34 replies to this topic

[Phoenix Gray]

cdlord, on 16 March 2013 - 06:22 AM, said:

First of all, I LOVE THE MAP. Though not everyone does. I had the chance to speak with some people who don't love it the way I do and I thought I'd share their concerns. The biggest of which is that it doesn't make much sense. Please allow me to elaborate.

Our battlemechs can climb some of the steepest inclines and get to the very top of the mountains only to have those we can see out of our range and those who are in our range so far beneath us that we cannot get LRM targeting. Then to basically fall off the mountain with little to no damage because we can walk down that steep incline at full throttle....

The top of the peaks should be the domain of jump capable mechs as spotters and those of us without jump jets should be relegated to the more gentle slopes and valleys to have big stompy robot wars. Not everyone will agree, but I am very curious as to how the dynamics of the battles and tactics would shift if the mountains acted as funnels for the majority of the forces while only jump capable mechs could find the enemy. To come around a bend and run smack dab into the whole enemy force, or to have to go on search and destroy. Now, this may lend to cap rushes because alpine is too big to backtrack much, but that is not much different than what we have now.

Thoughts?

Watching a barn-door-wide Awesome walking laterally on the side of a nearly vertical slope baffled me. The two legs couldn't even reach the ground together unless one freaking telescoped. Likewise anything as top-heavy as a mech could not walk up those mountains without falling over backwards. It's a gyroscope, people, not a helicopter rotor. Really kills the illusion.

Agreed. Mountain climbing is for lights and jump jets, not 100-ton mountain goats.

Edited by Phoenix Gray, 16 March 2013 - 07:28 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

@Khobai

Yeah, that is kind of the point of placing "impassable" terrain on a map. It creates choke points and killboxes. It forces one to actually have to consider manouvers as part of their tactics. Do we runn assault heavy, and risk the terrain dictating to us, or light and jj, and risk not enough firepower for a furball, or something in between.

Dear god, if terrain is just going to be glorified cover, and blnot have some time in dictating the battlefield, why bother with it qt all? Lets just make a flat map, and let everyone use ecm for "cover".

I generally think you make some good points, but I can't disagree with you more than I do on this.

[Wintersdark]

Bishop Steiner, on 16 March 2013 - 07:06 AM, said:

Since many slopes are steep enough to count as cliffs, those should be JJ accessible only. I mean we have a gentle slope on Forest Valley Snow that mechs cannot traverse, yet goofing with the yeti is all good on alpine?

There are terrains that mechs simply cannot traverse either. Alpine SHOULD be a place where Spiders and Jenners hold the heights, sniping at fat Stalkers and Atlases, forcing the OpFor to deploy their own screen or to try to push through the harrasing fire to their objectives.

I'd definitely like to see it harder for Stalkers to clamber up onto mountaintops. LRM stalkers and PPC stalkers on mountaintops are just plain silly.

[Khobai]

Quote

Assault mechs need to actually trade mobility for their stupidly large weapons loadouts

What stupidly large weapon loadouts? Atlases actually have the least hardpoints per tonnage of any mech... Ravens get 1 hardpoints per 7 tons. Atlases get 1 hardpoint per 12.5 tons. So Ravens are rocking almost twice the firepower per tonnage as Atlases.

Stalkers are really the only assaults with lots of firepower, but it seems silly to punish all assaults, just because of the Stalker. And the only real problem with Stalkers is that LRMs are crazy unbalanced right now. Once that gets fixed Stalkers won't be that scary on alpine anymore.

Quote

Yeah, that is kind of the point of placing "impassable" terrain on a map. It creates choke points and killboxes. It forces one to actually have to consider manouvers as part of their tactics. Do we runn assault heavy, and risk the terrain dictating to us, or light and jj, and risk not enough firepower for a furball, or something in between

No all it does is further limit your choice of mechs on Alpine. The game already lacks variation and you want to stifle the slight variation it has even more. There would be no reason to use mechs without jumpjets on alpine if mechs couldnt climb mountains without jumpjets. Because a team without jumpjets would be at a severe disadvantage to a team with jumpjets.

Edited by Khobai, 16 March 2013 - 10:19 AM.

[Gaan Cathal]

Khobai, on 16 March 2013 - 10:10 AM, said:

What stupidly large weapon loadouts? Atlases actually have the least hardpoints per tonnage of any mech...

Ravens get 1 hardpoints per 7 tons. Atlases get 1 hardpoint per 12.5 tons. So Ravens are rocking almost twice the firepower per tonnage as Atlases.

Stalkers are really the only assaults with reasonable firepower, but its seems silly to punish all Assaults, just because of the Stalker.

My dual-PPC, dual-AC/20, LRM20 RVN-4X agrees, hardpoint numbers are the sole dictator of firepower.

[Noobzorz]

The mountaineering glitch stuff is just one of many things that is so, so wrong with Alpine. It's a bad map for anyone who doesn't have friends to play with (i.e. virtually everyone, and a significant part of the forum goers), and I can only wonder what would possess someone to like it.

[CDLord HHGD]

Lots of great comments guys, yes even the ones that don't agree with me. Thanks to everyone for keeping the dicussion at the adult level (to this point anyways). I hope we can get an official response here if these thoughts are making it into their design speculations.

