339 replies to this topic

[pcunite]

Roh, on 14 May 2012 - 12:43 PM, said:

Though 630m for giant robots when humans with a simple optic scope can shoot farther and have been able to since LONG before BT ever existed... Seems kinda silly. But that is cool. Should still make for a really fun game.

Tick-tac-toe is fun too ... I want a cerebral game. I don't expect to be able to shoot 2000m without a scout tagging the target. That is the whole point of a scout. what fun is it to see the scout alongside the target enemy at a silly 630m? Everything the developers have said about MWO was cool, but the implementation is a tiny boxing match?

[GaussDragon]

Garth Erlam, on 14 May 2012 - 12:31 PM, said:

Terrain is a big deal. While snipers might love that open water part you've seen of the map we showed, how much do you think they love the 'S' turn other side there? I'll tell you right now that K2's alpha is a lot less intimidating at 50 metres with an Atlas.

I'm dying for any new information from you guys about how you plan to approach map design in a way that will encourage greater play-style variety. IF, you're trying to encourage variety.

[Iron Harlequin]

Any completely urban maps would be interesting.

[Belisarius1]

Using different regions of maps to encourage variety can be dangerous, though. If you have one team take long range and the other take brawlers, you just end up with both camping their preferred terrain until one team cracks due to boredom and moves out of their comfort zone.

It can work, but it needs an objective system that encourages teams to use the whole map, like the one Outlaw posted in suggest-a-game-mode, ages back.

Edited by Belisarius†, 15 May 2012 - 12:32 AM.

[PANZERBUNNY]

pcunite, on 14 May 2012 - 01:10 PM, said:

Tick-tac-toe is fun too ... I want a cerebral game. I don't expect to be able to shoot 2000m without a scout tagging the target. That is the whole point of a scout. what fun is it to see the scout alongside the target enemy at a silly 630m? Everything the developers have said about MWO was cool, but the implementation is a tiny boxing match?

Have you people watched the damn video? The atlas and cata are chucking LRM's at an enemy mech in the FAR distance, and it seems to be 640. It's pretty damn far. That is an accetable engagement range. 2000m is not exceptable for a functional game that won't make obsolete most of the mechs and weapons in the game.

If a mech wants to get close to you, or a lance wants to get in close it'll happen. All you can hope to do is do some damage before they do.

Welcome to Battletech. Just be glad those people who like to close fight cant double punch or kick your legs out. Imagine the crying if you could.

[neodym]

this thread is like zombie,every time I check mwomercs I am like "yu dead already?" and this thread is like "nah,not yet bra"

[Pvt Dancer]

I just want to go 'pew pew pew'.

[8100d 5p4tt3r]

pcunite, on 13 May 2012 - 09:16 PM, said:

For a game like MWO to be fun to me, it has to provide some "suspension of disbelief". What is wrong with giving me the ability to shoot way past 1000m if I have successfully obtained intel on that target? No one is seriously suggesting we can shoot at long range and hit when you can't see a target. LRM's that only travel 630m is dumb. This is the year 3050 for crying out loud! If long range sniping becomes such a huge problem, an onboard computer system could allow time to detect incoming missiles.

Nobody builds mechs on the cheap. Let's stop this silly discussion of balancing to the point of making the game silly. War is not "fair". I favor long range like real life. I don't want a button mashing punch fest game.

Apparently you don't know the rest of B-tech lore and that yes the year is 3049 but how far the Succession Wars dragged down technology, almost back to the dark ages. The rarity of mechs and their equipment and only over the last 40 years or so not to mention the previous Succession wars (4 in total), that Mechs and much technology only started to be re-discovered, deployed and understood. Also that Mechs and vehicles were also intentionally designed to have "controlled" ranges of sorts to limit collateral damage and ideally to have the mech on mech fighting not to mention terrain limitations for range.

Aside from the succession wars you also have the hundreds if not thousands of contstant lesser conflicts that have cost the houses and lesser entities ships, mechs and technology.

3025 tech is only 24 years before current date and time. Given the 1000 years of B-tech history/lore that is a small measure of time.

The Inner Sphere did not experience the same level of technology development that the Clans have over the same timeline because of all the infighting not to mention the Houses useing Nuclear weapons at one point. Even still the Clans have had their own version of the Succession wars.

Something else that seems many are ignorant of as well.

So if you and others want to ***** about weapon ranges, then obviously you are all missing the main point behind their intentional design. None of us can open your eyes. Only your desire to appreciate what is, vs what you think it should be.

