A reminder that what is in PNP that is MISSING from MWO has caused it to be the DILUTED SWILL that we are hardly tolerating anymore.
Missing game mechanics did NOT make MWO better!
0
Feasibility Of Mech Melee Combat If Restricted To A Select Few Mechs.
Started by Abaddun, Jul 02 2018 08:46 AM
BattleMechs
41 replies to this topic
#22
-
-
- 173 posts
Member
Posted 03 July 2018 - 02:36 PM
Chortles, on 03 July 2018 - 10:33 AM, said:
Can the mechs move or run while performing a melee attack? If yes, this would be abused by fast mechs. If no, you are now standing still for enemies to get free shots at you making it not worth using.
Does the mech need to wind up for a melee attack? If yes, the chance to miss would be too high for it to be worth using. If no, Rock'em Sock'em Robots.
Can you melee while shooting your guns? If yes, that would raise alpha damage through the roof potentially killing mechs in one alpha. If no, it won't be worth using since your guns are more reliable and safer.
Does the mech need to wind up for a melee attack? If yes, the chance to miss would be too high for it to be worth using. If no, Rock'em Sock'em Robots.
Can you melee while shooting your guns? If yes, that would raise alpha damage through the roof potentially killing mechs in one alpha. If no, it won't be worth using since your guns are more reliable and safer.
(more black and white questions, yey)
A simple slowdown after the attack will make it risky for fast mechs (which is what risk-reward is about) that rely on speed for survival while still usable. For enemy not to be able to run away easily you can add slight slow down if it hits, faster/lighter mechs will still be able to disengage but not before getting receiving a good attack, it is punishment for not using superior mobility to avoid attack. It's fine if it'll be risky as long as reward for the correct use is there.
If the wind up for melee is too long the chance to miss would be too high, if too low it's "free frag" but suddenly there's in-between!
I see no reason not to allow shooting guns as long as it is partially limited by animation (like the striking hand will only be able to hit with weapons when it hits the enemy mech), slowdown after the animation and melee range will already make it risky for lolalphaplusmelee to be OP.
As I see it, melee should be a reward for correct use against mechs that are forced into position where they can't maneuver like when they simply can't run away due to max speed or poor acceleration/deceleration while exposing yourself. Will also be used on defensive where the too aggressive enemy body can be used as a cover against other enemies while it takes all the loving. Lower max speed will mean that attacking mech will most likely be lighter (or using oversized engine that already limits its ability to damage with weapons).
For light mechs it will be some (but somewhat low) extra damage, due to high acceleration they will have much better chance to disengage after attack and use it for hit'n'run, their small size will limit melee to attacking legs against most heavies and all assaults (DFA should use other rules if it will exist) thus not too much surprise butt loving. But as heavier mechs will be able to melee too, lights will be punished hard if they facehug/attack carelessly.
Fast mediums and heavies will have most of it but attacking heavier mech will still be (even) riskier though reward will, too, be greater. High speed ram attack could damage the attacker too though for less.
Slow heavies and assaults will not use it much offensively but be able to counterattack very hard to make pilots think twice about attacking them carelessly.
It's all about great risk (less if flanking) and a bit lesser reward. It will lower TTK for both sides but that should be a reward for fully committing into melee range push and make it riskier to peek as the very same cover that protects when peeking will allow enemy to approach into melee range.
Edited by Vesper11, 03 July 2018 - 02:42 PM.
#23
-
-
- 519 posts
Member
Posted 03 July 2018 - 05:32 PM
Quote
A reminder that what is in PNP that is MISSING from MWO has caused it to be the DILUTED SWILL that we are hardly tolerating anymore.
Missing game mechanics did NOT make MWO better!
Like This
Missing game mechanics did NOT make MWO better!
Like This
Please dude, tabletop is a fossil of 1980s game design. Most of the rules that are in the game now should be thrown out, with the entire game rebooted and streamlined. Fortunately for grognards, CGL doesn't have the talent to design new games internally, just write endless source books of useless fluff and thousands of pages of untested optional rules and rulesets.
#24
-
-
- The Benefactor
- 2,516 posts
Member
- LocationNew Hampshire, USA
Posted 03 July 2018 - 05:41 PM
Fossil!? Grognard!?
