8 replies to this topic

[Garviel]

Seeing as the devs are emphasising the idea of role specific mechs, I had a thought about how long ranged support units could work:

The general ethos of the fire support mech (in my eyes) is roughly this:

• Big, long range weapons
  
• Slow torso/weapon tracking speed (bad for close range firefights - especially against, small fast mechs but good for weapon stability at long range)
  
• Good Electronic Warfare (EW) capabilities
  
• Its all about positioning

Now, there are some weapons in the Battletech universe that require special treatment.

When your support pilot reaches a ripe old experience/honour level he/she will no-doubt unlock some beastly weaponry. What about making some weapons so huge that the mech can only fire them while stationary? Or even a 'locked/hull down' mode that provides a stable enough platform to fire the weapon?

I posted something related to this in the 'Unlock Reticle Aiming from Torso Twist' post by tman sennet.

Also, how about allowing scout mechs to take EW equipment, such as target painters, to allow support mechs to target faster or hit more accurately?

We can all agree that bigger guns are usually better guns, right?

Let me know if any of this sounds like a good (or bad) idea to you folks. Thanks for reading.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Scout mechs can already paint targets if the are equiped with TAG, or hit them with a NARC Beacon for mechs that have equipped missiles.
As for the rest, at the moment torso twist rate isn't specified anywhere and some mechs can't do it at all. No suitable "big" weapons are going to be available in the first few years of the timeline.

[Garviel]

Ok, fair enough - but what do you think about torso twist/pitch speed being a factor? (Obviously having none would be a disadvantage).

I was just trying to find a way of making support mechs less effective up close, but better at range. Let me know if you guys have any other ideas.

And good point on the scout mechs - apologies, my mechwarrior memory is a bit shoddy at the mo. Was just trying to emphasise a link between scout and support.

And, yes - I was referring to kind of 'end game' level weapons for the whole stationary/hull down firing thing. Although, you could implement this earlier by allowing larger weapons to be put on smaller mechs, if you have the upgrade for hull down, etc. What you reckon?

Also, if you get chance look at the other post I mentioned in tman sennet's thread - see what you think.

Edited by Garviel, 16 November 2011 - 11:04 AM.

[Havoc2]

Garviel, on 16 November 2011 - 11:00 AM, said:

Ok, fair enough - but what do you think about torso twist/pitch speed being a factor? (Obviously having none would be a disadvantage).

I was just trying to find a way of making support mechs less effective up close, but better at range. Let me know if you guys have any other ideas.

And good point on the scout mechs - apologies, my mechwarrior memory is a bit shoddy at the mo. Was just trying to emphasise a link between scout and support.

And, yes - I was referring to kind of 'end game' level weapons for the whole stationary/hull down firing thing. Although, you could implement this earlier by allowing larger weapons to be put on smaller mechs, if you have the upgrade for hull down, etc. What you reckon?

Also, if you get chance look at the other post I mentioned in tman sennet's thread - see what you think.

I don't think we will see recon 'Mechs at range. They are generally too light (unless you count the Zeus as a recon 'Mech) to carry much heavy firepower and therefor need to get in closer to use their weapons.

However, I would like to see recon 'Mechs being a huge part in both locating/preparing the initial engagement and also combine that with ECM suites and painting equipment to aid in fire-support.

It's easy for an Atlas to ignore a Raven with a few MLas running around. How much of a priority would that Raven become if it was jamming the Atlas's LRM locks and painting it as a target for the 2 LRM support 'Mechs?

[Melissia]

}{avoc, on 16 November 2011 - 01:04 PM, said:

I don't think we will see recon 'Mechs at range. They are generally too light (unless you count the Zeus as a recon 'Mech) to carry much heavy firepower and therefor need to get in closer to use their weapons.

However, I would like to see recon 'Mechs being a huge part in both locating/preparing the initial engagement and also combine that with ECM suites and painting equipment to aid in fire-support.

It's easy for an Atlas to ignore a Raven with a few MLas running around. How much of a priority would that Raven become if it was jamming the Atlas's LRM locks and painting it as a target for the 2 LRM support 'Mechs?

Indeed! One of my ideas for lance tactics is to have a raven, two catapults, and a medium or heavy short-mid ranged mech as close-in protection.... the raven paints targets with a NARC, and the catapults destroy them at max range, while the final 'mech keeps lighter mechs off of the catapults.

This kind of 'mech interplay would really be ideal to enhance the metagame.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

The general idea seems to be for people to join merc companies and the play as a lance minimum just to get this kind of co-op play.

[Captain Fabulous]

Garviel, on 16 November 2011 - 09:52 AM, said:

unlock some beastly weaponry.

No. Just, no. Experience is not meant to be a measure of "who gets the best stuff." That would unbalance the game and make it a lot less fun. Experience is going to, from what I've gathered from various devs, be mostly a function of reaction time, bouncing back after an alpha strike, control (not falling down while running on pavement, for example), and those sorts of things.

Weapons will be weapons, and you buy them with c-bills gained from doing various missions (most of us will be, after all, mercenaries) for your faction (or not your faction, depending on your choice). Of course, this does sort of push the "older players get better stuff" thing to an extent (older players=more missions done=more money for better weapons), but they're also considering the option of "you're in charge of your mech." A lot of that money will probably be going to buying ammo, fixing armor, etc. It's a much more even system that way.

Garviel, on 16 November 2011 - 09:52 AM, said:

We can all agree that bigger guns are usually better guns, right?

My Jenner D's 4 Medium lasers and an SRM-6 vs. an Autocannon 20.

Jenner's gonna win this one. It can nimbly dodge out of the way, deal its damage, and get back out. if you have an AC-20 on your mech, chances are it's going to be a bigger, clunkier mech and won't be able to torso twist fast enough to lock onto a light target (but maybe you could buy faster actuators and such, so meh).

[Garviel]

Captain Fabulous, you bothered to write that long post picking up on two offhand comments (one of which was a joke)? Completely ignoring the topic of the post and offering no ideas of your own?

I am well aware of the issues with allowing better weapons for more experienced players. In fact I've already posted about it in the relevant thread. I did not specify in this post how the weapons would be unlocked, I was simply framing the debate.

And just to be clear, my personal perspective of how the game should play is that we should be worried about the gameplay mechanics FIRST and foremost (essential). Then we can worry about fitting it in to the backstory and lore of the franchise (desirable). If it don't play well then nobody will play it, the devs wont get a return and it'll be a while before we see another mechwarrior game.

I just wanted peoples opinions of the ramifications on gameplay that this mechanic might cause. Apologies for not being clear enough in the original post.

[Alen Crest]

if they implement the Arrow or Artemis missile systems then I would love to implement that into a support/arty style mech class. You can't really use those effectively without a light mech, or any mech, without NARC or other target painting system.