So all of you crying foul about range, clearly show your lack of understanding of the realm in which you whine and yet know little about. So those of us that know the TT and the resulting Lore because we learned it, we are coming from a more knowledge based background. That was one of my points in my other thread. We understand why things are as they are here and now.

I am not saying I wouldn't like longer ranges more damage, less heat (Clan Tech) however right here and now, suck it up, deal with it, learn like the rest of us and you will appreciate Clan Tech if we get it in the future. Also you will understand how to use IS Tech much more efficiently if you can't gain access to Clan Tech.

Edited by 8100d 5p4tt3r, 15 May 2012 - 06:02 AM.

[Belisarius1]

neodym, on 15 May 2012 - 03:15 AM, said:

this thread is like zombie,every time I check mwomercs I am like "yu dead already?" and this thread is like "nah,not yet bra"

Really? All I hear is "BRAAAAAIIIIIINSSSSSS"

[MonkeyDCecil]

MaddMaxx, on 14 May 2012 - 10:01 AM, said:

Terrain my good man terrain. If I can move between hillocks and dart between mounds, your Sniper will have a hard time getting a shot off. The old games had limited terrain really. Rolling hills where one was forced to crest hill after hill to get near the high ground, or the 900m of open space between the forces made any attempt to get to them a suicide mission.

What an MWO sniper based Mech should face is indirect missile barrages from a Mech he cannot see nor shoot at and when the missile start to land, they should be very wary that he/she is obviously being watched...

Exactly terrain will be a big key in this game. So why not have longer distance. In MW4 there was a lot of maps with open land. But hopefully there won't be that many in MWO. But there will probably still be some. Anyway 630 is still to short for LRMs. 630 meters is not long range for LONG RANGE MISSILES. Now it is Long range for most infantry weapons. But not for most vehicle weapons. I say again the ranges were keeped small for table top so the maps were not super large and would fit on a table. But there is no need for that in a video game. Especially now a days. I just don't think they should go buy table top for the ranges of any weapon. And should make them all have a longer ranges. But I still think that the Devs know what they are doing and the game will be fun.

[MonkeyDCecil]

8100d 5p4tt3r, on 15 May 2012 - 05:42 AM, said:

Apparently you don't know the rest of B-tech lore and that yes the year is 3049 but how far the Succession Wars dragged down technology, almost back to the dark ages. The rarity of mechs and their equipment and only over the last 40 years or so not to mention the previous Succession wars (4 in total), that Mechs and much technology only started to be re-discovered, deployed and understood. Also that Mechs and vehicles were also intentionally designed to have "controlled" ranges of sorts to limit collateral damage and ideally to have the mech on mech fighting not to mention terrain limitations for range.

Aside from the succession wars you also have the hundreds if not thousands of contstant lesser conflicts that have cost the houses and lesser entities ships, mechs and technology.

3025 tech is only 24 years before current date and time. Given the 1000 years of B-tech history/lore that is a small measure of time.

The Inner Sphere did not experience the same level of technology development that the Clans have over the same timeline because of all the infighting not to mention the Houses useing Nuclear weapons at one point. Even still the Clans have had their own version of the Succession wars.

Something else that seems many are ignorant of as well.

So if you and others want to ***** about weapon ranges, then obviously you are all missing the main point behind their intentional design. None of us can open your eyes. Only your desire to appreciate what is, vs what you think it should be.

So all of you crying foul about range, clearly show your lack of understanding of the realm in which you whine and yet know little about. So those of us that know the TT and the resulting Lore because we learned it, we are coming from a more knowledge based background. That was one of my points in my other thread. We understand why things are as they are here and now.

I am not saying I wouldn't like longer ranges more damage, less heat (Clan Tech) however right here and now, suck it up, deal with it, learn like the rest of us and you will appreciate Clan Tech if we get it in the future. Also you will understand how to use IS Tech much more efficiently if you can't gain access to Clan Tech.

Even if they destroyed a lot of thier tech. They are still farther a head then us. And our missiles and cannons have further ranges then canon weapons from BT. And that is just stupid. I mean an infantry weapon as more range then some of the Mech weapons. And if 3025 is supposed to be only 24 years ahead of us in weapons technolagy. Then I say look at our vehicle weapons systems and their ranges. And I know all about BT history. Read all the novels and played all the pc games. And even played some TT. I mean a medieval longbow as a range of just under 300 meters. There is know reason to stick to table top ranges for a Mechwarrior video game. There is no table restricting map size. The ranges of all the weapons is just to short for the modern weapons they are supposed to be.

Edited by MonkeyDCecil, 15 May 2012 - 08:28 AM.