I resemble those remarks!
I'll assure those of us fossils who have been doing BattleTech for some 30ish years like our old rules very much in our newfangled vidja-games!
I resemble those remarks!
I'll assure those of us fossils who have been doing BattleTech for some 30ish years like our old rules very much in our newfangled vidja-games!
#25
-
-
- The Benefactor
- 2,516 posts
Member
- LocationNew Hampshire, USA
Posted 03 July 2018 - 06:15 PM
I recall a time many years ago when us fossils invested some hard earned cash into to concept of BattleTech/MechWarrior being reimagined in a rich and IMMERSSIVE experience. Were you there? No? (Edit out bunch of filthy language disparaging another posters generation consuming oddly packaged dishwashing packs)
Edited by HammerMaster, 03 July 2018 - 06:26 PM.
#26
-
-
- Legendary Founder
- 1,028 posts
Member
- LocationSweet Home Kaetetôã
Posted 03 July 2018 - 07:05 PM
Trying to appease TT grognards is a very big part of what makes modern Battletech/Mechwarrior games fall short of their potential.
And I say that as one of those grognards.
Relying on a shrinking core playerbase of old guys who will spend money on anything related to the universe is not a winning business strategy.
And I say that as one of those grognards.
Relying on a shrinking core playerbase of old guys who will spend money on anything related to the universe is not a winning business strategy.
Edited by Tetatae Squawkins, 03 July 2018 - 07:06 PM.
#27
-
-
- Ace Of Spades
- 89 posts
Member
Posted 03 July 2018 - 10:02 PM
Vesper11, on 03 July 2018 - 02:36 PM, said:
(more black and white questions, yey)
A simple slowdown after the attack will make it risky for fast mechs (which is what risk-reward is about) that rely on speed for survival while still usable. For enemy not to be able to run away easily you can add slight slow down if it hits, faster/lighter mechs will still be able to disengage but not before getting receiving a good attack, it is punishment for not using superior mobility to avoid attack. It's fine if it'll be risky as long as reward for the correct use is there.
If the wind up for melee is too long the chance to miss would be too high, if too low it's "free frag" but suddenly there's in-between!
I see no reason not to allow shooting guns as long as it is partially limited by animation (like the striking hand will only be able to hit with weapons when it hits the enemy mech), slowdown after the animation and melee range will already make it risky for lolalphaplusmelee to be OP.
As I see it, melee should be a reward for correct use against mechs that are forced into position where they can't maneuver like when they simply can't run away due to max speed or poor acceleration/deceleration while exposing yourself. Will also be used on defensive where the too aggressive enemy body can be used as a cover against other enemies while it takes all the loving. Lower max speed will mean that attacking mech will most likely be lighter (or using oversized engine that already limits its ability to damage with weapons).
For light mechs it will be some (but somewhat low) extra damage, due to high acceleration they will have much better chance to disengage after attack and use it for hit'n'run, their small size will limit melee to attacking legs against most heavies and all assaults (DFA should use other rules if it will exist) thus not too much surprise butt loving. But as heavier mechs will be able to melee too, lights will be punished hard if they facehug/attack carelessly.
Fast mediums and heavies will have most of it but attacking heavier mech will still be (even) riskier though reward will, too, be greater. High speed ram attack could damage the attacker too though for less.
Slow heavies and assaults will not use it much offensively but be able to counterattack very hard to make pilots think twice about attacking them carelessly.
It's all about great risk (less if flanking) and a bit lesser reward. It will lower TTK for both sides but that should be a reward for fully committing into melee range push and make it riskier to peek as the very same cover that protects when peeking will allow enemy to approach into melee range.
A simple slowdown after the attack will make it risky for fast mechs (which is what risk-reward is about) that rely on speed for survival while still usable. For enemy not to be able to run away easily you can add slight slow down if it hits, faster/lighter mechs will still be able to disengage but not before getting receiving a good attack, it is punishment for not using superior mobility to avoid attack. It's fine if it'll be risky as long as reward for the correct use is there.
