93 replies to this topic

[Kudzu]

}{avoc, on 08 December 2011 - 01:14 PM, said:

Now having said that, I never played the TT so there may be any number of alternative tactics that were possible there that weren't in the PC games (like melee).

Melee is actually a huge part of TT, kicking especially.

[John Clavell]

}{avoc, on 08 December 2011 - 01:14 PM, said:

Yes and no.

In MW4 for example, terrain could be a huge advantage depending on if it was used properly (PPC/Guass snipers, LRM boats etc). People had a hate for "poptarting", Using jumpjets to pop out from behind a hill or building and firing then dropping behind cover again.
These are all effective uses of terrain, some used better than others.

Now having said that, I never played the TT so there may be any number of alternative tactics that were possible there that weren't in the PC games (like melee).

Effective use of terrain mostly happened at range. Not in close. There are some examples of using terrain to your advantage in close, like trying to get trees in-between you and them, hoping they might waste a few shots on the trees. Or pulsing jump jets to try dodge some missiles or make your opponent miss. But mostly it was just circle strafing. At range, yes there was more you could do, like reduce LRM damage, pop sniping, hill humping, and all the other stuff, that's excluding the bugs, like being able to shoot through hills and such.

[Hellen Wheels]

Ah yes, the Circle of Death. Many a training session was held on tactics in the COD and lag shooting and missile locks. It took some good piloting skills to pull off the "switchback" maneuver (twisting your torso 180 degrees while twisting the legs in the opposite 180 degrees, easier with a little JJ on it), which, if you pulled off with a missile lock and rocked your torso UP and AROUND while firing, the missiles would (if you were lucky) arc into the rear armor of the opposing mech....BOOM. There was one guy on TKZ who could pull that off every time.

[Major Crash]

Agree the video games kind of force the issue w closure rates so much higher than TT. Only way to open up that Atlas for a Jenner is the backdoor, but it can be a long 3-5 turns getting there on TT. Suck down just 1 gauss round & plans may change right quick.
Fun thing is, it does happen. Need a 11/12 to hit...Boom 12. You gotta roll the dice to find out. Put down the paper & play the game.

Solaris always started that way then degraded to linear as the last couple hunt each other down. Seems it will be present to some degree in any video game version. At least the Devs are just as aware and have stated plans to at least try to mitigate.

[KingCobra]

I have to jump back in on this topic granted a small % of players from bolth TT & PC mechawarrior have ever played bolth The PC mechwarrior & the TT games in truth the PC version mimics TT and vise versa.In the pc games you still played tactics it was not just all a circle fighting a skilled pilot nomatter what range he played at and whatever loadout tried to use the sparse terain for offence & defencive moves to overcome his opponants and get the best firing solution to take his target or targets out.Yes Yes the new pilots would blaze in head fist and try to circle fight but ended up cannon fodder for the vets.this is in bolth game types.So lets not group all PC mechwarrior games & PC mechwarrior pilots into this Circle burning stereotype.Most circle type play was in opens with new players then you have to understand team play which was very complex as players jockeyed for better offencive & defencive positions in games.Then there are JumpJets which open up a whole new varient on moves and tactics.

[FRlTZ]

I'll just set up a ranged mech, then let a smaller friendly mech drag enemy's to a circlefight, then "BARAGE AWAY !!"

[Halfinax]

FRlTZ, on 09 December 2011 - 01:07 AM, said:

I'll just set up a ranged mech, then let a smaller friendly mech drag enemy's to a circlefight, then "BARAGE AWAY !!"

Nah, you let a heavy hitter move in and rip a few holes, and THEN the light 'Mech comes in and distracts the target while you let them LRMs fly.

Marauder rips some massive holes in the armor, and moves on to the next target. Jenner runs interference and provides spotting. Catapult slams the missiles home.

[Alex Wolfe]

Skwisgaar Skwigelf, on 08 December 2011 - 12:30 PM, said:

I think it would be cool if they introduced a side-step action. Maybe not a full strafe that you can hold and keep going in that direction, just a push-this-key-once and shuffle sideways a step. This would be especially great in cities, where you could duck behind a building quickly then pop back out and open fire.

You mean like torso twist + reverse throttle that already allows you to do exactly that pretty swiftly in games so far?

Edited by Alex Wolfe, 09 December 2011 - 01:55 AM.

[Alekseyev]

Crabwalk is the only acceptable form of transportation.

In seriousness, my TT experience was almost always one of maximizing cover and movement speed to give attackers the highest possible modifier to hit while making sure my unit had a good shot at least one enemy. Obviously not exposing the rear armor and trying to get behind the opponent to hit his rear armor was important, but most of my game play was jockying for position. SOMETIMES that meant circling around over and over but it was rare since my opponents did their best not to put their mechs in that kind of position

[zverofaust]

I don't see a problem with circlejerking. How else is a lighter Mech supposed to contend with a heavier Mech? In a team-based game circling may make it harder for your target to hit but you're going to be making yourself vulnerable to being shot by all of that guy's teammates. But giving lighter, faster Mechs an advantage in mobility is going to be necessary to make them worthwhile.

