339 replies to this topic

[Arbhall Sommers]

I like that the Devs are using actual tabletop ranges. It makes me believe they are bringing all the tabletop rules into this game, making it much more like the game I truly love. If they can nail as much as they seem to have, im really looking forward to this.
Bring it Devs, and anyone that wants to complain. Go hard I have a mute button waiting for you.

[Vulpesveritas]

A6PackofToucans, on 12 May 2012 - 03:44 AM, said:

Vulpesveritas, I do agree with you, but we just can't compare real world weapons to the ones in battletech.

Like you, the big worry for me and others is that because of the LRM's max range, every other weapon in game has an even smaller range. And when you look at the video, even the latest one, I'm seeing a possible LRM attack at 500m and under according to what the targeted mech reticle was saying. That's not far at all. Especially when you see all the other mechs in the video literally "In your face."

What I want is that if ALL weapons had larger ranges, that would open up a more tactical game than an in your face slugfest. I want to see scouts with TAG and NARC with the ranges you speak of, so that they are viable very long range assets to the rest of the lance. And to allow targeting in the very hilly and reduced line of sight terrain seen in the videos. And also, the scout would be a very dangerous opponent because of it's ability to allow the missiles in the rest of the lance to come at you at 1000m or more, accurately.

On top of the longer ranges, I was hoping that because of the way targeting systems work, the lag time of arm vs. torso weapons, the convergence factor of weapons, that if you really wanted to be one of those evil and vile long range snipers everyone seems to be afraid of, you would have to invest in heavy 5 ton Targeting computers to give you the magnification you needed and to help you lag shoot your AC5 or Gauss at ranges up to 900m or more. The balance would come from having to invest critical space and tonnage to allow your mech to work at long range. That's what I was looking for, as well as having terrain like we see in the footage, it would allow the brawlers to close with you if they took the time to plan their approach to you. But if you found a good perch to shoot from and the enemy presented himself, then you'd be rewarded for your investment in magnification and tonnage to snipe at him for being foolishly exposed in the open.

We'll have to wait an see how this sim plays when we get it, but I'm not seeing anything more than a brawlfest in these videos. Where's the tactics? The finding and reporting the enemies composition? The command mech working with a scout to coordinate the attack through a C3 network? Calling in artillery to soften the lance up before first contact? Calling in artillery to take out that pesky sniper I spoke of before? All I see is brawling, show me more tactics and thought are possible with this latest incarnation of Mechwarrior, rather than packing all the med lasers and machine guns on a mech and ramming into the enemy at under 90m with trigger held in constantly. I WANT TO BE WRONG ABOUT THIS!!!

I posted the photo below as a joke awile back, but it's looking like it's more the reality...

Wholeheartedly agree. If the devs simply say, doubled all weapon ranges, there would still be a complete balance to the game by keeping everything equal, and would make speed an even greater factor say, to a Jenner reconfigured into a sniper with a PPC. (removing the SRM and some Mlas of course.) With current ranges, a Mlasboat makes more sense, as we'll be stuck brawling anyhow, as without any "real" range we're stuck in a pen. Double the range and everything would be perfectly fine, as you need LOS / scout targeting anyhow. And at those ranges a scout makes all the more difference.

[Melissia]

Quote

and would make speed an even greater factor say

Actually, aiming at a target which is further away is much easier than aiming at one that's up close, if both targets are moving at the same speed. From the shooter's perspective, the one that is further away is moving slower.

Edited by Melissia, 12 May 2012 - 09:29 PM.

[Belisarius1]

Melissia, on 12 May 2012 - 09:29 PM, said:

Actually, aiming at a target which is further away is much easier than aiming at one that's up close, if both targets are moving at the same speed. From the shooter's perspective, the one that is further away is moving slower.

That's not true. Having to move the cursor further/faster is only a problem if you're limited by torso twist. Provided 'mech torsos aren't hilariously slow, that's only relevant at <200m and doesn't affect the 630m vs 1000m discussion at all.