If the wind up for melee is too long the chance to miss would be too high, if too low it's "free frag" but suddenly there's in-between!
I see no reason not to allow shooting guns as long as it is partially limited by animation (like the striking hand will only be able to hit with weapons when it hits the enemy mech), slowdown after the animation and melee range will already make it risky for lolalphaplusmelee to be OP.
As I see it, melee should be a reward for correct use against mechs that are forced into position where they can't maneuver like when they simply can't run away due to max speed or poor acceleration/deceleration while exposing yourself. Will also be used on defensive where the too aggressive enemy body can be used as a cover against other enemies while it takes all the loving. Lower max speed will mean that attacking mech will most likely be lighter (or using oversized engine that already limits its ability to damage with weapons).
For light mechs it will be some (but somewhat low) extra damage, due to high acceleration they will have much better chance to disengage after attack and use it for hit'n'run, their small size will limit melee to attacking legs against most heavies and all assaults (DFA should use other rules if it will exist) thus not too much surprise butt loving. But as heavier mechs will be able to melee too, lights will be punished hard if they facehug/attack carelessly.
Fast mediums and heavies will have most of it but attacking heavier mech will still be (even) riskier though reward will, too, be greater. High speed ram attack could damage the attacker too though for less.
Slow heavies and assaults will not use it much offensively but be able to counterattack very hard to make pilots think twice about attacking them carelessly.
It's all about great risk (less if flanking) and a bit lesser reward. It will lower TTK for both sides but that should be a reward for fully committing into melee range push and make it riskier to peek as the very same cover that protects when peeking will allow enemy to approach into melee range.
What's wrong with black and white questions? Would you rather I ask vague ones with no substance? It's much better than saying "I like punchy mechs because it's cool, but PGI should make it balanced with magical statistics".
A slowdown for light mechs means a slowdown for larger mechs. The length of the wind up is meaningless, but rather whether or not there is a wind up at all. Both of these mechanics puts the mech in a bad situation even if it lands. If you can't melee and shoot at the same time, your guns will always the preferred choice for damage. The only way melee will be worth using is if the damage done is higher than your alpha.
This leads to the next issue of being able to melee and shoot at the same time and TTK. If melee damage is high and you have a high alpha brawler like the Scorch (or really any Clan assault or heavy), then you'll have mechs that can potentially destroy others within 1-2 attacks. Brawler mechs already deal a significant amount of damage within their weapons optimal range. Melee would be free damage that does not cost tonnage nor critical space. Players generally look down upon lowered TTK because dying or losing parts instantly is not engaging gameplay. PGI had to create Ghost Heat and the initial nerf to jump jets to curb problematic strategies. There is a reason why my questions are black and white because this is a black and white issue. You would get a function that is either unusable if certain mechanics in my questions are implemented or absolutely broken if other ones are.
Edited by Chortles, 03 July 2018 - 10:08 PM.
#28
-
-
- 519 posts
Member
Posted 03 July 2018 - 10:28 PM
HammerMaster, on 03 July 2018 - 05:41 PM, said:
I'll assure those of us fossils who have been doing BattleTech for some 30ish years like our old rules very much in our newfangled vidja-games!
But no one else does, which is why MWO is what it is.
It's also why HBS's Battletech game departs from tabletop in many ways. But mainly because JW is behind the design and unlike CGL he actually tries to push design forward not rest on someone else's laurels.
HammerMaster, on 03 July 2018 - 06:15 PM, said:
I recall a time many years ago when us fossils invested some hard earned cash into to concept of BattleTech/MechWarrior being reimagined in a rich and IMMERSSIVE experience. Were you there? No? (Edit out bunch of filthy language disparaging another posters generation consuming oddly packaged dishwashing packs)
Who expects immersion from a multiplayer shooter?
#29
-
-
- The Blood-Eye
- 5,444 posts
Member
- LocationIn the mechbay, telling the techs to put extra LRM ammo on.
Posted 03 July 2018 - 10:30 PM
Melee combat?
Neeeeever gonna happen...
Neeeeever gonna happen...
