Jump to content

Is This Mech Warfare Or Armored Infantry?


56 replies to this topic

#41 Khobai

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 23,969 posts

Posted 28 August 2016 - 04:21 AM

unless they added respawns theres no way you can make a light mech worth less than an assault mech

because both only get one life and that one life needs to be equal

#42 Nightshade24

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 3,972 posts
  • LocationSolaris VII

Posted 28 August 2016 - 04:38 AM

View PostIntruderGeo, on 27 August 2016 - 08:06 AM, said:





I posted to see what other players thought. No feathers ruffled.

The first reply is clearly from a player of a certain stance. Yours is another view.

Wouldn't it be enjoyable if the playing field were, say, four times larger and the light lance had the important job of locating an opposing force in order to give the rest of the company a better tactical advantage?

Every MWO battle starts with a Cavalry Charge. Doesn't that get old?


Personally for me? I would love to have a game where it'll take just 7 minutes for a light mech to reach the centre of the battlefield to scout say the ruins of a city exposed from an earlier battle, find and locate the enemy arriving while being unseen while the rest of our team fan out and take advantage of the city for the immanent enemy charge. Mechs flanking and ambushing each other, Snipers atop of some of the ruined buildings like shadowcats or spiders while tanks and LRM carriers attempt to secure the city critical structures a few minutes of the team holding the city (approximately 30 minutes into the match so far) then while the tanks and turrets get set up to secure some people can attempt to push back the forces while more attempt to secure more points of interest while the other team attempts to break those lines and destroy all hostile vehicles and mechs and to destroy those mobile field repair bays, barracks and tents, mobile command centres, etc, and try to capture the objective or take the risks to destroy it (better to have no one get it than them to get it back).

Of course- this sort of gameplay is aimmed at nuts like me who want huge huge maps where teams along the lines of a few companies or so (company = 12 mechs from memory, binary = 10 (clan) mechs). so along the lines of 24-36 mechs vs 24-36 mechs+) while the game mode can last hours, people joining in and leaving as the battle progresses.

That's what kind of battlefield I want to fight on. I'll spend my weekends playing hours on one of those game modes to start to finish while more casual or quick time players use a single spawn or two and leave after that (20-40 minutes).

However game modes like these require an active large player base unless it's a rare event or so. It'll capture the feelings of battlefields as most battles do not take 10 minutes to finish or 30 to capture a significant objective target like an anti ship gauss battery like on Faction play. Sadly we need a lot more then we have now due to the target audience being not a fan of big maps.... the biggest maps in MW: O as it is are often the ones players hate the most.


But that's just me rambling... TL;Dr, I love big maps, I do not care if the gameplay takes 30 minutes or 6 hours as long as there's a no penalty join, leave, rejoin a few hours later, etc feature. I will sometimes spend that much time but others may not.
TBH I feel all the maps right now to not feel very 'realistic' as all of them are very bowled in locations... Why would a bunch of dropships drop you off inside a place you can't escape to fight over nearly nothing... what? a pair of command vehicles that for some reason are inside a ditch?... at least open the boarders up on some maps to feel like the battle was only an intercepted battle to get to the city or some other objective beyond the boundaries... maybe oneday.

#43 3xnihilo

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Urban Commando
  • Urban Commando
  • 2,980 posts
  • LocationPennsylvania

Posted 28 August 2016 - 05:05 AM

View PostPilotasso, on 28 August 2016 - 03:30 AM, said:

This is why most prefer piloting lights and engaging in Rambo mode rather than learning to deal with them.


When, on average, 4 out of 24 players are using lights in a match, it is not accurate to say "most prefer piloting lights"

#44 IntruderGeo

    Member

  • Pip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 2
  • 13 posts

Posted 28 August 2016 - 06:48 AM

Very differing opinions, I appreciate it.
Last night I played 4 or 5 non-campaign matches.

The last was of note. I piloted a Trial Shadowcat and flanked the battle, sniping at rear armor.
Up to now, I have played a Steiner Loyalist, using a Locust, Vindicator and an Archer for Flavor.

I am at best, a poor pilot and gunner. Keyboard and Mouse doncha know.
I ended up the sole survivor against a damaged Heavy, think it was a PPC Hunchback.
I did what I do best.....run. A few of the company heckled me in text, saying to "just turn and fight!"
One voice in voice chat kept saying "that's it, jab and move, jab and move!"

I wanted to circle and pick my shots but others urged to "just fight".
Anyway, I traded punches with the PPC and lost.
Seems when most MWO players have died, they just want you to get it over with so they can get into another match.
Sad....

One voice said "well, that sucked. We should have won."
and another said "Yeah, should have."

Silence.....exit match.

I am not discouraged, they obviously were not aware I was so Green a Pilot, plus piloting a Trial Mech.

In the near future, I will be discovering an overlooked, wrecked Clan Shadowcat on a battlefield and remove it to my dropship, then sell my Elite Locust and Basic Vindicator to refit it to combat condition.

