224 replies to this topic

[stjobe]

Livewyr, on 02 October 2013 - 11:38 AM, said:

</soapbox>

No consideration for 'mech weights, just speed of collision?

Please note: This is not an attack on you or your suggestion, just a request for clarification.

Edited by stjobe, 02 October 2013 - 11:44 AM.

[ArmageddonKnight]

I agree wiht the OP but for different reasons.

My main reaosn why i have always thought that the double armor should NOT have been a simple blanket of double armor over all mechs but a incrimental armor increase like the Op says is becouse of weapon damage per hit.

Per BT/TT limits, a AC20 to the face of a light mech would spell disaster, said Ac20 would also be costly and slow and hard to hit said light/fast mech.
Move to MWO and the double armor has effectivly made what was once a weapon of mass single shot damage into a weapon of effecticly double shots + the effect of manual aiming and high speed light mechs.

Then take a look at bT storys. Even PGI's own 'upcoming mech stories' always tell how a larger mech with bigger lazers can cut an arm or leg of a smaller lighter mech literaly like a lazer. Yet ingame u barely scratch a mech by doing the same thing.

Theres balance for gaming purposes, then theres going to far.

Lights have speed as armor, they need to maneuver and pick their target carfully.
Assualts have armor as armor and need to brute force their way in due to their low speed.

As it stands lights have double armor and speed (plus the current crappy hit reg) to keep themselves alive and thus allow them to effecitvly brawl with larger mechs.
And Assaults and heavies, well there is nothing brute force about them, they try lunging forwards as the big bad tank and they find themselves dead in seconds.

45 tonn and up mechs need more armor, more added armor the heavie the mech (as op sugests)
44 tonn mechs and below need less. less armor added the lighter the mech. (as op sugests)
AND
Overall damage on the field needs lowering. (hardpoint restrictions)

Doing so will increase the importance of battleground tactics, increase battle duration, and help enforce role bassed warefair much better. Assualt as tanks, Heavies as DPS, mediums as the middle man, lights as scouts,support,& harrasment.

Alass this is unlikely to happen, its to far off from the current game. it also happens to requir more skill on the players part (if the reader doesnt understand why, theres no point in explaining tbh) and as soon as u increase skill requirment even in a aim and shoot game (FPS), then said company looses money as they are cutting out a segment of the player base.

Edited by ArmageddonKnight, 02 October 2013 - 12:03 PM.

[Livewyr]

stjobe, on 02 October 2013 - 11:43 AM, said:

No consideration for 'mech weights, just speed of collision?

Please note: This is not an attack on you or your suggestion, just a request for clarification.

Correct, no consideration of the weights for three reasons:
1: A little less complicated. (Yes,less realistic but for game play purposes..)
2: It's assumed that only lightweight mechs will be doing 150kph...
3: A light mech going 150 hitting an assault going 60 kph head on, is going to have disastrous effects on both.

[Vodrin Thales]

FupDup, on 02 October 2013 - 09:36 AM, said:

Knockdowns "indirectly nerf" mediums too, specifically the Hunchback. Most Hunchies packing an AC/20 barely go over 80 kph, which puts them as the same speed as many heavies or even slower. They would be completely and utterly helpless if they encountered an enemy heavy in close range, sort of like this video depicts:


The really fast heavies like Quickdraws might even be a serious issue for the faster mediums. Mediums might actually get hit worse by knockdowns than lights. And then we also have the 80+ kph Victor that would bowl over most heavies in its path.


The point is, being able to "EMP" somebody on the sole basis that you're bigger might not end very well. There are definitely ways to penalize reckless driving other than stunlocks. My own suggestions are to increase the damage mechs receive from ramming (and allow damage from ramming the terrain), have all parties involved stop to 0% throttle for roughly one second (ample time to land a killshot), and shake up the cockpit like a min-earthquake.

For facehugging, that can be solved easily by allowing mechs to pitch their torsos further downwards (and thus shoot the hooligan in the face).

Agreeing strongly with this post. Knockdowns were bad and need to never make a comeback in this game. That said, I would like to see a much more reasonable collision mechanic than what we have now.

[stjobe]

Livewyr, on 02 October 2013 - 12:13 PM, said:

Correct, no consideration of the weights for three reasons:
1: A little less complicated. (Yes,less realistic but for game play purposes..)
2: It's assumed that only lightweight mechs will be doing 150kph...
3: A light mech going 150 hitting an assault going 60 kph head on, is going to have disastrous effects on both.

