69 replies to this topic

[Vashts1985]

Kobold, on 06 June 2012 - 10:57 PM, said:

Pretend the free to play model did not apply to MWO for a moment (but leave in the XP and leveling) for the sake of argument. How much would that change how much people are willing to compare the two games?

It just seems odd to me how much MWO is being compared to this one specific game when it is (obviously) much more similar to MW4. I can understand using WoT as a comparison when discussion economy and metagame, since that is stuff MW4 didn't have, but it is really jarring to me when WoT is used for gameplay comparison.

Obviously the OP here is excluded, mainly because he already said he has never played a MW game before.

it really comes down to how matches are organized i think. WoT's main game mode is random matched 30 player matches, with some 2-3 man platoons mixed in (think people partied up from other games) with supporting modes for competition, 5-6 player formed teams and clan battles.

assuming there will be a similar game mode with more than one lance per team, yes it will more than likely play a bit like WoT. if all that is planned is lance vs lance, then no it will not, and play more like MW4 (and no offense, become super niche like MW4)

[Kobold]

Vashts1985, on 06 June 2012 - 11:04 PM, said:

(and no offense, become super niche like MW4)

Are you suggesting WoT isn't super niche?

MWO is not Call of Duty or Madden or GTA. It is going to be niche regardless.

[Supraluminal]

Kobold, on 06 June 2012 - 11:07 PM, said:

Are you suggesting WoT isn't super niche?

MWO is not Call of Duty or Madden or GTA. It is going to be niche regardless.

WoT has about a quarter-million active players on the NA cluster. Way more in Europe, Russia, and China. About 5 or 6 million all told. It's making double-digit millions of dollars per month, reportedly.

[Vashts1985]

Supraluminal, on 06 June 2012 - 11:10 PM, said:

WoT has about a quarter-million active players on the NA cluster. Way more in Europe, Russia, and China. About 5 or 6 million all told. It's making double-digit millions of dollars per month, reportedly.

Yup, though i understand Kobolds point. it is battletech and it is rather niche, my point entirely though is 4v4 is competition, that will not leverage the type of playerbase that games like WoT can command. not that having competition modes is bad or anything.

look at TF2 as well for an example. hell look at most team bast FPS. organization is usually the same. 12-30 man random/pug games with 4-8 man competition modes.

[Renan Ruivo]

Kobold, on 06 June 2012 - 11:07 PM, said:

Are you suggesting WoT isn't super niche?

Far from it. VERY far from it.

Hell, i wouldn't even call it "niche". EVE Online is considered niche, and it still has at least half a million active players.

MW4 was the most arcadey MW of all, and it never reached big numbers online.

[Warstar]

While you are correct that standing behind a hill spewing missiles at the enemy might not require much skill when you have scout mechs out there doing your "Dirty work", dont forget the variables.

1)Being called primary target, because were not total idiots. "Missiles dont rain down from the sky from bad weather, some enemy is out there doing it"

2)Try spewing out missiles all day long while enemy light and medium mechs discover you and begin ripping apart your legs and rear armor. Or, just shoot your "Arms" off.

3)Your not the only one on the battlefield who can use the terrain to there advantage, either use cover to get out of line of sight of the scouts to remove you from the factor. Or flat out kill those pesky lights and force you to get into line of sight to fire.

4)You might not be the only missile spewing mech on the field, and some have more armor then others. Or perhaps a better scout spotting for them.

So basically im pointing out the fact that standing in 1 spot and firing missiles might not be the hardest thing to do. Doing it in combat against battlehardened opponets who move and think as a team is what makes it skillfull to do, and survive.

[Warskull]

TungstenWall, on 06 June 2012 - 09:42 PM, said:

1: Are there any mechs that are built for something like this? (Play like SPGs from WoT)

2: Damage? All the videos I have seen show mechs using multiple weapons at the same time. Will long range mech use multiple weapons too?

3: I hear A LOT about LRMs. “LRM LRM LRM!” Ill assume that LRM is Long Range Missile. Will this be the Only long range weapon that can arc over terrain? It would be boring and not very skill based if all I had to do was get an indirect lock via teammates and launch LRM at the enemy.
Will there be something like an artillery gun that requires direct hits?

1) Catapult is a long range support mech focusing on LRMs. There are direct options (gauss rifle, PPC) and indirect options (LRM.) There will be some mechs that focus on direct long range fire such as Awesome.

2) You can only really have one main gun on a tank. A mech can afford to have a mix of weapons. In fact if you don't have some short or mid range weaponry when the enemy runs you down (which they will) you are helpless.)

