63 replies to this topic

[Darklord]

So after reading all the topics of balance and mechs and such
I would like to know the comunity's idea on how long should mechs last against each other in battle.

Fast and quick or slow and painful?


DL

[Glare]

For a stand-up, company on company battle (12 vs 12), I don't think a battle should go past 15 minutes in length. That's fully 90 turns on the tabletop, but I figure with an appropriately sized map, it might take time to engage, and slower 'Mechs would take longer.

[Paladyne]

15 min seems fair to me also.

Glare, on 06 November 2011 - 07:07 PM, said:

For a stand-up, company on company battle (12 vs 12), I don't think a battle should go past 15 minutes in length. That's fully 90 turns on the tabletop, but I figure with an appropriately sized map, it might take time to engage, and slower 'Mechs would take longer.

Perhaps some modification for various mission type, I do not want to see all pvp death matches.

[Astaroth]

I can see company-level engagements going longer than that. I can recall several 4-on-4 fights in MPBT:3025 that went close to that long, and I specifically remember a 4-on-4 battle in MW4 between my merc corps and another where we spent probably 20 minutes just jockeying for position on the map.

[Darklord]

I'm hoping we don't see long drawn out balltes were you need all your ammo just to kill one mech.

DL

[Sporkosophy]

Darklord, on 06 November 2011 - 07:28 PM, said:

I'm hoping we don't see long drawn out balltes were you need all your ammo just to kill one mech.

DL

Seconding this, I want to crack a light mech in half when I hit it with an ac/20 burst.

[Tsula]

All Depends on what class of mech and the weapons load out. I can see a light mech falling fast to a A/C 20 or Gauss Rifle. Assaults are going to take some hits from the bigger weapons and alot of hits from small or medium weapons. So it really boils down to size of forces to weapons load out on those forces.

[Wraith 1]

The length of a battle has a lot of impact on the game balance, in MW2, I could load a Firemoth up with a bunch of ER-MLAS and kill the pilot of a Dire Wolf with one well placed alpha strike, that's a bit too short . on the other hand, in MW4, I can chase an Owens forever firing gauss rifles at it and not kill it no matter where I hit it, that being too long of a battle.

I think it should take just seconds to kill a mech, but still have them be strong enough to have a duel between 2 veterans last a long time.

[element snow]

The length of a battle will be a huge concern to anyone that is using only ballistic and missile weapon systems. If the battle is drawn out, those pilots will be at a huge disadvantage. That being said, the thought of a long, drawn out battle, shows the need for more then just one weapon system. It'll be a big guessing game at first is my thought.

[fakey]

10 to 15 minutes for a 12 on 12 game seems about right. The actual shooting shouldn't take more than 3 to 4 minutes once it gets hairy but light skirmishing and jockeying for position is definitely something I expect to happen. That being said, I agree that 1-2 shots from the appropriately sized gun should ruin a light mech, I just want it to be harder to hit than previous games.

[Rendall]

I believe the pace of the battle will largely be determined by the terrain offered, size there of, and composition of forces. a light lance of course is going to close the gap much quicker than a heavy force can, but wont field as much armor or heavy weaponry as that heavy force. A heavy force will outslug a light force on both weapons and armor, but not maneuverability or speed. A battle can go either painfully slow, or painfully fast, depending on these factors, and other factors unplanned for. A large city battle can go on for quite a while if you are hunting a couple of Locusts in a Mauler. Or could go very quickly if he sees them in the clear and managed to light one or both up with longer range weapons before they are able to outrange it. Point is, the players, the terrain, and map size will all change and determine the game length more than anything short of a limited timer. Best of luck to all you Mech pilots, I look forward to seeing ya'll out there on the fields! On the Subject of armor vs. ammo, Ammo generally wins, since armor cant shoot back, but it is rather disconcerting to go down from a single shot from any weapon. I would think that even a light could take at least two hits (the second being fatal for the mech) in the same spot, while the bigger sluggers carrying the heavier armor could slug it out for a bit. Slow and painful, Fast and intense, I think something of a happy medium, maybe even leaning very slightly towards the slower part (give people a chance to fight, not just go down after one volley) would be my personal choice. Of course, armor thickness will determine actual life length of a particular place. Such as rear armor being very weak, compared to most of the rest of the mech's armor plating, so of course would probably not last against much.

Edited by Rendall, 07 November 2011 - 03:01 AM.