Interesting. As I'm sure you're aware, physical attacks in BT took both attacker and defender weight into account; given that collisions and knockdowns are a much requested feature, I'll go ahead and assume people would like to have physical attacks as well, so it's reasonable to make collisions and knockdown part of the physical attack framework (at least that sounds reasonable to me - although I'm just a bat-crazy Commando pilot, so take with any measure of salt you deem appropriate).

With that in mind, how do you envision physical attacks working if weight is not a consideration?

[Livewyr]

stjobe, on 02 October 2013 - 12:43 PM, said:

Interesting. As I'm sure you're aware, physical attacks in BT took both attacker and defender weight into account; given that collisions and knockdowns are a much requested feature, I'll go ahead and assume people would like to have physical attacks as well, so it's reasonable to make collisions and knockdown part of the physical attack framework (at least that sounds reasonable to me - although I'm just a bat-crazy Commando pilot, so take with any measure of salt you deem appropriate).

With that in mind, how do you envision physical attacks working if weight is not a consideration?

Physical attacks can go ahead and take weight into account (punching, kicking,etc..) since that is already has defined values that don't change with engine size.

[Gaan Cathal]

Wolfways, on 02 October 2013 - 05:29 AM, said:

Okay, i keep getting asked what i mean when i say that light mechs in MWO recieved a bigger defense buff over the other classes because of TT values and why i think armour values should have been increased incrementally with lights getting the smallest buff and assaults getting the biggest, so i'm making this post so i don't have to explain it over and over.

First for anyone who doesn't know, all mech armour was doubled in MWO over the TT values because mechs were being destroyed too fast which made for very short matches.

Right...
MWO is based on the Battletech tabletop game and it uses the Battletech armour values for mechs (doubled).

And here's the problem. In Tabletop, Tonnage is King, barring extreme tech differences or terrible builds. Atlases will mutilate a single Jenner, as evidenced by their much higher BattleValue. In a game like this, that simply cannot hold. There needs to be as much value in bringing a Light as an Assault.

[stjobe]

Livewyr, on 02 October 2013 - 01:41 PM, said:

Physical attacks can go ahead and take weight into account (punching, kicking,etc..) since that is already has defined values that don't change with engine size.

Engine size? I thought your system was based on speed, not engine size?

Anyway, let's say an Atlas and a Locust (click for screenie of the Locust!) are the ones colliding.

In a walking collision, they both take 2.5 damage; paint scratches for the Atlas, but two percent of the Locust's armour gone (and if it's the arm, a fifth of the armour). These will happen a few times at the drop zone if my experience holds.

In a running collision, they both take 10 damage; still barely more than paint scratches on the Atlas, but that's enough to strip a Locust's arm clean of all armour.

At higher speeds it gets worse; at a combined speed of up to 144 kph, the Locust may well get cored, and if they both run full tilt at each other, the Locust WILL be destroyed. The Atlas will take some damage, but not to the point of impeding it in any way.

At a full charge by a Locust on an Atlas in BattleTech, the Atlas would take 24 damage, and the Locust would take 10. That's a 150 kph straight-on charge, and it's survivable for the attacker.

So this is what I'm getting at: Collision damage in this way only serves one purpose; to make people stop playing lights.

Even at the low rate we took collision damage in closed beta I was often stripped of arm or leg armour on my Commando before we've even made contact with the enemy, and I can tell you that kind of "realism" just isn't fun.

Edited by stjobe, 02 October 2013 - 02:25 PM.

[Cybermech]

don't know about you but piloting lights is not an easy thing (Exclude the spider).
ac20 and ppc's have been killing me all day long.
I got 1 ac20 that missed.
So I disagree with the OP, lights are hard enough once your opponent can aim.

[Livewyr]

Going to dissect the post within the quote rather than divide it up. Look for the Bold/Italics.

stjobe, on 02 October 2013 - 02:24 PM, said:

Engine size? I thought your system was based on speed, not engine size?
A mech's speed is dependent on its engine size.

Anyway, let's say an Atlas and a Locust (click for screenie of the Locust!) are the ones colliding.

In a walking collision, they both take 2.5 damage; paint scratches for the Atlas, but two percent of the Locust's armour gone (and if it's the arm, a fifth of the armour). These will happen a few times at the drop zone if my experience holds.
One thing I forgot to put in my edit is that collisions would be off for the first 30-45 seconds to allow the base to clear.

In a running collision, they both take 10 damage; still barely more than paint scratches on the Atlas, but that's enough to strip a Locust's arm clean of all armour.
True. The locust has far more control over whether it collides with an Atlas as long as it is paying attention. (More maneuverable and better speed.)