It will be a boon to add such a vehicle to my drop deck as a Heavy Scout.

Assuming this game lasts more than a few years, my abilities may improve.

#45 Mystere

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 22,783 posts
  • LocationClassified

Posted 28 August 2016 - 07:18 AM

Posted Image

#46 Hunka Junk

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The All Seeing
  • The All Seeing
  • 968 posts
  • LocationDrok's Forge

Posted 28 August 2016 - 07:41 AM

View PostIntruderGeo, on 27 August 2016 - 07:33 AM, said:

Don't get me wrong, I love this game and it's detailed mechanics.

It feels like I'm piloting a Battlesuit instead of a gigantic walking tank.
Heavy mechs seem to be just overloaded weapons which are frequently outmaneuvered by a single light mech. That's just wrong. Four or five lights, yeah, I can see that, but not 1.

If just the animations slowed to, say, half their current speed, everything else might increase in value.
The maps would seem bigger, weapons would seem stronger, and it might actually take three or four lights to threaten a heavy.

Like I said, no griefing, just an observation.
Maybe it's like this because the players who spend money want it that way.
Why else spend real money for "Mech Mastery"? Posted Image


Have you tried piloting a light yet?

1 light outmaneuvering a heavy takes more skill than some heavy phoning it in with his finger held down on the LRM button.

You want bigger maps? You get more lrms.

And to say every match begins with a cavalry charge is totally inconsistent with my experience of the game, including tier 5.

#47 nar9000

    Rookie

  • 4 posts

Posted 28 August 2016 - 08:07 AM

I drive the spider 5v.

I am pretty confident with 1v1 vs other mechs.

Hardest thing for me to fight would be something with streaks or SRM. If only 1v1 and I realize that is what they have can try to make distance(I use 2 MPL). However 1v1s are rarely 1v1s so you might only have a limited time to engage before others show up.

I can't speak for the other lights, but my truly biggest weakness is having no arm mounted weapons, this makes shooting down UAVs very hard or sometimes nearly impossible.

UAVs are maybe biggest problem for me. Pop one if you see me^^

#48 Mycrus

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 5,160 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • Twitter: Link
  • LocationFilipino @ Singapore

Posted 28 August 2016 - 08:37 AM

View PostIntruderGeo, on 27 August 2016 - 07:33 AM, said:

Don't get me wrong, I love this game and it's detailed mechanics.

It feels like I'm piloting a Battlesuit instead of a gigantic walking tank.
Heavy mechs seem to be just overloaded weapons which are frequently outmaneuvered by a single light mech. That's just wrong. Four or five lights, yeah, I can see that, but not 1.

If just the animations slowed to, say, half their current speed, everything else might increase in value.
The maps would seem bigger, weapons would seem stronger, and it might actually take three or four lights to threaten a heavy.

Like I said, no griefing, just an observation.
Maybe it's like this because the players who spend money want it that way.
Why else spend real money for "Mech Mastery"? Posted Image


lights are the apex predator... frankly assaults are just food... well, except for paywalled Kodiaks...

Posted Image

#49 SirSlaughter

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Veteran Founder
  • Veteran Founder
  • 370 posts
  • LocationItaly

Posted 28 August 2016 - 08:45 AM

There should be a reduction in agility and speed in general. Certain chassis more than others.

#50 IntruderGeo

    Member

  • Pip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 2
  • 13 posts

Posted 28 August 2016 - 09:02 AM

View PostMycrus, on 28 August 2016 - 08:37 AM, said:


lights are the apex predator... frankly assaults are just food... well, except for paywalled Kodiaks...

Posted Image


Maybe if you don't have any skill.......like........you?

#51 Funkmaster Rick

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Death Star
  • 184 posts
  • Locationis just an illusion.

Posted 28 August 2016 - 09:04 AM

What we need for this game to feel right is some variant of the current mechanics, combined with ArmA map sizes and playstyle. Or even something like the oldschool WoW battlegrounds, back when you could fight for an hour in the morning, go work all day, come back and continue the exact same battle.

#52 Mechwarrior Buddah

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 13,459 posts
  • LocationUSA

Posted 28 August 2016 - 09:06 AM

View PostIntruderGeo, on 27 August 2016 - 07:33 AM, said:

it's detailed mechanics.



What game are you playing?

#53 jaxjace

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Merciless
  • The Merciless
  • 987 posts
  • LocationIn orbit around your world

Posted 28 August 2016 - 12:04 PM

View PostDrxAbstract, on 28 August 2016 - 02:10 AM, said:

There's an assumption here that one knows how agile a BattleMech is or should be... When nobody does--not even the creators of BattleTech can give a definite answer on this. Everything is relative, and yet still completely subjective. It's entirely possible BattleTech Mechs are more agile than the ones in Hawken, which would put your preconceived notions in an awkward place while completely invalidating your opinion... Or vice versa! That's just not kosher though, is it... Because we cant work with indefinites.

