69 replies to this topic

[TungstenWall]

I am a WoT player and from what I understand; this game will play almost the same, but with mechs and less “pay to win”.

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

As a long range support mech (if there is one) I will be using attacks from far away, or from behind a mountain and use friendlies as my eyes on the battlefield to take out enemy targets from afar. While this sound good on paper, I have some worries about this.

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?

4: Will long range players be able to use a bird's eye view like in WoT?

Thank you for any info you can give me

[Fortune]

Long Tom.

It fires in arc, has high splash damage. But only selected few assault mechs can carry it since it takes so much space and generates a LOT (and I mean a lot) of heat. And there was no bird's eye view.

[RockDeathRaven]

Continuing what Fortune said, the only way to get a "bird's eye view" is to use a recon mech to spot the targets for you. That way you can bring in LRMs to the mix and provide support. If the Long Tom does make an appearance then Fortune is right: there arean't a lot of chassis that can support it. Stone Rhino and Marauder II come to mind.

[Horizon]

This should be called fire support instead.. Long-range destruction and junk.

[Evinthal]

Fortune, on 06 June 2012 - 09:52 PM, said:

Long Tom.

It fires in arc, has high splash damage. But only selected few assault mechs can carry it since it takes so much space and generates a LOT (and I mean a lot) of heat. And there was no bird's eye view.

More than likely there will not be 'mech mounted long toms. I think the closest we will get is artillery strikes/air strikes being able to be called in by someone with the commander role and appropriate modules.

That being said, OP if you like playing the long range indirect game look into battlemechs that pack in the LRMs. The Catapult, and Stalker come to mind for this. If you wouldn't mind direct fire sniping, look into battlemechs that have PPCs or Gauss Rifles, or AC/5s or AC/2s. The Awesome carries 3 PPCs and would foot the bill for a direct fire unit pretty well.

[Frostiken]

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.

Edited by Frostiken, 06 June 2012 - 10:06 PM.

[HellJumper]

one simple answer...its MWO and not WOT...so no stupid arty WOT stuff here

oh and i know what i am talking about as i play wot as well

[Supraluminal]

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

I am a WoT player and from what I understand; this game will play almost the same, but with mechs and less “pay to win”.

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

As a long range support mech (if there is one) I will be using attacks from far away, or from behind a mountain and use friendlies as my eyes on the battlefield to take out enemy targets from afar. While this sound good on paper, I have some worries about this.

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?

4: Will long range players be able to use a bird's eye view like in WoT?

Thank you for any info you can give me

1. Yes, some 'Mechs are designed for fire support, and should feature lots of missile hardpoints.

2. Yes, pretty much every 'Mech will mount multiple weapons. Fire-support 'Mechs will mount two or more missile launchers.

3. Yes, LRM stands for Long Range Missile (as opposed to SRM, Short Range Missile). There are some 'Mech-mountable ballistic artillery pieces in the BattleTech/MechWarrior universe, but the devs have not said anything about adding them. They're generally rare. In fact I don't recall any of the main MechWarrior titles ever including them. That means LRMS are the name of the game, pretty much.

Using LRMs effectively has some challenges of its own. Because they home in on enemies as directly as possible, it can actually be hard to get them to clear obstacles effectively (where a ballistic trajectory might work better). They're also highly visible and not extremely fast-moving, which means fast 'Mechs can spot them on their way in and dodge them.

4. There has been some talk of a bird's-eye view being available for commanders, but I have no idea if you'd be able to acquire targets and fire missiles at them while using it. I kind of doubt it, and I don't see it being that useful for that purpose anyway.

The actual act of providing indirect fire-support via LRMs may be less demanding than landing artillery shots in WoT, but there's another critical factor to bear in mind - the max range of an LRM is about 640 meters, which in MW terms is not actually very far. There are direct-fire weapons with longer effective ranges. So you will need to be within spitting distance of the main battle to take your shots, which means you'll be in constant danger of being tracked down and attacked by your enemies, especially the lights. Moreso than artillery in WoT, to be sure. On the plus side, you won't be as incredibly fragile either, so you may actually be able to fight back effectively.

In a sense, LRM-based support 'Mechs are closer to TDs or mediums in WoT; they aren't so far back as to be completely removed from the fight, but rather are contributing from the second line.

[Moodysea]

Was just thinking if anyone knows if Arrow IV missiles will be in the launch. I wanna put them in my stalker. Was dithering about what Mech to play till this was announced yesterday.

[Xantars]

the Arrow IV system was mounted on catapults and stalkers they are the only real mech Arty that was commonly used in the game. But the Arrow IV was Rare and bulky system

[Natedog]

Since the game is still in closed beta with NDA's in effect most of what we know about the game is through the youtube videos released about the 4 mech classes. Everything else is speculation, and could change between now and the time the game releases.

[Kobold]

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

I am a WoT player and from what I understand; this game will play almost the same,

Could you explain this to me, as I am not a WoT player?

The more I hear about WoT, the less I think it has in common with everything I know about MWO (which is essentially "MechWarrior, improved, and you buy your chassis").

[Renan Ruivo]

Conceptually, artillery mechs don't work well. Only bird-like mechs such as the Marauder II, Stone Rhino and the likes. And these are 100+ ton mechs that can run only about twice as fast as a human being, which isn't a lot.

I say this because artillery shells are heavy and need to travel far. As has been said here, Long Tom is generally mounted on artillery specific vehicles. The SPG's of the Battletech universe.