[Commander Kobold]

Bishop Steiner, on 16 March 2013 - 07:57 AM, said:

@Omni 13. That's assuming you can a) elevate your weapons adequately, get a lock in the time it takes a PPC spider to pop up and shoot you c) said spider doesn't just immediately pop back Behind said hill and let it absorb retaliatory fire.

asuming I'm in my catapult,I'll have no problem aiming my missles upwards (and most PPC builds have atleast one on their arm) and even if my missles do crash into the mountain atleast the spiders not on it anymore
(and as a bonus if I shoot quick enough and make him panic he may fall of the hill and break a leg or two)

[EitherWay]

Omni 13, on 16 March 2013 - 11:44 AM, said:

asuming I'm in my catapult,I'll have no problem aiming my missles upwards (and most PPC builds have atleast one on their arm) and even if my missles do crash into the mountain atleast the spiders not on it anymore
(and as a bonus if I shoot quick enough and make him panic he may fall of the hill and break a leg or two)

The problem is,if he "falls" off the mountain, he would take almost no leg damage due to the strange slopes.

[Commander Kobold]

EitherWay, on 16 March 2013 - 11:54 AM, said:

The problem is,if he "falls" off the mountain, he would take almost no leg damage due to the strange slopes.

by fall I ment he attempts to hop away without enough gogo juice (my fault for not being clear enough) also I've accidentally backstepped of one of the mountains in my catapult only to have my legs go from un touched to dark orange so I think its feasable for a spider to get legged and either way the spider isn't on the hill so he's not "sniping" my team and hes not spotting us for artillery mechs.

[PoLaR]

I do love running full tilt in a mountain crevice, but I agree It would be better to have It as you describe, OP.

Edited by PoLaR, 16 March 2013 - 12:02 PM.

[Khobai]

Quote

My dual-PPC, dual-AC/20, LRM20 RVN-4X agrees, hardpoint numbers are the sole dictator of firepower

Uh you do realize streaks are the most damaging weapon in the game right now, second to none?

I get your point about tonnage, but its oblivious to the fact that its the low tonnage weapons like medium lasers, srm6s, and streaks that do the majority of the damage in this game currently. And these are all weapons that any light mech can equip.

So yes, since large weapons are quite frankly not as good as small weapons, it is actually hardpoint numbers that are the sole dictator of firepower. Specifically missile hardpoint numbers.

Edited by Khobai, 16 March 2013 - 12:55 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

@Omni 13

a smart light to medium pilot is always moving anyhow. So your shot actually accomplished..... Nothing.

@Khobai,

Still disagree. I'm sorry that you think a tank should be able to manuever like a Ferrari, but that's the trade off for bringing a tank. With your outlook, jjs essentially serve no purpose except as maneuvering ****, something they were never intended to be. If you want to be able to access rooftops and sheer cliffs, you bring a jumper. That's the roll of the dice you take, no different then when one uses a dedicated brawler or high heat build. Some drops its perfect, other times, you are screwed.

In no scenario should every mech be fully viable, let alone optimal, in every situation. Should an atlas be able to scale the sheer walls on Jenner highway on frozen? Climb the citadel on river city? Then why should they be able to scale a cliff that is impossible to scale on Alpine? There are plenty of approaches on most mountains that will allow a gradual climb, but there are plenty that should not. Just as there are plenty of other spots on every other map accessible ONLY by jj.

No one is saying make all the hills jj only. Your speed reduction makes sense for most scenarios. But there are spots that should not be scaleable. There have been places ojke that in EVERY MW title before, and as mentioned many already in MWO. And they have in no way mandated you had to have jjs to succeed. (except for the chasm mission on mw3pirates moon)

[M4rtyr]

Totally agree with the OP's concerns. Alpine is not a very well thought out map. As other have stated its got a very incomplete feel to it.

Which worries me about the end result of the upcoming desert map.

Edited by M4rtyr, 16 March 2013 - 01:20 PM.

[Gaan Cathal]

Khobai, on 16 March 2013 - 12:50 PM, said:

Uh you do realize streaks are the most damaging weapon in the game right now, second to none?

If you're referencing the splash damage bug, SRM6 has it beat, quite handily with ArtiIV, SSRM2s are mainly problematic because you can use them while asleep.

Khobai, on 16 March 2013 - 12:50 PM, said:

I get your point about tonnage, but its oblivious to the fact that its the low tonnage weapons like medium lasers, srm6s, and streaks that do the majority of the damage in this game currently. And these are all weapons that any light mech can equip.

So yes, since large weapons are quite frankly not as good as small weapons, it is actually hardpoint numbers that are the sole dictator of firepower. Specifically missile hardpoint numbers.

No, smaller weapons are not more damaging. They are more damaging per ton.

Given six tons and six hardpoints, yes, 6 MLAS will do more damage than one LLAS. However given six tons and one hardpoint, the LLAS clearly beats the MLAS. These are both extreme examples, but the point stands - more tonnage per hardpoint means you have better weapons in said hardpoints. MLAS is only preferable to LLAS when tonnage becomes restrictive.