[Rin Takushi]

Ive been playing battletech for years despite my age and whereas i agree the sensors and ranges seem pretty short i dont honestly mind it in the least. As long as long range weapons have more range than your standard medium laser i dont mind ^^

[McSniffles]

Rin Takushi, on 15 May 2012 - 07:42 PM, said:

Ive been playing battletech for years despite my age and whereas i agree the sensors and ranges seem pretty short i dont honestly mind it in the least. As long as long range weapons have more range than your standard medium laser i dont mind ^^

I think she's right. The ranges of weapons dont matter, they only matter in relation to each other and the size of the maps we're playing on. Does nobody here not trust the dev's to balance it out in the way they see fit for the game they've been playing and testing that none of us have even played a match of.

[8100d 5p4tt3r]

MonkeyDCecil, on 15 May 2012 - 07:03 AM, said:

Even if they destroyed a lot of thier tech. They are still farther a head then us. And our missiles and cannons have further ranges then canon weapons from BT. And that is just stupid. I mean an infantry weapon as more range then some of the Mech weapons. And if 3025 is supposed to be only 24 years ahead of us in weapons technolagy. Then I say look at our vehicle weapons systems and their ranges. And I know all about BT history. Read all the novels and played all the pc games. And even played some TT. I mean a medieval longbow as a range of just under 300 meters. There is know reason to stick to table top ranges for a Mechwarrior video game. There is no table restricting map size. The ranges of all the weapons is just to short for the modern weapons they are supposed to be.

You can use Miniture conversion rules and that does put range on the game and gives it a differnet perspective. However the original design was for the average table. Kitchen table.

1 inch = 1Hex or 1inch = 3" if you have the room.

We used to play on two 8'X12' terrain mats. With corresponding weapon and LOS/Movement range.

Laser pointers defined LOS and if woods/buildings determined LOS, also mechs could block LOS. Or risk friendly fire.

A full hex facing constituted 1pt of turn. (I think I can't remember of for sure, been over a decade since I last played Mini rules.

Edited by 8100d 5p4tt3r, 16 May 2012 - 05:24 PM.

[Solis Obscuri]

Gremlich Johns, on 13 May 2012 - 06:13 PM, said:

One thing I never liked about BT et al is the fact that past 1100m, you can not kill anything. IRL, a tank with modern systems, a 4km kill is normal.

with a 120mm APFSDS round

That is why MW video games suck. In 3049, a mech cannot even shoot something past 2km and hit it.

Bogus. ( id understand that video game physics may limit ranges, but Crysis allows distances out to 8km +.....)

1) 4km is not the typical engagement range for tank battles.

2) In the BT universe, armor has evolved spectacularly. Pre-spaceflight technology like a 120mm APFSDS round is equivalent to a Light Rifle, which does less than 1 point of damage to battlemech armor even at a range of 360m.

[hildisvini]

As far as the game mechanics are concerned, I think the TT ranges actually transfer over well. The heavy mech video showcases the value of the indirect fire LRMs, where the catapult is able to rapidly engage multiple targets his teammates are fighting from one spot.
While an enemy Jenner does begin to attack the Catapult, a friendly Hunchback chases the Jenner down before any real damage can be dealt, showing the value of a bodyguard for the support mechs. The Catapult fires a few quick bursts from its lasers and then goes back to work.
This means that even though the support mech is in striking distance of lighter brawlers, they are unable to concentrate on that mech because the bodyguards are still able to defend.

Futhermore, the assault class preview shows the value of maneuverability, as the enemy Catapult K2 evades the Atlas by simply walking through and around some dense cover. This, paired with the ranges of weapons, directly supports the dev's goal of making all mechs equally valuable, and should provide for a play experience that is both fun and challenging for all styles and roles.

This may not be the most "realistic" experience, and may not transfer 100% from TT rules, but the most important part is still the enjoyment we players will get from playing the game.

[neodym]

lol I am thread Necromancer

[LtSerge]

Man, it's like a mirror image of the MW:LL forums over here (that's living legends, the MW total conversion mod for Crysis/Crysis Wars).

They've been through a lot of the same balance concerns over the years, in trying to balance long range weapons vs medium/short range. The difficulty comes in the complexity (and the RNG) that tabletop used to balance these weapons. In a video game setting, the RNG has to be used as little as possible, or the player feels betrayed by the game when they perform skillfully. This is where a lot of the struggle comes between "make it like tabletop" or "make it like the old MW games". Every MW game I've played has used varying levels of the original tabletop ruleset, with mixed results. This has the unfortunate side effect of coloring people's perception of what's done "right" and "wrong" differently.