[Cattra Kell]

I don't see the problem with circle fighting. Personally if your mech is fast and small and able to outplay a heavier mech which is slower I see no reason why you should penalize that player in the light mech for trying to score a few hits in the weak rear armour.
Another other point is that historically from conventional war to modern combat today you are always trying to get the flank into the enemies rear lines if it is the weakest. This being either taking your quick and fast combat troops (Calvary, Jeeps, etc.) and wheeling them in a circle behind the enemy. Now if you limit that to only 4 players or even 1 on 1, it will only be natural that the combatants on the field keep trying to flank or outmaneuver each other to score hits in the critical spots, the final product of both players trying to get the flank, moving fast, and not standing still to become a harder target is the circle fight.

Its a natural and legitimate wartime tactic if you want to get your mech in <350 brawls and nothing to be ashamed of.

[Ghost Reaper]

might be a little late to this.. but a) a new mechwarrior game, AWESOME. circle fighting doesnt really need to be fixed, does it? its not a problem, its just a style. But, lets assume it IS a problem for now.. as I think people here have already stated it does not work well when you're up against a big group - you generally circle one of them and to the rest you are just an easy target. So, if it DOES need fixing (it doesn't) then its been fixed just by making mechwarrior an MMO surely?

Only clincher for me here is that urban maps have always been my least favourite (personal thing I guess). So it would be a shame, for me, if the devs filled the game with urban maps to fix a problem thats relatively non-existant no matter which way you look at it. A balance of urban maps is fine, but a majority? poo.

[Grithis]

If they can keep the terrain from being as open as in past incarnations of the game, circle strafing will not only be less common, it will be a last act of desperation. When circle strafing, you tend to become too focused on your one target, leaving your back armor wide open to someone you haven't yet seen. I like the way terrain was used in the 2009 teaser video, wherein the Warhammer kept stepping out from behind a building, pelting the Atlas with a few shots, and ducking back again. This works well in many FPS's and if the system can be translated over to MWO effectively, circle strafing should virtually disappear. I am also hoping the devs can come up with a good system for melee combat. I have many fond TT memories of ripping an iron girder from a building and beating my opponent into scrap in a mouth-foam-inducing frenzy of melee bliss!

[WardNine]

There should be HUGE accuracy penalties while moving (not token ones like some First person shooters) (this includes rotating the torso, but not the the extreme of an accuracy penalty while moving.


Followed up with if you stop moving or stop rotating your accuracy increases, but over several seconds (not almost instant).


This way there is an advantage to the fast movers to get behind a mech and still hit him in the rear due to being close and even though their accuracy is bad they can still hit. This will also allow for a heavy to sit still to "aim' in on a surgical shot.


You should not be able to hit the broad side of a barn if you have distance from your enemy and are trying to circle strafe.


Also, for things like missile locks, of you are the one with the missiles and are trying to lock onto a target, the lock should take exponentially longer to obtain if you are moving. Jump jets, walking, torso twisting all should have a varying effect to the length of a lock on, or how soon the accuracy recital settles in.

Edited by WardNine, 09 December 2011 - 10:25 AM.

[Technocide Rex]

The obvious solution to the tactical problem of combating COD isn't one of whether to "allow" or "ban" the method of attack. It is simply a matter of teamwork. Any modern military tank commander knows that he needs infantry and combat engineer assets nearby to defend against the likelihood of a small fast man-portable antitank weapons and mines. The same situation can be applied to small gunboats loaded with explosives that go up against larger surface ships. And yes, even in the air, heavily laden bombers such as the B-24s in WWII were beset by the smaller, faster **** fighters that would have been no match against the sheer amount of armament the bombers carried to defend themselves if not for their advantage of speed and maneuverability. The failure to protect heavy, powerful assets has been a tactical problem for centuries.

The solution to the problem is practiced coordination and communication between heavy and light team members. Any team that feels they can win a battle of Atlases against light and medium mechs with supporting fire deserves the predictable losses they will suffer, especially against a well coordinated enemy. The battlefied graveyards are full of arrogant fools who felt that more/bigger is always better.

You don't like the COD? Then defend against it. Protect the assault mechs with more agile chassis.

Two cents...

[Technocide Rex]

Amazing. The word filter blocked my legitimate use of the word "N*a*z*i" fighters. Political correctness has gone to ridiculous extremes...

[Alex Wolfe]

WardNine, on 09 December 2011 - 10:18 AM, said:

There should be HUGE accuracy penalties while moving (not token ones like some First person shooters) (this includes rotating the torso, but not the the extreme of an accuracy penalty while moving.

Followed up with if you stop moving or stop rotating your accuracy increases, but over several seconds (not almost instant).

Pardon? By what logic?