Its also doable on quad-legged mechs since those can take the recoil, but they wont be on MWO.



In this case, if you're a SPG player i would settle for support mechs such as the Catapult. It will work just as the SPG, but you won't have bird-like view.

In fact, you won't have it because you won't need it. If your scouts go ahead and find targets for you, the red reticle will show up on your HUD. You just have to center your aim on that reticle, wait for missile lock and fire away. No need to wait for "SPG Reticle" to close in and no need to lead a target because of shell travel time. If anything, it'll be easier. And you won't be a sitting duck if the enemy gets close to you (well, not when compared to SPG's anyway).

[Kobold]

I just reread the OP again. I noticed you said you've never played any MW games before. I think you should look into downloading MechWarrior 4 (it is available for free on the internet these days) and trying it out. The gameplay will likely be very similar.

[ElliottTarson]

This game will most likely play NOTHING like WoT. WoT is a single weapon WWII tank/at/arty based mmo. This is Mechwarrior. I can put 6 LMG's, a PPC, and 10 small lasers on one mech, if I wanted (And if they include a Templar).

[Vashts1985]

Kobold, on 06 June 2012 - 10:23 PM, said:

Could you explain this to me, as I am not a WoT player?

The more I hear about WoT, the less I think it has in common with everything I know about MWO (which is essentially "MechWarrior, improved, and you buy your chassis").

kinda, kinda not

there will be some obvious differences because the tech structure found in battletech games does not fit well with the tech structure in WoT, which is tier based. general as you move upwards in tiers weapons get better or armor gets better ect. in battletech weapons are more static and armor is something that can be tweaked. some of the similarities include weight classes, and its more than likely that they will fill similar roles. from the founds package Elite, the fact that a mech will have a bonus to c-bills earned per match is very similar to WoT as well.

[Renan Ruivo]

Kobold, on 06 June 2012 - 10:23 PM, said:

Could you explain this to me, as I am not a WoT player?

The more I hear about WoT, the less I think it has in common with everything I know about MWO (which is essentially "MechWarrior, improved, and you buy your chassis").

Team based matches (on WoT its 15 on one side, 15 on the other). Matches can be won by either destroying all enemy vehicles or capturing the enemy base. You get money and XP regardless of match result, however if your team wins then you get a lot more. (this part is practically IDENTICAL to MWO gameplay)

Light tanks work as scouts, going ahead fast and spotting enemies (and getting XP for spotting.) They can also be used to harass support vehicles. (Basically similar to light 'mechs)

SPG's sit back on the base with a bird-like view so that they can shoot at the enemies that the scouts spot. Basically similar to LRM support 'mechs, but they (the spg's) are more vulnerable because of the bird-like view. You generally miss if a fast light tank gets behind you.


Tank Destroyers are snipers, they sit behind bushes (which provide stealth bonus. Basically the enemy needs to get even closer to detect you) that have big guns, big frontal armor but don't have a turret and have a vulnerable backside. They also turn slowly. Think gauss-rifle totting heavy/assault 'mechs.

Medium tanks are jack-of-all-trades that generally serve as SPG defense or Heavy Tank support.

Heavy Tanks are the ones responsible for taking, holding and advancing the line. Can also be used for base defense Same as Assault 'mechs.


Matches can be random (matchmaking picks people from a waiting line, apply some balancing rules and throws a match together) or "clan based", where two "clans" will fight for territory on scheduled matches that are part of a web-browser territory conquest game.


The comparasion above is ignoring the "tier mechanics". That one has nothing to do with MWO, and i won't get into the merit of discussing tier based gameplay. Its a whole different system exclusive to WoT that would not work on MWO.



Other than that, you can either watch videos or try the game for yourself. A lot of people here on these forums loathe it, and a lot (like myself) love it. In my opinion, its not pay to win. It's learn to play. It requires knowlodge of the tank that you are driving and a lot of team coordination. And as a personal advice, don't waste money on the premium tanks. They suck. Gold ammo while has good "damage", costs too much and isn't worth it.


Seriously. Go ahead and try it. You might like it.

ElliottTarson, on 06 June 2012 - 10:43 PM, said:

This game will most likely play NOTHING like WoT.

I disagree.

Edited by Renan Ruivo, 06 June 2012 - 10:51 PM.

[Kobold]

Vashts1985, on 06 June 2012 - 10:43 PM, said:

kinda, kinda not

there will be some obvious differences because the tech structure found in battletech games does not fit well with the tech structure in WoT, which is tier based. general as you move upwards in tiers weapons get better or armor gets better ect. in battletech weapons are more static and armor is something that can be tweaked. some of the similarities include weight classes, and its more than likely that they will fill similar roles. from the founds package Elite, the fact that a mech will have a bonus to c-bills earned per match is very similar to WoT as well.

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.

[Moodysea]

Xantars, on 06 June 2012 - 10:15 PM, said:

the Arrow IV system was mounted on catapults and stalkers they are the only real mech Arty that was commonly used in the game. But the Arrow IV was Rare and bulky system

Thank you for answering my question.

[Supraluminal]

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.

Well, mostly WoT does get used as a reference for economy and metagame stuff. I haven't seen many direct gameplay comparisons.

That being said... WoT is also a simmy team-based action game where strategy and tactics are more important than twitch reflexes. There are de facto classes, with different vehicles filling different roles. Pretty similar roles, too; scouts, flankers/interdictors, front-line fighters, and fire support (both direct and indirect). If you like playing a certain 'Mech, I can probably recommend a tank for you, and vice versa.