#30
-
-
- 173 posts
Member
Posted 03 July 2018 - 11:11 PM
Chortles, on 03 July 2018 - 10:02 PM, said:
What's wrong with black and white questions? Would you rather I ask vague ones with no substance? It's much better than saying "I like punchy mechs because it's cool, but PGI should make it balanced with magical statistics".
A slowdown for light mechs means a slowdown for larger mechs. The length of the wind up is meaningless, but rather whether or not there is a wind up at all. Both of these mechanics puts the mech in a bad situation even if it lands. If you can't melee and shoot at the same time, your guns will always the preferred choice for damage. The only way melee will be worth using is if the damage done is higher than your alpha.
This leads to the next issue of being able to melee and shoot at the same time and TTK. If melee damage is high and you have a high alpha brawler like the Scorch (or really any Clan assault or heavy), then you'll have mechs that can potentially destroy others within 1-2 attacks. Brawler mechs already deal a significant amount of damage within their weapons optimal range. Melee would be free damage that does not cost tonnage nor critical space. Players generally look down upon lowered TTK because dying or losing parts instantly is not engaging gameplay. PGI had to create Ghost Heat and the initial nerf to jump jets to curb problematic strategies. There is a reason why my questions are black and white because this is a black and white issue. You would get a function that is either unusable if certain mechanics in my questions are implemented or absolutely broken if other ones are.
A slowdown for light mechs means a slowdown for larger mechs. The length of the wind up is meaningless, but rather whether or not there is a wind up at all. Both of these mechanics puts the mech in a bad situation even if it lands. If you can't melee and shoot at the same time, your guns will always the preferred choice for damage. The only way melee will be worth using is if the damage done is higher than your alpha.
This leads to the next issue of being able to melee and shoot at the same time and TTK. If melee damage is high and you have a high alpha brawler like the Scorch (or really any Clan assault or heavy), then you'll have mechs that can potentially destroy others within 1-2 attacks. Brawler mechs already deal a significant amount of damage within their weapons optimal range. Melee would be free damage that does not cost tonnage nor critical space. Players generally look down upon lowered TTK because dying or losing parts instantly is not engaging gameplay. PGI had to create Ghost Heat and the initial nerf to jump jets to curb problematic strategies. There is a reason why my questions are black and white because this is a black and white issue. You would get a function that is either unusable if certain mechanics in my questions are implemented or absolutely broken if other ones are.
That's not what black and white questions are about. You basically say "if we go one extreme it sucks, if we go another extreme it sucks too, middle ground doesn't exist" which isn't helpful.
You,re right, 0.0001s windup is a windup :^) Both mechanics putting mech in a bad situation because it should be risky but rewarding to use it, I thought you don't want OP. Oh, and I do want guns + melee, read more carefully.
Losing parts instantly because a slowpoke assault SUDDENLY got into melee range and hit your mech which is probably slow heavy or assault that can hit back as hard if not harder, yea, that will be looked down upon, upon that player I mean. Hard and/or risky to use is not unusable.
Not like PGI will ever bother with melee...
Edited by Vesper11, 04 July 2018 - 01:04 AM.
#31
-
-
- The 1 Percent
- 1,482 posts
Member
Posted 03 July 2018 - 11:44 PM
HammerMaster, on 03 July 2018 - 01:48 PM, said:
A reminder that what is in PNP that is MISSING from MWO has caused it to be the DILUTED SWILL that we are hardly tolerating anymore.
Missing game mechanics did NOT make MWO better!
Missing game mechanics did NOT make MWO better!
The words mwo stand for are mechwarrior online.
This is a mechwarrior game. Mechwarrior is just based on the battletech universe. You want tabletop battletech, the hbs game is >>> that way.
If you want things to be true to lore, mechs could fall down with any weapon impact, all weapon cooldowns would be 10 seconds, ac20s fire multiple rounds in a salvo and not a single round. The only ac20 that fired a single round is clan and only fitted on the ebon jag because it's squat enough to absorb the recoil and even then it needed to brace before firing it. Fights would also never be 12v12, clans would have to bid tonnage before every fight, and pilots wouldn't have pinpoint damage.
Luckily, this is mechwarrior not battletech. What a relief.