In all other aspects it's much more difficult to tag a target at long range. It's much smaller and you have to correct for a much greater travel time.

Edited by Belisarius†, 12 May 2012 - 10:07 PM.

[Vulpesveritas]

Melissia, on 12 May 2012 - 09:29 PM, said:

Actually, aiming at a target which is further away is much easier than aiming at one that's up close, if both targets are moving at the same speed. From the shooter's perspective, the one that is further away is moving slower.

This:

Belisarius†, on 12 May 2012 - 10:03 PM, said:

That's not true. Having to move the cursor further/faster is only a problem if you're limited by torso twist. Provided 'mech torsos aren't hilariously slow, that's only relevant at <200m and doesn't affect the 630m vs 1000m issue at all.

In all other aspects it's much more difficult to tag a target at long range. It's much smaller and you have to correct for a much greater travel time.

While it does appear to be moving slower, with anything other than a hitscan laser, you do need to lead the target, said target may also be making evasive / erradic movement or slow down, and with a laser damage is spread out anyhow.

[Owl Cutter]

Eh. I expect the ranges of weapon relative to each other to be in line with the source material, and that minimum ranges are implemented. I am more worried about the balance between this size scale and various time scales such as movement and maneuvering speed and weapon recycle speed being too closely tied to the board game when adjusting that relationship would produce a better game. Any size scale from agoraphobic to claustrophobic should be able to work fine IF movement capability and overall firepower time scales are tuned relative to it and each other so that the classic pikeman vs. archer vs. cavalry relationship is kept intact for the 'mech design rules. Conversely, any size scale should be able to fail miserably if the other scales are way out of whack. This is all purely mechanical, though, and I'm sure aesthetics and intuitivity are still important. At least from a technical standpoint, "battle chess" scales should be easier on the hardware than realistic ranges.

[LordDeathStrike]

the only people crying about shorter ranges then mw4 had, are the poptards.

whats a poptard you ask? its the munchkin in the nova cat with jump jets parked out at max erppc/gauss rifle range on a no heat unlimited ammo server with his radar turned off jumping up from behind a hill periodically on a low res huge screen red dot pixel hunting for targets to fire at so he doesnt get shot back at.

[Sprouticus]

LordDeathStrike, on 13 May 2012 - 01:16 AM, said:

the only people crying about shorter ranges then mw4 had, are the poptards.

whats a poptard you ask? its the munchkin in the nova cat with jump jets parked out at max erppc/gauss rifle range on a no heat unlimited ammo server with his radar turned off jumping up from behind a hill periodically on a low res huge screen red dot pixel hunting for targets to fire at so he doesnt get shot back at.

Not true LDS, some people are concerned about the simple fact that long range weapons will be softening rather than a viable tactical option. If all battle boil down to hitting a couple of times at long range followed by a furball, it will make many of us unhappy. Yes that is accurate to TT, but the game can be better IMO, going beyond TT in options.That having been said....


In the end I LOVE the idea of using the TT ranges as a starting point. Lets see how it works with that model. If it is too inflexible, then increase range for every weapon by 50m and lets see how that works.

The beta will flush out how the game works. ******** about the ranges now is stupid. If the game is gimped by ranges in open beta, we can deal with it then. Im not saying not to express your opinion, just that it might be best to express your concern and let it drop for now.

[Blastaar]

i would like to point out that i have inderectly had to work with line of sight only missle fire in mechcommander 2 (awsome game by the way - even if the story line is rigid) so it won't be too big a deal to swich from directing other peoples LOS to having to deal with my own. if anything ill be a scout. then i wont have to worry about not being able to see the oponent in battle cause i wont be fighting as much.

Edited by Blastaar, 13 May 2012 - 02:13 AM.

[Victor Morson]

Two things Leetskeet:

LRMs will be able to lock through solid objects if recon has eyes on them, meaning impassable terrain and high ridges can give them a powerful niche; and two, the Clans get great long range weapons.

Oh well. We still have the Gauss Rifle and ER PPC.