At higher speeds it gets worse; at a combined speed of up to 144 kph, the Locust may well get cored, and if they both run full tilt at each other, the Locust WILL be destroyed. The Atlas will take some damage, but not to the point of impeding it in any way.
Again, true. But this is completely within the control of the Locust being much more maneuverable. It should never be a good idea to run headlong into the enemy unless your specific goal is to damage/destroy them at all cost.

At a full charge by a Locust on an Atlas in BattleTech, the Atlas would take 24 damage, and the Locust would take 10. That's a 150 kph straight-on charge, and it's survivable for the attacker.
That also makes it more appealing for a griefer to run into people as a proactive tactic. If you make a dragon (100+ kph heavy mech) take less damage than the mech it hits, it becomes attractive as a tactical mainstay and a source of griefing. Also a friendly fire mess.

So this is what I'm getting at: Collision damage in this way only serves one purpose; to make people stop playing lights.
People will stop playing lights badly, or suffer, yes. Currently, an ***** in a spider can run around the firing line at 150kph with impunity from all but those with decent aim or throw all of their concentration into it. This form of distraction has no downside because if the pilot fails to pay attention and runs headlong into an Atlas, he pays no price. This is where you get your preponderance of light pilots that cause mayhem regardless of skill. Good light pilots (such as Wispsy) who know how to handle their mech would be largely unchanged while the bad pilots who sniff Atlas crotches to avoid getting hit point blank will need to find another style.

Even at the low rate we took collision damage in closed beta I was often stripped of arm or leg armour on my Commando before we've even made contact with the enemy, and I can tell you that kind of "realism" just isn't fun.

I remember collisions too, and the only part that wasn't fun for me was that when I did get hit by some clumsy light, or if I didn't pay attention and ran headlong into an Atlas- I didn't get to fire and I just sat there watching my mech slowly fall down, then slowly get back up. (After porting back and forth.) I also didn't enjoy that the collisions would happen even if two arms only just kissed in passing.

Currently light mechs enjoy an unlimited defense resource with no risk for the reward. Assault enjoy the rewards of more armor and weapons for two risks: Slow speed and degradation of firepower and armor. (If you hit a light mech with a Gauss Rifle, he's a half ton of armor lighter but his main survival mechanism is unchanged... If you hit an Atlas with a Gauss rifle, his main survival mechanism is degraded, his longevity is shortened far more than the light mech.)

My concept would also allow for suicide attacks and another round venue of strategic execution. Greifing would probably happen, but it wouldn't last long with both sides taking the same amount of damage and possibly both getting knocked down.

[Livewyr]

One other thing I wanted to point out. back in CBT two light mechs colliding at anything more than a crawl were knocked over regardless of what direction they were going,

This concept would actually be largely harmless as it depends on the speed at which the two mechs at moving toward each other. The recognition would include a direct line drawn between the two colliding mechs and an angle being drawn between their relationship to each other and the direction they were going. (100% speed if the angle is 0 degrees, 0% speed If the angle is 90 degrees, with a flat scale percentage between the two angle measurements.)

For example: two light mechs charge each other and one mech chickens out at the last second and starts to turn: if he makes it to a 45 degree deviation before the collision, his speed for the encounter is half. turning what could have been a 300 kph collision into a 225 kph collision. if the other mech does the same thing, it would go down to a 150 kph collision.
even further, if one decides at the last second he doesn't want all that damage, he can trade a knockdown (jumpjetting) and the total damage would be cut in half. 20 damage reduced to 10 with the airborne mech falling over.

So what started as a suicidal 300 kph collision that would cripple or destroy both mechs turned into a 10 damage ding with some very smart mitigation.

(Edited: Wrote original on phone, with all the headaches that come with that.)

Edited by Livewyr, 02 October 2013 - 03:56 PM.

[Wolfways]

Khobai, on 02 October 2013 - 09:09 AM, said:

Anything you've read about lights in TT is irrelevant. MWO is not TT. Lights fill a completely different role in MWO because theyve been equalized with assaults.

You're right. PGI are using the BT IP to sell the game but aren't making a BT game. The game could be called "Looks like Battletech but isn't Battletech, online."

[Wolfways]

stjobe, on 02 October 2013 - 09:14 AM, said:

It's a simple 1:2 ratio, it takes twice as many shots to kill a certain 'mech in MWO as in TT - whether an Atlas, a Jenner, or a Catapult.

This is why you're wrong. It would be correct if you said:
It's a simple 1:2 ratio, it takes twice as many shots to kill a certain mech in MWO as in TT if you hit the ct with every shot - whether an Atlas, a Jenner, or a Catapult.
But, unless you are very lucky, you will not hit the ct with every shot and the faster the mech the less likely you are to hit the ct consecutively. Therefore it takes more shots to destroy a light than it does to destroy an assault.