#32
-
-
- The Benefactor
- 2,516 posts
Member
- LocationNew Hampshire, USA
Posted 04 July 2018 - 03:12 AM
The things you just stated are what we have been ASKING for!
Knockdowns
Multi shot acs
No pinpoint
5v8
Yeesh!
Knockdowns
Multi shot acs
No pinpoint
5v8
Yeesh!
#33
-
-
- The 1 Percent
- 1,482 posts
Member
Posted 04 July 2018 - 03:32 AM
HammerMaster, on 04 July 2018 - 03:12 AM, said:
The things you just stated are what we have been ASKING for!
Knockdowns
Multi shot acs
No pinpoint
5v8
Yeesh!
Knockdowns
Multi shot acs
No pinpoint
5v8
Yeesh!
Who's we?
Also none of that are from MECHWARRIOR lore. It's from BATTLETECH lore.
And unless i'm very much mistaken, this MECHWARRIOR online. Not BATTLETECH online.
Are you SURE you want clan mechs that are basically three times as powerful as IS mechs? And gated to only the top 1-2% of the players because clan pilots are overwhelmingly better than IS pilots?
Are you SURE you want kuritan pilots.to be forced to basically delete their accounts and "commit seppuku" every time they lose a battle?
That's not a fps game. That's fantasy ****.
#35
-
-
- The Benefactor
- 2,516 posts
Member
- LocationNew Hampshire, USA
Posted 04 July 2018 - 05:30 AM
This has devolved into *** for tat with me standing up for lore fixing the voids of imbalance because of not following lore vs what feels to me like younger crowd/ call of duty advocates that I had distaste for since 2003.
I gave examples of how to fix. Don't see it from you saying "it's not your BattleTech anymore"
/End
/out
I gave examples of how to fix. Don't see it from you saying "it's not your BattleTech anymore"
/End
/out
#36
-
-
- Legendary Founder
- 1,028 posts
Member
- LocationSweet Home Kaetetôã
Posted 04 July 2018 - 06:37 AM
HammerMaster, on 04 July 2018 - 05:14 AM, said:
Conflating Mechwarrior the RPG and Mechwarrior video games makes me question your grognard bonafides
#37
-
-
- 519 posts
Member
Posted 04 July 2018 - 11:55 AM
HammerMaster, on 04 July 2018 - 05:30 AM, said:
This has devolved into *** for tat with me standing up for lore fixing the voids of imbalance because of not following lore vs what feels to me like
Imbalances from not following the lore?
You are talking about the game that has used four different systems for balancing matches? Tonnage, CV, BV and BV2. The latest iteration, BV2, being useless outside of a game where both sides don't have equal numbers of machines.
#39
-
-
- The 1 Percent
- 1,482 posts
Member
Posted 04 July 2018 - 07:51 PM
HammerMaster, on 04 July 2018 - 05:30 AM, said:
This has devolved into *** for tat with me standing up for lore fixing the voids of imbalance because of not following lore vs what feels to me like younger crowd/ call of duty advocates that I had distaste for since 2003.
I gave examples of how to fix. Don't see it from you saying "it's not your BattleTech anymore"
/End
/out
I gave examples of how to fix. Don't see it from you saying "it's not your BattleTech anymore"
/End
/out
Heatless machine guns at 0.5t with the damage of ac2s do not make good balance.
Btw, mechwarrior has been around since the 90s and have never featured pure lore "balance" because it doesn't work with first person shooters. Your "call of duty" comment is misplaced.
Edited by Wil McCullough, 04 July 2018 - 08:02 PM.
#40
-
-
- 519 posts
Member
Posted 04 July 2018 - 10:15 PM
Wil McCullough, on 04 July 2018 - 07:51 PM, said:
Heatless machine guns at 0.5t with the damage of ac2s do not make good balance.
Btw, mechwarrior has been around since the 90s and have never featured pure lore "balance" because it doesn't work with first person shooters. Your "call of duty" comment is misplaced.
Btw, mechwarrior has been around since the 90s and have never featured pure lore "balance" because it doesn't work with first person shooters. Your "call of duty" comment is misplaced.
The 80s, not 90s. Mechwarrior came out in 1989
26 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 26 guests, 0 anonymous users