[T S Hawk]

hmm I think they will go longer than 15 minutes. We have had lance on lance battles and company vs company battles as well they have been drawn out way longer than 15 minutes then again that is because of silly rules lawyers who want to bicker about the rules with the guy who is running the campaign. If 15 minutes can be done online great I have no problems with that and will look forward to it.

[Amechwarrior]

I want the big epic battles, but at the same time I want them to finish fast enough for "no-respawn" to be the default game mode. On one hand one life makes things more tense and it fits the universe better, on the other hand no one likes waiting in spectator mode because of a lucky headshot 3 min into a 20 min match.

[empath]

Amechwarrior, on 06 November 2011 - 11:47 PM, said:

I want the big epic battles, but at the same time I want them to finish fast enough for "no-respawn" to be the default game mode. On one hand one life makes things more tense and it fits the universe better, on the other hand no one likes waiting in spectator mode because of a lucky headshot 3 min into a 20 min match.

SPEAK FOR YOURSELF; "if it wasn't for dying, I'd never get to drink my beer!" is the motto of some of my old lancemates.
I, myself, used to enjoy going spectator and watching the fight...there was a while where I was considering becoming a shoutcaster for MWL but I didn't have the free time to do a decent job.

But yeah, 15min, maybe 20-30 for special battles type that'd take longer...

Edited by empath, 07 November 2011 - 12:16 AM.

[Amechwarrior]

I actually do not mind it, I loved the no-radar/no-respawn MW4 matches regardless of my K/D ratio. I was imagining all the new players unfamiliar to Mechwarrior might not find that "fun" when they get missile boated in their light 'mech the first round they play in. Match length, respawn and player enjoyment for both hardcore and casual users must be carefully balanced out. They have to grab the new generation of players quickly, sitting in a broken 'mech for 15 min or spectating will not do that.

I would not be suprised if they made the two modes with different match lengths and death rules. Team VS. would be fast paced, respawn enabled "first team to 50 kills wins" type of play and the conquest mode be the no-respawn, work as a team and fight smart kind of game play that you will have to level up past newb-levels to access, by then you will not be a huge burden to your team.

[Xhaleon]

I think it'd be good if we erred on the side of being more deadly than being too safe.

Mechwarrior 4 made mechs ridiculously tough without having to worry about ammunition explosions nor arm detachment when torsos go boom. Mechwarrior 3 went the opposite direction and made things go boom too fast.

I'd say that as a benchmark, two 50 ton Mediums beating up on each other in a straight, one-on-one, open-field fight should last no more than a minute and a half of shooting. Any more than that and you'd be dragging things out. What extends this would be the use of cover and evasion. What shortens this is by teamwork and ambush back-ending.

[Amechwarrior]

That seems like it would be a good benchmark, as a company sized engagement (12-on-12) would then take around 12 min at the longest and more like 6-7 if everyone only has one life.

[CobraFive]

The length of a match hinges directly on if there is respawning or not, which we don't really know yet (to my knowledge).

I think both a respawn type game (like say battlefield) or a one life game (Like counterstrike or world of tanks) have advantages.

[Odin]

Darklord, on 06 November 2011 - 07:05 PM, said:

So after reading all the topics of balance and mechs and such
I would like to know the comunity's idea on how long should mechs last against each other in battle.

Fast and quick or slow and painful?


DL

15 Minutes on company battle (32 vs 32) or some more is arcade,period. Sporting gameplay for boats.
On a big scale 32vs32, large maps, with tactical team play, fun comes with time!
Such engagement should be objective based with out any time restriction.
____________________________________________________________________________________





You asked:
"how long should mechs last against each other in battle"?

Smart@$$^TM answer:
Well, it depends on how smart you fought, wouldn't it?
And against whom your up.

Honestly, your question can't be answered in a "it should last XYZ inches of time" manner.
Your either lucky, good at what you do, or you innocently turn left the next crossing and
whoops - end up meters away, on the front end of the 6 PPC boater - "BT at its best" - end game - your gone.

Can you ask more precise please?

[empath]

Odin, on 07 November 2011 - 01:18 AM, said:

15 Minutes on company battle (32 vs 32) or some more is arcade,period. Sporting gameplay for boats.

You MEANT "12 vs 12", right? Because otherwise you contradict yourself in the next sentence...

But I'll grant the rest of what you say; doubt the CoD'ers will enjoy the 'tactical' play, and likely that'll factor more into the devs' decisions ($$$ - they still gotta eat and pay rent, not to mention the server upkeep)...