[Wolfways]

Cybermech, on 02 October 2013 - 02:28 PM, said:

don't know about you but piloting lights is not an easy thing (Exclude the spider).
ac20 and ppc's have been killing me all day long.
I got 1 ac20 that missed.
So I disagree with the OP, lights are hard enough once your opponent can aim.

And you completely missed the point of the OP.

[ShinVector]

Uhhhh... Wolf,

Can we see video footage or you owning assaults in a Light Mech..
In say... A Jenner or a non-ECM Raven ?

I often here this Light Mech OP business as if it is something easy to do. (Especially if you facing high ELO assault/heavy pilots.)

The only problem right now is hit reg really...

If we all had <50ms ping.. Any of us could burn off the legs of lights with lasers. Easy ! No problem !
But we have internet lag and bad netcode so, it is not possible.

How much proof do need to realise that you barking up the wrong tree when PGI could not even setup up a lag free launch tournament ?
I was seriously hoping to see the "local" launch tournament to display how MWO would run as MWO on LAN. But the horrible rubber-banding, DCs and what not proved PGI coudn't do it.

Edited by ShinVector, 02 October 2013 - 10:28 PM.

[Tincan Nightmare]

Gaan Cathal, on 02 October 2013 - 02:12 PM, said:

And here's the problem. In Tabletop, Tonnage is King, barring extreme tech differences or terrible builds. Atlases will mutilate a single Jenner, as evidenced by their much higher BattleValue. In a game like this, that simply cannot hold. There needs to be as much value in bringing a Light as an Assault.

Cool, then can we lower the price of assaults or raise the price of lights? If bringing either is a valid option and both have been made equivalent, why do assaults still cost so much more? I'm not saying I endorse the OP's view point, but if lights have been made the counter to assaults in MWO, why does that counter still cost a fraction of its intended target. Lights in TT were less expensive (and had a lower battle value) because as you point out tonnage was king in TT. In MWO, with lights getting such a large push to be 'viable' (which evidently means going head to head with heavier mechs, though the poor medium doesn't seem to get the same treatment) why then do assaults still carry over the TT costs? If a light mech is going to be 1/5th the price of an assault, it should be 1/5th the combat capacity. If it can directly engage an assault (that outweighs it by up to a factor of 5 in weapons and armor, like a jeep versus a tank) then that assault is just way overpriced. From the beginning of MWO, most players have wanted lights to be 'viable', which usually means they want to go hunt Atlai and Stalkers in their lights. I hoped PGI would have given more uses and roles for lights in the game besides straight up combat as an alternative, but I guess that just isn't in the cards.

[Wolfways]

ShinVector, on 02 October 2013 - 10:21 PM, said:

Uhhhh... Wolf,

Can we see video footage or you owning assaults in a Light Mech..
In say... A Jenner or a non-ECM Raven ?

I often here this Light Mech OP business as if it is something easy to do. (Especially if you facing high ELO assault/heavy pilots.)

It's really unbelievable how many players can't read...
My OP is about how in MWO faster mechs have a similar survivability to their counterparts in TT, while slower mechs have much lower survivability.
Slow mechs take concentrated fire (through aiming at the same component) while faster mechs still take damage in a similar way to the random hit locations in TT (because you can't reliably hit the same location over and over).

[ShinVector]

Wolfways, on 03 October 2013 - 12:57 AM, said:

It's really unbelievable how many players can't read...
My OP is about how in MWO faster mechs have a similar survivability to their counterparts in TT, while slower mechs have much lower survivability.
Slow mechs take concentrated fire (through aiming at the same component) while faster mechs still take damage in a similar way to the random hit locations in TT (because you can't reliably hit the same location over and over).

Ok... After reading through that wall of text a second time... I get the point to some parts I agree because this is MWO and there is LAG.

Here's my point again Wolf. You are speaking of Survivability and Armour values.
What do you would happen if, MWO was played in the perfect environment without lag ?

[Wolfways]

ShinVector, on 03 October 2013 - 01:17 AM, said:

Ok... After reading through that wall of text a second time... I get the point to some parts I agree because this is MWO and there is LAG.

Here's my point again Wolf. You are speaking of Survivability and Armour values.
What do you would happen if, MWO was played in the perfect environment without lag ?

Nothing i've said had anything to do with lag, and i'm talking about survivability due to speed and armour.

[ShinVector]

Wolfways, on 03 October 2013 - 01:22 AM, said:

Nothing i've said had anything to do with lag, and i'm talking about survivability due to speed and armour.

But you are basing your findings MWO as it is right now ?
Or are we talking about a different game ?

If we are not talking about MWO then I will drop out of this discussion.