And Lights would get absolutely slaughtered. Even objects moving at relatively (150kph vs. 60kph) high speed can get blown to bits when they lack the maneuvering capability to alter their trajectories in such a way as to confuse or misdirect their opponents since they're stuck on an easily anticipated route. The slower and less agile you make Lights, the further removed they become from combat effectiveness, disproportionate in effect to say, an Assault, as Lights are far more reliant on speed and agility for survival... Further perpetuating the detrimental "bigger is better" ideology.

Even in BattleTech TT Lights are capable of making hairpin turns provided they successfully roll on pilot skill, so the entire premise that "Lights should fall over on X terrain and X speed" is based entirely on the assumption that every player fails a successful piloting roll rather than simply assuming every pilot in MWO is inherently so good they automatically beat said roll.

... Meh.



This, why does everyone think that battlemechs are these slow lumbering things, they are not that much heavier than a main battle tank and an Abrams can do 45 mph, a thousand years in the future with micro fusion reactors and the speeds of mechs seem perfectly plausible, give me back my responsive battlemechs, lowering speed lowers the skillcap.

#54 Johnny Z

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • 9,942 posts
  • LocationDueling on Solaris

Posted 28 August 2016 - 12:21 PM

View Postjaxjace, on 28 August 2016 - 12:04 PM, said:

This, why does everyone think that battlemechs are these slow lumbering things, they are not that much heavier than a main battle tank and an Abrams can do 45 mph, a thousand years in the future with micro fusion reactors and the speeds of mechs seem perfectly plausible, give me back my responsive battlemechs, lowering speed lowers the skillcap.


Skill cap is a complete lie made up as something to say that seems like it has meaning in an argument. Which it doesn't.

There is a point that mechs shouldn't be that slow.

The Abrahms is officially a main battle tank, or medium, but its around 68 tons? Which puts it closer to a heavy tank. It way heavier than others of its class anyway.

Anyway my point is that if there are any 100 ton tanks around today(most likely there are), no one is showing them and they would be the definition of slow and cumbersome, and made to draw fire more than anything else anyway.

Even the abrams isn't very agile but is heavily armoured for it class, if slightly under gunned, something it has in common with the old Sherman.



I don't know much about this sort of thing, but from appearances the T-90 is 20ish tons lighter than the Abrahms but with a larger gun. My understanding is that the Abrahms guns are made in Germany?

Edited by Johnny Z, 28 August 2016 - 12:41 PM.


#55 Davers

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 9,886 posts
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationCanada

Posted 28 August 2016 - 12:46 PM

View Postjaxjace, on 28 August 2016 - 12:04 PM, said:



This, why does everyone think that battlemechs are these slow lumbering things, they are not that much heavier than a main battle tank and an Abrams can do 45 mph, a thousand years in the future with micro fusion reactors and the speeds of mechs seem perfectly plausible, give me back my responsive battlemechs, lowering speed lowers the skillcap.


Mechs are a lot slower in TT. Plus terrain modifiers made them slower still. You couldn't run and turn on pavement without risk of falling and sliding. Forget about walking through water- you could cripple your mech doing that!

Also, mechs just fall down a lot in TT. Non lights certainly didn't feel agile, and mechs like the Atlas took 12 seconds to spin in place. (I know the fluff definition explains it differently :P)

#56 IntruderGeo

    Member

  • Pip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 2
  • 13 posts

Posted 28 August 2016 - 02:58 PM

View PostJohnny Z, on 28 August 2016 - 12:21 PM, said:


I don't know much about this sort of thing, but from appearances the T-90 is 20ish tons lighter than the Abrahms but with a larger gun. My understanding is that the Abrahms guns are made in Germany?


The cannons are made in Upstate New York. The switch from 105mm w/ rifled bore to 120mm smooth bore brought the M1 up to par with most prior to the T-90.
British and Israeli tanks are impressive as well.

#57 Nightshade24

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 3,972 posts
  • LocationSolaris VII

Posted 29 August 2016 - 03:49 AM

View PostDavers, on 28 August 2016 - 12:46 PM, said:

Mechs are a lot slower in TT. Plus terrain modifiers made them slower still. You couldn't run and turn on pavement without risk of falling and sliding. Forget about walking through water- you could cripple your mech doing that!

Also, mechs just fall down a lot in TT. Non lights certainly didn't feel agile, and mechs like the Atlas took 12 seconds to spin in place. (I know the fluff definition explains it differently Posted Image)

They are not quite slower. They just walk instead a lot. There's a walking/ cruising speed, and a running speed, (as well as running with MASC). Walking = more stable, less heat, can fire. Running = less accurate (?), more heat, unstable.

In BT there's quite a few mechs that can out run the ones we've got in game and on paper most MW: O mechs go the same speed as they do on TT- it's just in MW: O everyones having a free sprint while in TT most mechs just walked.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users