Even the relatively low-tech modern military vehicles retain good accuracy on the move, heck, most aircraft can't stop even if they wanted to. They're more accurate with their weapons than a running human, what prevents a mech to have similar computer support to their weapons? Especially since it's been established for so many years that it's OK to move and shoot in a mech, in fact that's what they're made for? At such puny ranges as <1 km? Even disregarding the claim that a mech's weapons should be greatly impaired on the move, why would it even take "several seconds" for accuracy to come back after stopping... are the gun barrels made of spaghetti and need some time to stop swaying?

Even humanoid, mechs have their own limitations that humans don't have (i.e. can't strafe for example in most representations of the universe), but are free from others (firing on the move with only a marginal accuracy loss is one of them). Do you intend mech combat to be standing still and exchanging potshots at another huge, stationary target at 300 meters?

Edited by Alex Wolfe, 09 December 2011 - 11:10 AM.

[WardNine]

It is about Game play. Even with your example the aircraft that is moving can lock on, but I am sure it would be quicker and even more accurate if it was not moving.

Let me reword from moving should make accuracy worse, to Sitting still should be more accurate then moving

It will be fun if everyone is running in circles or jump jetting over a building to fire a barrages. Let them do so, but the person that is sitting still have more accuracy. Running and then stopping should not give you accuracy almost instantly after you slow down.

It is easy to role play that Mechs have ECM's and if you are moving it takes more calculation time to cut though your opponents Eletronic Counter Measures in order to get an accurate shot.

[Alex Wolfe]

WardNine, on 09 December 2011 - 12:23 PM, said:

It is about Game play. Even with your example the aircraft that is moving can lock on, but I am sure it would be quicker and even more accurate if it was not moving.

Let me reword from moving should make accuracy worse, to Sitting still should be more accurate then moving

But... gameplay has been fine so far without accuracy decay, is all I'm saying... on top of it having seemingly little sense. It doesn't make any difference for the mechs' top half (where the guns are) what the bottom half's configuration is (standing or sitting, twisted to the left, twisted all the way around for 360, damaged and so forth)...

WardNine, on 09 December 2011 - 12:23 PM, said:

It will be fun if everyone is running in circles or jump jetting over a building to fire a barrages. Let them do so, but the person that is sitting still have more accuracy. Running and then stopping should not give you accuracy almost instantly after you slow down.

The pilots are wired to their mechs through neural links, so it's in part a computer-assisted old-school joystick control, but part of it is mech being like the pilot's body, so they can handle the movement way better than one would expect (it's perceived as "their movement" and not as "an extremely shaky vehicle that I'm in").

Also, a mech standing still is completely stationary from the exact second it stops, its guns are locked in place and it doesn't need to "brace itself" for better accuracy like humans do... besides, it kind of defeats your previous "pilot has to aim" argument - even if the mech isn't sitting, its pilot is.

WardNine, on 09 December 2011 - 12:23 PM, said:

It is easy to role play that Mechs have ECM's and if you are moving it takes more calculation time to cut though your opponents Eletronic Counter Measures in order to get an accurate shot.

I like the idea of actual ECM interfering with aiming a bit. Actually, things that could mess up the aim a bit could be damage and heat as well (both messing up the systems and making the pilot uncomfortable). Still, I would argue that making up whole reasoning behind mechs' accuracy decaying just so we can have combat that ultimately just mimics Call of Duty-clone mechanics and pacing, would be straying a bit too far from the fine "space jousting with giant walking tanks" genre.

Edited by Alex Wolfe, 09 December 2011 - 12:56 PM.

[Dragorath]

WardNine, on 09 December 2011 - 10:18 AM, said:

Also, for things like missile locks, of you are the one with the missiles and are trying to lock onto a target, the lock should take exponentially longer to obtain if you are moving. Jump jets, walking, torso twisting all should have a varying effect to the length of a lock on, or how soon the accuracy recital settles in.

This doesn't make sense if you keep the target all time in focus it will be locked. Which is still tricky if you think about the not so smooth moving of a Mech. So here comes Torso rotation etc into the game.

Alex Wolfe, on 09 December 2011 - 10:59 AM, said:

Pardon? By what logic?
Even the relatively low-tech modern military vehicles retain good accuracy on the move, heck, most aircraft can't stop even if they wanted to. They're more accurate with their weapons than a running human, what prevents a mech to have similar computer support to their weapons? Especially since it's been established for so many years that it's OK to move and shoot in a mech, in fact that's what they're made for? At such puny ranges as <1 km? Even disregarding the claim that a mech's weapons should be greatly impaired on the move, why would it even take "several seconds" for accuracy to come back after stopping... are the gun barrels made of spaghetti and need some time to stop swaying?

You are right if you think about today, BUT Battletech is a different universe. It's a kind of Lostech universe. Did you never asked yourself why not every missle is fully guided. It would be just a matter of money. And if you take german tanks they would blow a fly from a wall over 1 km while driving, but mechs don't hit with every shot? Just think about it....