3) The other team probably won't let you sit and fire missiles unharassed all day. Light mechs move very fast and carry enough firepower that you can't just ignore them. The medium laser on the light is the same medium laser the heavies carry. The heavier mechs just carry more.

[TungstenWall]

Thansk for the responses guys!

I woudl prefer a projectile over a guided weapon.

Maybe Goliaths will be added with somethign like this, and with some backup SRM. I can dream, can't I?

[SuomiWarder]

A long range missile has a range of just under 700 meters. So the enemy firing them at your is relatively close to go seek out for retaliation.

The only thing like real artillery that has been described to us is the command modules (or special commander skill tree) has both god's view options (UAVs and satalites) as well as the ability to call in Arti or aircraft strikes. (These are from 'off board' assets). We have no hard data on how this works, nor have we seen it used in any video clips that I am aware of.

[FactorlanP]

Renan Ruivo, on 06 June 2012 - 11:25 PM, said:

EVE Online is considered niche, and it still has at least half a million active players.

Well, with the current world economic conditions, people have to get a job somewhere...

zing!

Sorry, I couldn't resist. I played EVE for some time, until I decided it felt more like work then play.

[Major Bill Curtis]

Frostiken, on 06 June 2012 - 10:00 PM, said:

I don't think there is such a thing as a mech-mounted Long Tom.

Arrow IV, Sniper, and Thumper artillery is the best you can get, and even then the artillery pieces are usually mounted on vehicles, not mechs.

Most of these are all advanced rules and are thus 'barely canon' so don't expect to see them.

This ^^

The Long Tom is field artillery, not 'mech equipment, at least according to TacOps and the Tech Manual (i.e. the advanced TT rules) This is incorrect - see below. Since there are provisions for Mechwarriors with the leader modules to call in artillery strikes, we might imagine that Long Toms (and Arrow IV systems---which can be and are mounted on 'mechs) will be represented.

Edited by Major Bill Curtis, 07 June 2012 - 12:38 PM.

[Major Bill Curtis]

Warstar, on 06 June 2012 - 11:34 PM, said:

While you are correct that standing behind a hill spewing missiles at the enemy might not require much skill when you have scout mechs out there doing your "Dirty work", dont forget the variables.

1)Being called primary target, because were not total idiots. "Missiles dont rain down from the sky from bad weather, some enemy is out there doing it"

2)Try spewing out missiles all day long while enemy light and medium mechs discover you and begin ripping apart your legs and rear armor. Or, just shoot your "Arms" off.

3)Your not the only one on the battlefield who can use the terrain to there advantage, either use cover to get out of line of sight of the scouts to remove you from the factor. Or flat out kill those pesky lights and force you to get into line of sight to fire.

4)You might not be the only missile spewing mech on the field, and some have more armor then others. Or perhaps a better scout spotting for them.

So basically im pointing out the fact that standing in 1 spot and firing missiles might not be the hardest thing to do. Doing it in combat against battlehardened opponets who move and think as a team is what makes it skillfull to do, and survive.

All this is true, plus the fact that LRM ammunition is anything but infinite: the best fire support will be that which knows what targets to hit while there are still missile salvoes in the ammo hopper. I'll guess (and I'm not just guessing, but basing this off of TT experience) that "trigger-happy" LRM shooters will be making frowny faces

I will hazard a real guess that the effectiveness of fire support will be the number one factor in defining organized and experienced units, setting those units apart from the soloists, the ad hoc units, and the rabble.

Edited by Major Bill Curtis, 07 June 2012 - 12:19 PM.

[Vashts1985]

Major Bill Curtis, on 07 June 2012 - 12:11 PM, said:

This ^^

The Long Tom is field artillery, not 'mech equipment, at least according to TacOps and the Tech Manual (i.e. the advanced TT rules). Since there are provisions for Mechwarriors with the leader modules to call in artillery strikes, we might imagine that Long Toms (and Arrow IV systems and the like) will be represented.

field artillery no, mech equipment yes.

[Major Bill Curtis]

Vashts1985, on 07 June 2012 - 12:16 PM, said:

field artillery no, mech equipment yes.

I stand corrected: yes, TacOps does have experimental rules for mounting artillery cannons; Long Tom artillery pieces remain field artillery, even if the cannon can be mounted on a 'mech. (You can see the source of easy confusion

Keep in mind that the Long Tom weighs 20 tons and takes up 15 crits, so it is one of the least efficient ways to use a 'mech (better on a vehicle). It's also more than twice the cost of a Gauss Rifle.