Tabletop was a strategy game first and foremost, because there is NO player skill involved in rolling the dice. It was a thinking man's game, as you had to strategize mech positioning, weapon loadouts, and other factors that skew the odds for you or against you. The Mechwarrior video games have always been as much about player skill (the ability to pilot a mech) as they have been about the strategy (bringing the right mech to the party). This means that a Mechwarrior video game will never be identical in design to the tabletop game. With that said, we can get away from the "hard numbers" that tabletop used for mech/weapon stats.

Mechwarrior video games have had varying levels of "balance". That is, ensuring that one mech/weapon did not obviously trump all others. Piranha knows that this has been a problem in the past, and it really has. The problem has been that since player skill is an immeasurable value, you can't just copy/paste the tabletop stats and assume it works. A good example of this is LRMs. In the tabletop version (CBT) When you opted to fire a LRM5, you had to do independent dice for each individual missile fired, with the "hit" value changing depending on range, obstruction, and the amount of enemy target movement. This meant that if you had bad luck, you could miss an entire salvo, even if it was a clear shot well within range. The video games have no direct equivalent to this example of bad luck, so they have to work in other limitations to the weapon system that ignore the infinitely variable "player skill" factor. Thus, MW2, MW3, and MW4 have all done it a little differently. MW:LL Tweaked LRM damage, trajectory correction (the missle's ability to change course, and lead targets), and the lock-on methods (they have NARC, ECM, and AECM in the game) to get LRMs to a point where they were situationally good. This is about as ideal a result as you could hope for.

There are, unfortunately, much fewer variables that can be tweaked when it comes to direct fire weapons (ballistic/energy weapons like Gauss and PPC) to bring them into balance while ignoring the infinitely variable "player skill" factor. Most of the MW games to date have balanced this with the "cost" of usage. That is, the powerful long range direct fire weapons would usually require a LOT of tonnage, and/or generate a LOT of heat, effectively making the user a one-shot wonder or a glass cannon. Having high heat generation (PPC) or limited ammo (Gauss) combined with high tonnage/fitting requirements (both) means that equipping them truly commited you to using them. However, not all battle situations favor such dedicated long range weaponry, which brings these otherwise beastly weapons into balance. Low visibility situations (urban areas, trench/canyon areas, weather-affected visibility) favor the mid/close range combat, or utilizing indirect fire (missiles/artillery). These sorts of strategic decisions are what commanders love, and pilots hate. It's easy to learn one weapon, one map, and one mech, but the joy of mechwarrior/battletech comes from not having that luxury. Being able to suit your mech/weapons to a variety of situations is where I think the true joy of the game lies.

With all that bloated rambling done, the tl;dr version of my post is that tabletop is not the blueprint for this game, nor is any previous mechwarrior video game. The blueprint for this game is however Piranha can best balance the game to suit players that are willing to be flexible, and realize when certain situations favor certain strategies.

I want piranha to give us all sorts of different situations, so that we can see the true colors of so many flavor-of-the-month pilots.

[Yoseful Mallad]

For those that are asking about maps and verity... there are thousands of planets that we can battle on and Im sure there will not be a map for every planet but im sure there will be many unique maps for these planets. Some will be urban close combat maps but will be perfect maps for the LRM mech and their scout indirect pointers and then Im sure we will have barren wide open maps where the whole planet has some small research facility or experimental mech lab right dead smake in the middle that will be fought over, and the long ranged Gauss or ER weaponry will be the key. Verity is the key to a game such as this and I cant wait to see what they come up with.

All I know is the first time I am in my scout mech and in a urban down town land scape and Im cooking 119 km/h, take that turn on 5th Ave and run into an Atlas's left knee... you better believe I will both be letting lose with everything I got while I attempt to scrape myself off the Atlas's leg. All the while screaming like a girl and laughing so loud because I screamed like a girl in the first place LOL

Edited by Yoseful Mallad, 21 May 2012 - 06:13 PM.

[PANZERBUNNY]

pcunite, on 14 May 2012 - 01:10 PM, said:

Tick-tac-toe is fun too ... I want a cerebral game. I don't expect to be able to shoot 2000m without a scout tagging the target. That is the whole point of a scout. what fun is it to see the scout alongside the target enemy at a silly 630m? Everything the developers have said about MWO was cool, but the implementation is a tiny boxing match?

I could deal with long extended ranges if a scout was required to TAG the taret for that attack. I don't like people being able to reach out like that on their own. Creating a skilled role like that would be amazing as it would be niche and tricky.