat it's that they are a credible and dangerous /threat/ at every range.

Also, Rear firing weapons are awesome. Two medium lasers facing backwards really make that locust that got behind you think twice as that's a credible threat to their light armor.

Sort of like machine guns are credible threats to infantry. Consider also that the battlefield of 3025+ is /not/ one of ideal reinforcement, lances often go for days or weeks without support, sometimes longer and all your overspecialized mechs suddenly become a massive liability due to their specialization.

This is not something that translates well into an online game where engagement length is very short comparatively and in many of the mechwarrior games they abused the lore by having the character be able to modify mechs instantaneously out in the field (Ala MW3 and 4 for example).

This is going to be one of those cases where the game will /never/ accurately represent lore/tt since it's just a totally different scale and scenario.

[Karyudo ds]

BerryChunks, on 11 April 2012 - 05:39 PM, said:

victor, according to your view, everyone should specialize in a given range.

Doesn't look like what he said at all to me. His point (unless I read it wrong) is that balancing yourself for all ranges is difficult to do effectively unless you can pack in small efficient weapons for some of the roles. Like how a catapult at medium/short range can still fight, not AS well but it only devotes a few tons for the lasers to do it.

You could tweak the Atlas, but on the other hand you might not have to if you can get to range to use it. Personally I would lean more towards a bit more ranged firepower for while I was closing in but while we're all complaining and comparing the reality is that we don't really know anything anyway. We have Battletech to go by but if most of the maps feature LOTS of cover getting into range might not be hard. So I sort of agree with the OP while at the same time I don't really see the point in arguing over much of anything. We have some information but in a lot of posts people are judging a final game we haven't really seen to much of yet.

Christopher Dayson, on 11 April 2012 - 09:04 PM, said:

Overspecialization very much leads to destruction, it's why light mechs have to generally have speed on their side because they cannot typically engage at a variety of ranges.

Er that speed is literally a specialization in that case and obviously doesn't lead to destruction unless you use it as if you had the firepower. Though everything light needs to be quick with their armor limitations while the big boys have engine limits. If you have a team of long rangers versus a team of brawlers the rangers win if the brawlers can't close, replace the brawlers with more balanced mechs? They might get a few kills but beyond that I'd expect the same thing...unless terrain was usable to their advantage. I have this same discussion with a friend of mine over 40k, targeting any specific weakness in an army you can't count on every time is pointless. Best you can do is prepare to deal with it if it shows and have another plan if it doesn't because either way your amazing analytical solution can't beat the bad dice. (literally or figuratively)

[Thorn Hallis]

I see the forum flooded with "Whats the best config for mech XY" once the game is released...

...and after a big patch it will be replaced by "I used to be a survival-Atlas, now I need a new config for a marksman-Atlas".

[Gunmage]

I'm annoyed by uninformative thread names.

On this subject: any game that has multiple classes has forum threads "X is OP, nerf/delete" and "Y is UP, buff/delete". It's the way of the internets, nothing can be done about it. Balance between specialized designs can be good, it can be bad, but either way there'll be unsatisfied users.