I also seriously doubt we'll see any experimental rules applied at release, if ever. (Has there ever been a production 'mech mounting an artillery cannon?).

Edited by Major Bill Curtis, 07 June 2012 - 12:34 PM.

[Supraluminal]

Vashts1985, on 07 June 2012 - 12:16 PM, said:

field artillery no, mech equipment yes.

From the article you linked:

Quote

The Long Tom Artillery Cannon is a scaled down version of the Long Tom Artillery Piece designed for use as an on-board indirect fire weapon. Capable of being mounted on 'Mechs, combat vehicles, and AeroSpace Fighters, the Long Tom Cannon is a snub-nosed version of the artillery piece of the same name.

It's both, though the 'Mech-mounted version has a drastically shorter range and does less damage. However I very much doubt we'll see it in MWO, at least any time soon. I don't think it's ever been included in one of the main MW games (anyone who knows differently feel free to correct me).

Edited by Supraluminal, 07 June 2012 - 12:31 PM.

[CCC Dober]

Major Bill Curtis, on 07 June 2012 - 12:15 PM, said:

I will hazard a real guess that the effectiveness of fire support will be the number one factor in defining organized and experienced units, setting those units apart from the soloists, the ad hoc units, and the rabble.

It's rather situational. Fire-support usually falls flat on its arse in cities and environments with plenty of cover (caves/tunnels confirmed?). Open maps however ... game on.

OP: You will be pleased to hear that Arrow IV comes in different flavors. Pick one -> Enjoy

[Lipot]

I have a question about when the "advance TT rules" finally decided that the Long Tom would not be able to be mounted on a 'mech. The reason I ask is that I got out of playing the TT version before FASA broke up and Wiz Kids took over the Battletech and Shadowrun Universes. And being the fool that I am, I kept all of my old FASA stuff. I just can not find that specific ruling. Although from trying to use the old 'mech building rules to make a 'mech that uses a Long Tom for its primary weapon, I can say that it is not the best idea. The final result was that it had the same amount of armour as an Owens.
Tungsten, don't worry too much about the mix payloads on the 'mechs. Honestly, I stopped using an arty in WoT as was tired of not being able to defend myself. Think of it this way. With a good Catapult fit, you don't have to call out, "Protect the arty!".

[Cllyde]

I want to see players be able to use the Artemis concept controller's map screen as a touch screen to precicely ping the map for objectives, orders, and fire support such as artillery strikes.

I WOULD LOVE TO SEE THIS!

[Solis Obscuri]

TungstenWall, on 06 June 2012 - 09:42 PM, said:

I have never played a MW game before so I am unfamiliar with all the weapons in the game(s).

Well, let's work on that!

Check out the "Inner Sphere" list here:
http://www.sarna.net...s_and_Equipment

Thus far we have confirmed in-game:
Flamer
Small Laser
Medium Laser
Large Laser
ER Large Laser
Small Pulse Laser
Medium Pulse Laser
Large Pulse Laser
PPC
ER PPC
AMS
Machine Gun
Autocannon/2
Autocannon/5
Autocannon/10
Autocannon/20
Ultra AC/5
LB 10-x AC
Gauss Rifle
LRM-5
LRM-10
LRM-15
LRM-20
SRM-2
SRM-4
SRM-6
Streak SRM-2
Narc Beacon

Of those weapons, the Large Laser, ER Large Laser, PPC, ER PPC, Autocannon/2, Autocannon/5, Ultra Autocannon/5, Gauss Rifle, LRM-5, LRM-10, LRM-15, and LRM-20 are long range weapons suitable for ranged sniping and fire support. However, they are all direct-fire except for the LRMs, which support parabolic launches from behind cover as shown here:

[Major Bill Curtis]

CCC Dober, on 07 June 2012 - 12:38 PM, said:

It's rather situational. Fire-support usually falls flat on its arse in cities and environments with plenty of cover (caves/tunnels confirmed?). Open maps however ... game on.

OP: You will be pleased to hear that Arrow IV comes in different flavors. Pick one -> Enjoy

I do agree with you that certain situations will nullify fire-support.

I should add that by "fire-support," I'm referring to all long-range fire, direct and indirect, both "off-board artillery" and the LRM 5. My statement, while obviously offering an extreme position, was not intended to provide the "solution" to all situations; rather, it was purposed to generate a response of "yeah, sure, but here's an exception." Thanks for providing that It makes the conversation more interesting.