[Kargush]

Melissia, on 12 May 2012 - 09:29 PM, said:

Actually, aiming at a target which is further away is much easier than aiming at one that's up close, if both targets are moving at the same speed. From the shooter's perspective, the one that is further away is moving slower.

But the shot has to travel longer, and you'll have to compensate for not just that but also bullet drop (not relevant for lasers, of course). If the target is really far away you also get the coriolis effect. And with lasers there are atmospheric effects and other hilarities. It might appear to move slower, but that is a deceptive impression.

[Melissia]

Vulpesveritas, on 12 May 2012 - 10:08 PM, said:

While it does appear to be moving slower, with anything other than a hitscan laser, you do need to lead the target

Is leading a target supposed to be hard or something? People on this forum act like it's some sort of herculean feat.

[TheVirus]

LordDeathStrike, on 13 May 2012 - 01:16 AM, said:

the only people crying about shorter ranges then mw4 had, are the poptards.

whats a poptard you ask? its the munchkin in the nova cat with jump jets parked out at max erppc/gauss rifle range on a no heat unlimited ammo server with his radar turned off jumping up from behind a hill periodically on a low res huge screen red dot pixel hunting for targets to fire at so he doesnt get shot back at.

Why people talk abouit sniping like it's wrong I don't know. Agree or not these guys were the best in MW4 and they will be the best in this game too.

[StaIker]

They were one dimensional hacks and they gave MW4 a bad name, it was a skill in the same sense using a doorknob correctly is a skill. That sort of terrible, repetative play is why there is such a huge over-reaction right now to anything that looks like sniping or long range combat.

[TheVirus]

StaIker, on 13 May 2012 - 04:43 AM, said:

They were one dimensional hacks and they gave MW4 a bad name, it was a skill in the same sense using a doorknob correctly is a skill. That sort of terrible, repetative play is why there is such a huge over-reaction right now to anything that looks like sniping or long range combat.

Haha. Hacks? Really? Snipers gave MW4 a bad name? Is that why it's been around for over a decade and is still played today because nobody wanted to play it because of the snipers? Get real, mate.

Saying it's repetitive is stupid. Running in and dieing over and over is reptitive and boring. Getting 5 kills then dying is a skill.

[StaIker]

Those are the two options are they? Jump sniping or running in and dying... I guess we can see how deep your experience of the game was.

[Belisarius1]

StaIker, on 13 May 2012 - 04:43 AM, said:

They were one dimensional hacks and they gave MW4 a bad name, it was a skill in the same sense using a doorknob correctly is a skill. That sort of terrible, repetative play is why there is such a huge over-reaction right now to anything that looks like sniping or long range combat.

No... there's a huge overreaction because people are retards.

Also 3pv. If you played 3pv, you sniped. I hated it and thought it was stupid, but Virus was pretty good at it by all accounts. Whether his experience was deep or not is really just a rehash of the age-old FFP debate, and that's not particularly useful here.

Edited by Belisarius†, 13 May 2012 - 04:55 AM.

[TheVirus]

StaIker, on 13 May 2012 - 04:49 AM, said:

Those are the two options are they? Jump sniping or running in and dying... I guess we can see how deep your experience of the game was.

Who said they were the only options?

The guys worth a damn on this forum know who I am and know how I play as they play the same way..... sniping. It's how all the top players in MW4 have played over the years and I'm sure we'll find a way to make it work in this game too.

[Belisarius1]

Virus, you're wrong. Stalker is certainly "worth a damn" and his team didn't poptart, because it doesn't work nearly as well in FFP. You'll find that to be true of just about anyone who played in that community, which, by the way, is the model MWO is using.

[Kargush]

Melissia, on 13 May 2012 - 04:18 AM, said:

Is leading a target supposed to be hard or something? People on this forum act like it's some sort of herculean feat.

Well, it's certainly a bit more than just "aim X distance to the front of it." Especially when the smallest change in speed or direction from the target can throw off the shot.